for those against abortion

[Totenkindly]

I find this discussion to be rather speciesist. Shall I dig myself a grave by admitting that I think it's rather anthropocentric to value the life of about a million fetuses killed annually due to abortions in America, and not blink an eye at the 27 million animals raised and also killed prematurely every day, purely to feed Americans?

Religious values are by nature anthropocentric.

(I don't know what sort of gods cows and other meat-crops worship but I doubt we could understand them.)

 

[Usehername]

Anthropocentrism (from Greek: άνθρωπος, anthropos, "human being"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center") or anthrocentrism is the belief that humans must be considered at the center of, and above any other aspect of, reality.

I don't quite see your point here. Most humans, regardless of religion, are athropocentric (which is a lens of life that can be lived in a just and humane manner). Shouldn't you be arguing about why we should not live with this mindset since you are in the distinct minority?

 

[Take Five]

If I'm not mistaken, homo sapiens have a choice when it comes to diet, especially when it comes to excessive protein consumption and the raising and killing of livestock premature to them ever living a fulfilling existence.



Anthropocentrism (from Greek: άνθρωπος, anthropos, "human being"; and κέντρον, kentron, "center") or anthrocentrism is the belief that humans must be considered at the center of, and above any other aspect of, reality.

You're right (at least in the bolded part). That also means being part of that cycle when it comes to not being the predator, when we are the 'weak'. Granted, we'll fight for survival as will any other organism. But our death is just as natural as any other animal's. We're not extra special. We're part of nature, of life *and* death. The fact that we have no qualms aborting other animals when we scream murder when it happens to our own...odd, to say the least. Especially coz we cannot even ask those animals what they would like done to them. We just do it.

You'll find that there are moralities by which humans are a species apart from other life, but which do not permit excessive and wasteful killing. So humans killing animals for sustenance is fine. Killing them just for sport is another question altogether.

That humans are of more value than other life is indicated by a number of things. If humans were not special in this regard, laws protecting human rights would have no grounds.

I suspect, however, that you would argue in favor of for example treating prisoners well--something other species would never comprehend.

 

[kyuuei]

...
Okay. Wow. This thread got way more savage way too fast. But anyway,



Okay. I'm cool with this logic. But where do we draw the line? Seriously. I feel like there's no barrier to an abortion if any woman wants one. Isn't there something wrong with it being used repeatedly as birth control? It happens too muchly for my comfort.

I agree with you entirely. The problem is, there isn't a line that can be drawn more than what has already been (as in the trimesters determining how readily available abortion is to a woman) without infringing on the rights. The rare cases described are usually the ones that get hurt the most in these battles. I don't like it being used as a birth control. But I'm not the sort to punish the few because the many are retards.

Just like I'd rather 10 people escape prison than one innocent man be sent, I'd rather 100 women abuse their right to have an abortion in privacy so that one girl that needs the facilities can do so in privacy. Not everyone agrees with that philosophy, but it is mine, and my motivations for being pro-choice. Being pro-choice doesn't mean being pro-abortion automatically.

 

[Take Five]

My quote is exactly what you said. "Rape, even incestual rape, would still be using the grounds of convenience for permitting abortion." "The life is more important, and nobody has the right to take away the innocent's life." (this implying that the innocent life of an unborn child supercedes the innocent future taken away from the already existing child) "It's inconvenient? ok abortion It's embarassing? ok abortion It's difficult to raise a child? ok abortion It's hard to handle a baby at your age? ok abortion" (in a sarcastic tone.)

These quotes put together say exactly this: If you're a 13 year old child raped by your father and you get pregnant, Tough fuckin' titty. Your life is no longer innocent and is unimportant in the presence of an unwanted child you never intended on having. And why? Because someone who has never been in your situation says that abortion is wrong, absolutely. That, to me, is a barbaric position, indeed.

I stated my case, and my beliefs. I don't plan or aim to change your mind, and you will not change mine. I'm done with my points. If you continue to engage me with the topic, I'll simply delete my points. They don't amount to anything anyways, just like yours are fruitless. This is a case of morality, where no one is absolutely right to anyone except themselves.

In your second paragraph, you claim that I say rape victims are not innocent. This is incorrect. You must have jumped to a conclusion or misunderstood something. Regarding the last sentence of the same paragraph: most people have not been involved in armed robbery, yet those same folks accurately assert that robbery is wrong. But what would they know?

Your beliefs are built upon shaky grounds. And you continue to ignore my support of the social safety net programs that I have already mentioned several times.

 

[Unique]

Ah the old "rape" argument

Only 1% of abortions statistically are "hard cases" like rape etc

Though my stance on this is that mothers should try to be reasonable about this, is it something you really can't handle or is it just the "easy way out"

It seems like the amount of abortions is unjustified, I guess you just can't trust people to make rational choices, at the same time I don't agree that it should be outlawed, people should be able to choose

 

[Tewt]

What I find interesting is that many people will agree that abortion is "wrong" but will not address the conditions that make abortion a preferable choice for some women.

There are real problems with states child support systems. In Virginia alone, 2.5 billion is owed to child support cases. And this is not even counting women who have never filed for child support. This is nothing new, everyone has heard horror stories about child support....BUT who is doing anything about it? I hear more about men getting sucked dry by child support and how that is so wrong, but no real answers on how to fix any of it. And of course when I hear the amount they are paying in child support and it is no where near close to 50% of a childs living expenses, leaving me to think that this again is another case of women do right by all costs but men can do whatever they want without consequences. I'll be honest, it leaves me scratching my head when so many men proclaim abortion is murder and wrong....but aren't as outraged over the children that are here and are not being taken care of.

If eliminating the need for abortion is the goal, the game plan needs to start changing on a basic level.

 

[simulatedworld]

What I find interesting is that many people will agree that abortion is "wrong" but will not address the conditions that make abortion a preferable choice for some women.

Moral absolutism ftw

 

[Sniffles]

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
--GK Chesterton

 

[kyuuei]

In your second paragraph, you claim that I say rape victims are not innocent. This is incorrect. You must have jumped to a conclusion or misunderstood something. Regarding the last sentence of the same paragraph: most people have not been involved in armed robbery, yet those same folks accurately assert that robbery is wrong. But what would they know?

Your beliefs are built upon shaky grounds. And you continue to ignore my support of the social safety net programs that I have already mentioned several times.

I'm not Acknowledging and ignoring your persistent "OMG I HEART SOCIAL PROGRAMZ" because I AGREE with them as well. Thus, there's nothing to argue or discuss. In case you didn't pick up on that.

I really don't wanna go deleting all my posts just to avoid confrontation, so how about you kindly stop replying to me like I requested a post ago? Is the last word really that important to you? If it is, you can have it. I won't reply to this one either. I'm not ending my discussion in the thread, just with you Take Five.

Anyways, Tewt I entirely agree. I'm not for abortion at all, just for the choice being an option. If society were different, the amount of excuses would diminish, and a natural social stigmatism for women trying to opt for "the easy way out" (although I don't think abortion is an easy decision for anyone) would develop. People with lame excuses are generally looked down on.

 

[Moiety]

"Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable."
--GK Chesterton

And differ even more enormously about what reasons they have to excuse those evils.

 

[Lateralus]

What I find interesting is that many people will agree that abortion is "wrong" but will not address the conditions that make abortion a preferable choice for some women.

There are real problems with states child support systems. In Virginia alone, 2.5 billion is owed to child support cases. And this is not even counting women who have never filed for child support. This is nothing new, everyone has heard horror stories about child support....BUT who is doing anything about it? I hear more about men getting sucked dry by child support and how that is so wrong, but no real answers on how to fix any of it. And of course when I hear the amount they are paying in child support and it is no where near close to 50% of a childs living expenses, leaving me to think that this again is another case of women do right by all costs but men can do whatever they want without consequences. I'll be honest, it leaves me scratching my head when so many men proclaim abortion is murder and wrong....but aren't as outraged over the children that are here and are not being taken care of.

If eliminating the need for abortion is the goal, the game plan needs to start changing on a basic level.

Should we start sending men who skip out on child support to prison? I wouldn't necessarily be against that, but with our already overcrowded prisons, where would we put them and how would we pay for it?

Would you say that this situation is proof that men are jerks? Or is it an indictment of our society? I lean toward the latter. Liberalism has its costs.

 

[Tewt]

Should we start sending men who skip out on child support to prison? I wouldn't necessarily be against that, but with our already overcrowded prisons, where would we put them and how would we pay for it?

Would you say that this situation is proof that men are jerks? Or is it an indictment of our society? I lean toward the latter. Liberalism has its costs.

We already do, in some states. I'm not sure what the right approach is. I do think its something that needs to be addressed seriously and talked about though. I think mens (again, some men) attitude toward child support would change drastically if they were better informed. I think with that attitude change it would be hard to sit by and watch your buddy not pay child support and tolerate it, cause you know its really "bitch support" anyway. I think men have an awful lot of power to change attitudes amongst themselves and in effect, change how much abortion is needed.

Again, I don't know what the answer is. I do know that sitting by and ignoring a huge issue that contributes to women choosing abortion isn't the answer. I don't think its proof that men are jerks at all. I think its proof that the circular thinking that women are responsible for all consequences of sex and they better act right...is alive and kicking still. This is an issue men can start to take responsibility for, instead of saying what can we do about it anyway?

 

[Venom]

I think with that attitude change it would be hard to sit by and watch your buddy not pay child support and tolerate it, cause you know its really "bitch support" anyway. I think men have an awful lot of power to change attitudes amongst themselves and in effect, change how much abortion is needed.

hypothetically,
If an employed man took custody of the kids...and the woman was employed...would she send money to the man?

 

[Tewt]

hypothetically,
If an employed man took custody of the kids...and the woman was employed...would she send money to the man?

Do you mean would she send it on her own? Or wait until the child support agency started collecting directly from her employer? I don't really understand what you're asking. If it is should she pay child support at all? Yes, most definitely. Except then we start going into the whys and hows a woman is the NCP.

Actually, this is a prime example of what I was talking about. Instead of actually discussing problems directly relating to men and paying child support...we don't. We go into hypotheticals if the woman was the NCP and yadda yadda yadda. The facts are women are the custodial parent 84% of the time. By lawyers and our societies view in general, women are told not to rely on child support because if someone really doesn't want to pay it -- they won't and then where will you be? This is a direct issue relating to why some women chose abortion. We can continue to demonize those women who chose abortion or start having some discussion on why it is chosen. And how all parties contribute to these choices and what we can do to change it.

When I've actually seen child support issues talked about, it goes directly to the man didn't have a choice whether to have a child or not. That is why they don't pay or don't want to pay. How do we fix this? How do we stop women from choosing abortion? How do we give men a choice in child support but still give women the support they need to raise a child? How exactly does this work?

 

[Take Five]

I'm not Acknowledging and ignoring your persistent "OMG I HEART SOCIAL PROGRAMZ" because I AGREE with them as well. Thus, there's nothing to argue or discuss. In case you didn't pick up on that.

I really don't wanna go deleting all my posts just to avoid confrontation, so how about you kindly stop replying to me like I requested a post ago? Is the last word really that important to you? If it is, you can have it. I won't reply to this one either. I'm not ending my discussion in the thread, just with you Take Five.

I read a funny piece of literature on some "Rules of Working in Washington" the other day.
One of them was :
"When you're on the losing side of a discussion, walk out of the meeting."

I guess you mastered that.


I think the question of abortion has a lot to do with the question of when personhood begins. There is perhaps more widespread agreement that persons should not be killed, the problem for a lot of people seems to be deciding what a person is.

 

[Lateralus]

When I've actually seen child support issues talked about, it goes directly to the man didn't have a choice whether to have a child or not. That is why they don't pay or don't want to pay. How do we fix this?

It can't be fixed, at least not without drastic government intervention into peoples' personal lives.

How do we stop women from choosing abortion?

Why would we want to stop women from choosing abortion?

How do we give men a choice in child support but still give women the support they need to raise a child? How exactly does this work?

What's wrong with not giving men any say in the matter, but still trying to force them to pay?

 

[The Decline]

I don't quite see your point here. Most humans, regardless of religion, are athropocentric (which is a lens of life that can be lived in a just and humane manner). Shouldn't you be arguing about why we should not live with this mindset since you are in the distinct minority?

That is what I'm arguing. However, you claim this lens can be lived in a just manner. If prioritizing human interests is a fundamental for anthropocentrism, then where is the justice for other species?

However, if most humans are indeed stuck in an anthropocentric wordview, then, as previously mentioned, aren't there plenty of suffering human beings that are already alive that need tending to? Tomorrow, another 40k people will have died of preventable diseases. This rate far exceeds abortion rates. The pro-lifers, in my opinion, are stuck on the fundamental that human life should be granted freedom to live, and they put fetuses under this idyllic umbrella.

This being said, it is of my opinion that pro-choicers should not focus on their agenda of prioritizing fetuses. Not only do plenty of people not agree with their defining of fetuses as an actual human lifeform worth protecting, but setting limits on abortion should not be a consideration until the rest of the world's issues with human suffering and progress on basic human rights is dealt with.

Oh, and if pro-lifers believe this to be a religious issue, they should be praying to God quite fervently, demanding to know why He chooses to put to death all these unborn children (see: 30% miscarriage rate).

 

[Sniffles]

That is what I'm arguing. However, you claim this lens can be lived in a just manner. If prioritizing human interests is a fundamental for anthropocentrism, then where is the justice for other species?

However, if most humans are indeed stuck in an anthropocentric wordview, then, as previously mentioned, aren't there plenty of suffering human beings that are already alive that need tending to? Tomorrow, another 40k people will have died of preventable diseases. This rate far exceeds abortion rates. The pro-lifers, in my opinion, are stuck on the fundamental that human life should be granted freedom to live, and they put fetuses under this idyllic umbrella.

This being said, it is of my opinion that pro-choicers should not focus on their agenda of prioritizing fetuses. Not only do plenty of people not agree with their defining of fetuses as an actual human lifeform worth protecting, but setting limits on abortion should not be a consideration until the rest of the world's issues with human suffering and progress on basic human rights is dealt with.

Oh, and if pro-lifers believe this to be a religious issues, they should be praying to God quite fervently, demanding to know why He chooses to put to death all these unborn children (see: 30% miscarriage rate).

Are you serious?

 

[The Decline]

Are you serious?

Though my tongue is firmly placed in my cheek, I make convincing, sound arguments. Until the obvious agenda of the pro-lifer is made clear (the surrender of everyone's right to their bodies and perspective of such to that of the pro-lifer's belief system) I will resort to attacking the supposed fundamentals of their positions.