If you place inherent value on human life because it is human then abortion will seem almost evil to you since you are destroying something with inherent value.
Right. That's what I'm asking: what is the inherent value that people keep talking about?
Originally Posted by Aurel
It's hard for me to see why people feel that murder or abortion are different arguments.
Because unborn children haven't formed ties with the human community at large. They haven't become economically entwined in society. They haven't loved. They arguably aren't conscious. They technically aren't even alive of their own strength.
So, what if a pregnancy is life threatening? Is it any more or less murderous to abort the child to save the mother than it is to legally require the mother to carry the child to term at the cost of her own life?
Because I actually explained and quantified my position with examples and elaborations as opposed to dropping one liner after one liner.
What are you talking about? I've summarized already my argument a few times in this thread, and even linked to another abortion discussion where I even elaborated on this in more depth. If anybody has been resorting to repeated use of one-liners, it's been you.
For the sake of argument, I'd like to point out that the whole "zomg babies are untouchable and need to be protected at all costs" mindset is only due to the low infant mortality rates, and low birth rates.
In the past, children rarely lived past the first 2-3 years. They were considered expendable, and generally noone felt much regret if one died early. In some extreme cases, they weren't even considered 'real' children until about 5 years old, when it was unlikely they'd flop over dead at any moment.
In other countries that fare less well than north america, infant mortality rates are over 50%. People have babies in the same way someone who can't aim prefers a shotgun: wide spread and hope a few land on the mark. Why do yeu think alot of countries have so many starving children? Because their families have like 15 kids in them and they can't afford to feed all of them. The ones that survive long enough to work 'earned' their right to live in that way. The ones that die off are generally not cared about all that much because otherwise everyone would be endlessly in fits of sorrow and depression.
Think of it... if yeu had a pet yeu truly loved, and it contracted a disease where it would die a slow, horribly painful death... yeu'd put it to sleep as it's the "humane thing to do". If it were a HUMAN, it wouldn't be humane, it'd be viewed as murder.
Srsly. Double standards 4tl?
I try to treat all I care about equally. Living through a life of suffering and misery, or to a family who can't support it and would be living on the street or in a shelter is not exactly a fair thing to demand of people. Do yeu sacrifice 5 perfectly healthy individuals yeu ALREADY have and are in good condition, all on the slim hope that one new one MAY get a chance at a vaguely descent life, but at the cost of the others?
If we go by logical reasoning, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one. Yes, it sucks. We want to save the world. Save the babies. Save lives! But... if I have to sacrifice everything and everyone I know for one life? It's not happening.
I may be considered cruel and heartless I suppose, but if I had to sacrifice my one child to save 10,000 others, I'd do it. Many others would not.
This's why I am T instead of F.
In any case, for a situation like downs, it can severely cripple a family, a marriage, and have very, very severe consequences for any other children the couple may have already. As such, it can be beyond realistic to even suggest "well tough, live with it, or put it up for adoption" as neither of those choices are going to help anyone. The child won't be getting proper care, the parents may not be capable of handling that level of stress, their other children will suffer, they probably won't be able to get medical insurance and will not be able to afford medical bills likely, within any level of common sense, yeu will be screwing alot of people over just so that one reject who won't even be capable of providing anything productive to society can live. They won't be making beautiful music, wonderful artwork or curing cancer, or even realistically having a job at all, depending on the severity of it. Alright there's exceptions, of course, but in general, yeu're looking at a choice that is going to cripple 2+ other peoples' lives beyond belief, just to cater to one who, in the wild, would've been weeded out of the herd.
This isn't compassion or even common sense, it's a systematic mindset that's derived from a low birth rate; each one is important and each death is felt strongly. A low infant mortality rate accompanying such further emphasizes such. Fact is, those fawning about babies are working off natural basic instincts and are incapable of progressing beyond the level of an unconcious animal. Those who do are dogs, nothing more. They have learned to roll over, play fetch, and do taxes, but can't think for themselves, are incapable of suppressing their default emotions/instincts when required to make an informed decision. They are incapable of reason.
The human race is not a particularly enlightened one, nor one that really is all that sentient. We're stupid. We are animals and we are barely beyond that of any other animal. Yes, we have tools. Yeu can teach other animals to use tools as well. We have, for the most part, not attained one of the few things that can POTENTIALLY separate us from animals... the ability to recognize our basic instincts, and suppress them when required via conscious thought, in order to make a correct decision.
And because most of us are still no more than dogs, the few who are capable of progressing beyond such and actually think with their heads, are generally considered 'evil' because they don't conform.
The states especially is pretty heavily anti-intellectual. Calling someone an einstein is a bit of an insult really...
So yeah... the question comes down really, to whether yeu are willing to be a happy little mutt with a dumb look on yeur face, demanding everyone else play by yeur mindless rules, or someone who actually thinks for themselves and is willing to rise above basic instinct to face tough decisions with actual thought and deliberation, rather than blindly "staying the course" no matter how bad an idea it is.
Personally, I'd rather use my brain. I'd like to come out with the 'correct' decisions, regardless of how difficult a process it was to get there. Yes, it'll hurt emotionally, and someone may be injured or killed, but there are situations where there ARE no easy answers. There will have to be a sacrifice made somewheres, and it comes down eventually to whot are yeu willing to sacrifice. Using one's instincts to decide is generally the worst thing yeu could do in most of these situations. Use yeur head, we rarely ever do. At the moments when it's most important for us to think clearly, we revert hardest to emotions and instinct. I know it's hard to overcome the fact that yeu honestly are just an animal with barely any conscious thought, and for all the computer we have, the cities we've built, the monuments erected in our self-image of greatness, we must ultimately confess we are still just sheep. And we have the option to become more than that and think with the brains we have, and it's scary, and intimidating, and it pisses us off when we see others doing it because it goes against our instinctual reaction. We'd much rather lemming off the cliff and glare harshly at anyone else who doesn't join us.
I dunno, I guess I'm rambling at this point.
Regardless, it is only due to situational factors and basic instincts that people even consider abortions a big deal in the first place. That and a now-defunct religion which had stressed not doing stuff like that because it was partially put in place to contend with a very high infant mortality rate... many of the rules of christianity make the most sense if yeu assume it's 50/50 if yeu'll live to be 5 years old. Suicide is a major no-no, because we can't afford to loose any workers or peasants. Murder and so on can't be allowed.
If we had a very high birth rate and low infant mortality rate, our numbers would get too high, we'd be overpopulated, starvation, money, etc would all start to crumble... kind of like CHINA. And guess whot? They have a 1 kid only policy.
The only other realistic option, honestly, would be cannibalism. Or war. We'll eventually sort things out if we get too many people. One way or another.
In the end, we all die anyways. Sooner or later, it doesn't matter, so long as we had a positive impact on the world around us. End point is that those with severely crippling medical conditions that're incurable from birth, generally won't give much to the world, but will take far more than their fair share. On a logical level, for all those concerned, the right choice is generally to put them down like a cherished pet. It sucks, and it hurts like hell emotionally, but noone said tough decisions were easy. If they were, they wouldn't be tough decisions.
It doesn't matter if they're right. If they can't proove they're right, then they're wrong. No matter how right they may be.
If you have never heard that argument before you haven't talked to many people who don't agree with you. It might be good to try that, just to see what other people think, rather than just dismissing them without considering their thoughts. It always concerns me when people haven't looked outside their circle to see other people with conflicting opinions. I see that a lot on all sides of all issues. It makes it tedious to have discussions when you are talking to someone who have only talked to people like themselves since they don't see the weaknesses in their own arguments or the strengths in the opposing view point, since there always are both.
Rather a large assumption made on your part about my life experiences, don't you think? I trust you don't make assumptions like that about people in real life.
To inform me that I'm ignorant, in no way contributes to the argument, and seems to be sinking to the level you accuse me being at.
The real question is why I thought the argument was ridiculous, not whether I had considered it and incoporated it into my world view. Ask me next time, I might turn out to have a resonable explanation, or an acceptable one at least.
I was in no way implying you condone the abondonment and abuse of children. I brought it up, because it's a potential fate of unwanted children. I apologise if I made it seem that way. My intention was to highlight it is a deeply held consideration for me. I admit one of my most deeply held believes is I feel no child of mine should be brought into this world, to endure suffering or abandonment if I can possibly prevent it (not during thier formative years at least). As person, who has personally wondered if I'd be better off never having been born at all, it certainly colours my world view. I really don't want any child of mine to feel that. Call me idealist, but, it's very important to me. I think this will answers Jeffster's question as well.
Addressing why I thought Peguy statement was ridiculous....I may have skipped and edited out a rather large part of my thought process.
I do believe life is sacrosinct, which is why I have spent a rather large proportion of my professional life, in the medical side of science, helping other medical professionals save lifes. You can see why I may have dismissed the argument rather quickly, understandably, but I guess I needed to state that.
My thought process being medical professionals involved with cases such as these often feel the same way....aborting a child at 15-16 weeks is NEVER considered lightly. The mother faces many complications at that point, which can put her life at risk too. I'm never going to condemn a women for not choosing to abort a child. It's her life at risk too. However I'm NEVER going to push the life for life's sake.
I also got slightly irrated as concerns about what happens to the children after they are born, never seem to be considered, by pro-lifers.
Currently submerged under an avalanche of books and paper work. I may come back up for air from time to time.
Real life awaits and she is a demanding mistress.