The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

No, because she is in practice discarding her worth. Humans are equal, and that foetus might have the potential, for instance, to be the next genius and help advance humanity further. I maintain that it has a moral right to the opportunities the mother has had.

Also, the woman will eventually lose her reproductive value. But if the foetus is left to grow, by that time it will still have its reproductive worth. The tables will be turned. A future investment is just as viable as a present one. We don't, for instance, kill someone as soon as their reproductive value disappears - why should something with equal potential be killed therefore?

It is the embrace of death. The mother to is but a ball of cells - only she has been given the opportunity to develop. It would be hypocritical of her to deny the right/opportunity she had to another living being. In many ways it is also selfish of her.

Dude, I was talking about biological value, not social. Biology doesn't care if you abort your foetus; you still have a higher reproductive value (and thus a higher Darwinian value) than your infant. Non-breeding females, i.e. those who are post-menopausal, still have biological value because they assist in child-rearing (generally). Foetuses do not, because they still have to grow to attain that reproductive value (i.e. being of age, and having already successfully reproduced).

A continuum of reproductive value would look something like this (from most to least):
Sexually mature female that has already reproduced - sexually mature "maiden" female - post-sexually mature female - juvenile offspring

In the case of a pregnancy that threatens the mother, or even in cases where a female must choose to save her infants or save herself, the only biologically sensible reaction is to save herself - she has more reproductive value than her offspring, and she is more related to herself than her own offspring. This is seen again and again in the animal world, and even in more primitive human societies.

Maybe it is selfish of a woman to "deprive" her offspring the right to develop, but biology is nothing if not selfish. A female who has thoughts, feelings and experiences as well as reproductive value absolutely trumps a foetus.

 

[Empyrean444]

Dude, I was talking about biological value, not social. Biology doesn't care if you abort your foetus; you still have a higher reproductive value (and thus a higher Darwinian value) than your infant. Non-breeding females, i.e. those who are post-menopausal, still have biological value because they assist in child-rearing (generally). Foetuses do not, because they still have to grow to attain that reproductive value (i.e. being of age, and having already successfully reproduced).

A continuum of reproductive value would look something like this (from most to least):
Sexually mature female that has already reproduced - sexually mature "maiden" female - post-sexually mature female - juvenile offspring

In the case of a pregnancy that threatens the mother, or even in cases where a female must choose to save her infants or save herself, the only biologically sensible reaction is to save herself - she has more reproductive value than her offspring, and she is more related to herself than her own offspring. This is seen again and again in the animal world, and even in more primitive human societies.

Maybe it is selfish of a woman to "deprive" her offspring the right to develop, but biology is nothing if not selfish. A female who has thoughts, feelings and experiences as well as reproductive value absolutely trumps a foetus.

Social value is equally important (probably more so ) than biological. That was my point.

Also bear in mind i have been arguing abortion in general, not where the mother's life is at risk. This will require greater consideration on my part, and for this case i will not as yet commit myself. In this specific instance only (which i didn't realise u were discussing) your argument is quite convincing; in other areas it does not apply.

I still disagree that the mother's value trumps that of the foetus's, but i can see why you can see abortion as necessary in this situation. Bear in mind in 1st world countries this circumstance is (or is becoming) a rara avis.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

In the two and a half hours since I've gone the debate has shifted from me, mostly. I'll respond to everything directed at me later, but for now I'll just respond to:

Social value is equally important (probably more so ) than biological.

Why is there a distinction between the two? Surely the social realms is just a function of the biological realm by definition of each?

Good to see a good amount of reasoned discussion in NCAP though.

 

[Kwayera]

Social value is equally important (probably more so ) than biological. That was my point.

Why?

Also bear in mind i have been arguing abortion in general, not where the mother's life is at risk. This will require greater consideration on my part, and for this case i will not as yet commit myself. In this specific instance only (which i didn't realise u were discussing) your argument is quite convincing; in other areas it does not apply.

Sorry, I should have made that clearer. However, I still count the mother as having more "value" (in the general and biological sense of the word) in all cases of abortion, especially considering your vaunted "social" value.

I still disagree that the mother's value trumps that of the foetus's, but i can see why you can see abortion as necessary in this situation. Bear in mind in 1st world countries this circumstance is (or is becoming) a rara avis.

Not necessarily. Infant mortality is less, indeed, but I don't think the instances of disease or other factors that kill foetuses or require them to be terminated to save the mother's life are decreasing any significant percentage. I'd be happy to be corrected on that, though.

Also, why do you keep on saying "rare bird"? Latin != knowledgeability

 

[Empyrean444]

Why is there a distinction between the two? Surely the social realms is just a function of the biological realm by definition of each?

Good to see a good amount of reasoned discussion in NCAP though.

Because they are different. Society (or social factors/crap) result from a sentient group of creatures responding to biological/environmental conditions. Many social elements do, however, come directly from biological predispositions. Being an offshoot or scion of one thing (ie society being a scion of biology) doesn't make the two things one in the same. society has bee evolving for so long that it has become quite different from pure biology

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Hello nation. What I have learned today is that a patriot can start threads about dead Americans, or in the case of tree hugging hippies dead Iraqi's, to little response. What will get the feminists of Bored of Studies riled up and angry though, causing a cascade of responses in a matter of hours is suggesting that they be deprived of their right to murder innocent human babies.

That's the word.

On a serious note I don't see a problem with abortion, personally.

 

[Kwayera]

I also resent the notion that I'm a feminist, Neb, as you implied earlier. I'm not, and I hate AA.

I'm just well aware of my rights as a human to my own body.

 

[Empyrean444]

Why?



Sorry, I should have made that clearer. However, I still count the mother as having more "value" (in the general and biological sense of the word) in all cases of abortion, especially considering your vaunted "social" value.



Not necessarily. Infant mortality is less, indeed, but I don't think the instances of disease or other factors that kill foetuses or require them to be terminated to save the mother's life are decreasing any significant percentage. I'd be happy to be corrected on that, though.

Also, why do you keep on saying "rare bird"? Latin != knowledgeability

This is a latin phrase that has entered into english. It is one of those phrases whose meaning in english differs somewhat from the literal latin translation. In english it basically means a rare occurance or thing, etc. This is similar to the usage of "casus belli" in english. The lit. translation is "cause of war" but more often in english refers to a justification for war, not necessarily a cause though.

In the case of value not in these circumstances, i find it irrelevant. Someone with greater wealth/social stand (ie more value) does not (theoretically, unfortunately) have the right to kill another human; this is my stance on this issue.

Why would you consider biology more important than society? The latter is important for moral reasoning, which is largely the crux of my argument. Bear in mind, however, that biologically everyone can't have abortions all the time (obviously). So how does equal distribution of who gets one when work then, for instance?

In general circumstances, the foetus should be given equal opportunity to the mother. This is why i am agianst abortion. The mother should not be allowed one because of some fickle whim. Its potential, and possible socail contribution, are also important.

Why is society as important as biology? It differentaites us from mere brutes. It gives us morals and fairness, and is a bulwark against the harsh an often unecessarily unequal truth of biology. It is a survival response, i feel, to biology. It helps us and others who are weaker, etc survive. A social contribution betters humans as a whole, and therefore must have some biological value. For biology is about surviving and making the most of thinks and reproducing; society is the next step to higher and better things.

I went way off, but it does help explain my opinion somewhat.

 

[Empyrean444]

I also resent the notion that I'm a feminist, Neb, as you implied earlier. I'm not, and I hate AA.

I'm just well aware of my rights as a human to my own body.

No one has the right to murder.

 

[Kwayera]

This is a latin phrase that has entered into english. It is one of those phrases whose meaning in english differs somewhat from the literal latin translation. In english it basically means a rare occurance or thing, etc. This is similar to the usage of "casus belli" in english. The lit. translation is "cause of war" but more often in english refers to a justification for war, not necessarily a cause though.

I know that, it's just you seemed to be using it a lot, and unnecessarily (where using "rare event" would of sufficed). I was being persnickety.

In the case of value not in these circumstances, i find it irrelevant. Someone with greater wealth/social stand (ie more value) does not (theoretically, unfortunately) have the right to kill another human; this is my stance on this issue.

Why would you consider biology more important than society? The latter is important for moral reasoning, which is largely the crux of my argument. Bear in mind, however, that biologically everyone can't have abortions all the time (obviously). So how does equal distribution of who gets one when work then, for instance?

In general circumstances, the foetus should be given equal opportunity to the mother. This is why i am agianst abortion. The mother should not be allowed one because of some fickle whim. Its potential, and possible socail contribution, are also important.

Why is society as important as biology? It differentaites us from mere brutes. It gives us morals and fairness, and is a bulwark against the harsh an often unecessarily unequal truth of biology. It is a survival response, i feel, to biology. It helps us and others who are weaker, etc survive. A social contribution betters humans as a whole, and therefore must have some biological value. For biology is about surviving and making the most of thinks and reproducing; society is the next step to higher and better things.

I went way off, but it does help explain my opinion somewhat.

Um, morals and essentially everything that makes our 'culture' and 'society' comes from biology, and is a response to biological imperatives. "Higher and better" if you define that as morals and culture (i.e. art and language and music and the like), is biology.

Abortions are not "fickle whim". A woman has an abortion because no one has the right to force her into a potentially dangerous and certainly life-changing pregnancy that she has not asked for. Her wishes, and her rights, trump that of a foetus; how can it not? A foetus is a ball of cells, or mindless flesh and bone, and the fact that it happens to have the genetic material of Homo sapiens doesn't mean anything until it takes on the specific characteristics of H. sapiens that you value so much: thought, and by definition, sentience.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I think that this empyrean fellow might be a bit of an artsfag student. All his talk about society and etc.

 

[Captain Hero]

No one has the right to murder.

Is this argument coming from the potential for life? As in if the blastocyst has potential for life it is murder to remove it?

 

[Empyrean444]

I know that, it's just you seemed to be using it a lot, and unnecessarily (where using "rare event" would of sufficed). I was being persnickety.



Um, morals and essentially everything that makes our 'culture' and 'society' comes from biology, and is a response to biological imperatives. "Higher and better" if you define that as morals and culture (i.e. art and language and music and the like), is biology.

Abortions are not "fickle whim". A woman has an abortion because no one has the right to force her into a potentially dangerous and certainly life-changing pregnancy that she has not asked for. Her wishes, and her rights, trump that of a foetus; how can it not? A foetus is a ball of cells, or mindless flesh and bone, and the fact that it happens to have the genetic material of Homo sapiens doesn't mean anything until it takes on the specific characteristics of H. sapiens that you value so much: thought, and by definition, sentience.

i agreed with the point about morals being an offshoot of biology.

But she doesn't have the right to murder either. For the moment let me discount the serious life threatening one (still thinking it over). For the other situation: if she didn't use contraception, tough luck, she has no right to murder because she's lazy. If she used contraception and it failed, i still think that she has no right to kill something with potential (i feel this is very important - bearing in mind everything with potential will develop into an individual). Life changing? Not acceptable. Life changing vs life destroying? The latter is more severe, so it must be avoided. I still do not regard this as a "right".

 

[Empyrean444]

Is this argument coming from the potential for life? As in if the blastocyst has potential for life it is murder to remove it?

Yes this is what i think. For example, imagine if you or i were aborted as foetuses (or blastocysts etc).

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Is this argument coming from the potential for life? As in if the blastocyst has potential for life it is murder to remove it?

I think I know what you're getting at and it's lame.

 

[Kwayera]

But she doesn't have the right to murder either. For the moment let me discount the serious life threatening one (still thinking it over). For the other situation: if she didn't use contraception, tough luck, she has no right to murder because she's lazy. If she used contraception and it failed, i still think that she has no right to kill something with potential (i feel this is very important - bearing in mind everything with potential will develop into an individual). Life changing? Not acceptable. Life changing vs life destroying? The latter is more severe, so it must be avoided. I still do not regard this as a "right".

Is abortion murder? Can it really be called such? I don't personally think the 'potential' argument holds much weight; if it did, than every woman (on or off birth control that prevents implantation of a fertilised egg) would be guilty of tens of counts of manslaughter, given that a woman spontaneously aborts, on average, more than 50% of the eggs that are fertilised within the first few days or weeks of implantation.

Carrying a foetus to term is always dangerous (or, at least, not perfectly safe) for the mother, despite advances in medicine. The fact that our brains are so big has dictated this, and has forced us to give birth to (in comparison to other animals) babies that are extremely underdeveloped. Pregnancy is dangerous to mothers and birth is dangerous to mothers (especially caesarians), physically - pregnancy is a huge drain on the body, and that can and does (hormonal during- and post-natal depression, anyone?) have implications for the woman's mental health. Natural birth can and often does permanently disfigure a woman's reproductive apparatus (including sexual pleasure and drive) and cause incontinence, and caesarians can and do leave nasty, lifelong scars. I think these implications are severe enough to not be thrown aside for the "destruction" of a life that is not viable, may not survive to live that "potential", and is human only in the contents of their genes: a foetus cannot think or feel and has not the "socially valuable" life experience of the mother.

So no, I think "life changing" is just as valid, if not more so, than the "life destroying" of an abortion of a ball of cells.

 

[Kwayera]

Yes this is what i think. For example, imagine if you or i were aborted as foetuses (or blastocysts etc).

If I was an aborted foetus, I wouldn't really care, now would I?


EDIT: I actually almost was an aborted foetus, so yeah.

 

[Captain Hero]

Yes this is what i think. For example, imagine if you or i were aborted as foetuses (or blastocysts etc).

wat.

*blinks*

wat

 

[Captain Hero]

I think I know what you're getting at and it's lame.

Yeah Science is a real cunt, isn't it

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

but it does have a potential for life. albeit aided. much like my life is aided by say, warmth.