Environmentalism and Abortion

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

You think modern "philosophers" are unreasonable? Taking it to the other extreme is also illogical, as an unfertilized egg is not a biologically distinct entity, yet.

Yes, it is. It's about the rights of a woman over her own body vs the government's power to force her to carry a child against her will. It's about a completely unique situation where two lives are inextricably tied together, and only one has the ability to make decisions for both of them. Many of those decisions involve life and death and a host of other factors. I believe that the mother is the best person to make those decisions.

-Jimmy

I believe what we have here is a difference of opinion with regards to cause and effect, as well as with responsibility. A woman carrying a child does not just have the concern for her own body, but concern for that of another as well. It is already established that the fetus is a legal entity, and that a doctor can be held accountable if their malpractice results in loss of the unborn. In this regard, I think government does have an obligation to at least require that she not intentionally kill the other body in all but the most rare of circumstances.

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Yes, yes, we know: most anti-choice screeds are "somewhat emotional" which is why each woman should have a right to choose that is protected from government intervention or interferance from other people who may have a "somewhat emotional" reaction to a pregnancy that occurs in another persons life.

Just because something is emotional does not make it irrational as well. People can very rightly be emotional about laws preventing fraud, especially financial fraud. Should the government therefore have no say when it comes to addressing charlatans?

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

By "killing" I recognize that you mean murder, as from a technical standpoint those cells, fetuses, or children are being "killed" by definition. Yes, you are right that some parents do commit infanticide. There are plenty of long-running news stories of investigations of such in this country, and I would imagine (though I have yet to research) that the practice is probably much more common in places such as North Korea or China. Infanticide was also practiced by cavemen.

I agree with you that both Catholics (as an institution) and Republicans (as an institution) are serving to exploit and undercut genuine choices for family planning, such as education and contraception. That is the political nature of the beast.

However, at the heart of the matter is that humans come from somewhere, and that place is the collection of cells growing in the mother's womb. In that condition, the mother has virtually 100% power over the maturing human. After birth, that power can be transferred to almost anyone else but the newborn. Some time after, the power to live can eventually be granted to the child as it becomes adult. That's simply the life cycle of humans--starts at conception, and ends at death, and all throughout the power to live or die is often in the hands of another.

[ggirod]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Yes, it is. It's about the rights of a woman over her own body vs the government's power to force her to carry a child against her will. It's about a completely unique situation where two lives are inextricably tied together, and only one has the ability to make decisions for both of them.

Think about this: Once you give the government primacy over a woman and the fetus she carries, it is but a little step for the government to order her NOT to carry it any longer. There is already precedent in that some governments are doing so. Remember, the right to choose is the right to choose either of the possible outcomes. Failure to recognize that means no choice is involved.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

You think modern "philosophers" are unreasonable? Taking it to the other extreme is also illogical, as an unfertilized egg is not a biologically distinct entity, yet.



I believe what we have here is a difference of opinion with regards to cause and effect, as well as with responsibility. A woman carrying a child does not just have the concern for her own body, but concern for that of another as well. It is already established that the fetus is a legal entity, and that a doctor can be held accountable if their malpractice results in loss of the unborn. In this regard, I think government does have an obligation to at least require that she not intentionally kill the other body in all but the most rare of circumstances.

I think malpractice is malpractice and does not in itself revolve around whether a fetus is born alive or not. One could, I suppose in my not being an obstetrician, perform an act of malpractice in delivery that has nothing to do with death of a fetus.

Why does the government have any obligation with what a woman chooses to do with a ball of cells? I think the government has no obligation at all, and if you think differently, who is correct? and why?

Is it enough for a woman with a fertilized egg to be concerned only about the viability of the fertilized egg or should she have equal or even greater concern about what happens in her particular circumstance once that fertilized egg should become a full blown human?

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Think about this: Once you give the government primacy over a woman and the fetus she carries, it is but a little step for the government to order her NOT to carry it any longer. There is already precedent in that some governments are doing so. Remember, the right to choose is the right to choose either of the possible outcomes. Failure to recognize that means no choice is involved.

You, ggirod, are confusing the issue. It is all right for the government to do something that supports what I personally think is the morally correct thing for all humans. As long as the government does what I think is correct (or should I say "I KNOW is correct") then everything is AOK, why else do you think I vote for people who at least give lip service to my concept of morality?

Of course I am being facetious. You raise a valid point, but people are naive and ignorant enough to believe that those they elect will do the right thing as the voters see "the right thing." Today one really must be severely mentally challenged (that is p.c. language for "goddamned idiot") to believe that the primary outcomes of governmental action is aimed at what may be good for the average citizen.

[c1ue]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

The abortion vs. environment debate is purely artificial.

While I am personally fine with abortion, at the same time I recognize it as being termination of a life. Murder, in a real sense of the world.

But we murder every day in the course of living. Plants, animals, bacteria, you name it get killed in order that we survive. Perfectly self-respecting mineral formations get broken up. Maybe in the future entire asteroids and planets destroyed for their raw materials. etc etc.

Is an old cow different than a veal calf different than a genetically modified hybrid wheat that cannot reproduce itself?

Are the rapeweed/crabgrass weeds we slay in our lawns different than the bluegrass we try to preserve?

It boils down to utility - the imprint of individual selfishness.

While I personally go out of my way to not waste food, fuel, whatever, at the same time it is impossible for me to say that my choices are fundamentally less selfish than the person who chooses to eat steak every day, or who drives the Hummer, or who clubs baby seals.

My choices, like these other people's choices, are selfish based on my own motives and background.

The problem - of course - is that the existence of society as well as scarcity creates the motive and means for control. But again, who is responsible for setting the limits?

It all boils down again to the imprint of individual selfishness filtered through the societal mechanism.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

The abortion vs. environment debate is purely artificial.

While I am personally fine with abortion, at the same time I recognize it as being termination of a life. Murder, in a real sense of the world.

But we murder every day in the course of living. Plants, animals, bacteria, you name it get killed in order that we survive. Perfectly self-respecting mineral formations get broken up. Maybe in the future entire asteroids and planets destroyed for their raw materials. etc etc.

Is an old cow different than a veal calf different than a genetically modified hybrid wheat that cannot reproduce itself?

Are the rapeweed/crabgrass weeds we slay in our lawns different than the bluegrass we try to preserve?

It boils down to utility - the imprint of individual selfishness.

While I personally go out of my way to not waste food, fuel, whatever, at the same time it is impossible for me to say that my choices are fundamentally less selfish than the person who chooses to eat steak every day, or who drives the Hummer, or who clubs baby seals.

My choices, like these other people's choices, are selfish based on my own motives and background.

The problem - of course - is that the existence of society as well as scarcity creates the motive and means for control. But again, who is responsible for setting the limits?

It all boils down again to the imprint of individual selfishness filtered through the societal mechanism.

"Murder, in a real sense of the word." Murder! c1ue, I don't think so.
Murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous *the traffic was murder* b : something outrageous or blameworthy *getting away with murder*

c1ue, I don't grasp what you are trying to contend with "The problem - of course - is that the existence of society as well as scarcity creates the motive and means for control. But again, who is responsible for setting the limits?"

The exact "problem" is what? "Scarcity" of what "creates the motive and means for control" of what?

In fairness, some decisions people make which you might attribute to "selfishness," I think I would attribute to ignorance.

[c1ue]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

"Murder, in a real sense of the word." Murder! c1ue, I don't think so.
Murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous *the traffic was murder* b : something outrageous or blameworthy *getting away with murder*

c1ue, I don't grasp what you are trying to contend with "The problem - of course - is that the existence of society as well as scarcity creates the motive and means for control. But again, who is responsible for setting the limits?"

The exact "problem" is what? "Scarcity" of what "creates the motive and means for control" of what?

In fairness, some decisions people make which you might attribute to "selfishness," I think I would attribute to ignorance.

I say murder - because in my mind murder is in the mind of the victim. I do not attach any particular moral overtone - merely note that murder, or killing if you prefer, is not in any way better or worse whether the subject is a fertilized egg, a 6 month term fetus, a plant, a farmed animal, or Bambi.

The 'problem' that I refer to is organized society combined with scarcity. This problem has its benefits, but it equally has its detrimental effects - one of which is extra-individual determination of right and wrong (murder vs. killing as an example).

An animal in the wild kills largely due to need. Its behavior is justified by its own need to exist.

In human terms, the equivalent is the achievement of satori as anecdoted via the tale of the ability to take away the last bowl of rice from a starving man - if indeed your need is pure.

But how many people really express this pure need? As opposed to greed, pride, selfishness, etc etc?

Certainly ignorance can be a cause - but note that ignorance and satori are not mutually exclusive. Ignorance of other's views is irrelevant if full cognizance of your own place in the grand scheme is matured.

Unfortunately total ignorance and solipsism are intertwined, so ignorance as a general policy is also not good.

Net net - and back on subject - the entire abortion controversy is due to religion attempting to control the individual via the mechanisms of organized society. This doesn't make its goal entirely wrong because in turn what drives religion is the antithesis of the pure selfishness drives the individual.

Ultimately I do believe abortion should be available, but it equally should not be too easy. Either extreme is abhorrent to me.

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Think about this: Once you give the government primacy over a woman and the fetus she carries, it is but a little step for the government to order her NOT to carry it any longer. There is already precedent in that some governments are doing so. Remember, the right to choose is the right to choose either of the possible outcomes. Failure to recognize that means no choice is involved.

I disagree with this logic. It does not extend to the classical act of murder, such as murdering your neighbor for their property for instance. Laws designed to punish or prevent the act of classical murder cede government the power over life and death itself, and historically governments have chosen to brutally exercise this power. Does that make laws against the classical form of murder unnecessary or unjust? Of course not, in my opinion. It simply does not follow.

I would also point out that, in the case of abortion, the "choice" has already been made when the child was conceived. In the case of rape or similar, the choice was taken away, but in essentially all other cases the choice has already been made, and living with the consequences is the only justifiable position. Just as one must sometimes live with a broken arm for a time if they choose to not follow certain (obvious) precautions before climbing a ladder, one must live with the fact that they participated in creating new human life.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

I disagree with this logic. It does not extend to the classical act of murder, such as murdering your neighbor for their property for instance. Laws designed to punish or prevent the act of classical murder cede government the power over life and death itself, and historically governments have chosen to brutally exercise this power. Does that make laws against the classical form of murder unnecessary or unjust? Of course not, in my opinion. It simply does not follow.

I would also point out that, in the case of abortion, the "choice" has already been made when the child was conceived. In the case of rape or similar, the choice was taken away, but in essentially all other cases the choice has already been made, and living with the consequences is the only justifiable position. Just as one must sometimes live with a broken arm for a time if they choose to not follow certain (obvious) precautions before climbing a ladder, one must live with the fact that they participated in creating new human life.

Ghent you are living (or believing you live) in a world apart from the reality of screwing. My father was an alcoholic from the time I was old enough to recognize that fact. I have little doubt that he was the same long before I or my older sister were conceived, and I have almost no doubt but that when I was conceived he was drunk and whatever was on his mind it was not that screwing my mother would result in a child. Was it only in my family (out of the entire planet in the history of man) that such indiscriminate fornication took place without someone thinking "hey, maybe this'll make a baby."

People in their sexual exploits are not probably most prone to thinking of long term effects (if they even know screwing can lead to babies) when there is wet pussy or hard dick seeking satisfaction.

I think it is great that anyone who wishes can screw for procreation, but just as well I think it is great that anyone who might wish can screw for recreation. The law makers and the religious need to keep themselves out of women's uteruses in the figurative sense, and let individuasl decide what is right for their own circumstances.

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Ghent you are living (or believing you live) in a world apart from the reality of screwing. My father was an alcoholic from the time I was old enough to recognize that fact. I have little doubt that he was the same long before I or my older sister were conceived, and I have almost no doubt but that when I was conceived he was drunk and whatever was on his mind it was not that screwing my mother would result in a child. Was it only in my family (out of the entire planet in the history of man) that such indiscriminate fornication took place without someone thinking "hey, maybe this'll make a baby."

People in their sexual exploits are not probably most prone to thinking of long term effects (if they even know screwing can lead to babies) when there is wet pussy or hard dick seeking satisfaction.

I think it is great that anyone who wishes can screw for procreation, but just as well I think it is great that anyone who might wish can screw for recreation. The law makers and the religious need to keep themselves out of women's uteruses in the figurative sense, and let individuasl decide what is right for their own circumstances.

I can say with certainty that I am not in a world apart from screwing, and that one of my greatest concerns--even when playing the part of the drunk sailor--is that of long-term consequences such as STDs and pregnancy.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

I can say with certainty that I am not in a world apart from screwing, and that one of my greatest concerns--even when playing the part of the drunk sailor--is that of long-term consequences such as STDs and pregnancy.

It great that you under any circumstance are a responsible person when it comes to screwing, now the only question is what to do about the other four or so billion on the planet of child producing ages? And on a planet that has finite resources for a group of people with a mostly infinite appetite for screwing.

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

It great that you under any circumstance are a responsible person when it comes to screwing, now the only question is what to do about the other four or so billion on the planet of child producing ages? And on a planet that has finite resources for a group of people with a mostly infinite appetite for screwing.

The aforementioned contraceptive resources and techniques would suffice, most likely, if there were not such powerful forces working against them. I simply cannot see how an unintended consequence should justify the termination of a human life in its earliest stages.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

The aforementioned contraceptive resources and techniques would suffice, most likely, if there were not such powerful forces working against them. I simply cannot see how an unintended consequence should justify the termination of a human life in its earliest stages.

In my opinion, your attitude is fine for those cells, embryos, and early stage fetuses that end up in any woman's uterus who agrees with you.

My attitude is probably exactly opposite yours. If there is some absolute in what is correct, then which of us is correct, and why? I think I asked something similar above and did not get an answer.

Is it right that laws should evolve that licensure is required before women are allowed to carry an incipient pregnancy to full term? I would personally not be against that becoming a law.

My opinion is that there is no more sacredness or real value to human life than there is to that of a polar bear, gorilla, or whale, etc. How much grief would you suffer if a plane with 600 humans none of whom you knew crashed vs. the grief from an airplane loaded with polar bears, gorillas or whales that crashed? Personally I would consider the death of the animals as the greatest tragedy, because we are not going to run out of humans it appears any time soon, which isn't as likely true for the non-human animals.

Believe whatever you wish, but it is a mistake to believe that what any of us think is "right" is in fact right for all of mankind and should be enforced on all mankind. NOTHING along those lines is absolute.