Abortion

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Interesting, how do you propose to have a system where you can use something without the fear of losing it, if private ownership is not possible?
That's the end of my off-topic response...back to abortion.

You do cut to the chase don't you my friend. Let me give this some thought and perhaps open up another thread to discuss the plausiblity of alternatives that might prove to be better, safer and more equitable and just.

william

1 Reply

@William,

There are firmly held morals within conservative, traditional societies, that are 100% perfectly analagous to written law. And, in fact, because they're so strictly held, they're even more binding than law in some cases. So the absence of written law in my book doesn't equate to anarchy except perhaps in a uselessly technical sense.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

There are firmly held morals within conservative, traditional societies, that are 100% perfectly analagous to written law. And, in fact, because they're so strictly held, they're even more binding than law in some cases. So the absence of written law in my book doesn't equate to anarchy except perhaps in a uselessly technical sense.

Getting back to the original post, in all due respect I cannot agree. As it relates to any sense of any conceived morality, especially those attributed to conservative, traditional societies that are 100% analagous to the written law that states it is legal to kill an unborn human being simply because it is a woman's "right" to do so, there is no morality here whatsoever regardless of how politically correct the language may be. IMO.
William

2 Replies

@William,

William;38299 wrote:

As it relates to any sense of any conceived morality, especially those attributed to conservative, traditional societies that are 100% analagous to the written law that states it is legal to kill an unborn human being simply because it is a woman's "right" to do so, there is no morality here whatsoever regardless of how politically correct the language may be. IMO.

Thanks William, this is how I feel about the morality of abortion also. For me, abortion is really a tough issue, because I feel that the individual decision to have the abortion is morally wrong, yet it seems also to be a moral wrong for the state to interfere in these types of matters, when a pregnancy is so private and personal. This is the type of legal issue that is always going to leave us with some problems...if abortion were to be made illegal, it also wouldn't stop abortions. There would be a black market for the operation, and some women would probably resort to using certain tactics to attempt to abort the pregnancy on their own (not sure if this really works, but I know people do it).

I wish we could get to the point where we wouldn't need to discuss legal issues like this, because people would make the individual decision that an abortion is morally wrong (imo, unless the mother's health is in danger). Until then, we will just have to deal with imperfection...

1 Reply

@William,

William;38299 wrote:

Getting back to the original post, in all due respect I cannot agree. As it relates to any sense of any conceived morality, especially those attributed to conservative, traditional societies that are 100% analagous to the written law that states it is legal to kill an unborn human being simply because it is a woman's "right" to do so, there is no morality here whatsoever regardless of how politically correct the language may be. IMO.
William

I was making a general point about laws, not one about abortion. Social stigma against murder or theft may be as great a deterrent in a "lawless" society as prosecution is in one with laws.

But seeing as MANY traditional societies have practiced infanticide or other forms of homicide (for honor or for adultery or whatever), I find it improbable that 100% of traditional societies on earth feel that abortion is a moral wrong.

0 Replies

@Peter phil,

Here's a fun story on this topic.

At a hospital there were some nurses being trained. the head nurse was speaking to them about abortion. She gave this example.
"A woman already has seven children. She is sick and without a male source of income. One of her children has mental retardation, and she is already unable to feed her children. Now she is asking for your advice on whether or not to get an abortion."
Most of the nurses reply that they would tell her to get the abortion. the head nurse then replies "Very well. You just killed Bethoven" :eek:

I am personally in the grey on this topic, leaning towards the pro-life side. In the extreme scenario of rape, I would probably support an abortion, but i deeply oppose the idea of abortion as a form of birth control. The pill an condoms are there for a reason.

Another quote:
"I've noticed that everyone who supports abortion has already been born."
-Ronald Reagan

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

Thanks William, this is how I feel about the morality of abortion also. For me, abortion is really a tough issue, because I feel that the individual decision to have the abortion is morally wrong, yet it seems also to be a moral wrong for the state to interfere in these types of matters, when a pregnancy is so private and personal. This is the type of legal issue that is always going to leave us with some problems...if abortion were to be made illegal, it also wouldn't stop abortions. There would be a black market for the operation, and some women would probably resort to using certain tactics to attempt to abort the pregnancy on their own (not sure if this really works, but I know people do it).

I wish we could get to the point where we wouldn't need to discuss legal issues like this, because people would make the individual decision that an abortion is morally wrong (imo, unless the mother's health is in danger). Until then, we will just have to deal with imperfection...

Thanks. I know the only answer now it education. But still then there is politically correctness to deal with that will limit those teachings. We are in a pickle. No doubt. What concerns me more than anything, is the machinery that was put into motion and the deception that was involved in setting the stage for Roe v. Wade. Most were not around and if they were, they were not paying attention to what was going on. Women's liberation was only a front that gave abortion any far reaching legitimacy. What I witnessed and have deduced you will not find in any text on on line. I know, I've tried. In truth, IMO, abortion solved a problem in the research that was being done and had been going on since the mid '50's on fetal brain tissue using then illegally aborted fetuses. Those were the "healthy" fetuses. Those of miscarriage and were legally done were of no use. Abortion solved the problem. Most are conditioned to believe, fetal brain research was an aftermath of "legalized" abortions, when it fact it is the stimulus that set the stage for it legalization. It was ingenious, far reaching, intricate and diabolical and it worked. I am currently working on a paper that connects the dots.

William

0 Replies

@Peter phil,

Interesting theory, and one I have not heard of; my knowledge on the matter is not to where I would venture to comment, but if you could provide evidence for these claims, or if others reading have a more educated opinion than myself on this idea, I would be interested to hear it. As it is now, I don't think most aborted fetuses are used for brain research...maybe Aedes could chime in here with his knowledge.

1 Reply

@Pangloss,

Are we really quoting Ronald Reagan? Sheesh. If a man like that is our moral guide, we'll find plenty of justification for slaughtering people in third world countries among other atrocious acts.

Does anyone have a response to the Judith Thomson argument posted on the first page of this thread? 40 pages later and still no one address that argument. Anyone?

2 Replies

@Peter phil,

Never heard such a theory. All kinds of medically unethical crap was done in the 1950s and before, I mean look at the Tuskeegee experiment. But to contend that this somehow motivated the legalization of abortion is just conspiratorial nonsense, considering that it WAS the women's rights movement and NOT a consortium of geeky neuroanatomists who impelled the legalization. But every person with a strong opinion can find some conspiracy on the web to support their view.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;38333 wrote:

Are we really quoting Ronald Reagan?

Hey, it's probably one of his better quotes... Smile

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Does anyone have a response to the Judith Thomson argument posted on the first page of this thread? 40 pages later and still no one address that argument. Anyone?

Her argument supposes, like that of some pro-life supporters, that the fetus is a person, and then looks at the rights of said person compared to those of the mother. I think she makes a good argument for abortion rights, certainly in the case of protecting the mother's health, as well as in the case of rape. Beyond that though, there is nothing of substance she has offered as to how abortion can be a morally right decision (in those cases where the mother's health, or rape, are not factors).

Quote:

"But if they have taken all reasonable precautions against having a child, they do not simply by virtue of their biological relationship to the child who comes into existence have a special responsibility for it."

This quote here is problematic; do we need a lesson again on where babies come from? Surely you can take reasonable precautions against having a child, but the fact remains, there is a chance that child will come anyway. A child does not just spontaneously appear; it is the result of intercourse. I don't see how somebody can argue that biological parents do not have a special responsibility for their child, if they value human life at all. If they do not value human life, then they do not fit into our society.

While you can make a good (and I think correct) case for abortion rights according to our laws, I can see no moral argument to support the practice, excepting the cases of rape or of medical problems for the mother. When I talk about morality here, I am thinking of some set of beliefs that at the very least assigns value to human life. As we are all living humans, all of us rational members of society should be able to agree on this basic idea of morality. As such, abortion is immoral. To me, it does not matter if you call that clump of cells a "person", or a "fetus". One year down the road, save for an act of nature, that thing will be a living human, and its life will have begun as a direct result of a decision made by a mother and father to have intercourse (whether or not they wanted a child or not). Responsible, moral adults will own up to their decisions, and will not go into elective surgery to avoid the consequences of their actions.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Never heard such a theory. All kinds of medically unethical crap was done in the 1950s and before, I mean look at the Tuskeegee experiment. But to contend that this somehow motivated the legalization of abortion is just conspiratorial nonsense, considering that it WAS the women's rights movement and NOT a consortium of geeky neuroanatomists who impelled the legalization. But every person with a strong opinion can find some conspiracy on the web to support their view.

The "geeky neuroantomists" were in the dark, but their research wasn't. They had no clue to what was going on. Neither did the Woman's right's movement know what was going on. They were a tool. A very predictable tool. The feminist's were the feminine solidification needed. A "pro-abortion" voice that never had to worry about getting pregnant and were vehemently against how one got pregnant. Just what the doctor ordered. In the beginning, it was about women's right's at a time when women were not, by and large, complaining about their rights. This is where the most manipulating tool ever devised began to go to work. The television. Public morality had to be taken down a few notches and television did it's part in that process and at the same time tearing the male gender to shreds all programmed at the stay at home Mom.
william

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Are we really quoting Ronald Reagan? Sheesh. If a man like that is our moral guide, we'll find plenty of justification for slaughtering people in third world countries among other atrocious acts.

Does anyone have a response to the Judith Thomson argument posted on the first page of this thread? 40 pages later and still no one address that argument. Anyone?

Hey, Reagen sure as heck did a better job in office than quite a few of your democratic presidents (and yes, I acnowledge that a great deal of republican presidents did a crummy job as well). If you took a moment to actually look at something besides the media-emphasised negative points, you would acctually find a good leader and a great man. And if you want invasions of foriegn countries, who initiated Operation Rolling Thunder in Vietnam? None other than democratic president Lyndon Johnson. But that is beside the point. Does the fact that it was Reagan who said that change the quote's relevence to the topic?:listening: You have succeded in grabbing my attention with cynisism. You have failed, however, to state your point about how you think I am wrong.

1 Reply

@William,

William;38346 wrote:

The "geeky neuroantomists" were in the dark, but their research wasn't. They had no clue to what was going on. Neither did the Woman's right's movement know what was going on. They were a tool. A very predictable tool. The feminist's were the feminine solidification needed. A "pro-abortion" voice that never had to worry about getting pregnant and were vehemently against how one got pregnant. Just what the doctor ordered. In the beginning, it was about women's right's at a time when women were not, by and large, complaining about their rights. This is where the most manipulating tool ever devised began to go to work. The television. Public morality had to be taken down a few notches and television did it's part in that process and at the same time tearing the male gender to shreds all programmed at the stay at home Mom.
william

This is a frightening degree of conspiratorial paranoia... what are your feelings about Roswell and about the Kennedy assassination?

1 Reply

@averroes,

averroes;38350 wrote:

None other than democratic president Lyndon Johnson.

Who also passed some of the most seminal civil rights protections and social programs in the history of the country, and who is almost uniformly ranked higher by presidential historians than Reagan:

Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2 Replies

@Peter phil,

I fail to see the supposed motivation behind such a conspiracy...why would fetal brain research be so important to warrant this elaborate scheme?

2 Replies

@Peter phil,

Fetal brain research is easy -- you just use animal models. Much of the differentiation between human and other mammalian development happens long after birth. A friend's husband does research on the neuroanatomical effects of fetal alcohol syndrome. He uses fetal mouse brains. There's no need for human fetuses.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes;38354 wrote:

Who also passed some of the most seminal civil rights protections and social programs in the history of the country, and who is almost uniformly ranked higher by presidential historians than Reagan:

Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And in that most recent WSJ "scholar survey" from the chart, Bush was ranked #18 above Johnson's 19...:bigsmile:

0 Replies

@Pangloss,

Pangloss wrote:

I fail to see the supposed motivation behind such a conspiracy...why would fetal brain research be so important to warrant this elaborate scheme?

This fetal brain research seems like its at the primordial stages of its advancement. If we're talking irrational conspiracies then maybe Bush is a product of this "research", and the corporatocracy is purposefully making the rightwings look stupid and its really the left wings who are plotting to take over the world via a sudden step into totalitarianism instead of socialism...

Laughing

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

Who also passed some of the most seminal civil rights protections and social programs in the history of the country, and who is almost uniformly ranked higher by presidential historians than Reagan:

Historical rankings of United States Presidents - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm starting to feel that no one is acctually listening to what I'm trying to say. I'm not saying that Lyndon Johnson was a bad leader, I'm not saying that Reagan was the best president ever. I'm trying to say that all presidents do bad things as well as good, and that, unless we have thouroghly reviewed all of a presidents actions, we should not be blatantly casting him as a monster. Now, if we could all be so kind as to go back to abortion, the reason that this thread was created, Please?

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know