ABORTION-necessity or a social evil?

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in ABORTION-necessity or a social evil?:

@JosephStalin said in ABORTION-necessity or a social evil?:

Abortion is horrible under certain circumstances. If you just don’t want the baby even though you willingly fucked then your a selfish price of shit.

What if you are a 50 year old woman that has not yet hit post menopause and the birth control failed and you concived with your 63 year old husband and the featus has no brain, eyes, ears, arms, lungs, yet because it is only a few weeks into term?
Would that woman be a "Piece of shit" ?

Piece of shit is demeaning... obviously she's not a piece of shit.

But, also quite obviously, when you have sex you might conceive even at 50 years of age (because birth control tends to fail) and most 50 year old people have had enough time to learn that. What would absolve a person who's 50 from the responsibility a 20 year old has? Also quite obvious: Her husband has the same responsibility.

You can only even make that argument, because you don't see the fetus as a human being. If you were right with this, there would be no responsibility indeed...

[ScruffyMutt]

@petrapark3r said in ABORTION-necessity or a social evil?:

@ScruffyMutt said in ABORTION-necessity or a social evil?:

@JosephStalin said in ABORTION-necessity or a social evil?:

Abortion is horrible under certain circumstances. If you just don’t want the baby even though you willingly fucked then your a selfish price of shit.

What if you are a 50 year old woman that has not yet hit post menopause and the birth control failed and you concived with your 63 year old husband and the featus has no brain, eyes, ears, arms, lungs, yet because it is only a few weeks into term?
Would that woman be a "Piece of shit" ?

Piece of shit is demeaning... obviously she's not a piece of shit.

But, also quite obviously, when you have sex you might conceive even at 50 years of age (because birth control tends to fail) and most 50 year old people have had enough time to learn that. What would absolve a person who's 50 from the responsibility a 20 year old has? Also quite obvious: Her husband has the same responsibility.

You can only even make that argument, because you don't see the fetus as a human being. If you were right with this, there would be no responsibility indeed...

Are you saying that a married couple should stop having sex once the are done having kids?
And I see a collection of cells as a collection of cells. A 5 week featus with no brain and the size of a sesame seed is no more a living breathing person to me than a seed is a tree.
There is a difference between a person and a potential person.

[ScruffyMutt]

@petrapark3r regarding my long post, I was addressing many of the pre-existing areguements and how they fail.

How can anyone be completely for or against such a profound issue as abortion? The featus could be non viable, the pregnancy could have a condition that results in death for the mother before even the possibility of early delivery, the mother could just be a vengeful baby hater, the doctor could be a quack, and so on.

To say it's a crystal clear yes or no would show a lack of consideration or education on the facts of the biology and sociology involved.

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in ABORTION-necessity or a social evil?:

@petrapark3r regarding my long post, I was addressing many of the pre-existing areguements and how they fail.

I appreciate your concern with the arguments that are brought forward, showing how they fall short and where people have to differentiate instead of "using a hammer to mount a screw".

How can anyone be completely for or against such a profound issue as abortion? The featus could be non viable, the pregnancy could have a condition that results in death for the mother before even the possibility of early delivery, the mother could just be a vengeful baby hater, the doctor could be a quack, and so on.

As I hinted in my earlier reply it is possible to differentiate. As the firefighter is not killing the person he's leaving behind, the doctor also is not killing one patient (the baby / the mother) when he separates them in a way that saves only one of them. It is reasonable to have a general anti-abortion stance and accept that what the doctor does in such a situation is in fact not the same. IMHO the doctor saving the mother should not be called an abortion.

In many cases he could also save the child btw. and there are quite a few mothers who choose to die so that their child could live. Those women in my eyes are heroes. So without saying that the doctor should always save the child or always save the mother, let's also appreciate their sacrifice properly.

Be very careful with the "non-viable" or with the "condition that results in death for the mother". There are numerous cases where the prognosis "non-viable" or "death risk for the mother" was completely wrong – because 1. the medical tests are far from perfect and 2. a lot of things change as mother and child go through the development together. Also doctors these days tend to bring up abortion even if the propability of complications is very low (after all abortions make a lot of people very rich)...

Of course there are always risks, pregnancy in general is risky. But risk alone does not justify "killing". (As you can see the actual question still is wether it is killing or not... I'll get to that in another post)

If the mother is a vengeful baby hater or the doctor a quack, then an abortion is just as bad a solution as leaving the baby in their hands. Both are problems that should actually be tackled and not avoided by getting rid of the reason they show up...

To say it's a crystal clear yes or no would show a lack of consideration or education on the facts of the biology and sociology involved.

Yes, it's not chrystal clear. And lots of facts are unknown to a majority of the population because it is such a hot topic...

[pe7erpark3r]

To give you an idea of what I mean by thinking through I'll explain one of the logically coherent viewpoints I know of: The materialistic viewpoint.

The materialistic viewpoint has two axioms:

1. there is no such thing as a soul, everything is purely physical
2. a person is purely the result of bio-chemical processes

Thus from the materialistic viewpoint a fetus is but a lump of cells. And so are you. This is why people who subscribe to this viewpoint tend to also support euthanesia:

Once the cost of living is higher than the benefits, it is perfectly fine to end human lives, no matter at what stage they are in. In the beginning stages (on the level of societies) this is of course purely restricted to the decision of the person who's life is going to be ended. As long as they are able to decide themselve – in contrast to a fetus of course.

It is brought however to extremes in societies that as a whole subscribe to the materialistic viewpoint. In the sowjet union, people who are perceived to give no value to society (or even threaten it) were put into gulags in the millions! Along the same lines has acted every communist state that has ever been created, such that communism has many times the number of victims that nazi germany did (including the war victims).

It is safe to say, that most people – even if they are materialists – prefer not to live in a purely materialistic society. Or at least they will at some point, once they themselves become victims of the system...

[pe7erpark3r]

The Soul's Viewpoint

This is the viewpoint that most people on this planet should theoretically have, because most people on this planet believe that there is (or at least might be) some kind of afterlife. Strangely enough, especially in the west, people do in fact not have this viewpoint. I believe the reason for this is that most people just haven't thought it through. So here is your chance...

In the middle ages people believed that babys got their souls after a fixed period of time. Strangely enough boys got their soul earlier than girls. I'm laughing, but I'm not joking! If I believe correctly it was 3 months for boys and 4 months for girls, but I might be wrong about that. Even St. Thomas of Aquino the great catholic theologician still believed that, because Aristotle whom he held in high esteem, had introduced this nonsense into the world of written "wisdom". This midieval believe however seems to be still present in modern western societies, where even many christians are okay with an abortion as long as it is before a certain developmental age...

If there is an afterlife, then there must be a soul. A soul can live perfectly fine without a body, or else it would die with the body and there would not be an afterlife. Thus a soul needs no body and certainly no functioning brain to exist. Ergo, a fetus does not need a certain developmental stage to have a soul. There is only one moment for a soul and a body to become one that makes sense from a logical standpoint: conception. Hence an abortion – and even the pill after – would mean killing a human being who's soul will live on in the next life...

And even if we assume that maybe Aristotle was right, then we'd have to ask ourselves how we could measure when the soul enters the body. And since what I just said is complete hocus pocus (we cannot measure a soul...) we'd have to assume our assumptions about the soul (that a fetus gets its soul once the brain has reached a certain development stage) could be wrong. And the fact that the little life could already be a person and have a soul is enough to not kill it IMHO...

[pe7erpark3r]

@ScruffyMutt said in ABORTION-necessity or a social evil?:

Are you saying that a married couple should stop having sex once the are done having kids?

No, , I'm saying they should have the last kid too, that they tried to avoid, even if it is inconvenient. Usually people that age have enough money . We agreed that things aren't clear with abortion, but I can without any further explanation say: I'm against abortion out of inconvenience... Last but not least because an abortion carries quite a few serious health risks for the mother...

And I see a collection of cells as a collection of cells. A 5 week featus with no brain and the size of a sesame seed is no more a living breathing person to me than a seed is a tree.
There is a difference between a person and a potential person.

That is either a completely materialist standpoint or a humanist one. I wonder if I'll be able to think myself into the humanist viewpoint

[INFINITY]

@harveylake Can you be in the middle?
I'm more on the side of...it's a choice. It shouldn't be illegal to abort. Sure, the infant has a heartbeat, but so does the lady giving birth. It's not a necessity or a social evil. It just should not be illegal.

[TheRisingSun]

@harveylake
Abortion should be mandatory from now on, humans had their chance and they fucked it up. Get a dog instead.

[pe7erpark3r]

@DAD_ said in ABORTION-necessity or a social evil?:

@harveylake said in ABORTION-necessity or a social evil?:

what's your take on abortion?

Selectively applicable.

do you support the idea or are you against it?

Not everything in this world is, black and white.
As humans, we should always strive to find the grey, and develop a consensus on things, rather than taking extreme stands, and disregarding each and any argument.

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I was waiting for a moment when I have the time and right state of mind. Are you still traveling through india?

What you say is definitely applicable for most things we have to deal with. I mean even the question wether it is wrong to kill a human being clearly is not easy to decide. For example: does a soldier in war do wrong if he kills an enemy?

But we have to keep something in our minds;

- A newborn cannot speak for itself.

The foetus can not advocate for or against its life. So, we have to make the decision for it.
The decisions made are most of the time personal, social or economical;

Agreed.

Hence, the decisions should be made logically, situationally and optimally. Without the influence of feelings.

I am pretty sure that only a sociopath would be able to do that

Because Not being born is better than being a walking corpse.
If the party is capable of supporting themselves, and the child, financially, emotionally, and socially. Then, abortion is a heinous murder.

I believe that this is what @ScruffyMutt wanted to show: there is something wrong with this argument...

If under some conditions it is heineous murder, then the little thing must indeed be a human being. Otherwise how could it be called murder?

If however it is a human being, then how is it not murder when it has a bleak future? With the same argument you could advocate for killing the "walking corpse" that wasn't aborted...

If one has committed a mistake, then they should own up to it, and raise the child, with full responsibility and care.

Absolutely agree.

- Prevention is better than cure;

Absolutely agree.

• Wear condoms, because each abortion that takes place, is free advertising for durex.
• Dont let your hormones, get a hold of your future.
• Rather than aborting, put the child up for adoption, foster care, Because according to WHO, approximately 48.5 million people, were infertile, and they know the importance of that child more than you.
  https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_93930
• Donate the child to underground secret science facilities for experimentation.
  : )

Partly agree