income inequality and abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps but even then all you would achieve is showing inconsistency in their worldview, it would show nothing of the truth or falsity of their position.



You will have to excuse the rather complex language I have chosen, it makes it will hopefully make it less likely that I will be misinterpreted. That sounds like a really awful place to live. I would suggest to you that there is a land somewhere between where you live and what was the case in Soviet Russia, where abortions far exceeded live births that is a far more balanced place to live in. I would also suggest that the United States is, although far closer to what I would like to see, is not quite there yet.



I am relatively conservative in my view, placing the start of live at the point of independent DNA. The definition of life changes quite a bit over one's time in the universe. If Peter Singer and I agree on anything it is that a single definition leads to accepting some things, I would consider those things to be the logical evidence that the definition does not work but he just charges on ahead.



The government only knows better inasmuch as it decides that human life cannot be taken by another human being. That definition is applied broadly across all aspects of society.



If that few hundred dollars is the difference between personal responsibility and not, then it makes all the difference in the world.

91, a severely disabled child has its own unique DNA. If it cannot live long (or at all ) beyond birth, and this is diagnosed at a 12 week scan, would you support the view that the mother should not be allowed to terminate the pregnancy?

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
- Margaret Sanger

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
- Margaret Sanger

What's with the eugenetics crap? If the child dies shortly after birth he/she will not reproduce, so this is irrelevant. The question was whether a woman should be forced to go through with a pregnancy when the child is not viable anyway.

I have absolutely nothing against that. I am absolutely pro choice, I am willing to support any abortion out of medical reasons because of endangering the mother, as well as psychical reasons when it comes to raping, babies born without chance of living after birth or out of illnesses soond dying after birth. Just like I am for sexual education for kids, condom automats in school toilets, as well as I support that the "emergency pill afterward" is available at school nurses and pharmacies, just like I have no prob with tax-supporting conceivement for people for students and unemployed, that cant afford them. Sex is for me something naturally, so people do it. But ethically personal for me, I dont want to support what feels for me like the extinction of an human life, like death sentence for uncriminals. The consent here is that this is an absolutely personal choice, that everyone must decide on its own, regarding to your personal feelings, and that these desicions have to be respected. So you wont find any weird and angry protesters in front of our hospitals, the worst thing we have here are guys in a friendlyness of the witnesses of Jehova, offering you flyers informing you about alternative options. If they did more, police would take them away. For me it personal feels bad and I want others to respect that, just as I respect, that for others it dont feel that bad.

I do understand the argument, that specially in the early weeks its more of an bulb of cells, unable to feel pain, because of the nerve and brain system not enough developed. Already lost a pregnancy in an early age myself, and I definitly didnt buy a grave and ordered an funeral for a human life, not bigger then half an cm. But still I was sad about it, and thought if it would have become a girl or a boy, or which colour of hair it would have had. I am fine with everyone that doesnt feel emotional about an bulb of none thinking cells, just as I am fine with everyone seeking shelter in religious believe when mourning, even when I am none believing myself. If its help people, its really fine for me. But supporting it would hurt me in the way, that I would feel badly responsible, and that I would make allegations toward myself, it would burden me in psychical ways. If you feel like that, you simply cant push that away, just as pure understanding of the shelter of religion, doesnt give you the ability to believe into it, when mourning yourself.

Exactly, and as with the Sarah Ewart case which i linked, being pregnant with a non viable foetus was driving this woman to despair by people offering their misplaced congratulations.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-24458241

When 91 and those who share his view have to carry a non viable child for months on end, or have to raise one on minimum wage I will gladly listen to what they have to say on abortion. Until then, the jurisprudence of the moralisers must end where a person's body starts.

That would seem to qualify under the extreme phycological damage section of the legislation. The case appears complicated but in serious matters the law needs to be applied and made so that it can function. I simply do not buy the argument that in order to have a functional legislative framework, no consideration must be given to the child.



Having been raised on less than an Australian minimum wage myself you can take those sentiments and bury them. It is incredible how many assumptions pro-choice people make about people who have a different opinion. It is just impossible for some people to see opposition as earnestly concerned with the matter in the same way that they are and to have come to a different conclusion.

"The human must not be limited and controlled to fit the economic, but the economic must be expanded to fit the human.”
― Fulton J. Sheen

As far as I know, my purse is not your body. As mentioned various time in the forum, because of my mom mostly being unable to work (she is highly suspected to have inherited me the Aspergers) my dad was single earner-dad with a public busdriver income, and raised three kids, so second hand was standard and even things like Cola and sweeties were only affordable for birthdays or other occasions. Yet we lived and had hobbies.

When it comes to non viables child, exactly WHO shall have mentioned in this thread the oppinion, that non viable child must be carried until birth?

I brought up the subject of a non viable baby in response to 91s view that a human foetus has unique human DNA and therefore should not be killed by another human for any reason. I wanted to see if the view still held even when the child had no chance of life and was destined to die soon after or before birth. Having human DNA implies the possibility of a human life being formed, my point is that where there is no hope of human life being formed past birth, then it is barbaric to force the mother to endure the pregnancy and birth.
The topic was also raised by thomas81 earlier in the debate.

Not wanting to pay your taxes is a separate issue from what laws are passed regarding a woman's right or otherwise to terminate a pregnancy. Whether that option is put beyond her reach by law or cost is irrelevant to the woman who can't access the procedure.

You don't get to decide what they do with your tax money, they are supposed to make those decisions in the best interests of the population, including the unborn. If they permit abortions, they shouldn't exclude any woman from making that choice on the basis of wealth.

No-one likes everything that is done with their taxes, what about the military budget? That costs many hundreds of times more and kills many hundreds of times more, I'd like my taxes reduced because I don't want to pay for a military. Sound reasonable to you?

How do these quotes address the meat of dizzywater's question to you?

I do not believe in sorting human beings based on their utility. Make no mistake LKL, if the exceptions that the pro-choice crowd want to talk at length about were the only abortions occurring, we would not be having this conversation.

We are having this conversation, and you're saying that this isn't an 'exception' that we should make.
we're not talking about utility, we're talking about forcing a woman to carry a non-viable fetus to no end other than more suffering and trial for her, and causing that non-viable fetus to suffer more because you're forcing it to die after it has sentience rather than before.

That poor girl ... I know you're speaking hypothetically, but being forced to carry a dead fetus on a legal technicality would be a nightmare!

Umm, I never said that. I said that abortion should be allowed to save the life of the mother and in cases of sexual assault. Some around here have chosen to read into my position the fact that I am in favor of making a women take on unimaginable suffering which results in no gain for the child. That is one projection onto my position, the other is that since I accept exceptional mental health scenarios in my position already, I would therefor be open to other examples that exist along those lines. What I am sick of doing is having pro-choice people project things onto my position which are not true.

I do however take issue with parts of you logic, everyone in this discussion will die after having experience conscious life (unless the world is full of p-zombies that is). If the child experiences sentience, it is by ANY definition, alive. Further, if it were outside of the womb and would die in three years or six years we would not kill it. How much expected life should there be before killing someone becomes wrong? Since you are such a supporter of personal self-determination, it perplexes me that you don't see the irony in that. It is quite strange to me just how far pro-choice chaps will erode their definitions of what constitutes life, it seems a very high price to pay. Also, I would once again reiterate, that if these were the only abortions occurring, we would not be having this discussion.

A rather interesting discussion involving Peter Hitchens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rOyFChpIyQ

So, when was the last time you were pregnant?