[MP-Ryan]

Going back off-tangent and off-topic:

WTF Republicans.  The economy is in the toilet, you're in several global conflict zones, the environment needs some serious attention, and your focus is on restricting a woman's right to abortion?

GOP - Get Off [Earth] Please.  For everyone's sake.

[SypheDMar]

I've been off on the GOP's abortion stance on IRC. It's so fundamentally backwards.

[jr2]

Left-wingers {{at least, they seem to from my perspective}} think that the government doesn't inherently lean towards growing larger and larger, taking more and more power for itself, in the name of protecting its constituents and the 'greater good'.  Problem is, the human element in the government picture brings in 'power corrupts'.  Like a less-extreme {{at least ATM}} version of the Standford Prison Experiment.

Basically, the bigger you allow government to become, and the more power you allow it to have, the more likely it is to mutate into something it was never intended to be, just because it can.  Why does the government spend multiple millions of dollars on research grants to study the life cycle of some certain type of moth?  Study it, sure, but you don't need to spend that kind of money, unless perhaps it's a new invasive species that's attempting to cause havoc and you need to know how to combat it.

Take the census, for example.  All of the extra man-hours and production costs to make it into this huge questionnaire, asking what the **** you drink with your breakfast, etc??  Honestly, all the necessary questions should fit on one page, maybe make it double sided if that's not enough.

Government needs to be compartmentalized, with each compartment being limited in scope and power, to prevent cancer from breaking out.  Take the complexity of the law, for example.  Why does it need to be so complex?  Why can't they trust the judges to hand down the correct rulings on a set of common-sense, straightforward laws?  They make such a complex mess out of law, taxes, healthcare.... that it wastes a ton of manpower and resources, just to get someone to interpret how the rules actually apply to real life.  It's called overhead; the more government you have, the more the percentage of that waste increases, and it's something you would generally want to keep to a minimum, not encourage more of.

EDIT: And honestly, the abortion issue I'm sure is used as a political tool by both parties, but when it comes down to it, the real issue is whether you are taking a human life or not.  If you aren't, you don't have a problem, and I wouldn't have an issue with abortion.  It boils down to belief system.  I believe it is taking a human life.

A) If you believed that abortion was taking a human life, would you agree with it?
    1) If not, we agree on that, and we disagree on whether abortion actually does take a human life
    2) If yes, and you still think it should be allowed, then I don't know what your problem is.  This line of thinking would basically, when followed through, allow parents to just get rid of their children (parents' life, parents' right to do what they want, and you already established that the matter of human life is of no consequence to you).  Next step: Euthanasia of the old, the sick, the disabled, then the mentally ill, then undesirables, which then branches out to whoever you don't agree with.

B) If you don't believe abortion is taking a human life, at what point to you believe a <<developing non-human as of yet lifeform>> becomes a viable human life?  That would be the point where you would disagree with abortion, unless taking human life doesn't matter to you.  What establishes human life?  Careful now.  Brain waves? Heartbeat? Response to external stimuli? The ability to express an awareness of one's self?  Oh, that last one could allow infanticide, couldn't it...

C) Anyways, I think we would all agree that abortion would need to be limited at some point.  Where's that point?  I think it shouldn't be allowed, because I think that all life is created by God.  However, since you disagree, let's at least agree that after a certain point, abortion should not be allowed.  My question to you is, what's that point?  <<Cue thread split here>>

[The E]

I believe it is taking a human life.

But does your belief allow you, or others who believe the same thing, to impose your interpretation on others? Does your simplistic interpretation of the legal situation cover all possible situations under which a woman might need to consider aborting a pregnancy? Do you, as a male, have any authority whatsoever to dictate to a woman what she may or may not do solely because of your morality (Yes, in a normal relationship, the partner sure has a right to voice his opinions, he does not, however, have a right to impose his will on his partner)?

The point is, you are perfectly free to disagree with people who want to have abortions perform. However, your right to disagree ends at that disagreement, you do NOT have the moral right to forcefully intervene when someone has made a decision to abort a pregnancy. You especially do not have the moral right to force others to follow your morality.

Government needs to be compartmentalized, with each compartment being limited in scope and power

When looking at a government's org chart, you will find that they are far away from being monolithic entities. Not sure exactly how "compartmentalized" you want them to be, when you also want them to work efficiently.

Why can't they trust the judges to hand down the correct rulings on a set of common-sense, straightforward laws?

Because common sense isn't. When studying your society's code of laws, written and unwritten, you will find that most laws will follow roughly the same guidelines. The complexity of the law comes from the legislators' desire to create a legal framework that is not very open to subjective interpretation, one where all people operating under that law code can expect pretty much the same treatment wherever they are in that law codes' area of influence.

Would it be desirable to cut down on the greebles? Sure. But the second you were done, cruft would start accumulating again.

Why does the government spend multiple millions of dollars on research grants to study the life cycle of some certain type of moth?  Study it, sure, but you don't need to spend that kind of money, unless perhaps it's a new invasive species that's attempting to cause havoc and you need to know how to combat it.

Even assuming your example would be true (it most certainly isn't), what would make you qualified to make such a call? Also, one of the very biggest things a government can do that private companies can't is to finance "pure research" projects, i.e. Projects that do not have (or do not seem to have) immediate practical applications. NASA, for example.

[Polpolion]

But does your belief allow you, or others who believe the same thing, to impose your interpretation on others? Does your simplistic interpretation of the legal situation cover all possible situations under which a woman might need to consider aborting a pregnancy? Do you, as a male, have any authority whatsoever to dictate to a woman what she may or may not do solely because of your morality (Yes, in a normal relationship, the partner sure has a right to voice his opinions, he does not, however, have a right to impose his will on his partner)?

The point is, you are perfectly free to disagree with people who want to have abortions perform. However, your right to disagree ends at that disagreement, you do NOT have the moral right to forcefully intervene when someone has made a decision to abort a pregnancy. You especially do not have the moral right to force others to follow your morality.

Government needs to be compartmentalized, with each compartment being limited in scope and power

When looking at a government's org chart, you will find that they are far away from being monolithic entities. Not sure exactly how "compartmentalized" you want them to be, when you also want them to work efficiently.

I don't think that's what jr2 meant by compartmentalized. Well I hope not because I didn't actually read his post and I'm going to talk about what I thought he meant anyway. When you consider something like abortion at national level you're always going to have people that disagree with each other. The problem I have with people that say "Well legalize it and if you don't like it don't do it" is that it doesn't resolve the argument. You've got to be totally off your rocker if you think regulating these things at a national level when they're still socially charged issues is a good way to spend our government's time. Not only is it quite a stretch to even say that congress or the courts have any authority to pass laws or judgements on the matter, even if they do anyway you'll still have the other side ***** and moan about it until they get their way. The only legitimate reason the federal government should get into the whole mess of these kinds of arguments is if it's something that could actually affect inter-state affairs. Unfortunately, 99% of the time diametrically opposed arguments are referenced in politics (even ones where the federal government DOES have a legitimate reason to address) it's just because of either campaigning or pork as opposed to any actual discourse or action.

[jr2]

I believe it is taking a human life.

But does your belief allow you, or others who believe the same thing, to impose your interpretation on others? Does your simplistic interpretation of the legal situation cover all possible situations under which a woman might need to consider aborting a pregnancy? Do you, as a male, have any authority whatsoever to dictate to a woman what she may or may not do solely because of your morality (Yes, in a normal relationship, the partner sure has a right to voice his opinions, he does not, however, have a right to impose his will on his partner)?

The point is, you are perfectly free to disagree with people who want to have abortions perform. However, your right to disagree ends at that disagreement, you do NOT have the moral right to forcefully intervene when someone has made a decision to abort a pregnancy. You especially do not have the moral right to force others to follow your morality.

That's all well and good from your standpoint.  If you have the capability of re-thinking your entire decision structure from the standpoint of someone who sees abortion as ending a life, then what would you say?  In that case, there is a another set of rights at stake, and that would be the rights of the life that is up for termination.  Basically what is happening, is those rights are being automatically negated by the assumption that they do not exist, as they do not belong to an actually existing entity.  Which they should be, if that is indeed the case.  I see you skipped right over the question of where life, and therefore, the right to life, begins.
Where does it begin?  OK, so you can't be sure?  Then where ARE you sure?  Pick a point.  It's ok if it's just an opinion and you can't be sure.  Where would you personally say there is no doubt that a second set of rights are on the table and must not be infringed upon?

[Polpolion]

Didn't we already have a xbawks hueg discussion about that a while back and it essentially boiled down to abortion as we know it not actually terminating a sentient being?

[jr2]

Dunno, I avoided that discussion.

Anyways, 'abortion as we know it'

Which is?  1st, 2nd trimester?

When does the being become sentient?  Based on what evidence of sentience?

How much of a margin of error are you giving this avoidance?

Again, I'm asking for off-the-cuff answers, and off-the cuff reasons.

[Polpolion]

let me rephrase my post for you: go look it up

[The E]

If you have the capability of re-thinking your entire decision structure from the standpoint of someone who sees abortion as ending a life, then what would you say?

I would say the exact same thing. Ultimately, the decision of whether or not to have an abortion is not mine to make. I would certainly hope that my partner would include me in the decision-making process, but neither would I try to force my viewpoint on her, nor would I abandon her after the decision has been made. If that sounds like dodging the decision, it kinda is. Because I have no ****ing right whatsoever to dictate to a woman what she may or may not do with her body, and as such refuse to be dragged into moralistic arguments made by people who are (ultimately) not ****ing relevant to the discussion.

As for the question when an abortion would become legally problematic: Never. As far as I am concerned, it is only after birth that a human life exists independent of the mother.

Again, I'm asking for off-the-cuff answers, and off-the cuff reasons.

You will get the answers you get. You will not dictate to us the the tools we use to debate with you.
Of course, that's assuming you are at all interested in a debate (as in, a process by which through the applications of arguments and counterarguments the opinions of the participants are laid bare, tested, and modified), and not just here to play the "imma christian and i'm right" song.

[Polpolion]

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding jr2 or not, because he's definitely arguing that the woman's body is only half the story when there's a foetus crammed in there. Continuing to ignore what he's talking about in the hopes that he'll just decide to switch sides about isn't going to move this discussion anywhere. Not that I'm one to talk since I ignored half his posts in this thread.

edit: oh I just saw what you edited in, nm sorry

[The E]

Well, I do disagree with his notion that a foetus is a human being from the moment of conception forward. In all cases, I value the life of the mother higher than that of the foetus; and if a mother is unable to care adequately for a child due to economic or personal reasons, she should be able to abort the pregnancy without fear of being criminalized for doing so. In other words, I'd rather have no child at all than an unwanted one.

Also, and this is the big elephant in the room for me, as a man I am ultimately insulated from the decision because women are the only ones who have to make it and who will have to deal with more direct consequences. I can pontificate all day about how abortion is a sin, a crime, a perversion of medicine, but I will never have to actually make a decision about it.
I am also deeply distrustful of people like jr2 who, on one hand, rant on and on about how evil and wasteful and intrusive government is, but who see nothing wrong with using government to enforce parts of their worldview on others.

[Dragon]

Maybe before focusing on the issue of terminating a barely sentient foetus for medically justified reasons, we should focus on an issue of terminating fully sentient, adult humans to get their resources.
OK, it's a hyperbole. Some abortions are performed for nonmedical reasons and resources aren't the only reason for the ongoing conflicts, but I think that wars should take precedence over the abortion debate. At least, there's a general consensus a war is a bad (and expensive) thing. I don't think changes in abortion policy would affect the budget nearly as much as changes to military policy. Which brings us to another problem, the economy, which is currently in a sorry state. Solve the critical problems, and you can debate about less important ones. Also, no religious arguments please, science and logic only. Religion shouldn't mix with politics because historically, hardly anything good ever came out of it.

[Mikes]

I believe it is taking a human life.

But does your belief allow you, or others who believe the same thing, to impose your interpretation on others? Does your simplistic interpretation of the legal situation cover all possible situations under which a woman might need to consider aborting a pregnancy? Do you, as a male, have any authority whatsoever to dictate to a woman what she may or may not do solely because of your morality (Yes, in a normal relationship, the partner sure has a right to voice his opinions, he does not, however, have a right to impose his will on his partner)?

The point is, you are perfectly free to disagree with people who want to have abortions perform. However, your right to disagree ends at that disagreement, you do NOT have the moral right to forcefully intervene when someone has made a decision to abort a pregnancy. You especially do not have the moral right to force others to follow your morality.

That's all well and good from your standpoint.  If you have the capability of re-thinking your entire decision structure from the standpoint of someone who sees abortion as ending a life, then what would you say?  In that case, there is a another set of rights at stake, and that would be the rights of the life that is up for termination.  Basically what is happening, is those rights are being automatically negated by the assumption that they do not exist, as they do not belong to an actually existing entity.  Which they should be, if that is indeed the case.  I see you skipped right over the question of where life, and therefore, the right to life, begins.
Where does it begin?  OK, so you can't be sure?  Then where ARE you sure?  Pick a point.  It's ok if it's just an opinion and you can't be sure.  Where would you personally say there is no doubt that a second set of rights are on the table and must not be infringed upon?

Why not go all the way and fight for the right of every sperm mh? After all it has the potential to create life.... potential that would be wasted if it isn t realized... what about the rights of that potential life huh?

And yes that means you have to stop masturbating.... you mass murderer


Alternatively we could just grow up and expose the whole "be fruitful and prosper" (and program your children according to faith X) gospel for what it is...     

[z64555]

Seeing as this is still a hotly constested topic (the rights to abort a pregnacy), here are my comments:

Abortion is ending a life, that fact is clear.

However, as you might not have noticed elseware, almost all living lifeforms on Earth end the life of some other creature in order to sustain their own life. Herbavores consume the life of plants, Carnivores consume the life of creatures, and Omnivores consume the life of all - just so that they can live another day.

With that in mind, let's comment about the causes behind wanting/needing to go through an abortion:

• The child bearer cannot survive through childbirth
• The child is malformed to a point where it cannot survive through the childbirth
• The parent(s) cannot keep the child alive in the immediate future, due to a number of things (namely lack of resources)
• And, perhaps the most loathsome of causes: the parent(s) do not want the child in the first place

There may be many more causes, but I believe the last two that I listed are the ones that are the centerpoints of the legality/ethics of abortions.

Why not go all the way and fight for the right of every sperm mh? After all it has the potential to create life.... potential that would be wasted if it isn t realized... what about the rights of that potential life huh?

And yes that means you have to stop masturbating.... you mass murderer


Alternatively we could just grow up and expose the whole "be fruitful and prosper" (and program your children according to faith X) gospel for what it is...     

Back when the human population was in the hundreds, I believe such ideals where valid, because unnecessary discharges of sex cells where wasteful in the sense that it did not make full use of the energy and resources that went in to produce them. You have to remember at this time, living was quite hard, and it was man vs. nature for every day, let alone man vs. man when the time came to fight over fertile lands where food and water could be found.

Nowadays, in most "first-world" regions, such ideals are perhaps invalid, because food and water are not as scarce, and the human population is in no immediate danger of mass extinction.

[Mikes]

Back when the human population was in the hundreds, I believe such ideals where valid, because unnecessary discharges of sex cells where wasteful in the sense that it did not make full use of the energy and resources that went in to produce them. You have to remember at this time, living was quite hard, and it was man vs. nature for every day, let alone man vs. man when the time came to fight over fertile lands where food and water could be found.

Nowadays, in most "first-world" regions, such ideals are perhaps invalid, because food and water are not as scarce, and the human population is in no immediate danger of mass extinction.

Which is the whole point. Nowadays there is no logical reason, none, that would justify to take away a woman's choice to create or not to create life.

The logical reasoning is actually rather straightforward...   once a being has the capacity to suffer usually everyone agrees that harming that being is immoral... but a fertilized egg/clump of cells has no more a capacity to suffer than a sperm or an egg cell.

The only reasons against women's choice past this point are twisted/religious ones that usually amount to little else than "*I* know better than you what's best for you... because *I* believe that's what everyone should think!".

(And we know why they are there as well as those reasons are an integral part of the mechanism religions used to propagate themselves throughout the ages: Have many children and raise them to be faithful followers of God ABC so we can send them to slaughter followers of god XYZ  - Rinse and repeat for success...   it's sad how something like that can evolve into tradition that haunts us still today.)

[Dragon]

Good point.
I think that other people have right to do anything they want, as long as they take full responsibility for it and don't interfere in the same right of other people. Somebody might even believe in human sacrifice, as long as he doesn't actually sacrifice anyone. I also don't force anybody to believe what I do, though I am fond of (politely, and using logic of course) poking holes in religious argumentations. I never tried converting anybody to Buddhism (which is the "religion" I currently sort of follow), though I can argument about why I consider it "better" than other religions. My stance on abortion is the same. The woman and the doctor are the only people who have any right to decide whether to perform an abortion, and the doctor should honor his patient's decision unless there are medical reasons for not performing it.

[Mongoose]

Just to play devil's advocate in a topic that can't end any way but horribly, isn't there an opportunity to make a "choice" before the pregnancy even happens in the first place?  And no, I don't just mean abstinence.

[Dragon]

Well, that's how most people do it. However, the methods used are not 100% effective, and pregnancy may still happen, despite the decision. Abortion is 100% effective, but it should be used as a last resort, if only because it's a surgery and thus not exactly easy on the would be mother's body. And of course, there are rape victims or just plain ol' drunken/drugged sex, though in the latter case the woman (and the man too) should know better than to get themselves drunk/drugged to such degree. Perhaps taxing abortion for non-medical reasons for women who weren't raped could help preventing it from becoming too widespread.

[redsniper]

Just to play devil's advocate in a topic that can't end any way but horribly, isn't there an opportunity to make a "choice" before the pregnancy even happens in the first place?  And no, I don't just mean abstinence.

Please don't clarify this. Just let us guess at what else you mean and open yourself up for misinterpretation. I'm sure that will be conducive to a calm and reasonable discussion.

EDIT: but yeah, if we're going for the contraceptive angle here, it doesn't make sense that a woman should have to deal with pregnancy and childbirth just because she's a woman, especially if she's taking reasonable measures to avoid pregnancy in the first place. Yeah, nature isn't fair, but we have the ability to even things out now, so I think it should be okay to do just that.