@ReverendTed
I will try to be brief, because I can’t wait for the “we solved abortion” party, and because @kymbos has made me self-conscious '. There is much to be said on the subject of your tangent, but I will keep it at this:

a) nothing is “extra-physical” (or meta-physical, or supernatural, etc.)
b) consciousness is subordinate to cognition and the treatment of sensory input, as even your illustration of consciousness testifies (see also: how blind-from-birth people dream)

A brain which has never received/treated sensory input is nothing more than a muscle-regulator. I am very grateful to @Tojja for linking the Sagan piece, because I now have a great mind backing my own intuitions.


Now back to the problem of regulating/prohibiting abortion. I take your lack of response to my rebuttal of the adoption “solution” as your agreeing with me (tell me if I’m wrong), in which case it illustrates what I argued concerning the lack of pragmatism on the pro-life side. Because let’s face it, the following are constants:

a) people will have sex, sometimes leading to unwanted pregnancy
b) people will want/need abortions, whether legal or not
c) criminalising abortion (be it on the doctor’s or the woman’s side) results in risky practices, especially by the most at risk (poor/uneducated)
d) putting all would-have-been-aborteds up for adoption is abhorrent and absurd

So what to do about it?

I notice that your argumentation goes back to the whole “potential” shtick, including the emotionally manipulative retroprojection of human individuality on a ball of cells in the example of how pro-lifers think. Sagan argues against the whole “potential” thing better than I do, so I’ll leave it at that, but I do take issue with the “good comes from bad” argument. Yes, undesired kids can grow to have great lives, just as the contrary can happen. But in a case opposing an individual who is and one who might be (but is not yet), it is the former’s choice that takes precedence (yes, we’re pro-choice, not pro-abortion or abortion-tolerant). Don’t forget, many unexpected pregnancies end in chosen births, not abortions. The important thing is not whether it is unexpected, but whether or not it is undesired. It is the choice of the woman, usually based on reflexion on what would her and the eventual child’s quality of life be like, to let what is at that stage only potential become an actual human individual.

Do you ever miss what you were like before you existed? That nothingness before life and after death is all an aborted foetus ever gets, because it never reaches the stage of cognition that allows for consciousness and thus for identity. As an aside, I must admit I found your comparison between the pro-life stance and the It Gets Better campaign rather crude, insensitive and not well-thought-through at all. I’ll let you figure out why. As for eugenics, that is another debate entirely, whose crux is not “can a woman chose to pursue/terminate a pregnancy” but instead “can (a) parent(s) chose to pursue/terminate a pregnancy based on discriminatory criteria”. The difference should be easy to spot.

_{We seem to agree on humanitarian aid, so high-fives all round}

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Deep down, (despite all evidence to the contrary) I guess I'd like to believe that people inherently want to behave in a moral fashion. I would hope that choosing to have an abortion is a hard decision reached after a lot of soul searching, but I cannot say that a third party should sit in judgement of that womans decision.I would hope that turning to crime to support one's family would be a hard decision reached after a lot of soul searching (again, analogies tend to be fragile), but if we can establish that an act is inherently "wrong", then judgement is wholly appropriate. That said, I don't really like the use of "judgement" here. I prefer to consider this an issue of limiting and discouraging access to abortion rather than punishment or judgement for choosing it.>> ^ChaosEngine:
If there circumstances (economic, political, social) that in some way encourage abortion, we should look at changing those.I agree wholeheartedly. Even if we could snap our fingers and unwanted pregnancies couldn't occur, or abortion were impossible, the work would not be done.

@ReverendTed
Many issues to address here, but first, some clarifications. My analogies (wonky as they are) were to point out the immorality of the “you’ve got to live with the consequences” stance, they were not about who’s harmed. But speaking of harm, it would be more ethical to let the two analogical characters “suck it up” than to demand of a woman she bring an unwanted pregnancy to term. In the first cases, there is only one victim, but in the latter there are two. When I say abortion is “punishment enough”, what I mean is that it is already a disagreeable outcome of mistake-making/poor-choice-making, while obliging a woman to give birth to (and raise) an unwanted child not only negatively affects the mother’s life, but that of the child as well; it is a disproportionate price to pay for the former and completely unfair for the latter. Hence, imo, abortion is by far the lesser of two “evils”.

Adoption instead of abortion is “a non-solution and worse” for several reasons. First, there are already more than enough children already alive who need parents, and you know very well that most people prefer making their own than adopting, so many of these will never have a family (not to mention the often inferior care-giving in foster homes and social centres). Now imagine that every abortion is replaced with a child given up for adoption; can you not see the horror? It’s that many more neglected lives, not to mention the overall problem of overpopulation.

I’m going to go on a slight tangent, but a relevant one. I have a certain amount of experience with humanitarian aid in Africa, and one thing that causes me no end of despair is the idiotic, selfish way much of it is performed. Leaving aside corruption, proselytization, etc., the “West” pours food and medicine into Africa with that whole “life is sacred” “feed the poor” mentality – good intentions of course – but with disastrous results because education and contraception (not to mention abortion) are almost always left out, even discouraged, with the support of the usual religious suspects (remember the pope on condoms causing aids?). The result is simple, and simply appalling: despite aid and funds increasing globally every year, starvation and child mortality continue to rise. Why? Because the people being barely maintained keep making kids who grow up to starve and die in turn, instead of focusing on the education of one or two children to get them out of the vicious cycle (there is another argument to be made about the education of women, but I’m ranting enough as is).

The point of this digression is to show that the non-pragmatic “all life is sacred” stance is terribly counter-productive, and the same holds for abortion (viz: on adoption above). As for lack of pragmatism, the same goes for your comment on abstinence:
I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.
What you’re saying basically is “people shouldn’t have sex unless they’re ready for childbearing/-raising”, which is absurd when one considers human nature and human relations.

All of the above arguments weigh into the question of the “ball of cells” vs “human being/identity”. The “sacred life” stance is one of quantity over quality, and in the long run devalues human life altogether. To quote Isaac Asimov on overpopulation: “The more people there are the less one individual matters”. In the abortion debate, what we have is one side so intent on protecting the abstract “life” that they disregard the lives of the two individuals in question, namely the “individual who is” (the mother) and the “individual who might be” (the child). The former is already a human individual, with memories, relationships, a personality, etc. The latter is not. The abortion question takes into account the future quality of life not only of the mother but of the would-be child as well, something the anti-abortion stance does not. Abortion doesn’t end an individual’s life, it prevents a ball of cells from becoming one. Here is where the religious aspect is crucial, because while embryologists see a complex mass of cells with no capacity for cognition/sensation, superstitious people assign an individual “consciousness” or “soul” to it, thus making abortion feel like murder instead of like the removal of a tumour. The question of potential is an emotionally manipulative one that does not hold up to criticism, because as @packo sarcastically (and the Monty Python brilliantly ) point out, you can go a long ways up the stream of potential.

I like the first half of @gorillaman’s tomato analogy for that reason (the second half is hyperbolic absurdity), that it underlines what is important in the debate: the living “thing”’s capacity for sensation/cognition/interaction. If you grew up with a tumour on your body which giggled when you tickled it and cried when you hit it, you would probably think twice before getting rid of it. That does not mean I’m categorically against late-term abortions, but for me the scale seriously tips between the 20-25th weeks when the nervous system of the foetus centralises. Of course, it is preferable that should an abortion take place it would be before the foetal stage, for the sake of medical and psychological comfort, but unfortunately one cannot always know so soon that one is pregnant.

@hpqp
Sadly, I think you're spot-on about the other failing of the firearm analogy; some people are just itching for an opportunity to shoot someone. And yes, some of those people will try to raise children in their image.

In my view, my answer to "The Big Question" is "Only before implantation, if at all. Because I know that a child is demonstrably human well prior to delivery, and tracing back I cannot rationally distinguish a point where the line is crossed after implantation. I would rather err on the side of caution when human life is involved." In light of this, it should be obvious why I am opposed to even early abortion. I'm curious about your almost offhand dismissal of adoption as a non-solution and "worse". It sounds like this is a topic you have discussed previously at length. To me, even a grievously flawed system of adoption is preferable to abortion.
I do think you raise a potent point with respect to sex through coercion as distinguished from rape.
Even so, I do not see carrying and delivering a child to be "punishment". It is a substantial burden, to be sure, but in my perspective the alternative is abhorrent to the point as to be unacceptable.

I think analogies in general fail when discussing abortion because it is such a unique situation.
Note: In discussing your analogies, I'm going to use the term "kill" with respect to abortion. Going back to "the Big Question", whether or not this is an accurate term is probably going to depend on your perspective relative to the wad of cells we term a fetus. (Which I see you're searching for.)
The helmet analogy fails because efforts to save the life of the helmet-shunner do not necessarily harm someone else as directly as in abortion. You can find harm, sure: saving feckless may divert resources from saving the life of burning-nun-bus-rescue-hero, but you aren't necessarily killing someone else to save him.
Same for the STDs. Treating an STD kills bacteria, or uses up anti-viral medication, but there's no direct harm to another individual in the process. For me, living with the consequences of getting an STD means living with one of the incurable ones or living with a curable one until it gets managed, and dealing with the social stigma of informing other partners of your status.

I disagree with the assessment that the procedure is "punishment enough", primarily because I don't think that punishment is due. Again, it's not a woman's "fault" that she's pregnant, and sex is not some grievous crime to be prosecuted. Sex is a wonderful experience that can be a carnal pleasure, an act of intimacy, or both, but one that carries consequences. The initiation of a new human life is a possible outcome. (Yes, the procedure is unpleasant, often painful, and some women will experience regret or other emotional disturbances afterwards, but those are, again, possible consequences of a choice.)

I agree wholeheartedly that more education is essential. Increased access to contraceptives (and hopefully more effective contraceptives) will (almost) certainly lessen the incidence of unwanted pregnancies. I appreciate that "don't have sex if you can't accept being pregnant" is not a magical incantation that makes people not have sex, but it has to be a part of it, because no method of contraception is 100% effective, even if used correctly.

I look forward to your followup on the "ball of cells" issue.

The difference between religion and science is that science updates its knowledge based on evidence. That's how we make fun of religion: pointing out they do not update their knowledge based on evidence. Your question is about why we make fun of religion. The answer is that for a set of knowledge that is contradicted by evidence, we believe religion has undue influence, and we seek to reduce that influence. One example is that abstinence-only education programs correlate with rises in sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Abstinence-only education is religiously motivated. Science would recommend giving people condoms and educating them on how to use them, reducing both unwanted pregnancies and STIs.

People can read and believe whatever they want. When it starts to matter is when people who believe false things gain real political power and create laws that harm people based on the false information. Another's right to act on their faith ends when it begins to unduly affect the lives of others.>> ^dirkdeagler7:

Some nice hidden gems in there, like the doors reference
I do think that poking fun at the bible, and the old testament for that matter are seen as more clever than I feel they really are. I mean religious people could make endless videos about some of the most brilliant men in history PROVING to the world something that we now know to be not quite right, and then using them to make the point that science changes its mind and has inconsistency too (is matter points or waves people?)...but what would be the point?
Harping on the lack of logic in a book written by and for people in antiquity is a waste of time, even if the book was divinely inspired why assume that it would be any different than all the other books/literature at that time? If a prophet spouted off things about big bangs and everything being made up of tiny dots that sometimes acted like waves back then...he would have been laughed at or burned!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:

http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secretary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate

All of this is far left.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing.

Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.

Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true.

They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/obamas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

I think I've shown otherwise..

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.

>> ^heropsycho:

His recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage?!

What exactly did he do that thwart religious freedoms?! Nothing. Unless you're seriously bringing up the fact that he's requiring all health care plans to cover birth control, even those of religious institutions. First off, if that's the worst thing he's done with religious freedom, you have a long ways to go before you can claim that's extreme. Religious institutions claim they don't want their money paying for something they don't believe in. But since income taxes collected from their employees go to pay for wars, they really don't have a leg to stand on. Everyone pays for things they don't like. And it sets an absurd precedent. What if a religious institution objected to paying at least minimum wage for paid workers? Not to mention birth control is used for more than preventing unwanted pregnancies.

What did he do in respect to abortion recently? Nothing. Saying you're in favor of federal funding of Planned Parenthood doesn't make you an abortion lover. The absurdly overwhelming majority of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. The political right would like you to think otherwise, of course, but it's simply not true. A truly radical stance to the left on abortions is pushing for a federal law to provide anyone who wants an abortion to get them for free, and at any time during the pregnancy. Something closer to that line than "I want to continue to provide funding for an organization that spends 99% of its budget on other things than abortion. BTW, this is an organization that was also funded by the Republican presidential administration AND a GOP dominated Congress. In fact, it's received funding since 1970."

What did he do in respect to gay marriage POLICYWISE? Absolutely NOTHING. He acknowledged he believes that gays should be able to get married, but then in the very same interview reiterated he believed it was a states' rights issue. IE, he would not pursue to legalize it across the US. No federal law, no constitutional amendment, NOTHING. Talk about a moderate political stance! "I just want to say I think gay people should be able to get married... but I'm not proposing any changes to any existing laws." Yes, it is symbolically important, but he didn't do anything policywise at all, none, nothing, nada. Translation: you think it's radical to even suggest it's one's personal view that there's nothing wrong with gay people getting married. I don't care if you're anti-gay marriage, which you clearly are. Radical would be favoring a constitutional amendment or even federal legislation to legalize gay marriage.

This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Let's paint Obama as a radical on issues he's absolutely not extreme about. Let's have a false debate about what Obama stands for.

You have no idea what Obama will do in his second term because he won't be accountable? You've got to be kidding me. Then you better not favor any incumbent president. Not to mention it's being completely oblivious to the fact that the GOP is hell bent on gridlock anyway. Even if he wanted to go extreme left, he won't have a super-majority in the Senate, and it's highly unlikely he'll have control of the House.

Let's his minions do his dirty work for him?! So you're suggesting that he lets others push to the far left on his behalf, so he looks to be moderate when he's really not. Fine, explain Obamacare. The hard left wanted Single Payer or Government Option. Obama summarily dismissed both of them, and backed what became Obamacare. Explain how that happens.

Does he draw strength from a radical liberal element in his party? OF COURSE. EVERY PRESIDENT has used fervor from the extreme elements within their party to get elected, and to help push through policies. Every single one of them. That doesn't make them extremists, or every president has been a radical. Mitt Romney CLEARLY is attempting to co-op Tea Party hard right elements to gain an edge to win the presidency. But to say Romney is an extremist is a clear and obvious lie. He's not Ron Paul. He's not Rick Santorum. Similarly, Obama is not Sanders, or Dennis Kucinich. If you can't see that, you're blinding yourself through your ideology, or you're not being honest.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Not some , most . Obama governs mostly to the center-left, except for his recent forays into religious freedoms, abortion, and gay marriage. He lets his minions do his dirty work for him.
I agree, this happens all the time. It is the lens through which everyone seems to understand politics. I just don't think anyone really knows what makes Obama tick, and certainly not what he plans to do in his second term, when he is no long accountable. He is not a traditional democrat, certainly.

@lantern53 is your head just an empty vessel that's been filled with right-wing hate radio?

First, it's contraception we're talking about, not abortion.

Second, the left doesn't like death of any kind. No death penalty, no war, no denying heath care to people because they're poor.

Third, I want to reduce abortions as much as possible by reducing unwanted pregnancies by making sure everyone of all ages, genders, and incomes has access to contraceptives.

And finally, I have a question for you. How do you reconcile all that BS about being opposed to government coming between you and your doctor, when you want the government to come between women and their doctors anytime they get pregnant?

@Lawdeedaw I mostly stopped by this thread to respond to the admonition to vote Republican/Ron Paul, so I'm really not terribly excited about how you're turning this into some sort of debate about abortion, and worse, are trying to conflate the pro-choice position on abortion with being callous about miscarriages.

A "straw man attack" is just the snooty way of saying "you're putting words in my mouth." Being pro choice myself, I can definitely say there's nothing about the belief that means you should be rude to people with miscarriages and call them morons if they get upset. Maybe amazing atheist is an asshole like that, but it's not something he said, and if he did believe that, it's something he believes, not everyone who's pro-choice.

The pro-choice position is that foetuses are at some point just a smear of cells and not people. We don't know when the transition occurs, but we know it's not instantly. We also think that the mother should get the final say on what's happening inside her body, not the government.

We aren't callous uncaring people. We don't want abortions to happen. We just think the best way to reduce them is to avoid the unwanted pregnancies that lead to them. On the question of abortion itself, we think we should leave the option of abortion safe and legal for the women who still do decide to go that route, because illegality won't stop them if they're determined to go through with it, and because it's not our right to intercede in such a personal matter.

As atheist's overall point concludes, we're the ones who're in favor of "liberty" here, not Ron Paul.

You know it's funny--when I argue with highly intellectual individuals I always use "straw-man attacks" or am "wrong." In fact, as of today, I have never once noted something worthwhile that contrasted an intellectual's opinion. From now on when I hear the term straw-man I am just going to just assume there is no response and that the straw-man argument is itself a straw-man argument/attack.,

You're the one who chose to focus on the throwaway line about that video, and then focus in on just the part of my response where I said it was a straw man attack, while ignoring almost everything else I said in my last two responses.

You're also the person who made the straw man attack...

Here's the easy fix. Instead of saying some form of "he's saying that women are stupid for getting upset about miscarriages", try saying "if they're just a lump of cells, doesn't that mean it'd be stupid for women who have miscarriages to get upset?"

The answer would still be "No, there's every reason to be upset about a miscarriage because of the loss of the potential that they had every intention of fulfilling, and there's even plenty of reason to be upset about that loss of potential when they have an abortion done, it's just that there's no particular reason why state authorities should be intervening as if a person died or was killed." But at least that way you aren't accusing him of saying something he didn't say, you're just raising a possible problem with what he did say.

I can't speak for other intellectuals you've spoken with, but in our conversations you've contrasted with what I said the overwhelming majority of the time. I only call it a straw man argument when the argument someone's leveling at me centers on saying I believe X, when I vehemently disagree with X.

How does Perry think all these people got here. It is because people like sex and at some point abstinence breaks down for nearly everyone. Lets face it sex feels very good where abstinence is like an painful charlie horse in the jewels. Religious thoughts are out the window when it gets heated. A lot of humans on this planet are evidence of this.

The only way to truly prevent unwanted pregnancy is to give young people all the knowledge and tools we can regarding sex.

On the subject of citizens paying for abortion: so it's okay to spend trillions of tax dollars on actually killing people, but god forbid a few dollars go to the safety and wellbeing of women with unintended/unwanted pregnancies? WTF America???

"But I guess what I'm saying is, if you're going to make that judgment and you're going to take it to the next level and try to interfere in other peoples' lives and force them bear children they don't want and care for them for the next 18 years, then the burden of proof is on you to show that your judgment is indeed the correct one."

Why is the burden of proof on pro-lifers for this one? If a fetus is a person before it is born, abortions "interfere" with other peoples' lives at least as much as forcing someone to undergo an unwanted pregnancy. It's just as defensible to say the pro-choice side should have to prove a fetus is not a person before they strip it of all of its rights by killing it.

i posted a sift talk about this after i attended a planned parenthood rally a while back. there are some who, as individuals, view the debate as life and death. i understand that. and i respect it. if i thought that was actually what the pro-life movement was about, i might be behind it. like sdxgundam, i also oppose abortion on moral grounds. but a pro-life movement must be 100% pro-life. at every stage of life. and i haven't seen evidence that it is.

it's not about that though. the movement as a whole and the powerful men in legislative positions or behind an alter that stoke the fires of the pro-life movement seek one thing, control. it's about controlling women and their sexuality. because history has been sooo very very threatened by female sexual power.

it's about distraction because if you can have one group yelling at the other group about something so passionately, that on the grand scale of global issues doesn't really even weigh in.. then you can keep them from yelling about the mass murder and theft that is committed every single day.

banning abortion does not save lives. it does not stop unwanted pregnancies. it does end rape or incest or poverty or unprotected sex or hormonal teenagers making impulsive decisions or desperation or suffering or medical emergencies or child abuse or spousal abuse. it doesn't even end abortion.

it pushes to back alley clinics and kitchen tables where unsanitary conditions threaten the lives of both mother and child. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^RFlagg:
And yet Republicans claim that it is the Democrats who want to control how people live their lives and that they are for freedom... despite the Republicans being the party to control who people can marry, want to control woman's rights, they are the party that want to keep the drug war going far more so than the other, they are the ones behind the Patriot Act... about the only right they seem to be ahead of the Democrats on is gun control.

While I most agree with this, nearly completely, those against abortion equate it to murder...something government is most assuredly involved in. I find the debate on abortion good, in a way. One side is valuing life, the other liberty...both of the things that make this union great. I kind of wish people would see it like that instead of each side as the devil.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@NetRunner Which is completely short sided and takes a fraction of variables into account. What if you are aborting the only person that can cure cancer? Consequentialist morality is untenable.


You're getting the hang of it, sort of. That's something an individual contemplating abortion should weigh, I'd say. I think it's a wash because there's as much chance that the child would be some sort of savior of humanity as it would be a new Hitler, and people who think those are likely outcomes probably aren't mentally fit to make the decision in the first place...

But in any case, that's not a germane argument if you're trying to make a point about what the law should say about abortion in general. It certainly doesn't give you an argument for why you should try to reduce abortion by criminalizing the practice, instead of trying to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies with education and contraception.

As for the idea that this way of looking at morality being untenable, again, I think you need to think about it more (and read Mill's Utilitarianism! ).

Mostly I'm not really sure what kind of moral reasoning you think is superior. Most right-wing people have a deontological view of morality, but then can't quite explain why their rules should be anyone's guide for making moral decisions, much less something that should be implemented as law without any regard to the consequences (and increasingly, implemented without the consent of the governed).

i think there is an overall underlying psychology to the movement as a whole that is about power and control. but i think on an individual level, individual people actually think it is about life and death......... which is the problem with religion, and possibly even political structures and capitalism (thought i haven't thought those two through in depth yet). the over all structure is about maintaining power and control and on the micro level.. people just want to live and love and be good and take care of their families and feel something passionately.

the last rally i went to was about 500 people with 20 or so pro life counter protesters... a few hours into it this mad woman showed up and started screaming at the top of her lungs "ABORTION IS MURDER!!ITS MURDER!!" and then some other insanely gruesome things. which, of course, started a shouting match. so we left. because 1. i didnt want my kids hearing the horrific things she was yelling. and 2. i make it a rule not to argue with the mentally ill... but that woman certainly believed it was about life and death. and i do very much believe she would do what she could to financially support a young a pregnant woman and the child.

i think i love the psychology of societies.



ps. my 5 year old son is sitting on the couch across from me babbling various facts about arthropods. and my daughter was just in the backyard making a daisy chain sort of thing out of lavender, clovers and cucumbers.. chasing our dog through the garden......she just ran inside, locked the front door and said she had to lock it because she saw a snake and got scared. i said "... snakes cant open doors. and you're not afraid of them" and her reply ..."oooh.. i meant a velocipator then"

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I get the feeling that the pro life movement is more anti sex than anti abortion. I can't tell you how many times I've discussed the issue and heard pro lifers characterize young sexually active women as sluts and whores. They talk about motherhood as more of a punishment for promiscuity than a joyous and profound part of the human experience. Usually the slut talk comes out when you get them a little angry.
It's interesting that these beliefs are held by a patriarchal segment of society whom are usually pretty OK with violence, poverty, torture, the death penalty, war, shock and awe, etc. I'm convinced that this seeming conradiction isn't a contradiction at all, because this issue isn't about life, it's about power. More specifically, male power over female sexuality.
Sometimes I ask pro lifers (both genders) if they would be willing to carry a woman's unwanted unborn child for her in order to save its life, assuming technology advanced to a point where it was possible. "No, it's not my responsibility" is the common answer, which supports my gut feeling that this issue is not actually about life. Another argument I use is "would you be willing to financially support a poor pregnant mother?", which also ilicits some telling (read: ugly) responses ("I wouldn't want to give financial incentive to unwed motherhood.") Shifting the responsibility from the mother to the pro-lifer is a good way to get to the subconscious core of these belief systems.
If the pro life movement was a bit more pragmatic, I think they could find some compromise with the pro choice movement, because people on all sides of the issue find abortion tragic and traumatic. I think more restrictive abortion regulation might be accepted in trade for more honest, more effective, more present sex education, counseling and free and easy access to birth control. Abortion is a symptom of unwanted pregnancies. Child abuse and neglect are also symptoms of unwanted pregnancy. What if we combined movements and focused on the root cause? Then again, if I'm correct in my hunch that this issue has more to do with sex and power than life, sex ed and free rubbers would be more offensive than abortion itself.
Good stuff, bea.