6 ms·

> There's a quote about doing the same thing and expecting different results... It's the definition of insanity. The abortion topic is interesting because we'

• mjevans 9y ago
  It'd be so much easier if as a society we agreed that everyone should have healthcare, and that reproduction should be a choice positively made, instead of the default consequence of sex.
  • kinkrtyavimoodh 9y ago
    While that would help it doesn't 'fix' the issue. Unintended pregnancies will happen and you will need a moral framework to deal with them. There is no avoiding the matter.
    • dcow 9y ago
      I think contraception has gotten quite good. I don't think the edge cases would excessively burden society in a way we'd be unable to manage. I could see a definition of contraception being something that prevents an egg, fertilized or not, from developing. And then we could define abortion as the act of terminating a developing embryo. I imagine if people had universal access to contraception we'd be more socially willing to push the responsibility of using the tools provided (and generally being sexually educated and responsible) back on the individuals involved.
  • dcow 9y ago
    Exactly. There's nothing additional that abortion solves that isn't covered by responsible use of contraception except maybe someone changing their mind or I guess more fairly having their economic situation change such that rearing a child is no longer the socially responsible choice. But I think that's something we're equip to handle via other means (adoption).
    • tryckbarpingvin 9y ago
      Another is medical... some mothers face risk birthing their child and dying, or aborting the child. Deeply traumatized from this myself :(
    • sarah2079 9y ago
      Failure rates for contraception are surprisingly high, even if you are using it responsibility. 1% is common, but that's not even over a person's lifetime, that's PER YEAR. That make lifetime failure rate more like 20%. On top of that some people can't tolerate the most effective hormonal birth control methods methods.
    • gkya 9y ago
      I doubt rapists put on condoms.
  • phkahler 9y ago
    >> reproduction should be a choice positively made, instead of the default consequence of sex. Wait what? Reproduction is the default consequence of sex. That's basic biological fact. You can't legislate that away.
    • Frondo 9y ago
      Reproduction is one consequence of one specific sex act. Hetero vaginal intercourse often doesn't result in procreation, and that's your best shot at it anyway. There isn't really any universal default consequence, just like there isn't a universal sex act. A lot of people enjoy it, some people feel shame, etc. Life is a spectrum.
      • phkahler 9y ago
        I'm not the one who made the statement.
    • __david__ 9y ago
      I believe the grandparent just means free access to birth control. Ie “With our current technology the default state doesn’t have to be pregnancy anymore.” It’s phrased a bit weirdly, I’ll grant you.
    • WaxProlix 9y ago
      You're deliberately misinterpreting what he's saying. Apply that 'logic' to the first clause: Dying of disease or predation alone in a jungle or on a savanah is the default consequence of living. That's biological fact. You can't legislate that away. I know why you picked that latter bit - it makes a cool sound bite. But it's just wrong, and whatever 'biology' imposes on us, we as a society shouldn't look at those loose shackles and say, "yes, this is the way it must always be." ALSO, reproduction is the default consequence of a specific kind of sex under certain conditions, it's not like it's a 100% guarantee. Treating it as such makes you sound like a Texas lawmaker's favorite textbook.
• trhway 9y ago
  Science didn't fail and actually helps a lot here. We know the brain development level of fetus at different stages. As a society we're generally ok with killing fish, reptiles and most of the society is ok with killing mammals. That places abortion cut-off anywhere between 3 and 6 months for the current state of the society moral development. And that is what most of the states have when they aren't dominated by anti-science organizations, ie when it isn't the situation of Catholic Church and Ireland for example. Basically it boils down to what intelligence level we're ok to kill. Those pro-lifers chewing that juicy steak can't be more oxymoronic and hypocritical.
  • dcow 9y ago
    Science has failed to define what a human life is (really what any life is). It has not enumerated the qualities that make us human nor has it established a plausible theory and effective model that allows us to assess the attributes of a developing fetus and declare, "this one is human, this one is still a pile of cells". (And that's not to say it hasn't been helpful in sussing out practical guidelines so far.) I respectfully disagree that terminating the life of a fish/mammal and a 3- or 6-month old human are effectively the same thing. We kill and eat animals because that's how our biology works, and thus it is mostly socially acceptable. We don't allow eating small human fetuses because they're, "basically just a mammal at that stage". There are things that make something decidedly not human, but so far we can't really agree on how to distinguish definitely a human from potentially a human. Until we understand exactly what makes us human, I'm uncomfortable simply sweeping that unknown under the rug, morally.
    • trhway 9y ago
      6 month old isn't a fish. You put words in my mouth. 3 month is about fish equivalent. 6 month is a pretty intelligent mammal and I'm against killing them.
      • dcow 9y ago
        I didn't realize that's what you meant. edited. Sorry for unduly implying anything about your character--that was not my intention. I thought you were just generally grouping fish/mammals with 3-6month old fetus brain development. Regardless it doesn't change my point.
• ajmurmann 9y ago
  I think the abortion discussion is much easier than its made out. I like Peter Singers approach to ethics which sets the goal to be avoiding of suffering. Now the question is easy: at what stage of the pregnancy can the being suffer? The entire abortion conversation is completely ruined by most people wearing glasses colored with existence bias.
  • marcoperaza 9y ago
    If you like Peter Singer's approach so much, then you agree with him that one should be allowed to "abort" babies for a long time after birth as well? No? I guess it's not so easy after all.
    • ajmurmann 9y ago
      Actually I do agree with that as well. Where I'm much more of a bigot is when it comes to the much more obvious issue of how we treat animals. I was a vegetarian for several years but have up on it because I didn't believe it was making a difference. If we had a vote though to ban animal slaughter and especially factory farming I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.
      • marcoperaza 9y ago
        >Actually I do agree with that as well. [...] If we had a vote though to ban animal slaughter and especially factory farming I'd vote for it in a heartbeat. So you're for literally killing babies years after birth, but against killing animals for food. What a time to be alive where such degeneracy is seriously entertained.
        • ajmurmann 9y ago
          It depends on the circumstances. We don't kill animals because we are hungry. We kill animals because we want more enjoyment from food. If you are somewhere starving and it's you it the rabbit, go for it. That's not the common situation though. Euthanasia is a much more complicated topic and I find it bewildering that we are focusing on this discussion on babies. I assume it's out of some notion of protecting the adorable innocence. I think it's important with these topics to try to keep emotions out of it because they just reflect biases we have built in due to evolution. Evolution of course is not your friend. Especially not after you've procreated.
• tasty_freeze 9y ago
  There is a lot to disagree with in your statement. First, you use "murder" incorrectly. Abortion, in the US, is legal, and therefore not murder. Murder is defined as an illegal killing. That is why when someone is given the death penalty, they are said to be killed, not murdered. We say soldiers kill the enemy, not murder the enemy. By using "murder" you are adopting the conflation that anti-abortion activists have been (apparently) successful in promoting. Second, nobody doubts that a zygote is alive. Nearly every cell in your body is alive (barring hair, nails, upper layers of skin, recently recycled cells), including sperm and eggs. When an egg and a sperm fuse, the result is also alive. The question is whether the rights of the zygote->blastula->fetus->baby trump the rights of the woman who is carrying it. Obviously, by the time it becomes a baby, the baby's rights trump the desires of the woman carrying it, in general -- everybody agrees on that. Some people conceive (pun not intended) of the fertilized egg as being fully human, something God ordained and which is the vessel for a soul which has been waiting for that very zygote, and by aborting it, one is subverting God's will and destroying the intended future destiny of that soul. Others don't share that belief. There is certainly no bright line dividing when that fetus is developed enough that its rights are superior to that of its mother, and deciding where to place that light should not be taken lightly and will cause discomfort. But we deal with such things all the time. It is legal to drive 45 MPH on the street near my house, but not 46. Yes it is somewhat arbitrary but not unreasonable either. That we have to make an uneasy boundary somewhere on the continuum isn't reason to declare that the speed limit should be zero, or that there should be no speed limit at all. It should also be noted that at the time Roe v Wade was decided, Protestants and even evangelical Protestants by and large were not bothered by the decision. Catholics were, of course. It wasn't until the rise of the Moral Majority that the issue became objectionable to so many religious groups.
  • gscott 9y ago
    And to further take this off topic I would like to mention that every church I have been to (mostly Methodist) never even talk about abortion. It just never comes up. Abortion right to life seems to be a favorite topic of some politicians and liberal commentators trying to ostracize Christians.
• snakeanus 9y ago
  I think that the abortion answer is quite simple: let it be legal as long as the mother agrees to remove her womb afterwards.