![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Damn, I missed a lot by not watching last season of The Simpsons! ;-)
Cartoon or poet, I guess the only rebuttal one can offer is to say that they're glad their parents were mean enough to not be as kind as Homer.
Cartoon or poet, I guess the only rebuttal one can offer is to say that they're glad their parents were mean enough to not be as kind as Homer.
You're not a very imaginative thinker if you can't imagine fates worse than death, and you aren't very good at statistics if you think your own experience as an American is normal.
You might have been conscripted, raped, and beaten into becoming a child soldier in the Congo, for instance. Throughout much of human (pre)history, you'd have had a fair chance of dying from infection from some wound inflicted by the villagers 5 miles away.
You might have been conscripted, raped, and beaten into becoming a child soldier in the Congo, for instance. Throughout much of human (pre)history, you'd have had a fair chance of dying from infection from some wound inflicted by the villagers 5 miles away.
those aren't fucking people and you ought to know it.
1. Pregnancy cost - can be almost nothing (additional food & clothing, minimal doctor's visits WITH good insurance) up to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars (high risk pregnancies, needing to take long unpaid leave, etc.)
2. Rearing an unwanted child - depends on how "unwanted". If the kid is bounced around the system for a couple of years (ie. totally unwanted), the cost skyrockets, because they will have learned bad habits from their parents and foster parents, and may need constant supervision to prevent them from hurting themselves or others. On the flip side, private agency adoption is really expensive, so a lot of couples who WANT to adopt can't afford that route and are scared by the risks posed by the foster care system.
3. Giving a child up for adoption - can vary from "adoptive parents pay YOU" to the normal costs of pregnancy & birth; not to mention emotional costs.
2. Rearing an unwanted child - depends on how "unwanted". If the kid is bounced around the system for a couple of years (ie. totally unwanted), the cost skyrockets, because they will have learned bad habits from their parents and foster parents, and may need constant supervision to prevent them from hurting themselves or others. On the flip side, private agency adoption is really expensive, so a lot of couples who WANT to adopt can't afford that route and are scared by the risks posed by the foster care system.
3. Giving a child up for adoption - can vary from "adoptive parents pay YOU" to the normal costs of pregnancy & birth; not to mention emotional costs.
ok, I'm somewhat rested now. Heart disease and heart surgery usually do not involve a choice. You have the surgery, or you die. Hobson's choice at best. Abortion is (in most cases) an elective surgery. You can choose to have the operation, or not. This choice is not an easy choice for most, because there's much more of a weighing of consequences than the person who is given the option of Quadruple bypass or Death.
And as to abortion not being a good thing... well it is and it isn't. It's super fantastic that we have access to it, but it's a crime and a shame that people have to resort to it, when proper education and preventative steps will in most cases make it possible to avoid an operation that can have both physical and emotional side effects. In your analogy, (the one I have a problem with), the same would go for heart surgery. Great that we have access to it as a last resort, but it sucks that people expect it to be a safety net and are either not provided preventative health maintenance advice, or that they refuse to take care with their cardiac health, knowing that if their arteries get too clogged, they can just get the bypass.
I had more thoughts and what all, but we'll probably talk in person about abortion at some point, so I figure I'd save those thoughts till then.
And as to abortion not being a good thing... well it is and it isn't. It's super fantastic that we have access to it, but it's a crime and a shame that people have to resort to it, when proper education and preventative steps will in most cases make it possible to avoid an operation that can have both physical and emotional side effects. In your analogy, (the one I have a problem with), the same would go for heart surgery. Great that we have access to it as a last resort, but it sucks that people expect it to be a safety net and are either not provided preventative health maintenance advice, or that they refuse to take care with their cardiac health, knowing that if their arteries get too clogged, they can just get the bypass.
I had more thoughts and what all, but we'll probably talk in person about abortion at some point, so I figure I'd save those thoughts till then.
I like you, so I won't kill you with my mind powers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
kadath.livejournal.com
2008-02-05 01:41 pm (UTC)(link)
You are totally pulling your statistics out of your butt, but okay, change it to gall bladder surgery. The range of conditions it treats are painful and inconvenient, but rarely lethal. Same for abortion.
No one goes in saying "YES! I GET TO HAVE GALL BLADDER SURGERY!" (okay, maybe a few weirdos) but the existence of the procedure for when it is needed is an unmitigated good.
No one goes in saying "YES! I GET TO HAVE GALL BLADDER SURGERY!" (okay, maybe a few weirdos) but the existence of the procedure for when it is needed is an unmitigated good.
The only thing any of us ought to know is that using invectives & dogma hinders true progress and that it's best to be honest and approach the issue from as many angles as possible: moral, intellectual, social, etc.,
Simply because I and many others, including pro-abortion-choice people, arrive at a non-zero value for the fetus doesn't mean it's due to an defect in any of the above.
Simply because I and many others, including pro-abortion-choice people, arrive at a non-zero value for the fetus doesn't mean it's due to an defect in any of the above.
Weasel. You know a fetus isn't the same thing as a person, yet are deliberately choosing language to distort that dissimilarity. And then, you have the temerity to accuse -me- of semantics.
You read the article... so, you tell me... how many women dead of septic shock is a fetus worth?
You read the article... so, you tell me... how many women dead of septic shock is a fetus worth?
1. The reason why I have tried not to use the word "person" is so as not to invite extraneous connotations (i.e. semantics); if the use of "person" implies which humans have rights, than its use would serve to beg the question in this situation.
2. The quote first posted & that I responded to was not about therapeutic abortions. The main point of me posting was not to debate abortion itself, but to question our reactions to how we think about it, and how people could work together to make "safe, legal, and rare" a reality. If a similar tale of a priest changing a woman's mind about abortion and saving her fetus made the rounds, many of us would probably think *cough* "bullshit" *cough*, while others would make some less-than-kind comments about the lack of moral authority anyone in the church has nowadays. I was merely trying to apply the same eye I would hope to have about the priest's story to this one.
2. The quote first posted & that I responded to was not about therapeutic abortions. The main point of me posting was not to debate abortion itself, but to question our reactions to how we think about it, and how people could work together to make "safe, legal, and rare" a reality. If a similar tale of a priest changing a woman's mind about abortion and saving her fetus made the rounds, many of us would probably think *cough* "bullshit" *cough*, while others would make some less-than-kind comments about the lack of moral authority anyone in the church has nowadays. I was merely trying to apply the same eye I would hope to have about the priest's story to this one.
These and other possibilities would be addressed in the "Risk of Death" & "Quality of Life" parts of the equation.
So you support a woman's right to choose, except you think poor women are too stupid to make these rational analyzes for themselves?
1. You used 'human,' and in so doing played the same semantic game.
2. Priests aid and abet child molestation by supporting an institution which does the same, and have no place in a just society. Had you said 'minister,' I wouldn't be jumping all over you, but you didn't.
2. Priests aid and abet child molestation by supporting an institution which does the same, and have no place in a just society. Had you said 'minister,' I wouldn't be jumping all over you, but you didn't.
1. Human is the standard/scientific English translation of the species name, no semantics. However, if many would still think that human is too loaded a term, then apologies; please use homo sapiens from here on in and retroactively apply it to previous comments.
2. Understood
2. Understood
You could just say 'fetus' and leave the species understood. You didn't.
I'm a metaphysical naturalist. It gets as much respect as it has nerves. I'm willing to grant that a newborn baby (or 8-month developed fetus) gets additional consideration on account of the sentiment of the parents... but when we're talking about a mother's decision to abort, shut your word hole and extend to her the presumption she/they is/are capable of making a rational decision.
If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Period.
The burden is on you to prove something interesting with your little questions.
I'm a metaphysical naturalist. It gets as much respect as it has nerves. I'm willing to grant that a newborn baby (or 8-month developed fetus) gets additional consideration on account of the sentiment of the parents... but when we're talking about a mother's decision to abort, shut your word hole and extend to her the presumption she/they is/are capable of making a rational decision.
If you don't like abortions, don't have one. Period.
The burden is on you to prove something interesting with your little questions.
If you're addressing the immediately previous comment, then I'm at a total loss to understand your comment.
However, if your referring to the tone of the entire conversation, I can see what your saying (though I must say your interpretation is off). Many here (not just me) have only been talking about this in terms of outside pressures (money, social justice, violence, etc.,), as if the people involved were not active moral agents.
I think this was done so as to focus on what could be changed to better the situation for those who wish it were different; if someone would get an abortion no matter what, then there is probably little that increased assistance, etc., would do to change that.
However, if your referring to the tone of the entire conversation, I can see what your saying (though I must say your interpretation is off). Many here (not just me) have only been talking about this in terms of outside pressures (money, social justice, violence, etc.,), as if the people involved were not active moral agents.
I think this was done so as to focus on what could be changed to better the situation for those who wish it were different; if someone would get an abortion no matter what, then there is probably little that increased assistance, etc., would do to change that.
Actually, now that I think about it, the article itself seemed to set the tone (that of lack of agency) for the resulting conversations; it makes it seem as if only the doctor could do anything to help those involved.
You seem convinced that having an abortion isn't the most moral thing that a parent could decide to do under these circumstances.
If you dislike abortions, and feel 'a little increased assistance' would have an impact, employ your own 'moral agency' to alleviate poverty.
Until you've defeated poverty, though, keep your trap shut about even -suggesting- this is an immoral decision without some evidence. Argument in the absence of evidence belies your claim to rationalism... especially when it is in line with your religious upbrining.
Meanwhile, your fellow anti-abortionists are still shooting doctors.
If you dislike abortions, and feel 'a little increased assistance' would have an impact, employ your own 'moral agency' to alleviate poverty.
Until you've defeated poverty, though, keep your trap shut about even -suggesting- this is an immoral decision without some evidence. Argument in the absence of evidence belies your claim to rationalism... especially when it is in line with your religious upbrining.
Meanwhile, your fellow anti-abortionists are still shooting doctors.
I made it a goal to not to presume what anyone thinks about such issues within this conversation; I have heard several times a denial of species when discussing abortion, so the use of "human" seemed both necessary and honest (again, if that was a problem, a re-reading with the latin equivalent should clear up any issues).
Again, the point of my post was not to talk about the morality of abortion itself (I would not try to use![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
etherial's LJ to make such an unrelated post; apologies to him if such occurred). The point was that the story was interesting to me because it seemed that the way we interpret it probably depends on something similar to the calculus I put forth, and then suddenly realizing how making people heroes and villains as relates to the issue might serve to polarize factions and get in the way of assisting those who would seek help.
[As an aside, I'd be interested in learning more about metaphysical naturalism; any good sources? If not, is it very different from (philosophical) materialism? Thanks.]
Again, the point of my post was not to talk about the morality of abortion itself (I would not try to use
etherial's LJ to make such an unrelated post; apologies to him if such occurred). The point was that the story was interesting to me because it seemed that the way we interpret it probably depends on something similar to the calculus I put forth, and then suddenly realizing how making people heroes and villains as relates to the issue might serve to polarize factions and get in the way of assisting those who would seek help.[As an aside, I'd be interested in learning more about metaphysical naturalism; any good sources? If not, is it very different from (philosophical) materialism? Thanks.]
Richard Carrier's book, Sense and Goodness without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism is a form of philosophical materialism, though it differs from historical materialism etc.
It is worth noting I'm displaying insufficient compassion towards [those whose beliefs differ], and so not being a very good spokesperson for the philosophy of life I'm espousing.
Generally, I consider people who shoot doctors to be villains. Your mileage may vary.
It is worth noting I'm displaying insufficient compassion towards [those whose beliefs differ], and so not being a very good spokesperson for the philosophy of life I'm espousing.
Generally, I consider people who shoot doctors to be villains. Your mileage may vary.
The idea of having society work together to keep abortions "safe, legal, and rare" is in the platform of the DNC; I assumed that since it represents a sizeable percentage of pro-abortion-choice Americans, it would not be associated with me personally.
As for the agency & moral choice part, I will attempt to re-phrase previous statements to be clearer: if people are in a situation where they feel that if they don't get an abortion, then they will suffer tremendously, we ought to do something as a society to help (i.e. I think we should be concerned that such apparently violent brothers are free to exercise such control over the sister and her boyfriend). As evidenced by earlier posts here, I would certainly agree that social justice dictates that alleviating poverty is a concern, and add that this is a top priority and most other issues will be difficult, if not impossible, to resolve until such is done.
As for the agency & moral choice part, I will attempt to re-phrase previous statements to be clearer: if people are in a situation where they feel that if they don't get an abortion, then they will suffer tremendously, we ought to do something as a society to help (i.e. I think we should be concerned that such apparently violent brothers are free to exercise such control over the sister and her boyfriend). As evidenced by earlier posts here, I would certainly agree that social justice dictates that alleviating poverty is a concern, and add that this is a top priority and most other issues will be difficult, if not impossible, to resolve until such is done.
That the DNC should waffle on such a key issue is no surprise to me. If you had me figured for a Democrat, you should note the icon ("CNT FAI" may help with googling.)
Nobody needs to "work to keep it rare", and supporting capitalism/business at one end and "reducing poverty" (if we're to take the most charitable interpretation of that poor choice of phrasing) is deeply hypocritical.
If real work to reduce poverty has the consequence that there are fewer abortions... and rest assured, rich white women have their share of abortions... so be it, but it should be an end unto itself.
As far as I'm concerned, so long as it has a brain less complex than a cat I need feel no more sorry for it than a stray cat which is put down in a shelter due to overcrowding. The conditions which might motivate one to have one's own pet (or child) put down for wont of the ability to care for it, on the other hand, is different.
Nobody needs to "work to keep it rare", and supporting capitalism/business at one end and "reducing poverty" (if we're to take the most charitable interpretation of that poor choice of phrasing) is deeply hypocritical.
If real work to reduce poverty has the consequence that there are fewer abortions... and rest assured, rich white women have their share of abortions... so be it, but it should be an end unto itself.
As far as I'm concerned, so long as it has a brain less complex than a cat I need feel no more sorry for it than a stray cat which is put down in a shelter due to overcrowding. The conditions which might motivate one to have one's own pet (or child) put down for wont of the ability to care for it, on the other hand, is different.
Thank you for clarifying your P.O.V.; though I didn't figure you particularly were a Democrat, I did assume that others here might be (or at least be sympathetic to the position), so they may still find it appropriate.
I fear that my previous comments about why we may view the article in a certain way just confused the point I was trying to make (if so, please feel free to ignore previous comments and only consider the following). The point I want to make is this:
According to the doctor's article, the reason the patient sought his services was due to the violent, economic, and emotional coercion of others (i.e. threats of the brothers killing the patent's boyfriend & the father disowning the patient). I thought that focus on this aspect of the story (feeling forced to undergo a medical procedure due to the threats of others) was not expressed and might concern others from a social justice P.O.V., regardless of one's positions on abortion.
I fear that my previous comments about why we may view the article in a certain way just confused the point I was trying to make (if so, please feel free to ignore previous comments and only consider the following). The point I want to make is this:
According to the doctor's article, the reason the patient sought his services was due to the violent, economic, and emotional coercion of others (i.e. threats of the brothers killing the patent's boyfriend & the father disowning the patient). I thought that focus on this aspect of the story (feeling forced to undergo a medical procedure due to the threats of others) was not expressed and might concern others from a social justice P.O.V., regardless of one's positions on abortion.
Page 3 of 3