Late term abortions (1 Viewer)

[Henry Ford]

Sure, I understand why this issue is vitally important for people like me.  But you're in favor of abortion rights even when the fetus has reached "person" stage anyway.  It just seems like an irrelevant tangent given that particular position.

I wasn't discussing my position, I was trying to understand someone else's position.

 

[Dedfin]

This point is brought up a lot but I think it’s a lousy argument. It’s true that many social conservatives who are pro-life are also economic conservatives who tend to oppose large government social programs, but that certainly doesn’t mean that they don’t care for the more unfortunate among us; statistics consistently have shown that social conservatives are among the biggest contributors to charity. It’s simply untrue that they don’t care, and it really has no bearing on their arguments against abortion.

Contributing to their church is not contributing to charity. Give me a break. Hey, let me contribute to my golf club and call it that.

 

[timschochet]

Contributing to their church is not contributing to charity. Give me a break. Hey, let me contribute to my golf club and call it that.

You’re really being very antagonistic toward Christian conservatives. Many churches are heavily involved with charity so your analogy is quite silly. 

 

[Dedfin]

You’re really being very antagonistic toward Christian conservatives. Many churches are heavily involved with charity so your analogy is quite silly. 

I'm sure some churches give some money to a charitable cause. Calling that in a sweeping "giving money to charity" phrase is lazy and/or dishonest.

 

[Stealthycat]

I’d say no. I’d prefer them very early in the pregnancy. 

why?   if its not a living unborn what does it matter?

 

[timschochet]

I'm sure some churches give some money to a charitable cause. Calling that in a sweeping "giving money to charity" phrase is lazy and/or dishonest.

It’s neither. On my cell phone and don’t have the exact statistics in front of me, but I know that religious institutions are the biggest contributors to charity in this country beginning with the Catholic Church. Billions every year. 

 

[Dedfin]

It’s neither. On my cell phone and don’t have the exact statistics in front of me, but I know that religious institutions are the biggest contributors to charity in this country beginning with the Catholic Church. Billions every year. 

nah

 

[Tom Skerritt]

It’s neither. On my cell phone and don’t have the exact statistics in front of me, but I know that religious institutions are the biggest contributors to charity in this country beginning with the Catholic Church. Billions every year. 

Also one of the biggest contributors to pedophilia and the subsequent cover-up. And we all seem to be okay with that too. As if charity has anything to do with moral character.

 

[Dedfin]

Also one of the biggest contributors to pedophilia and the subsequent cover-up. And we all seem to be okay with that too. As if charity has anything to do with moral character.

Yeah that giving to charity thing is just a rabbit hole tim apparently likes. We are talking about caring about the baby, which has been demonstrated that some pro-birthers aren't interested in.

 

[NREC34]

why?   if its not a living unborn what does it matter?

Late term because you changed your mind or don’t want the sex it is seems wrong to me. Earlier before the baby could live outside on it’s own does not to me but we still ought to do all we can to prevent those. Easy access to birth control, sex education, etc.

If there is a medical reason to do it late in term I wouldn’t argue with it otherwise give birth and put it up for adoption if you don’t want it. 

There ought to be more of a moderate solution that both sides can live with. 

 

[KCitons]

Yeah that giving to charity thing is just a rabbit hole tim apparently likes. We are talking about caring about the baby, which has been demonstrated that some pro-birthers aren't interested in.

At least you corrected yourself this time. 

 

[KCitons]

Also one of the biggest contributors to pedophilia and the subsequent cover-up. And we all seem to be okay with that too. As if charity has anything to do with moral character.

You're assuming that Catholics are okay with this. 

 

[Henry Ford]

You’re really being very antagonistic toward Christian conservatives. Many churches are heavily involved with charity so your analogy is quite silly. 

What percentage of money given to church do you believe goes toward charity?

Edit: for instance, if people gave the $115 billion they give to American churches to the Red Cross, instead, budget expenditure numbers we know from the Red Cross would indicate that about $104 billion of that would go to directly address the needs of those it helps.

For churches, how much of that $115 billion would you say goes to directly address the needs of people who need help?

 

[Dedfin]

At least you corrected yourself this time. 

Some as in 93%

 

[KCitons]

What percentage of money given to church do you believe goes toward charity?

Not as much as they could. But it's not more because they spend on things that are unnecessary, not because they don't want to help.

The same could be said of most people. How much do they give to charity? How much could they give to charity? 

 

[shader]

Yeah. The  part is that the moment the baby is born the same people don't care what happens to it.

That’s irrelevant to the issue of abortion 

 

[Stealthycat]

Late term because you changed your mind or don’t want the sex it is seems wrong to me. Earlier before the baby could live outside on it’s own does not to me but we still ought to do all we can to prevent those.

Easy access to birth control, sex education, etc.

If there is a medical reason to do it late in term I wouldn’t argue with it otherwise give birth and put it up for adoption if you don’t want it. 

There ought to be more of a moderate solution that both sides can live with. 

but why ?   why is the life any more or less valuable because of a simple reason or another?   

I have the moderate solution - rape, incest, medical reason only abortions allowed and you better be able to prove them ........ and we've just ended 95% of abortions, 850,000 unborn lives saved every year

notice it was all words "baby" ?  it wasn't "fetus" that was used

thing is, 20 minutes before she could have had a doctor kill the baby and end the pregnancy legally and everyone would have applauded her choice ..... but in both instances, the unborn baby dies. 

https://nypost.com/2019/02/03/pregnant-woman-stabbed-to-death-in-queens/

“He’s going to kill the baby!”

"as she pleaded for the life of her unborn child, witnesses and police sources said."

"“He’s got a knife! He’s going to kill the baby!” shouted five-months-pregnant Jennifer Irigoyen "

"A neighbor who only gave her first name, Kristin, said she heard a man and Irigoyen arguing loudly and then the victim “yelling … about wanting to protect her baby.’’"

 

[timschochet]

What percentage of money given to church do you believe goes toward charity?

Edit: for instance, if people gave the $115 billion they give to American churches to the Red Cross, instead, budget expenditure numbers we know from the Red Cross would indicate that about $104 billion of that would go to directly address the needs of those it helps.

For churches, how much of that $115 billion would you say goes to directly address the needs of people who need help?

I have no idea. Obviously not as much as if they give directly. 

I’m really not going to be the best defender of Christian charities. Heck, I’m a liberal atheist. I only got into this sidetrack because I thought the statements that Dedfin was making were pretty sweeping, not accurate, and hostile to Christian conservatives. And I reject the idea that most pro-life people don’t care about babies after they’re born. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

why is the life any more or less valuable because of a simple reason or another? 

This is the right question to ask.

Everybody agrees (except maybe Jainists) that some lives are more or less valuable than others.

But why are some lives more or less valuable than others?

What’s your answer?

 

[Tom Skerritt]

What percentage of money given to church do you believe goes toward charity?

Edit: for instance, if people gave the $115 billion they give to American churches to the Red Cross, instead, budget expenditure numbers we know from the Red Cross would indicate that about $104 billion of that would go to directly address the needs of those it helps.

For churches, how much of that $115 billion would you say goes to directly address the needs of people who need help?

I would guess that $66.6 billion goes to Joel Osteen's compound. The rest goes to hush money payments.

 

[timschochet]

Late term because you changed your mind or don’t want the sex it is seems wrong to me. Earlier before the baby could live outside on it’s own does not to me but we still ought to do all we can to prevent those. Easy access to birth control, sex education, etc.

If there is a medical reason to do it late in term I wouldn’t argue with it otherwise give birth and put it up for adoption if you don’t want it. 

There ought to be more of a moderate solution that both sides can live with. 

It’s always going to be wrong to have an abortion for frivolous reasons. Period. I regard that as immoral and always will. A woman who suddenly decides, in the 3rd trimester, that she doesn’t want to have a baby and will instead undergo a late term abortion, is behaving immorally. (Now personally, I’m not at all convinced that such a creature exists, at least statistically, but if she does exist, she’s behaving badly.) 

But even so it still has to be legal. Because when we make any attempt to have the law involved in questioning the motive of a woman, we are placing too high a restriction on all abortions. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

And I reject the idea that most pro-life people don’t care about babies after they’re born.

Right. Suggestions to the contrary are obviously, demonstrably false.

Making obviously false statements about your opponents is not a great way to convince them that your argument is solid (though it may have some value when preaching to your own choir).

 

[timschochet]

Right. Suggestions to the contrary are obviously, demonstrably false.

Making obviously false statements about your opponents is not a great way to convince them that your argument is solid (though it may have some value when preaching to your own choir).

Not only that, it makes them more extreme (see the election of 2016). 

 

[huthut]

We should have mandatory charity so everyone pays their fair share in helping populations that need assistance that are served by charities. We can call this taxes. Any sort of domestic charity that is performing a useful function is indicative that taxes are too low.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

That’s irrelevant to the issue of abortion 

Actually it is not. The attitudes and policies that result from various positions correlate to abortion rate.   And while it might not be proof, it is not hard to figure out that causation is there also.    

 

[Stealthycat]

Everybody agrees (except maybe Jainists) that some lives are more or less valuable than others.

But why are some lives more or less valuable than others?

What’s your answer?

human life is valuable, innocent human life deserves protection

it doesn't matter if the unborn is missing a bone in their leg and will be crippled for life like my mother was .......... it doesn't matter if the unborn is going to have ALS later in life like Stephen Hawking or that the unborn has dwarfism Peter Dinklage or if the unborn has mental disabilities like Chris Burke or without a hand like Shaquem Griffin ............... or a perfectly normal baby who's mama is 15 and doesn't have time or a baby who's mother doesn't think she can buy diapers ..... every unborn baby's life is valuable. I don't think any of them are less because if I can classify them as such ....... then what keeps me from classifying every person as deserving to live or die?

only exception is death penalty for people who choose to do horrible things and forfeit their own lives ......... that's their choices to make

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

human life is valuable

How about canine life? Feline life? Bacterial life?

What's the principle involved in figuring out how to appropriately place different values on different kinds of lives?

 

[adonis]

human life is valuable

How about canine life? Feline life? Bacterial life?

What's the principle involved in figuring out how to appropriately place different values on different kinds of lives?

Putting in a vote for consciousness as the major determining factor.  Pivot around that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

And I reject the idea that most pro-life people don’t care about babies after they’re born. 

It's easier to dismiss other points of view if you talk yourself into the proposition that the people on the other side are evil and morally reprehensible.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Putting in a vote for consciousness as the major determining factor.  Pivot around that.

To me, this answer seems correct -- though it becomes complicated when considering actual vs. potential consciousness. But working out the details should follow getting the basics right, and I think the basic answer should center around consciousness.

 

[adonis]

Putting in a vote for consciousness as the major determining factor.  Pivot around that.

To me, this answer seems correct -- though it becomes complicated when considering actual vs. potential consciousness. But working out the details should follow getting the basics right, and I think the basic answer is consciousness.

And within the realm of conscious beings, a good framework seems to be to maximize well-being and minimize pain.

For some conscious beings, a life of constant pain and agony would be morally worse than that conscious life never to have existed.  For folks who believe life itself is all that matters, a life of pain and agony, all the time, unrelenting...would have to be the morally better choice than having had that life not exist at all. 

Odd belief, but then again many are as you approach the boundaries.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

For some conscious beings, a life of constant pain and agony would be morally worse than that conscious life never to have existed.

Yes, this is why confined animal feeding operations (factory farms) are morally bad, IMO. They produce lots and lots of lives, but seemingly terrible ones.

 

[adonis]

Yes, this is why confined animal feeding operations (factory farms) are morally bad, IMO.

Such a framework would shift the conversation on abortion to some degree.  Not sure how you'd evaluate an embryo's potential for consciousness, but definitely it would be part of the moral equation.  As would a life that's developing where constant pain and suffering would be a given.  

In such a situation, even a late-term abortion would be morally superior than to give birth and have the child be in agony until death, assuming consciousness went along for the ride.

 

[sn0mm1s]

human life is valuable, innocent human life deserves protection

it doesn't matter if the unborn is missing a bone in their leg and will be crippled for life like my mother was .......... it doesn't matter if the unborn is going to have ALS later in life like Stephen Hawking or that the unborn has dwarfism Peter Dinklage or if the unborn has mental disabilities like Chris Burke or without a hand like Shaquem Griffin ............... or a perfectly normal baby who's mama is 15 and doesn't have time or a baby who's mother doesn't think she can buy diapers ..... every unborn baby's life is valuable. I don't think any of them are less because if I can classify them as such ....... then what keeps me from classifying every person as deserving to live or die?

only exception is death penalty for people who choose to do horrible things and forfeit their own lives ......... that's their choices to make

Meh - this is a slippery slope though because where do you draw the line? There are innocent kids born/raised in horrible situations all the time. However, very few outsiders do anything about it and those that do almost never do so at the detriment to their own well being. I make a choice to spend literal thousands upon thousands of dollars on a home, cars, dogs, vacations, computers, TVs, cell phones, stocks,  etc. etc. etc. How many innocent children's lives could I have saved from starvation or disease or war had I spent that money on them rather than me and my family. Probably more than I would care to count. We all make choices every day to let the innocent die for no other reason than personal comfort. It is nothing but crocodile tears for pro-lifers to wail about the innocent children being killed when they *and everybody else* let innocent children die all the time without a shred of guilt - especially since the vast majority of abortions aren't really of conscious kids to begin with. Hell, most pro-lifers are openly hostile to anything meant to help people down on their luck. 

 

[Henry Ford]

To me, this answer seems correct -- though it becomes complicated when considering actual vs. potential consciousness. But working out the details should follow getting the basics right, and I think the basic answer should center around consciousness.

I think it should, too, but there's no measure for consciousness.  The "miracle" stories of people assumed to be in a persistent vegetative state who have woken up often have stories of not just internal consciousness but also consciousness of the world around them.  If we're going to ascribe personhood based on a characteristic, I feel like viability goes the closest to consciousness we can get, but your point is (and @adonis's is) well taken.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think it should, too, but there's no measure for consciousness.  The "miracle" stories of people assumed to be in a persistent vegetative state who have woken up often have stories of not just internal consciousness but also consciousness of the world around them.  If we're going to ascribe personhood based on a characteristic, I feel like viability goes the closest to consciousness we can get, but your point is (and @adonis's is) well taken.

Ants are viable, but I still squish them when I see them on my counter. The reason I don’t feel too bad about it is that I strongly suspect that if they are conscious at all, it is such a rudimentary form of consciousness that it’s barely distinguishable from the complete absence of consciousness. They are basically just tiny robot zombies, as far as I can tell.

You’re right, though — we don’t understand consciousness well enough to be confident about what it’s like to be a bat (or a cow or an infant human). We’re left just making a semi-informed guess for now.

 

[Henry Ford]

Ants are viable, but I still squish them when I see them on my counter. The reason I don’t feel too bad about it is that I strongly suspect that if they are conscious at all, it is such a rudimentary form of consciousness that it’s barely distinguishable from the complete absence of consciousness. They are basically just tiny robot zombies, as far as I can tell.

You’re right, though — we don’t understand consciousness well enough to be confident about what it’s like to be a bat (or a cow or an infant human). We’re left just making a semi-informed guess for now.

I'm not sure that's true.  One of the hallmarks of consciousness, in my opinion, is uncertainty.  The ability to question what you know and even whether you know.

It turns out that ants may very well have that.

 

[adonis]

If we're going to ascribe personhood based on a characteristic, I feel like viability goes the closest to consciousness we can ge.

The benefit of looking at consciousness as being essential for ascribing moral judgment to the treatment of a being is that it doesn't have to just be limited to persons.  Any animal that exhibits consciousness should be entitled to the same moral reckonings we ascribe to people.  

And it's not that it's easy to judge consciousness right now, but if you imagine it was easy at some time in the future, where not only consciousness itself is easily understood, but degrees of it are understood, it seems like it'd be a far superior method for ascribing moral guidelines than other methods, however well defined.

So suggest we understand viability and consciousness to the best levels humanly possible.  I'd suggest that in that case, consciousness would be a far superior method for valuation of life.

 

[Henry Ford]

The benefit of looking at consciousness as being essential for ascribing moral judgment to the treatment of a being is that it doesn't have to just be limited to persons.  Any animal that exhibits consciousness should be entitled to the same moral reckonings we ascribe to people.  

And it's not that it's easy to judge consciousness right now, but if you imagine it was easy at some time in the future, where not only consciousness itself is easily understood, but degrees of it are understood, it seems like it'd be a far superior method for ascribing moral guidelines than other methods, however well defined.

So suggest we understand viability and consciousness to the best levels humanly possible.  I'd suggest that in that case, consciousness would be a far superior method for valuation of life.

I do, too.  I hope we reach that point.  And then deal with the potential issues Maurile discussed.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

By the way, when it comes to the violinist, mark me down as being closer to a utilitarian than to a natural rights theorist. From behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance (not knowing whether I’m more likely to be the violinist or the woman he’s attached to), I’d favor a rule requiring a woman to wait out the nine months (and to have a claim against the violinist afterwards for just compensation).

I think violinists and fetuses are sufficiently different, though, that Thompson’s thought experiment doesn’t have a lot to say about abortion.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm not sure that's true.  One of the hallmarks of consciousness, in my opinion, is uncertainty.  The ability to question what you know and even whether you know.

It turns out that ants may very well have that.

Interesting article; thanks for the link. I don’t think it presents a strong case that ants have anything like a subjective experience, though. Some transistors on a chip can mimic the same type of “uncertainty” without being consciously aware, as far as we know.

 

[Henry Ford]

By the way, when it comes to the violinist, mark me down as being closer to a utilitarian than to a natural rights theorist. From behind a Rawlsian veil of ignorance (not knowing whether I’m more likely to be the violinist or the woman he’s attached to), I’d favor a rule requiring a woman to wait out the nine months (and to have a claim against the violinist afterwards for just compensation).

I think violinists and fetuses are sufficiently different, though, that Thompson’s thought experiment doesn’t have a lot to say about abortion.

I find that unconscionable.

Edit: to be fair, I find utilitarianism unconscionable.

 

[Henry Ford]

Interesting article; thanks for the link. I don’t think it presents a strong case that ants have anything like a subjective experience, though. Some transistors on a chip can mimic the same type of “uncertainty” without being consciously aware, as far as we know.

What would you need to see to believe in a subjective experience?

Personality and preference differences? 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I find that unconscionable.

I think the violinist thought experiment is kind of like a typical trolley problem in that it’s fun to play around with and can perhaps be instructive in some ways, but it’s not a scenario that human brains have evolved to deal with, so it’s not surprising that our intuitions can differ markedly.

 

[Henry Ford]

I think the violinist thought experiment is kind of like a typical trolley problem in that it’s fun to play around with and can perhaps be instructive in some ways, but it’s not a scenario that human brains have evolved to deal with, so it’s not surprising that intuitions can differ markedly.

I'm thoroughly flabbergasted by this statement.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'm thoroughly flabbergasted by this statement.

 People don’t often wake up physically connected to dependent violinists in nature. It’s a fairly novel situation.

 

[Henry Ford]

 People don’t often wake up physically connected to dependent violinists in nature. It’s a fairly novel situation.

I have no idea what that has to do with the statement in question.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

What would you need to see to believe in a subjective experience?

Personality and preference differences? 

I don’t have an answer to that question, but it’s definitely something more than just varied individual responses to similar stimuli. Plants can do that (and so can computers), but since they lack central nervous systems, I very strongly suspect that they also lack consciousness.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I have no idea what that has to do with the statement in question.

I’m not trying to be cryptic, but I’ll have to try to explain what I mean later.

 

[Stealthycat]

Meh - this is a slippery slope though because where do you draw the line? There are innocent kids born/raised in horrible situations all the time. However, very few outsiders do anything about it and those that do almost never do so at the detriment to their own well being. I make a choice to spend literal thousands upon thousands of dollars on a home, cars, dogs, vacations, computers, TVs, cell phones, stocks,  etc. etc. etc. How many innocent children's lives could I have saved from starvation or disease or war had I spent that money on them rather than me and my family. Probably more than I would care to count. We all make choices every day to let the innocent die for no other reason than personal comfort. It is nothing but crocodile tears for pro-lifers to wail about the innocent children being killed when they *and everybody else* let innocent children die all the time without a shred of guilt - especially since the vast majority of abortions aren't really of conscious kids to begin with. Hell, most pro-lifers are openly hostile to anything meant to help people down on their luck. 

it almost sounds to me like you favor euthanizing anyone who doesn't meet your standards or living conditions etc? and the red is patently false 

the bold ............ reality is, there are 7 billion people on this planet with 3 billion living in poverty. is that blood on your hands and my hands ? no it isn't

can we all do more? sure, that's true ........... but we live in a free country where people are supposed to be responsible and productive, contributing citizens. When they choose not to then yes many problems stem from those choices, but that's their choices to make. When children are in the rubble left from those choices its an absolute shame and that's when other good people step forward and churches and communities etc

killing innocent children nobody supports