Pro or Con: Abortion

[eastamazonantidote]

This is a topic that, I feel, men should have no say in. I voted pro choice because it should be the woman's decision.

 

[kprox1994]

Rape is a traumatizing experience. You say adoption is an option like it's a simple fix, but it still requires the woman to spend nine months carrying her rapist's baby, and then living the rest of her life knowing a product of the rape is out there somewhere.

The problem is if you make abortion illegal there are going to be people who are desperate enough to get them anyway. And having a safe, legal procedure available is better than having women possibly endangering their own lives.

This.
What if the mother got so traumatized from it all, that she committed suicide during pregnancy. Now I would much rather have the girl go through with the abortion and live, wouldn't you?

 

[kunz]

all i have to say is i would want all my options open if i was put in a postilion like this

 

[Tortin]

I think it should depend on the circumstances of the people involved, the circumstances of the pregnancy and the wishes of the families.

For example, if a girl was raped and left pregnant an abortion should be allowed. Likewise if a condom broke and other methods of contraception failed.

54% of all women who get abortions were on some sort of birth control at the time.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Oh, and how about this stat? Around 1.5 million women died from failed abortions from the mid-1800s to around 1970 (when abortion was illegal in the US.)

Anyway, I don't want people telling me what to do with my body, therefore, I can't tell people what to do with theirs.

 

[beingforitself]

You people are getting caught up on rape causing pregnancy too much. If we controlled conception, rape would never cause pregnancy. EUGENICS FTW.

If controlled conception were a viable solution, China would have been all over it years ago.

The technology still isn't available for what I have in mind yet. Only because people whine over "ethics", though.

Dene, I am interested in hearing more in detail about your technologically-driven eugenics-based utopian society (seriously, not facetiously).

 

[Ethan Rosen]

Why are people completely ignoring adoption? The life of no one has to be ruined by going through with a pregnancy. You could infact bring joy to a poor couple unable to conceive (FACT: 1 IN 6 COUPLES ARE INFERTILE. Don't even try to refute this because I will slam you down so hard (I'm serious. I just don't want to find the evidence because it would mean digging through lecture material from last year)).

Personally, I'm all for eugenics (controlled conception). I think the world would be a much happier place with a ruling class of superiors and a working class of inferiors. This would solve any abortion problems.

EDIT: Since I started writing up this post adoption came into the picture >.<

If you had any experience with the adoption/orphanage system, you would see that it should not be a viable option... ever.

Pro-life. Killing innocents is wrong.

Well I say holding a woman's reproductive system hostage because a clump of cells has more rights than she does is wrong, but everything's not as black and white as you make it seem. What if the mother's life is endangered by the pregnancy? What if the pregnancy was the result of rape?

The clump of cells would be a human being. Killing the child to save the mother would send the message that one human being is more important than another. That's like saying let's kill people from third world countries because they suck resources and are endangering the health of the world. Regardless of how the child was conceived, the child still has rights as a human being and human life should be protected from the moment of conception. It's human life, not just a clump of cells.

Consider this;

Girl is raped at 10 years old, and just happens to get pregnant. What would you do?

1: Force her to have the child because the ball of cells could become a child. Every life deserves life, right?

2: Allow her to abort the child, thus allowing her to live her life free of the burden of an unwanted child.

In my opinion having a child that young would destroy the mother's life as well as the unborn, unwanted child's life too.

She can have the kid, then give it up for adoption.

I would love to see you be the judge who has to tell a 12 year old girl that she has to do this because some idealistic nuts feel the need to impose their will on everyone. Also, see my above post about the adoption system.

 

[LewisJ]

You people are getting caught up on rape causing pregnancy too much. If we controlled conception, rape would never cause pregnancy. EUGENICS FTW.

If controlled conception were a viable solution, China would have been all over it years ago.

The technology still isn't available for what I have in mind yet. Only because people whine over "ethics", though.

Dene, I am interested in hearing more in detail about your technologically-driven eugenics-based utopian society (seriously, not facetiously).

BNW gogogo

 

[fanwuq]

Well, not necessarily who, but when. But I'd go with who as well if I had things my way. Let's be perfectly honest here: the world would be a better place if people were born unequal, and didn't care.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca

Why do you support a caste system? I know I would be there to prove you wrong. People are inherently fascinated by the underdog.
You aren't your potentials; you are your accomplishments. Isn't that from existentialism? Apparently all you do is study philosophy, but not practically apply it to your own life. How could you not care if things aren't equal? Nurture is just as important as nature. I see you did not have any first hand experience with racism. When the insults become great enough, your will becomes great enough to prove them wrong.
Define "better". Is it better that no one cares about anything?

arctan:
What if I pick pro-choice and pro-life? You should always have the option to maximize the overall quality and quantity of life. People should draw several graphs and do some simulations before making the choice.

 

[Dene]

fanwuq: you are being very naive if you think that every philosopher agrees on every issue. How is it that I am not living by my own philosophical beliefs?

I don't believe the world is equal, nor do I think it ever will be.
Not sure how racism comes into this at all.
Not sure about a few of the other sentences either; to be honest your post is a bit incoherent.

I have read Brave New World and saw Gattaca (a very long time ago). I do not find either of these scenarios plausible, nor do I find either of them desirable.

Here is my view: Natural rulers are further bred until ruling status is maintained. Natural followers are further bred until following status is maintained. Through some genetic modification, sperm are changed such that they only become active when triggered. At all other times one can have sex as much as one likes without worry of pregnancy.

By better I mean everyone will be happier with their life. Those in the ruling class will not desire to be in the following class, and vice versa. There is a "contentment" of position. You might argue that these people are not completely free. But I challenge you to find any society in which everyone is completely free.
I should say: "Is it better that no one cares about anything?" This is not my view at all. Really, all I propose is a small change, namely from what we already have (rulers and followers), to genetic "destiny" so to speak. But this destiny only puts one in one class or the other, it does not determine anything else whatsoever.

I'm a bit tired. If you have any other questions please feel free to ask and be explicit.

Oh also, about your supposed existential quote (I have no idea if that is true, nor do I particularly care; I'll assume it is), I'm inclined to disagree. You aren't your accomplishments, you are a giant jumbly mix of everything that has happened throughout your life. If you haven't accomplished anything, you're still something.
Stupid philosophers and their fancy quotes taken out of context...

 

[Ton]

If only a government would (also financially) support the woman with the baby and or find parents who will take care of the baby

I believe this would be a better option.

My opinion this is not a topic that should be decided democratically, there is a guide for live ......

 

[Escher]

Here is my view: Natural rulers are further bred until ruling status is maintained. Natural followers are further bred until following status is maintained. Through some genetic modification, sperm are changed such that they only become active when triggered. At all other times one can have sex as much as one likes without worry of pregnancy.

By better I mean everyone will be happier with their life. Those in the ruling class will not desire to be in the following class, and vice versa. There is a "contentment" of position. You might argue that these people are not completely free. But I challenge you to find any society in which everyone is completely free.
I should say: "Is it better that no one cares about anything?" This is not my view at all. Really, all I propose is a small change, namely from what we already have (rulers and followers), to genetic "destiny" so to speak. But this destiny only puts one in one class or the other, it does not determine anything else whatsoever.

Could you elaborate more on exactly how you are going to force people to breed? And what happens to those of the population that don't fit into natural followers or rulers during this programme? I assume that it would take a large number of generations before a reliable level was made.

Even then, what do you do with those that don't follow the expected genetic path nor the rest of society and rebel?

 

[fanwuq]

Dene:

Sorry about the incoherency, it was a bit late.

Learn2biology. Let's assume that leadership is a genetic trait. If the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the frequencies of alleles cannot change. You are suggesting to upset this equilibrium, which means that you want genocide or segregation. How is that not racist? To make your idea work, we have to introduce very radical changes that will lead to separate species of humans. Maybe you need to get a time machine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Time_Machine

As a psychology major, I'm surprised that you do not understand the basics of nature vs. nurture. Environmental influences can be greater than genetic effects. While it might be possible to stimulate a child's leadership abilities through artificial means and mentor-ship, nature suffering and injustice stimulates it at a much higher level. Gandhi and Martin Luther King would not have became great leaders if it weren't for their first hand experiences of injustice.

Also, your idea would not work simply because of epigenetics. There are way too many factors than can affect gene expression that can completely shut down genes that are present. If you think genes and classical conditioning are everything, then you probably still live in the early 1900's. Genetics is dead; we are moving in the direction of genomics, nuclear run on, proteomics, and epigenomics. It's simply way too complex to control everything.
Take a look at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/02.html

 

[4Chan]

 

[Dene]

Escher: People aren't forced to breed. The couple just have to get approval and the male get his sperm activated. There will be no problem with those that don't fit. Everyone will fit unless random mutations lead some to the opposite classes, in which programs would be in place to move them around.

fanwuq: What I propose is actually a literal separation of the species. So, you may want to call it genocide. So what? Evolution by natural selection commits genocide all the time.

And yes I am aware of the fact that it would not be a simple process of "inject some with the leadership gene and others with the followers gene". Nor would I ever propose something so outrageous. All I'm saying is that if we figured out how to do it, then I think that we should.

It seems to me that you think I want complete genetic control. That's not what I want at all. I want for their to be two separate classes of humans. Within those classes they can do what they like. How about this for an analogy: There should be a following class to a ruling class, just as there are domestic cats to humans in general. Cats neither want, nor could they possibly ever, have control over humans. If evolution can do it then so can humans.

 

[aronpm]

That's kind of... dumb.

 

[Muesli]

Escher: People aren't forced to breed. The couple just have to get approval and the male get his sperm activated. There will be no problem with those that don't fit. Everyone will fit unless random mutations lead some to the opposite classes, in which programs would be in place to move them around.

fanwuq: What I propose is actually a literal separation of the species. So, you may want to call it genocide. So what? Evolution by natural selection commits genocide all the time.

And yes I am aware of the fact that it would not be a simple process of "inject some with the leadership gene and others with the followers gene". Nor would I ever propose something so outrageous. All I'm saying is that if we figured out how to do it, then I think that we should.

It seems to me that you think I want complete genetic control. That's not what I want at all. I want for their to be two separate classes of humans. Within those classes they can do what they like. How about this for an analogy: There should be a following class to a ruling class, just as there are domestic cats to humans in general. Cats neither want, nor could they possibly ever, have control over humans. If evolution can do it then so can humans.

Oh wow.

 

[Chapuunka]

If a teenage girl is burdened with a child, their life is going to be drastically changed, and most likely for the worse.

Are you saying the little child that could eventually grow into a very successful person isn't having their life drastically changed for the worse? I mean, if you were faced with someone that's already born and relatively young (young enough to still do something with their life), you probably wouldn't kill them if keeping them alive meant your life got worse. And more likely, a teenage mother would give the baby to someone else--an orphanage, foster family, etc. It wouldn't effect her life much after that, and the baby lives.

But to kill a person just to keep your life normal seems terrible to me, especially since there's a good shot it's your fault (excluding rape).

 

[cuberkid10]

Pro-choice. What is the government to say what women can and cannot do with their bodies?

 

[qqwref]

Learn2biology. Let's assume that leadership is a genetic trait. If the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, the frequencies of alleles cannot change.

Sorry to butt in but this isn't quite necessary, at least for breeding natural politicians/cubers/athletes/generals/astronauts/etc. You would only really need a handful of each to reach the maximum attainable skill levels, so all you would need is a smallish group of people who agree with the eugenics philosophy, have natural ability in these areas, and are willing to contribute by creating and raising children. The overall frequency of alleles doesn't have to change. The technique is similar to that done in farming, where farmers often want a strain of plant/animal that has a particular desirable trait or as close as they can get; after enough generations you end up with something like the standard dessert banana, which is so much better than wild varieties that few supermarkets will stock anything else.

So, yeah, I agree that it's pretty much impossible to make the vast majority of people 'natural followers' without a huge number of casualties... but maybe you wouldn't have to go that far to have some measure of control over the society. With some careful breeding you could get a few very smart people who are ideally suited for various occupations. They could probably have enough natural talent that no normal person could compete with them. This actually already happens once in a while; usually it's by accident, like in athletics where some people have incredible natural talent because their parents did. Anyway, it's easier to create a natural ruling group than to force everyone else to be natural sheep.

 

[Tortin]

If a teenage girl is burdened with a child, their life is going to be drastically changed, and most likely for the worse.

Are you saying the little child that could eventually grow into a very successful person isn't having their life drastically changed for the worse? I mean, if you were faced with someone that's already born and relatively young (young enough to still do something with their life), you probably wouldn't kill them if keeping them alive meant your life got worse. And more likely, a teenage mother would give the baby to someone else--an orphanage, foster family, etc. It wouldn't effect her life much after that, and the baby lives.

But to kill a person just to keep your life normal seems terrible to me, especially since there's a good shot it's your fault (excluding rape).

A clump of cells is considered a person now?