Young Writers Society

"christians think blah blah blah" "in the bible blah blah blah" Secular governments shouldn't give one flying **** about that. Also, you know what's better than a small number of preventable deaths due to pregnancy? No preventable deaths due to pregnancy. You said in another thread, Black, that the bible doesn't explicitly say marijuana is illegal, therefore it must be legal. Surely the same applies here?

Have some maternal mortality rates from 2010.

Have another link.

Summary wrote:The report “Trends in maternal mortality: 1990 to 2010”, shows that from 1990 to 2010, the annual number of maternal deaths dropped from more than 543,000 to 287,000 – a decline of 47 per cent. While substantial progress has been achieved in almost all regions, many countries particularly in sub-Saharan Africa will fail to reach the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target of reducing maternal death by 75 per cent from 1990 to 2015.

Every two minutes, a woman dies of pregnancy-related complications, the four most common causes being: severe bleeding after childbirth, infections, high blood pressure during pregnancy, and unsafe abortion. Ninety-nine per cent of maternal deaths occur in developing countries; most could have been prevented with proven interventions.

The link Cadi provides also shows that maternal mortalities, while nowhere near as bad as in third-world countries, still occur in first-world countries such as the USA. The health of the mother absolutely is an issue when it comes to pregnancy, albeit one that is not usually discussed openly.

I guarantee you that a lot more women than you think worry about complications and their health during the course of pregnancy before they ever consider bearing a child. I've known several women who have decided to never bear children due to such health risks and complications, and one woman had to get an abortion because carrying the child was literally killing her. She wouldn't have survived the first trimester.

"Wish you could terminate your pregnancy? -- Tough luck, sugar. You're up for a vaginal stretch, cause you're carrying someone more important and more worthy of my concern within your uterus." - The mantra of the typical Pro-Lifer.

Abortion should be illegal? What about all the meth heads and crack whores that get pregnant, yet refuse to abort but continue to use. The original argurmet was that its not fair to the baby to kill it, personally i would rather die than be born addicted to drugs, going through withdrawls as soon as you enter the world... Oh yeah sounds so much f***ing better than killing an unborn child. Or lets see, in Minnesota and possibly other states if a mother chooses to put a child up for adoption, the father gets full rights, in some states he even gets rights in cases of rape. so let me ask you this, lets say your father is a rapist, meth head, alcoholic, abusive ect., if your mother put you up for adoption and your father took rights you could potentialy be abused, raped, or exposed to things no person would want to be exposed to, personally i would rather die before i experienced, thanks though. Or lets see, in the case of rape, a mother should have to carry around a baby inside of her constantly reminding her of what had happened to her, for atleast nine months, or if she ruled out adoption should be stuck trying to support a child she had no say in having? Blah blah blah, all the arguments that dont support abortion are bulls***. 1. Religion, Personally we live in a country where we can have and practice our own religion, yet our government is 90% based on f***ing christanity and thats bulls***. If you want to talk about rights you had better not think that the religion bulls*** is an even semi logical argument. 2. It's not the babies choice! Well guess what? Sometimes its not the moms flipping choice either. 3. Your murdering someone Or thats a real child! Let me ask you something, did you know that if you cause a woman to miscarry you can be charged with mansloutter, however only past 18 weeks becuase then is the only time it can function outside the womb for any period of time, otherwise by law its not considered a human being, lol. Which i find perfectly logical seeing as if it cant be in the world out side of its mother it is not an actual human yet. In fact, before 12 weeks it is not even considered a fetus yet alone a frikin child! It's a group of cells. And if its actually a human being or a child, how come when you ask a pregnant mother its i have (for exapmle ) 2 childeren and one ON THE WAY, saying this is implying you have a child on the way.. not that you have a 3rd child. I'm probably missing a few arguments that you people have. But personaly, not only do i think abortion should be legal, i think it should be enforced in certian situatuations, due to my first argument.

Abortion is sometimes the only choice a woman has.

From recent stories in the news a woman died of blood poisoning because the doctors would not give her an abortion! This is ridiculous for two reasons: the first being the doctors somehow had more control over the woman's body than she did! And secondly it was unlikely the baby was going to live anyway. This resulted in the loss of two lives, which was completely unnecessary.

In addition there have been many cases where the victims of rape have also not been allowed to have an abortion and sometimes the victim is just a teenager! This results in the mother going through a huge trauma and also what will the child think if they knew they were the product of rape?

- this is when abortion is the only option and is needed.

At the end of the day it is up to the woman whether she keeps the baby or not and it is her decision only .

Haven't read many of these answers, but although I don't favor the idea of abortion, I think women should need the choice.

What a good majority of people don't consider, is carrying the baby. When you're pregnant, you have to take extra care of yourself. So many things could go wrong if the woman is a tad reckless while pregnant.

Imagine the option of abortion didn't exist, and women were forced to bear the child. If a women has to carry a child she didn't want, do you think she'll take good care of herself?

I suppose this is simply because I've seen a lot of reckless pregnancies in my own life. Two of my childhood friends are autistic, because their mothers did drugs and were too active when pregnant. If adoption were simple, I'm sure a lot of women would choose that option before abortion. But it's about carrying the baby as well :/

"Wish you could terminate your pregnancy? -- Tough luck, sugar. You're up for a vaginal stretch, cause you're carrying someone more important and more worthy of my concern within your uterus." - The mantra of the typical Pro-Lifer.

This pops up a bit, so I thought I might respond. If someone's advocating a pro-life opinion, it doesn't necessarily mean they think the child is "more worth of [their] concern" than the mother.

The two factors in play tend to be:

1) The interests are often (though importantly not always) a life interest versus a less-than-life interest. Bottom line, abortion kills the infant. If you're doing a simplistic utilitarian approach, and have awarded to the infant personhood, then this trumps pretty much anything short of death on the mother's part. This isn't a reflection of the infant being more important, it's a reflection of the disparity in scale of the two interests at play.

2) Integral to any model of virtue ethics is the knowledge and capacity to make a meaningful decision. Simply put, we are judged by our choices. Whatever health risk is posed by the infant to the mother is beyond its control or understanding. This is most certainly not to presume that the mother chose to become pregnant. However, as it lacks the capacity of choice, the road to just action is also closed to the infant in this instance. In contrast, the mother often has (at the risk of oversimplifying) an abort/not abort option which, when boiled down to it, gives her the option of putting herself at risk/detriment for the sake of another, or terminating the life of another for her own relative benefit. Most models of virtue ethics I have encountered tend to elevate the former kind of those two choices over the latter.

To clarify, this is not to say that I support the pro-life position but I thought it necessary to respond to the mischaracterisation of the pro-life position quoted above.

I am kind of confused about my feelings on this topic. But my morals are very pro-not-killing-people. Like, even though I understand why capital punishment is practical, I really don't agree with it because of the potential for a meaningful human life that can continue the delicate balance of the chaos system in untold ways. Even though I understand why war is necessary at times, I don't like it because of the death and destruction involved.

I'm also very pro-right-to-do-stuff though, so it makes me think, well people should be able to have control over their own bodies, right? But then I realize that it really isn't control over their own bodies, it's control over someone else's body. I mean, there is no questioning that there is always the smallest inkling of potential for human life in any pregnancy.

Now, you may say, oh silly Cow, you don't understand. It is the mother's body that she must have control over. What if she's going to die if she doesn't have an abortion. That's HER body! Well, now think about it this way. Say you were given an ultimatum that you had to choose between life and death for someone else. You don't even know the person, they have done nothing to you or for you. You didn't make a decision to get into this situation, it just happened (simulating rape). If you chose to end their life, you will live. If you choose to let them live, then you will die. Does it not seem the moral choice to save their life even if it means losing your own?

Now you may be thinking: Silly Cow, that analogy is stupid. Often times the baby will die anyway. Okay, well think back to that same situation. Now, if you choose for them to die, you will live, and if you choose for them to live, you both die. This question is definitely more in a moral gray area, but personally, could never be the person to push the bright red button and cause the war. I would never choose to end another's life in this objective decision, even if it were an undeniable occurance. Just because Global Warming (EDIT: Excuse me, I meant Climate Change) "can't be prevented" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop it/slow it down, does it?

Food for thought.

Rubric, telling someone that they CAN'T terminate their pregnancy is a whole lot different than saying "according to my model of ethical virtues, I don't think you should/have you considered the alternative?".

Legally robbing women of the right to choose their own destiny (and yes, I am saying that a woman's desire to become a mother/carry a baby is the purpose of the pregnancy, not the delivery of the child per se) is to say "You're not going to get out of this, because we value the helplessness of the fetus over your economical/emotional situation. We don't value/trust your intuition, and therefore, we have to ethically GPS your way through this by law enforcement."
The subtext of this is: I sympathize more with the child inside your uterus than I do with you, and if you have any moral understanding, you will act not in accordance with yourself, but rather the possibilities that now reside within you (I.e. the birth of your child is more important than it is for you get the opportunity to act either for yourself, or the child -- no matter what you think, you're up for a vaginal stretch).

You can't ideologically insinuate one thing, and then dismiss it as a mischaracterization because you didn't like the way the words were made to use, that's moral abjectness.

Then again, you'd have to be quite abject in order to support an ideology that would legally force women to breed unwanted children; to support a fetocracy, in other words.
Although, not insinutating that you support the Pro-Life movement, Rubric.

Sigh.

Rubric, telling someone that they CAN'T terminate their pregnancy is a whole lot different than saying "according to my model of ethical virtues, I don't think you should/have you considered the alternative?".

This, at least, makes sense. I do get the feeling you radically misunderstand virtue ethics, but that can stay where it is for now. Indeed, legislatively denying women's rights to choose actually undermines the entire virtue framework as it relates to the question of abortion. It's one of the reasons I don't support the pro-life movement's legislative goals (as much as your final comment tried to throw doubt on that). The purpose of my post was to correct your mischaracterisation. To argue that the recharacterisation of the pro-life movement is not ethically perfect is completely irrelevant to my post.

EDIT On a reread, this came across as incomplete. I believe there exists a subset of people who identify/sympathise with both the pro-life and pro-choice movements. By focusing solely on the legislative goals of the organised lobby elements of these groups, the discussion essentially sidesteps this complexity. Hopefully this makes it a bit clearer why the virtue ethics argument could exist within the same ideological body as the legislative lobbying (which includes measures for both regulation and staggered criminalisation).

"You're not going to get out of this, because we value the helplessness of the fetus over your economical/emotional situation.(")

No-one values the "helplessness". It's not the Pro-Helplessness movement. Lift your game.

I sympathize more with the child inside your uterus than I do with you, and if you have any moral understanding, you will act not in accordance with yourself, but rather the possibilities that now reside within you

Every piece of legislation that exists measures the interests of some people as being superior to others. Does this mean every piece of legislation is sympathising more with some people, and raising them above others? Does this mean every piece of legislation violates equality before the law? Obviously not. The interests represented are of themselves different and subject to a categorisation of greater or lesser in relation to one another. We tend to value a life-interest very highly, as it is from that that most other interests spring. If I value a life interest as higher than a non-life interest, that does not mean I have established some kind of "fetocracy" (a term as inane as it is absurd), it means I have stood by the principles of equality of the law. If you have granted to the infant the rights associated with personhood (as some states are doing by law now, an others assume to be existent at common law) then this is clear.

Let me be clear: there is an important and fluctuating discussion of the role of life/personhood in determining rights. For the purpose of my previous post, I have assumed personhood on the part of the infant purely so that I may correct your misrepresentations of the position you clearly hold in contempt. In the instance of a genuine good-faith debate on the topic of abortion (which I don't really see as being possible with you Enema) this assumption would definitely need to be questioned.

You can't ideologically insinuate one thing, and then dismiss it as a mischaracterization because you didn't like the way the words were made to use, that's moral abjectness.

And you can't mischaracterise an ideological position and insinuate that it is a bona fides representation. Regardless of whether I "didn't like the way the words were made to use", your assertion that the infant is seen as a more valuable person than the mother (critical to your success) remains completely unsupported.

And again with accusing people you disagree with of a personal moral failing. Classic Enema.

Here's the deal: when speaking of abortion, there are always two aspects, the woman, and the fetus -- now depending on which side you have chosen to affiliate yourself with will also determine which side you will grant the focus of concern.

Pro-Life people usually talk of the beauty of the unborn child, and the possibilities of life and so on forth -- and of course that it is a human being who should be granted civil rights (in some severe case, mind you -- I don't think of every Pro-Life person to be that stupid). But what they are consequently saying to the mother, even if they don't like to talk about, is exactly what I've written in the past: "You have been blessed with this opportnity to bear a child, and whether you want to or not, you HAVE to go through with this, because otherwise you are comitting murder!" They pose as evangelical-like child saviors, when in reality they are just blackmailing women.

Same with Pro-Choice people; we enjoy speaking on behalf of the mother in most scenarios granted, while we may not be as proud as to speak out on what we are subtly saying about the fetus -- well, to be frank, I would give this oblivious lifeform (lacking any kind of concept regarding life, death, act or consequence) the finger in support of the mother's life. And I claim that right

And answer this, how do Pro-Life people rationalize the insufferable fate that they consequently, through their moral orientation, plague said woman with (should she not want to carry child, of course)? What is the rationale behind it? "You are already a mother at conception, now care for it! I said care for it!" -- Something like that?

If you prioritize the rights of a fetus over the rights of a breathing, emotionally functioning human being, and are willing to push her situation and opportunities aside through law to ensure the birth the off-spring she never wanted in the first place, then yes; you deserve the know that you are morally vile, and evil.

I say that though, because I believe in the change of heart. I hope Pro-Life people will realize the fallacy of their ways.

But who knows, maybe I'm just blinded by self-righteous arrogance? (I doubt it..)

Edit: Also, about the "helplessness"-remark, that would actually elevate the game of the Pro-Lifers, instead of chanting on and off about the "life" of the fetus; what life are they talking about, exactly? Are they referring to it simply being animate? Because, the fetus in question hasn't had one cognitive thought yet, and as far as I am concerned, it is only a future candidate member of society.

This leads to another question; who deems what candidates are chosen to live through the delivery? The woman who has to carry the child, or some government legislation?
(To answer that as well, "Are all legislations meant to oppress one and elevate the other?" No, but abortion is a rather unique situation in that way, because at the end of the day, one entity's rights are going to be sidelined before the other)
Alas, I do believe in governmental regulation, but not in the prohibition of abortion -- that is simply absurd and ghoulish.

Also, I'm starting to realize that a genuine debate is beyond possible with your involvement, Rubric, as you're always aspiring to play the part of "the Devil's advocate".
Such a cute little contrarian you are.

now depending on which side you have chosen to affiliate yourself with will also determine which side you will grant the focus of concern.

I feel like this is backwards. Like you’re picking a team and then wheeling out arguments in favour of it, rather than using your arguments to critique both sides and “pick” the team that best survives them. This is what I was heading toward in the edit to my last post: there are a lot more people in the middle ground than an adversarial format traditionally acknowledges or allows. I feel sympathy for both the mother and the infant, and choose to identify with the arguments for both of their rights.

They pose as evangelical-like child saviors, when in reality they are just blackmailing women.

Clearly this reflects the conduct of some pro-lifers, even many, but is it inherent to the position itself? I can’t see how you’ve demonstrated this.

And answer this, how do Pro-Life people rationalize the insufferable fate that they consequently, through their moral orientation, plague said woman with (should she not want to carry child, of course)? What is the rationale behind it? "You are already a mother at conception, now care for it! I said care for it!" -- Something like that?

It’s definitely to the detriment of the arguments made by some pro-lifers (even some posting on this thread) that they’re unrealistically “prettying up” the position of the mother. The rationale for the pro-life position is that, given personhood, abortion is going to always going to be the worst outcome, due to the elevation of a life-interest discussed in my previous post. This doesn’t make it good. This doesn’t guarantee a happy and healthy family life. That’s not why the position is being taken. It’s not that the mother’s rights and interests are immaterial, it’s simply the fact that a great swathe of moral theory has tended to prioritise a right to life as a right from which all other rights and interests spring (and, to turn it around, a right in which the value of all other rights are invested). The mother also has a right to life, and it can definitely be at play in many instances of pregnancy and child-birth. But when it is not, it is important to understand that the so-called “fetocracy” is simply the protection of a right that is widely considered to be the cornerstone of all rights and interests.

If you prioritize the rights of a fetus over the rights of a breathing, emotionally functioning human being, and are willing to push her situation and opportunities aside through law to ensure the birth the off-spring she never wanted in the first place, then yes; you deserve the know that you are morally vile, and evil.

We accept that a one day old child has moral value beyond what is considered of it by its mother. What is the justification for ascribing so much less value to a child one day younger? Or one month younger? Or six? Or eight? At some stage, we begin talking about lines in the sand, and that’s the messiness that is the personhood debate. We can disagree over personhood, that’s fine. We’re not even there yet though; you’re attacking pro-lifers as a group that essentially seeks to withhold recognition of womens rights for “the evulz”, which is to say, on behalf of principles unsupported by any skein of reason or consistency. Even if pro-life advocates are wrong on their line in the sand, this is simply not the case.

Are they referring to it simply being animate? Because, the fetus in question hasn't had one cognitive thought yet, and as far as I am concerned, it is only a future candidate member of society.

Depending on the stage of the abortion, cognition is definitely and demonstrably a real factor. Further, we value questions of potentiality in other areas of ethics and morality. Tonight I will go to sleep and have very little of the cognitive function that we associate with conscious personhood. Would it be murder to kill me in that state? Of course. Why? Because we acknowledge the otherwise inevitable return of the consciousness we associate with personhood. Young infants often do not possess an understanding of existential permanence that we understand to be critical, yet we consider infanticide to be murder. Why?

Also, I'm starting to realize that a genuine debate is beyond possible with your involvement, Rubric, as you're always aspiring to play the part of "the Devil's advocate".
Such a cute little contrarian you are.

Pejorative diminutives aside, I stood in to critique your continued misrepresentation of the position with which you disagreed. I do not hold that position, but I am sympathetic of those who do, and for me to call for good faith and the withdrawal of demonising attacks of the other side may well coincide with the position of a devil’s advocate, but it also distinct from it. I am not merely disagreeing with you for the sake of that disagreement, and for you to conclude that this is the case indicates that you have been either unwilling or unable to understand the points I have made. If it is the latter, then I apologise for my failure to communicate.

Perhaps it’s reading too much into it, but the term “devil’s advocate” is traditionally reserved for the position no sane person could agree with (ie the devil), which is perhaps an important point in reflecting on how you’re continuing to construct the image of the pro-lifer as not just logically incorrect, but evil. I think this is unfair, wrong, and will massively deter people from engaging in discussion with you, and upon threads in which you choose to participate.

Rubric wrote:I feel like this is backwards. Like you’re picking a team and then wheeling out arguments in favour of it, rather than using your arguments to critique both sides and “pick” the team that best survives them. This is what I was heading toward in the edit to my last post: there are a lot more people in the middle ground than an adversarial format traditionally acknowledges or allows. I feel sympathy for both the mother and the infant, and choose to identify with the arguments for both of their rights.

Well, unless you're a sheep to begin with, you will affiliate with the "team" that has the strongest arguments in the long run. There is nothing wrong with understanding the perspective of the opposition, in fact that can even strengthen your own rhetoric.
However, now that we are discussing abortion, I do believe that proposing a legislation that would force women into breeding unwanted children is so far down the drain of evil that I, ironically as an atheist, would have to call it the 'devil'.

Clearly this reflects the conduct of some pro-lifers, even many, but is it inherent to the position itself? I can’t see how you’ve demonstrated this.

Not really, no. But I have little patience for attacking the idea itself, I'd rather spend my time exposing the vileness of those who do hold the position, because in some sense, the behavior of the advocates, at some point, do start to define what the position becomes all about.

I guess you could say, since I've been very careful before to call it "the Pro-Life movement", I am more prone to argue the mindset of the "typical Pro-Lifer" than the position itself. I could do that too, but the urge hasn't met the now yet, so to speak.

It’s definitely to the detriment of the arguments made by some pro-lifers (even some posting on this thread) that they’re unrealistically “prettying up” the position of the mother. The rationale for the pro-life position is that, given personhood, abortion is going to always going to be the worst outcome, due to the elevation of a life-interest discussed in my previous post. This doesn’t make it good. This doesn’t guarantee a happy and healthy family life. That’s not why the position is being taken. It’s not that the mother’s rights and interests are immaterial, it’s simply the fact that a great swathe of moral theory has tended to prioritise a right to life as a right from which all other rights and interests spring (and, to turn it around, a right in which the value of all other rights are invested). The mother also has a right to life, and it can definitely be at play in many instances of pregnancy and child-birth. But when it is not, it is important to understand that the so-called “fetocracy” is simply the protection of a right that is widely considered to be the cornerstone of all rights and interests.

Of course I already know this; that to a Pro-Lifer, abortion is murder. I can swallow that assertion, even though I don't think that the term 'murder' is applicable here though, at least not in the socially connotational way we use it in everyday scenarios.
But what still puts me off is that, in order to avoid 'murder' people are actually aspiring to legally objectify women into walking incubators -- that is why I view opposition in this case as 'evil'. Even if this objectification is not the original intention of the Pro-Lifer in question, that is, logically and jurisdictionally, what the position will conduct, should it be legislated.

The right to life begins, to me, when the child is no longer part of the mother; when it is its own entity. That is the only way I can see it being fair; the child gains civil rights once born, but during the pregnancy, the fate of the child lies with the carrying mother.
The right to life, when speaking of fetuses, does not mean that the woman will have to legally abide to carry this child for the next coming months, that is cruel and will just feed the patriarchic idea that women are somehow socially (disregarding the obvious biology of it) made to breed children.

We accept that a one day old child has moral value beyond what is considered of it by its mother. What is the justification for ascribing so much less value to a child one day younger? Or one month younger? Or six? Or eight? At some stage, we begin talking about lines in the sand, and that’s the messiness that is the personhood debate. We can disagree over personhood, that’s fine. We’re not even there yet though; you’re attacking pro-lifers as a group that essentially seeks to withhold recognition of womens rights for “the evulz”, which is to say, on behalf of principles unsupported by any skein of reason or consistency. Even if pro-life advocates are wrong on their line in the sand, this is simply not the case.

Like I said above, there is a clear borderline between being born, and being connected to the uterus. While I do think that a woman, by the time that the fetus does start to develop reflexive behavior (as well as cognitive thoughts, yes), will suddenly want to have an abortion for the sake of it, is very, very unlikely, I still think that she NEEDS to have that right -- even if to exercise that right to its last minute without further ado would be very distasteful indeed.

Or we keep abortion as it is now, what is it, within three months? I think that is a fair timespan for the woman to make her mind up.

And I never said that Pro-Lifers deliberately rob women of their body rights to be 'evil', I say that the position in question does that consequently, and therefore being in favor of such an ideological and philosophical orientation is simply outright evil.

Depending on the stage of the abortion, cognition is definitely and demonstrably a real factor. Further, we value questions of potentiality in other areas of ethics and morality. Tonight I will go to sleep and have very little of the cognitive function that we associate with conscious personhood. Would it be murder to kill me in that state? Of course. Why? Because we acknowledge the otherwise inevitable return of the consciousness we associate with personhood. Young infants often do not possess an understanding of existential permanence that we understand to be critical, yet we consider infanticide to be murder. Why?

Because the child is no longer part of the woman, and has now hatched into a private entity. That is the difference.

Pejorative diminutives aside, I stood in to critique your continued misrepresentation of the position with which you disagreed. I do not hold that position, but I am sympathetic of those who do, and for me to call for good faith and the withdrawal of demonising attacks of the other side may well coincide with the position of a devil’s advocate, but it also distinct from it. I am not merely disagreeing with you for the sake of that disagreement, and for you to conclude that this is the case indicates that you have been either unwilling or unable to understand the points I have made. If it is the latter, then I apologise for my failure to communicate.

z
That little post was not a direct portrayal of the Pro-Life mind, I honestly thought people would understand that it was a caricature, although an honest one, considering what this position, if legislated, would do to a woman's rights and legal space if struck with a sudden unwanted pregnancy.

You have not failed to communicate, I just don't like people who try and defend despicable positions. In fact, I do treat those people like they are part of said asinine herd.

Perhaps it’s reading too much into it, but the term “devil’s advocate” is traditionally reserved for the position no sane person could agree with (ie the devil), which is perhaps an important point in reflecting on how you’re continuing to construct the image of the pro-lifer as not just logically incorrect, but evil. I think this is unfair, wrong, and will massively deter people from engaging in discussion with you, and upon threads in which you choose to participate.

lol.

Learn to swim.

Removed

kay - I think the word you want is 'neurotypical'