Considering the legal framework for abortion

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would like some sources for this please. I don't know of any real life examples or experiences which this is ever been the case, and those who do a lot of things "casually" have numerous kids (who weren't aborted).

Well, Rory has already told you women do it because they are "feckless" and the Torygraph can easily dig up stories of women who acted in haste and repented at leiasure.

Quick look produced this for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wo...s-or-more.html

I would have thought you'd be less cavilier after the first abortion, but apparently not in all cases.

Here's the one I wanted: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/87...ant-pause.html

[Beskar]

Well, Rory has already told you women do it because they are "feckless" and the Torygraph can easily dig up stories of women who acted in haste and repented at leiasure.

Quick look produced this for you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/wo...s-or-more.html

I would have thought you'd be less cavilier after the first abortion, but apparently not in all cases.

Here's the one I wanted: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/87...ant-pause.html

The second link is far closer to what I am used to seeing. The example of people like Lucy.

I haven't met any of these three abortions or more teenagers though.

[Vuk]

Those who have chosen to undergo an abortion were all very distraught by the experience, a few even attempting suicide afterwards.

Wow, it must be a great thing. :P

[Nowake]

Legislation (and BQ in his practical considerations) often looks at viability outside the womb, but this does not seem compelling when determining moral value. The issue is about whether the fetus should be allowed to continue inside the womb

Yet are we not accepting for the debate to build towards a skewed perspective econ? The discussion is moving away from the one fundamental point.
There is the original embryo and subsequent foetus.
And then there is the human carrier.
One does not balance the fate of the first without considering the weight added to the scales by the impact on the pregnant female.

You have to oppose the development of the potential human being to the evolution of the full-grown thought-capable carrier person at all times and to decide which is the primary actor in the process.

We are one of the most sexuallly unregulated societies ever, and as a result we have large numbers of single women with unwanted pregnancies, selective abortion is plaster on a wound in our society, not a solution. You describe sex as a social aspect of our society, but you ignore the fact that in the West people are increasingly engaging in sexual practices which either have no social dimension (one night stands)

You should really give it a go before claiming it lacks social dimension. Perhaps one of your most egregious statements; the liberty to let in and let go of human beings in the vortex of huge metropolitan communities is not only beautiful, but also a building block of self-examination within society.
A “wound on our society”; how prudish – otherwise, a validating, public inclusion is not the desired path for insertion into society sought by many of us; it is oppressive.

[Beskar]

Wow, it must be a great thing. :P

I don't believe anyone has been singing songs about abortion or commenting how great it is. Most 'positive' is necessary evil.

[Vuk]

I don't believe anyone has been singing songs about abortion or commenting how great it is. Most 'positive' is necessary evil.

Evil? Sure. But millions of human being killed a year...necessary? I don't think so.
I am not saying that is your position (not sure what your position is), but I don't think it is a smart one (not yours, but the necessary evil thing).
Either something is evil or not. There is no such thing as an acceptable or good evil. If it is evil, it should be unacceptable, if not, then it should be acceptable.
I know that is a pretty black and white attitude, but when you are talking about millions of human lives, you need to draw a line.
What are we gonna do 20-40 years from now when we look back and consider what OUR society has done. Hell, we have out done Communist darned Russia when it comes to exterminating unwanted yet innocent life. As a people, as a society, we are disgusting. We really aught to be ashamed of ourselves.
Years from now, if we ever straighten out, our Great⁸ Grandchildren will look back at us and wonder "How? How could so many people be so evil? Could they really be that ignorant, or did they just want to believe it because it was easy? How could everyone else just stand back and not say anything?"
I am truly ashamed to be part of a society that holds human life so cheap. It is even worse than the Roman Colosseum...at least they were not throwing their babies into the arena...

I am sorry if I worded that a little too strongly, but I've went 41 hours without sleep and am currently jacked up on Oxycodone and Oxycotin, and I don't feel like sugar-coating things.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You should really give it a go before claiming it lacks social dimension. Perhaps one of your most egregious statements; the liberty to let in and let go of human beings in the vortex of huge metropolitan communities is not only beautiful, but also a building block of self-examination within society.
A “wound on our society”; how prudish – otherwise, a validating, public inclusion is not the desired path for insertion into society sought by many of us; it is oppressive.

I prefer to build few long term relationships than have numerous brief and (relatively) shallow encounters. I also wouldn't have sex with someone before we had both been tested, there's far too much nasty stuff floating around these days, aside from HIV. I also wouldn't have sex with someone I had just met because, yuh no, she might get pregnant and then I'd either have a child with someone I didn't know and might not really like, or she might get it aborted and I really don't ever want to hate someone that much.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Evil? Sure. But millions of human being killed a year...necessary? I don't think so.
I am not saying that is your position (not sure what your position is), but I don't think it is a smart one (not yours, but the necessary evil thing).
Either something is evil or not. There is no such thing as an acceptable or good evil. If it is evil, it should be unacceptable, if not, then it should be acceptable.
I know that is a pretty black and white attitude, but when you are talking about millions of human lives, you need to draw a line.
What are we gonna do 20-40 years from now when we look back and consider what OUR society has done. Hell, we have out done Communist darned Russia when it comes to exterminating unwanted yet innocent life. As a people, as a society, we are disgusting. We really aught to be ashamed of ourselves.
Years from now, if we ever straighten out, our Great⁸ Grandchildren will look back at us and wonder "How? How could so many people be so evil? Could they really be that ignorant, or did they just want to believe it because it was easy? How could everyone else just stand back and not say anything?"
I am truly ashamed to be part of a society that holds human life so cheap. It is even worse than the Roman Colosseum...at least they were not throwing their babies into the arena...

I am sorry if I worded that a little too strongly, but I've went 41 hours without sleep and am currently jacked up on Oxycodone and Oxycotin, and I don't feel like sugar-coating things.

Actually, abortion was the prefered method of birth control in Russia, so I read.

As to "necessary evil", there is a simple litmus test for this:

Which is worse, murdering Hitler or letting him rule Europe and try to exterminate the Jews? Murdering Hitler is an evil act, but if your alternative is to allow him go on a murderous rampage then you have an even worse option; necessary evil works like that, but it is still evil and "necessary" does not really apply to elective abortion as a form of contraception/birth control.

[Vuk]

Actually, abortion was the prefered method of birth control in Russia, so I read.

As to "necessary evil", there is a simple litmus test for this:

Which is worse, murdering Hitler or letting him rule Europe and try to exterminate the Jews? Murdering Hitler is an evil act, but if your alternative is to allow him go on a murderous rampage then you have an even worse option; necessary evil works like that, but it is still evil and "necessary" does not really apply to elective abortion as a form of contraception/birth control.

With respect, you are wrong. Killing Hitler would NOT be an evil act. It is evil to kill and innocent person. Killing an evil person to save innocent people he would kill is not evil.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

With respect, you are wrong. Killing Hitler would NOT be an evil act. It is evil to kill and innocent person. Killing an evil person to save innocent people he would kill is not evil.

I dissagree, homocide is a deadly sin, you are not excused simply because the person you slay is evil, especially as there are no "innocent" people in the world. The "right" thing to do with Hitler would be to make him see the error of his thinking stop him wanting to kill other people.

[Vuk]

I dissagree, homocide is a deadly sin, you are not excused simply because the person you slay is evil, especially as there are no "innocent" people in the world. The "right" thing to do with Hitler would be to make him see the error of his thinking stop him wanting to kill other people.

It is only homocide if he is gay. Sorry, couldn't resist that.
Seriously though, I have a fundamental disagreement with you on just what homicide is. An innocent person is one who is not trying to harm or murder his fellow-human beings.
Homicide is unjustly killing a person. A bullet in Hitler's head would be nothing but just. You can talk people out of mistakes, but you cannot talk them out of evil. Hitler wanted power. I seriously doubt he even believed half of what he said...he just knew it would help him control people.

[Tellos Athenaios]

You are confusing homicide with murder.

[Major Robert Dump]

A lot of people argue that this is a womens-only debate, but I understand why men have such a high stake in the abortion argument, because our role in the process is not one to be taken lightly. Putting your penis inside of a vagina and moving it around for a few seconds is not something that is easy to bring ourselves to do. To think of all that work we do to make the baby, and then all the work we do to avoid paying child support because we didn't want to marry her because she got fat (GROSS!), I mean I am appalled that women think they only have the right to argue this topic.

In a perfect word, Art Garfunkel would be the father of all pregnancies, and us men would not have to waste our precious time arguing this topic.

[Ironside]

With respect, you are wrong. Killing Hitler would NOT be an evil act. It is evil to kill and innocent person. Killing an evil person to save innocent people he would kill is not evil.

Since Vuk is evil, is it an evil act to kill Vuk?

Now Vuk might disagree with that he's evil, but he's obviously biased and have already chosen such an evil name villingly (it means wolf --> A metaphor for evil men with a lust for power and dishonest gain, as well as a metaphor for Satan preying on innocent God-fearing Christians), that the guilt of his evilness cannot be denied.

Or it other words: Your method gives the person who defines evil all the power.

Evil? Sure. But millions of human being killed a year...necessary? I don't think so.
I am not saying that is your position (not sure what your position is), but I don't think it is a smart one (not yours, but the necessary evil thing).
Either something is evil or not. There is no such thing as an acceptable or good evil. If it is evil, it should be unacceptable, if not, then it should be acceptable.
I know that is a pretty black and white attitude, but when you are talking about millions of human lives, you need to draw a line.
What are we gonna do 20-40 years from now when we look back and consider what OUR society has done.

Humans. Killing their own children since the dawn of time.

Did you know that the number of abortions were similar in 1930 (when it was completely illegal. It became fully legal in 1975) compared to today in Sweden? Now, I don't know the data for other countries but it's most likely similar there.
Or to summarise, legal abortion is an acceptance of something that's already happening, not some new idea.
Perhaps the future will indeed be different. But don't expect anything during your lifetime.

For the record, I am not utterly convinced that it is an "ensouled", to use the Christian term, human being at conception, but as we don't know I would much rather err on the side of extreme caution.

I'm curious about that. What happens who those who dies unborn according to the ensoulment theory? It's common naturally, so it's has to have answer outside an abortion debate.

[Beskar]

I'm curious about that. What happens who those who dies unborn according to the ensoulment theory? It's common naturally, so it's has to have answer outside an abortion debate.

Well, they used to go straight to hell as they were not baptised and had the mothers original sin. To 'solve' this, the concept of purgatory came into play, allowing them to enter Heaven afterall.

[Scienter]

*rolls up sleeves* I have a lot to say about this topic. Imagine that.

I got auto logged out and most of my post got eaten. I'm limiting my discussion to the US because I'm well read in that area and not so much with the rest of the world. To summarize the part that I lost, I'm pro-choice. Not pro-abortion. But, I agree with a lot of what BG said in his initial post. I don't believe in late-term abortions. But, I also don't believe that life begins at conception. I think that BG was right when he said "There should be very few cases where the choice to abort the foetus cannot be made within that early period of time..." I don't agree with him re: judicial intervention following viability simply because I know how long a judicial proceeding can be dragged out. I don't know what the right answer to the problem is. But I do think that the US needs a framework that would both help prevent as many unintended pregnancies as realistically possible *and* provide support to those women who become pregnant anyway and make the decision to terminate an early pregnancy.

I think that abortion should be the last resort. As a result, I think that contraception in all its varying forms should be made available and affordable (or free) to everyone. I think that there should be proper education on how to use contraception. I know that there is no way to prevent all unwanted pregnancies. Birth control fails. Sometimes the back up method fails too. But, for those who above argued that people should just not have sex, that is a naive and unrealistic view. Regardless of one's personal views on abstinence, the reality of life is that most people do not. There are lots of anecdotes about people who chose to abstain until marriage, but statistically the average age for a first sexual encounter is 17 for a teenage girl in the US. A little younger for a boy. Even among people who abstain into their 20s, a significant majority of people in the US have had sex prior to marriage. This isn't me making a moral argument, it's just a fact. People have sex and making contraception hard to get is just going to cause unwanted pregnancies. And it's not just the woman's responsibility. Every sexually active person is responsible for preventing pregnancy and the transmission of STIs. It's common sense.

2. The woman has already made the decision to have sex, if she cannot bear to be pregnant she should not have had sex.

Preventing pregnancy is not just the woman's responsibility because she's got the womb. It takes two people for a pregnancy to happen. So by your logic is it safe to assume that you believe that all men who choose to have sex should be prepared to pay child support for 18+ years and be active in their hypothetical unwanted child's upbringing?

Abortion isn't just a single woman issue. A lot of women who have abortions are married and already have children. Sometimes, it's a very painful decision.

Also, some women who get pregnant don't choose to have sex. What about rape? 1 in 4 women could definitely tell you all about it. How about reproductive coercion? This form of abuse doesn't get much press because it generally happens among low income families.

Take a look at who has abortions. Some people in this debate seem to think that us lazy sluts just run around having sex with tons of men and stop by the Abortion Store and get our uteri vacuumed out before our next romp in the sack. Because we're too lazy or stupid to take the Pill or use a condom. Feckless? Really? Let's have some biology 101: if a man chooses to have sex with a woman who for some reason is too negligent to use birth control, he is just as responsible for the pregnancy as she is if he also chooses not to use birth control.

Further, the morning after pill is not an abortion. It's contraception. It works the same way as the Pill. In theory it could prevent a fertilized egg from attaching by thinning the uterine lining. But its common function is to suppress ovulation and thicken cervical mucus to make it harder for the sperm to get to the egg in case ovulation has already occurred.

I think that people who argue in favor of legislation against abortion and contraception are somewhat hypocritical because contraception, when used correctly, can prevent unwanted pregnancies. If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, then supporting use of contraception is a huge step in that direction. Just telling women that they need to not have sex until they are ready to become mothers is a religiously based moral argument that is not representative of the majority of Americans.

Legally, I think that BG is right and there is a place for abortion when it is done early, before viability. But, I don't want a bunch of politicians telling me that I deserve to die if I get a serious medical condition while I'm pregnant and need an abortion to get treatment. I find it terrifying that some people see me as a walking baby incubator who loses bodily autonomy and agency as soon as sperm meets egg. The laws that some extreme anti-abortion and I go so far as to say anti-woman politicians dream up under the guise of being 'pro-life' diminish their own movement's legitimacy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Preventing pregnancy is not just the woman's responsibility because she's got the womb. It takes two people for a pregnancy to happen. So by your logic is it safe to assume that you believe that all men who choose to have sex should be prepared to pay child support for 18+ years and be active in their hypothetical unwanted child's upbringing?

Maybe you think I have a low opinion of women who have casual sex, well I have alower opinion of men. Contrary to popular belief it wasn't in most men's interests to marry, historically, it has always been in the woman's interest, especially in the more sexist societies.

For the record, child support until 18 is getting away with it, child support until your child finishes education. Son wants to do a PhD, needs dad to pay for his flat? Dad should pay. If dad refused I suppose you could lock him up until his child is finished, and make said child a ward of the state and have the state pay in the father's stead. You can even confiscate all said father's assets to pay for it too. Extreme and unworkable, yes, but I have no moral qualms about such a punishment.

Abortion isn't just a single woman issue. A lot of women who have abortions are married and already have children. Sometimes, it's a very painful decision.

As far as I am concerned, if the decision is made for economic reasons, it it obviously wrong. If you genuinely cannot afford to raise said child, you can certainly put it up for adoption, or you can tighten your belt. I refuse to reduce a pregnancy to the status of a luxury commodity like a second car.

Also, some women who get pregnant don't choose to have sex. What about rape? 1 in 4 women could definitely tell you all about it. How about reproductive coercion? This form of abuse doesn't get much press because it generally happens among low income families.

1 in 4? I've heard 1 in 6, and I can just about believe that. I could be persuaded that 1 in 4 were sexually assaulted, but even that brings us back to the old question (which we have argued over before) of how many accusations are malicious or an attempt to save face. Regardless, both Banquo and I covered this in our initial posts. While a woman being denied the initial choice to have sex should not be ignored that does not give her carte blanche to act against the resulting fetus. She should not be allowed, for example, to go through the first six months of a pregnancy and then decide she wants an abortion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

My 2 cents.

This is an issue where people tend to be very entrenched in their opinions. However, I have also noticed in this thread that there hasn't been a huge gap between those on each side.

Abortion appears to be something that makes both pro-life/pro-choice folk (very?) uncomfortable.* Any attempt to create a cut-off point where a foetus is deemed sufficiently "human" and thus granted the right to life is always going to be arbitrary. As such, there's not a whole lot of point arguing about whether you draw the lines at 12 or 24 weeks etc. Obviously it is a debate that needs to be had, but it might be more productive to focus on other things.

Like, for example, how to prevent abortions from needing to occur in the first place.

My opposition to abortion isn't religious (genuinely, it is not). I oppose it simply because the idea of it really makes me uncomfortable. In this respect I'm no different from any of the pro-choice folk here it seems. As I said its not something where either science (or indeed scripture) gives a clear answer so we know when it is OK, and so the idea of ending any sort of (proto?)human life makes me queasy.

At least though, I will say that pro-life people (and in the past me) have been unhelpful and very unsympathetic in screaming "murder" when women have had abortions under extremely difficult circumstances. I can't pretend to have the slightest clue what its like when a woman has been raped or her life is threatened by the foetus, or if the baby itself has major health complications.

Although I can imagine that if I ever got a girl pregnant and she aborted, that would haunt me for the rest of my life, I honestly think it would be like loosing a child.

So I'm not sure if my views have changed a lot as such, but I recognise now that its not a case of black and white and its maybe time to sit down and talk about things.

In that respect, thanks to BQ for setting the tone so well for this debate. I think people by nature tend to look for clear-cut answers to things and when you have a subject where the controversy lies in the fact that there is apparently no clear-cut answer, it can lead to people making up their own ones (eg Bible doesn't actually say life begins at conception) and then losing all meaningful dialogue with the other side.

Although at the same time I'm wary of temptation to abandon principles and going for compromise for the sake of compromise.

I honestly just don't know with this issue.

*That might change if HoreTore appears since IIRC he makes the point of calling himself "pro-abortion"

[econ21]

Yet are we not accepting for the debate to build towards a skewed perspective econ? The discussion is moving away from the one fundamental point.
There is the original embryo and subsequent foetus.
And then there is the human carrier.
One does not balance the fate of the first without considering the weight added to the scales by the impact on the pregnant female.

You have to oppose the development of the potential human being to the evolution of the full-grown thought-capable carrier person at all times and to decide which is the primary actor in the process.

It is true that my post focussed on the moral status of the embryo/foetus whereas stronger pro-choice approaches would focus on the woman's rights and agency. The woman is certainly the primary actor and I think it is the recognition of this in practice that means even posters like BQ and PVC who start from firmly pro-life ethical positions nonetheless advocate moderately pro-choice legal stances. But from a purely ethical position, I am not persuaded by the stronger pro-choice positions. Yes, as a primary actor you have limited moral obligations to help another, but with abortion we are talking about harm and killing, so some moral constraints on one's freedom to act do seem reasonable.

As for weighing up the value of one life versus the other, I am very much in favour of the primacy of the mother. If the pregnancy was a serious risk to her life (e.g. there was a foreseeable complication), I would have no hesistancy putting her first. But if it's just a matter of her general choice, based on non-medical considerations, I don't see that this automatically trumps the rights of the foetus. I get the sense that a lot of abortion law was passed assuming abortions would be for medical reasons, but in fact, they have turned out to be "on demand".

Another tricky issue is weighing up the interests of the foetus: to life vs to be brought up in less than ideal setting (unwanted, adopted etc.) or even more difficult, disabled etc. I am not sure what I think there. I certainly don't think we have a general obligation to create lots of people, but rather do have an obligation to make those that are created have decent lives. However, again I suspect there is a continuum whereby at a certain point, if the foetus is sufficiently advanced, one has gone too far to ethically justify killing it for almost all reasons except the life of the mother.

[Scienter]

1 in 4? I've heard 1 in 6, and I can just about believe that. I could be persuaded that 1 in 4 were sexually assaulted, but even that brings us back to the old question (which we have argued over before) of how many accusations are malicious or an attempt to save face. Regardless, both Banquo and I covered this in our initial posts. While a woman being denied the initial choice to have sex should not be ignored that does not give her carte blanche to act against the resulting fetus. She should not be allowed, for example, to go through the first six months of a pregnancy and then decide she wants an abortion.

Without getting into the debate about sexual assault, I agree with you about the six month decision. If someone can't sort out what they want to do before then, an abortion at six months shouldn't be an option.

That said, state and Federal governments shouldn't employ delaying tactics like giving legitimacy to "crisis pregnancy centers" or requiring that state-mandated, scientifically inaccurate scripts be read by doctors to patients seeking abortion, or using zoning regulations to force abortion clinics to close. In some really conservative states like the Dakotas, there are no places where a woman to go to get an abortion. Sometimes, Planned Parenthood will fly one in for a few days, but that's it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Without getting into the debate about sexual assault, I agree with you about the six month decision. If someone can't sort out what they want to do before then, an abortion at six months shouldn't be an option.

That said, state and Federal governments shouldn't employ delaying tactics like giving legitimacy to "crisis pregnancy centers" or requiring that state-mandated, scientifically inaccurate scripts be read by doctors to patients seeking abortion, or using zoning regulations to force abortion clinics to close. In some really conservative states like the Dakotas, there are no places where a woman to go to get an abortion. Sometimes, Planned Parenthood will fly one in for a few days, but that's it.

My only response to that is that abortion has become a political rather than legal or moral issue in the US, like many of the issues we discuss here the US is very polarised at both ends of the debate.

[Kralizec]

Thought I'd (belatedly) chip in:

Simply put, I don't think that an embryo is a human being in any relevant sense of the word, and doesn't deserve to be protected by the law. For the later stages, somebody here (forgot who) suggested that awareness be a criterium, but that's a bit iffy - I'm not versed in developmental psychology, but IIRC even newborn infants are not even self-aware in the sense that they realize they're independent creatures, distinct from their mother and other humans. I hasten to add that I don't think that self-awareness should be a criterium (otherwise, post-natal abortions would be legal), I'm just pointing out that the mere presence of some neurological activity doesn't necessarily amount to much - I have no idea when the first brain cells begin to develop, but it sounds like an arbitrary criterium. Which is not to say that I have an idea where the cut-off point should be.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on two related subjects:
Wrongful birth: this term refers to legal cases where a pregnant woman consults a doctor, to see if the unborn child is in good health. The child actually has some serious genetic defect or some other health issue, but the doctor (through negligence) fails to detect this. The woman, thinking that everything is allright, gives birth to the child months later and is unpleasantly surprised, to say the least. She sues the doctor; the grounds being that he failed in his duty and the damages being the costs of raising a disabled child and/or emotional damage.
So, thoughts? I imagine that those opposed to abortion in generally would als oppose this one, but since it is legal, should the woman's claims be honoured?

Wrongful life: related to the above. The difference is that the now-mature child, or the parents on behalf of the child, sue the doctor for damages that the child itself has suffered. Usually, this will be the costs of living after reaching maturity, as the child will in all likelyhood never be able to hold a paying job. Such claims have been honoured in a number of countries; personally I think they're absurd. Simplified, the essence of civil torts is the premise that the claimant would have been better off if the defendent had acted in a correct matter. But if that had happened, the claimant (the disabled child) wouldn't have existed at all.
I know of one Dutch case at our supreme court where such a claim was honoured, naturally provoking a storm of controversy. As for the reasoning above (the child's existence versus his non-existence), the supreme court refused to even adress the argument. A similar claim has been accepted in France by their highest court years ago, but since then the French parliament has outlawed claims like this.

[Ja'chyra]

Got to say something, can't keep it in any longer.

There's a few issues that been mentioned, so I'll go in order to stop me confusing me.....anyway

1. I would say foetus's are human when they can live by themselves, with or without medical support, no different from someone in a coma or after an accident.

2. Abortion should only be legal before this point. Religion should have no input to this at all. In fact before this point I would say it's contraception, not abortion.

3. I totally disagree that abortion is a woman only issue, with the only caveat being if her life is in danger, and I don't mean normal pregnancy danger as it always carries a risk. As most people have pointed out, it takes two, and just because the woman carries the child doesn't mean it only affects her life saying so is offensive and just plain wrong. Finding out that a woman had aborted my child would be devastating, men that feel different shouldn't be allowed to breed.

4. As far as I am concerned rapists have forgone any rights, not just the right to have a say in whether to have an abortion or not.

Oh, and MRD, once again, very funny, keep it up.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I've been reading this thread carefully since it started, and I find myself still as up in the air as when the last abortion thread came around, when Rhy easily kicked me about. I don't really care for PVC's arguments when he starts bringing up "sins" and whatnot but....I am receptive to some of his descriptions about society.

You should really give it a go before claiming it lacks social dimension. Perhaps one of your most egregious statements; the liberty to let in and let go of human beings in the vortex of huge metropolitan communities is not only beautiful, but also a building block of self-examination within society.
A “wound on our society”; how prudish – otherwise, a validating, public inclusion is not the desired path for insertion into society sought by many of us; it is oppressive.

For the most part, I laugh at arguments that argue for more "traditional" ways of living life, but I really disagree with this. If you are using one night stand to teach yourself how to let in and let go of human beings, that's dysfunctional. Don't try slapping a good lesson to learn from riding a stranger in the night and not seeing him in the morning. It's just fun hedonism, which is perfectly within someones ability to do, no problem here, but putting it on pedestal like that is just silly.

You learn about your place within society from contemplation and from emotional connections with people, not from having a few pumps and saying goodbye. All the people I see at uni who go about screwing anyone they see at parties are usually the ones who know the least about who they are and what they want out of life.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It is only homocide if he is gay. Sorry, couldn't resist that.
Seriously though, I have a fundamental disagreement with you on just what homicide is. An innocent person is one who is not trying to harm or murder his fellow-human beings.
Homicide is unjustly killing a person. A bullet in Hitler's head would be nothing but just. You can talk people out of mistakes, but you cannot talk them out of evil. Hitler wanted power. I seriously doubt he even believed half of what he said...he just knew it would help him control people.

You are confusing homicide with murder.

Yes, quite.

Vuk, unlike you I consider killing another human being to be always wrong, and never justifiable. The simple, and quite terrifying, fact is that neither Hitler nor his supporters believed what they were doing was evil. If they had they would not have acted as they did. Once you recognise that you have to recognise that resorting to homocide to stop them represents a failure on your part, not on theirs.

To put it simply, Jesus didn't kill murderers, prostitutes or tax collectors - he converted them and that is the only "good" way of dealing with "bad" people. More pointedly, he would not have killed late-term abortionists either, as Christians in the US have in the past.

I've been reading this thread carefully since it started, and I find myself still as up in the air as when the last abortion thread came around, when Rhy easily kicked me about. I don't really care for PVC's arguments when he starts bringing up "sins" and whatnot but....I am receptive to some of his descriptions about society.


For the most part, I laugh at arguments that argue for more "traditional" ways of living life, but I really disagree with this. If you are using one night stand to teach yourself how to let in and let go of human beings, that's dysfunctional. Don't try slapping a good lesson to learn from riding a stranger in the night and not seeing him in the morning. It's just fun hedonism, which is perfectly within someones ability to do, no problem here, but putting it on pedestal like that is just silly.

You learn about your place within society from contemplation and from emotional connections with people, not from having a few pumps and saying goodbye. All the people I see at uni who go about screwing anyone they see at parties are usually the ones who know the least about who they are and what they want out of life.

You might find my arguements for palatable it you reflected carefully on how I use words like "sin" and try not to prejudice it too heavily against religious polemic of the past.

[TheLastDays]

Great, post got eaten... let me try to summarise my thoughts on the matter:

1) My views come from a religious/christian basis and I'll not make a secret of this. Yet I don't think my moral/ethic values and convictions are of less value just because they come from a religious view of life.

2) I believe a foetus is a human being from conception.

3) I think abortion is morally wrong but a necessary evil under certain circumstances.

4) There have to be legal ways and institutions to perform abortions. The income of these institutions has to be completely unrelated as to whether a woman/girl consulting them ends up aborting or giving birth to the child to prevent encouraging abortions out of monetary reasons.

5) I believe that both parents, male and female, have a responsibility for choosing consensual, sexual intercourse and all consequences that may arise. Yes, a boy/man who decides to have sex can, imo, be held responsible to care for the forthcoming child (financially and as a father, although of course the latter is hard to legislate).

6) Therefore abortion should never be taken lightly. It is a last resort option, to be used in medical emergencies or unwanted pregnancies occuring out of non-consensual sex. Even in the latter part I would like to see regulations that favour and encourage adoption, should the mother not want to keep the child (I know of cases where victims of rape still wanted to keep their child). Even in these situations there has to be a limit as to when abortion can happen, I am not sure where to draw that line though.

7) Adoption has to be encouraged and supported more, from the state, both to encourage pregnant girls/women to choose adoption instead of abortion and ways have to be found to encourage more people to adopt children themselves.

[Nowake]

For the most part, I laugh at arguments that argue for more "traditional" ways of living life, but I really disagree with this. If you are using one night stand to teach yourself how to let in and let go of human beings, that's dysfunctional. Don't try slapping a good lesson to learn from riding a stranger in the night and not seeing him in the morning. It's just fun hedonism, which is perfectly within someones ability to do, no problem here, but putting it on pedestal like that is just silly.
You learn about your place within society from contemplation and from emotional connections with people, not from having a few pumps and saying goodbye. All the people I see at uni who go about screwing anyone they see at parties are usually the ones who know the least about who they are and what they want out of life.

My intention was to write another reply in this thread at a later date, because the arguments slowly evolve towards a more acceptable common ground, yet since you put me on the spot on this particular issue, probably best to further explain it briefly. First of all, I was replying to this statement:

We are one of the most sexuallly unregulated societies ever, and as a result we have large numbers of single women with unwanted pregnancies, selective abortion is plaster on a wound in our society, not a solution. You describe sex as a social aspect of our society, but you ignore the fact that in the West people are increasingly engaging in sexual practices which either have no social dimension (one night stands) or negative ones (people getting together, jumping into bed after a couple of dates and then the woman getting pregnant, not to mention being infected with an STD.)

I cannot agree with your easily awarded label acin, you're using the concept of dysfunctionality rather contiguously at best, or you allow yourself to be imprecise. Not to put too fine a point on it, you imply a total lack of propitious consequences for one's personality.
For one, lets agree on what the one night stands and negative sexual practices PVC is so horrified of actually are. I know what they mean at your age and I can understand why you would make the mistake of seeing them as some sort of semi-conscious encounter taking place through a haze of alcohol and drugs. While my age doesn’t put me a world apart from you (twenty-six) I can assure you the difference in life perspective and the way you experience sex with another is as big between age twenty and twenty-six as it is between fourteen and twenty. But to clearly express the point, what you are describing is a lot more age-related than sex-related. And the “strangers” you talk of do not necessarily exist in these type of encounters. It is a lot more likely for such an exchange to happen between persons from the same social class, circles, profession and having a similar IQ.

Once one begins a career and advances towards one’s thirties, relationships come into sharp focus. And since this subject can only really be discussed by editorializing, I have to write that personal observation of my own community takes me to completely different conclusions from yours.
In view of the above, persons who engage in brief sexual encounters with peers learn very early on to respect their partner and their privacy, which is one of the things most couples struggle with for years on end.
Moreover, one develops a distinct sense of responsibility for one’s actions and involvement. You make your choices and you deal with the consequences alone. And I would add that one learns to separate the public (or professional) and private aspects of one’s life very strictly, which is a benefit for everyone.
A developing trait in such situations which I find highly amusing is empathy. It’s just a personal observation, yet my friends who opt to only seek out long-term relationships experience great difficulties in seeing reality through their partner’s eyes. I attribute that to the complex process of projection which characterizes such persons and the struggle to negotiate it against the backdrop of their mutual reality. Meanwhile, the ones I know to be open are also very down-to-earth and self-aware of what they represent in their partner’s context.
To be more direct, they define themselves a lot more accurately in relation to the Other (as described by Sartre, not Hegel) and have an equally clear understanding of their own position as Other.
There’s also a well-developed dimension of intellectual honesty which sometimes surfaces from these relationships which has a clear beneficial effect on one’s mentality.

Now, by glancing through the text I just laid out, I realise it seems an apology, or, as you wrote, that I am putting these interactions “on a pedestal”. Which I in fact do not want to do per se. I would not recommend these encounters as some type of training for life or what not at all. I am only making the point that if they sometime exude immaturity or confusion, it is the strict result of the persons involved on a case by case basis and not because persons engaging in such exchanges are more prone to it than long-term couples. Society needed to control the consequences of sexual acts in the past and the solution was marriage; thus society, and especially judeo-christian societies, marred our understanding of short-term sexual relationships. Yet those consequences are nowadays easily avoided and make all the fuss about them a moot point.

I won’t presume you to be blind to the above, but I do think your perspective is skewed by social context. Late teens and early twenties are not ages characterised by a stable emotional period and they coincide of course with the onset of a sexual responsibility which makes a concept like “you’re on your own” to hit one a bit harder than one would expect. Of course many persons crash and burn as a result. Do not mistake this for faults of sexual liberty in general.

I’ll also give you attenuating circumstances for misunderstanding me, seeing as we find ourselves a world apart. And while the pervasive influence of your society onto the world allows me to have a vague idea about the type of neurosis which shrouds the whole matter in your country, Romania never experienced the traumatic effects of your ‘60s sexual revolution. It did not even need this type of awakening . Our social mores of course needed to evolve as well, but our culture was far less prudish than even the much closer German one (especially Viennese) and a lot more closer to mentalities you would find in a country like France.

I can accept PVC’s pining for a less immoral (and here one has to clearly distinguish between the context of immorality, as defined specifically in some Western countries, and amorality) age as a viewpoint, but what he describes as “one of the most sexually unregulated societies ever” does not lead to a lack of social ethics. On the contrary, between persons who’ve reached adulthood not only physically, but also mentally, it brings a whole dimension of intellectual honesty and maturity to society. Unwanted pregnancies and STDs and whatever ills PVC further wishes to list as having been brought about by sexual liberty are purely a matter of one's level of education.

[Nowake]

Yet I don't think my moral/ethic values and convictions are of less value just because they come from a religious view of life

Hey you
How would you ever reach that conclusion? The product of religious moral and ethic values must always be dismissed when it clashes with the secularly established principles at the basis of laws and rights.

[TheLastDays]

If you say so

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Once one begins a career and advances towards one’s thirties, relationships come into sharp focus. And since this subject can only really be discussed by editorializing, I have to write that personal observation of my own community takes me to completely different conclusions from yours.
In view of the above, persons who engage in brief sexual encounters with peers learn very early on to respect their partner and their privacy, which is one of the things most couples struggle with for years on end.
Moreover, one develops a distinct sense of responsibility for one’s actions and involvement. You make your choices and you deal with the consequences alone. And I would add that one learns to separate the public (or professional) and private aspects of one’s life very strictly, which is a benefit for everyone.
A developing trait in such situations which I find highly amusing is empathy. It’s just a personal observation, yet my friends who opt to only seek out long-term relationships experience great difficulties in seeing reality through their partner’s eyes. I attribute that to the complex process of projection which characterizes such persons and the struggle to negotiate it against the backdrop of their mutual reality. Meanwhile, the ones I know to be open are also very down-to-earth and self-aware of what they represent in their partner’s context.
To be more direct, they define themselves a lot more accurately in relation to the Other (as described by Sartre, not Hegel) and have an equally clear understanding of their own position as Other.
There’s also a well-developed dimension of intellectual honesty which sometimes surfaces from these relationships which has a clear beneficial effect on one’s mentality.

I infer from your description of your scoial context and your learned references you are in possesion of a Higher Degree, if that is so you and I are of aproximately the same age and level of education, I am just shy of my 25th birthday. You clearly occupy a socially elite position in your scoiety, you associate within a select social circle with is composed of mature individuals who are highly educated. If I have read you correctly then I can say that your socio-sexual experience will be decidedly atypical and will not reflect the general population in most countries. Immorality can be most usefully described as knowingly acting in a way which will negatively impact another, amorality might be described as giving no regard to the impact of your actions on others.

One night stand can fall into both catagories.

In most cases where two strangers have sex one is predatory, generally has gone out with the express intention of "picking up" someone. The other is "picked up", various lures and underhand tactics are used, chiefly lieing, misrepresentation and intoxication. If two people meet in a bar and end up in bed, this is the general patter, no matter where they are in the world.

On the other hand, if two academics were to meet at a conference, say, and fall into bed after one gave a particularly passionate and lucid paper on 14th Century poetic lyrics addressed to the Virgin Mary that might conform to the sort of experience you describe, but in my experience such encounters also include an element of infidelity which, even if admitted to beforehand, demonstrated moral degeneracy and a lack of emotional maturity.

I can accept PVC’s pining for a less immoral (and here one has to clearly distinguish between the context of immorality, as defined specifically in some Western countries, and amorality) age as a viewpoint, but what he describes as “one of the most sexually unregulated societies ever” does not lead to a lack of social ethics. On the contrary, between persons who’ve reached adulthood not only physically, but also mentally, it brings a whole dimension of intellectual honesty and maturity to society. Unwanted pregnancies and STDs and whatever ills PVC further wishes to list as having been brought about by sexual liberty are purely a matter of one's level of education.

You are falling into the aristocratic fallacy that the "lower orders" are degenerate due to base stupidity/ignorance, such is not so. Historical degeneracy at the bottom of society tends to follow degeneracy at the top.

But in any case, we are straying off track.

I have to say, if you are expecting significant development in the abortion argument at this point you will probably be mistaken.