Abortion.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by GreyMouser

Interestingly,most Westerners who adopt prefer girls- supposedly less trouble- - which matches up with the surplus Third-World babies available.

I've heard that since Asians are generally shorter than Westerneers, Westerneers tend to refrain from adopting boys because short boys in a society full of taller people might be disadvantaged when they grow up. Asian girls can get away easier with being short when they're older, so that's why Westerneers would rather adopt girls.
No idea if there's any ground for this explanation.

Originally Posted by captain carrot

The thing i find dis-ingenuous with Rian's question, is the continous attempt at logic that is to imply by a vague association one ideal with another completely seperate one, with a very skewed and deliberate intention of deflecting a problematical ethic or question.

That's a rather harsh way to put it, don't you think?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by captain carrot

wotcha Lief.

The thing i find dis-ingenuous with Rian's question, is the continous attempt at logic that is to imply by a vague association one ideal with another completely seperate one, with a very skewed and deliberate intention of deflecting a problematical ethic or question.

I guess, in truth my main problem with it, is that it is so crudely done ... it rather insults our collective intelligence.

Maybe it insults yours, but it is far enough beyond me that I can't see it at all.

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

I've heard that since Asians are generally shorter than Westerneers, Westerneers tend to refrain from adopting boys because short boys in a society full of taller people might be disadvantaged when they grow up. Asian girls can get away easier with being short when they're older, so that's why Westerneers would rather adopt girls.
No idea if there's any ground for this explanation.
:
:

That's the first I've heard of it. I think there are actually a large amount of girls available for adoption - particularly from China - and I don't think the boys are available. Most cases I'm aware of - and the appeals I see from the adoption agencies - have to do with compassionately taking in these girls who are otherwise unwanted (because they're girls) in their homeland.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Valandil

That's the first I've heard of it. I think there are actually a large amount of girls available for adoption - particularly from China - and I don't think the boys are available. Most cases I'm aware of - and the appeals I see from the adoption agencies - have to do with compassionately taking in these girls who are otherwise unwanted (because they're girls) in their homeland.

I have also heard of this. I know several people who have adopted girls from China. I don't think that boys are available to adopt. Most people I know agree that people in Western countries seem like they would rather have girls and people in the Eastern countries would rather have boys. why is this?

[Valandil]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

I have also heard of this. I know several people who have adopted girls from China. I don't think that boys are available to adopt. Most people I know agree that people in Western countries seem like they would rather have girls and people in the Eastern countries would rather have boys. why is this?

I think in the west, it really doesn't matter to people as much - except that they seem to prefer girls for adoptions. It might be that they think girls would be less trouble to raise.

In many cultures, boys are preferred. This is a traditional thing, ingrained in most cultures, about having sons to carry on the family line - since in most societies, family lines have been figured patrilinealy.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Valandil

It might be that they think girls would be less trouble to raise.

I might be inclined to agree with them here (at least untill the girls hit puberty! then watch out! )

[hectorberlioz]

Hmm...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Chemicals are pretty bad for you too, especially the stuff like Norplant, as I have read. I suppose vasectomy is the way to go if you don't want children, but even that isnt 100% guaranteed, as the knot can loosen over time....

A vasectomy is for men. Getting the tubes tied is for women. A vasectomy actually cuts the vas deferens, so sperm can no loger exit the penis. Unless it's done wrong somehow, this would completely prevent pregnancy.

Tubal ligation, or "getting your tubes tied" is either cutting, tying, clamping, or stapling the fallopian tubes, so that an egg cannot enter the uterus. There is a 0.5% chance of pregnancy after this procedure, so it's highly effective, but not quite as effective as your partner having a vasectomy.

I am personally fond of spermacide and condoms.

[Rían]

great cartoon, hector!

[me9996]

Frankly, abortion is killing a human being, so unless it saves at least one life I'm against it.

That's my entire opinion. Not going to change.

Simple, but the simple things are often the truest.

That's it, and why one would kill another human being for fashion is almost beond me.

[klatukatt]

In a lot of cases abortion can save lives.

A lot of girls that get pregnant are WAY TOO YOUNG to have children and should get and abortion before MANY LIVES are ruined.
Their life, the child's life, and anyone else that they are dependent on.

In some cases, abortion is an act of mercy so the child doesn't have to grow up in an unloving environment.


I'm not going to argue about a fetus being alive, becaue you obviously believe it is and I respect that.

EDIT: I forgot to add the part where some females have health issues and birthing a baby can kill them, not to mention the child.

[Arien the Maia]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

A vasectomy is for men. Getting the tubes tied is for women. A vasectomy actually cuts the vas deferens, so sperm can no loger exit the penis. Unless it's done wrong somehow, this would completely prevent pregnancy.

Tubal ligation, or "getting your tubes tied" is either cutting, tying, clamping, or stapling the fallopian tubes, so that an egg cannot enter the uterus. There is a 0.5% chance of pregnancy after this procedure, so it's highly effective, but not quite as effective as your partner having a vasectomy.

I am personally fond of spermacide and condoms.

a friend of mine is a PA (Physician's ASsistant0 and she was taking care of a patient who had gotten pregnant inpsite of having her tubes tied.

abstinance is the only way to go for 100% assurance. In fact I can pretty much pinpoint when I ovulate b/c I've been tracking it for almost 4 years now. so I just abstain...I know 2 people who have gotten pregnant one using Depo and one using the Patch.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Arien the Maia

a friend of mine is a PA (Physician's ASsistant0 and she was taking care of a patient who had gotten pregnant inpsite of having her tubes tied.

abstinance is the only way to go for 100% assurance. In fact I can pretty much pinpoint when I ovulate b/c I've been tracking it for almost 4 years now. so I just abstain...I know 2 people who have gotten pregnant one using Depo and one using the Patch.

I completely agree. Getting your tubes tied is very reliable, but not 100% reliable. Only abstinence, as you said, is 100% reliable. I just wanted to post that to clear up some apparent misinformation about vasectomies and tubal ligations.

The patch and depo are also obviously not 100% effective.

That's why I use two methods of birth control. There is a small chance that I could still become pregnant, but the risk is minimal enough that I find it acceptable.

Originally Posted by me9996

That's it, and why one would kill another human being for fashion is almost beond me.

Killing someone for fashion is completely incomprehensible to me.

Altough, so is what your statement has to do with abortion.

Abortion is not a fashion.

[inked]

Nurv et alia,

No means of birth control is 100% effective.

The hormonal means (oral contraceptive pills, the patch, the DepoProvera shot) all have a failure rate of 1 per 100 WHEN USED PRPOERLY.

Condoms / diaphragms have a failure rate of 3-7% WHEN USED PROPERLY.

Bilateral tubal ligation has a failure rate of 3-6/1000 procedures (though there have been higher reported failure rates in some studies) WHEN PROPERLY PERFORMED.

Vasectomies have a failure rate of 6 - 10 / 1000 procedures (though there have been higher reported failure rates) WHEN PROPERLY PERFORMED.

IUDs (intrauterine devices) have failure rates of 1-2%.

These rates all depend on proper usage. The actual failure rates for hormonal techniques due to inadequate technique (user failure rates) are 3-4/100. The actual failure rate for condoms and diaphragms on these lines is 10-15/100.

Believe it or not, there are approximately 100 reported post-hysterectomy intraabdominal pregnancies in the world OB/GYN literature (making that very rare in terms of failure rate,but still not 100% effective as birth control).

Abstinence is very nearly 100% but there is that business with Christmas!

[me9996]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

In a lot of cases abortion can save lives.

Sorry if I gave you the impression that I thought that it never saved lives.

What I ment was that when it saved lives it would be good...
Otherwise it's just killing. Once a being of any sort starts forming there it is: life.

[Rána Eressëa]

Interrupting current debate to drop off my opinion.

I support abortion, though from my personal view it's more like a necessary evil of sorts than anything else.

In societies throughout history, women were and are constantly being judged by their ability to give birth over anything else they may be capable of. In the current equality debate that's been going on for so long, women will essentially never be men's equals because of their ability to bear life/pregnancy/etc. For societal reasons like this, I support it because it gives women a chance in today's society to be more than just mothers. Shallow reason? Perhaps.

Also, a woman's body is her own right. I also support it because until that life inside the mother does not use the mother's body as a host necessary for survival, it serves a similar purpose that a parasite does. This is NOT TO SAY that fetuses are parasites, merely that they CANNOT survive without a HOST until birth. Until that life can support itself as a separate living being, the host should have rights over the life that depends, at the most basic level possible involving bodily functions, entirely and utterly on it for survival.

Thirdly, overpopulation and the fact that there are so many unwanted and impoverished children in the world. When people sit down and complain about abortion without standing up to attempt to make the lives of those who are already suffering any better, it feels a lot like, "Okay, let's have more tortured people in the world. We already don't have enough of them that we can't take care of." Letting more unwanted children into the world feels worse than abortion to me, but I have different personal views than other people. I think all morals are relative to one's belief system, and mine is going to be vastly different from other people's systems.

From a logical and detached view, there are plenty of reasons to support abortion. The only problem with most people is they can't be logical and detached from it to make a sensible deduction on the matter.

Since I think everything is relative, though, really? It all depends on the person, and everyone's going to be different in their views.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

In societies throughout history, women were and are constantly being judged by their ability to give birth over anything else they may be capable of. In the current equality debate that's been going on for so long, women will essentially never be men's equals because of their ability to bear life/pregnancy/etc. For societal reasons like this, I support it because it gives women a chance in today's society to be more than just mothers. Shallow reason? Perhaps.

Being able to bear children is just one of the genetic differences between men and women. Men and women also are mentally different, men more masculine and women more feminine, men more aggressive and women more nurturing. I have several arguments and pieces of evidence for this being true that I've presented in the Gender Issues Thread.

Neither femininity nor masculinity is better than the other. Both are essential and complementary parts of the human race.

I think men and women already have equality just about everywhere in modern society. Child bearing isn't any big change in that.

Plus, as you mentioned, it's a kind of shallow reason for killing someone .

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

Also, a woman's body is her own right. I also support it because until that life inside the mother does not use the mother's body as a host necessary for survival, it serves a similar purpose that a parasite does. This is NOT TO SAY that fetuses are parasites, merely that they CANNOT survive without a HOST until birth. Until that life can support itself as a separate living being, the host should have rights over the life that depends, at the most basic level possible involving bodily functions, entirely and utterly on it for survival.

This argument justifies our killing anyone in a hospital who is on life support. They depend, "at the most basic level possible involving bodily functions, entirely and utterly on [us] for survival." The fact that one depends upon someone else does not make one any less valuable.

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

Thirdly, overpopulation and the fact that there are so many unwanted and impoverished children in the world. When people sit down and complain about abortion without standing up to attempt to make the lives of those who are already suffering any better, it feels a lot like, "Okay, let's have more tortured people in the world. We already don't have enough of them that we can't take care of." Letting more unwanted children into the world feels worse than abortion to me, but I have different personal views than other people.

So would you rather die than be poor?

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

I think all morals are relative to one's belief system, and mine is going to be vastly different from other people's systems.

Stalin purposely and systematically starved to death many millions of his civilians because they were holding back the industrial development of his country by not cooperating with his economic plans. His morals were just relative to his belief system. They must have been valid too, right?

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

From a logical and detached view, there are plenty of reasons to support abortion. The only problem with most people is they can't be logical and detached from it to make a sensible deduction on the matter.

So people should be logical and detached when considering killing other people? They shouldn't allow compassion to enter their thinking, too?

By this reasoning, Stalin had it all right. I bet he was being "logical and detached," when he decided to starve to death millions of the citizens of his country. The act greatly benefitted the economy of his country (though it went downhill anyway in the end, because of the nuclear arms race). Indeed, I very much wish that Stalin had been less detached from what he was doing, when deciding whether or not to kill humans.

Originally Posted by Rána Eressëa

Since I think everything is relative, though, really? It all depends on the person, and everyone's going to be different in their views.

True. And this line of reasoning leaves anything and everything that anyone might do completely justified. Provided people can justify their actions according to their belief systems, they can validly do whatever they please. And there's nothing wrong with it, because according to their belief systems, it's fine. No matter how twisted and sick their actions might seem to an outsider.

So Hitler and Stalin were just fine. They were acting in perfectly valid ways, according to their belief systems, so they were fine and we should stop harping on them for their murdering tens of millions of people.

You see, this is the essential problem with religious liberalism. If ethics depend solely on people's individual views of reality, and they can validly make them what they want for themselves, then anything goes. Nothing is good and nothing is evil.

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This argument justifies our killing anyone in a hospital who is on life support. They depend, "at the most basic level possible involving bodily functions, entirely and utterly on [us] for survival." The fact that one depends upon someone else does not make one any less valuable.

It can. Why do we allow people with unfixable brain damage to live while others who can contribute starve to death? People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping hunks of flesh with no soul alive and would not spend five dollars to help a poor child.
The soul has already left. We don't need to keep the body alive.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So people should be logical and detached when considering killing other people? They shouldn't allow compassion to enter their thinking, too?

People are already being desentitized to violence and death every day. The numbers that come back from Iraq are just numbers, not people.
Soldiers kill for the gain of the rich constantly, and yet it is illigal to kill for personal gain.
Abortion isn't even killing, yet it is frowned upon.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

By this reasoning, Stalin had it all right. I bet he was being "logical and detached," when he decided to starve to death millions of the citizens of his country. The act greatly benefitted the economy of his country (though it went downhill anyway in the end, because of the nuclear arms race). Indeed, I very much wish that Stalin had been less detached from what he was doing, when deciding whether or not to kill humans.

You are comparing abortion to mass murder. Don't you think that is a little over the top?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

True. And this line of reasoning leaves anything and everything that anyone might do completely justified. Provided people can justify their actions according to their belief systems, they can validly do whatever they please. And there's nothing wrong with it, because according to their belief systems, it's fine. No matter how twisted and sick their actions might seem to an outsider.
So Hitler and Stalin were just fine. They were acting in perfectly valid ways, according to their belief systems, so they were fine and we should stop harping on them for their murdering tens of millions of people.

No one harps on the the Church because of the Crusades.

And again you are comparing ABORTION to MASS MURDER. All a fetus has is potential, while a full grown human is already working and producing.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You see, this is the essential problem with religious liberalism. If ethics depend solely on people's individual views of reality, and they can validly make them what they want for themselves, then anything goes. Nothing is good and nothing is evil.

We automatically lump all murderers into the "insane" category.
Does anyone ever think that this might be one of Nature's ways of telling us that we are overpopulating the earth? In recent years, the number of birth defects, mental illnesses, and natural catastrophies has skyrocketed. Still, we with our human "compassion" struggle to keep as many people alive as possible. Does anyone ever listen to what the planet is trying to tell us? We are destroying the Earth and now she is getting back at us!

I don't think children with serious medical problems should be allowed to live. We are weakening our species that way. The Apocalypse is coming and it will be survival of the fittest.

Aw screw this. Why do I even try? I'm just as bad as the rest of you, sitting here on my butt not trying to do anything. **** this.

[Rána Eressëa]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I think men and women already have equality just about everywhere in modern society. Child bearing isn't any big change in that.

Plus, as you mentioned, it's a kind of shallow reason for killing someone .

Men and women have complete and total equality?

You're hilarious, my friend.

Is it killing? Yes. However, there are justifiable means by law to kill people, such as to protect one's home or family or life, etc. Abortion is not murder, which is very different from killing, because murder is defined as "the unlawful taking of life", and abortion is currently legal in most areas of the Western world.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This argument justifies our killing anyone in a hospital who is on life support. They depend, "at the most basic level possible involving bodily functions, entirely and utterly on [us] for survival." The fact that one depends upon someone else does not make one any less valuable.

I disagree with life support. I think it's trying to outlive the fact that human beings are organic creatures that have to perish and must die eventually. Life support drags out the process of dying for most people, and it does not often help them back to full health.

What are we, trying to live forever? Sorry, not going to happen.

I'd rather die with some dignity.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Stalin purposely and systematically starved to death many millions of his civilians because they were holding back the industrial development of his country by not cooperating with his economic plans. His morals were just relative to his belief system. They must have been valid too, right?

Relative doesn't mean valid. It means invalid. No one's beliefs really matter. Every law and every rule we follow is man-made in order to support an orderly government and way of life for a human society.

For me, my right and wrong is not someone else's right and wrong, and I have no right to impose that upon them. Stalin disagrees with me, so as a result, I would have fought against him because I disagreed.

But it's an endless cycle, really. People like you and me just continue it on.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So people should be logical and detached when considering killing other people? They shouldn't allow compassion to enter their thinking, too?

By this reasoning, Stalin had it all right. I bet he was being "logical and detached," when he decided to starve to death millions of the citizens of his country. The act greatly benefitted the economy of his country (though it went downhill anyway in the end, because of the nuclear arms race). Indeed, I very much wish that Stalin had been less detached from what he was doing, when deciding whether or not to kill humans.

I think the difference between abortion and killing people is that a person, fully capable of thought and fully developed to the degree of memory and awareness of their world, knows she or he is being killed.

Whereas, a fetus is not fully developed and has no such awareness.

Do you have any memories from being a fetus?

So, yes, there's a difference.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

True. And this line of reasoning leaves anything and everything that anyone might do completely justified. Provided people can justify their actions according to their belief systems, they can validly do whatever they please. And there's nothing wrong with it, because according to their belief systems, it's fine. No matter how twisted and sick their actions might seem to an outsider.

So Hitler and Stalin were just fine. They were acting in perfectly valid ways, according to their belief systems, so they were fine and we should stop harping on them for their murdering tens of millions of people.

No, you're missing the point. Relative doesn't mean "okay." Relative means it doesn't matter. We're all still going to fight over these things, I am just saying NO ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

We're just throwing our opinions around. That's what it boils down to.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You see, this is the essential problem with religious liberalism. If ethics depend solely on people's individual views of reality, and they can validly make them what they want for themselves, then anything goes. Nothing is good and nothing is evil.

“There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.”
- William Shakespeare

I don't believe in good and evil. I just believe in pain and the fact that we all feel it and that's simply a part of life.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by klatukatt

It can. Why do we allow people with unfixable brain damage to live while others who can contribute starve to death? People pay hundreds of thousands of dollars keeping hunks of flesh with no soul alive and would not spend five dollars to help a poor child.
The soul has already left. We don't need to keep the body alive.

By the same reasoning, soldiers who are shot down and badly wounded on the battlefield, and who can't help themselves, should be left to die. It might cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to heal them.

Originally Posted by klatukatt

People are already being desentitized to violence and death every day. The numbers that come back from Iraq are just numbers, not people.
Soldiers kill for the gain of the rich constantly, and yet it is illigal to kill for personal gain.

What are you saying here, in this last sentence? Are you saying killing for personal gain should be legal?

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Abortion isn't even killing, yet it is frowned upon.

It is killing. An instrument is inserted into the woman and slices apart a living human being. The foetus can see that instrument and responds to its presence. It feels pain and experiences fear.

Originally Posted by klatukatt

You are comparing abortion to mass murder. Don't you think that is a little over the top?

Not in the least. Foetuses at 12 weeks have all of their organs formed. From that point on, it is just further development of those organs. On the ultrasound, you can watch foetuses of that age sucking their thumbs and bouncing around a bit, moving of their own choice. They have developed brains. They can recognize danger and respond to it, and they have control of their own bodies.

Originally Posted by klatukatt

No one harps on the the Church because of the Crusades.

Actually, I've heard a ton of people harp on the church because of the Crusades. People do that all the time. It's very frustrating how we are condemned to such a huge extent for something that happened more than half a century ago. The crusades were a horrible tragedy, though.

Originally Posted by klatukatt

And again you are comparing ABORTION to MASS MURDER. All a fetus has is potential, while a full grown human is already working and producing.
THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

A child of two or three years old may not be "working and producing." They aren't even physically capable of it. By our laws, children of much older ages than two or three aren't allowed to work. So aren't they also, then, just "potential."

Is my thirteen year old brother just "potential" because he's not legally allowed to work, yet?

Originally Posted by klatukatt

We automatically lump all murderers into the "insane" category.

Huh? I don't understand what you're saying here.

Originally Posted by klatukatt

Does anyone ever think that this might be one of Nature's ways of telling us that we are overpopulating the earth? In recent years, the number of birth defects, mental illnesses, and natural catastrophies has skyrocketed. Still, we with our human "compassion" struggle to keep as many people alive as possible. Does anyone ever listen to what the planet is trying to tell us? We are destroying the Earth and now she is getting back at us!

I don't feel that utilitarianism should replace humanitarianism. It might be most practical for us to allow much of the human race to die. That might indeed be most good for our economies and personal livelihoods. And using torture might even be the most effective way of protecting society from various criminal acts and groups, and destabilizing those who oppose us. What is most practical and good for our own personal condition is not always what is right. Otherwise, selfishness is the noblest instinct of humanity.

Originally Posted by klatukatt

I don't think children with serious medical problems should be allowed to live. We are weakening our species that way. The Apocalypse is coming and it will be survival of the fittest.

Eugenics. Hitler killed off the badly sick people just like you're talking about, along with many others who he didn't think matched up to the desired physical standard, for the sake of creating his super-race. It sounds like you're saying the only thing wrong with his strategy was that his science was flawed. The Aryans weren't necessarily better than any other race. But that's just a technical issue, not a moral one.

I don't mean to single you individually out on this, klatukatt. I know that there are many people who hold the views you currently hold, and the way our culture is going, I think a generation from now, many, many more people will hold them.