"NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS", HERE'S THE SIMPLE TRUTH ABOUT ABORTION

[Immanuel Can]

As it currently stands, not all babies are adopted.

Healthy infants are "flying off the shelves." They can't get enough.

And death, as the alternative, is not in the interest of any child.

But if you're so worried about the men's rights, let me ask you this: if it's "his child," (which it must be, if you say it's also his responsibility to provide for the child) should we require women to get permission from their partners before having any abortion? That would follow logically: if the child is his responsibility, it must also be his child, and not hers to do exclusively with as she pleases. But if it's only hers, then it's not his responsibility, is it?

[RCSaunders]

" I certainly would trust the parents of a child to make a right choice before any bureaucrat, politician, or government employee"

Indeed. I agree. Thing is: I'm not sure choosing to end what a pregnant woman carries is the 'right choice'.

Don't fret. It's not up to you. No matter what you do, others will always make wrong choices. In most abortion cases, the pregnancy itself is evidence of a wrong choice.

[Immanuel Can]

In most abortion cases, the pregnancy itself is evidence of a wrong choice.

Very true.

But if so, then why would we be in favour of giving such a demonstrably unreliable person yet another "choice," and this one potentially homicidal in its effect? What kind of sense would that make?

[Gary Childress]

As it currently stands, not all babies are adopted.

Healthy infants are "flying off the shelves." They can't get enough.

So what are we supposed to do with the unhealthy ones, let them suck up the misery?

And death, as the alternative, is not in the interest of any child.

How can you be so sure? We're not talking about "death" per say, we're talking about never having lived.

But if you're so worried about the men's rights, let me ask you this: if it's "his child," (which it must be, if you say it's also his responsibility to provide for the child) should we require women to get permission from their partners before having any abortion? That would follow logically: if the child is his responsibility, it must also be his child, and not hers to do exclusively with as she pleases. But if it's only hers, then it's not his responsibility, is it?

A male doesn't have to endure pregnancy on the same scale as a female. A baby grows in a female's body, not a male's. So there's more a matter of the female having control over her own body than with the male.

[RCSaunders]

And death, as the alternative, is not in the interest of any child.

What child? If the fetus is aborted, there is no child.

If you knew that a child born would be beaten, neglected, and perhaps tortured and burned to death before it was grown, how would letting it live be in its interest? Since you cannot know the future, you cannot know what is in the interest of the child.

[Immanuel Can]

So what are we supposed to do with the unhealthy ones, let them suck up the misery?

You mean unhealthy children? You want to kill unhealthy children now?

And death, as the alternative, is not in the interest of any child.

How can you be so sure?

Because life is intrinsically of value.

In fact, even sad and depressed people think it is. That's what they're sad and depressed about -- that this unspeakably valuable thing has not turned out as they would have wished. But it's not that they don't value life -- they value it immensely, or they'd have no disappointment -- they feel they have been deprived of precious aspects of a precious quantity that they cannot reclaim. But if they felt life had no value, they'd have no disappointment either -- when you expect nothing, you're not surprised when you get it.

A male doesn't have to endure pregnancy on the same scale as a female.

Obviously. But it seems to me maybe you really ducked the question, Gary: if it's his responsibility, is it his child too? Ought he to have any say about abortion or carrying to term? Or do you want men to take responsibility for children and decisions that, in your view, rightfully belong to women exclusively?

[RCSaunders]

But if so, then why would we be in favour of giving such a demonstrably unreliable person yet another "choice," and this one potentially homicidal in its effect? What kind of sense would that make?

I don't know who, "we," is (it doesn't include me) but it doesn't matter how much one dislikes what someone else, "might," or is even, "likely," to do, it is none of anyone else's business how someone else lives their life. If they are not directly threatening you, it is wrong to interfere in someone else's life.

[Immanuel Can]

And death, as the alternative, is not in the interest of any child.

What child? If the fetus is aborted, there is no child.

What's your proof that a fetus is not a child? I can certainly show that it can be and will be one, left to its own devices. And I can show it has genetics of an independent human life. Can you do anything near as much to show that the child's just a "fetus," not a person?

If you knew that a child born would be beaten, neglected, and perhaps tortured and burned to death before it was grown, how would letting it live be in its interest?

Are you positing that that is what is going on in the US? I think not. At least, not in any but wildly exceptional cases, which cannot be the basis of any policy.

However, if I agreed with you on such cases, would you stipulate on your side that unless we knew that the child WAS going to be "beaten, neglected, tortured and burned to death," then abortion would be immoral in such cases? I doubt it.

So I think this is a bit of a distractor from the real issues.

[Immanuel Can]

...it is none of anyone else's business how someone else lives their life.

Only if they live as a total hermit. The minute you have two people, you have society, ethical issues, and mutual responsibilities that need to be defined. Absent that, you can't have society at all.

If they are not directly threatening you, it is wrong to interfere in someone else's life.

You mean that you can't intervene in the interests of the innocent? That seems obviously wrong. In fact, if you saw somebody killing somebody else, I hope you'd try to intervene somehow...and would be ashamed later, if you didn't.

[Gary Childress]

In fact, even sad and depressed people think it is.

People commit suicide IC. Not everyone thinks the way you do.

[Immanuel Can]

People commit suicide IC. Not everyone thinks the way you do.

Yes, they do. But it's when they feel they have lost so much of that immensely valuable thing that they despair and curtail the rest.

As I say, when you expect nothing, there's no such thing as disappointment.

[RCSaunders]

And death, as the alternative, is not in the interest of any child.

What child? If the fetus is aborted, there is no child.

What's your proof that a fetus is not a child? I can certainly show that it can be and will be one, left to its own devices. And I can show it has genetics of an independent human life. Can you do anything near as much to show that the child's just a "fetus," not a person?

You are arguing for nothing. My point is, post abortion, it (fetus, child, whatever you want to call it) no longer exists. It is dead.

If you knew that a child born would be beaten, neglected, and perhaps tortured and burned to death before it was grown, how would letting it live be in its interest?

Are you positing that ...

I'm not positing anything. I asked a hypothetical question to see if I could understand your principles.

... that is what is going on in the US? I think not. At least, not in any but wildly exceptional cases, which cannot be the basis of any policy.

So this is about government policy. If that is the case, none of this matters because nothing the government does ever improves anything.

However, if I agreed with you on such cases, would you stipulate on your side that unless we knew that the child WAS going to be "beaten, neglected, tortured and burned to death," then abortion would be immoral in such cases?

It doesn't matter what I think is immoral or unethical. I have very high ethical standards and regard most of the things most people do as unethical and things I would never do, such as being party to an abortion in my own circumstances. The most immoral thing most people do is to support the use of force to make other people behave the way they would like them to. It is unethical to make others adopt or conform to my ethical views, and it is unethical for you to want government policy that will force others to conform to your moral views.

When you have rid yourself of that particular immorality, then you can worry about other people's morality.
[/quote]

[Nick_A]

Dachshund

The second principle of the argument is ethical, in particular, it concerns justice and equality, which in the United States (and most other Western democracies) is nested in the nation's most foundational documents, most specifically, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, and the idea that individual human beings ALL deserve equal protection under the law. If you are going to exclude an entire segment of the human family from the protection of the law because they are small or dependent or biologically immature or temporarily incapable of certain kinds of advanced, high-level biological functions, that is an injustice of the highest order. That is a legal form of discrimination and to argue this does not require one to be a Christian or a Jew or a theist of any kind.

Equal protection under the law is one thing but what if all people are not considered equal as in executions and war for example. They are worthy of being killed under the law.

When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder. Simone Weil

The law subjectively determines which people have value and protects them. Others get the short end of the stick. Abortions are justified because the fetus is determined by the law to lack value. Of course if it is killed as a woman is being mugged it is considered fetal homicide and murder. Don’t ask me to explain this without a cold tall one first.

[henry quirk]

I ask: 'person or meat?'

You say: "It doesn't matter at all unless you're intending to force whichever view you have on anyone else."


If I stumble on Jane gettin' her keister beat down in a nasty way, am I forcin' my view on folks if I step in a put an end to the assault, or am I defendin' an innocent?

Would 'you' stand by and do nuthin' while Jane is slaughtered?


Joe, for whatever cockeyed reason, decides to step into a first grade classroom with a baseball bat and practice his swing on the heads of whoever he finds there. Am I forcin' my views on folks if I step in and stop Joe, or am I defendin' the innocent?

Would 'you' stand by and do nuthin' while Joe goes to town with that louisville slugger?


In context: the question 'person or meat?' is all that matters.


If meat: the pregnant woman can do as she likes.

If person: the pregnant woman ought live with the narrow, temporary, oh-so awful restriction of not bein' able to, with impunity, off the unborn person inside her body.

[Arising_uk]

I ask: 'person or meat?'

You say: "It doesn't matter at all unless you're intending to force whichever view you have on anyone else."


If I stumble on Jane gettin' her keister beat down in a nasty way, am I forcin' my view on folks if I step in a put an end to the assault, or am I defendin' an innocent?

Would 'you' stand by and do nuthin' while Jane is slaughtered?


Joe, for whatever cockeyed reason, decides to step into a first grade classroom with a baseball bat and practice his swing on the heads of whoever he finds there. Am I forcin' my views on folks if I step in and stop Joe, or am I defendin' the innocent?

Would 'you' stand by and do nuthin' while Joe goes to town with that louisville slugger?

But according to your lights Henry it's none of your business as it's nowt to do with you and yours?