|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On March 11 2013 07:19 oneofthem wrote:
the abortion thing turns on what kind of attitude you take towards the value of life. life quality vs life as sacred object.
i guess i could make an argument for infanticide if the right situation calls for it. it is certainly not murder unless done with malice perhaps.
Could connect it to euthanasia too, I suppose! :d
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2013 07:38 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 07:19 oneofthem wrote:
the abortion thing turns on what kind of attitude you take towards the value of life. life quality vs life as sacred object.
i guess i could make an argument for infanticide if the right situation calls for it. it is certainly not murder unless done with malice perhaps.
Could connect it to euthanasia too, I suppose! :d
lots of stuff split along this line. reactionary, blind, incomplete deontic morality vs refined, superior, humanly enriched consequentialism.
|
i don't have any particularly strenuous moral objection to infanticide. probably shouldn't admit that in public though.
of course it would be easier and more ethical just to avoid the problem in the first place, through education and family planning. nobody WANTS abortions to occur
|
On March 11 2013 08:02 sam!zdat wrote:
i don't have any particularly strenuous moral objection to infanticide. probably shouldn't admit that in public though.
of course it would be easier and more ethical just to avoid the problem in the first place, through education and family planning. nobody WANTS abortions to occur
I've always thought the moral stance on abortion being "ok" could be applied up until about 6 months after birth when a self-aware consciousness can be assumed. Like you, though, I don't fancy talking about that in public. It either hints that I think it's ok or that I'm trying to paint people as monsters.
|
On March 11 2013 08:10 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 08:02 sam!zdat wrote:
i don't have any particularly strenuous moral objection to infanticide. probably shouldn't admit that in public though.
of course it would be easier and more ethical just to avoid the problem in the first place, through education and family planning. nobody WANTS abortions to occur I've always thought the moral stance on abortion being "ok" could be applied up until about 6 months after birth when a self-aware consciousness can be assumed. Like you, though, I don't fancy talking about that in public. It either hints that I think it's ok or that I'm trying to paint people as monsters.
I'm assuming neither of you have kids. Or want them? If you ever become a parent your views on this will change.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it will definitely change depending on life experience. it will for instance change when you are surprised by an unwanted pregnancy.
|
On March 11 2013 08:16 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 08:10 aksfjh wrote:On March 11 2013 08:02 sam!zdat wrote:
i don't have any particularly strenuous moral objection to infanticide. probably shouldn't admit that in public though.
of course it would be easier and more ethical just to avoid the problem in the first place, through education and family planning. nobody WANTS abortions to occur I've always thought the moral stance on abortion being "ok" could be applied up until about 6 months after birth when a self-aware consciousness can be assumed. Like you, though, I don't fancy talking about that in public. It either hints that I think it's ok or that I'm trying to paint people as monsters. I'm assuming neither of you have kids. Or want them? If you ever become a parent your views on this will change.
that's why you should have free contraception for everyone, so you can avoid even having to think about such issues. it's like the trolley problem. thinking about to solve the trolley problem is stupid. As Lenin would have said, "both are worse." the point is not to put yourself in such a stupid position as to have to be solving trolley problems.
|
On March 11 2013 08:16 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 08:10 aksfjh wrote:On March 11 2013 08:02 sam!zdat wrote:
i don't have any particularly strenuous moral objection to infanticide. probably shouldn't admit that in public though.
of course it would be easier and more ethical just to avoid the problem in the first place, through education and family planning. nobody WANTS abortions to occur I've always thought the moral stance on abortion being "ok" could be applied up until about 6 months after birth when a self-aware consciousness can be assumed. Like you, though, I don't fancy talking about that in public. It either hints that I think it's ok or that I'm trying to paint people as monsters. I'm assuming neither of you have kids. Or want them? If you ever become a parent your views on this will change.
I know many parents that are pro-choice, and many whom are pro-life. How can this be?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
if you wanna kill dat baby don't have a servant loitering around the vicinity just fyi.
source: histories
|
On March 11 2013 08:16 ziggurat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 08:10 aksfjh wrote:On March 11 2013 08:02 sam!zdat wrote:
i don't have any particularly strenuous moral objection to infanticide. probably shouldn't admit that in public though.
of course it would be easier and more ethical just to avoid the problem in the first place, through education and family planning. nobody WANTS abortions to occur I've always thought the moral stance on abortion being "ok" could be applied up until about 6 months after birth when a self-aware consciousness can be assumed. Like you, though, I don't fancy talking about that in public. It either hints that I think it's ok or that I'm trying to paint people as monsters. I'm assuming neither of you have kids. Or want them? If you ever become a parent your views on this will change.
Of course. It's more of an exercise than a deep-seated belief or actual moral standing. You define some moral points that are, more or less, arbitrary and see what their limits are. You take arguments to their strange, twisted ends in order to find what you personally use as your moral guide. Many times, you can do this and find something that is morally/ethically logical and consistent, but not always. This would be one of those times where it's hard to find a consistent moral standing.
|
On March 11 2013 08:33 oneofthem wrote:
if you wanna kill dat baby don't have a servant loitering around the vicinity just fyi.
source: histories
somebody should stage a 21st century version of sophocles where oedipus is aborted, but then kept alive in an artificial womb
|
On March 11 2013 08:26 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 08:16 ziggurat wrote:On March 11 2013 08:10 aksfjh wrote:On March 11 2013 08:02 sam!zdat wrote:
i don't have any particularly strenuous moral objection to infanticide. probably shouldn't admit that in public though.
of course it would be easier and more ethical just to avoid the problem in the first place, through education and family planning. nobody WANTS abortions to occur I've always thought the moral stance on abortion being "ok" could be applied up until about 6 months after birth when a self-aware consciousness can be assumed. Like you, though, I don't fancy talking about that in public. It either hints that I think it's ok or that I'm trying to paint people as monsters. I'm assuming neither of you have kids. Or want them? If you ever become a parent your views on this will change. that's why you should have free contraception for everyone, so you can avoid even having to think about such issues. it's like the trolley problem. thinking about to solve the trolley problem is stupid. As Lenin would have said, "both are worse." the point is not to put yourself in such a stupid position as to have to be solving trolley problems.
There will still be people who don't want to use it even if it's given out to them.
|
that's why you have comprehensive sex-positive sex ed in schools.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 11 2013 08:37 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 08:33 oneofthem wrote:
if you wanna kill dat baby don't have a servant loitering around the vicinity just fyi.
source: histories somebody should stage a 21st century version of sophocles where oedipus is aborted, but then kept alive in an artificial womb
snow white is a stem cell clone of her mother who becomes jealous and tries to abort the experiment. but alas.
the prince is her father's clone for even more exciting drama.
+ Show Spoiler +dem dwarves are failed prototypes. fairy godmother is the lead scientist
|
I've been doing a little reading about the ethics of abortion for a bioethics class, so here's a quick (and slightly relevant) summary:
In Catholicism, abortion is pretty much always a no-no. The only time it is allowed is "indirect", where abortion is not the intent of the abortion-- an example would be like if the mother had cancer and the fetus would be killed by chemotherapy. Of course, that enters the gray area where the risk of chemo vs the risk to the child compete, and that becomes hard to decide. I didn't see anything about rape, so I suppose that children from rape should be carried to term anyways...
In Judaism, abortion is more permissible. The fetus is treated "as the thigh of the mother", which implies that it generally should not be destroyed or mutilated, but can be to preserve the greater whole. For example, if the mother had flesh-eating disease in her leg the doctor could cut it off to save her. Extending this analogy to the fetus, the mother could abort it if it presented some danger to her. However, this "danger" can be psychological or physical, and then it gets complicated. If the child tested positive for Tay-Sachs, the mother can abort if she feels she cannot take on the psychological burden. Unfortunately again, this sort of decision framework gives the mother a lot of leeway. On the other end of the spectrum, a girl who got pregnant because she didn't use protection could say that having a child would make her depressed, ruin her life and should be aborted.
Islam begins to treat the fetus as a person (it is "ensouled") at around 4 months. Before then, abortion is generally permissible. That's the only real rule. Note that Islamic bioethics is the least developed of the fields.
My personal belief is that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or a serious threat to the mother's health, in conjunction with good sex ed and decently-priced contraceptives. I've gotten some interesting responses in the vein of "you're not entitled to an opinion" or "say that when you're pregnant".
|
On March 11 2013 10:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
I've been doing a little reading about the ethics of abortion for a bioethics class, so here's a quick (and slightly relevant) summary:
In Catholicism, abortion is pretty much always a no-no. The only time it is allowed is "indirect", where abortion is not the intent of the abortion-- an example would be like if the mother had cancer and the fetus would be killed by chemotherapy. Of course, that enters the gray area where the risk of chemo vs the risk to the child compete, and that becomes hard to decide. I didn't see anything about rape, so I suppose that children from rape should be carried to term anyways...
In Judaism, abortion is more permissible. The fetus is treated "as the thigh of the mother", which implies that it generally should not be destroyed or mutilated, but can be to preserve the greater whole. For example, if the mother had flesh-eating disease in her leg the doctor could cut it off to save her. Extending this analogy to the fetus, the mother could abort it if it presented some danger to her. However, this "danger" can be psychological or physical, and then it gets complicated. If the child tested positive for Tay-Sachs, the mother can abort if she feels she cannot take on the psychological burden. Unfortunately again, this sort of decision framework gives the mother a lot of leeway. On the other end of the spectrum, a girl who got pregnant because she didn't use protection could say that having a child would make her depressed, ruin her life and should be aborted.
Islam begins to treat the fetus as a person (it is "ensouled") at around 4 months. Before then, abortion is generally permissible. That's the only real rule. Note that Islamic bioethics is the least developed of the fields.
My personal belief is that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or a serious threat to the mother's health, in conjunction with good sex ed and decently-priced contraceptives. I've gotten some interesting responses in the vein of "you're not entitled to an opinion" or "say that when you're pregnant".
I think it is completely wrong to take a stance on abortion only through religious ethics. There are a lot more secular ways to take a stance and the above is completely devoid of fetus development. The first month of a pregnancy the female body treats the fetus as a parasite, while at 6 ½ month there is a good chance that the child is viable outside of the mothers womb. I just cannot see why these informations aren't more important to your decission than religious ethics. It would seem like a more interesting point to talk about when a child is in a state where abortion should be impermissible and/or restrictions based on the parents information. My stance is probably irrelevant since I do not have kids, but I am very far to the side of pro choice on most issues and I therefore disagree with you on when abortion is ok since I take the pragmatic 3 month hat on in most cases when dealing with allowance of abortion.
Edit: My only pro life stances are on information about sex and non-serious illness genetics. Go kill the fetus and be proud!
|
WASHINGTON — Eight senators who have spent weeks trying to write a bipartisan bill to overhaul immigration laws have privately agreed on the most contentious part of the draft — how to offer legal status to the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants.
According to aides familiar with the closed-door negotiations, the bill would require illegal immigrants to register with Homeland Security Department authorities, file federal income taxes for their time in America and pay a still-to-be-determined fine. They also must have a clean law enforcement record.
Once granted probationary legal status, immigrants would be allowed to work but would be barred from receiving federal public benefits, including food stamps, family cash assistance, Medicaid and unemployment insurance.
The group's current draft is largely in line with President Obama's call to set a pathway to earned citizenship as part of a broader immigration reform package, as well as with recent efforts by prominent Republican lawmakers to resolve an issue that hurt GOP candidates in November's election.
Though the draft is a long way from becoming law, immigration advocates expressed guarded optimism about a possible breakthrough.
Source
|
On March 11 2013 22:59 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 10:26 ticklishmusic wrote:
I've been doing a little reading about the ethics of abortion for a bioethics class, so here's a quick (and slightly relevant) summary:
In Catholicism, abortion is pretty much always a no-no. The only time it is allowed is "indirect", where abortion is not the intent of the abortion-- an example would be like if the mother had cancer and the fetus would be killed by chemotherapy. Of course, that enters the gray area where the risk of chemo vs the risk to the child compete, and that becomes hard to decide. I didn't see anything about rape, so I suppose that children from rape should be carried to term anyways...
In Judaism, abortion is more permissible. The fetus is treated "as the thigh of the mother", which implies that it generally should not be destroyed or mutilated, but can be to preserve the greater whole. For example, if the mother had flesh-eating disease in her leg the doctor could cut it off to save her. Extending this analogy to the fetus, the mother could abort it if it presented some danger to her. However, this "danger" can be psychological or physical, and then it gets complicated. If the child tested positive for Tay-Sachs, the mother can abort if she feels she cannot take on the psychological burden. Unfortunately again, this sort of decision framework gives the mother a lot of leeway. On the other end of the spectrum, a girl who got pregnant because she didn't use protection could say that having a child would make her depressed, ruin her life and should be aborted.
Islam begins to treat the fetus as a person (it is "ensouled") at around 4 months. Before then, abortion is generally permissible. That's the only real rule. Note that Islamic bioethics is the least developed of the fields.
My personal belief is that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or a serious threat to the mother's health, in conjunction with good sex ed and decently-priced contraceptives. I've gotten some interesting responses in the vein of "you're not entitled to an opinion" or "say that when you're pregnant". I think it is completely wrong to take a stance on abortion only through religious ethics. There are a lot more secular ways to take a stance and the above is completely devoid of fetus development. The first month of a pregnancy the female body treats the fetus as a parasite, while at 6 ½ month there is a good chance that the child is viable outside of the mothers womb. I just cannot see why these informations aren't more important to your decission than religious ethics. It would seem like a more interesting point to talk about when a child is in a state where abortion should be impermissible and/or restrictions based on the parents information. My stance is probably irrelevant since I do not have kids, but I am very far to the side of pro choice on most issues and I therefore disagree with you on when abortion is ok since I take the pragmatic 3 month hat on in most cases when dealing with allowance of abortion. Edit: My only pro life stances are on information about sex and non-serious illness genetics. Go kill the fetus and be proud!
Well, given that the US is still a *fairly* religious nation, I think its important to understand where the beliefs of the population on abortion are coming from. I myself am pretty non-religious, but as an aspiring doctor (god I sound pompous when I say that) I think its important to understand a patient's beliefs to better treat them.
|
On March 11 2013 22:59 radiatoren wrote:
The first month of a pregnancy the female body treats the fetus as a parasite
I'm somewhat curious what this means...
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Donald Trump said Monday that he’d be willing to foot the bill for the White House tours that President Barack Obama’s administration nixed because of sequestration budget cuts. Last week, Newt Gingrich recommended that Trump fund the tours, tweeting: Donald trump should offer to pay for the white house tours. He can afford it and it would show who cares more for American students — Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) March 8, 2013 “I think it’s so nice of Newt to suggest that, I don’t know anything about it… . I like Newt a lot,” Trump said Monday on Fox News’s “Fox & Friends. “I didn’t hear this, but it sounds reasonable to me. Why not?” Trump said that he thinks the tours were canceled to prove a political point. “I guess it’s political. They want to hurt the people … If you look at what’s going on, I guess they’re trying to make a political point. It’s just really ridiculous. I don’t think it’s a big deal, frankly. But it does make us look awfully bad and awfully pathetic,” Trump said. Last week, Obama administration officials announced that they were canceling White House tours to deal with sequestration, the $1.2 trillion automatic cuts in federal spending over a decade that took effect March 1. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/trump-willing-to-fund-white-house-tours-88682.html?hp=f3
This is so ridiculous. Out of the things we can cut, White House tours should be the least controversial/political. What else would you rather cut? More from education? More from health research? More from defense?
I usually don't care what Donald Trump/Gingrich have to say, but I've been getting constituent calls about the same thing, and it's flabbergasting how there are those who would rather see more cuts to pivotal programs as opposed to cuts to White House tours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
