Abortion

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not "OR". AND. She who is forced to bring it to term should be allowed to raise the child or not. The child gets support whichever way the mother chooses.

Yeah- poor sentence structuring on my part. I meant to imply that both would be extant, and the mother could be able to choose one OR the other.

Or, differently put, society has a duty to not penalize the kids it forces parents to bear to term & delivery against their will, created by the act of using legal force to ensure that outcome.

 

[Janx]

True, but the statement, I think, talks more to the question of population size and control. I see posts on Facebook from a SuperCatholic friend of mine (he's a relatively recent convert after seeking a way to control an alcohol problem, I'm sure many of us know the type) lamenting that the US has x million fewer people because of abortion. Any finding that a woman will typically raise the same number of kids regardless of having a history of abortion undermines the population size aspect of that lament.

that sounds like some folks want to increase headcount for headcount's sake. Which is what the Quiverfull movement is apparently about (ala the Dugars).

Apparently the idea is to take over government/society/culture by outbreeding the competition. Based on the assumption that your kids all vote the same way you do (usually true).

I'm not a fan of the idea (given that we have zero kids yet), in that it tries to take over by way of breeding, rather than demonstration of superior ideas. If only stupid people are breeding (to borrow from a song), then they will take over our culture, instead of letting the best ideas earn their way to prominence.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Re: Quiverfull

I'm not a fan of the idea (given that we have zero kids yet), in that it tries to take over by way of breeding, rather than demonstration of superior ideas. If only stupid people are breeding (to borrow from a song), then they will take over our culture, instead of letting the best ideas earn their way to prominence.

We all know how THAT oft-told tale ends. See C.M. Kornbluth's The Marching Morons

And

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think this demonstrates some of what I was trying to get at.

Have we really lost the sense of wonder of what it means to even POTENTIALLY bring another human being into the world? Even if I accept that an unborn child is not a "person" until 24 weeks post-conception (a notion I reject), is there truly no sense of wonder that the genetic material growing in a womb will, given enough time, grow into a sentient being like ourselves?

Are we really so privileged, having been blessed by fate and good fortune to have grown into human adulthood, to dismiss off-hand the "potentiality" of a sentient life yet un-lived?

If you're interested in that sort of potentials buy a lottery ticket.

Re: Quiverfull

We all know how THAT oft-told tale ends. See C.M. Kornbluth's The Marching Morons

And
View attachment 69157

Also see the Flynn Effect. Neither the Marching Morons nor Idiocracy bear any resemblance to reality. Instead they are the age old cry of "Things were better in my day! Now get off my lawn!"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I did say it was an "oft-told tale"..

 

[Kramodlog]

Have we really lost the sense of wonder of what it means to even POTENTIALLY bring another human being into the world?

You might, but not everyone shares you views. This is why it should be about choice.

Even if I accept that an unborn child is not a "person" until 24 weeks post-conception (a notion I reject), is there truly no sense of wonder that the genetic material growing in a womb will, given enough time, grow into a sentient being like ourselves?

It doesn't matter. If it will become something, it isn't that thing right now. That is the nuance that is important. Heck, why must there be fertilization? Sperms and ova have the potential to become humans too. Why not protect them too? What about cloning? Every cell in our bodies has the potential to become another human? Is cutting nails murder? But personhood isn't really important in this debate.

It always has been about sovereignty over one's body. If a father can't be forced to give his blood to his dying two years old who needs a blood transfusion to live, because he is the master of his body and decides what happens to it, why should a woman should be forced to give her uterus to a mass of cells who will die without it, whether it is 24h after conception or 24 weeks after conception? Why can't she be the master of her body, but other people can? The life of someone else doesn't matter in one case when sovereignty over one's body is involved, why should it in another?

Now if living adults where forced to give organs, blood and bone marrow to people who need them to live, there would be more coherence. Organ transplant is dangerous and risks should be taken volontarely? Ok, but pregnancies and labour also involved risks. Why not use the percentages of chance of death and injury from pregnancies and labour to see which organ donation is as or less dangerous and force those on to people too? But why use pregnancy as the barometer? Why not kidney transplants or liver transplants?

I also think the "chicken and egg" comparison is something of a straw man argument. Do we really want to make comparisons of the relative "potentiality" of personal thought, experience, creativity, and animus of a chicken versus a human being?

It is a analogy. But humans and chicken are both animals, this is why they can be compared to certain degrees. The idea here is to show that potentiality doesn't mean you are that something. Like a caterpilar ain't a butterfly, a zygote ain't a person. If you want to say that a zygote is a person, and not based on its potential to become one, that is another matter.

 

[Janx]

Have we really lost the sense of wonder of what it means to even POTENTIALLY bring another human being into the world?

just to revisit this.

Who says people have lost a sense of wonder? Everybody who WANTS to have a baby is likely in plenty of awe and eagerness to see that potential fulfilled.

It's the folks who have much bigger problems in life that see the path laid out leading to a dismal probability who want the right to forestall that until they are ready to truly release that potential.

people can use reason and have feelings all at the same time.

 

[Umbran]

people can use reason and have feelings all at the same time.

I daresay, people with feelings often really ought to use their reason at the same time. Feelings, without reason, can be problematic in the extreme.

 

[Umbran]

It doesn't matter. If it will become something, it isn't that thing right now. That is the nuance that is important.

Indeed. When we start talking about potential, then we really need to consider opportunity cost, which is about maximizing potential.

It always has been about sovereignty over one's body.

Again, indeed. Not that I see it so much here, but more broadly, large portions of the abortion debate are, under the surface, less about the child, and more about controlling women. Even those who are really concerned about the child need to remember that they are asking to enforce control over a woman's body, and possibly the course of her life after that.

Think very hard about what might give you/us the right to do that, and when it is appropriate to exercise it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Tangential news:

https://www.yahoo.com/health/title-x-the-federal-family-planning-program-is-123492140982.html