Gallup Pro-life/choice
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=181723
Printed Date: 15 April 2026 at 1:47am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Gallup Pro-life/choice
Posted By: Linus
Subject: Gallup Pro-life/choice
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 7:29pm
How do you explain this?
Big jump in the span of 1 year... ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 7:42pm
|
My -best- guess, without looking at any of the raw polling data and doing any calculations (Which I learned to do this year, excitingly enough) I think it MIGHT be due to the drop in those who identify themselves as conservative and more people who consider themselves to be moderate. Which makes more sense if you look at this:  ...Which splits it up into the sections. As you can see, the two cross at the end of the chart. Your chart is a magnified version of the end of mine, without the top line. The top line shows the moderate stance, I believe. Maybe. I could be wrong. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 18 May 2009 at 7:49pm
| All of FE's logical arguments and valid points must be paying off. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 9:51am
|
Abortion is murder...
But, it is interesting to me that many of the people that believe waterboarding is torture, condone abortion... ------------- They tremble at my name... 
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 10:43am
|
Waterboarding isn't the same as abortion. I don't know why that would be interesting to you. I find it interesting that people are so against abortion though. ------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 10:53am
What do you think about the right of parents to refuse medical treatment for their kids? ------------- 
|
FreeEnterprise wrote:Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 12:59pm
Also, I would consider myself pro-life, but also pro-choice. Think about it.
|
Posted By: pb125
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 1:06pm
Very respectable. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Dunbar
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 1:20pm
| Abortion is sick and wrong. you know how they do that crap? they flip the baby around, so the head is still in the womb, they stick a needle in the baby's neck, at the base of the skull and in the spinal cord, and suck the spinal fluid right out of the baby. If you still think abortion is right you must be one very sick individual. |
Posted By: pb125
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 1:32pm
Haha. You're funny. -------------
|
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 1:42pm
so if the baby is gonna be born with a serious defect that will leave it hospital ridden where it will most likely die in a few weeks, abortion is sick? i don't think so. the sick thing to do would be to birth it and have it suffer for its short lifetime. abortion isn't murder. the fetus has no feelings or any kind of idea of its own existence. therefore, it is not considered a human being ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 1:51pm
You know what is worse than that? When a child is born to a home that can't support it, or doesn't want it. Abortions aren't just because think a baby is inconvenient at the moment. And besides, the procedure doesn't change a thing for me, I'm still completely pro choice. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 2:25pm
| I couldn't find reference to the exact procedure described above, but will concur that late term abortions are barbaric at best IMO and think most people would find the them quite distasteful. They also represent less than 1% of abortions. The vast majority are completed during the first 8wks. Regardless of how repugnant you may find the procedure, I still feel that it comes down to the woman to do with her body as she chooses. With that said, I find it more hypocritical that we condone abortion on the grounds of personal freedom, yet make assisted suicide illegal. |
Posted By: merc
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 2:43pm
|
pro choice... but you need to make up your mind early...
if you dont do it in the first few months just have the kid and give it to someone who wants one. i dated a chick and a few months after we broke up found out she was 7 MONTHS pregnant... her mom was like "its hard to tell when you have an irregular period" that chick was fine for 28 days then bled for 3. i could set my damn watch to it. no way missing your period for 7 months is a surprise... ------------- saving the world, one warship at a time. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 2:44pm
| That's a different issue entirely though, just because you support one doesn't mean you HAVE to support the other. An abortion is an unborn, unaware, undeveloped, unconcious thing that is being removed. Assisted suicide is killing a fully (ideally) developed person. Now I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I think there are some situations that do have merit, such as being a quad. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 2:51pm
|
No, because both are still based on the idea of control over ones body. The fetus isn't a person, therefore it falls under jurisdiction, so to speak, of the women doing with "her body" as she deems fit. Assisted suicide is still someone doing with their body as they seem fit, but the government won't allow it. I am not saying you have to support either, simply pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing one and not the other. That's how I look at anyways. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 2:53pm
| But it's two different situations entirely.... One is not really related to the other. |
Posted By: FreeEnterprise
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 2:53pm
Oh, please. That is the worst argument for pro choice...
I have a good friend who was almost aborted. His mom was raped, and she didn't want to have him...
He is a great guy, and has started a very successful company, and his mother loves him very much, and is super close to him still... And she can't believe she even considered killing him before he was born.
BTW. he looks just like the rapist who was convicted of multiple rapes and is in jail.
Even with the best of circumstances life is hard. Why is it so easy to kill a child in our world? ------------- They tremble at my name...
|
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 2:56pm
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 2:56pm
| Because it's not a child. And yeah, some people turn out great, just like how some people with great parents can wind up stealing cars and smoking meth. You can't predict their life. And my argument for pro choice is NOT "if we dont, then their lives will suck" that was just an observation about potential situations. I'm pro choice because I believe the parents have the right to choose whether they have a child or not, and I don't see it as a big deal. Personally. |
Posted By: mbro
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 3:44pm
------------- 
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos. |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 5:04pm
| 2nd. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 5:06pm
|
I agree on the shens. Even if it isn't shens then that is probably a rarity. Why should a woman who was raped and got pregnant have to father a child from that rape? A child who when grown could bear resemblance to the man who raped her. Making it illegal would also bring completely unwanted children into the world. Probably not a significant number, but some. Children who will either be left in the trash to die(has happened), or left at a hospital costing the government money. This is not to mention people that may not be able to support a child also receiving welfare checks, who may have wanted to abort but couldn't/ Also, it is wrong for someone who may have taken the proper procedures with condoms and whatnot. They could have an accident. Should they have to have a child because of an accident? Assisted suicide is so much different than abortion, I don't even know how you can relate the two. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 6:12pm
| Heh, especially since FE seems to be afraid of taxes (his sig) you'd think he'd be against any chance of kids winding up in public care that are funded by the government. And roads.... |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 7:26pm
|
I'm amazed at how this is still considered a black and white issue. Myself, I'm Pro life.....for the most part, though I believe that there are probably extenuating circumstances which might dictate the necessity of an abortion. However, those that are pro choice because a baby is 'inconvenient' or would be a burden, I don't get at all. I'm a pretty firm believer that someone who aborts because of these reasons....already made the choice to go ahead and get pregnant in the first place. and aborting is an easy way out. Abstain, protect, whatever, just don't be so damned irresponsible with your body in the first place, and you wouldn't have to make the freakin 'choice' Situation: You go ahead and get pregnant on a one night, unprotected stand. A baby is inconvenient, so you decide to abort. You're irresponsible and take the easy way out of a bad situation, effectively freeing you of the consequences of your actions, also freeing you up to make more stupid decisions, 'just because you can' The flippant disregard for what is (or will become for those of you who don't consider a fetus a human) a human life is pretty disturbing to me. If its not a medical reason, result of a rape or incest....I can't get behind it. That's my two cents. ------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 7:33pm
|
If they're so irresponsible that they got pregnant, why would they be any more responsible once having a child?
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 7:45pm
I totally agree. Besides, we already have enough stupid people, we don't need more 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 8:35pm
|
You'll notice I didn't say that everyone who has a kid should keep them, there are adoption agencies and such that can allow an 'unwanted' child to at least have a chance at life. Offing them before they've got a chance because you screwed up YOUR chance? There's holes there. ------------- ? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 9:55pm
| You'd think in the land of choice and freedom this would be a non-issue... |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 10:20pm
You mean the choice to abandon responsibility and consequence because its more convenient? And it only costs one (would be)human life. ------------- ? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 10:21pm
Yeah, that sounds about right 
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 10:25pm
Oh. Well alrighty then.  ------------- ? |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 10:31pm
|
Pro-choice is the only acceptable option for a national government to take. The choice whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is the responsibility of the parents (or potential parents). Abortion should never be viewed as the easy way out, or a method of birth contraceptive, however. Which is what I think many pro-lifer's think others (pro-choicers) view it as. Maybe some do, they shouldn't be alive. As for the method of abortion, it's a little more complicated than sticking a needle into the fetus's neck and extracting the fluid ... There are several methods, all dependent on the development of the fetus. There is the medical approach, which is a non-invasive procedure during the first trimester, representing about 10% of abortions in the us. The surgical approach is a little more tricky. The more common methods are vacuum aspiration and menstrual extraction. Inducing premature births, and stopping the body processes of the fetus are used if the development is far enough along. I personally think there is a point during the third (or second - not positive of the exact progression) trimester where it should be illegal to perform an abortion though. That is where the line should be drawn. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 10:48pm
------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 10:59pm
It could be viewed essentially as a safety net, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that. But like anything, it becomes a problem when it's abused and used incorrectly. It's a serious procedure both mentally and physically. It takes a mature person to do it, or not do it. And if that person is not mature, they will be after it's over. The whole issue of abortion is iffy, morals, religion, culture, etc. Which is why the government should really not be able to have much say on it. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:02pm
|
How can you condone aborting a child because you're 'not ready' for a kid and say its not the easy way out? I do understand pro-choice arguments, honestly. But my upbringing which might be construed as a little old fashioned, taught me that life is a serious matter. Pulling the plug on it before it has a chance to even get going doesn't seem....right. Especially pulling the plug because we made a mistake. Why should someone who isn't even born yet pay the price for another person's transgressions? Again, there are circumstances, such as medical reasons which jeopardize a mother's life, where I can support an abortion. ------------- ? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:03pm
| That is a good point. Just because abortion is available does not mean it will be used as a method of birth control. People still use the pill, and condoms, frequently both. Accidents happen. |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:07pm
Because they aren't even born yet. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:22pm
So they're fair game for punishment for someone else's issues? That's a pretty lame ass way to weasel your way out of consequences for mistakes you might make. Why does that strike me as paramount to throwing a virgin into a volcano in order to purify a whole village of their transgressions? ------------- ? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:24pm
| Because a virgin is already alive and developed? Guys can rub one out all they want, and women use up eggs all the time, so an abortion is just like...teamwork. The ingredients were combined before they were thrown out, thats all. |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:31pm
Biologically, you are correct, but if you refuse to believe that conception is nothing more than a biological process which it is perfectly legitimate to artificially terminate due to convenience or poor timing, then this debate will never be resolved. A natural process, which can be unnaturally terminated. That sort of contradicts itself a little. ------------- ? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:35pm
|
It's not like abortions weren't possible before. We're just better at them now. Heck if some pharoah knocked up a slave wench, he could have just pushed her down a temples front steps and be done with it. Now we're more precise, and less damaging to the woman.
And conception IS just a biological process, it's just an amazingly impressive one. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 19 May 2009 at 11:58pm
|
Feels good man.
------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 3:02am
| I like that the original topic, asking for explanations on an apparent rapid data shift in an opinion poll, made it all of one post deep before turning into the same moral argument seen 1,000 times before. |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 4:34am
Going off the recent events, I would think its due to the recent polarization of conservatives. Obama's election has elicited an over the top response by the more hardened conservatives and I think people on the fence who may have leaned more towards pro-choice may have swung back, but thats just a hunch.
That really isn't an argument at all. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:12pm
How about this scenario: A mother has a serious illness. It may kill her, it may not - let's say 50/50. The good news is that there is a cure. The bad news is that the cure is an organ transplant from the mother's newborn child, and the procedure is certain to kill the child.
Is it moral (and should it be legal) for the mother to direct the doctors to kill her newborn child to save herself from a maybe-lethal illness?
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:27pm
|
Newborn, as in already born? As far as harvesting organs from a baby in utero, seems pretty unethical unless the baby is not develped enough to be viable. If the child is not viable, maybe. If it is, there is no question. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:32pm
-------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:38pm
|
I love you too, Benji.
-------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:43pm
Nope, it's already a child. Come on man, throwing out the ingredients, stirred or not is ok. But you shouldn't throw out a cake...I mean you can eat that. |
Posted By: Skillet42565
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:46pm
|
You can eat a child just as easily as you can a cake. Sure, theres the whole killing it first thing (maybe), but its the same idea. Cut into it like a cake.
-------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:52pm
Yep. Let's say three months old. Something like that. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: slackerr26
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:55pm
but at that point it is no longer abortion -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 1:59pm
Baby Cakes?  |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:00pm
I will accept this argument if someone can up with an actual viable disease that fits this scenario. Medically, I'm pretty sure this is borderline impossible. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:06pm
Brilliant observation. Can we all agree that my hypothetical, whereby we sacrifice the child to save the mother, would almost universally be considered morally repugnant? ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: oldpbnoob
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:26pm
| Curious to see where you are headed on this.... |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 2:37pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 3:15pm
So's breathing. ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 3:19pm
What does that have to do with anything that we have ever discussed in any thread on this forum since it started? |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 6:21pm
I believe hes responding to your implication that since conception is "just a biological process" it can be terminated without moral problems. And to add on to his point, so is thinking. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 6:25pm
| Yes, but those happen after you're already born, and are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 6:36pm
. . . What? Conception takes place between two sexually matured adults. Its genetic mixing between the two into an offspring. Unless you're speaking from the perspective of the fetus? But that sort of defeats your point, since aren't you arguing that conception is just a biological process to the parents? Besides, breathing*, consumption of food*, etc. all are processes the fetus does during development. That's one of the reasons you have an umbilical cord and placenta. Not to mention that's when your cells are actively replicating and subdividing, a process which happens in and out of the womb. I'm starting to feel like I'm talking to FE here . . . * - technically speaking ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: Bolt3
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 8:38pm
I don't think that's what he meant. ------------- <Removed sig for violation of Clause 4 of the New Sig Rules> |
Posted By: Frozen Balls
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 8:41pm
|
Can a fetus go on facebook? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT /debate over, victorious cries from FB ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:06pm
Here:
Scenario 1: Doctors abort fetus to save mother's life.
Scenario 2: Doctors kill young child to save mother's life.
Premise 1: The vast majority of people find scenario 1 morally acceptable, if unfortunate.
Premise 2: The vast majority of people find scenario 2 morally unacceptable.
Premise 3: If there is no moral difference between a fetus and young child, then Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are exactly the same.
Conclusion: The vast majority of people find that there is a moral difference between a fetus and a young child.
tl;dr: If you think abortions to save the mother are ok, then you don't think that fetuses are just unborn children, and you value fetuses less than children. A lot less.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:15pm
You're confusing the second option with something that happens in real life. It doesn't. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:21pm
Correct - because it is morally repugnant.
Exactly my point. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 20 May 2009 at 9:36pm
|
Yes, there is a difference between a child and a fetus, of course there is.
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 11:17am
You may think so, but there are obviously millions of people who say that fetuses are nothing other than unborn children. My point is that even those who profess to hold this belief actually don't - the overwhelming majority of Americans (at least) do in fact accept a moral differential between a baby and a fetus, whether they admit it to themselves or not.
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:22pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:33pm
|
Peter---
Name me one real disease where the only valid option at survival for a mother is killing her already born child. Because I can name one just off the top of my head where having the fetus in the mother is life threatening.... And that is where the difference lies. -------------
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:38pm
|
Hypothetic \Hy`po*thet"ic\, Hypothetical \Hy`po*thet"ic*al\, a. [L. hypotheticus, Gr. ?: cf. F. hypoth['e]tique.] (emphasis added)
------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:46pm
|
Eclampsia. Look it up.
A real disease that can kill the mother if the baby is left in her. The average, prudent person bases their opinions on fact, not hypothetical situations. The difference between killing a fetus to make a mom live, and killing a 2 year old to make a mom live, is because the former one is a reality, the latter is a fictitious view from someone trying to win a debate. -------------
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:49pm
|
You're basing a jab at pro-lifers on a hypothetical argument? ------------- ? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:53pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 12:58pm
It is not a jab - it is a fully-grown argument.
And yes, it is based in part in a hypothetical situation. That's how discussions of morality are conducted. Morality, by its very nature, consists largely of concepts that cannot morally be tested, and hypotheticals are therefore essential. Any legitimate discussion of morality involves a series of slightly-different hypotheticals, which allow you to hone in on the specific moral distinctions at hand - as I did here.
Morality is principle-based, not fact-based. The facts are merely specific applications of those moral principles. Limiting the discussion to specific real-life scenarios will never get you to the underlying principles. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:15pm
|
It is not a fully grown argument because it has no basis in reality.
Again, your argument holds no water because it's unrealistic. You asked where the difference was. THAT is where the difference is. -------------
|
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:28pm
Except he is discussing the underlying morality of both situations, not the chance that they will actually happen. That's like discussing the morality of masturbation. Whether it happens or not has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 1:39pm
|
I agree, impossible hypothetical questions are kind of useless in this. It's just a way to push a debate the way you want to. It wouldn't ever happen, so why plan for it?
Car manufactures don't take impossible situations into account when building cars. How many "elephant trample proof" cars do you see? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 2:13pm
|
Wow I am surprised at the not liking of PP's hypothetical situation. His point was that IF a mother had a disease that could be cured by killing a young baby then it wouldn't happen. Why wouldn't it happen? That is because it is a child. On the other hand Pro Lifers(Linus or one because I have seen him say it) say that if a pregnancy is in fact going to kill a mother, than an abortion is ok. The whole time this is said, they argue that a fetus is in fact a human life. If it is ok to kill one "human life" to save a mother, than why is it not ok to kill another? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 2:15pm
But planning for it isn't the purpose here. The problem with using real-world examples is that the real world is messy. Two real-world scenarios will be different in a myriad of un-identifiable ways, and it is therefore impossible to reach a specific conclusion about the underlying moral principles based on real-world examples.
Hypotheticals, on the other hand, allow you to establish two (or more) scenarios that are identical except for a single point, which is the point in question. By evaluating these two almost-identical scenarios you are able to evaluate the effect of that single point. This is an extraordinarily valuable exercise.
But hey - don't take my word for it. I challenge anybody to find any scholarly discussion of morality that does not use hypotheticals, many of which will be bizarrely unrealistic. A classic example, for instance, is the runaway train that can only be stopped by throwing a baby on the tracks. This is how structured morality discussions take place.
Dismissing hypotheticals here is not only silly but directly counterproductive. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 2:17pm
|
I'm actually really surprised at some of the criticism of PP's argument. Have any of you ever taken a course in Ethics? Try to imagine teaching an Ethics course (or having any meaningful discussion of ethics) using only real-world examples.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 3:05pm
That doesn't matter. Hypotheticals are making decisions on a real situation using impossible situations. What stops me from saying "well what if one abortion cured 10 cases of cancer" It doesn't matter, that doesn't happen, so why would it ever be used in a debate? Yes your examples are less extreme, but the point still stands, you cannot base a decision (especially one like abortion) on impossible circumstance...that's just foolish. You are making a decision about your real life opinions on fiction. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 3:32pm
|
Chewp, using hypotheticals is the only way you can arrive at any conclusions about morality. I don't think you're getting it.
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 3:40pm
No.
These hypotheticals are not for the purpose of plotting actual courses of action, but to narrow in on distinctions.
No decisions are based on these hypotheticals - they are illustrations.
As with some other folks here, I am frankly rather surprised at the resistance here. This type of manipulated hypotheticals is an extremely common tool used to explore complex issues. This is not new - this method of mental and moral exploration has been around for thousands of years.
You might as well be suggesting that counting apples with numbers is useless because you can't eat numbers. Like numbers, these hypos are representative, not actual. They are a tool to allow focused thought and conversation. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 6:19pm
|
I have a slight beef with peter's logic here, not for it being hypothetical. In the case of aborting to save the mother's life, we're dealing with a lifeform whose existence threatens the existence of the mother. Since that lifeform itself has a low chance of survival, we see abortions as a sad, but justifiable means to save at least one of their lives. In the case of the second option, the newborn would survive perfectly well if the mother died. In that instance you are putting more value on the mother's life then the newborn's life. Also, since the newborn is virtually defenseless, your preying on something weaker then you. The moral issues with the second situation over the first isn't because its a baby vs. fetus, its because you're saying its life is worth less then the mother's life in the second situation. In the first situation, you're weighing the odds of each life and making a purely logical choice. If the same conditions existed for the baby and the mother, where the baby was most likely going to die anyway, I think the situation would be much different. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 6:39pm
|
Darur, why would the fetus have to die because the mother will? I am pretty sure it is possible for the fetus to live in a situation that the mother may die. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 6:43pm
|
Holy crap, I agree with the Canadian. Seriously, the situation was completely tailored to fit one side of the argument. What if, hypothetically, everyone who agrees with abortion will get herpes? Maybe you'd better change your tune, because you're going to get herpes. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 6:51pm
I'm no doctor, but to my understanding, most times when medical complications may arise for the mother, they often pose complications for the baby as well. I am certain there are many situations as well where the baby could be delivered fine while the mother dies, which then changes the perspective for that situation and puts it closer to the second option peter offered. ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 6:54pm
|
The point of the argument Reb isn't to say abortion is a good thing. The point was to show that the same people who say that fetuses are actual human living beings and shouldn't be killed are very against the killing of a child to save a mother. This is while they say that abortion can only happen if the mother is in danger. From this it shows that they do in fact actually believe that a fetus is <born human. Nothing more. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 7:05pm
I know the argument wasn't in favor of abortion being good, I just worked my impossible hypothetical situation to fit my argument. See what I did there? ------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 7:08pm
|
It is not an impossible hypothetical situation. It is a question on whether you actually believe that a fetus is the same a human that is already born. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: Peter Parker
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 7:25pm
|
Darur - excellent distinction. Will get back to that.
Reb - your hypothetical is not illustrative. What if abortions lead to herpes? I don't understand the question. So what? Abortion either does or does not lead to herpes, and I fail to see the relevance.
Now, if you take the same hypothetical and restate it slightly like this: If you now support broad abortion rights, would it affect your view if abortion led to herpes?
Still not a great hypo, but now it is illustrative - it hones in on the reasons for supporting or not supporting abortion.
That's the point I am trying to get at, as illustrated by this meta-hypo. My 2-part hypo was intended to create an illustration of a very specific issue (although, as Darur pointed out, not as specific as I had intended), not intended to be realistic in the least.
There are times when a hypothetical must be realistic, but other times hypos must simply be very specific. It all depends on what you are doing with your hypo.
And again, this is an extraordinarily common rhetorical tool, used in virtually every scholarly discipline. ------------- "E Pluribus Unum" does not mean "Every man for himself". Pop Quiz: What do all the Framers of the Constitution have in common? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 7:29pm
lol wut? So, then I call on you to answer Linus's challenge, name one instance in the medical world where killing an already born child would save the life of a mother. MY point is that if you're going to base decisions and 'rational' arguments on hypothetical situations that are woven from impossible, implausible and ridiculous instances, then you really aren't any better than the "OMG THE SKY IS FALLING" neo-cons that you're always claiming to be smarter than. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 7:31pm
Now you're just spinning colorful words in an attempt to cover up what was perhaps the weakest argument I've ever heard you make. Its okay, you're human too. ------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 7:38pm
|
It's not even a weak argument. Also, I did say "it isn't an impossible hypothetical situation" but I didn't really mean it was possible. Just poor hasty words. Oh and maybe the mother needs blood. ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 8:01pm
VAMPIRE MOTHER! |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 8:16pm
And there are no matches on earth except for the newborn? There you go again. Yes, I'm just being a pain in the ass now. Baby is asleep, its affording me a precious few minutes of free time. ------------- ? |
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 21 May 2009 at 8:19pm
There I go again with what? A RIDICULOUS thing I said, compared to the perfectly legitimate hypothetical example used to prove a point? ------------- Que pasa?
|