Personal thoughts on abortion and parenthood

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Frission:

SimpleThunda':
/snip

Of all the disrespectful, sheltered, arbitrary, bullshit arguments. You're argument about being born or not being born is completely nonsensical.

It's a question of human rights. The woman has greater control over her body and that's final. It's to avoid the nightmare situation of her having to go through birth without her consent. Do you realize the hypocrisy that you're all for the rights of the fetus, but you couldn't give a shit for what the woman wants?

Selfish? Tell me why do you think that the fetus trumps it all? You don't care what happens to it afterwards obviously or the potential abuses. You don't care about the potential scenarios. The philosophical debate isn't as cut and dry as you say it is. The only thing you've done is make a straw man and advance the insulting notion that it's for aesthetics.

It's not an ideal situation, but making abortion legal is to keep away from the sort of nightmare that would happen otherwise.

I don't care what the woman wants? No, in this case I don't. If you don't want to get pregnant, use a condom. Period.

If you fail to do that (exceptions there, as I noted, though "I was drunk" is not an excuse, even less so one for murder), then you're responsible and I think you have no more "rights" than the person you just created.

Honestly, I could think of better reasons to want someone dead, but does that happens just because I want it to?

No.

It's not about the control over a woman's own body, it's about control over her's and that of her not-yet-born child. And over the latter, I believe she should have none, unless circumstances are truly dire. Circumstances for the child, that is.

Also, I told you that it's not about how good of a life a person would have, because when given the choice between a bad life or no life at all, everyone would choose the latter. I'm sure I can't speak for everyone, but I would choose a life on the streets over non-existence.

And sir, if pregnancy would NOT make your belly swell, and birth would NOT leave you with a loose vagina and some extra flabs, I'm pretty sure abortion would be much less of a consideration. So I am still of the opinion that aesthetics has a HUGE part in considering it.

Vegosiux:

bleys2487:

Oh, no. I understand perfectly. You're suggesting that men could essentially go around, rape women, impregnate them and not have to pay for a child simply because you believe that 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

No offense, but you seem to be completely overlooking one rather important fact there.

The reason those men are not going to be paying for the child is that they'll be in prison for rape, so there won't be any income from which they could pay.

Sure they will.

Frission:
You're using statistics wrong. Your past quotes were also full of pseudo-science and were more than enough to discern your true character.

You also shouldn't need to be asked questions about why you're getting an abortion. It's already hard enough as it is. That's the whole point.

How is what I said pseudo-science? Because it doesn't support your case?

If you're going to hand-wave all scientific arguments away, you could at least justify your conduct with your own reasoning and sources.

SimpleThunda':

I don't care what the woman wants? No, in this case I don't. If you don't want to get pregnant, use a condom. Period.

If you fail to do that (exceptions there, as I noted, though "I was drunk" is not an excuse, even less so one for murder), then you're responsible and I think you have no more "rights" than the person you just created.

You are aware that contraceptives aren't 100% effective when properly applied, are you not? And that in the case of condoms a statistically significant portion of the population tends not to properly apply them?[1] Let's not ignore the fact that unintended pregnancy happens[2]. This is likely due to the fact that - according to Guttmacher - 43% of unintended pregnancies in the States stem from either improper or inconsistent use of contraceptives, which could very well imply an issue with our sexual education system (Which wouldn't be entirely surprising, given how much certain parties have been pushing to eschew teaching about contraceptives at all).

SimpleThunda':
Also, I told you that it's not about how good of a life a person would have, because when given the choice between a bad life or no life at all, everyone would choose the latter. I'm sure I can't speak for everyone, but I would choose a life on the streets over non-existence.

Careful with those assumptions, Thunda. There's a reason that people arrange for do-not-ressucitate orders, you know.

SimpleThunda':
And sir, if pregnancy would NOT make your belly swell, and birth would NOT leave you with a loose vagina and some extra flabs, I'm pretty sure abortion would be much less of a consideration. So I am still of the opinion that aesthetics has a HUGE part in considering it.

To be blunt, that you'd have such a low opinion of women's motives comes off as very misogynistic. It's also important to note that the data tends to suggest otherwise, especially given that the majority of women (61%) who have an abortion already have at least one child (34% had at least two children), making the claim of aesthetics a questionable one at best. To quote the abstract of the former link:

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

[1] With proper application condoms are 98% effective. Typical use puts that effectiveness at 85%)
[2] Indeed, unintended pregnancy is fairly common. Global estimates put the overall rate at roughly 38%, and it's worth noting that the US has an atypically high (for a developed nation) rate of unintended pregnancy, at 49%

chaosord:
After reading some comments on the forums here I thought I would give my two cents on these issues. Feel free to do the same.

Abortion, to me, has become a grey area. While I agree that a person's body is theirs to do with what they please, I also believe that they can not do the same with another's. So there has to be a cut off point. And the abortion must not cause undo suffering to the fetus. Which is a bit of a quagmire, because if it can feel pain then it already is a "being". And I am sorry but if it has reached a point where it is a "being" then you have no right to kill, unless it is putting a life at risk.

And this ties into my next train of thought. "Her body, her choice." should be extended to, "Her body, her choice, her responsibility." If a person has sex, gets peggers, keeps it, then that is all on her. She can not demand money from the man who had sex with her (even if it a rapist, sorry two wrongs do not make a right. maybe create a support system where proven cases get aid, another topic for another time), if that relationship was no one where both parties expressed a desire to have children. You make a choice, you pay for it.

Some of my thoughts, what are yours?

There's something going on here that Agema mentioned in page 2 or 3 that I still don't feel like you've fully addressed at this point in the thread, and that's the dual nature of your opinion on this.

You start in with full concern for the fetus and the welfare of that potential child, and then when it comes to the subject of child support suddenly your biggest concern is the welfare of the father. That doesn't make sense to me, and I don't feel like this can go both ways. You can't on the one hand oppose abortion because it hurts the child, and then deny that child something that is specifically for its benefit and welfare just because it puts some financial burden on the father that he may not want (while you are at the same time disregarding the physical and financial burden that's put on the mother when she has to commit to a pregnancy she doesn't want).[1]

So, which is it? Who matters most, here? If it's the child, then surely a bit of money for their well being isn't too much to ask. To me it smacks of that stereotypical conservative notion I've also never understood that a child is a precious thing that a mother should never give up regardless of the circumstances the child might be born into (whether it be abject poverty or abuse), yet if that mother dares to call upon the government for any kind of aid she is a leech and a stain upon society, and that the child should never be heard from again until it's a proper tax-paying citizen like the rest of us. I'm not saying you feel that way about welfare, but it seems to be the same kind of logic. The child's well being is king, unless money is involved.

Also, I find it strange that you seem to oppose abortion, yet you seem to feel there are times a woman is "obligated" to abort lest she suffer "consequences." Like the rape thing. You think that two wrongs don't make a right, that punishing the child isn't the right thing to do even if the mother has been wronged, and then you say that because she made the mistake of not aborting she has no right to seek money from the father (who had the opportunity to not be a father by not raping her). Had you started with "They're in jail and making no income so there is no money for the child support to come from"[2] like Vegoslux mentioned then I might have understood it better. But the way you seem determined for the mother to be left on her own regardless of the circumstances that brought her there, and without any regard for how it might also affect the child (who you nearly seem to forget is with her and is the whole reason behind child support) just doesn't make sense to me.

And one last thing. What if the father and mother both agree that they want to abort? There is a moral quagmire in the thought of one or the other not wanting to abort, and there are already too many discussions going on for me to want to get into that, but if that sticking point doesn't exist then would you support the abortion?

[1] And yes, there is a significant financial burden on the mother throughout pregnancy as well. More food she has to consume, prenatal vitamins and supplements, doctor's visits, examinations, classes and informational materials if she's never been pregnant, and not to mention having to take off work at some point, which in many cases is not a paid leave. While that is all nothing compared to raising the child for 18+ years, it's still several thousands of dollars (depending on how insured she is) and a loss in work time and experience that is virtually irreplaceable (there is a lot you can read on the so called "mommy" career path, which shows the significant drop in job promotions and opportunities a woman has if she chooses to have a child, which is usually greater than what a man raising a child suffers.
[2] which is a bit bunk to me because plenty of people get fined and jailed, but I can understand the problem from a logistical standpoint since child support is based on income

al4674:

Frission:
You're using statistics wrong. Your past quotes were also full of pseudo-science and were more than enough to discern your true character.

You also shouldn't need to be asked questions about why you're getting an abortion. It's already hard enough as it is. That's the whole point.

How is what I said pseudo-science? Because it doesn't support your case?

If you're going to hand-wave all scientific arguments away, you could at least justify your conduct with your own reasoning and sources.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/can-neuroscience-challenge-roe-v-wade/

Talks about neuroscience.

"Likewise, while neuroscience may or may not be able to tell us something about the development of fetal nociceptive capacity, it has nothing to say about the fundamental question of what counts as a full-fledged person deserving of the rights afforded by a society."
Read it properly.

You''re arguments are anything but scientific. Barry Commoner did say that scientists should be careful of throwing their weight on issues.

I'm not hand waving scientific arguments away, If anything I'm trying to bat away the way you twisted it. "I do, however, think that person hood cannot be a criteria for human rights." You are stating your opinion. That's all. Stop trying to pretend you're somehow the representation of what the scientific community thinks. Others called you out for that.

In situations like this opinions is all that exist. There's even disputes on whether or not neurological evidence should have an effect.

EDIT:

SimpleThunda':
/snip

Well then we have different values and priorities. That's all I can say.

boots:

Sure they will.

All in all, it's a flimsy infographic, I'm sorry, and checking the source only makes it worse. It looks to me more like someone wanted to play drama with numbers because some proper analysis wouldn't necessarily give the result they personally wanted. For one, it seems to assume "One case of rape = one individual rapist", and that's puts it in doubt already. To say nothing of how the statistics were applied.

I'm sorry, but this is just weak. This can go three ways now, however.

1) You can accuse me of misogyny, go "talk to the hand" and ignore everything I've said,
2) We can find some better sources for the issue, that use more accurate interpretations of the data so we have something more solid to base a discussion on,
3) We can leave it right here and just drop the subject altogether.

Frission:
snip

What does neuroscience have anything to do with what I said prior? All of my scientific citations and arguments proposed were to show that the fetus is a human being, as in a living genetically distinct human individual. I never made any claims about whether the fetus is a person or a conscious agent or a being capable of feeling pain or whatever the term ''personhood entails.'' Being a human being and being a person are two separate things - I argued for the former, not the latter.

True, I said that personhood can not, in my eyes, be a valid criteria. That's mostly because I don't know what the term means and every pro-choicer I've met has given me radically different answers.

al4674:

Frission:
snip

What does neuroscience have anything to do with what I said prior? All of my scientific citations and arguments proposed were to show that the fetus is a human being, as in a living genetically distinct human individual. I never made any claims about whether the fetus is a person or a conscious agent or a being capable of feeling pain or whatever the term ''personhood entails.'' Being a human being and being a person are two separate things - I argued for the former, not the latter.

True, I said that personhood can not, in my eyes, be a valid criteria. That's mostly because I don't know what the term means and every pro-choicer I've met has given me radically different answers.

It certainly didn't sound like that. We all know fetuses are of the genome Homo Sapiens Sapiens. It's really obvious. The rest on what to do with that factoid is your own opinion.

Did you read the article?

Personhood is something that is debatable. We know that sperm or ovules are not people and we can pretty much that babies are. When the distinction happens is debatable. What do you think it means for you then?

For me the right of the women trumps all.

SimpleThunda':

And sir, if pregnancy would NOT make your belly swell, and birth would NOT leave you with a loose vagina and some extra flabs, I'm pretty sure abortion would be much less of a consideration. So I am still of the opinion that aesthetics has a HUGE part in considering it.

I would like sources that back up that statement. Because trying to hide behind 'opinion' is as worthless as hiding in air: Everyone has 'opinion' and it is no feat to be proud of, unless you have sources to support your opinion it is worth shit.

Frission:
snip

Clearly it's not obvious because many people would still claim that the fetus can't even be considered a human being.

I did read the article and I fully understand that personhood is debatable - but that's the problem. How can you hold personhood up as a requirement for the right to life when you don't even clearly know what personhood means? In case of doubt or uncertainty, it's incredibly unethical to condone a policy that may very well be violating the most fundamental human right on a colossal scale.

Frission:
Personhood is something that is debatable. We know that sperm or ovules are not people and we can pretty much that babies are. When the distinction happens is debatable. What do you think it means for you then?

How do we know that babies are persons? What are the criterias by which you decide who is a person and who isn't? If you don't know these personhood criterias, then you really can't make such a distinction.

There was actually a paper released some time ago that argued for after-birth abortion, essentially killing newborn babies. The argument was more or less the same - that a newborn baby has not yet developed a personality, memories, abstract thinking etc. A newborn baby is no more intelligent that a dog, so it should be treated as such. The paper argued that since the baby cannot be considered a person in any meaningful sense and fetuses are aborted with exactly such justifications - it follows that newborn children should also be allowed to be aborted.

Here is the article: http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full

Can you tell me what personhood entails to you?

SimpleThunda':

Frission:

SimpleThunda':
/snip

Of all the disrespectful, sheltered, arbitrary, bullshit arguments. You're argument about being born or not being born is completely nonsensical.

It's a question of human rights. The woman has greater control over her body and that's final. It's to avoid the nightmare situation of her having to go through birth without her consent. Do you realize the hypocrisy that you're all for the rights of the fetus, but you couldn't give a shit for what the woman wants?

Selfish? Tell me why do you think that the fetus trumps it all? You don't care what happens to it afterwards obviously or the potential abuses. You don't care about the potential scenarios. The philosophical debate isn't as cut and dry as you say it is. The only thing you've done is make a straw man and advance the insulting notion that it's for aesthetics.

It's not an ideal situation, but making abortion legal is to keep away from the sort of nightmare that would happen otherwise.

I don't care what the woman wants? No, in this case I don't. If you don't want to get pregnant, use a condom. Period.

Not 100% effective.

SimpleThunda':

If you fail to do that (exceptions there, as I noted, though "I was drunk" is not an excuse, even less so one for murder), then you're responsible and I think you have no more "rights" than the person you just created.

Honestly, I could think of better reasons to want someone dead, but does that happens just because I want it to?

No.

It's not about the control over a woman's own body, it's about control over her's and that of her not-yet-born child. And over the latter, I believe she should have none, unless circumstances are truly dire. Circumstances for the child, that is.

A fetus is not a child! It's a collection of cells. If you're against abortion in all circumstances on the ground of 'potential life' then how can you recommend a condom? Those two things are a complete contradiction.

SimpleThunda':

Also, I told you that it's not about how good of a life a person would have, because when given the choice between a bad life or no life at all, everyone would choose the latter. I'm sure I can't speak for everyone, but I would choose a life on the streets over non-existence.

When will you people get it though your heads that it's not a question between a baby in the world or not, it's a question between a medical procedure done by professionals with all the necessary equipment and training, or a blood coated coathanger! We don't go 'Yay abortions!' Abortions are terrible things, but they're a necessary evil in this world and far better then the alternative.

SimpleThunda':

And sir, if pregnancy would NOT make your belly swell, and birth would NOT leave you with a loose vagina and some extra flabs, I'm pretty sure abortion would be much less of a consideration. So I am still of the opinion that aesthetics has a HUGE part in considering it.

You clearly know nothing on the subject, and of the traumatic effects an abortion can have on a woman's mind.

SimpleThunda':
I don't care what the woman wants? No, in this case I don't. If you don't want to get pregnant, use a condom. Period.

Gosh, it just so happens to be the vast majority of abortions, contraceptives were used...

SimpleThunda':
It's not about the control over a woman's own body, it's about control over her's and that of her not-yet-born child.

No, it is about control over a woman's body. Wanting to ban abortion is done out of a desire to impose one's religious values on women by force, and a desire to deny others the rights and freedom they need.

This is true because 'pro-life' has been shown to be a smokescreen. It's just an excuse conjured up to conceal what it's truly about. This can be shown because no pro-lifer is willing to apply the things they wish to impose on women on themselves. For instance ask a pro-lifer if you can rape them, and they'll say no. Yet strangely enough they want to double victimise other people to who that happens.

SimpleThunda':
And over the latter, I believe she should have none, unless circumstances are truly dire. Circumstances for the child, that is.

Well done, you just argued a woman's life is valueless to you, proving my earlier point that pro-life is bullshit, meant to cover up a desire to subjugate women.

SimpleThunda':
And sir, if pregnancy would NOT make your belly swell, and birth would NOT leave you with a loose vagina and some extra flabs, I'm pretty sure abortion would be much less of a consideration. So I am still of the opinion that aesthetics has a HUGE part in considering it.

It's only been said four of five times that it's bullshit that people have abortions out of convenience. By all means ignore all that and pretend it happens.

I'll gladly repeat myself too: Abortions are never, ever, done out of convenience. That is nonsense. It is a lie. Abortion is always done for a heavily weighing reason.

al4674:
/snip

Well then how can you be against a policy which we are quite sure helps people, when the possible cons are uncertain and subject to debate? The argument can be turned back against everyone.

I sort of hesitate to discuss on this, or anything which relies on pure morals, because in the end it relies entirely on values and priorities. It's difficult to say what is or is not wrong. For me personhood is when you one can live without an umbilical cord and is capable of living outside the mother's body, since it would get too messy if I started citing higher brain functions, capacity of thinking for oneself and self-awareness. I find the right of the mother to trump the more nebulous right of the fetus. Legally a woman can have an abortion until 7 months. It's an arbitrary limit of course.

Abortion as I said and I will continue to say, is not pretty. It's important however to always let that be an option. If abortion was illegalized, unsafe abortions may be performed in back-alley clinics. A variety of unpleasant scenarios may come up. It also helps no one to have unprepared parents. Is it also really more ethical to illegalize abortion, then have the kid shipped off to an orphanage?

EThics. Ethics, it's all about ethics.

For example the last article that you quoted? I automatically found it rather repulsive, because it infringes on my own version of what personhood is. I also find it mean-spirited, because the main reason I'm for allowing abortion, is because it allows the pregnant woman a choice. What's the point after the kid is born?

Of course some may argue for euthanasia, particularly if the kid has for example have conditions which may make them die in their early 20, while making their short life painful. Then it would have to go done in a case by case basis.

EDIT

El Danny:

When will you people get it though your heads that it's not a question between a baby in the world or not, it's a question between a medical procedure done by professionals with all the necessary equipment and training, or a blood coated coathanger! We don't go 'Yay abortions!' Abortions are terrible things, but they're a necessary evil in this world and far better then the alternative.

Bumping this for o so great justice.

Vegosiux:

2) We can find some better sources for the issue, that use more accurate interpretations of the data so we have something more solid to base a discussion on.

In the UK:

"The government estimates that as many as 95% of rapes are never reported to the police at all. Of the rapes that were reported from 2007 to 2008, only 6.5% resulted in a conviction on the charge of rape. The majority of convictions for rape resulted from an admission of guilt by the defendant, whereas less than one quarter of all those charged with rape were convicted following a successful trial."

Since it's difficult to get an accurate reading on unreported rape, the best estimates have found it to be somewhere between 70% and 95%.

In the USA, only 25% of reported rapes result in an arrest.

This report only covers up until 2003, but it shows rape conviction rates for reported rapes to be at about 5% in the UK and 11.5% in the USA.

From Wikipedia (referring to this study):
"The largest study, published in 2005, was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases and found 3% of false reports."

Conflating other studies, false reporting is generally found to account for 2-3% of all rape reports (those are the two little guys at the bottom of the infographic), which in turn is the average for false reports of crime in general.

All these statistics back up the infographic. I'm sorry if you find them flimsy. Perhaps you could complain to the Home Office in the UK, or the Department of Justice in the states?

boots:

All these statistics back up the infographic. I'm sorry if you find them flimsy. Perhaps you could complain to the Home Office in the UK, or the Department of Justice in the states?

I didn't say I find the statistic flimsy, I said I find the infographic flimsy. There statistics are just, well, incomplete for a wholesome discussing the issue at hand.

As I mentioned above, the infographic seemed to assume "One rape = one rapist". Discounting the very real possibilities of gang rape on one side and repeat offenders on the other side. You can't arrest 5 people for 5 rapes, if all 5 were committed by the same person, can you? Yet saying "5 rapes and only one person was arrested" would imply that there are four rapists still on the loose and that's what the infographic does among other things.

Second, why do not rapes get reported? This is the difficult one. Because the victim is intimidated is quite a common reason, I'll concede, but I doubt it's the only one.

Third, why do all reported rapes not result in prosecution? Sometimes because they can't find a perpetrator. Sometimes because there's not enough information to go on. Sometimes because the accusation was downright false. But again, saying only "Only 30% of reported rapes result in prosecution" without breaking down the reasons why would imply that in 70% the authorities just don't care there's a rapist going around, which is again, false.

Fourth, why do not all cases where a person charged with rape end up in a conviction? Because our legal system is built the way you have to be damn well certain they actually did it. So again, the fact that only a percentage of the prosecutions lead to a conviction results from not "rapists walking free" all over the place, but from "in our society, a criminal going free, while not a good thing, is a risk we have to accept if we want to avoid jailing innocent people".

What the infographic does is take the numbers without paying any thought to the context and the reasons for those numbers, and that's why it's flimsy.

So you have this distillation:

Rape - rape reported - a law enforcement case built on a reported rape - conviction and punishment.

And on every line, you have to ask why the numbers get smaller, not assume that's just rapists going free of consequence, as tempting as that is. But that's exactly what the infographic did.

Frission:
Well then how can you be against a policy which we are quite sure helps people, when the possible cons are uncertain and subject to debate? The argument can be turned back against everyone.

This is essentially the hunter's analogy. Two hunters are in the woods hunting animals. They separate to cover more ground. One of the hunters hears rustling in the nearby bushes and he knows that if he doesn't take the shot now, whatever animal it is will escape. He can't call out either because then the animal is certain to run. But there is also a chance that it's not an animal and it's in fact, his partner that's behind the bushes.

He is not certain, who or what exactly is behind that bush - so is he justified in firing? After all, if it is an animal, then the hunter will benefit greatly - meat, trophy, fur, prestige etc. However, what if it is his partner who will be killed by the shot.

The point is that even the slightest doubt demands restraint. By not firing, he will forsake the possibility of getting a prized animal, however he guarantees that no human lives are lost. By firing he is risking the life of an innocent human being for the sake of his own gain.

That's the analogy with not knowing the status of the fetus. The mother is the hunter who is about to shoot and the fetus the being behind the bushes. If we don't know for sure whether the fetus is a person or not, then how is it justified in taking the option that puts that fetuses rights and life in danger as opposed to taking the variant that guarantees that no such violation will occur.

Frission:

I sort of hesitate to discuss on this, or anything which relies on pure morals, because in the end it relies entirely on values and priorities. It's difficult to say what is or is not wrong. For me personhood is when you one can live without an umbilical cord and is capable of living outside the mother's body, since it would get too messy if I started citing higher brain functions, capacity of thinking for oneself and self-awareness. I find the right of the mother to trump the more nebulous right of the fetus. Legally a woman can have an abortion until 7 months. It's an arbitrary limit of course.

Abortion as I said and I will continue to say, is not pretty. It's important however to always let that be an option. If abortion was illegalized, unsafe abortions may be performed in back-alley clinics. A variety of unpleasant scenarios may come up. It also helps no one to have unprepared parents. Is it also really more ethical to illegalize abortion, then have the kid shipped off to an orphanage?

Basically, in your case abortion is allowed as long as the baby requires the mother's body in order to remain alive. Once the baby can survive without the mother - only then may the baby be considered a being with inviolable rights.

I have heard such a view before and I think it is a valid view if you are willing to accept certain bizarre aspects of this view.

For example, women who have access to western medical technology - for them, the baby's viability - the ability to live independently of the mother - comes to term much faster. A 6-7 month old fetus can survive in developed countries that have advanced medical technology. This essentially means that in the west, a baby becomes a person right after about 6 months.

In Congo or any other backwater country, a mother does not have access to western medical technology - so a 6-7 month old baby is not capable of surviving because of the lack of medical technology. In Congo, a 6-7 month old fetus therefore cannot be considered a person. Basically a fetus can be a person one day, and be transported to Congo and not be a person anymore.

Basically this means that your definition of personhood is dependant on the geographic location and the opportunities of the mother + the current level of medical technology. I think that this cannot be a definition of personhood because it is arbitrary and is fully contingent on external factors.

al4674:

Frission:
Well then how can you be against a policy which we are quite sure helps people, when the possible cons are uncertain and subject to debate? The argument can be turned back against everyone.

This is essentially the hunter's analogy. Two hunters are in the woods hunting animals. They separate to cover more ground. One of the hunters hears rustling in the nearby bushes and he knows that if he doesn't take the shot now, whatever animal it is will escape. He can't call out either because then the animal is certain to run. But there is also a chance that it's not an animal and it's in fact, his partner that's behind the bushes.

He is not certain, who or what exactly is behind that bush - so is he justified in firing? After all, if it is an animal, then the hunter will benefit greatly - meat, trophy, fur, prestige etc. However, what if it is his partner who will be killed by the shot.

The point is that even the slightest doubt demands restraint. By not firing, he will forsake the possibility of getting a prized animal, however he guarantees that no human lives are lost. By firing he is risking the life of an innocent human being for the sake of his own gain.

That's the analogy with not knowing the status of the fetus. The mother is the hunter who is about to shoot and the fetus the being behind the bushes. If we don't know for sure whether the fetus is a person or not, then how is it justified in taking the option that puts that fetuses rights and life in danger as opposed to taking the variant that guarantees that no such violation will occur.

Frission:

I sort of hesitate to discuss on this, or anything which relies on pure morals, because in the end it relies entirely on values and priorities. It's difficult to say what is or is not wrong. For me personhood is when you one can live without an umbilical cord and is capable of living outside the mother's body, since it would get too messy if I started citing higher brain functions, capacity of thinking for oneself and self-awareness. I find the right of the mother to trump the more nebulous right of the fetus. Legally a woman can have an abortion until 7 months. It's an arbitrary limit of course.

Abortion as I said and I will continue to say, is not pretty. It's important however to always let that be an option. If abortion was illegalized, unsafe abortions may be performed in back-alley clinics. A variety of unpleasant scenarios may come up. It also helps no one to have unprepared parents. Is it also really more ethical to illegalize abortion, then have the kid shipped off to an orphanage?

Basically, in your case abortion is allowed as long as the baby requires the mother's body in order to remain alive. Once the baby can survive without the mother - only then may the baby be considered a being with inviolable rights.

I have heard such a view before and I think it is a valid view if you are willing to accept certain bizarre aspects of this view.

For example, women who have access to western medical technology - for them, the baby's viability - the ability to live independently of the mother - comes to term much faster. A 6-7 month old fetus can survive in developed countries that have advanced medical technology. This essentially means that in the west, a baby becomes a person right after about 6 months.

In Congo or any other backwater country, a mother does not have access to western medical technology - so a 6-7 month old baby is not capable of surviving because of the lack of medical technology. In Congo, a 6-7 month old fetus therefore cannot be considered a person. Basically a fetus can be a person one day, and be transported to Congo and not be a person anymore.

Basically this means that your definition of personhood is dependant on the geographic location and the opportunities of the mother + the current level of medical technology. I think that this cannot be a definition of personhood because it is arbitrary and is fully contingent on external factors.

The problem with your analogy is that it doesn't apply to the current situation. Personhood is not clear cut, and there's a question on whether we should even care. Thw hunter analogy oversimplifies the situation.

You're also harming people by not "taking the shot". There are people who might have more difficult lives if they're denied abortions. I'm not willing to gamble human rights over something like the personhood of the fetus.

If you're looking for clear cut answers then you won't find any. Notice for example the way you twisted what I said in the last paragraph (or took it to a logical conclusion). Did you do it on purpose? Or it is better a lesson to those who would take things literally?

For example, you could define it as being when they are born, in which case abortion is okay until the water breaks. It could be at conception or when the sex is determined. It could be when it has ten fingers. That's why I avoided talking about personhood from the start, because at the end of the day I don't really think it matters. Maybe you shouldn't abort simply by being homo sapiens sapiens, but that is just as arbitrary as any definition.

If you're going to take anything from this thread, then take this.

El Danny:

When will you people get it though your heads that it's not a question between a baby in the world or not, it's a question between a medical procedure done by professionals with all the necessary equipment and training, or a blood coated coathanger! We don't go 'Yay abortions!' Abortions are terrible things, but they're a necessary evil in this world and far better then the alternative.

That's what I think, really matters.

Vegosiux:

As I mentioned above, the infographic seemed to assume "One rape = one rapist". Discounting the very real possibilities of gang rape on one side and repeat offenders on the other side. You can't arrest 5 people for 5 rapes, if all 5 were committed by the same person, can you? Yet saying "5 rapes and only one person was arrested" would imply that there are four rapists still on the loose and that's what the infographic does among other things.

That's your basis for the entire infographic being "flimsy"? Because it says 'rapists' instead of 'rapes'? I've got to say that this criticism is a little bit ... flimsy.

Though if you're actually interested, in terms of "rapists vs. rapes", the average is 2.3 offences per convicted rapist. Which means that the infographic is still accurate, and simply assumes a lower percentage of unreported rapes within the 70-95% estimate.

why do not rapes get reported? This is the difficult one. Because the victim is intimidated is quite a common reason, I'll concede, but I doubt it's the only one.

If you doubt it's the only reason then why don't you try actually looking it up, instead of treating it like a great mystery that can never be solved? Doesn't the fact that it's incredibly low compared to other crimes (for example, in a survey of people who were victims of aggravated assault/robbery, 75% of them reported the incident) speak volumes on its own? Never mind the fact that we live in a culture where women are frequently blamed for being raped because they "brought it on themselves", and are accused of being slutty or for leading the guy on when they do seek a conviction. A couple of months ago the 11 year-old victim of a gang-rape by 20 men was described by their defence attorney as, ""Like the spider and the fly. Wasn't she saying, 'Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly?'"

This is the culture we live in, and you're sceptical about the idea that women might not report rape because they feel ashamed?

Third, why do all reported rapes not result in prosecution? Sometimes because they can't find a perpetrator. Sometimes because there's not enough information to go on. Sometimes because the accusation was downright false. But again, saying only "Only 30% of reported rapes result in prosecution" without breaking down the reasons why would imply that in 70% the authorities just don't care there's a rapist going around, which is again, false.

Fourth, why do not all cases where a person charged with rape end up in a conviction? Because our legal system is built the way you have to be damn well certain they actually did it. So again, the fact that only a percentage of the prosecutions lead to a conviction results from not "rapists walking free" all over the place, but from "in our society, a criminal going free, while not a good thing, is a risk we have to accept if we want to avoid jailing innocent people".

What the infographic does is take the numbers without paying any thought to the context and the reasons for those numbers, and that's why it's flimsy.

So you have this distillation:

Rape - rape reported - a law enforcement case built on a reported rape - conviction and punishment.

And on every line, you have to ask why the numbers get smaller, not assume that's just rapists going free of consequence, as tempting as that is. But that's exactly what the infgraphic did.

Those same questions can be asked of all crimes, so why not compare the conviction rate for rape to other crimes? Let's do that.

In the USA, the arrest rate for rape reports is 25%. According to this report, the arrest rate for murder is 79% and the arrest rate for aggravated assault is 51%.

If we only include cases that go to court, the conviction rate for rape in the UK is 58%. For crime in general, the UK conviction rate is 83.4% as of June 2012. I can't find exact statistics for rape conviction rates in the USA, but it's worth pointing out that while the total number of convicted rapes is higher, so is the rate of conviction for crime in general at 93%.

Again, it didn't take me too long to find all this information online when I first looked it up. Why are you so keen on insisting that rates of conviction for rape crimes aren't worryingly low, when you have no evidence to the contrary?

al4674:

Basically this means that your definition of personhood is dependant on the geographic location and the opportunities of the mother + the current level of medical technology. I think that this cannot be a definition of personhood because it is arbitrary and is fully contingent on external factors.

Want a fun corrolary to the inverse? If we assume that personhood is granted at conception and such a status has an immutable right to life, then it can very well be argued that without special pleading a miscarriage is - categorically - involuntary manslaughter. More fun still is the corrolary that if abortion is illegal and miscarriages remain unprosecutable, then it becomes especially important that miscarriages be subject to criminal investigation to determine whether or not the miscarriage was willfully induced to get around the abortion ban[1]. To be a bit more direct, this topic is muddy enough that most if not all perspectives have some...interesting aspects to them. For instance, the position that having human DNA is, on its own, the core determining factor of personhood hits some interesting ground when one considers the existence of parasitic twins, one of which may even lack a head. Does a twin which never even developed a head or brain have the same right to life that its fully developed sibling enjoys? What about fetus in fetu? By a similar token, what does it mean for cases like Mordechai Dov Brody, who was declared legally dead due to total lack of brain function but whose body was kept alive through chemicals and forcible respiration?

Pro-life or Pro-choice, the issue is hardly cut and dry and chances are very good that any given position on the subject has some bizzare aspects to it, or at least they can be presented as such.

[1] Fun fact: the state of Virginia actually attempted to implement both corrolaries a few years ago

boots:

That's your basis for the entire infographic being "flimsy"? Because it says 'rapists' instead of 'rapes'? I've got to say that this criticism is a little bit ... flimsy.

My criticism is basically that it assumes numbers while claiming to know them, which makes it a flimsy piece of evidence. If you wish to disregard that right here, right now, then that's just too damn bad for me, I suppose.

Though if you're actually interested, in terms of "rapists vs. rapes", the average is 2.3 offences per convicted rapist. Which means that the infographic is still accurate, and simply assumes a lower percentage of unreported rapes within the 70-95% estimate.

Convicted, or, the smallest portion of the graphic. How many offenses per unreported, unprosecuted and unconvicted rapist though? I'm sorry, but I can't just assume those numbers are what I want them to be, neither should anyone else.

NOTE: I'm not actually asking you to provide those numbers. I'm just saying that there's a distinct lack of them in the infographic, where they should be if it was supposed to be an accurate one.

If you doubt it's the only reason then why don't you try actually looking it up, instead of treating it like a great mystery that can never be solved?

Because it's not relevant to the point I'm making. Remember, I'm making a point about how an infographic claims to be accurate when it leaves too much to assumption.

At no point in this discussion have I ever talked about how it is in reality.

This is the culture we live in, and you're sceptical about the idea that women might not report rape because they feel ashamed?

I wonder where you got that from. I never said or implied such. Of course that's one of the reasons for rapes going unreported. So no, I'm in no way skeptical about the idea that that might happen, I still don't get why you'd think otherwise.

Those same questions can be asked of all crimes, so why not compare the conviction rate for rape to other crimes? Let's do that.

In the USA, the arrest rate for rape reports is 25%. According to this report, the arrest rate for murder is 79% and the arrest rate for aggravated assault is 51%.

If we only include cases that go to court, the conviction rate for rape in the UK is 58%. For crime in general, the UK conviction rate is 83.4% as of June 2012. I can't find exact statistics for rape conviction rates in the USA, but it's worth pointing out that while the total number of convicted rapes is higher, so is the rate of conviction for crime in general at 93%.

Again, I don't see how this is relevant to what I'm saying, but yes, rape convictions are lower than the average of everything else. But that's just numbers. What are you trying to say with those numbers? That rapists are going free all over the place? That defendants in rape cases shouldn't be treated as guilty in advance[1], since look at how many get acquitted? That rape is a crime that's difficult to even define and the borders between "rape" and "not a rape" aren't as clear as we want them to be? That the system just plain isn't working? What are those numbers supposed to point out in this case?

Why are you so keen on insisting that rates of conviction for rape crimes aren't worryingly low, when you have no evidence to the contrary?

Care to show where I insist that? Because I don't remember making any such claims. I never even claimed that infographic was wrong, just that it was flimsy, that it leaves too much for assumptions and that therefore it can't stand on its own (that's what flimsy means).

So could you please stop treating me as "the enemy" and instead first make sure you understand what I was actually saying, and most importantly, could you please stop making assumptions about me that you have no reason to make, past "this suits my case"?

[1] Note that nobody should be treated as guilty in advance legally anyway

Vegosiux:

Because it's not relevant to the point I'm making. Remember, I'm making a point about how an infographic claims to be accurate when it leaves too much to assumption.

At no point in this discussion have I ever talked about how it is in reality.

You are disputing the fact that the infographic is accurate. As in, you are disputing whether or not it represents reality. To say that the actual rape report/arrest/conviction statistics are irrelevant is ludicrous.

The infographic is a diagram of rape crimes, reports, arrests, convictions and sentences according to official statistics from the Department of Justice/Home Office and peer-reviewed research. It is a visual representation of information, hence the term "infographic". The only test of a statistical diagram is whether or not it accurately represents real-life statistics. I've demonstrated that it does.

What are you trying to say with those numbers? That rapists are going free all over the place? That defendants in rape cases shouldn't be treated as guilty in advance[1], since look at how many get acquitted? That rape is a crime that's difficult to even define and the borders between "rape" and "not a rape" aren't as clear as we want them to be? That the system just plain isn't working? What are those numbers supposed to point out in this case?

What can be inferred from the diagram really is irrelevant when we're talking about the accuracy of the diagram. You can dispute what people say when they discuss it, but to get angry at the numbers themselves is absurd.

Oh, and rape isn't a crime that is difficult to define. It's really not. You've probably got that impression from the staggering number of politicians trying to redefine rape.

Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. This encompasses consent under threat of violence, withdrawal of consent, inability to give consent due to being passed out or incapacitated, inability to give consent due to being underage etc. It is very easy to define. It's certainly much easier to define than murder, which gets divided into "degrees" and involves many other factors like self-defence and premeditation.

boots:

You are disputing the fact that the infographic is accurate.

I am disputing the fact that the infographic includes all relevant statistics.

As in, you are disputing whether or not it represents reality.

I'm not, actually. It's more along the lines of saying that I'm not bloody likely to look at it and go "Oh, so that's how it is, aright, nothing else needs to be known here." It can't stand on its own. Therefore, flimsy.

To say that the actual rape report/arrest/conviction statistics are irrelevant is ludicrous.

Good thing that's not what I said then. I said that when pointing out that when someone isn't taking the real statistics into account, I can call them out on it without having to bring up the numbers up myself.

The infographic is a diagram of rape crimes, reports, arrests, convictions and sentences according to official statistics from the Department of Justice/Home Office and peer-reviewed research. It is a visual representation of information, hence the term "infographic". The only test of a statistical diagram is whether or not it accurately represents real-life statistics. I've demonstrated that it does.

You demonstrated that it's saying something different from what you are saying, and interpreting the statistics differently from how you're interpreting them. You've also demonstrated that you are taking sources into account that it did not take into account. Incidentally, what you're saying is a lot more concise and realistic, precisely because it doesn't overlook the real information in favor of convenient assumptions in its place.

And even assuming the infographic is accurate...well. If I shoot a bow without much attention to the wind, the weight of the arrow, etc., and still happen to hit a bullseye, I still don't get to pretend I've taken all that into account. I just got lucky.

Bottom line - your posts are several orders of magnitude more accurate than that infographic is, and I'm not disputing those.

What can be inferred from the diagram really is irrelevant when we're talking about the accuracy of the diagram. You can get angry and dispute what people say when they discuss it, but to get angry at the numbers themselves is absurd.

I'm not getting angry? Just a little exasperated about misinterpreting what I say.

Oh, and rape isn't a crime that is difficult to define. It's really not. You've probably got that impression from the staggering number of politicians trying to redefine rape.

Never said it was, I just said that low conviction rates could be interpreted in any of the ways I mentioned if no context is given.

Rape is sexual intercourse without consent. This encompasses consent under threat of violence, withdrawal of consent, inability to give consent due to being passed out or incapacitated, inability to give consent due to being underage etc.

That's something you and I agree on.

And yet some jurisdictions took a while to get there, in the past omitting non-penetrative rape, omitting anything that was not "penis-to-vagina" even so there was no such thing as "anal rape". So instead of "difficult to define" I could maybe say "Simply not well defined in some places". That used to quite baffle me.

Oh and by the way, after this little discussion of ours, the infographic became completely irrelevant to it since you got your points across better than it could ever hope to. In that light, if you're still interested in continued discussion, I think we can stop bringing that up, as it's no longer necessary.

Interesting that this all started with the question whether or not a rapist should be paying for child support if the woman he raped gets pregnant. Oh, food for thought tho, for everyone: If a woman rapes ("has an intercourse without consent with") a man and gets pregnant as a result, should he be paying for child support?

Vegosiux:

I am disputing the fact that the infographic includes all relevant statistics.

It contains all relevant statistics. It does not include the statistics of rape convictions vs. general crime convictions because it is not a diagram about rape convictions vs. general crime convictions. It is a diagram showing the proportion of rape reports, arrests, trials and convictions.

Saying it doesn't contain all relevant statistics because it doesn't include other crimes is like complaining that a UK census is inaccurate because it doesn't include information about the French population.

I'm not, actually. It's more along the lines of saying that I'm not bloody likely to look at it and go "Oh, so that's how it is, aright, nothing else needs to be known here." It can't stand on its own. Therefore, flimsy.

Who cares what you think when you look at it? Who cares what anyone thinks when they look at it? Of course it can't stand on its own. No statistical diagram can stand on its own - that's why we have statistical analysts. A bunch of numbers don't have an opinion.

Good thing that's not what I said then. I said that when pointing out that when someone isn't taking the real statistics into account, I can call them out on it without having to bring up the numbers up myself.

You mean, "I can call them out on not accounting for the real statistics despite having no idea what the statistics are."

Again, what do you mean by "real statistics"? The statistics for other crimes, which aren't shown because the diagram isn't about crime in general, but specifically rape crime?

You demonstrated that it's saying something different from what you are saying, and interpreting the statistics differently from how you're interpreting them.

It's not interpreting anything. It is a diagram.

You've also demonstrated that you are taking sources into account that it did not take into account. Incidentally, what you're saying is a lot more concise and realistic, precisely because it doesn't overlook the real information in favor of convenient assumptions in its place.

I'm taking sources into account that it did not take into account because I extended the discussion into the area of rape crime vs. other crime. The diagram does not do that because it is not about rape crime vs. other crime. I showed that the diagram represents the most accurate statistics about rape crime that are available at the moment, which suggests that whoever drew it conducted the same research that I did (probably better) and found the same numbers.

And even assuming the infographic is accurate...well. If I shoot a bow without much attention to the wind, the weight of the arrow, etc., and still happen to hit a bullseye, I still don't get to pretend I've taken all that into account. I just got lucky.

So it accurately reflects official statistics by ... coincidence? OK...

Interesting that this all started with the question whether or not a rapist should be paying for child support if the woman he raped gets pregnant. Oh, food for thought tho, for everyone: If a woman rapes ("has an intercourse without consent with") a man and gets pregnant as a result, should he be paying for child support?

In my opinion, no. He's no more obligated to help raise the child than a woman would be to carry a child to term.

Though it's not an issue that would come up very often, since 91% of rape victims are female and 99% of rapists are male.

Vegosiux:

bleys2487:

Oh, no. I understand perfectly. You're suggesting that men could essentially go around, rape women, impregnate them and not have to pay for a child simply because you believe that 'two wrongs don't make a right'.

No offense, but you seem to be completely overlooking one rather important fact there.

The reason those men are not going to be paying for the child is that they'll be in prison for rape, so there won't be any income from which they could pay.

No, I don't think that's what he's saying at all. If we look at some stastics:


We would see that the average rape sentence is significantly shorter than the duration of child support. The rapist might serve 3 years in prison while the woman will likely be looking after the child for at least 18 years. The OP is arguing that the woman who was raped shouldn't be enitled to any child support, regardless of the rapists income or assets.

Besides, child support is already calculated based on what the father can afford. If the father has no income, he can't pay child support anyway. If that is your issue, there's no reason to argue that he shouldn't have to pay it because he already wouldn't have to.... because he can't.

SimpleThunda':
Let me ask you this question: Would you rather be aborted, and NEVER have lived (assuming we get this one chance), or would you take life eventhough it may be hard?

Obviously, you're going to pick the last choice, even if you knew you were signing up for a hard life, because even a hard life can turn itself around and isn't void of happiness.

This is obvious. It doesn't take a philosopher to come to this conclusion.

You're right, I doubt a philosopher would come to such a naive and poorly thought out conclusion.

For your information yes, I would rather have been aborted. In fact I almost was, which makes my existence even more disappointing. Now if I want to die I have all these survival instincts and state laws in the way which prevent me doing it comfortably and painlessly.

But I won't pretend my attitude is typical. In fact that little aside was pointless because the question is ridiculous to begin with. A more relevant question would be "If you didn't exist, would you want to exist?" The answer of course being "You would have no opinion because you wouldn't exist, and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves."

SimpleThunda':
AESTHETICS, dear ladies and gentlemen.

We'd rather end a life than see our tight cunt and pristine body leave us, because that's what you're doing. You're robbing a person of the chance to live, because you're not ready to say goodbye to that body you value so much and you base all your confidence on. Well, if you're not f--ing ready, USE A F--ING condom.

I consider it rather demeaning that you would make such a claim without any evidence. Who are you to say that any statistically significant amount of abortions occur because the woman is concerned about her "tight cunt".

Condoms can break.

This thread has made me feel physically ill. I can only hope that one day the people making these misogynistic statements in this thread will look back on their posts and feel duly ashamed. I just... I don't understand why the escapist even has that clause in the Code of Conduct about sexism not being permissible on these forums. My ass it isn't.

boots:

Vegosiux:

I am disputing the fact that the infographic includes all relevant statistics.

It contains all relevant statistics. It does not include the statistics of rape convictions vs. general crime convictions because it is not a diagram about rape convictions vs. general crime convictions. It is a diagram showing the proportion of rape reports, arrests, trials and convictions.

I've already pointed out that my problem with it was that "One rape" does not necessarily equal "One rapist" and therefore does not necessarily equal "One report", "One prosecution" or "One conviction". And it fails to account for that.

Who cares what you think when you look at it?

Ummm, I do, for one?

Good thing that's not what I said then. I said that when pointing out that when someone isn't taking the real statistics into account, I can call them out on it without having to bring up the numbers up myself.

You mean, "I can call them out on not accounting for the real statistics despite having no idea what the statistics are."

Well that was rude and uncalled for. I'm sorry, but if you're going to pull shit like that just for the sake of antagonizing me, I'm starting to have my doubts you're interested in a civil discussion as much as you're interested in simply "winning".

A shame. I was starting to think we were on to something interesting.

Vegosiux:

Who cares what you think when you look at it?

Ummm, I do, for one?

*sigh* I mean that your opinion or anyone else's of what statistics mean is utterly irrelevant when debating the accuracy of the statistics themselves. Numbers do not have an opinion.

Good thing that's not what I said then. I said that when pointing out that when someone isn't taking the real statistics into account, I can call them out on it without having to bring up the numbers up myself.

You mean, "I can call them out on not accounting for the real statistics despite having no idea what the statistics are."

Well that was rude and uncalled for. I'm sorry, but if you're going to pull shit like that just for the sake of antagonizing me, I'm starting to have my doubts you're interested in a discussion as much as you're interested in simply "winning".

A shame. I was starting to think we were on to something interesting.

Errr ... it's uncalled for to point out that your statement makes no logical sense? I thought pointing out fallacious arguments was part of debate. As is "winning", for that matter. I notice that you've dodged my points about the fact that the stats you consider to be "real statistics" aren't actually relevant to the diagram at all.

It is indeed a shame that you chose to flounce off in a huff rather than come up with a counter-argument, or admit that your understanding of what a statistical diagram is might have been somewhat lacking. Much easier to feign outrage than admit a mistake. I understand.

boots:

It is indeed a shame that you chose to flounce off in a huff rather than come up with a counter-argument, or admit that your understanding of what a statistical diagram is might have been somewhat lacking. Much easier to feign outrage than admit a mistake. I understand.

*sigh* No feigned outrage, just a lot of genuine exasperation. But, of course, don't let what I say about myself get in the way of what you want to think about me.

Vegosiux:

*sigh* No feigned outrage, just a lot of genuine exasperation. But, of course, don't let what I say about myself get in the way of what you want to think about me.

Sooo ... counter-argument or...?

No, you're right. Let's keep talking about our emotions. Much easier than informed debate.

P.S. You just dodged my point about you dodging my point. I think that constitutes some kind of metadodge. You just dodged into the fourth dimension.

boots:

Sooo ... counter-argument or...?

One of those will come when I next see something relevant to counter. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not something you insert a coin into.

No, you're right. Let's keep talking about our emotions. Much easier than informed debate.

I suppose self-serving snide remarks somehow became a way to show interest in and then start an "informed debate" somewhere along the road. I didn't get the memo, I'm afraid.

As for the talk about our emotions...you sure about that? I mean, it might want to make you want to claw your eyes out after a few minutes with me on the couch and you taking notes...

PS: Don't worry, my sarcasm detector is just fine. You've just convinced me you're not interested in an "informed debate" at all, though.

Lilani:

chaosord:
After reading some comments on the forums here I thought I would give my two cents on these issues. Feel free to do the same.

Abortion, to me, has become a grey area. While I agree that a person's body is theirs to do with what they please, I also believe that they can not do the same with another's. So there has to be a cut off point. And the abortion must not cause undo suffering to the fetus. Which is a bit of a quagmire, because if it can feel pain then it already is a "being". And I am sorry but if it has reached a point where it is a "being" then you have no right to kill, unless it is putting a life at risk.

And this ties into my next train of thought. "Her body, her choice." should be extended to, "Her body, her choice, her responsibility." If a person has sex, gets peggers, keeps it, then that is all on her. She can not demand money from the man who had sex with her (even if it a rapist, sorry two wrongs do not make a right. maybe create a support system where proven cases get aid, another topic for another time), if that relationship was no one where both parties expressed a desire to have children. You make a choice, you pay for it.

Some of my thoughts, what are yours?

There's something going on here that Agema mentioned in page 2 or 3 that I still don't feel like you've fully addressed at this point in the thread, and that's the dual nature of your opinion on this.

You start in with full concern for the fetus and the welfare of that potential child, and then when it comes to the subject of child support suddenly your biggest concern is the welfare of the father. That doesn't make sense to me, and I don't feel like this can go both ways. You can't on the one hand oppose abortion because it hurts the child, and then deny that child something that is specifically for its benefit and welfare just because it puts some financial burden on the father that he may not want (while you are at the same time disregarding the physical and financial burden that's put on the mother when she has to commit to a pregnancy she doesn't want).[1]

So, which is it? Who matters most, here? If it's the child, then surely a bit of money for their well being isn't too much to ask. To me it smacks of that stereotypical conservative notion I've also never understood that a child is a precious thing that a mother should never give up regardless of the circumstances the child might be born into (whether it be abject poverty or abuse), yet if that mother dares to call upon the government for any kind of aid she is a leech and a stain upon society, and that the child should never be heard from again until it's a proper tax-paying citizen like the rest of us. I'm not saying you feel that way about welfare, but it seems to be the same kind of logic. The child's well being is king, unless money is involved.

Also, I find it strange that you seem to oppose abortion, yet you seem to feel there are times a woman is "obligated" to abort lest she suffer "consequences." Like the rape thing. You think that two wrongs don't make a right, that punishing the child isn't the right thing to do even if the mother has been wronged, and then you say that because she made the mistake of not aborting she has no right to seek money from the father (who had the opportunity to not be a father by not raping her). Had you started with "They're in jail and making no income so there is no money for the child support to come from"[2] like Vegoslux mentioned then I might have understood it better. But the way you seem determined for the mother to be left on her own regardless of the circumstances that brought her there, and without any regard for how it might also affect the child (who you nearly seem to forget is with her and is the whole reason behind child support) just doesn't make sense to me.

And one last thing. What if the father and mother both agree that they want to abort? There is a moral quagmire in the thought of one or the other not wanting to abort, and there are already too many discussions going on for me to want to get into that, but if that sticking point doesn't exist then would you support the abortion?

All good points. If you would read my other posts I do clarify somethings.

[1] And yes, there is a significant financial burden on the mother throughout pregnancy as well. More food she has to consume, prenatal vitamins and supplements, doctor's visits, examinations, classes and informational materials if she's never been pregnant, and not to mention having to take off work at some point, which in many cases is not a paid leave. While that is all nothing compared to raising the child for 18+ years, it's still several thousands of dollars (depending on how insured she is) and a loss in work time and experience that is virtually irreplaceable (there is a lot you can read on the so called "mommy" career path, which shows the significant drop in job promotions and opportunities a woman has if she chooses to have a child, which is usually greater than what a man raising a child suffers.
[2] which is a bit bunk to me because plenty of people get fined and jailed, but I can understand the problem from a logistical standpoint since child support is based on income

Vegosiux:

One of those will come when I next see something relevant to counter. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not something you insert a coin into.

You know all those points I made that you're conveniently ignoring? The points about how a statistical diagram does not constitute an opinion? About how numbers cannot have an agenda? About how the general crime statistics are irrelevant to a statistical diagram specific to rape crime? Yeah, those are central to the discussion, and those are the things you need to counter-argue. Or, you know, just acknowledge that you made a mistake.

Also, depending on whether or not you saw my post after I edited it, you may have just dodged a point about you dodging a point about you dodging a point. You metametadodged. This is all getting very postmodern.

No, you're right. Let's keep talking about our emotions. Much easier than informed debate.

I suppose self-serving snide remarks somehow became a way to show interest in and then start an "informed debate" somewhere along the road. I didn't get the memo, I'm afraid.

As for the talk about our emotions...you sure about that? I mean, it might want to make you want to claw your eyes out after a few minutes with me on the couch and you taking notes...

PS: Don't worry, my sarcasm detector is just fine. You've just convinced me you're not interested in an "informed debate" at all, though.

You got caught making a basic logical error in all your arguments and so you tried to derail the discussion by saying, "I don't like your tone!" I called you out on it. Now you're trying to derail further by saying you don't like the tone I used to accuse you of derailing into a discussion about tone. And down the rabbit hole we go...

boots:

From Wikipedia (referring to this study):
"The largest study, published in 2005, was based on 2,643 sexual assault cases and found 3% of false reports."

Conflating other studies, false reporting is generally found to account for 2-3% of all rape reports (those are the two little guys at the bottom of the infographic), which in turn is the average for false reports of crime in general.

Two things I think it's fair to note regarding this:

1. There are 1000 guys on your little graphic, in a 20 x 50 grid. Those two black guys at the end indicate a 0.2% incidence of false accusation.

2. There have been many studies regarding false accusation, and most of them end up with wildly different results. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Rumney_.282006.29 for a convenient table that shows the ones Rumney examined, with rates ranging from 1.5% (15 little guys on your table) at the lowest end to 90% (900 guys on your graphic) at the top end, with the majority clumping around either ~2% (20 guys) [these tend to be the bottom edge of a spread for studies that require proof beyond a reasonable doubt that absolutely nothing happened to the accuser at all and treat any case where there is room to doubt either possibility as necessarily an actual rape], ~10% (100 guys), ~20% (200 guys) or ~40% (400 guys) [these tend to be the ones that measure cases where the accuser admits to false allegation]. Usually which one gets used depends entirely on what political position your are trying to argue, but you are literally the first I've ever seen claim 0.2% (2 guys).

A good example, how would your study account the Tracy West / Louis Gonzales case? He was given a finding of factual innocence after being able to prove it was physically impossible for him to have committed the crime, psychiatrists came to the conclusion that there's no possibility someone else did it; either he did or she's a brilliant liar, and she was researching the knot used to tie her up the day before the attack, but *something* happened to her (there was physical evidence but only in the form of her bindings and injuries). Read up on the case. Was it a false accusation under the terms of the study you want to cite?

SimpleThunda':
-> I <- draw the line when you take the responsibility to get pregnant.

And anyone other than you and maybe your sexual partner(s) should give a shit because..?

Your arbitrary line need matter to no one else. A woman has a right to control her body. That includes flushing her uterus of unwanted material whatever or whoever it might be. It's not murder, it's clean-up. And I'd say the same if every fetus was (somehow) a fully developed human being as well. No one has the right to another's uterus. Use of it is something that is conditional upon the wishes of the owner and no one else. Having sex does not imply a 9 month slave contract.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked