Environmentalism and Abortion

[c1ue]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

"Murder, in a real sense of the word." Murder! c1ue, I don't think so.
Murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous *the traffic was murder* b : something outrageous or blameworthy *getting away with murder*

c1ue, I don't grasp what you are trying to contend with "The problem - of course - is that the existence of society as well as scarcity creates the motive and means for control. But again, who is responsible for setting the limits?"

The exact "problem" is what? "Scarcity" of what "creates the motive and means for control" of what?

In fairness, some decisions people make which you might attribute to "selfishness," I think I would attribute to ignorance.

I say murder - because in my mind murder is in the mind of the victim. I do not attach any particular moral overtone - merely note that murder, or killing if you prefer, is not in any way better or worse whether the subject is a fertilized egg, a 6 month term fetus, a plant, a farmed animal, or Bambi.

The 'problem' that I refer to is organized society combined with scarcity. This problem has its benefits, but it equally has its detrimental effects - one of which is extra-individual determination of right and wrong (murder vs. killing as an example).

An animal in the wild kills largely due to need. Its behavior is justified by its own need to exist.

In human terms, the equivalent is the achievement of satori as anecdoted via the tale of the ability to take away the last bowl of rice from a starving man - if indeed your need is pure.

But how many people really express this pure need? As opposed to greed, pride, selfishness, etc etc?

Certainly ignorance can be a cause - but note that ignorance and satori are not mutually exclusive. Ignorance of other's views is irrelevant if full cognizance of your own place in the grand scheme is matured.

Unfortunately total ignorance and solipsism are intertwined, so ignorance as a general policy is also not good.

Net net - and back on subject - the entire abortion controversy is due to religion attempting to control the individual via the mechanisms of organized society. This doesn't make its goal entirely wrong because in turn what drives religion is the antithesis of the pure selfishness drives the individual.

Ultimately I do believe abortion should be available, but it equally should not be too easy. Either extreme is abhorrent to me.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

The abortion vs. environment debate is purely artificial.

While I am personally fine with abortion, at the same time I recognize it as being termination of a life. Murder, in a real sense of the world.

But we murder every day in the course of living. Plants, animals, bacteria, you name it get killed in order that we survive. Perfectly self-respecting mineral formations get broken up. Maybe in the future entire asteroids and planets destroyed for their raw materials. etc etc.

Is an old cow different than a veal calf different than a genetically modified hybrid wheat that cannot reproduce itself?

Are the rapeweed/crabgrass weeds we slay in our lawns different than the bluegrass we try to preserve?

It boils down to utility - the imprint of individual selfishness.

While I personally go out of my way to not waste food, fuel, whatever, at the same time it is impossible for me to say that my choices are fundamentally less selfish than the person who chooses to eat steak every day, or who drives the Hummer, or who clubs baby seals.

My choices, like these other people's choices, are selfish based on my own motives and background.

The problem - of course - is that the existence of society as well as scarcity creates the motive and means for control. But again, who is responsible for setting the limits?

It all boils down again to the imprint of individual selfishness filtered through the societal mechanism.

"Murder, in a real sense of the word." Murder! c1ue, I don't think so.
Murder
1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous *the traffic was murder* b : something outrageous or blameworthy *getting away with murder*

c1ue, I don't grasp what you are trying to contend with "The problem - of course - is that the existence of society as well as scarcity creates the motive and means for control. But again, who is responsible for setting the limits?"

The exact "problem" is what? "Scarcity" of what "creates the motive and means for control" of what?

In fairness, some decisions people make which you might attribute to "selfishness," I think I would attribute to ignorance.

[c1ue]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

The abortion vs. environment debate is purely artificial.

While I am personally fine with abortion, at the same time I recognize it as being termination of a life. Murder, in a real sense of the world.

But we murder every day in the course of living. Plants, animals, bacteria, you name it get killed in order that we survive. Perfectly self-respecting mineral formations get broken up. Maybe in the future entire asteroids and planets destroyed for their raw materials. etc etc.

Is an old cow different than a veal calf different than a genetically modified hybrid wheat that cannot reproduce itself?

Are the rapeweed/crabgrass weeds we slay in our lawns different than the bluegrass we try to preserve?

It boils down to utility - the imprint of individual selfishness.

While I personally go out of my way to not waste food, fuel, whatever, at the same time it is impossible for me to say that my choices are fundamentally less selfish than the person who chooses to eat steak every day, or who drives the Hummer, or who clubs baby seals.

My choices, like these other people's choices, are selfish based on my own motives and background.

The problem - of course - is that the existence of society as well as scarcity creates the motive and means for control. But again, who is responsible for setting the limits?

It all boils down again to the imprint of individual selfishness filtered through the societal mechanism.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Think about this: Once you give the government primacy over a woman and the fetus she carries, it is but a little step for the government to order her NOT to carry it any longer. There is already precedent in that some governments are doing so. Remember, the right to choose is the right to choose either of the possible outcomes. Failure to recognize that means no choice is involved.

You, ggirod, are confusing the issue. It is all right for the government to do something that supports what I personally think is the morally correct thing for all humans. As long as the government does what I think is correct (or should I say "I KNOW is correct") then everything is AOK, why else do you think I vote for people who at least give lip service to my concept of morality?

Of course I am being facetious. You raise a valid point, but people are naive and ignorant enough to believe that those they elect will do the right thing as the voters see "the right thing." Today one really must be severely mentally challenged (that is p.c. language for "goddamned idiot") to believe that the primary outcomes of governmental action is aimed at what may be good for the average citizen.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

You think modern "philosophers" are unreasonable? Taking it to the other extreme is also illogical, as an unfertilized egg is not a biologically distinct entity, yet.



I believe what we have here is a difference of opinion with regards to cause and effect, as well as with responsibility. A woman carrying a child does not just have the concern for her own body, but concern for that of another as well. It is already established that the fetus is a legal entity, and that a doctor can be held accountable if their malpractice results in loss of the unborn. In this regard, I think government does have an obligation to at least require that she not intentionally kill the other body in all but the most rare of circumstances.

I think malpractice is malpractice and does not in itself revolve around whether a fetus is born alive or not. One could, I suppose in my not being an obstetrician, perform an act of malpractice in delivery that has nothing to do with death of a fetus.

Why does the government have any obligation with what a woman chooses to do with a ball of cells? I think the government has no obligation at all, and if you think differently, who is correct? and why?

Is it enough for a woman with a fertilized egg to be concerned only about the viability of the fertilized egg or should she have equal or even greater concern about what happens in her particular circumstance once that fertilized egg should become a full blown human?

[ggirod]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Yes, it is. It's about the rights of a woman over her own body vs the government's power to force her to carry a child against her will. It's about a completely unique situation where two lives are inextricably tied together, and only one has the ability to make decisions for both of them.

Think about this: Once you give the government primacy over a woman and the fetus she carries, it is but a little step for the government to order her NOT to carry it any longer. There is already precedent in that some governments are doing so. Remember, the right to choose is the right to choose either of the possible outcomes. Failure to recognize that means no choice is involved.

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

By "killing" I recognize that you mean murder, as from a technical standpoint those cells, fetuses, or children are being "killed" by definition. Yes, you are right that some parents do commit infanticide. There are plenty of long-running news stories of investigations of such in this country, and I would imagine (though I have yet to research) that the practice is probably much more common in places such as North Korea or China. Infanticide was also practiced by cavemen.

I agree with you that both Catholics (as an institution) and Republicans (as an institution) are serving to exploit and undercut genuine choices for family planning, such as education and contraception. That is the political nature of the beast.

However, at the heart of the matter is that humans come from somewhere, and that place is the collection of cells growing in the mother's womb. In that condition, the mother has virtually 100% power over the maturing human. After birth, that power can be transferred to almost anyone else but the newborn. Some time after, the power to live can eventually be granted to the child as it becomes adult. That's simply the life cycle of humans--starts at conception, and ends at death, and all throughout the power to live or die is often in the hands of another.

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Yes, yes, we know: most anti-choice screeds are "somewhat emotional" which is why each woman should have a right to choose that is protected from government intervention or interferance from other people who may have a "somewhat emotional" reaction to a pregnancy that occurs in another persons life.

Just because something is emotional does not make it irrational as well. People can very rightly be emotional about laws preventing fraud, especially financial fraud. Should the government therefore have no say when it comes to addressing charlatans?

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

You think modern "philosophers" are unreasonable? Taking it to the other extreme is also illogical, as an unfertilized egg is not a biologically distinct entity, yet.

Yes, it is. It's about the rights of a woman over her own body vs the government's power to force her to carry a child against her will. It's about a completely unique situation where two lives are inextricably tied together, and only one has the ability to make decisions for both of them. Many of those decisions involve life and death and a host of other factors. I believe that the mother is the best person to make those decisions.

-Jimmy

I believe what we have here is a difference of opinion with regards to cause and effect, as well as with responsibility. A woman carrying a child does not just have the concern for her own body, but concern for that of another as well. It is already established that the fetus is a legal entity, and that a doctor can be held accountable if their malpractice results in loss of the unborn. In this regard, I think government does have an obligation to at least require that she not intentionally kill the other body in all but the most rare of circumstances.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

That's a rational view, perhaps. Readily choosing to believe that human life is cheap and not precious does put things into a certain perspective that might make the coinciding views of the two subjects at hand acceptable.

However, I am curious as to what you mean by "do what needs to be done." What needs to be done, exactly? Who decides?

Look if you will at the "tags" on my signature, the second represents a goal that to me is inarguable regarding making human life on this planet worth something besides merely being alive.

In the strongest sense possible, I disagree with your view that an egg and a joined sperm represent a human (though those are not your words). They represent two cells, and that is it biologically. At some point an embryo becomes a fetus, and at that point one could begin to make whatever arguments one wishes about the fetus being a human. I believe in general people with two or more brain cells have long decided that under most circumstances, aborting a fetus the closer it comes to represents a full term pregnancy does approach "killing," but then all humans currently on the planet don't even accept that. I believe in some places, parents will kill newborn girls and to them it seems acceptable.

To me the answers to all this with regard to "abortion" is if the woman is against it, then don't do it, and there are today far superior and vastly cheaper methods of family planning. One is education of women, second are the so-called morning-after pills, use of condoms/diaphragms, withdrawal, and conventional birth control pills. The biggest thing about the word "abortion" is that it is a "trigger word" for politicians to use in this country to immediately attract all the crowd into voting for them that is against any birth control measures, perhaps one should think Catholics and Republicans as excellent examples.

If you are against something then don't do it, but it is purely ignorant behavior to believe that what any one person or group thinks with regard to morality as it involves others' personal behaviors should be the law of the land for all people. Gotta run, may not have gotten this as clear as it should be.

[tofu2u2]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

Edit -- Please take no offense to the tone of my message. I am making a genuine inquiry, if a somewhat emotional one.

Yes, yes, we know: most anti-choice screeds are "somewhat emotional" which is why each woman should have a right to choose that is protected from government intervention or interferance from other people who may have a "somewhat emotional" reaction to a pregnancy that occurs in another persons life.

[jimmygu3]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

The common caveats used by those who would make elective abortion illegal are in cases where the life of the mother is appreciably at risk, incest, and rape. Let's break that down.

Common theme: life. The value of life is recognized in this case, so the "right to choose" ends up choosing life in either case.

Common theme: victimhood. The "right to choose" can result in yet another victim from this heinous crime, although lack of the "right to choose" can be viewed as a perpetuation of the woman's victimhood.


There is no common theme here, except perhaps a selfish desire that potentially results in terminating a conceived fetus. Since this does not extrapolate to killing off other burdens to society, what does one value in this case?

Excellent use of class warfare. What to do with those unwanted children? Well if you reach far enough into the philosophical backing for abortion, you will find that it's okay to abort babies up to three years out of the womb! According to Peter Singer, it's not too late to rid society of those unwanted children if only you could fully embrace the right to choose.

OK, if you want to equate it to murdering 3-year-olds, why not take it the other way, to the unfertilized egg? Each one of those is a precious living thing, a living human thing! Let's protect the eggs by criminalizing menstruation. It's as absurd as your analogy. The line has been drawn at viability outside the womb. No reasonable person advocates culling the population of toddlers.

As I think your post further illustrates, it is a complex issue with no cookie cutter solution. Hence, the right to choose combined with sensible laws.

When one is unborn, they are in their most helpless form. Should someone have the right to prevent your existence, even after you started to exist? This is partially about an inconceivable abuse of power over another.

Yes, it is. It's about the rights of a woman over her own body vs the government's power to force her to carry a child against her will. It's about a completely unique situation where two lives are inextricably tied together, and only one has the ability to make decisions for both of them. Many of those decisions involve life and death and a host of other factors. I believe that the mother is the best person to make those decisions.

-Jimmy

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

I don't know the value of your comments regarding concern about the value of future humans without consideration of the value of present humans. As I see it, human life is now and has been nothing other than CHEAP. There are more than enough people now to do everything that needs to be done presently and perhaps even for all time to come assuming an overall decrease in reproductive rates were to take place. Someone above brought up the value of other forms of life, and as I see things all life is a phenomenon beyond my comprehension of the possibilities that it has gotten this far, and that includes plants. The most fucked up aspect of life on Earth is human beings, made more fucked up by various and sundry religions and the truly mindless notions that what one or some groups sees is THE WAY should in fact be the way for all mankind. Look no further than Islamic extremists and the Religious Right extremists and those asshole politicians who get elected in this country by preying on the profound ignorance of the Religious Right. What a ripoff, but ignorance deserves to be ripped off.

Actually if all humans were to die off and everything else survived, the Earth would be a great place, otherwise I think if nothing checks man's continued destruction of the planet, then probably ultimately all life forms will disappear.

That's a rational view, perhaps. Readily choosing to believe that human life is cheap and not precious does put things into a certain perspective that might make the coinciding views of the two subjects at hand acceptable.

However, I am curious as to what you mean by "do what needs to be done." What needs to be done, exactly? Who decides?

[Ghent12]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

The common caveats used by those who would make elective abortion illegal are in cases where the life of the mother is appreciably at risk, incest, and rape. Let's break that down.

The majority of cases fall in between these extremes. There is a certain degree of health risk in any pregnancy. Those who want abortion outlawed are effectively saying that the government should force a woman to continue with a pregnancy that risks her life. What if she's a mother of 3 and there's a 10% chance that carrying the baby to term will kill her, leaving her children without a mother? Government's choice or her choice?

Common theme: life. The value of life is recognized in this case, so the "right to choose" ends up choosing life in either case.

100,000 women are raped in the US each year. Don't you think most of them have plans for how they would like to start a family that don't include carrying, delivering and raising a rapist's baby? Many choose to do so but some do not, and abort the pregnancies. Should this be the Government's choice instead?

Common theme: victimhood. The "right to choose" can result in yet another victim from this heinous crime, although lack of the "right to choose" can be viewed as a perpetuation of the woman's victimhood.

There are many laws regulating late term abortion. Most late term abortions, infrequent as they are, are agonizing choices made for the health of the mother or because the child will have severe birth defects. Many bravely choose to risk their lives or dedicate themselves to caring for a brain-dead baby, leaving little time to care for other children and family members. Some choose otherwise. Anti-abortionists think the government should take this right to choose away.

There is no common theme here, except perhaps a selfish desire that potentially results in terminating a conceived fetus. Since this does not extrapolate to killing off other burdens to society, what does one value in this case?

Of course, if abortion were made illegal, the wealthy could leave the country to get abortions while the poor would have unsafe abortions, many women and children dying during childbirth, and add more unwanted children to an already overtaxed foster care system.

Excellent use of class warfare. What to do with those unwanted children? Well if you reach far enough into the philosophical backing for abortion, you will find that it's okay to abort babies up to three years out of the womb! According to Peter Singer, it's not too late to rid society of those unwanted children if only you could fully embrace the right to choose.

It is offensive when idealistic religious zealots claim they are the only ones with "values". Most pro-choice people recognize that in the complex reality we live in, many rights and values overlap. There are thousands of things that I don't like, or agree with, or want my children to do, but they shouldn't be made illegal.

And, *shocker*, I care about the environment too.

-Jimmy

Well it is also offensive when people attach unwarranted labels, but such is the world we live in, no? I'll take a loose definition of idealistic as appropriate, but religious and zealot would only apply by slight of mind (insanity) using the most loose definitions. Everyone has some values, but I am looking for consistent values that don't seem to change as the situation changes. If you only value the lives of future generations when it is convenient then it seems the real value is that of convenience itself.

But I'm also part pragmatist. I recognize that actions have consequences. Contraception is cheaper than abortion, and it also results in not having unwanted children. Indeed, it also increases net happiness. It's a win in every regard. But just because you don't want something to happen, doesn't mean it should be legal to terminate a human life. How can one pretend that a fetus is not a future adult citizen of a country with potential desires, yet simultaneously pretend that there will be a future population as if by magic? To not recognize the unborn as human is the most inhumane thing imaginable--identical in many respects to not recognizing a human at any stage of life-long development as a human.

When one is unborn, they are in their most helpless form. Should someone have the right to prevent your existence, even after you started to exist? This is partially about an inconceivable abuse of power over another.

[jimmygu3]

Re: Environmentalism and Abortion

I don't know the value of your comments regarding concern about the value of future humans without consideration of the value of present humans. As I see it, human life is now and has been nothing other than CHEAP. There are more than enough people now to do everything that needs to be done presently and perhaps even for all time to come assuming an overall decrease in reproductive rates were to take place. Someone above brought up the value of other forms of life, and as I see things all life is a phenomenon beyond my comprehension of the possibilities that it has gotten this far, and that includes plants. The most fucked up aspect of life on Earth is human beings, made more fucked up by various and sundry religions and the truly mindless notions that what one or some groups sees is THE WAY should in fact be the way for all mankind. Look no further than Islamic extremists and the Religious Right extremists and those asshole politicians who get elected in this country by preying on the profound ignorance of the Religious Right. What a ripoff, but ignorance deserves to be ripped off.

Actually if all humans were to die off and everything else survived, the Earth would be a great place, otherwise I think if nothing checks man's continued destruction of the planet, then probably ultimately all life forms will disappear.

That's one of your best posts, Jim.

-Jimmy