More “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time

[Nymada del Sol]

I think capitalistic influences have created a nation of sociopaths. Pure capitalism puts material gain, the self and profit over community and society. It's all about "ME!/The money!!"

Pure socialism is a issue as well. It kills the drive to innovate and to improve.

The thing is, any form of government in extremes is very poisonous.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'm technically pro-choice but don't think people should use abortions as birth control. Which is dangerous for women to do anyway.

Indeed.

Having an abortion is a very difficult choice, it should not be a get out of jail free card. There has to be something seriously broken with someone to take such a choice that lightly.

This (quotes above and previous statements of mine of similar sentiment) is my default, current "lack of a better answer" position. That is, I'm not "for" abortions wholesale but I do not think they should be illegal.

I try not to pretend I have some gods-eye-view of things when I certainly don't. I also try to keep open the possibility that whatever I decide, it could be totally wrong.

Most reasoning I hear is mainly emotional (I don't mean in this topic , i just mean in general) , which is fair to a point. But I need some sort of model or base to start with. Its hard for me to just accept (basically on faith) that 1. The fetus has the same rights as a child/adult. 2. The fetus has NO rights. 3. Society (and the other parent) which may have to deal with the consequences of that choice also have no say (I think its almost obvious that the woman should have the vast majority of the choice, in most cases (assuming they are mentally competent) but for instance, might have to agree to certain conditions if she wants to go against the wishes of the father, or is going to be getting state aid, that is, you and I are paying for either the abortion or (potentially) the rest of the child's life.

In the case were the father DOES want the child but the mother does not, I think the father , unfortunately just has to suck it up. I can't picture any , more practical way to deal with that. In no case do I think a woman (mentally competent) should be "forced" to continue, that just seems... crazy. But then who knows, if the ethical argument (somehow) turns out to be that "a fertalized egg does have the same rights as a fully formed human" then , ugh.

I'm really confused how many can be so "sure" of the correct response to this. In my mind its an agonizing, multi-layered, not-clear-at-all issue.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I think capitalistic influences have created a nation of sociopaths. Pure capitalism puts material gain, the self and profit over community and society. It's all about "ME!/The money!!"

Pure socialism is a issue as well. It kills the drive to innovate and to improve.

The thing is, any form of government in extremes is very poisonous.

I don't have quite a bleak picture of our current situation, (seeing as , If i had to pick, the USA is among maybe 10 other countries (at the other limits) as the best places on the planet to live, it cant be that bad in my mind) but I do agree with you on everything else.

Your set of conclusions there are of the few things that I'm fairly convinced are facts, not subject to change. (often, strike that, in the vast majority, I think things people present as facts are not facts at all, just subjective beliefs - opinions).

[0pheliA]

The fact it is an issue that triggers strong emotions on both sides is exactly why it has been brought up again. It is something very hard to get people to think rationally on, on either side. It is a distraction. It gets people heated and divided before even having a chance to talk about more politically important issues, and once divided people tend to stay that way.

[Vater Araignee]

The fact it is an issue that triggers strong emotions on both sides is exactly why it has been brought up again. It is something very hard to get people to think rationally on, on either side. It is a distraction. It gets people heated and divided before even having a chance to talk about more politically important issues, and once divided people tend to stay that way.

And that is exactly why I say government has no business getting involved!

Take it away from them and they have one less piece of rhetoric to obfuscate the real issues.

[0pheliA]

I agree it is not a place for the government.

In Canada we handled things a lot differently. Things like abortion, gay rights, etc ; very little public discourse. Here it has always boiled down to "is this a basic human right?" If it is decided it is, then the laws are changed to reflect that.

Until now that has worked wonderfully, except now we have a Neo-Con in office abusing how our system works. Instead of filling the air with emotion filled debates, he's just pushing shit through and hoping nobody notices.

[Nymada del Sol]

And that is exactly why I say government has no business getting involved!

Take it away from them and they have one less piece of rhetoric to obfuscate the real issues.

The government needs to be involved to a point. Things involving civil and human rights should be enforced by the government and not up for vote or state law.

No state should have the choice to oppress it's citizens

[Vater Araignee]

The government needs to be involved to a point. Things involving civil and human rights should be enforced by the government and not up for vote or state law.

No state should have the choice to oppress it's citizens

I'm sorry but the government has absolutely no right getting involved in abortion. Zero zip zilch, now if you want to put fathers rights into the picture then the government has to be involved.

[Vater Araignee]

The government needs to be involved to a point. Things involving civil and human rights should be enforced by the government and not up for vote or state law.

No state should have the choice to oppress it's citizens

I also don't think you are reading many of my posts in context.

[Nymada del Sol]

I'm sorry but the government has absolutely no right getting involved in abortion. Zero zip zilch, now if you want to put fathers rights into the picture then the government has to be involved.

Abortion should be up to the individual.

[Nymada del Sol]

I also don't think you are reading many of my posts in context.

In context? Meaning? Which context?

[0pheliA]

Abortion should be up to the individual, the government's place in it is to guarantee the individual actually has that choice to make.

[Nymada del Sol]

Abortion should be up to the individual, the government's place in it is to guarantee the individual actually has that choice to make.

That's what I was trying to say. It's the government's job to protect the liberties and freedoms of it's people

[Vater Araignee]

In context? Meaning? Which context?

the context being whether government hes they right to say yea or nay to abortion. Defending the right to decide was not being referenced.

Besides, if you take away their mistakenly believed right to decide then they only thing left is they have to protect choice and stating so seems moot.

[Nymada del Sol]

the context being whether government hes they right to say yea or nay to abortion. Defending the right to decide was not being referenced.

Besides, if you take away their mistakenly believed right to decide then they only thing left is they have to protect choice and stating so seems moot.

Apologies. I likely misunderstood you.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

One aspect of these "polls" "they" like to ignore is that only really old people answer their landlines. More and more it only old people who have land lines and old people tend to be the most conservative. They are not always indicative of the entire population and total opinion percentages. (no i did not take the time to read every post...

Ok... that was my drive by post for 2012 (and probably 2011 and 2013 as well)

Zhuk

[Troy Spiral (13)]

The fact it is an issue that triggers strong emotions on both sides is exactly why it has been brought up again. It is something very hard to get people to think rationally on, on either side. It is a distraction. It gets people heated and divided before even having a chance to talk about more politically important issues, and once divided people tend to stay that way.

And that is exactly why I say government has no business getting involved!Take it away from them and they have one less piece of rhetoric to obfuscate the real issues.

I agree it is not a place for the government.In Canada we handled things a lot differently. Things like abortion, gay rights, etc ; very little public discourse. Here it has always boiled down to "is this a basic human right?" If it is decided it is, then the laws are changed to reflect that. Until now that has worked wonderfully, except now we have a Neo-Con in office abusing how our system works. Instead of filling the air with emotion filled debates, he's just pushing shit through and hoping nobody notices.

This requires government eventually, unfortunately (or fortunately depending on the viewpoint). Reproduction is a huge factor that the government has to deal with directly or indirectly at some point. Basic human rights are also "determined" by governments (hopefully with the consent of the people), or lets say "have the seal of approval" put upon them. Annoying or as unfair as that is , its just the only realistic way for society to function on large scales. "human rights" are determined by humans, but only "enforced" (typically) by governments.

One aspect of these "polls" "they" like to ignore is that only really old people answer their landlines. More and more it only old people who have land lines and old people tend to be the most conservative. They are not always indicative of the entire population and total opinion percentages. (no i did not take the time to read every post...Ok... that was my drive by post for 2012 (and probably 2011 and 2013 as well)Zhuk

I'd hope these nitwits aren't total nitwits and would factor this sort of thing in since they've been doing it for a generation or more. It is food for thought though that didn't occur to me before.

[Vater Araignee]

Basic human rights are also "determined" by governments

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Basic human rights are determined by

1. The fact we are human.

2. By our sentience.

The reason we list being human over sentience is because we recognize non sentient humans as human.

They are our natural rights, infringe upon them all you want but you still cant take them away.

[Nymada del Sol]

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Basic human rights are determined by

1. The fact we are human.

2. By our sentience.

The reason we list being human over sentience is because we recognize non sentient humans as human.

They are our natural rights, infringe upon them all you want but you still cant take them away.

1. There's nothing special about humans, we are just animals who have been graced with intellect and opposable thumbs.

2. We are not the only animals who have sentience. Dolphins and squid are very sentient. No one bats an eye when eating and/or killing them.

There are no such thing as intrinsic rights. Human rights are determined by those in power. People in power decide what is right and wrong. Now humans sometimes have empathy and react to seeing others in pain and suffering.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Nymada del Sol

[Troy Spiral (13)]

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT??? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Basic human rights are determined by

1. The fact we are human.

2. By our sentience.

The reason we list being human over sentience is because we recognize non sentient humans as human.

They are our natural rights, infringe upon them all you want but you still cant take them away.

I wish this was the case, and I long held something like this as a sacred concept (not exactly the same but similar.) But being a fan of evidence and it slowly eroding this I can't say I have any of this anymore, even though i WANT it to be that way.

While I concent and AGREE to these basic human rights the same as most of us do, and they may all be good adaptive traits, there nothing in my genetic code or the ether that says I have the right to pursue happiness or the "right" freedom, etc. These truths are not at all self evident, even though I "hold" them to be self evident as is necessarily to construct a ethical model, they are human constructions, not inherent in nature.

I LIKE and can operate under the assumption that they are inherent, but I see no mechanism by witch they are actually that in fact.

[Vater Araignee]

It is this "I think terry little of myself" attitude that gives those with a little power the mistaken belief they have a right to remove liberty.

They are my rights by birth and no one gives them to me. They are natural rights and I will not give up those rights. It is better to be murdered for refusing to give up something that can not be given than it is to lay down like a subservient dog.

They are you're rights and if you willingly suppress them because someone tells you to, then you are a problem because you are just reaffirming their mistaken belief and making life harder on everyone.

Nymada,

I am special. I come from a long genetic line where each mutation made the following generations superior to the last and obviously vastly superior to those not within the line. Are you trying to tell me we just showed up out of the blue?

When you can prove cetaceans and squid have subjective experiences then I will stop calling Paul Watson a pirate that need to be keel hauled. The ability to reason does not sentience make.

[Nymada del Sol]

It is this "I think terry little of myself" attitude that gives those with a little power the mistaken belief they have a right to remove liberty.

They are my rights by birth and no one gives them to me. They are natural rights and I will not give up those rights. It is better to be murdered for refusing to give up something that can not be given than it is to lay down like a subservient dog.

They are you're rights and if you willingly suppress them because someone tells you to, then you are a problem because you are just reaffirming their mistaken belief and making life harder on everyone.

Nymada,

I am special. I come from a long genetic line where each mutation made the following generations superior to the last and obviously vastly superior to those not within the line. Are you trying to tell me we just showed up out of the blue?

When you can prove cetaceans and squid have subjective experiences then I will stop calling Paul Watson a pirate that need to be keel hauled. The ability to reason does not sentience make.

sen·tient (snshnt, -sh-nt)

adj.

1. Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" (T.E. Lawrence).

2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Science has already proven that many species are self aware and sentient. Squid have been proven to be on par with humans as far as intellect and self awareness goes. They fear death and have a understanding of death the way humans do.

http://io9.com/5626679/three-arguments-for-the-consciousness-of-cephalopods

http://listnation.blogspot.com/2012/03/9-animals-that-are-self-aware.html

What do you mean by "subjective experience"

Edited July 2, 2012 by Nymada del Sol

[Vater Araignee]

sen·tient (snshnt, -sh-nt)

adj.

1. Having sense perception; conscious: "The living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage" (T.E. Lawrence).

2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

Science has already proven that many species are self aware and sentient. Squid have been proven to be on par with humans as far as intellect and self awareness goes. They fear death and have a understanding of death the way humans do.

http://io9.com/5626679/three-arguments-for-the-consciousness-of-cephalopods

http://listnation.blogspot.com/2012/03/9-animals-that-are-self-aware.html

What do you mean by "subjective experience"

According to those definitions, everything with a nervous system is sentient and that is simply not true. Even self awareness is not proof of sentience.

Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, be conscious and to have subjective experiences.

[0pheliA]

Then you do not understand that definition.

It refers to self awareness. They have tests which can tell if animals are self aware, as well as other traits they use to define sentience. The animals that so far pass this test are Humans, some Chimps/Bonobos, certain Species of Dolphin, and some species of Cephalopod (squid/octopus/cuttlefish.)

[Vater Araignee]

Then you do not understand that definition.

It refers to self awareness. They have tests which can tell if animals are self aware, as well as other traits they use to define sentience. The animals that so far pass this test are Humans, some Chimps/Bonobos, certain Species of Dolphin, and some species of Cephalopod (squid/octopus/cuttlefish.)

Self awareness does not equate to sentience.

Having feelings doesn't either.

The ability to reason out an outcome isn't it either.

Neither is subjectivity.

You have to have all four. You cant cherry pick portions and claim a whole. That's just bad science.

Now claiming the possibility is a valid claim, hell I claim we can't possibly be the only sentient creatures in the universe and some may very well exists on this planet but possibility is not proof.