Abortion

[Sidus]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Correct.

No, not anything. I believe in a society in which people can self actualize, in which self-determination isn't constrained by prejudices and violence. And while I deeply value life, I do NOT feel that society as a whole has the right to determine the social or moral value of all unborn fetuses -- I think that rests with the parents and especially the mother.

You are being dishonest. We were not talking about ALL unborn fetuses.
The discussion was whether society should give women the unfettered right to kill their unborn.

you're going way off the deep end here, I don't find much to identify with in your little caricature

There was no "little caricature" that was what logically follows when someone thinks there is no right or wrong. And when one believes it is mere prejudice for society to insist that women not kill their unborn.

I have deep reservations about a society that allows, and approves the 40,000,000 (and counting) abortions that have been performed since Roe v. Wade.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Sidus

You are being dishonest. We were not talking about ALL unborn fetuses. The discussion was whether society should give women the unfettered right to kill their unborn.

You are being dishonest. The discussion was not about the "unfettered" right, which would include elective termination even of a full-term pregnancy. Also, since you want to be nitpicky, we weren't talking about women killing their unborn, seeing as women don't generally perform their own abortions.

There was no "little caricature" that was what logically follows when someone thinks there is no right or wrong.

Which was not what I said -- so would you say your logic was flawed, or was it your reading?

I have deep reservations about a society that allows, and approves the 40,000,000 (and counting) abortions that have been performed since Roe v. Wade.

They're illegal in Saudi Arabia. Have a safe move.

[Ruthless Logic]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Amazing how little can be communicated with so many extraneous and uneconomical syllables. Would you like to take this phrase by phrase?

1. "It is hard to imagine" -- no, it's not. You're so, shall we say, self-assured, that you seem to see this in everyone you converse with. Furthermore, unless you think of humans as robotic automotons, then you have to expect to see what you perceive as conflict and contradiction among those with whom you disagree. And with a bit of reflection you'd probably see it in yourself.

2. "being subjected to" -- that appears to be a statement of pity for those sorry souls in which you see this condition. If one is reflective and authentic, however, then it is not a matter of being subjected to something -- it's a well-thought-out point of view.

3. "cognitive duality" -- cognition is a plurality, not merely a duality.

4. "espousing personal" -- that's what a debate constitutes, is it not? Or are you representing someone else with your opinions?

5. "affirmations" -- philosophical opinions are not synonymous with affirmations, as I'm sure you know.

6. "while providing the latitude" -- as I said, cognition is a plurality -- and in terms of moral and political constancy or lack thereof, it's specifically latitude that allows one to relate one moral opinion to another without being obdurate and, frankly, simple.

7. "that reflects the utter contemptuous" -- personal judgements, absent some objective or collectively accepted measure, are neither analytical nor logical, I'm afraid to say. Beside, "contemptuous" is a word synonymous with hateful or loathesome -- wouldn't you reserve such judgements for things that actually have a bit more meaning?

8. "hypocrisy of contradiction" -- that is redundant, and besides I think you mean "self-contradictory". I am contradicting you and you are contradicting me, that's not problematic. But to be self-contradictory is hypocritical, and to be hypocritical is to be self-contradictory. So if you had to pay a dime for every letter you typed, would you really have needed both?

And the shades of gray are also generated by the multiplicity of opinions on a subjective matter, like morality. That's how we can differentially regard what constitutes "justice" for a specific transgression.

Not so fast -- laws are different than morals, because laws are the intrinsic result of compromise among different lawmakers (and those who influence them). Laws themselves represent a mean between extremes. That's why most laws do not represent extremist views.

If the laws were so black and white then we wouldn't have appellate courts. And besides, the particulars of a given crime and the evidence to support a prosecution are not black and white either, which means that a given law can never be executed in a black and white manner -- only case-by-case.

That is true for anyone who is narrow-minded. But we're all open minded here -- the word "physicological" means "logic illustrated by physics", which is clearly not what you meant, but we all know what you were attempting to say.

Upon my review, your written pabulum of rebuttals is increasingly consisting of embarrassingly misconstrued summations of nonsensical interpretations. Instead of guessing the definition of a particular word, please reference a credible source in an effort to avoid these uncomfortable moments of avoidable corrections.

Cognitive= pertaining to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment and reasoning, as CONTRASTED with EMOTIONAL and VOLITIONAL processes. As you can see, cognition makes distinctions detailing processes that are contained in generally accepted sub-groups. So the claim that cognition is simply regarded as an all-encompassing plurality without required distinctions is CARELESSLY FALSE.

Affirmation= the assertion that something exists or is view as correct.
Opinion= a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
To juxtapose these definitions clearly reflects a tedious approach reflective of a poor counter-argument.

Contemptuous= showing or expressing a feeling of distain for anything considered worthless or vile.
Distain is clearly not the same as HATEFUL.

Hypocrisy= a pretense of having virtues, MORAL PRINCIPLES, or religious beliefs that one does not really possess.
Contradiction= direct opposition between things compared, empirically inconsistent.
Clearly these definitions are NOT redundant, but in fact have specialized adaptations.

Shades of Grey = The actual measureable and empirically viewable processes that transpire during the consideration process that eventually produces a consensus prior to the final stage of leading up to an actual verifiable decision.

Black or white(lack of a better expression)= The actual inherent constraint of a decision. To access the finality of a decided decision, the actual commitment towards the decision needs to be adoptable for implementation to actually exist or it simply cannot be an actual decision. To interject some alternate process would be insanely supposititious.

On the topic of the purpose of an Appellate Court is to uphold or overturn a prior Court decision which STILL REQUIRES the inherent constraint of the finality of an UPHELD or OVERTURNED DECISION.

Lastly, you said “So if you had to pay a dime for every letter you typed, would you really have needed both? It is quite obvious that I have access to substantially more COGNITIVE CURRENCY then you, so yeah I can afford it!

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Ruthless Logic

Instead of guessing the definition of a particular word, please reference a credible source in an effort to avoid these uncomfortable moments of unavoidable corrections.

See that's the problem. In the context you've chosen for most of these words, a particular dictionary would not illuminate what it is you're trying to say. Because what you're trying to say wouldn't be clear even if you actually understood the words you were choosing.

It is quite obvious that I have access to substantially more COGNITIVE CURRENCY then you, so yeah I can afford it!

Yes, we all stand in awe in the face of self-proclaimed brilliance.

[OntheWindowStand]

so this is now about bashing people

[Zetetic11235]

Ruthless logic, a solution derived by the necessity of compromise is not absolute. A solution of that sort does not equate to a black and white view on the subject, but rather chooses to remain dismissive in regards to the grey area by necessity and is thus subject to change upon review. 'Abortion shall be constrained' is a possible compromise between two groups each with an opposite, black and white view pertaining of either 'no abortion' or unrestrained 'abortion'. Once more, to come to a conclusion in regards to a problem which must be resolved is more relfective upon the times and the people than the value of the solution, which is made explicit by its actual impact. I shall issue this single coveat to those who believe in an absolute morality/solution, you shall find that no matter the solution proposed there will be at least one consequnece which you had not anticipated, which may or may not be acceptable upon review.

Ruthless logic, your indulgence in sophistry and self validation, as well as your generally presumptious, dismissive attitude disgusts me.
Although your use of logic may be to ruthless ends, its propositions still remain grossly inconsistent. I think we both know what that equates to:emotional validation of assumed truths. I defy you to correct me.

[Justin]

No sense in this getting into a battle. Please take deep breaths and remember that this can be a great discussion from all sides without bashing each other over the head and arguing semantics. This is a hot issue and an important one so please let's not turn this into a battle ground of words.

[Zetetic11235]

I think that we can all agree that it is best to start afresh on this, forgive but perhapse not forget.

I personally am for abortion within constriction. Keeping in mind that a mother scarcely would go through the abortion process without a need beyond convienience as contraceptive technology proves pretty effective if used.

If a victim is raped, this issue becomes very unsure. To force a woman to carry a physical reminder of the incedent for nine months is quite inhumane by most measures. Of course that is quite vague. I would say that this should be up to the woman. If she does choose to have the child, it will have no father to help raise it or make childcare payments, she will probably give it up for adoption, it will grow up in a foster home which may or may not work out well for the child its tough to say.

If a woman's life is severly threatened by the fetus, then the question assumes the form of whether it is better to allow a fully grown contributing adult to live or her child which will be at an inheirent disadvantage without a mother. I would say that it is best left up to the mother at this point.

If a girl is underage and ignorant of contraceptive measures, I think she should have the child and either keep it or give it up for adoption, but not abort, the outcome of abortion in this case seems to result in an overall negative. If the baby is put up for adoption, it still gets to live and the teen is not burdened with it.

If the child has certain defects, I am not against the form of eugenics that is developing to correct this. Abortion is not necessary, and killing a child because it has down syndrome is the parallel.

I will adress any other scenario as it comes.

[OntheWindowStand]

Most people when getting a abortion don't think of it alive which is why so many happen I think before someone gets one they should see the aftermath of the operation

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by OntheWindowStand

Most people when getting a abortion don't think of it alive which is why so many happen I think before someone gets one they should see the aftermath of the operation

Are you so sure? I think most people are pretty torn up over it, at least that's been my clinical experience with women who have had them. I'd bet that this is never a philosophical decision in which people query when life begins, etc. It's almost certainly a matter of choosing between two options that greatly scare and disturb them. In the end the implications for their life outweigh the feeling of guilt, which is why they end up going forward.

This has probably been studied. If I get a chance I'll see if there are any journal articles about this.