Raped by her uncle, but can she have an abortion? (2 Viewers)

[Hollieee]

I wasn't suggesting become emtionless beings. In fact I didn't say ignore all emotion. You're creating a strawman.

I was merely arguing that it's best to avoid "omg what would you do in that situation" type hypotheticals when discussing public policy.

Well I think its useful to take it into account, but to not make judgements solely on that, obviously.

 

[Enteebee]

Well I disagree, but that's alright.
So many people don't have enough compassion for others, I find. So perhaps it wouldn't be such a bad thing to take into account the way you would feel in a certain situation.
That being said, I still stand by that you cannot fully know unless you have experienced it. But you can certainly try?

Certainly you should take into account the pain/suffering someone might feel by a moral course of action (that is the utilitarian thing to do), by saying "what would you do" though I think you're moving quite a bit beyond that... We are fundamentally selfish beings and would do what's in our selfish best interests... what's in 1 persons selfish best interests is not generally/definitely not always what's best for everyone. You should consider their pain, but not place yourself in their shoes to act out what's in their best interests.

 

[Hollieee]

Certainly you should take into account the pain/suffering someone might feel by a moral course of action (that is the utilitarian thing to do), by saying "what would you do" though I think you're moving quite a bit beyond that... We are fundamentally selfish beings and would do what's in our selfish best interests... what's in 1 persons selfish best interests is not generally/definitely not always what's best for everyone.

Indeed, which is why I think it can be good to take into account, but not base judgements/policies/whatever solely on this.

 

[Hollieee]

Anyway, I have to be off. Need to do something about the chemistry notes that just completely wiped themselves from my computer. Trials in 12 days and all =)

 

[Enteebee]

Indeed, which is why I think it can be good to take into account, but not base judgements/policies/whatever solely on this.

No but I wouldn't even take into account "what I would do" I would take into account perhaps how the person would feel, but I would try to remove what actions I'd desire to take out of the equation.... because tbh that part doesn't matter.

 

[squeenie]

No but I wouldn't even take into account "what I would do" I would take into account perhaps how the person would feel, but I would try to remove what actions I'd desire to take out of the equation.... because tbh that part doesn't matter.

I agree. Emotion often gets in the way of rationality. And I don't think we should be dragging religion into this either. As Pierre Teilhard de Chardin said "Faith is holding the intelligence to a certain world view"

I don't know what you fundies have to say about it, but de Chardin is right. Faith limits our intelligence sometimes, if not all the time.

 

[inasero]

i would be inclined to argue that intelligence limits our faith...in the sense that hardly anybody comes to hold their religious view(s) though a process of deductive reasoning.

also faith in no way limits "intelligence" at all. some of the brightest minds in history have been theist, I'm sure you don't need me to tell you. I can personally say that having a faith allows me to appreciate God's hand working in the natural order of the universe, and I'm always curious to learn more about it.

 

[Enteebee]

i would be inclined to argue that intelligence limits our faith...in the sense that hardly anybody comes to hold their religious view(s) though a process of deductive reasoning.

also faith in no way limits "intelligence" at all. some of the brightest minds in history have been theist, I'm sure you don't need me to tell you. I can personally say that having a faith allows me to appreciate God's hand working in the natural order of the universe, and I'm always curious to learn more about it.

Yeah you've argued this way in the God thread, it ends with everyone ignoring you because you've reasoned that reasoning musn't be all that important since the most important thing in the world to you apparently (your faith) you came to without reason. It's a really funny way out of never having to respond to rational arguments against your faith and is pure dogmatism - Please get some new rational arguments or just admit you have nothing to respond to people with, don't reject it all entirely....

 

[joyce*]

just to the question again Raped by her uncle, but can she have an abortion?
Other surveys and studies have confirmed that abortion consistently ranks at the top of the scale as a life event that causes extremely high levels of emotional distress. A 2005 Gallup Poll showed that, of all events or situations that would make a person feel 'bad about himself', 67% of the women questioned and 55% of the men questioned in the age group 18 to 29 years old stated that having or being involved in an abortion tops the list coming 5th.

no she cant have an abortion and she shouldnt have an abortion eventhough she might not be ready for a child. u have NO RIGHT to take a child away beacuse u dont want it. remeber the child is never an acciddent or a mistake only the action that has occured.

"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion" Mother Teresa :uhhuh:

 

[^CoSMic DoRiS^^]

just to the question again Raped by her uncle, but can she have an abortion?
Other surveys and studies have confirmed that abortion consistently ranks at the top of the scale as a life event that causes extremely high levels of emotional distress. A 2005 Gallup Poll showed that, of all events or situations that would make a person feel 'bad about himself', 67% of the women questioned and 55% of the men questioned in the age group 18 to 29 years old stated that having or being involved in an abortion tops the list coming 5th.

no she cant have an abortion and she shouldnt have an abortion eventhough she might not be ready for a child. u have NO RIGHT to take a child away beacuse u dont want it. remeber the child is never an acciddent or a mistake only the action that has occured.

"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion" Mother Teresa :uhhuh:

I would agree with you that mere lack of desire to have a child does not in itself constitute justification for an abortion, however, this is not the only thing that has to be considered.

Do you really believe it's right for someone who is in no way ready to have a child and who has already gone through almost unimaginable physical, mental and emotional trauma, not to mention being 11, to be forced to have it?

 

[Hollieee]

Just out of curiosity.. was rape by any chance higher on the list of 'event that cause high levels of emotional distress'? Because in case you hadn't noticed, it does cause high levels of stress. Pretty sure that would make a lot of people feel pretty 'bad' about themselves.
Abortion isn't wrong in every circumstance. It may not be the most preferrable option, but it's not flat out wrong.

 

[Enteebee]

just to the question again Raped by her uncle, but can she have an abortion?
Other surveys and studies have confirmed that abortion consistently ranks at the top of the scale as a life event that causes extremely high levels of emotional distress. A 2005 Gallup Poll showed that, of all events or situations that would make a person feel 'bad about himself', 67% of the women questioned and 55% of the men questioned in the age group 18 to 29 years old stated that having or being involved in an abortion tops the list coming 5th.

no she cant have an abortion and she shouldnt have an abortion eventhough she might not be ready for a child. u have NO RIGHT to take a child away beacuse u dont want it. remeber the child is never an acciddent or a mistake only the action that has occured.

"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion" Mother Teresa :uhhuh:

What the fuck yeah having an abortion is a terrible event but I wonder where 'being forced not to have an abortion' let alone 'being raped by your uncle then being forced to have his baby' would rank on that same list. Also if 67% of people hated white chocolate would that mean u can get fucked if u want white chocolate? No.

 

[squeenie]

i would be inclined to argue that intelligence limits our faith...in the sense that hardly anybody comes to hold their religious view(s) though a process of deductive reasoning.

also faith in no way limits "intelligence" at all. some of the brightest minds in history have been theist, I'm sure you don't need me to tell you. I can personally say that having a faith allows me to appreciate God's hand working in the natural order of the universe, and I'm always curious to learn more about it.

Okay, so maybe intelligence was the wrong word to use.

What de Chardin was trying to say is that sometimes, faith restricts us to one world view, and it makes us reluctant to accept any other view. But the statement "Faith is holding the intelligence to a certain world view" is rather ambiguous, so it could be interpreted in other ways.

And the point that was trying make here is that we should keep issues like these and religion separate. That's why I said that we shouldn't be dragging religion into this. I have nothing against religion, I just don't think it should be used to justify arguments here, because arguments that use religion are not rational, as they are based only on dogma.

And was abortion ever mentioned in the Bible? No. It wasn't. Sure, one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shall not kill", but what about the girl? Wouldn't allowing her to continue the pregnancy be killing through negligence? Shouldn't her life be considered before that of the child, since she is the one who will be going through all the trauma of the pregnancy?

By the way, de Chardin was a Jesuit priest, although the other Jesuits didn't really like him (go figure)

 

[inasero]

Yeah you've argued this way in the God thread, it ends with everyone ignoring you because you've reasoned that reasoning musn't be all that important since the most important thing in the world to you apparently (your faith) you came to without reason. It's a really funny way out of never having to respond to rational arguments against your faith and is pure dogmatism - Please get some new rational arguments or just admit you have nothing to respond to people with, don't reject it all entirely....

You see the problem is you're expecting me to argue on your terms, no? I would say that's pure dogmatism. What makes rationalism so much more superior to faith?

 

[squeenie]

You see the problem is you're expecting me to argue on your terms, no? I would say that's pure dogmatism. What makes rationalism so much more superior to faith?

Because when you rationalise, you actually stop to think about a situation, rather than just give a response based on faith, which often results in a blanket statement.

The world isn't black and white, you know. There is no clear, dividing line between what is right and what is wrong. One ideal cannot apply to every situation that arises.

 

[inasero]

Okay, so maybe intelligence was the wrong word to use.

What de Chardin was trying to say is that sometimes, faith restricts us to one world view, and it makes us reluctant to accept any other view. But the statement "Faith is holding the intelligence to a certain world view" is rather ambiguous, so it could be interpreted in other ways.

And the point that was trying make here is that we should keep issues like these and religion separate. That's why I said that we shouldn't be dragging religion into this. I have nothing against religion, I just don't think it should be used to justify arguments here, because arguments that use religion are not rational, as they are based only on dogma.

And was abortion ever mentioned in the Bible? No. It wasn't. Sure, one of the Ten Commandments is "Thou shall not kill", but what about the girl? Wouldn't allowing her to continue the pregnancy be killing through negligence? Shouldn't her life be considered before that of the child, since she is the one who will be going through all the trauma of the pregnancy?

By the way, de Chardin was a Jesuit priest, although the other Jesuits didn't really like him (go figure)

How can you possibly hope to keep religion out of it? I mean yeah it's possible that the girl and her family were not religious, but no doubt many religious people are faced with that kind of decision and I'm sure their religious views would definitely be an important factor. Even in a largely secular society like Australia, religion (or religious tradition) plays an important role in influencing our values and attitudes.

Also, it would be highly preseumptuous and insensitive of me to condemn that girl for going through an abortion, after all she's the one who has to suffer and bear the burden. Your argument about the Bible isn't valid because it wasn't so much of an issue, in the sense that premarital sex and rape were highly frowned upon and acted as a buffer to prevent these kind of thinigs from happening in the first place.

 

[Enteebee]

You see the problem is you're expecting me to argue on your terms, no? I would say that's pure dogmatism. What makes rationalism so much more superior to faith?

The problem is that you're intellectually bankrupt. You don't "faith" everything else in your every day life, besides it's all rationality... some of it's just bad rationality.

 

[inasero]

Because when you rationalise, you actually stop to think about a situation, rather than just give a response based on faith, which often results in a blanket statement.

The world isn't black and white, you know. There is no clear, dividing line between what is right and what is wrong. One ideal cannot apply to every situation that arises.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue here.

 

[squeenie]

I don't understand what you're trying to argue here.

Okay, let me put it this way then.

Faith all too often applies a 'one size fits all' solution to moral/ethical issues. You can't say that abortion is wrong no matter what because the Church does not support it. Sure, abortion is a bad thing, but sometimes it becomes a 'necessary evil', which is required to save someone's life/sanity.

If someone's life/health was at risk, and abortion was the only way to help them, would you support it?

 

[inasero]

Okay, let me put it this way then.

Faith all too often applies a 'one size fits all' solution to moral/ethical issues. You can't say that abortion is wrong no matter what because the Church does not support it. Sure, abortion is a bad thing, but sometimes it becomes a 'necessary evil', which is required to save someone's life/sanity.

If someone's life/health was at risk, and abortion was the only way to help them, would you support it?

Uh, I never said abortion is wrong
And to your question, yes.