The Abortion Debate (continued) (3 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

As we've derived and proven already, the "right to autonomy" only exists in your head.

Where does the 'right to life' come from exactly?

 

[bshoc]

Where does the 'right to life' come from exactly?

The laws we inherited from the mother country upon semi-independence.

 

[bshoc]

Ethical principles aren't dictated by governmental policy.

Yes they are, the government is the one which deals with ethics of all issues, the alternative being that ethical principles are dictated by the indavidual, which means murderers could avoid punishment by claiming that in their view, murder is ethical.

The fact that the government denies autonomy in certain instances by no means proves that autonomy is not a reasonable ethical principle/ideal to use to guide our judgements.

You're right, the real proof however is that there are no such "autonomy" laws on the books, it is mostly the government that dictates how little or how much "autonomy" one has, think of the so called terror laws.

The father doesn't have to carry the child for 9 months and experience the physical burden(s) of pregnancy - his body is not involved in the way hers is.

Yet all the reasons (save severe threat to mothers health) one is allowed to have an abortion in the West are things that have to do with what happens after birth ie. "socioeconomic reasons"

Food for thought: Overpopulation has the potential to cause a lot of death in terms of famine, exhaustion of resources etc.

Here's some genuine food for through

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are 100,000 abortions in Australia each year.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are 800 abortions each week in NSW - approximately 40,000 annually.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are 250,000 live births each year in Australia, which means that there are 2 aborted babies for every 5 born.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The average age of an aborted baby is 8 weeks.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Abortion is a multi-million dollar industry subsidised by the Australian taxpayer.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The top five abortionists in NSW earn $1.5 million per year from Medicare alone.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Australia we now have a low birth rate (zero population growth), a high abortion rate and an aging population.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]98% of abortions are for convenience (these reasons do not include medical purposes, rape or foetal deformities).[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In New South Wales only 1% of abortions are claimed for medical grounds.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many women who have had abortions suffer from a condition known as Post-abortion syndrome.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Swedish studies (where there is a long history of legal abortion and thus less social pressure to guilt), a quarter of women who had abortions had severe guilt feelings (emptiness, longing, troubled by sight of children, insomnia, breakdowns, etc.)[/FONT]​

Is it reasonable to prevent the deaths of embryos/fetuses when the impact may be that many more individuals die due to the effects of overpopulation?

Illigalizing non-essential abortion would lead to less pregnancies, the same way illigalizing non-essential drugs leads to less junkies, god forbid, it may actually now mean women have to take responsibility for their actions. Becuase thats how Australia got so good isnt it? Communitarianism, utilitarianism and a declining birth rate (note the sarcasm).

 

[_dhj_]

Have you got a link to these, I must admit, rather interesting statistics?

 

[KFunk]

Yes they are, the government is the one which deals with ethics of all issues, the alternative being that ethical principles are dictated by the indavidual, which means murderers could avoid punishment by claiming that in their view, murder is ethical.

You're right, the real proof however is that there are no such "autonomy" laws on the books, it is mostly the government that dictates how little or how much "autonomy" one has, think of the so called terror laws.

I really disagree with the way you're establishing whether or not something is a right or an ethical principle. Whether or not some one actually has autonomous freedom has little bearing on whether they should have it. It is this latter point, whether or not people should have a right to autonomy and self-determination which is important in this debate, not whether the governments actually grants such rights. I note that you worry about ethical principles being determined by 'the individual'... what is the government body if not a collection of such individuals? That something is made a 'law' does not make it right by virtue of the fact that it is a law - in many cases the law is a compromise between what is ethical and what is functional.

 

[KFunk]

If we are going to argue ethics, then you just lost. Aborting a baby is murder, it is wrong no matter what the situation. Ethically, any form of murder is wrong wether you can justify it or not. They were going to kill you first? its still wrong. Someone held a gun to your head and made you kill someone else? still wrong. End the right to life of an innocent baby, even if you were going to die giving birth? wrong.

Abortion for pro-choice isnt about the ethics of it, its wether there is a justifiable reason to go ahead with murder.


Again, if you are going to argue overpopulation you just lost. Australia has a negitive population gain, somewhere around 1.7 kids survive per couple thats why our imigration is so high. If you were so concerned about overpopulation you would be lobbying for manditory sterlisation if not just for women in our country who abort their kids, then for most of china, india and africa. That should sort out any overpopulation qualms you have right now, because in the scheme of overpopulation, 75 000 aborted babies arent going to make that big of a difference.

Not all ethicists hold that all forms of 'murder' are wrong. Whether or not a given case of 'murder' is justified ethically is a perfectly valid question - though apparently not in your system, which is fine.

To say that 75,000 less babies won't make a big difference is comparable to the person who says that it doesn't matter if they recycle because their extra trash barely adds volume to the landfill... It's about collective effort - the entire world needs to step up to the plate and deal with overpopulation and unsustainable development before it is too late. Everyone needs to do their share. I think it's great that Australia has negative population growth (of course, some members of the government don't). Also, those babies do make a big difference in a developed nation, far more than they would in sub-saharan Africa. Take America as an example: 5% of the global population accounting for 24% of global energy consumption (approximately). Australia is not much better. The ecological footprint that individuals in developing nations leave on the world is huge. In respect of the above: to make abortion illegal and accelerate population growth is a big mistake.

 

[dieburndie]

Illigalizing non-essential abortion would lead to less pregnancies, the same way illigalizing non-essential drugs leads to less junkies, god forbid, it may actually now mean women have to take responsibility for their actions. Becuase thats how Australia got so good isnt it? Communitarianism, utilitarianism and a declining birth rate (note the sarcasm).

Yeah, a high birth rate is an indication of prosperity isn't it?
The greatest example of course being Niger.
The highest birth rate in the world and the lowest Human development index and lowest literacy rate in the world.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ng-niger

It's the same with all those countries with wonderfully high birth rates. It's what makes them so good. All that starvation and disease. Our Human Development Index is too high!(3rd) Let's bring it down some.
(note my sarcasm)

If you simply observed some basic statistics it would be obvious that a higher birth rate leads to a lower standard of living. There are not enough resources on the planet. That means there needs to be less people. Why? Because people use resources!

Am I speaking a fucking foreign language here or something?

I guess next you'll tell me the HDI is wrong because it was done by the UN and they're a bunch of communist homosexual abortionists. Oh well.

 

[Serius]

Not all ethicists hold that all forms of 'murder' are wrong. Whether or not a given case of 'murder' is justified ethically is a perfectly valid question - though apparently not in your system, which is fine.

To say that 75,000 less babies won't make a big difference is comparable to the person who says that it doesn't matter if they recycle because their extra trash barely adds volume to the landfill... It's about collective effort - the entire world needs to step up to the plate and deal with overpopulation and unsustainable development before it is too late. Everyone needs to do their share. I think it's great that Australia has negative population growth (of course, some members of the government don't). Also, those babies do make a big difference in a developed nation, far more than they would in sub-saharan Africa. Take America as an example: 5% of the global population accounting for 24% of global energy consumption (approximately). Australia is not much better. The ecological footprint that individuals in developing nations leave on the world is huge. In respect of the above: to make abortion illegal and accelerate population growth is a big mistake.

murder is wrong yeah? that was my point. IF someone were to hold a gun to your head and made you kill someone else or you cop it, i could understand why you would kill someone else over you. That doesnt make it right though, to me ethically things are very straight forward, but that doesnt mean i always act ethically because in self defence i would kill someone else, it doesnt make it right but how often do two wrong make a right anyway?

to me ethics is that gut feeling that something bad is happening or something is the wrong choice. I am sure women who abort feel that bad feeling inside them, and choose to ignore it. I can understand that once a woman is in a position where she is pregnant and a baby would ruin her life, wont be able to get into uni and so forth. Is there regret for falling pregnant in the first place? probably, and if she goes through with the abortion i can understand the reasons why... but i cannot ever say that it is the ethical thing to do.

I am sure pro-choice people beleive this aswell, thats why they say they are pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Alot of pro-choice people in here say that they support the freedom for other women to abort but firstly would never be in the position for an abortion, and if they were that the wouldnt go through with it. If people from your own camp are saying this, then maybe they beleive abortion is unethical aswell, the only difference being that they dont place ethics above freedoms.

 

[RTTTYTR]

Re: Abortion: What are your background beliefs? RM

Depends on the circumstances, but generally im against Abortion.

 

[lengy]

Re: Abortion: What are your background beliefs? RM

If ethics is about gut feelings then my gut feeling tells me to seek vengeance on others whenever I feel it neccessary. With abortion, if I was female, I'd go through with it if I felt it was the right decision AND I'd feel it'd be ethical due to the circumstances.

 

[bshoc]

Re: Abortion: What are your background beliefs? RM

If ethics is about gut feelings then my gut feeling tells me to seek vengeance on others whenever I feel it neccessary. With abortion, if I was female, I'd go through with it if I felt it was the right decision AND I'd feel it'd be ethical due to the circumstances.

No, ethics is when we decide whether killing child for the convenience of its mother is good or bad.

Such as the first ever medical ethic: "Do no harm" .. how do you think abortion doctors are doing on that one.

 

[gerhard]

Re: Abortion: What are your background beliefs? RM

No, ethics is when we decide whether killing child for the convenience of its mother is good or bad.

Such as the first ever medical ethic: "Do no harm" .. how do you think abortion doctors are doing on that one.

good

 

[withoutaface]

Yes they are, the government is the one which deals with ethics of all issues, the alternative being that ethical principles are dictated by the indavidual, which means murderers could avoid punishment by claiming that in their view, murder is ethical.



You're right, the real proof however is that there are no such "autonomy" laws on the books, it is mostly the government that dictates how little or how much "autonomy" one has, think of the so called terror laws.



Yet all the reasons (save severe threat to mothers health) one is allowed to have an abortion in the West are things that have to do with what happens after birth ie. "socioeconomic reasons"



Here's some genuine food for through

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are 100,000 abortions in Australia each year.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are 800 abortions each week in NSW - approximately 40,000 annually.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]There are 250,000 live births each year in Australia, which means that there are 2 aborted babies for every 5 born.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The average age of an aborted baby is 8 weeks.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Abortion is a multi-million dollar industry subsidised by the Australian taxpayer.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The top five abortionists in NSW earn $1.5 million per year from Medicare alone.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Australia we now have a low birth rate (zero population growth), a high abortion rate and an aging population.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]98% of abortions are for convenience (these reasons do not include medical purposes, rape or foetal deformities).[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In New South Wales only 1% of abortions are claimed for medical grounds.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Many women who have had abortions suffer from a condition known as Post-abortion syndrome.[/FONT]​
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Swedish studies (where there is a long history of legal abortion and thus less social pressure to guilt), a quarter of women who had abortions had severe guilt feelings (emptiness, longing, troubled by sight of children, insomnia, breakdowns, etc.)[/FONT]​

Illigalizing non-essential abortion would lead to less pregnancies, the same way illigalizing non-essential drugs leads to less junkies, god forbid, it may actually now mean women have to take responsibility for their actions. Becuase thats how Australia got so good isnt it? Communitarianism, utilitarianism and a declining birth rate (note the sarcasm).

Number of abortions in Australia isn't knowable, as miscarriages and abortions have the same proceedure number.

 

[Serius]

Re: Abortion: What are your background beliefs? RM

If ethics is about gut feelings then my gut feeling tells me to seek vengeance on others whenever I feel it neccessary. With abortion, if I was female, I'd go through with it if I felt it was the right decision AND I'd feel it'd be ethical due to the circumstances.

Gen loves me

anyways i said for me ethics is about gut feelings. That means my natural empathy assists me greatly in choosing an ethical solution. Seeking vengance is not a gut feeling. it is a raw emotion governed by fear and anger. You said " when you feel it necessary" so i am not sure if seeking vengance is even consistent with you. Maybe the gut feeling you are talking about is justice? justice is very different to vengance.

I think you have completely missed the point, ethics is not situational, abortion [and this is my opinion, but i guess when we talk about ethics its nothing but opinions] can never be ethical, even if you can justify it with things like medical complications. Ethics is not a justification of things but a way of looking at things as moral or not.

Heres one for you, do you feel war is ever ethical?
i feel that war can never be ethical, and a society based purely on ethics would be destroyed before going to war to defend their country. Sure it sucks, if everyone acted the same way there wouldnt be any wars.

WAF is right, i dont know what the government is trying to pull, but in Australia there has never been a credible study done on the number of abortions nation wide. The best we have is some crappy outdated S.A figures.

 

[Generator]

Re: Abortion: What are your background beliefs? RM

Gen loves me

You weren't the target.

 

[wheredanton]

Given the birthrates and moral restraint (in terms of marriage, sexual relations etc.) of past generations that's an incorrect notion. Our current abortion problems stem from liberalized sexualization of society and the inability of women to deal with it's risks/consequences.

Yes, abortions never ever occurred before abortion was legalised.

/end blatant sarcasm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

Abortion belongs in the same category as lawyers and prostitutes. They have been around since and the dawn of time.

 

[bshoc]

Re: Abortion: What are your background beliefs? RM

good

No, they've failed their very first ethical promise.

 

[wheredanton]

Abortions occured[sic], but to the tune of 10 times less,

um...stats?

I have the feeling less abortions occurred in the past because abortions were not safe and many women, as you point out, died as a result. Today abortion is relatively safe for the woman undertaking the procedure.

 

[bshoc]

Also, bshoc, 'post-abortion syndrome' doesn't exist - it was made up by a bunch of pro-lifers (sorry, forced-birthers/anti-choicers) to attempt to guilt people into incubating their spawn.

I'm not actually that concerned with that aspect of it, it probably does exist, those higher depression and suicide rates after abortions for women have to come from somewhere. Lets just say that a woman who suicides after abortion at least proves she's human, just a little too late.

/doesn't want children
/would abort if she fell pregnant

And .. if you're truly serious about the first one then there is no need for the second one is there?

/wonders whether bshoc thinks I'm an awful, immoral. genetic abnormality because of this

Wonders why you care what bshoc thinks, but I'll try to elaborate using the inconvenient truth:

- A woman who doesent want children is inflinitely worth less (to society and to a man) compared to one that does.
- A woman who supports abortion should never be trusted to be a mother.
- A woman who truly doesen't want to fall pregnant will take the necessary precautions to ensure this ie. personal responsibility. If then she falls pregnant due to her own actions, she has no right to kill the child, since it was her actions rather than that of the child that brought it into existance.

 

[withoutaface]

Abortions occured, but to the tune of 10 times less, and when women were found to have done it they were punished (assuming they didnt die off first). If abortion were banned we would not be having our population and economic problems.

Women who get abortions because they can't afford to keep the baby end up on welfare if they don't get an abortion. People sponging off welfare is bad for the economy.

Moron.