A Question. . . Who has changed their mind on the subject of abortion?

a reply to: DBCowboy

If one of my kids, aborted one of my grand-kids ... I might have to retroactively abort them.

It takes being a parent (a proper parent), to understand the question you've posed. I hope my response measures up.

originally posted by: Deplorable
a reply to: DBCowboy

If one of my kids, aborted one of my grand-kids ... I might have to retroactively abort them.

It takes being a parent (a proper parent), to understand the question you've posed. I hope my response measures up.

One thing I find interesting, as a thought experiment, is the support a parent would give to their child having an abortion.

If, most likely, that child were the result of an unplanned pregnancy. Would the parent say, "you're making the right choice, I wish I had aborted you, because at the time I wasn't ready and was scared"....."but it's okay now, because I love you and wouldn't ever think of life without you".

How the hell would saying that to your child affect them, or their decision to abort a baby?

The topic is ripe for me with psychological/social experiments.

a reply to: MisterSpock

I am not twisting anything you said animals don't have sentient attributes and that is clearly false. Because we are not using the same vocabulary I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MisterSpock

I am not twisting anything you said animals don't have sentient attributes and that is clearly false. Because we are not using the same vocabulary I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

I agree(d) that animals aren't sentient, but they are life.

Should people just go around killing anything that isn't sentient without any sort of moral remorse?

That was the point also the point was that it illustrates how murky the subject is and how difficult it is to navigate, logically. Didn't think anyone would disagree with that, but you sure latched on.

I have changed my mind. I used to be adamantly against the procedure, but then I came to admit that it has a valid place and purpose, so long as it is "safe, legal and rare." This decision came from the fact that the woman's body may abort the fetus if there are problems with the pregnancy. Natural processes means that abortion is a biological function when necessary, and man can help nature when there are complications. These complications are thankfully rare.

I've also moved my goal-post on life at conception. Instead of when the egg and sperm fuse, I've moved it to the point where the zygote has differentiated into the blastocyst and implanted onto the uteran wall. Prior to that point there is no way that the fertilized egg will ever develop naturally into a fully developed human being.

a reply to: Grimpachi

So animals are not feeling beings? I admit to being confused on that one. Clearly animals are able to perceive and react to stimulus. They feel on a rudimentary level, if not a complex emotional one.

And if we're looking at sentience as complex emotionality, then your idea of humanity is frightening as human infants are inhuman to you for quite a period of time after they are born being creatures of instinct like most other animals on the planet.

a reply to: MisterSpock

I agree(d) that animals aren't sentient, but they are life.

So to be clear you are claiming animals cannot perceive or feel things?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
I have changed my mind. I used to be adamantly against the procedure, but then I came to admit that it has a valid place and purpose, so long as it is "safe, legal and rare." This decision came from the fact that the woman's body may abort the fetus if there are problems with the pregnancy. Natural processes means that abortion is a biological function when necessary, and man can help nature when there are complications. These complications are thankfully rare.

I've also moved my goal-post on life at conception. Instead of when the egg and sperm fuse, I've moved it to the point where the zygote has differentiated into the blastocyst and implanted onto the uteran wall. Prior to that point there is no way that the fertilized egg will ever develop naturally into a fully developed human being.

That's all reasonable, and I support it for the rare situations(as you seem to do).

I think I(and most) seem to take issue with it being a "stamp the card and every 6th is free" I have no personal responsibility/it's designed to kill black babies angle.

What was the last percentage of abortions being absolutely medical/socially(rape, incest) necessary? It was a couple percent, even if we go high and give it 5 to 10 percent that still means 90 percent are done by people that only want to skirt their own responsibility due to their negligence or they have fallen for the propaganda and are willfully doing the work of eugenicists and racists.

a reply to: ketsuko

Did you perhaps jump into the discussion halfway?

My claim is animals ARE sentient.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MisterSpock

I agree(d) that animals aren't sentient, but they are life.

So to be clear you are claiming animals cannot perceive or feel things?

I don't think they are aware of their existence. Which is a defining point of sentient.

I do believe they are alive and certainly feel pain. Kind of like a 6 month old fetus.

a reply to: MisterSpock

Not completely.

I think you're after self-awareness more than sentience, and some higher order animals are self-aware. Dolphins, some apes, perhaps elephants, have demonstrated self-awareness.

But children don't exactly demonstrate that until they are much older than being an infant.

a reply to: MisterSpock

I have to disagree with you here. Animals are definitely sentient. It's not just about being self-aware, it's having the mental capacity to feel and feel emotions -- which animals most certainly do.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: MisterSpock

Not completely.

I think you're after self-awareness more than sentience, and some higher order animals are self-aware. Dolphins, some apes, perhaps elephants, have demonstrated self-awareness.

But children don't exactly demonstrate that until they are much older than being an infant.

My point was really that sentient does not equal life.

People acknowledge living things whether or not they are sentient. Yet in the case of abortion they require sentient to verify life.

No doubt the confusion is because of my ability to communicate my thoughts adequately.

a reply to: MisterSpock

So you are using an alternate definition of sentient.

Sentient means able to perceive or feel things.

Cognizant means having knowledge or being aware.

Did you seriously just try and claim some kind of gotcha without even understanding the words you used? Then stubbornly kept with it not even taking a second to look the definition so an honest discussion can be had even after I pointed out I don't understand you because you are using an alternate definition. How do you expect to convince anyone of your views if are simply making things up as you go?

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: MisterSpock

So you are using an alternate definition of sentient.

Sentient means able to perceive or feel things.

Cognizant means having knowledge or being aware.

Did you seriously just try and claim some kind of gotcha without even understanding the words you used? Then stubbornly kept with it not even taking a second to look the definition so an honest discussion can be had even after I pointed out I don't understand you because you are using an alternate definition. How do you expect to convince anyone of your views if are simply making things up as you go?

I actually looked up the definition of sentient before responding, just to be on the same "page". It stated awareness. I don't think most animals are aware of what they are and where they fall into the hierarchy of "life".

Also, I clearly stated I wasn't attempting a "gotcha" moment, which you seem to claim I was attempting. You obviously feel "attacked" which i stated was not my intention. But, frame the DISCUSSION however you wish to.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Maybe people don't want to sacrifice any more.

Or, maybe it's harder to do so now..i dunno.

For the most part, on a personal level, I do not like the idea, It's an ugly thing. I do not like the idea that it be used as a form of birth control. But, I also believe it's a woman's terrible choice to make..not mine.

One poster in another thread was going on about personal responsibility, then went on the describe the pull out method as being one of their methods of "personal responsibility"..riiiight. He got lucky is all..no pun intended.
Then you have the issue of certain ideologies denying sex ed and birth control, or help in the way of social programs.
You want this to back to back alley clinics and coat hangers!

It's a no win argument either way..I reluctantly go with pro choice.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Has your mind been changed on abortion?

Not during the current discussions; but in my youth I was much more supportive of abortion... or rather I was much more "pro choice"

If so, how?

I am still "pro choice" but no longer fundamental about it. I see it as a much more gray area topic than I once did. I value a larger group of peoples opinions on the subject than I use to.

What could cause a change in such a foundational tenet?

I don't hold many "foundational tents"; abortion isn't close in my mind.

originally posted by: MisterSpock
If I had to wager a guess, It would be that 80+ percent of pregnancies are unplanned.

If everyone who wasn't ready/scared/not financially in the position to have a child were to abort, we would have never survived as a race.

You think?

If 20% of 7 billion isn't surviving as a species, I don't know what it is. You take an 80% bite out of 7 billion and you still have a #load of people.

a reply to: BrianFlanders

So basically your support for abortion on demand is born out of Mathusian feelings?

If you feel that there are too many people, shouldn't you be volunteering to remove yourself first? I note that you pick on the ones who can't speak for themselves which is convenient. We do know they definitely can and do react to what is done to them in the womb when their abortion happens, so it's not like they're leaping to get out.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: BrianFlanders

So basically your support for abortion on demand is born out of Mathusian feelings?

If you feel that there are too many people, shouldn't you be volunteering to remove yourself first? I note that you pick on the ones who can't speak for themselves which is convenient. We do know they definitely can and do react to what is done to them in the womb when their abortion happens, so it's not like they're leaping to get out.

If a woman is raped, why does she not swallow morning after # immediately after? If this that consensual, non consensual, forced, accepted, 2 weeks later regret, instant regret, etc etc....

No pill to stop it before it starts... yeah...