Abortion: Pro-life or Pro-choice?

[Elizabeth]

"Jack and Jill went up the hill
to fetch a pail of water..."

"Jill" in this sense is an oblique reference to a nursery rhyme in which, we might generalize, boys are referred to as "Jack" and girls are referred to as "Jill."

I'd say these are the clear references but that weren't being used in direct reference to abortion here....You could make a stronger argument they were religiously insensitive (thus mocking an absolutist pro-life position no one has taken), and if anyone claimed offense I'm sure the discussion would come to a dead end as abortion debates generally do.

 

[Dan B]

Elizabeth,

It seems that our wires have gotten crossed. To clarify, I only referred to Jack and Jill in an effort to answer someone's question about the relevance of the name "Jill."

My other remarks were an independent and intentionally vague allusion to some earlier comments which would seem to have been made with the intent to disparage--rather than to honestly debate or discuss the logical merits and demerits of--the beliefs of those of opposing views.

In my experience, discussions of abortion almost inevitably devolve into little more than a collection of fruitless ad hominem attacks, with such attacks being made by proponents of both sides.

I must admit that, on the whole, this has been one of the more rational abortion discussions that I've read. I made my comments in the hope that this would continue.

Regards,

Dan

 

[Elizabeth]

My other remarks were an independent and intentionally vague allusion to some earlier comments which would seem to have been made with the intent to disparage--rather than to honestly debate or discuss the logical merits and demerits of--the beliefs of those of opposing views.

For better or worse, you'll need to be direct and specific on this board (and any I've ever been on). :wave:

 

[Glenn]

So it comes from a nursery rhyme... I see. No wonder I didn't know it :relief:

Just to add a little clarification: masturbation is commonly called "jacking off" among guys, so "jilling off" would be the female version.

By the way, Golgo, I thought the joke was funny.

Glenn,
My point is this: life is beyond all representational thought.

I am pro-life and pro-choice. I believe in affirming life through choice.

I guess I'm an idiot, because this still seems vague to me. How are you pro-choice and pro-life, in the context of the abortion debate? I'm still having problems relating what you have said in a significant way to this topic. Sorry. :sorry: :gomen:

I must admit that, on the whole, this has been one of the more rational abortion discussions that I've read. I made my comments in the hope that this would continue.

Thank you for saying that. I was hoping to have an open discussion on the points that I mentioned above, but no one seems to want to comment on them. I'm not sure of the reasons why, though.

 

[Winter]

Pro-Choice - Abortion should generally be allowed! Let the women make a choice, without being influenced by any braindead christian organizations who just want to talk her into getting the child even if it would often be much better not to because the mother can't make an outcome and/or is too young for it. Abortion is never murder, that's utter nonsense! The life of the mother is alway more valuable than the "life" (if you can even call it that way) of something that isn't even born yet, so she must not be forced to ruin her life just to have the child!

Wow......thats....well, just a bit harsh.

 

[Elizabeth]

Just to add a little clarification: masturbation is commonly called "jacking off" among guys, so "jilling off" would be the female version.

By the way, Golgo13, I thought the joke was funny.

Jacking off is an allusion to Jack's activities in the second verse (of the original rhyme) however.....there's no way of knowing what happened to Jill after she went tumbling after.

 

[Glenn]

Jacking off is an allusion to Jack's activities in the second verse (of the original rhyme) however.....there's no way of knowing what happened to Jill after she went tumbling after.

Hmm, I guess I need to find a copy of the original rhyme, then. All that I can remember is "Jack and Jill went up a hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came tumbling after."

 

[Elizabeth]

Glenn,
My point is this: life is beyond all representational thought.

I am pro-life and pro-choice. I believe in affirming life through choice.

Yes, no one is anti-life so you must use these labels in the standard way to be understood.

 

[kirei_na_me]

Maybe I should make a thread specifically for analyzing the nursery rhyme, Jack and Jill? :?

 

[Elizabeth]

Do we have any threads analyzing how shy Japanese people are in talking about sexual matters ? . I don't think it needs to get any more graphic personally.....

 

[Golgo_13]

Just to add a little clarification: masturbation is commonly called "jacking off" among guys, so "jilling off" would be the female version.

By the way, Golgo, I thought the joke was funny.

Thank you! It wasn't too hard for you to get it, right?

Finally, someone has a sense of humor.

It wasn't even my joke. I heard someone say that at a comedy club and thought it was hilarious.

Do we have any threads analyzing how shy Japanese people are in talking about sexual matters ? . I don't think it needs to get any more graphic personally.....

I don't think we need uncomplimentary discussions of shy Japanese any more than really necessary. Just turns into more generalizations and stereotypes.

 

[Dan B]

Elizabeth,

For better or worse, you'll need to be direct and specific on this board (and any I've ever been on). :wave:

I appreciate your advice and, in fact, that's exactly what I typically do. Nonetheless, in my estimate, the point I sought to make could be expressed without directing my comments at particular individuals. Thus, the lack of specificity in my post.

As a newbie to the JRef Forum commenting on a discussion with a topic as volatile as abortion, I've little doubt that my best course of action was, and continues to be, to tread lightly.


Glenn,

Thank you for saying that. I was hoping to have an open discussion on the points that I mentioned above, but no one seems to want to comment on them. I'm not sure of the reasons why, though.

You're quite welcome!

Real discussion and debate, like that which you are trying to foster, requires a willingness to closely analyze and test what one has come to believe to be "true." But given the zeal with which many people often defend their views on abortion, it seems likely that very few would be willing to engage in the requisite calm, rational introspection.

I would think that this would provide at least a partial explanation for the lack of commentary on your points.

My regards to you both,

Dan

 

[Lina Inverse]

Hmm, I guess I need to find a copy of the original rhyme, then. All that I can remember is "Jack and Jill went up a hill to fetch a pail of water. Jack fell down and broke his crown, and Jill came tumbling after."

So it's called "crown" now? Guess breaking it must be quite painful

@kirei na me
Yes, I think it would be better to make a new thread named "Masturbation and nursery rhymes" and move all the corresponding posts there, since they have nothing to do with abortion :relief:

 

[Elizabeth]

I don't think we need uncomplimentary discussions of shy Japanese any more than really necessary. Just turns into more generalizations and stereotypes.

And posting on Japanese sex houses, porn industry, love hotels, sex industry in general is more complementary to the culture then their modesty :?

 

[Golgo_13]

Can you show me where I've ever said that? Right now! Now!

Of course, they ARE NOT !!!!!!!!

But the _____s on this forum will go on doing that anyway, and I'm tired of dealing with them. I thought at least I could reason with you .

 

[Elizabeth]

Can you show me where I've ever said that? Right now! Now!

Of course, they ARE NOT !!!!!!!!

But the _____s on this forum will go on doing that anyway, and I'm tired of dealing with them. I thought at least I could reason with you .

I'm not being unreasonable. :gomen: and I didn't mean to be uncomplementary. It was just something I heard from some Japanese friends -- not necessarily that they're shy (actually more sociable than Americans in many ways) but that they don't talk as openly about sex.
Please correct me if this is a misimpression.

 

[kirei_na_me]

Okay, back to the subject or else I'm going to have to lock it. I really hate being authoritative, but sheesh...

And I thought the abortion debate alone would cause controversy...

 

[Areku]

To me, the woman should have total choice.

I don't think it's an issue where 'life' begins. Because you can just take it further back, and futher back, until, as someone said, masturbation is equivalent to murder.

I don't believe the nervous system should have anything to do with it either. Maybe the embryo can feel pain at 6 months+ or whatever the date is, but it's still virtually braindead. It doesn't have the capacity to think or to have memories or to have emotional pain. And being realistic, how long/how much pain will it have? I don't know the specific procedure for abortions but I doubt it takes longer than a few seconds and I doubt the embryo is 'alive' very long during it either.

At the end of the day, the baby won't care that it's dead, it doesn't even have any intelligence at all. The mothers rights always come first because she's already a fully developed human who has the intellectual and emotional capability for lots of pain.

I think issues gets blurred badly when you start using religiously-inspired phrasing and arguments like 'when does life start'. 'Life' is no more than a chemical state of an organism being technically alive. The embryo is the property of the parents, a mass of cells totally and utterly reliant on the mother to even exist without dying.

 

[Glenn]

To me, the woman should have total choice.

I don't think it's an issue where 'life' begins. Because you can just take it further back, and futher back, until, as someone said, masturbation is equivalent to murder.

So what do you think about this:

I was thinking about this, and there seems to me to be a difference between a fertilized egg and one that isn't or a sperm. The reason is this, a sperm has about a one in one million chance of fertilizing an egg, right? Also, a sperm only carries half of the human chromosones. Same thing for an egg -- I'm not sure what the chances are of an egg becoming fertilized, but when you put that together with the chances of a sperm fertilizing an egg, you have a less than one in a million chance of a certain egg combining with a certain sperm.

Now, if you consider a fertilized egg, you will see that it is already a special entity, because it somehow beat the odds (even though there are millions of sperm in each ejaculation and there are several eggs available -- not every act of sexual intercourse results in pregnancy anyway). Aside from that, a fretilized egg can arguably be considered a human. For example, it already has all of the DNA encoding that it requires and will ever have throughout its lifetime. That means that height, weight, body type, build, intelligence, personality, sex, race, etc. are all there from the moment of conception. It just doesn't look human yet. However, it is certainly not a frog or a moth. On the point of looking human, would you consider someone so disfigured that he didn't look human anymore to not be human?

I am arguing that a line can be drawn before you get to individual sperm and eggs.

I don't believe the nervous system should have anything to do with it either. Maybe the embryo can feel pain at 6 months+ or whatever the date is, but it's still virtually braindead. It doesn't have the capacity to think or to have memories or to have emotional pain. And being realistic, how long/how much pain will it have? I don't know the specific procedure for abortions but I doubt it takes longer than a few seconds and I doubt the embryo is 'alive' very long during it either.

From what I understand, most abortions take place in the second and third trimesters, and the procedure involves tearing the fetus apart. Being realistic, how can you say that it can't think? Also, is the intensity or duration of the pain that important? Using this argument you could say that killing people instantly is OK, because the duration and intensity of the pain is not that great.

At the end of the day, the baby won't care that it's dead, it doesn't even have any intelligence at all. The mothers rights always come first because she's already a fully developed human who has the intellectual and emotional capability for lots of pain.

At the end of the day, no one will care that he is dead. Once life ends, so does all caring, for the deceased. It doesn't matter at what stage of life one is. Also, see what I have stated above about intelligence and DNA encoding from the time of conception.

I think issues gets blurred badly when you start using religiously-inspired phrasing and arguments like 'when does life start'. 'Life' is no more than a chemical state of an organism being technically alive. The embryo is the property of the parents, a mass of cells totally and utterly reliant on the mother to even exist without dying.

How is the question "when does life start" a religiously-inspired argument? Even if its roots are in religion, is it not a valid question? A child is also totally and utterly reliant on at least some other person to exist without dying. Does that mean that it is OK to kill children? They are, after all, not fully developed. You say that "'life' is no more than a chemical state of an organism being technically alive," which begs an answer to the question, "what is technically alive?" or, to paraphrase, "when does life start?" Technically, an amoeba is in "a chemical state of...being technically alive." Do you think that an amoeba is more alive than a human embryo, or even a fetus? Also, how about answering these questions:

If a baby is born prematurely then after it is born it could still be "aborted," because it hasn't finished developing to the point that it should have. Therefore, it is nothing more than a fetus that is in the wrong place. What's the difference between a 32-week fetus and a baby born after 32 weeks? Does where it is affect the situation that much?

Another question: what's the difference between a baby that is just about to exit the womb and one that just has? Is one more alive than the other? Can one feel pain more than the other?

 

[Areku]

So what do you think about this:



I am arguing that a line can be drawn before you get to individual sperm and eggs.

It makes more sense to draw the line at a fertilised egg, but to me I don't see much difference. The sperm is half a set of dna, the fertilised egg is a full set. It's still just a mass of cells. Technically it has a genetic height/weight roughly encoded already, but in my opinion it doesn't make it remotely human.

From what I understand, most abortions take place in the second and third trimesters, and the procedure involves tearing the fetus apart. Being realistic, how can you say that it can't think? Also, is the intensity or duration of the pain that important? Using this argument you could say that killing people instantly is OK, because the duration and intensity of the pain is not that great.

Technically yes. If you killed me now, instantly, I wouldn't care less. But in this case, you'd have to think about the implications on my friends/family. But in the case of a mother wanting an abortion, she is the only one (except the father) who has the capability to suffer from the situation. And furthermore, if she wants an abortion in the first place, she'll probably suffer more if it lives, than if she has an abortion.

At the end of the day, no one will care that he is dead. Once life ends, so does all caring, for the deceased. It doesn't matter at what stage of life one is. Also, see what I have stated above about intelligence and DNA encoding from the time of conception.

But that's not true for adults. People do care.

How is the question "when does life start" a religiously-inspired argument? Even if its roots are in religion, is it not a valid question? A child is also totally and utterly reliant on at least some other person to exist without dying. Does that mean that it is OK to kill children? They are, after all, not fully developed. You say that "'life' is no more than a chemical state of an organism being technically alive," which begs an answer to the question, "what is technically alive?" or, to paraphrase, "when does life start?" Technically, an amoeba is in "a chemical state of...being technically alive." Do you think that an amoeba is more alive than a human embryo, or even a fetus? Also, how about answering these questions:

Because originally the main arguments against abortion were 'it's murder' etc, based on the principle of the embryo having a 'soul'. About the children, well, I suppose if a family had a child and killed it before it could even walk because they weren't allowed an abortion, it wouldn't bother me. To me, the organism that can't even move, feed itself, communicate, drink or think rationally has no rights compared to an adult who is in control of themselves and their body. If you think rationally, even if two parents killed their own child, and they were better off for it, and the child had no idea it was going to happen, assuming it couldn't be adopted by anyone, is it that wrong?

Yes, in my opinion an amoeba is more alive than a human embryo because it can survive on it's own.

About the questions, I don't think outside/inside the womb matters.