re: Are most of you actually Pro-Life?

quote:

---

Only 99.99999% are.

OK. I know I'm exaggerating. But, you get the point.

---

Of course I get your point, but a little bit of listening could go a long way on both the lib and conservative sides on this, until then we will continue to participate in all or nothing arguments on all things political, including abortion.

Doctorates are shitty? That's enlightening.

quote:

---

Doctorates are shitty?

---

They certainly can be. I'm making an assumption that yours is included in that based on your posts here. Feel free to show that I'm wrong.

quote:

---

Are you the most contrary poster here?

---

I doubt it, but I'm probably in the playoff.

quote:

---

Every time I see a post of yours you're going back and forth with someone.

---

By design. I have little interest in jumping in to a circle jerk to validate my thoughts.

quote:

---

I'm sure that's true.

---

Oh, absolutely. If I wanted a conversation where we all just said how much we respect each others opinions and agree, I sure as hell wouldn't be here.

So my doctorate is shitty because I don't believe in killing babies? Gotcha.

Have you answered my question yet? Counting back, on which day does it cease being a human life?
And what is the extent of your education in science? I'll gladly stand behind my opinions since my undergrad/post-grad education includes studies in biology, microbiology, organic chemistry, inorganic chemistry, quantitative analysis, biochemistry (including illustrating a biochem textbook), genetics, comparative anatomy, embryology, physiology, gross anatomy...Yours?

quote:

---

This is irrelevant

---

In other words, you can not pinpoint a day...so you haven't answered the question.

Undergrad is from UNO, medical degree is from LSU.

If your argument is that abortion is not the killing of a human life, it is entirely relevant which day it is or is not a human life being terminated. You won't answer because you CAN'T answer.

Wall of text incoming...I am Pro-Life both for religious and general moral reasons. It's an abhorrent and needless practice, but I usually want to dig beyond that because religion isn't a conversation with the non-religious. Taxes should not support abortion, I don't think it's of benefit to the nation, and at best should be a state issue. But I am open to comprises somewhere.

The problem with abortion is that it is the pinnacle example of the absolution of the consequence of one's actions. People are willing to end the progression of life to remove the responsibility of consequences. I use that phrase deliberately because 1) "Life" is problematic for any of us to discuss as it's something that science can't determine 2) "Progression of Life" is a micro-level and macro level term. I'll explain further down.

Note: I also believe it's dang near impossible to discuss abortion in a vacuum. Yes, we should probably reconsider some social programs, welfare, etc. I think there are other discussions to be had around, "If we were to outlaw abortion, what do we do as humans to make sure children aren't neglected.." I want THAT discussion, not the Life/Choice discussion.

Going to get super out there though, as there are some interesting areas within the debate:

Abortion as Regulation/Population Control/Social Good
Even a common theme in this thread is the general "Population would be out of control," or "Crime would be worse," etc. That somehow abortion is a social net good for pure numbers. Generally, long before Roe v Wade (1973), LINK Birth Rates were on the decline. And birth rates have natural ebbs and flows- Data is all over the place. The only thing you have is "more people generally make more people." Ok, congrats on the math?
The Crime Theory is not certain.. The only theory that might hold water is that teen pregnancy is on the decline LINK that maybe kids who grew up from 1973 and later are the ones more naturally inclined to have abortions. (Funny that we don't have pregnancy rate data prior to 1972...?) But there are so many things in play - better sex ed, easier access to contraceptives, etc. that I'm not sure we can focus in on abortions as the cause of said decline. Plus Abortions are also currently on the decline anyways. So what good do they serve?

I tend to believe that naturally, society will organize itself, much like the free market. Abortion isn't necessary for that to happen in any particular way.

Abortion as Protection/Individual Good and Need
Back to the "progression of life," I find it interesting that people are willing to allow the "progression of life" at the fetus level to be eliminated but are at the same time horrified at one culture to eliminate another. To play devil's advocate, look, that's just one bigger authority deciding to eliminate the smaller, weaker version. I know it's a stretch but from a scientific and non-religious perspective, we are not only an organism, but a collective organism as well, and even a collective of separate collectives. Which means we change shape, alter, eliminate weakness, throw out the trash, evolve. Maybe those cullings, deciding what culture is dominant and necessary, is part of how we best grow? That's a different discussion, but I think the debate over "life" from a scientific, and/or left atheist perspective has a bunch of problems. The normal argument is that "If a 16 year old girl gets pregnant and is forced to have a child, her life is forever changed." Well 1) Life changes, situations alter ALL OF THE TIME, why is this time where halting life is an ok thing to justify? This is also where the note comes into play, I get it, we need some different social structures and I would be open to that discussion. 2) The logical end of that is the utilitarian argument. If at any point in time we can prove that more humans benefit from any action that results in a negative on another set of humans, then said action is justifiable. Mathematical Morality. Yay! I do think protecting the individual is the place for compromise, however, life of the mother or other fetuses, rape, complications, etc. These things are debatable. I wouldn't agree, but I'd be willing to give.

Abortion and Immigration
This is super loose, but logically problematic, how "protecting underrepresented people and life and people just trying to live and better themselves and grow" (oh looky there) is so very important in terms of immigrants, but not so important in terms of a growing fetus. Not only that, I love the idea that "What if our borders keep out the next scientist to cure cancer!" Or "We are better with more diversity! Everyone should be able to come here!" Except we explicitly allow people to shut these things down. People champion and support it. What's more likely that we've kept the cancer curer out of our country, or that we never let him or her be born? Or we never let his or her mother or father be born? I'm not saying these two things are related in any data or statistical sense, but in terms of logic, I don't see how you can easily toss aside one and be so adamant on the other. We should support and protect people. All people. All life. (Again, let's have that discussion). We should figure out the best way to do that, in the most moral and positive sense possible. Abortion is not either one.

Abortion can be a philosophical and logical minefield for both sides honestly, even the non-religious who think they have it figured out. And that's kind of sad, because it should be pretty simple...Life is Life, let's try not to define the core being of who we are as people, religious or non-religious, with an inaccurate language that is merely a simulation of understanding and thought. At the very least, and as a compromise, we should wait until we can find the precise moment where "life" begins. If we can find that, scientifically, I'd say we can revisit the discussion. Until then, you are estimating whether or not you are murdering someone. Do you want to play that game?