Nauseatingly horrible. :bleeding:
There are a couple dozen links scattered throughout this article. Click here if you want to investigate them.
http://www.slate.com/id/2301322/
QuoteHalf Aborted
Why do "reductions" of twin pregnancies trouble pro-choicers?
By William SaletanPosted Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2011, at 9:12 AM ET
What's worse than an abortion? Half an abortion.
It sounds like a bad joke. But it's real. According to Sunday's New York Times Magazine, demand is rising for "reduction" procedures in which a woman carrying twins keeps one and has the other aborted. Since twin pregnancies are generally safe, these abortions are largely elective.
Advertisement
Across the pro-choice blogosphere, including Slate, the article has provoked discomfort. RH Reality Check, a Web site dedicated to abortion rights, ran an item voicing qualms with one woman's reduction decision. Jezebel, another pro-choice site, acknowledged the "complicated ethics" of reduction. Frances Kissling, a longtime reproductive rights leader, wrote a Washington Post essay asking whether women should forego fertility treatment rather than risk a twin pregnancy they'd end up half-aborting.
In comments on these articles, pro-choice readers express similar misgivings. "Even as a woman who has terminated a pregnancy, I totally understand the author's apprehension ... something about it just doesn't feel right," says a Slate reader. A commenter at Jezebel writes that "if I were put in the position and decided to/needed to abort a single fetus, I could. But if I knew that I was keeping the baby and it turned out to be twins, I don't think I could have a reduction."
To pro-lifers and hardcore pro-choicers, this queasiness seems odd. After all, a reduction is an abortion. If anything, reduction should be less problematic than ordinary abortion, since one life is deliberately being spared. Why, then, does reduction unsettle so many pro-choicers?
For some, the issue seems to be a consumer mentality in assisted reproduction. For others, it's the deliberateness of getting pregnant, especially by IVF, without being prepared to accept the consequences. But the main problem with reduction is that it breaches a wall at the center of pro-choice psychology. It exposes the equality between the offspring we raise and the offspring we abort.
Look up any abortion-related item in Jezebel, and you'll see the developing human referred to as a fetus or pregnancy. But when the same entity appears in a non-abortion item, it gets an upgrade. A blood test could help "women who are concerned that they may be carrying a child with Down's Syndrome." A TV character wonders whether she's "capable of carrying a child to term." Nuclear radiation in Japan "may put unborn children at risk."
This bifurcated mindset permeates pro-choice thinking. Embryos fertilized for procreation are embryos; embryos cloned for research are "activated eggs." A fetus you want is a baby; a fetus you don't want is a pregnancy. Under federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother," but no such penalty applies to "an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman ... has been obtained."
Reduction destroys this distinction. It combines, in a single pregnancy, a wanted and an unwanted fetus. In the case of identical twins, even their genomes are indistinguishable. You can't pretend that one is precious and the other is just tissue. You're killing the same creature to which you're dedicating your life.
Sophie's Choice is a common theme in abortion decisions. To give your existing kids the attention and resources they'll need, you have to terminate your fetus. This rationale fits the pro-choice calculus that born children are worth more than unborn ones. But in the case of reduction, the child for whom you're reserving attention and resources is equally unborn. She is, and will always be, a living reminder of what you exterminated.
This is what tortures pro-choicers. "I just couldn't sleep at night knowing that I terminated my daughter's perfectly healthy twin brother," says a commenter in the Times story. A Jezebel reader worries about "all the poor surviving twins who will one day find out that their other is missing." Another Jezebel reader writes:
I'd have a much easier time aborting a single baby or both twins than doing a reduction. When you reduce, the remaining twin will remain a persistent reminder of the unborn child. I think that, more than anything would make killing that fetus feel like killing another human, even though it wasn't fully developed. It would feel that way because you would have a living copy of the person you killed.
That's the anguish of reduction: watching the fetus you spared become what its twin will never be. And knowing that the only difference between them was your will.
Too late for Ed.
There is nothing moral about a coin toss.
...the fuck is the difference between this and normal abortion?
If you planned one kid, why would you want two?
Not sure what the problem is, unless you believe in the new age claptrap that there is a spiritual link between twins, and the aborted one will come back to haunt the one born alive. :huh:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
...the fuck is the difference between this and normal abortion?
If you planned one kid, why would you want two?
Yeah. Sounds like a better thing than just aborting both twins and waiting for a single next time.
Yeah I do not really follow how this is different at all from a normal abortion.
It humanizes the aborted one, read the article.
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2011, 10:17:23 AM
Yeah I do not really follow how this is different at all from a normal abortion.
I think some anti-choicers operate (whether because of deliberate intellectual dishonesty or simply because they are stupid) under a false assumption that pro-choicers consider abortion to be something good or at least morally neutral.
Abortion is definitely a morally non-neutral procedure, and one that should not be taken lightly - a decision to abort is an evil. It's just that letting a woman make this choice herself, rather than being forced to do it (one way or the other - including being pressured to have an abortion by her culture or government) is the lesser of two evils.
From that perspective, if you had a good reason to abort a singular fetus for reasons XYZ, there is no moral difference in aborting one of two fetuses for reasons XYZ. I guess if people were aborting one of the twins for frivolous reasons then it would be wrong - but then it would be wrong to abort a single fetus for those reasons too.
Sounds like something the author of the article *hopes* will trouble pro-choicers.
QuoteUnder federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother,"
And that's just retarded. Killing a fetus (outside of a consensual abortion procedure) should carry a penalty, but equating it with a proper murder is simply wrong.
Quote from: DGuller on August 16, 2011, 10:19:55 AM
It humanizes the aborted one, read the article.
I guess, if you want to interpret it that way.
Doesn't apply to fraternal twins, but the great thing is that at that early a stage, identical twins truly are nearly identical. You're not even destroying a great deal of unique information.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 10:16:59 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 10:13:27 AM
...the fuck is the difference between this and normal abortion?
If you planned one kid, why would you want two?
Yeah. Sounds like a better thing than just aborting both twins and waiting for a single next time.
I think the difference is that people are understanding of the choice to have an abortion when the pregnancy itself is unexpected; when the child will be disabled; the mother's life is at risk, etc. It's basically the "lesser of two evils" as you mentioned in another post.
I think you would have a stronger point if selective reductions were occurring in regular pregnancies. But I think many of these are occurring when the mother has undergone IVF. What makes this more disturbing than a "regular abortion" is that in a selective reduction the choice is almost purely financial/hassle avoidance based. In many/most cases, the mother has chosen to be pregnant, often even undertaking fertility treatments, as explained in the NY Times article. It just "seems" sick to implant an embryo in a mother, let it grow, and then kill it off because it will be a financial hassle later on.
The quote from the NY Times in particular that even pro-choicers have trouble with is the following:
Quote"Things would have been different if we were 15 years younger or if we hadn't had children already or if we were more financially secure," she said later. "If I had conceived these twins naturally, I wouldn't have reduced this pregnancy, because you feel like if there's a natural order, then you don't want to disturb it. But we created this child in such an artificial manner — in a test tube, choosing an egg donor, having the embryo placed in me — and somehow, making a decision about how many to carry seemed to be just another choice. The pregnancy was all so consumerish to begin with, and this became yet another thing we could control."
Isn't "financial hassle" the principal reason to abort?
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 10:58:08 AM
Isn't "financial hassle" the principal reason to abort?
Who knows? Anyways, of the various to get an abortion, it's probably the least justifiable.
Also, it is hard to believe that someone who could afford elective IVF treatments cannot really afford a child. The financial hassle justification is easier to swallow when someone is a college student, barely making ends meet, etc.
Quote from: stjaba on August 16, 2011, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 10:58:08 AM
Isn't "financial hassle" the principal reason to abort?
Who knows? Anyways, of the various to get an abortion, it's probably the least justifiable.
Also, it is hard to believe that someone who could afford elective IVF treatments cannot really afford a child. The financial hassle justification is easier to swallow when someone is a college student, barely making ends meet, etc.
Most people who are pro-choice don't think abortion
needs a "justification", because they don't think of an early-term fetus as being a "person" at all.
The IVF procedure simply highlights this. Usually, they attempt to implant a few fetuses in the hopes that one will "take". What about the fetuses they don't implant? Is there something wrong with that? If not, what's so bad about implanting some, and if more than one "take", getting rid of the extra?
If that's a problem, then surely throwing out the "unimplanted" extras at the lab is also a problem, and everyone who goes in for IVF ought to make like Octomom and implant all of 'em.
My friend got pregnant with triplets on IVF after several rounds of traumatic and expensive treatment. She was advised to abort one or two to ensure survival of the remaining one. Her main thought was, "What if the one I keep dies anyhow?" She kept them all and has three noisy eight year olds. But you could literally see her belly in front of her eyes towards the day she delivered.
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 11:13:51 AM
Quote from: stjaba on August 16, 2011, 11:07:41 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 10:58:08 AM
Isn't "financial hassle" the principal reason to abort?
Who knows? Anyways, of the various to get an abortion, it's probably the least justifiable.
Also, it is hard to believe that someone who could afford elective IVF treatments cannot really afford a child. The financial hassle justification is easier to swallow when someone is a college student, barely making ends meet, etc.
Most people who are pro-choice don't think abortion needs a "justification", because they don't think of an early-term fetus as being a "person" at all.
No kidding. I mean, if you think of a fetus as a person, I don't know what kind of weird moral calculus you'd have to make.
I used to do so, and I was pretty obligated to oppose abortion. If you don't, as I now don't, then the obvious outcome is that abortion is fine for any reason or no reason. At least on an intellectual level, although on an emotional level it's more difficult to separate persons from non-persons.
Quote from: stjaba on August 16, 2011, 11:07:41 AM
Who knows? Anyways, of the various to get an abortion, it's probably the least justifiable.
Not having the resources to properly raise a child is the least justifiable reason? I would think aborting one even though you have the resources would be less justifiable.
though i've no problem with killing off unwanted future-children, aborting one twin and keeping the other seems pretty awful for the future of that surviving twin. provided he's told at some point; probably best to never tell him
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 12:04:43 PM
though i've no problem with killing off unwanted future-children, aborting one twin and keeping the other seems pretty awful for the future of that surviving twin. provided he's told at some point; probably best to never tell him
Just as difficult as explaining the half-dozen or so "extra" embryos the lab tossed out during the IVF procedure.
Or worse, the ten-million or so sperm that didn't make it ... :hmm:
'Son you had 10 million brothers and sisters but they died tragically to your mother's genocidal immune system.'
Quote from: Valmy on August 16, 2011, 12:52:31 PM
'Son you had 10 million brothers and sisters but they died tragically to your mother's genocidal immune system.'
"You know how they say you can't impregnate a women through anal... they lied"
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 12:39:35 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 12:04:43 PM
though i've no problem with killing off unwanted future-children, aborting one twin and keeping the other seems pretty awful for the future of that surviving twin. provided he's told at some point; probably best to never tell him
Just as difficult as explaining the half-dozen or so "extra" embryos the lab tossed out during the IVF procedure.
Or worse, the ten-million or so sperm that didn't make it ... :hmm:
Not as difficult as knowing you were going to get aborted but your mother was prevented from exercising her right because of a dysfunctional, retarded "conscience" clause. A woman like this (who lost her eyesight as a result of the pregnancy) sued the Polish state for a reason like this recently.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 02:09:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 12:39:35 PM
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 12:04:43 PM
though i've no problem with killing off unwanted future-children, aborting one twin and keeping the other seems pretty awful for the future of that surviving twin. provided he's told at some point; probably best to never tell him
Just as difficult as explaining the half-dozen or so "extra" embryos the lab tossed out during the IVF procedure.
Or worse, the ten-million or so sperm that didn't make it ... :hmm:
Not as difficult as knowing you were going to get aborted but your mother was prevented from exercising her right because of a dysfunctional, retarded "conscience" clause. A woman like this (who lost her eyesight as a result of the pregnancy) sued the Polish state for a reason like this recently.
A clause that allowed you to live, yeah, I suppose it would be hard to live with that.
I think a lot of people find it hard to live with a clause that allows Martinus to live.
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 12:39:35 PMJust as difficult as explaining the half-dozen or so "extra" embryos the lab tossed out during the IVF procedure.
Or worse, the ten-million or so sperm that didn't make it ... :hmm:
nay. i'm 100% pro-abortion (yes, pro-abortion, fuck pro-choice), so there needn't be any of that. i'm just saying, as an emotional setback, finding out that your twin was offed before you ever knew him would seem to me to be pretty harsh. also, as others have commented on, the "coulda been me!" might cause issues
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 02:57:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 12:39:35 PMJust as difficult as explaining the half-dozen or so "extra" embryos the lab tossed out during the IVF procedure.
Or worse, the ten-million or so sperm that didn't make it ... :hmm:
nay. i'm 100% pro-abortion (yes, pro-abortion, fuck pro-choice), so there needn't be any of that. i'm just saying, as an emotional setback, finding out that your twin was offed before you ever knew him would seem to me to be pretty harsh. also, as others have commented on, the "coulda been me!" might cause issues
That could be the case, but I doubt many would be all that affected. Daddy coulda wore a condom, and I would not have existed ... people have an inherent ability to write off possibilities which coulda led to them not existing, due to a human belief in the centrality of their own existence.
Quote from: LaCroix on August 16, 2011, 02:57:26 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 12:39:35 PMJust as difficult as explaining the half-dozen or so "extra" embryos the lab tossed out during the IVF procedure.
Or worse, the ten-million or so sperm that didn't make it ... :hmm:
nay. i'm 100% pro-abortion (yes, pro-abortion, fuck pro-choice), so there needn't be any of that. i'm just saying, as an emotional setback, finding out that your twin was offed before you ever knew him would seem to me to be pretty harsh. also, as others have commented on, the "coulda been me!" might cause issues
could be a motivator. Dropped your coffee at work? missed the last bus? "Well at least i have better luck then my brother" :P
When do you tell the kid, anyway? Over dinner after soccer practice? "Pass the lasagna--hey, this looks like your brother!"
And what if the one you chose is a disappointment. You spend the rest of your days looking at your crackhead kid thinking "damn I choose the wrong one"
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 03:19:50 PMThat could be the case, but I doubt many would be all that affected.
maybe not. we hear how close twins are, though, and finding out that you could have had such a bond but your parents decided against it might be crushing for some. i personally wouldn't do it, unless there's a jon & kate situation, then well, why not flush a few of 'em away? not like it really matters once you hit that level
hvc/ideologue- :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 10:24:40 AM
Sounds like something the author of the article *hopes* will trouble pro-choicers.
He has links to a whole bunch of pro-choicers who say they are troubled by it. He's pondering why that's the case.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2011, 05:32:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 10:24:40 AM
Sounds like something the author of the article *hopes* will trouble pro-choicers.
He has links to a whole bunch of pro-choicers who say they are troubled by it. He's pondering why that's the case.
Most people are not rigorous about their belief systems.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
When do you tell the kid, anyway? Over dinner after soccer practice? "Pass the lasagna--hey, this looks like your brother!"
"When"? How about "why"? I can't see any reason you'd ever tell the kid.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 05:34:49 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2011, 05:32:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 10:24:40 AM
Sounds like something the author of the article *hopes* will trouble pro-choicers.
He has links to a whole bunch of pro-choicers who say they are troubled by it. He's pondering why that's the case.
Most people are not rigorous about their belief systems.
Most people don't actually replace ideology for reality.
Quote from: dps on August 16, 2011, 07:25:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
When do you tell the kid, anyway? Over dinner after soccer practice? "Pass the lasagna--hey, this looks like your brother!"
"When"? How about "why"? I can't see any reason you'd ever tell the kid.
Guilt?
Ide is the new Soviet Man. He is beyond guilt.
It's pretty sweet.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 11:23:22 AM
I used to do so, and I was pretty obligated to oppose abortion. If you don't, as I now don't, then the obvious outcome is that abortion is fine for any reason or no reason.
Disappointing. Not only because you no longer agree with me, but it makes the overall tenor of your beliefs much more conventional.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2011, 08:34:06 PM
Disappointing. Not only because you no longer agree with me, but it makes the overall tenor of your beliefs much more conventional.
You watch, pretty soon Ide's going to turn against terror bombing, too. :(
Quote from: Malthus on August 16, 2011, 11:13:51 AM
Most people who are pro-choice don't think abortion needs a "justification", because they don't think of an early-term fetus as being a "person" at all.
I guess I don't fall in this category at all. I am almost rabidly pro-choice, yet I still think of fetuses as "babies". I just think it's better for an unwanted child to die before it gains consciousness than the alternative. I'm sad to think that this is the case, but I'm also savvy enough to know that abortions are going to happen whether legal or not, so it's best to make them as safe as possible.
One can hold a belief on this and still be conflicted. For me, it's not black-and-white. There is a lot of gray area in there.
As for the "twin bond myth", I'd argue that it's not a myth at all. As my twins will tell you, they know when something is wrong with the other. It's uncanny, really. And the fear they have when they don't know where the other is has been obvious since they were infants. I have no idea how to explain it, but there's no question that it's there.
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 10:24:41 AM
QuoteUnder federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother,"
And that's just retarded. Killing a fetus (outside of a consensual abortion procedure) should carry a penalty, but equating it with a proper murder is simply wrong.
As with any discussion about morality, it's difficult to carry a conversation without first agreeing on definitions.
Certainly, an argument could probably be made that killing a fetus is not murder per se since the fetus hasn't lived enough to become a person any more than a fish or a plant. But then, we end up in the entire Potential argument, and that slope is pretty fucking slippery.
When looking at these types of issues I have a process, which starts by an initial assessment of my "gut feeling" and continues to examine the evidence before coming to a conclusion. Clearly, the gut is going to present a strong bias initially, and without burrowing deeper in this my gut is currently screaming "savages! :mad: ".
The concept of "removing" one twin simply doesn't feel right.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
When do you tell the kid, anyway? Over dinner after soccer practice? "Pass the lasagna--hey, this looks like your brother!"
Learning a few years back that I was supposed to have another older brother whom my parents aborted two years before I was born was pretty uncomfortable.
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 08:13:42 AM
When looking at these types of issues I have a process, which starts by an initial assessment of my "gut feeling" and continues to examine the evidence before coming to a conclusion. Clearly, the gut is going to present a strong bias initially, and without burrowing deeper in this my gut is currently screaming "savages! :mad: ".
The concept of "removing" one twin simply doesn't feel right.
OMFG IS IT RIGHT BECAUSE YOU SAY SO?
:P
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 08:16:48 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
When do you tell the kid, anyway? Over dinner after soccer practice? "Pass the lasagna--hey, this looks like your brother!"
Learning a few years back that I was supposed to have another older brother whom my parents aborted two years before I was born was pretty uncomfortable.
The rest of us are unhappy about your parent's choice as well. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on August 17, 2011, 09:25:59 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 08:16:48 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
When do you tell the kid, anyway? Over dinner after soccer practice? "Pass the lasagna--hey, this looks like your brother!"
Learning a few years back that I was supposed to have another older brother whom my parents aborted two years before I was born was pretty uncomfortable.
The rest of us are unhappy about your parent's choice as well. ;)
I have no doubt about that. Your heart is blackened not just with typical jew greed, but also with hatred. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on August 17, 2011, 09:25:59 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 08:16:48 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
When do you tell the kid, anyway? Over dinner after soccer practice? "Pass the lasagna--hey, this looks like your brother!"
Learning a few years back that I was supposed to have another older brother whom my parents aborted two years before I was born was pretty uncomfortable.
The rest of us are unhappy about your parent's choice as well. ;)
Think about how they feel? If I told my parents I was going to runaway to Norway and sell cabinets I'd be right back in the booby hatch.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 09:39:42 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 17, 2011, 09:25:59 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 08:16:48 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
When do you tell the kid, anyway? Over dinner after soccer practice? "Pass the lasagna--hey, this looks like your brother!"
Learning a few years back that I was supposed to have another older brother whom my parents aborted two years before I was born was pretty uncomfortable.
The rest of us are unhappy about your parent's choice as well. ;)
Think about how they feel? If I told my parents I was going to runaway to Norway and sell cabinets I'd be right back in the booby hatch.
Take responsibility for your failures instead of lashing out at me, you tit.
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 09:38:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on August 17, 2011, 09:25:59 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 08:16:48 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
When do you tell the kid, anyway? Over dinner after soccer practice? "Pass the lasagna--hey, this looks like your brother!"
Learning a few years back that I was supposed to have another older brother whom my parents aborted two years before I was born was pretty uncomfortable.
The rest of us are unhappy about your parent's choice as well. ;)
I have no doubt about that. Your heart is blackened not just with typical jew greed, but also with hatred. :hmm:
You assume I
possess such an organ. Other than in a jar somewhere. :D
Quote from: Malthus on August 17, 2011, 10:10:22 AM
You assume I possess such an organ. Other than in a jar somewhere. :D
Granted, given you're a jew
and a lawyer it
was a bit presumptuous of me. I apologize. :blush:
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 09:43:41 AM
Take responsibility for your failures instead of lashing out at me, you tit.
You being a disappointment to your parents is hardly my failure.
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 08:16:48 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 03:22:14 PM
When do you tell the kid, anyway? Over dinner after soccer practice? "Pass the lasagna--hey, this looks like your brother!"
Learning a few years back that I was supposed to have another older brother whom my parents aborted two years before I was born was pretty uncomfortable.
i can kind of beat that. i had a older brother who was still born (like a week or so before term). Given that i have my fathers name i've known since a young age that i basically have my dead brothers name.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2011, 08:34:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 11:23:22 AM
I used to do so, and I was pretty obligated to oppose abortion. If you don't, as I now don't, then the obvious outcome is that abortion is fine for any reason or no reason.
Disappointing. Not only because you no longer agree with me, but it makes the overall tenor of your beliefs much more conventional.
That's not quite true. Few leftists are as pro-war as I am.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 07:14:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2011, 08:34:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 11:23:22 AM
I used to do so, and I was pretty obligated to oppose abortion. If you don't, as I now don't, then the obvious outcome is that abortion is fine for any reason or no reason.
Disappointing. Not only because you no longer agree with me, but it makes the overall tenor of your beliefs much more conventional.
That's not quite true. Few leftists are as pro-war as I am.
Hitchens.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 07:24:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 17, 2011, 07:14:12 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 16, 2011, 08:34:06 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 16, 2011, 11:23:22 AM
I used to do so, and I was pretty obligated to oppose abortion. If you don't, as I now don't, then the obvious outcome is that abortion is fine for any reason or no reason.
Disappointing. Not only because you no longer agree with me, but it makes the overall tenor of your beliefs much more conventional.
That's not quite true. Few leftists are as pro-war as I am.
Hitchens.
I didn't say none. And so far as I've seen, he's an excellent human being.
I said more conventional, not completely conventional. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 10:55:01 AM
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 09:43:41 AM
Take responsibility for your failures instead of lashing out at me, you tit.
You being a disappointment to your parents is hardly my failure.
"I know you are but what am I?" :lmfao:
My mother didn't leave me. :hmm:
Quote from: Slargos on August 17, 2011, 08:13:42 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 16, 2011, 10:24:41 AM
QuoteUnder federal law, anyone who injures or kills a "child in utero" during a violent crime gets the same punishment as if he had injured or killed "the unborn child's mother,"
And that's just retarded. Killing a fetus (outside of a consensual abortion procedure) should carry a penalty, but equating it with a proper murder is simply wrong.
As with any discussion about morality, it's difficult to carry a conversation without first agreeing on definitions.
Certainly, an argument could probably be made that killing a fetus is not murder per se since the fetus hasn't lived enough to become a person any more than a fish or a plant. But then, we end up in the entire Potential argument, and that slope is pretty fucking slippery.
When looking at these types of issues I have a process, which starts by an initial assessment of my "gut feeling" and continues to examine the evidence before coming to a conclusion. Clearly, the gut is going to present a strong bias initially, and without burrowing deeper in this my gut is currently screaming "savages! :mad: ".
The concept of "removing" one twin simply doesn't feel right.
QuoteLearning a few years back that I was supposed to have another older brother whom my parents aborted two years before I was born was pretty uncomfortable.
Couldn't agree more.
It is a bit iffy. I don't see the problem on the surface of someone deciding this but...that would seriously screw with the kid who survived.
Not because of the spiritual link crap Marty mentioned but just the knowledge that you should have had a twin but they were aborted....Could fuck up some mother-kid relationships majorly.