http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1545 A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:08:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1545#comment-1120 Mark Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1545#comment-1120 " there are many rational arguments that favor the use of abortion. My personal favorite is that abortion provides a balance for women against the unfair advantage of men as regards the relationship between sex and reproduction. Men can always deposit their sperm and slink away, thus avoiding all responsibility and investment; women are stuck with the pregnancy and cannot slough the responsibility or investment in any way, except by getting an abortion."<br /><br />Wrong. They may put the child up for adoption so that a family wishing to raise children may do so. Casting aside a life because a night of concentual sex didn't turn out the way you wanted it to is not a reason for abortion. <br /><br />Go check the numbers. Too many American families are going abroad to adopt. Logic would dictate that if we stopped aborting and supported adoption this situation would change over night.
Wrong. They may put the child up for adoption so that a family wishing to raise children may do so. Casting aside a life because a night of concentual sex didn't turn out the way you wanted it to is not a reason for abortion.

Go check the numbers. Too many American families are going abroad to adopt. Logic would dictate that if we stopped aborting and supported adoption this situation would change over night.]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1545#comment-1121 steve Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1545#comment-1121 <i>You're also skipping over the main argument from that section of my post which is that enough people don't think abortion is irrational or pathological that they keep it from being criminalized without intense debate. You may be "disgusted and frightened," but lots of people are not.</i><br /><br />But isn't there a fundamental, nearly ubiquitous, irrationality regarding pregnancy in our society? When a woman announces she's pregnant, there is an assumed joy associated with it. (Otherwise, I s'pose she wouldn't announce it.) And consider the language we use: When's the baby due? Are you hoping for a boy or a girl? Happily pregnant women (and their committed SOs) always speak of the "baby" and (practically) never of the "zygote", "embryo", or "fetus." Obviously when a pregnancy is unwanted, different language might be used. We speak of the "pregnancy" and its "termination."<br /><br />So a fetus is bestowed "human rights" when the mother <i>feels</i> so? But, Theo, I'd think that you, more than most, would be repulsed by allowing such touchy-feely sentiment to determine justice in a given situation.<br /><br />So you're not upset that some folks find abortion "unethical based on logic (and other ballpark synonymns)." But you are upset when people try to force :olutions despite a lack of social consensus?<br /><br />First, are you saying that logic always leads to a broad social consensus? Is a broad diversity of opinion is <i>always</i> indicative of a lack of logic on the part of one or more parties?<br /><br />Second, and this has been asked before, what amount of consensus is necessary for a "majority" for force "their own solution" into law against the wishes (and possibly freedoms) of the "minority"?<br /><br />Cheers! You're also skipping over the main argument from that section of my post which is that enough people don't think abortion is irrational or pathological that they keep it from being criminalized without intense debate. You may be "disgusted and frightened," but lots of people are not.

But isn't there a fundamental, nearly ubiquitous, irrationality regarding pregnancy in our society? When a woman announces she's pregnant, there is an assumed joy associated with it. (Otherwise, I s'pose she wouldn't announce it.) And consider the language we use: When's the baby due? Are you hoping for a boy or a girl? Happily pregnant women (and their committed SOs) always speak of the "baby" and (practically) never of the "zygote", "embryo", or "fetus." Obviously when a pregnancy is unwanted, different language might be used. We speak of the "pregnancy" and its "termination."

So a fetus is bestowed "human rights" when the mother feels so? But, Theo, I'd think that you, more than most, would be repulsed by allowing such touchy-feely sentiment to determine justice in a given situation.

So you're not upset that some folks find abortion "unethical based on logic (and other ballpark synonymns)." But you are upset when people try to force :olutions despite a lack of social consensus?

First, are you saying that logic always leads to a broad social consensus? Is a broad diversity of opinion is always indicative of a lack of logic on the part of one or more parties?

Second, and this has been asked before, what amount of consensus is necessary for a "majority" for force "their own solution" into law against the wishes (and possibly freedoms) of the "minority"?

Cheers!]]> http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1545#comment-1122 theomorph Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1545#comment-1122 I have said it elsewhere, but I'll say it again: I don't think abortion is a good substitute for birth control or personal responsibility. But I don't think that means it should be illegal, either.<br /><br />You're also skipping over the main argument from that section of my post which is that enough people <em>don't</em> think abortion is irrational or pathological that they keep it from being criminalized without intense debate. You may be "disgusted and frightened," but lots of people are not.<br /><br /><em>"Yet babies in the womb can be discarded without consequence. Why is that? . . . That is a philosophical and biological question that need not involve religion."</em><br /><br />It doesn't really matter what the question need or need not involve. You can't just brush away the disagreement by simply claiming that your side is right. I'm not "upset [that] some folks find abortion immoral and/or unethical based on logical, philosophical, and irreligious reasoning." I'm upset that some folks want to "solve" a problem without a solution of social consensus by forcing their own solution into law.
You're also skipping over the main argument from that section of my post which is that enough people don't think abortion is irrational or pathological that they keep it from being criminalized without intense debate. You may be "disgusted and frightened," but lots of people are not.

"Yet babies in the womb can be discarded without consequence. Why is that? . . . That is a philosophical and biological question that need not involve religion."

It doesn't really matter what the question need or need not involve. You can't just brush away the disagreement by simply claiming that your side is right. I'm not "upset [that] some folks find abortion immoral and/or unethical based on logical, philosophical, and irreligious reasoning." I'm upset that some folks want to "solve" a problem without a solution of social consensus by forcing their own solution into law.]]>