By your definition we can "abort" any child up to around 2 years-old! When an infant looks in the mirror he/she thinks he/she is seeing another baby, not themselves. When they see a photo of themselves they just think it is another baby. Babies don't have self awareness until around 2 and a half to 3. Your definition of abortion is waaayyyy liberal!
We know young children don't have the ability to 'model' the world, or recognize things which are models of other things - e.g., toy chairs (really small chairs). If you give sufficiently young children a room of chairs, and then remove all the chairs and put in toy chairs, they will try to sit in them. The toy chairs are no bigger than their heads so they're obviously missing something. They actually learn what models are.
There is also investigation being done into whether the self-concept is just a modelling of oneself as a thing in space - if you can model your arms and legs and your sensation of movement and all that as being one thing, you, your cognitive power has just increased. And the experience of agency is just another mystery in the investigation of qualia.
If you put these two together (please realize this is almost purely speculation), you get that, maybe, children do not have a self-concept only as a matter of degree. They have not sufficiently modelled themselves as a cohesive unit.
There is recent evidence that children are poor at recalling prior mental states in regard to something. That is if they took an attitude towards something, and you ask later (within a period of time that should easily permit recall at least for an adult) what their attitude was... they will guess (they succeed at chance).
This set of experiments is where this speculation is coming from. There is of course continuing investigation of the proposal that the self is an illusion and self-experience is just like free will - it's there, but it is not all it's cracked up to be.
This surrounding frame is why I'm worried about using even self-awareness on this question.
@ Zasz234 Sure that 15-year-old can have an opinion, I just don't think it's near as informed of an opinion. Trust me, if you haven't held your own 2 minute old child you have a totally different look at children and abortion.
I really detest this argument. This could simply be the imprinting of fatherhood. The father sees a newborn in a maternal presence, and he's smitten with the duty to protect both.
Now I know much less (i.e. none) about this process. But it's so complete I have to believe there's a nativism to it. And so saying what you do is no validation at all of the new father's opinion - it may even cast doubt on its rationality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Epic banner by Erasmus of æтђєг.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
Assuming the act of abortion is murder, i know you said 'if', but it is important to define the base before you elaborate on it.
No, assuming nothing. If abortion is murder, then it's wrong for anyone to do it. If abortion isn't murder (or, to be complete, some other criminal act), then it's wrong to disallow it. I meant what I said: there's no room for subjectivism.
I really detest this argument. This could simply be the imprinting of fatherhood. The father sees a newborn in a maternal presence, and he's smitten with the duty to protect both.
Now I know much less (i.e. none) about this process. But it's so complete I have to believe there's a nativism to it. And so saying what you do is no validation at all of the new father's opinion - it may even cast doubt on its rationality.
We've had this discussion before: rationality not only permits, but actually requires, a nonrational goal. A father is rational insofar as he goes about his biological duty in the way best expected to succeed.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think that the only pepole who should have an opinion on this issue are the ones born with a ****** and overies.
Seriously, I may like abortion, I may hate abortion, but if I'll never in my life actually have an abortion, it's not my issue.
Sense it is not my issue, I vasilate from voting for it, so as if a woman is faced with the decision, she can decide for herself without the government intervening, and obstaining from voting at all about it, becuase I think that's what every male should do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause!
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw: SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
I think that the only pepole who should have an opinion on this issue are the ones born with a ****** and overies.
Seriously, I may like abortion, I may hate abortion, but if I'll never in my life actually have an abortion, it's not my issue.
Sense it is not my issue, I vasilate from voting for it, so as if a woman is faced with the decision, she can decide for herself without the government intervening, and obstaining from voting at all about it, becuase I think that's what every male should do.
What an absurd, yet common, position. I really don't know how anyone could ever justify it.
No, assuming nothing. If abortion is murder, then it's wrong for anyone to do it. If abortion isn't murder (or, to be complete, some other criminal act), then it's wrong to disallow it. I meant what I said: there's no room for subjectivism.
I'm sorry to say this, but murder isn't always wrong.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I think that the only pepole who should have an opinion on this issue are the ones born under a star or swastika.
Seriously, I may like the holocaust, I may hate the holocaust, but if I'll never in my life actually be involved in a holocaust, it's not my issue.
Sense it is not my issue, I vasilate from voting for it, so as if a german is faced with the decision, (s)he can decide for herself without the government intervening, and obstaining from voting at all about it, becuase I think that's what every non-german/non-jew should do.
How beastly... oh, wait, DA never said that. Warning for misquoting (see forum rules), upgraded to an infraction for insinuating that he's a Nazi.
I see something about unlawful, but unlawful doesn't equal wrong. If the murder on a single person could save dozens, is it wrong to do so? If one man has some contagious, deadly disease, would it be wrong to kill him for greater good? If the child has some disease that can kill both of them, is it wrong to 'murder' the child?
I don't believe that abortion is murder though.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
We have laboured long to build a heaven, only to find it populated with horrors.
I'm sorry to say this, but murder isn't always wrong.
I am going to get a lot of backlash because of this but I have to agree with you. In the US alone we kill people all the time it is called the death penalty. But these are people who have done something so wrong and so horrendous that they no longer deserve to live. But to kill an unborn child can not be morally justified no matter how you look at it. Just because it would be an inconvenience to the parent to raise a child.
I am going to get a lot of backlash because of this but I have to agree with you. In the US alone we kill people all the time it is called the death penalty. But these are people who have done something so wrong and so horrendous that they no longer deserve to live. But to kill an unborn child can not be morally justified no matter how you look at it. Just because it would be an inconvenience to the parent to raise a child.
If you've really raised a kid you should know that it's a great deal more than an inconvenience. You're free to hate abortions. Nobody's forcing your spouse to get one. Abortions aren't a pleasant thing, but don't deny them to women who aren't psychologically or financially capable of raising a child based on your personal convictions.
i think im well suited to answere your deabte question:
to vote on this you have to live it...
i did... well not me but the G/F i had at the time did it...
ok the child would have been a mistake... but the girl is now in an azylium (or however you type that word) and im missing the chil i should have...
the only reason for it to be legal is this:
rape...
if your old enough to have sex your suposed to be old enough to have childs...
i might seem strict but its my thought...
its not a murder... the child is not here yet... but its still way too big for our puny litle minds... i am now 23 (almost 24) and that event occured when i was 17 the girl was 15 and i still regret the disition...
so : with the exeption of rape and incest (and other related things) abortion should be illigal...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
thanx to High Lights Studios and Zaphod for the banner
wanna trade? im here to trade
this is my friend daveLL list
hurray for wiki
by the way its not a lime... its an oroblanco
DONT HAVE PERMANENT ACCÈS TO THE NET...
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause!
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw: SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
Murder means killing unjustly[x], where X is a value reference. Murder is wrong by definition -- murder means wrongful killing.
If I kill you, it was not necessarily murder. It was murder only if it wasn't justified. Justification, of course, makes an appeal to a value reference.
How dare you misquote me on such an issue? You have alot of nerve.
That's not how I feel, and becuase you said what you did just to make me mad, I reported you for trolling. Have a nice day.
I think he said what he did to make a point, not necessarily to make you mad. I was going to do a similar thing, but with involvement in the Iraq War. The Holocaust was probably going too far.
What an absurd, yet common, position. I really don't know how anyone could ever justify it.
Becuase I don't think men have the right to tell women what they should do with thier bodies. If men could get pregnent, maby they could have a meaningful opinion about abortion. But as it stands, no person born a man will ever get pregnant. Therefore; it exseedingly presumtious for such a person to get involved in a debate that has nothing to do with them or potentially condemn a choice that they will never have to make. I don't have to face the emotional, phyiscal or social ramifications of being an unwed mother, so venturing an opinion about what said potential unwed mother should do is rediculous as it is arrogant. It's worse then me telling somebody how to raise their children; it's just not appropriate.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am petitioning for the removal of mythic rarity. Sig this to join the cause!
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw: SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
Therefore; it exseedingly presumtious for such a person to get involved in a debate that has nothing to do with them or potentially condemn a choice that they will never have to make.
Why? I think what you're saying merely sounds like an argument. I don't actually think there's one there. "Men have no right to evaluate action X because men will never be in a position to potentially perform action X" seems like a blatant non sequitur -- in other words, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
I don't have to face the emotional, phyiscal or social ramifications of being an unwed mother, so venturing an opinion about what said potential unwed mother should do is rediculous as it is arrogant. It's worse then me telling somebody how to raise their children; it's just not appropriate.
Certainly you can tell someone not to kill their children, though you may never have any of your own?
Becuase I don't think men have the right to tell women what they should do with thier bodies. If men could get pregnent, maby they could have a meaningful opinion about abortion. But as it stands, no person born a man will ever get pregnant. Therefore; it exseedingly presumtious for such a person to get involved in a debate that has nothing to do with them or potentially condemn a choice that they will never have to make. I don't have to face the emotional, phyiscal or social ramifications of being an unwed mother, so venturing an opinion about what said potential unwed mother should do is rediculous as it is arrogant. It's worse then me telling somebody how to raise their children; it's just not appropriate.
Unless it's something genuinely wrong, which is what all these people with their Nazi analogies and whatnot are trying to get at.
I see something about unlawful, but unlawful doesn't equal wrong. If the murder on a single person could save dozens, is it wrong to do so? If one man has some contagious, deadly disease, would it be wrong to kill him for greater good? If the child has some disease that can kill both of them, is it wrong to 'murder' the child?
I don't believe that abortion is murder though.
Sigh, I hate it when people say this.
You only know that killing a person will save other lives in hindsight. You never know that beforehand, unless it is immediately. In which case that is called self-defense.
You cannot reasonably assume that killing Hitler back in 1920 would have saved lives because we only knew that Hitler was a mass-murderer after 1930-40ish. In the 1920's, he was nothing.
In the case of both the baby and the mother dying: it obviously fits in the category of "if the mother in endangered in anyway" which abortion would then be allowed.
Becuase I don't think men have the right to tell women what they should do with thier bodies. If men could get pregnent, maby they could have a meaningful opinion about abortion. But as it stands, no person born a man will ever get pregnant. Therefore; it exseedingly presumtious for such a person to get involved in a debate that has nothing to do with them or potentially condemn a choice that they will never have to make. I don't have to face the emotional, phyiscal or social ramifications of being an unwed mother, so venturing an opinion about what said potential unwed mother should do is rediculous as it is arrogant. It's worse then me telling somebody how to raise their children; it's just not appropriate.
I'd say men have a say, because they have to pay the mother.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[thread=52196][Alliance of Rogue Deckers!][/thread][My Cube List]
Becuase I don't think men have the right to tell women what they should do with thier bodies. If men could get pregnent, maby they could have a meaningful opinion about abortion. But as it stands, no person born a man will ever get pregnant. Therefore; it exseedingly presumtious for such a person to get involved in a debate that has nothing to do with them or potentially condemn a choice that they will never have to make. I don't have to face the emotional, phyiscal or social ramifications of being an unwed mother, so venturing an opinion about what said potential unwed mother should do is rediculous as it is arrogant. It's worse then me telling somebody how to raise their children; it's just not appropriate.
No, assuming nothing. If abortion is murder, then it's wrong for anyone to do it. If abortion isn't murder (or, to be complete, some other criminal act), then it's wrong to disallow it. I meant what I said: there's no room for subjectivism.
But that is the whole point, what defines 'murder' in the context of this debate is what it is about. The reason why there is a debate on this matter in the first place is based on defining if it is murder.
I do agree with you, and if it is 'murder', then it should not happen. If it is not, then there is no problem. But you have to define what is murder here first.
msun: Knives scoop ice cream.
Highroller: No they don't, knives don't scoop. Spoons scoop.
msun: Well, knives SHOULD scoop icecream.
Highroller: We have spoons that do it. Moreover, the shape of a knife that would scoop ice cream would make it horrible for performing the functions of a knife.
msun: Highroller, you bring up spoons as though they were the utensil used for scooping ice cream.
But that is the whole point, what defines 'murder' in the context of this debate is what it is about. The reason why there is a debate on this matter in the first place is based on defining if it is murder.
Yes, that is the point. I was describing the moral scope of the debate, not taking a side.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I really detest this argument. This could simply be the imprinting of fatherhood. The father sees a newborn in a maternal presence, and he's smitten with the duty to protect both.
Now I know much less (i.e. none) about this process. But it's so complete I have to believe there's a nativism to it. And so saying what you do is no validation at all of the new father's opinion - it may even cast doubt on its rationality.
I knew you would say this. The reason for how a parent feels is unimportant. What is important is that you can feel it about your child after they are born but you can treat it like a lump of "parasitic" goo up until that moment. That to me is an argument I detest. Even if it's just the instinct to keep the species going why should I only feel it after my child is born? Why should I not do everything in my power to protect my offspring while they are still in the womb? The reason means nothing, the feeling is the important aspect.
I knew you would say this. The reason for how a parent feels is unimportant. What is important is that you can feel it about your child after they are born but you can treat it like a lump of "parasitic" goo up until that moment. That to me is an argument I detest. Even if it's just the instinct to keep the species going why should I only feel it after my child is born? Why should I not do everything in my power to protect my offspring while they are still in the womb? The reason means nothing, the feeling is the important aspect.
Would you say your argument relies upon this being universal? That is, does the fact that I know some parents who didn't feel this way, who wouldn't oppose abortion on these grounds, hurt your argument?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
[The Crafters] | [Johnnies United]
My anecdotal evidence disagrees with yours! EXPLAIN THAT!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We know young children don't have the ability to 'model' the world, or recognize things which are models of other things - e.g., toy chairs (really small chairs). If you give sufficiently young children a room of chairs, and then remove all the chairs and put in toy chairs, they will try to sit in them. The toy chairs are no bigger than their heads so they're obviously missing something. They actually learn what models are.
There is also investigation being done into whether the self-concept is just a modelling of oneself as a thing in space - if you can model your arms and legs and your sensation of movement and all that as being one thing, you, your cognitive power has just increased. And the experience of agency is just another mystery in the investigation of qualia.
If you put these two together (please realize this is almost purely speculation), you get that, maybe, children do not have a self-concept only as a matter of degree. They have not sufficiently modelled themselves as a cohesive unit.
There is recent evidence that children are poor at recalling prior mental states in regard to something. That is if they took an attitude towards something, and you ask later (within a period of time that should easily permit recall at least for an adult) what their attitude was... they will guess (they succeed at chance).
This set of experiments is where this speculation is coming from. There is of course continuing investigation of the proposal that the self is an illusion and self-experience is just like free will - it's there, but it is not all it's cracked up to be.
This surrounding frame is why I'm worried about using even self-awareness on this question.
I really detest this argument. This could simply be the imprinting of fatherhood. The father sees a newborn in a maternal presence, and he's smitten with the duty to protect both.
Now I know much less (i.e. none) about this process. But it's so complete I have to believe there's a nativism to it. And so saying what you do is no validation at all of the new father's opinion - it may even cast doubt on its rationality.
Awesome avatar provided by Krashbot @ [Epic Graphics].
No, assuming nothing. If abortion is murder, then it's wrong for anyone to do it. If abortion isn't murder (or, to be complete, some other criminal act), then it's wrong to disallow it. I meant what I said: there's no room for subjectivism.
We've had this discussion before: rationality not only permits, but actually requires, a nonrational goal. A father is rational insofar as he goes about his biological duty in the way best expected to succeed.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Seriously, I may like abortion, I may hate abortion, but if I'll never in my life actually have an abortion, it's not my issue.
Sense it is not my issue, I vasilate from voting for it, so as if a woman is faced with the decision, she can decide for herself without the government intervening, and obstaining from voting at all about it, becuase I think that's what every male should do.
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:
SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
What an absurd, yet common, position. I really don't know how anyone could ever justify it.
I'm sorry to say this, but murder isn't always wrong.
How beastly... oh, wait, DA never said that. Warning for misquoting (see forum rules), upgraded to an infraction for insinuating that he's a Nazi.
edit:
How do you figure?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
I see something about unlawful, but unlawful doesn't equal wrong. If the murder on a single person could save dozens, is it wrong to do so? If one man has some contagious, deadly disease, would it be wrong to kill him for greater good? If the child has some disease that can kill both of them, is it wrong to 'murder' the child?
I don't believe that abortion is murder though.
I am going to get a lot of backlash because of this but I have to agree with you. In the US alone we kill people all the time it is called the death penalty. But these are people who have done something so wrong and so horrendous that they no longer deserve to live. But to kill an unborn child can not be morally justified no matter how you look at it. Just because it would be an inconvenience to the parent to raise a child.
If you've really raised a kid you should know that it's a great deal more than an inconvenience. You're free to hate abortions. Nobody's forcing your spouse to get one. Abortions aren't a pleasant thing, but don't deny them to women who aren't psychologically or financially capable of raising a child based on your personal convictions.
to vote on this you have to live it...
i did... well not me but the G/F i had at the time did it...
ok the child would have been a mistake... but the girl is now in an azylium (or however you type that word) and im missing the chil i should have...
the only reason for it to be legal is this:
rape...
if your old enough to have sex your suposed to be old enough to have childs...
i might seem strict but its my thought...
its not a murder... the child is not here yet... but its still way too big for our puny litle minds... i am now 23 (almost 24) and that event occured when i was 17 the girl was 15 and i still regret the disition...
so : with the exeption of rape and incest (and other related things) abortion should be illigal...
thanx to High Lights Studios and Zaphod for the banner
wanna trade?
im here to trade
this is my friend daveLL list
hurray for wiki
by the way its not a lime... its an oroblanco
DONT HAVE PERMANENT ACCÈS TO THE NET...
How dare you misquote me on such an issue? You have alot of nerve.
That's not how I feel, and becuase you said what you did just to make me mad, I reported you for trolling. Have a nice day.
Yes, you did report him for trolling, but then you posted about it. Warning for backseat moderating.
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:
SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
If I kill you, it was not necessarily murder. It was murder only if it wasn't justified. Justification, of course, makes an appeal to a value reference.
I think he said what he did to make a point, not necessarily to make you mad. I was going to do a similar thing, but with involvement in the Iraq War. The Holocaust was probably going too far.
The man helped with the planting, but did not water or tend to the plant for 9 month. Does he still have a say?
Most countries don't let women abort that late.
Becuase I don't think men have the right to tell women what they should do with thier bodies. If men could get pregnent, maby they could have a meaningful opinion about abortion. But as it stands, no person born a man will ever get pregnant. Therefore; it exseedingly presumtious for such a person to get involved in a debate that has nothing to do with them or potentially condemn a choice that they will never have to make. I don't have to face the emotional, phyiscal or social ramifications of being an unwed mother, so venturing an opinion about what said potential unwed mother should do is rediculous as it is arrogant. It's worse then me telling somebody how to raise their children; it's just not appropriate.
Famliy Guy Emperor Says,
"Something, something something, DARK SIDE!
Something, something, something COMPLETE!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHiUitciuJ8
:symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw::symrw:
SPIKE GAYMER: not just a beatdown, a beatdown sung to the tune of "I Feel Pretty"!
Why? I think what you're saying merely sounds like an argument. I don't actually think there's one there. "Men have no right to evaluate action X because men will never be in a position to potentially perform action X" seems like a blatant non sequitur -- in other words, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
Certainly you can tell someone not to kill their children, though you may never have any of your own?
Unless it's something genuinely wrong, which is what all these people with their Nazi analogies and whatnot are trying to get at.
On this board, it's advisable to be a little more explicit when you're being sarcastic. A simple works well.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sigh, I hate it when people say this.
You only know that killing a person will save other lives in hindsight. You never know that beforehand, unless it is immediately. In which case that is called self-defense.
You cannot reasonably assume that killing Hitler back in 1920 would have saved lives because we only knew that Hitler was a mass-murderer after 1930-40ish. In the 1920's, he was nothing.
In the case of both the baby and the mother dying: it obviously fits in the category of "if the mother in endangered in anyway" which abortion would then be allowed.
I'd say men have a say, because they have to pay the mother.
And you don't see at all how this applies to the situation I posted in my last post? You're saying "<Some group of people> shouldn't care about because they're not involved." You don't see how putting "Males" and "abortion" has the same kind of rediculousness as "American" and "the holocaust"?
edit: And btw, your asserting that women have babies and men don't and therefore they should be the ones to make the decision is a very good example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
But that is the whole point, what defines 'murder' in the context of this debate is what it is about. The reason why there is a debate on this matter in the first place is based on defining if it is murder.
I do agree with you, and if it is 'murder', then it should not happen. If it is not, then there is no problem. But you have to define what is murder here first.
Yes, that is the point. I was describing the moral scope of the debate, not taking a side.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I knew you would say this. The reason for how a parent feels is unimportant. What is important is that you can feel it about your child after they are born but you can treat it like a lump of "parasitic" goo up until that moment. That to me is an argument I detest. Even if it's just the instinct to keep the species going why should I only feel it after my child is born? Why should I not do everything in my power to protect my offspring while they are still in the womb? The reason means nothing, the feeling is the important aspect.