Abortion

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
I have to agree with Chaos on their criticism of preservation of life as a made up concept because I think that the need to survive (generally) is part of our DNA no?
That is really overthinking it, to me. We value life individually and as a society, it really doesn't have to go that far to get into the base concepts of our species. The preservation of life is a central tenet of literally every culture on Earth, it is the reason we have culture and society in the first place. The idea that this founding principle of basically all civilization is "made up " is just goddamn infuriating.
 

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,524
43,824
That is really overthinking it, to me. We value life individually and as a society, it really doesn't have to go that far to get into the base concepts of our species. The preservation of life is a central tenet of literally every culture on Earth, it is the reason we have culture and society in the first place. The idea that this founding principle of basically all civilization is "made up " is just goddamn infuriating.
Uhhh, no. Preservation of life is a modern convenience. That idea you are toying with in your head is the modern adaptation of the 'us' surviving at the cost of 'you'. Historically, almost all ancient cultures practiced violent and wanton genocide or at least bred away other societies wholesale. Not that I disagree with the idea of saving life all else being equal, but to say that civilization grew around some bullshit fantastical falsehood thatanyancient culture did not violently annihilate others is just ignorant. Well, OK, maybe some we don't know of did. They all died and we never heard about it, though. Point being you have to get pretty close to year zero (Christ having nothing to do with it, mostly just trade and slave labor dependence at that point) to even make that claim, and the human race is far older than that.
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
You're talking about actions taken against those outside of their culture. The idea of handing together and forming a group, the entire concept f a family unit, it is to protect and encourage life. It is the fundamental drive of our species, and this dude is acting like it is some shit the Christian right made up to legislate a woman's vagina.

God this argument has gotten beyond stupid and so far up its own ass. Trying to argue abortion as a moral imperative is just one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Access to abortion I could see, and agree with. But that is a very important distinction.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,949
82,685
You're talking about actions taken against those outside of their culture. The idea of handing together and forming a group, the entire concept f a family unit, it is to protect and encourage life. It is the fundamental drive of our species, and this dude is acting like it is some shit the Christian right made up to legislate a woman's vagina.

God this argument has gotten beyond stupid and so far up its own ass. Trying to argue abortion as a moral imperative is just one of the stupidest things I have ever read. Access to abortion I could see, and agree with. But that is a very important distinction.
Hey bro you fought the good fight. But when you're arguing against someone who thinks that preservation of life is a modern convenience and not the common trait in all evolutionarily successful life forms you can only do so much.
 

Xeldar

Silver Squire
1,546
133
We need to get back to the you're-not-a-person-until-you're-past-a-toddler-prevalent-definition-in-hunter-gatherer-societies-where-infant-mortality-is-highest. Fucking agriculture. Worst decisionever.
 

Chysamere

FF14 Free Company Master
<WoW Guild Officer>
3,500
3,222
No. Everything you believe in is wrong. There is nothing worse than death. People do give a shit about children once they are born. They do care about quality education and ethics and virtue, and believe in evolution, and that Zimmerman was an asshole (wat?). Abortions are not good for society. Access to abortion? Yes, but that is a different thing.
Nothing worse than death? You lack imagination, Chaos.

How about a girl child born in a Thailand brothel addicted to heroin, never let outside the house, and initiated into the sex trade when she's 5.
How about being kidnapped off the street while abroad and kept in a box for the rest of your life. You can guess what comes next.
How about being trapped in the dungeon of a sadist at age 20 who uses you for torture practice 16 hours a day?

a) The girl dies during a rape at age 8.
b) You slowly die from a mixture of malnutrition and disease while trapped in your lightless box.
c) You live to age 85, still being tortured every day.

In each of those cases death would be a mercy. I agree that you are trapped in a bubble.

It's quite easy to imagine scenarios which are worse than death. It's been done for centuries. We even have a saying for it... "A fate worse than death"
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
If you're tortured every day, then torture becomes the new norm. Every reprieve is a gift from Allah!

But no, I wouldn't agree really. Whatever you experience, that is your existence. To me, I would not want to die. Another might be in that situation and want to die. And that is his choice.

But if you read, it isn't these extremes that they were even talking about. The one dude got so broad as to include relying on government assistance. Others are talking about poverty. And poverty in America. Mind-bottling shit. The situations you mentioned are brutal, and you have people saying that just being on food stamps or having neglectful parents is basically the same, so abortions for all! It is silly.
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
The moral destinction between denying conscious existence to another being by aborting it and denying conscious existence to other beings by failing to reproduce seems arbitrary.

If you follow your line of reasoning to its conclusion you literally have a moral obligation to have as many children as possible.
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
I don't think that necessarily follows. Not everything is one extreme or the other, I don't think.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,949
82,685
I don't think that necessarily follows. Not everything is one extreme or the other, I don't think.
A moderate in a sea of extremists, floating on the bullshit created by the desire of others to stretch every idea to the extent of incredulity.
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
To me it illustrates the point that many of the anti-abortion arguments aren't logical, and are usually completely arbitrary. Why does it magically become wrong to deny conscious existence to another being after conception? Especially if you don't believe in souls and shit.
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,949
82,685
When did it magically become wrong to deny conscious existence to another being ever? Maybe it's not magic, maybe it's our ability to recognize the value in life? Maybe that life's existence isn't arbitrary.
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Not only is it not feasible, it is really a strawman. That isn't what's at issue, and it isn't the choice that is being decided when a person decides whether or not to have an abortion.
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
I don't see why it's a strawman. I thought the argument was that it's immoral to deny life to other beings, but in my eyes we all do it all the time. Why does it become wrong only after conception?
 

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,949
82,685
I don't know how much more explicit I can be about not respecting an argument that is simply taking a person's stance, extending it to absurdity and then arguing against the absurd creation.
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
I honestly don't think I'm extending it to the point of absurdity. I'm not trolling or trying to be a smartass. I'm basically asking why conception is the point at which it is no longer acceptable to deny another being a conscious existence. Why pick that point over any other point? It seems completely arbitrary to me, especially if you're not religious and don't believe in souls and shit.
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
How is it arbitrary? Prior to conception there is no existence, there is no being. After conception there is. That seems like a pretty stark line to me, I'm not even really sure how you get from there to you have to be drowning in babies or you aren't consistent. Not that I think consistency matters, that is kind of the whole point of this entire thing, humans aren't consistent and sometimes do morally repugnant shit. So it goes.
 

Sebudai

Ssraeszha Raider
12,022
22,504
The sperm exist. The egg exists. Why does it magically become a tragedy to deny a potential being life only after conception? A fertilized egg isn't conscious. it doesn't feel pain. It's simply one step closer in a multi-step process to becoming a conscious being. Why isthatthe point in the process where it's no longer okay to deny another being existence for the sake of our own quality of life?

Basically I don't see the moment of conception as a "stark line." I see it as just one point in a long process, and unless you believe in magic and souls I can't think of a logical reason to declare it the point where it's no longer okay to deny life for another being. I think that point does exist, but I definitely don't think it's at conception.
 

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Well, that is really odd, but you can believe whatever you want I guess. But it is a belief, not a fact. The fact is that conception creates a new being that doesn't exist before. It has nothing at all to do with souls or magic or whatever. To me, what you are saying is what seems arbitrary. There is a point, but not the actual point of the formation of a new entity? So we just pick based on what? Whatever we feel like using as criteria? To me it just belaboring the point and taking it to the extreme when it really doesn't fit.

I also never said that it isn't "ok", just that it is morally reprehensible.