 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:21 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| sofyst wrote: | I don't necessarily think consumerism is, but would agree with you that materialism is Satan  .
|
Consumerism in the way I mean it is strongly related to materialism. By consumerism, I mean an economic model which is based on overconsumption.
| sofyst wrote: |
I agree likewise that America is far too materialistic.
|
Not just America; all first-world countries are infected. America is just the typical example brought up. Do you think Canadians are much less materialistic?
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | The nice thing about Mammonism is that it is compatible with pretty much all religions (except for maybe Buddhism, which explicitly rejects it). It is even compatible with atheism. |
Be careful my friend. From the way you stated this, one could interpret you as placing atheism within the religion category.
  |
Which is why I worded things so carefully... I guess I should have said,
"...It is even compatible with atheism, which is not a religion." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | Not just America; all first-world countries are infected. America is just the typical example brought up. Do you think Canadians are much less materialistic? |
I don't think of Canada much at all. I think that is more y'all's fault than anything. Canada is so quiet and out of...EVERYTHING. They don't normally get involved in world affairs nor produce anything or anyone noticeable. It is like their is nothing really above America besides snow and freezing cold weather. I don't know if this is Canada's fault entirely (them just not getting involved) or if it is America's fault for hogging all the attention (perhaps it is both).
I hope you don't take this as hateful or anything. I think it is a very good observation that would be hard to argue with. Canada is just so quiet and uninvolved in most things that I don't think most people could comment on its policies or the way people behave (such as if they are materialistic or not).
| Quote: | Which is why I worded things so carefully... Wink I guess I should have said,
"...It is even compatible with atheism, which is not a religion." |
But you didn't...MUAHAHAHA....I am recording that post and storing it for future reference against you...MUAHAHAHAHA!!!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
I hope you don't take this as hateful or anything. I think it is a very good observation that would be hard to argue with. Canada is just so quiet and uninvolved in most things that I don't think most people could comment on its policies or the way people behave (such as if they are materialistic or not).
|
By most people, I presume you mean Americans. Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a testament to the ignorance of the average American to anything outside of your borders. Apparently, some huge percentage of Americans can't even point to Canada on an unmarked map!
I assure you that Canada plays a very important role in the world, and an even more important role towards the United States. For one, we are your biggest trading partner. Secondly, we are (and always have been) one of your most important military allies. Thirdly, we have traditionally played a vital role in the U.N. and Nato. Fourthly, we are the source of virtually all of the hockey players in the NHL.
We're one of the world's most important industrialized countries! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | sofyst wrote: |
I hope you don't take this as hateful or anything. I think it is a very good observation that would be hard to argue with. Canada is just so quiet and uninvolved in most things that I don't think most people could comment on its policies or the way people behave (such as if they are materialistic or not).
|
By most people, I presume you mean Americans. Unfortunately, this is nothing more than a testament to the ignorance of the average American to anything outside of your borders. Apparently, some huge percentage of Americans can't even point to Canada on an unmarked map!
I assure you that Canada plays a very important role in the world, and an even more important role towards the United States. For one, we are your biggest trading partner. Secondly, we are (and always have been) one of your most important military allies. Thirdly, we have traditionally played a vital role in the U.N. and Nato. Fourthly, we are the source of virtually all of the hockey players in the NHL.
We're one of the world's most important industrialized countries! |
Do you talk with a Canadian accent? You say 'aye' don't you?!?!?!
Ok, let us wrap up this discussion on abortion. We have gotten somewhat sidetracked.
I think we would both agree that the Bible does not give a clear cut definition of when a 'person' begins. No one is disagreeing that life begins at conception, but the overall and pressing question is whether this life is a life that should be protected under law, as other human life is, or whether this life is no different than perhaps a millipede's life. Yet, the Scripture is not necessarily quiet on the issue (as arguments can be made both ways), but it is not very decisive. It doesn't tell us a definitive answer.
Therefore, neither side of the Christian group can hold the Scripture up as a determining factor in this situation. A Christian cannot present the Bible as a witness claiming that life begins at conception, and therefore American laws should protect it based upon this moral standard. And neither can a Christian present the Bible as a witness claiming that life begins at birth, and therefore argue that the Bible does not condemn abortion; therefore neither should we.
A person cannot look to science for an answer either. For the question of whether a fetus is a person or not is not a scientific question, it is more a moral or ethical question.
The law does not give us a definitive answer either. For it is sometimes hypocritical in its stance (allowing abortion mostly, but charging a few people with homicide when they murder an unborn child).
Would you agree this is a summation of the conclusion that we have reached so far? Would you add anything or take anything away or change anything? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
Do you talk with a Canadian accent? You say 'aye' don't you?!?!?!
|
Canadian accent? I grew up on the West Coast, so you probably wouldn't be able to distinguish my voice from that of someone who grew up in, say, Seattle.
As fore saying 'eh', no I never use the word, and in fact, in my day to day interactions with thousands of Canadians, it is hardly ever said.
Another big one is the American misperception that we say 'a-boot', instead of 'about'. We really don't. In all of my years living in Canada, I've only heard someone say 'a-boot' once, and it wasn't even that obvious.
| sofyst wrote: |
Ok, let us wrap up this discussion on abortion. We have gotten somewhat sidetracked.
I think we would both agree that the Bible does not give a clear cut definition of when a 'person' begins. No one is disagreeing that life begins at conception, but the overall and pressing question is whether this life is a life that should be protected under law, as other human life is, or whether this life is no different than perhaps a millipede's life. Yet, the Scripture is not necessarily quiet on the issue (as arguments can be made both ways), but it is not very decisive. It doesn't tell us a definitive answer.
Therefore, neither side of the Christian group can hold the Scripture up as a determining factor in this situation. A Christian cannot present the Bible as a witness claiming that life begins at conception, and therefore American laws should protect it based upon this moral standard. And neither can a Christian present the Bible as a witness claiming that life begins at birth, and therefore argue that the Bible does not condemn abortion; therefore neither should we.
A person cannot look to science for an answer either. For the question of whether a fetus is a person or not is not a scientific question, it is more a moral or ethical question.
The law does not give us a definitive answer either. For it is sometimes hypocritical in its stance (allowing abortion mostly, but charging a few people with homicide when they murder an unborn child).
Would you agree this is a summation of the conclusion that we have reached so far? Would you add anything or take anything away or change anything? |
Yes, you've written a pretty good summary.
The only place where I would add anything is with the law: Did we actually find a case where someone was charged with murder for killing an unborn child? If this is so, then I agree that in a technical sense, the law is being hypocritical, but in all practical terms, it really does allow abortions, so I would argue that the law is pretty clearly on the side of fetuses not being people.
In any case, I think that our conversation is just getting to be interesting. If we can't look to scripture or science or the law for the answer on what to believe, then where should we look?
You already know my view, and it's basically a mathematical one: I argue that killing fetuses is bad (after all, I'm very happy that my mother decided to have me!), but that the alternative is even worse. I argue that when you weigh all of the pros and all of the cons, the abortion pros outweigh the abortion cons.
In other words, I'm not saying that one side is 'right' and one side is 'wrong'. So far with the Bible and science and the law, that's how we've been framing the argument: we're looking for a slam dunk objective, clear answer.
This being a complicated issue, we're not going to get a slam dunk, so that's not how I frame the argument. I see it as being a 'lesser of two evils' issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The only place where I would add anything is with the law: Did we actually find a case where someone was charged with murder for killing an unborn child? If this is so, then I agree that in a technical sense, the law is being hypocritical, but in all practical terms, it really does allow abortions, so I would argue that the law is pretty clearly on the side of fetuses not being people. |
There is the case of Scot Peterson, and one other found here: http://www.courttv.com/news/2003/0326/fetalhomicide_ctv.html
But even though the law does allow abortions (at an abortionist clinic), it does not always allow the killing of fetuses (as is seen in these two cases). So no, in a practical sense the law is not pretty clearly on the side of fetuses not being people. You can say it is pretty clearly on the side of fetuses being permitted to be killed by abortion doctors, and this I would agree. But you cannot argue that it is clearly on the side of fetuses not being people, as it clearly shows that it does not always regard them not as people (in the two situations at least).
| Quote: | | You already know my view, and it's basically a mathematical one: I argue that killing fetuses is bad (after all, I'm very happy that my mother decided to have me!), but that the alternative is even worse. I argue that when you weigh all of the pros and all of the cons, the abortion pros outweigh the abortion cons. |
I would agree that it may be a 'lesser of two evils' situation. However, I am having difficulty understanding how we can resolve this given that the weighing of the pros and the cons would be a subjective matter.
You would say that the overpopulation of the world is a greater evil than the killing of the fetus. Therefore you would permit the killing of the fetus to keep the greater evil from happening.
I would claim that the individual is greater than the whole, therefore not allowing for the fetus to be killed.
Understand then how we are discussing ethics and pretty subjective areas? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
You would say that the overpopulation of the world is a greater evil than the killing of the fetus. Therefore you would permit the killing of the fetus to keep the greater evil from happening.
|
It's a lot more complicated than that. That's only part of the argument. The wishes of the mother (who is an individual) are also of great importance.
The "I want an abortion so I can stay in school and get a proper career and then have a baby later when I can afford it." argument carries a lot of weight with me.
The "I'm not ready to be a parent." argument also carries a lot of weight.
The "I can't afford a baby and don't want him growing up in poverty." argument is another one.
The "I'm a prostitute addicted to drugs." argument is another one.
There are plenty more involving rape, incest, and all sorts of other scenarios. There are probably tons of reasonable arguments that I've never even thought of before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | It's a lot more complicated than that. That's only part of the argument. The wishes of the mother (who is an individual) are also of great importance. |
Very well...let us address each of these (hopefully we won't get too bogged down).
This claim says that a mother's value is more than a child's. Wouldn't you agree?
The reason that the wishes of the slave's to not be slaves was not considered, and only the wishes of the slaveowner's was, was because the value of a slave was considered less than the value of the slaveowner (afterall, didn't a slave only have like a third of a vote?)
Am I incorrect on this assumption?
| Quote: | | The "I want an abortion so I can stay in school and get a proper career and then have a baby later when I can afford it." argument carries a lot of weight with me. |
Same applies here.
| Quote: | | The "I'm not ready to be a parent." argument also carries a lot of weight. |
Here as well, although this is somewhat similar to the prostitute one, I'll hold off for a second.
| Quote: | The "I can't afford a baby and don't want him growing up in poverty." argument is another one.
The "I'm a prostitute addicted to drugs." argument is another one. |
These two are similar to the one above (why the heck I couldn't lump them all together in one quote is beyond me!). But I think that this doesn't so much speak about the woman, mother, having more value than the child, but rather of the well being of the child being in question. It is putting more value upon the child's life that is in a good situation, than upon one that is not.
It is claiming that the life of a child that is born to poverty, or to surroundings of prostitution and drugs or to an immature parent is of less value than the life of a child that is born to a good situation (for lack of a better word).
Wouldn't you agree?
But doesn't this lead us down a bad road (I almost said slippery slope)? For wouldn't we then start to value the lives of all children? Wouldn't we say that the life of the child in Africa, surrounded by prostitution and aids, is of less value than the life of the child born in a rich family in New York? Wouldn't we then say that the taking of the African baby would be considered permissible, whereas the taking of the baby in New York would not be?
Why or why not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
This claim says that a mother's value is more than a child's. Wouldn't you agree?
|
Replace the word 'child' with 'fetus', and then I'll agree.
| sofyst wrote: |
The reason that the wishes of the slave's to not be slaves was not considered, and only the wishes of the slaveowner's was, was because the value of a slave was considered less than the value of the slaveowner (afterall, didn't a slave only have like a third of a vote?)
Am I incorrect on this assumption?
|
I don't think slaves had ANY vote at all!
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | The "I want an abortion so I can stay in school and get a proper career and then have a baby later when I can afford it." argument carries a lot of weight with me. |
Same applies here.
|
I'm unclear on what you're saying here... I've never heard the argument "I want to have a slave so I can stay in school, and get a proper career and then I'll free my slave later when I can afford it."
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | The "I'm not ready to be a parent." argument also carries a lot of weight. |
Here as well, although this is somewhat similar to the prostitute one, I'll hold off for a second.
|
I've also never heard the argument, "I'm not ready to be a non-slave owner."
| sofyst wrote: |
These two are similar to the one above (why the heck I couldn't lump them all together in one quote is beyond me!). But I think that this doesn't so much speak about the woman, mother, having more value than the child, but rather of the well being of the child being in question. It is putting more value upon the child's life that is in a good situation, than upon one that is not.
|
Sort of. In one scenario, the mother's life is better, A child's life is better and a different child does not exist, and society is better off. In the other scenario, the mother's life is worse, A child's life is worse and a different child does not exist, and society is worse off... To me it's transparently clear which scenario we should favor.
| sofyst wrote: |
It is claiming that the life of a child that is born to poverty, or to surroundings of prostitution and drugs or to an immature parent is of less value than the life of a child that is born to a good situation (for lack of a better word).
|
I don't look at it in that way at all. I try to look at the big picture, and weigh all the pros and all the cons of both scenarios.
Besides, if a woman DOESN'T have an abortion, it means that a different child at some point in the future will not exist. In a very real sense, whether or not a woman has an abortion, the result ends up being the same: it costs the life of a human who would otherwise have been born.
| sofyst wrote: |
But doesn't this lead us down a bad road (I almost said slippery slope)? For wouldn't we then start to value the lives of all children? Wouldn't we say that the life of the child in Africa, surrounded by prostitution and aids, is of less value than the life of the child born in a rich family in New York? Wouldn't we then say that the taking of the African baby would be considered permissible, whereas the taking of the baby in New York would not be?
Why or why not? |
Every society on the planet since the dawn of civilization has considered the lives of people outside of the society to be worth less than the lives of the people inside the society, and America is no exception.
When some crazy hijackers killed 3000 Americans on Sept. 11th, the whole country (rightfully) became VERY upset. There have been PLENTY of examples of wars led by America over the past century in which Americans killed well over 3000 civilians, and virtually NOBODY in America was upset about it.
Here's a good example: in 1989 George H. W. Bush ordered the invasion of Panama. This resulted in the deaths of approximately 3000 Panamanian civilians. Were Americans NEARLY as upset about this as they were about Sept. 11th? The civilian death tolls were about the same, so the only explanation is that it's only bad when they're killing us. When we're killing them, then it's ok.
There are countless other examples. Right now, literally millions of Africans are dying of AIDS. Despite the fact that the civilian death toll is literally THOUSANDS of times higher, does the average American care nearly as much about AIDS in Africa is they do about Sept. 11th? No, clearly not.
But to get back to my point, abortion has been legal in America for something like 3 decades. During that time, the level of compassion for humans living outside of America's borders has INCREASED rather than decreased. So the evidence suggests that your scenario of people devaluing life just isn't happening; in fact, the opposite is happening. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 18, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Replace the word 'child' with 'fetus', and then I'll agree. |
Either/or, the same principle applies. You say tomato, I say tomato.
| Quote: | | I don't think slaves had ANY vote at all! |
Well I may be thinking after they were emancipated. At one time, a slave (or maybe it was women) only had like one-third vote.
| Quote: | | I'm unclear on what you're saying here... I've never heard the argument "I want to have a slave so I can stay in school, and get a proper career and then I'll free my slave later when I can afford it." |
I was not drawing the parallel between having a slave and having a fetus, but rather the idea of considering the slave a lesser human being, or at least of lesser value, than a white man. The same idea applies here in that having a proper career is of more value than a fetus being born into a child.
| Quote: | | Sort of. In one scenario, the mother's life is better, A child's life is better and a different child does not exist, and society is better off. In the other scenario, the mother's life is worse, A child's life is worse and a different child does not exist, and society is worse off... To me it's transparently clear which scenario we should favor. |
You are saying what I said. In one scenario, the mother's life is worse, and the child's life is worse. And in the other scenario the mother's life is better, and the child's life is better. You are claiming that the value of the child (and mother) in the worse case scenario is less than the value of the child (and mother) in the better case scenario.
If you drew the story to not hypothetical or theoretical, you could see what I'm talking about.
A child starving and malnutritioned in Africa is in a worse state than a child healthy and well-fed in America. You are claiming that the value of the child's life in Africa is less than the value of the child's life in America.
And you have spoken before of 'a different child does not exist'. Please explain this to me. It seems to me that you are saying that if we abort one fetus, that this allows for another human being to be born (which would remain only a potential human being, or cease to be a potential human being as it can no longer be born if the original fetus is allowed to live). But I think this is all speculative. Or it is merging too tightly the theoretical and the actual. Wouldn't you say?
Perhaps you should explain this thought more...
| Quote: | | Besides, if a woman DOESN'T have an abortion, it means that a different child at some point in the future will not exist. In a very real sense, whether or not a woman has an abortion, the result ends up being the same: it costs the life of a human who would otherwise have been born. |
Ok, here you explain the thought a little better, but I stand by my original assertion. You are dealing too greatly in the hypothetical and attempting to make arguments based upon it.
If a woman doesn't have an abortion, you cannot with certainty say that a different child at some point in the future will not exist. The reason you cannot is because you cannot speak for all that will transpire after the birth of the original child. It may be that regardless of whether the woman had an abortion or not, she would for some reason cease to be productive.
You cannot argue that a potential child will never be if an abortion is not had. You cannot do so because you do not know with certainty whether there is a potential child or not.
That is like arguing that I should not buy this car, because if I do, I will not be given the free car in the future that is only given away if you have not recently bought a new car.
| Quote: | | But to get back to my point, abortion has been legal in America for something like 3 decades. During that time, the level of compassion for humans living outside of America's borders has INCREASED rather than decreased. So the evidence suggests that your scenario of people devaluing life just isn't happening; in fact, the opposite is happening. |
But here there is a difference, I think. For within those three decades, there has also been the idea presented that a 'fetus' is not a human.
You and I however agree that it is. Your argument is not that we can kill the fetus because the fetus is not a human, but rather that we can kill the fetus, although it is wrong, because it is not the most wrong thing to do (I respect your argument more).
People however are taught that the fetus is not a human. Therefore, they are not going to consider abortion to be a less valuable human being killed for the sake of one with more value, but rather the sake of a more valuable human being given better happiness or well being at the cost of nothing really, just the extraction of extra tissue.
Understand? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: |
A child starving and malnutritioned in Africa is in a worse state than a child healthy and well-fed in America. You are claiming that the value of the child's life in Africa is less than the value of the child's life in America.
|
No, I'm not making a value judgment like that. What I'm saying is that if we have the power to bring about a world in which there are no children starving in Africa (resp. no poor children in America), then we should do so if all other things are equal.
| sofyst wrote: |
And you have spoken before of 'a different child does not exist'. Please explain this to me. It seems to me that you are saying that if we abort one fetus, that this allows for another human being to be born (which would remain only a potential human being, or cease to be a potential human being as it can no longer be born if the original fetus is allowed to live). But I think this is all speculative. Or it is merging too tightly the theoretical and the actual. Wouldn't you say?
Perhaps you should explain this thought more...
|
Sure. The average woman in America and Canada will give birth to something like 1.5 children in her lifetime. Women in our society have near-perfect control over their reproductive systems. Once the average woman has had one or two children, in our society she asserts that control and has no more. This means that every child which a woman has causes the non-existence of a different child later on. Giving birth to baby x means the non-existence of baby y. Aborting baby x means the existence of baby y. In either case, some child is being caused to not exist.
Or put another way: the average woman is going to have a fixed number of children (1 or 2) during her lifetime, and it's just a question of WHEN. That being said, I argue that she should have the 1 or 2 children when she can afford to properly support and raise them rather than the alternative of raising them in poverty.
Now, obviously this argument cannot be applied on the individual level. There are plenty of women who end up having 6 children. But when you look at the big picture of the entire country (and I think that's what we are doing here), then this argument perfectly captures the reality of the situation.
| sofyst wrote: |
But here there is a difference, I think. For within those three decades, there has also been the idea presented that a 'fetus' is not a human.
You and I however agree that it is. Your argument is not that we can kill the fetus because the fetus is not a human, but rather that we can kill the fetus, although it is wrong, because it is not the most wrong thing to do (I respect your argument more).
|
I should clarify that I don't consider a fetus to be a human; A fetus is the developing stages of a human. I think it differs from a fully-formed human in many fundamental respects. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | No, I'm not making a value judgment like that. What I'm saying is that if we have the power to bring about a world in which there are no children starving in Africa (resp. no poor children in America), then we should do so if all other things are equal. |
Why should we do so? Because it is better to not be poor than it is to be poor?
| Quote: | | Now, obviously this argument cannot be applied on the individual level. There are plenty of women who end up having 6 children. But when you look at the big picture of the entire country (and I think that's what we are doing here), then this argument perfectly captures the reality of the situation. |
You said rightly that it cannot be applied on the individual level, but that is exactly where it needs to be applied.
You said that the 'average' woman will give birth to 1 or 2 children, but that is the 'average', it is not the individual.
Therefore, if we consider the case of individual women, we cannot say that this particular woman having an abortion will necessarily keep another child from existing in the future. Can we?
| Quote: | | I should clarify that I don't consider a fetus to be a human; A fetus is the developing stages of a human. I think it differs from a fully-formed human in many fundamental respects. |
But an infant is not a 'fully-formed' human either, is it? It is still in the developing stages of a human as well, isn't it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | Quote: | | No, I'm not making a value judgment like that. What I'm saying is that if we have the power to bring about a world in which there are no children starving in Africa (resp. no poor children in America), then we should do so if all other things are equal. |
Why should we do so? Because it is better to not be poor than it is to be poor?
|
Because it's better for society for people to have secure jobs and income. If having a child costs a woman her education / security, then it's a bad deal. It's obvious that it makes more sense to have a child when you can afford it rather than when you can't. Having to drop out of school because of a pregnancy does SERIOUS damage to a woman's economic prospects.
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | Now, obviously this argument cannot be applied on the individual level. There are plenty of women who end up having 6 children. But when you look at the big picture of the entire country (and I think that's what we are doing here), then this argument perfectly captures the reality of the situation. |
You said rightly that it cannot be applied on the individual level, but that is exactly where it needs to be applied.
You said that the 'average' woman will give birth to 1 or 2 children, but that is the 'average', it is not the individual.
Therefore, if we consider the case of individual women, we cannot say that this particular woman having an abortion will necessarily keep another child from existing in the future. Can we?
|
Obviously not all the time, but most of the time, yes.
Most of the time when a woman has a child, it means that some child in the future will not exist.
In our society, women really only want a fixed number of children. For the average woman, if she has them early, then she won't want to have more later on.
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | I should clarify that I don't consider a fetus to be a human; A fetus is the developing stages of a human. I think it differs from a fully-formed human in many fundamental respects. |
But an infant is not a 'fully-formed' human either, is it? It is still in the developing stages of a human as well, isn't it? |
For that matter, neither is teenager who is still growing, but you have to draw the line somewhere. You can't really draw the line AFTER birth, because then a number of issues such as a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body no longer enter the equation and tip the scales. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sofyst
Tiger
Joined: 11 Dec 2006
Posts: 830
Location: Tejas
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Because it's better for society for people to have secure jobs and income. If having a child costs a woman her education / security, then it's a bad deal. It's obvious that it makes more sense to have a child when you can afford it rather than when you can't. Having to drop out of school because of a pregnancy does SERIOUS damage to a woman's economic prospects. |
I understand the societal aspect, but I am looking more into the personal aspect.
Are you claiming that the value of a woman's life that is educated and more secure is greater than the value of a fetus' life, if the taking of the fetus' life would secure the woman's better life? (I think that made sense.)
| Quote: | Obviously not all the time, but most of the time, yes.
Most of the time when a woman has a child, it means that some child in the future will not exist.
In our society, women really only want a fixed number of children. For the average woman, if she has them early, then she won't want to have more later on. |
I agree with you that this may happen most of the time, but my point is simply that it is not an objective statement. For the average woman, if she has a child early, then she won't want to have more later on. But we can't go entirely off of this. For we do not know what will transpire. It may very well be that she has children early, AND later suddenly decides she wants another.
And to be truthful, I haven't a clue as to what direction this line of thinking is taking us. Why we got on this particular venue anyway.
| Quote: | | For that matter, neither is teenager who is still growing, but you have to draw the line somewhere. You can't really draw the line AFTER birth, because then a number of issues such as a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body no longer enter the equation and tip the scales. |
Agreed agreed, but the point is still that a fetus (who is not yet a fully-formed human) is no different than a teenager (who is not yet a fully-formed human). Therefore, we cannot say that we do not consider a fetus to not be human based solely upon it not being fully-formed. For to do so would likewise put us within the situation of saying a teenager is not a human either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sofyst wrote: | | Quote: | | Because it's better for society for people to have secure jobs and income. If having a child costs a woman her education / security, then it's a bad deal. It's obvious that it makes more sense to have a child when you can afford it rather than when you can't. Having to drop out of school because of a pregnancy does SERIOUS damage to a woman's economic prospects. |
I understand the societal aspect, but I am looking more into the personal aspect.
Are you claiming that the value of a woman's life that is educated and more secure is greater than the value of a fetus' life, if the taking of the fetus' life would secure the woman's better life? (I think that made sense.)
|
I'm claiming that she can always have a different baby later, so if the choice is to have one now and not later or have one later and not now, then go with the choice that is better for society and the mother. The way I see it, we have two options which are identical except that in one of them, society as well as a mother and her child are worse off.
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | Obviously not all the time, but most of the time, yes.
Most of the time when a woman has a child, it means that some child in the future will not exist.
In our society, women really only want a fixed number of children. For the average woman, if she has them early, then she won't want to have more later on. |
I agree with you that this may happen most of the time, but my point is simply that it is not an objective statement. For the average woman, if she has a child early, then she won't want to have more later on. But we can't go entirely off of this. For we do not know what will transpire. It may very well be that she has children early, AND later suddenly decides she wants another.
And to be truthful, I haven't a clue as to what direction this line of thinking is taking us. Why we got on this particular venue anyway.
|
We're going down this path because I think it's a very important argument.
I am making what I consider to be a powerful argument in favor of abortion: that even if you DO consider it to be murder, it's a zero sum game in the sense that whether or not a woman decides to have an abortion, in either case she is 'killing' someone. If she has the abortion, then she is arguably killing a baby. And if she decides against the abortion and has the baby, then she is arguably killing the baby that she would have had later but now isn't going to have. In either case, the result is the same: a human being ends up not existing.
I am EXACTLY as happy that my mother did not abort me as I am that I was conceived. If either of those things had gone the other way, I would not exist.
Non-existence is the key issue here. Whether or not that is done by a surgical procedure or by contraception really doesn't matter to the person who ends up not existing.
| sofyst wrote: |
| Quote: | | For that matter, neither is teenager who is still growing, but you have to draw the line somewhere. You can't really draw the line AFTER birth, because then a number of issues such as a woman's right to choose what happens with her own body no longer enter the equation and tip the scales. |
Agreed agreed, but the point is still that a fetus (who is not yet a fully-formed human) is no different than a teenager (who is not yet a fully-formed human). Therefore, we cannot say that we do not consider a fetus to not be human based solely upon it not being fully-formed. For to do so would likewise put us within the situation of saying a teenager is not a human either. |
I agree that not being fully-formed is not a sufficient condition for labeling someone as a non-human. There are obviously other important differences between fetuses and teenagers. For one, fetuses (provided they aren't due in a couple of weeks) cannot survive outside of the mother's body alone. By contrast, babies, toddlers, children, and teenagers are all fully-functional, self-contained humans that don't need life support.
Then there are the issues of having a developed nervous system, having emotions, being able to feel pain, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
