pro life ; pro choice

[ShroomySatori]

I have been very interested in this topic lately as I can sense that I am going to find true love at some point of this now week long psychedelic journey of mine involving the Sacred Key 2C-C. I may already have in fact, I really can't tell the future. There was a lovely lady at the candle store and we connected almost instantly and had a really engaging conversation (I love candlelight, I am sitting in the darkness at the moment with a couple red and black ornamental candles lighting the room, otherwise in darkness)... and anyways I was joking around as I was on 2C-C but nobody can tell as I am more in touch with myself than ever before. Anyways, I complimented her dark crimson red hair just casually saying, your hair is neat by the way and she said Thanks! Kinda like yours. It is, she must have a real eye for detail as mine as a very subtle darker shade of crimson than hers. Before I walked away, for a fraction of a second she gave me the sexiest smile I have ever seen a beautiful woman give me in my life, she was at work and the flirting was very subtle.

Just went off on a tangent, I've been tripping for a week. It's a lovely time of my life as I am quite recently clean and really happy to be free from the devil.

I also had a chat with a cute young lady I am getting to know, who is highly intelligent, just plain different, and passionately pro life, and it got me thinking. I realized that I could never be with anyone who was pro choice, whether it was an accident or not. Whether it was the morning after, or 3 months later means no difference to me. I am very serious about this.

I totally fall for artsy type chicks with creative outlets that are a little different from mine which are more music, journal writing, a little poetry, english language and literature. I can't help but go off on tangents and this is all about attractive, creative women I have met recently anyway, and hope to meet more in the future until I find just the right fit.

I am wondering what the ratio of individuals with the differing viewpoints are. That would be interesting for me to find out about.

 

[Mysterie]

so were u pro-life before u talked to the chick that is?

i don't believe in the government making a law which criminalises women making a choice which affects them most.

its such a complicated topic though, if i was in a relationship and ever got a girl pregnant i would never support her aborting the fetus, but once again if thats what her mind was set on i obviously wouldn't be able to stop her.

 

[spacejunk]

I don't understand "pro-life" arguments at all.

 

[ShroomySatori]

I don't have an argument for it. It's a part of my own system of morals and values and what I feel is important.

I certainly believe that women should have the choice to do that. I personally want no part in it whatsoever though, and never will. I'd have to discuss this with the romancy cutie lady of my dreams before getting into a relationship with her, it is that important to me.

To me, I feel like personally it would be meant to be if it happened, and destroying what would become a human spirit with its very own existence to experience really seems tragic to me, to just stop the natural course of things like that.

I didn't really mean it from an argumentative or political perspective - was looking for other perspectives kinda - and maybe some information or data if there is any out there; and before chatting with this chick I met, and when I was on 2C-C, I had never really thought of it before. It is now a part of myself as much as the bones in my skeleton and my beating heart, and I could never change that decision I have made. It was a very serious discussion that got me thinking for hours while chatting with her (we sometimes talk on the phone for like, 8 hours straight it's crazy).

 

[spacejunk]

The human body "aborts" a large proportion of pregnancies, which is why i have no regrets about a girl i dated having an abortion. I'm incredibly grateful that she could, otherwise i'd be the father of some 9 (i think?) year old kid that nobody wanted, and a batshit crazy mother. I'm so glad it's not difficult to obtain an abortion here.

 

[zephyr]

I never thought in a million years I would have an unplanned pregnancy and really respected the privacy and choice of anyone who found themselves facing that choice.


I do a lot of weird things in my job and a lot of it is unpleasant but for patient care so I had to confirm that a pregnancy existed and doesnt any longer for patient care.

I had do scoop through blood and tissue and saw hundreds of tiny bodies that could have been born but were not.


So I was going to have an abortion as I honestly thought I couldnt raise a baby and I didnt want anyone to know I was pregnant.

Alas I worked at the health facility terminations were taken to so everyone would know anyway.


I had a scan and saw little peanut swimming around and just couldnt bear what I was going to do. The father said he wanted the baby and we could be together and it would be ok.

So I cancelled and had the baby.

Ended up alone as he left two weeks before the birth.


I havent gotten over that so remain single, I cant gave that type of betrayal happen again


Its very hard being a single parent and I love my daughter more than anything. I was happy without kids and it really chsnges everything being a parent.

All I have to say is dont have a staunch oponion about that and in particular towards people you dont know. Its their choice and its hard .

What makes it worse are the people who say they will help you and support you but they dont .

 

[ShroomySatori]

I am sorry you were betrayed, but your story was beautiful for me to read. I am happy you love your daughter more than anything. I find the choice you made admirable, very courageous, compassionate, selfless, and how it involves your profession makes it so fascinating to me too - this was really what I was looking for but didn't know what it would be when I started this thread.

Thank you for sharing, I really appreciated reading that. May the wind always be at your back and the sun upon your face; and may the wings of destiny carry you aloft to the stars : )
*******

 

[zephyr]

Id settle for a beer and never watching Frozen again but that will work too

 

[ShroomySatori]

I quit drinking years ago so I am dry, and I prefer watching films such as Inherent Vice; a masterpiece and work of art.

All I have are cute poetic quotes, and blessings for you and your daughter that you live a happy future together, and that she grows up to enjoy a peaceful life. With a mother with such powerful inner strengths and virtues I'm sure she will turn out just great. Yours was one of the most beautiful narratives I have ever read and I commend you for your choice.

Seven stars for good luck

* * * * * * *

 

[Vastness]

I like to play with a somewhat controversial viewpoint, that there may even be an argument for post-birth abortion. Why should the fact that a fetus has emerged from it's mother's womb suddenly, magically change it's status from that of a mere fetus to that of a small human being? The answer, in my view, is that it really doesn't, and that a baby in many ways is really not a human being.

In my view, pro-life arguments are without any sound logical basis. The idea that an amorphous sack of human cells without any well-defined brain to form the seat of sentience and consciousness should be afforded the same rights as an adult human being to me is ludicrous, even slightly offensive to the status of a human being as a brilliant, shining example of a thinking, recursively self aware, and highly sentient form of life. I don't really believe in any kind of immaterial soul that is magically generated or enters the body at conception, I am aware this kind of belief will no doubt muddy the waters. I am open to the idea of some kind of emergent property that could, in some sense, be considered a soul that eventually switches on, or gradually fades into being, at some point in the development of our central nervous system, brain, and frontal cortex, and then the accumulation of immaterial properties resulting from the input of external experiences. However this point at which the light of sentient life switches on, in my view, may well happen at some point AFTER birth.

Just to be clear, I'm not advocating rampant baby killing, and even if we could categorically demonstrate the point at which sentience begins, and state it to be at, say, 1 year old or something, I don't think this would be grounds on it's own to allow the aforementioned baby killing. Even apart from the obvious moral issues there may well be knock on effects on society as a whole which are not good... but I think it is an interesting idea to consider. I realise also that I am somewhat inverting a lot of the same arguments used by pro-lifers here, namely, why should it make a difference whether the baby has been born or not? Well, maybe it shouldn't... a newborn baby, if we remove all emotional attachment and cultural biases, is really not much further along than a fetus.

I recognise also there are issues with using sentience as a measure of when it is OK to kill something, I'm not saying either babies or fetuses should be exempt from any protection against unnecessary pain, and I won't claim to be sure really where the line is for any form of life... is artificially stimulating pain nerve cells in a laboratory setting morally wrong because we are, in some sense, inflicting pain on a living, if not sentient, thing? Probably not, I think, but there must be a line somewhere.

Anyway, getting back to the topic at hand... There are a whole host of reasons that a baby is not a real human being, but when it comes to our young, human beings are even less rational than usual. Obviously there are solid evolutionary reasons for this, so it's no surprise exactly, but it does mean that, in my view, almost all pro-life arguments are based in appeals to emotions and cultural norms, while being very light on actual rational justifications, which to me, is problematic. The amount of times I've heard someone wax poetically about how bright eyed and aware a very young baby is... well, I just think this is not definitely, but very likely, bullshit. A month old baby has no idea what the hell is going on. Equally, a gooey unborn fetus that is vaguely human-shaped but severely lacking some absolutely critical CNS development is not a human being either. It will come as no surprise to any of you I'm sure that most of the people I've talked to in real life about the possibility that post-birth abortion is not inherently morally wrong have not agreed. Just to clarify again, I'm not saying it's morally right, but the very fact that there are babies involved inhibits rational discussion.

There are a whole host of reasons why safe and easy access to abortions should be allowed, what about in cases of rape, what about when the child is at risk for a severe health problem which is going to affect their life, or what about something unplanned and unexpected and the parents are just unlikely to be able to cope, even with a pregnancy, let alone raising a child... Like it or not a baby is going to have a huge, huge effect on the life of at least one parent, but that parent is already a developed, adult human being, with hopes, dreams, and a life of their own that they might not wish to be immediately subverted forever by the chance conception of a potential child. I just don't believe there is any argument that can be made that makes logical sense that says the rights of this potential, almost-maybe-one-day human being should take precedence over the existing, already-a-human-being life of the parent.

My hope is that at some point when we have a clearer idea of what consciousness is, we will be able to give more definitive answers to when "life", as it relates to conception and birth, truly begins, but until then I think common sense dictates that birth is a sensible approximation. Obviously some people may disagree, and obviously I have no issue with people holding alternative viewpoints or trying to convince other people of the accuracy of their viewpoints, BUT I think any argument that abortion should not ALWAYS be AN OPTION, is just inherently morally wrong.

 

[Kittycat5]

Im staunchly pro-choice but life begins at birth. The matter of sentinence means nothing. I dont think you even believe your own thoughts that post-birth abortion is in any way a rational idea.

 

[drug_mentor]

In my view, pro-life arguments are without any sound logical basis. The idea that an amorphous sack of human cells without any well-defined brain to form the seat of sentience and consciousness should be afforded the same rights as an adult human being to me is ludicrous, even slightly offensive to the status of a human being as a brilliant, shining example of a thinking, recursively self aware, and highly sentient form of life. I don't really believe in any kind of immaterial soul that is magically generated or enters the body at conception, I am aware this kind of belief will no doubt muddy the waters. I am open to the idea of some kind of emergent property that could, in some sense, be considered a soul that eventually switches on, or gradually fades into being, at some point in the development of our central nervous system, brain, and frontal cortex, and then the accumulation of immaterial properties resulting from the input of external experiences. However this point at which the light of sentient life switches on, in my view, may well happen at some point AFTER birth.

(My emphasis.)

Who is saying that a foetus should be afforded the same rights as an adult human being? So far as I can tell, nobody is; and, it would be rather odd if they were. There are clearly many rights that are enjoyed by adult human beings which it is impossible to extend to a foetus, the right to vote is an example. Arguing against the view that a foetus should have the same rights as an adult human is therefore a straw man argument.

Why do you assume that "the light of sentient life" must switch on at some point after conception, let alone birth? It doesn't seem implausible (to me, anyway) to think that sperm and/or ova have some degree of sentience, after conception the level of sentience slowly increases, and this process continues (at least) until an adult human has developed. In fact, this assumption seems less metaphysically problematic to me than positing some 'emergent' property of sentience which just pops out of nowhere once an organism becomes sufficiently well developed.

I recognise also there are issues with using sentience as a measure of when it is OK to kill something

There certainly are serious moral consequences, it is difficult to see how your argument would not also extend to the severely mentally-handicapped, people currently in a coma, etc., and it is not clear that it is morally permissible to kill them.

Im staunchly pro-choice but life begins at birth. The matter of sentinence means nothing. I dont think you even believe your own thoughts that post-birth abortion is in any way a rational idea.

What do you mean that life begins at birth? How does one deny that a foetus is a living organism? What biologically respectable definition of life would exclude a foetus? I can't think of one that would even exclude sperm and ova.

 

[Vastness]

I would like to reply in more detail but am travelling at the moment, however just to address a few things, my apologies for the unintentional strawman, please substitute "the right to choose whether it lives or dies" for "the rights of an adult human". I don't think this dilutes my main point too much.

As for my sentience orientated arguments, I believe I used the wrong word, perhaps a better word would be sapience, ie, capable of higher reasoning and self reflection.

I know this still isn't the be all and end all with regards to the right to life, but I think it is relevant. We make executive decisions on behalf of animals like cats and dogs daily, ostensibly sometimes to prevent further suffering, but other times on the basis that the owner decides he or she cannot care for them, and even if they may not be sapient in the way that humans are, the minds of these aninals have developed to a point of self-contained, functioning self-sufficiency, whereas fetuses and babies have not. I'm not saying its morally OK to put down a dog because it's owner cannot look after it and there is no room in the dog pound or whatever, but is it morally more OK than killing a human baby? I'll have to come back to you on that and please forgive my lazy "I'm just asking questions!" approach to argument here, but, I think these 2 scenarios might be morally similar.


^^KittyCat5, you're right, I don't entirely believe that post-birth abortion is rationally justifiable, but I think it's an interesting question whether killing a "baby" minutes before the mother would have gone into labour, versus killing it minutes after birth, is really that different if we remove emotions and social and cultural conditioning from the equation. Most people would say there is a line there, and I would probably agree, but I think that line is hazier than many would like to admit.

 

[ShroomySatori]

Im staunchly pro-choice but life begins at birth. The matter of sentinence means nothing. I dont think you even believe your own thoughts that post-birth abortion is in any way a rational idea.

I agree with you completely. It's all about what the very beginning connection would turn into over time, aa a natural progression; how the human spirit is constantly evolving, and how that is being chosen essentially to be extinguished. I personally feel like it is an incredibly selfish act, and the only way that this would affect my life would be within my relationship dynamic.

I feel like I am pro choice for the general population, but my morals and values demand contention with a pro life relationship that has been discussed in advance. That is my personal way of life, so really to me pro choice must also include the choice to abstain from any type of extermination of conception whatsoever. It almost seems like the wording is closely intertwined with law and politics, and I just didn't see it that way. Right now, in my mind, the world is pro choice, as each of us can choose how we wish to go about things. I don't believe that anyone's choice should be restricted, but I want none of that. It would shatter my heart to pieces if it happened to me and she chose that option which I personally view as evil. Not to sound harsh, really not trying to judge. It's really how I see things and I can't help that.

I am have a background in physics, so I am also seeing this from a highly scientific standpoint. I have thought about this deeply and analytically, and to me it doesn't matter if it's an ionic bond between a couple of positively and negatively charged particles. I don't care how small things start, it's about what it has the potential to become. What if that person ended up changing the world in a wonderful way.

 

[zephyr]

Life begins before conception as sperm and egg are technically living .


I didnt feel any different at all and had 2 periods albeit v light ones so was stunned to see a well developed foetus 11 weeks 6 days on this ultrasound.

Little thing was grooving all over the place and I couldnt feel a thing.

Theres sometimes a disconnect between mum and kid so rheres denial and disbelief.

I was in denial when I went into labor so take note its not a logical problem, your entire life changes and have the judgement of strangers either choice so youre fucked either way.

No pregnant woman needs any bullshit from anyone no matter how well intended, its useless.


Just avoid the situation as best can and have redpect for your partner, if you deposit sperm in a cervix what do you thinks bound to happen?

 

[drug_mentor]

I would like to reply in more detail but am travelling at the moment, however just to address a few things, my apologies for the unintentional strawman, please substitute "the right to choose whether it lives or dies" for "the rights of an adult human". I don't think this dilutes my main point too much.

Respectfully, I think it dilutes your point a great deal. Before going on to say why, I would again like to point out that nobody is positing that a foetus should have a choice whether it lives or dies - how would we consult a foetus about its wishes? It seems clear that what is at issue here is whether a foetus has a right not to be intentionally killed by another human. Let us reexamine the point (from post #10):

The idea that an amorphous sack of human cells without any well-defined brain to form the seat of sentience and consciousness should be afforded the same rights as an adult human being to me is ludicrous, even slightly offensive to the status of a human being as a brilliant, shining example of a thinking, recursively self aware, and highly sentient form of life.

(My emphasis.)

If you accept that what is at issue here is whether a foetus has the right not to be intentionally killed by another human, then it is difficult to see how this point has any force whatsoever. Adult humans have tens, if not hundreds, of rights. How does talk of extending one of these rights to another organism undermine the adult human status as the pre-eminent cognizer on planet Earth? I don't see that it is plausible to suppose that it undermines this status in any way whatsoever, let alone serves as a cause for offense (as you so hyperbolically suggested).

I am curious, do you feel that extending the right not to be intentionally killed by another human to the severely mentally handicapped is an insult to the status of neurotypical adult humans? If not, why not? So far as I can see the situation is analogous with that of extending this right to a foetus.

I think it's an interesting question whether killing a "baby" minutes before the mother would have gone into labour, versus killing it minutes after birth, is really that different if we remove emotions and social and cultural conditioning from the equation. Most people would say there is a line there, and I would probably agree, but I think that line is hazier than many would like to admit.

I think there is a line there, and I actually think it's pretty simple to explain. The moral permissibility of abortion is not due to a foetus having some 'lesser' status than human beings, it is due to women's rights to bodily integrity. What I mean is, by undergoing pregnancy a woman undergoes significant physical changes, and has some risk of potentially life-threatening complications - nobody has the right to compel any woman to go through this, and no foetus has a valid claim to use and occupy its' mothers' body. Therefore, if a woman decides that she does not want to undergo these changes or undertake these risks, she has a right to take steps to avoid them, in this scenario that involves terminating the pregnancy. Now, once the child is born there is no longer any issue about the mother's bodily integrity, so, of course there is no justification for arbitrarily ending a babies life once it has been born.

 

[BehindtheShadow]

As an endometriosis sufferer and having suffered a miscarriage at 5 months pregnant I would not be able to make the choice to terminate a pregnancy as I so desperately long to have a child of my own.

But with that said I believe its a persons right to decide on what they want to do and its their body. Also if a person can offer a child a decent life, home etc so many factors involved when making this choice.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer just a matter of personal choice.

 

[pofacedhoe]

I never thought in a million years I would have an unplanned pregnancy and really respected the privacy and choice of anyone who found themselves facing that choice.


I do a lot of weird things in my job and a lot of it is unpleasant but for patient care so I had to confirm that a pregnancy existed and doesnt any longer for patient care.

I had do scoop through blood and tissue and saw hundreds of tiny bodies that could have been born but were not.


So I was going to have an abortion as I honestly thought I couldnt raise a baby and I didnt want anyone to know I was pregnant.

Alas I worked at the health facility terminations were taken to so everyone would know anyway.


I had a scan and saw little peanut swimming around and just couldnt bear what I was going to do. The father said he wanted the baby and we could be together and it would be ok.

So I cancelled and had the baby.

Ended up alone as he left two weeks before the birth.


I havent gotten over that so remain single, I cant gave that type of betrayal happen again


Its very hard being a single parent and I love my daughter more than anything. I was happy without kids and it really chsnges everything being a parent.

All I have to say is dont have a staunch oponion about that and in particular towards people you dont know. Its their choice and its hard .

What makes it worse are the people who say they will help you and support you but they dont .

wow this is some deep fucking shit man

the single parent malarkey is hard and a huge impact where your life is not your own.

this is why in these modern times having your family/social support network within walking/driving distance is so important.

 

[Kittycat5]

I should have made the distinction between biological life and human life. Of course a fetus is biologically alive but so are our skin cells of which we lose millions of all the time. Even the sex cells are "killed" via menstruation or masturbation. But once a fetus is born, I look at it like an upwardly ticking clock that starts at time zero. The human clock begins at birth.

 

[drug_mentor]

^ Do you hold that not all members of Homo Sapiens are humans, or that a foetus is not even a member of Homo Sapiens? Admittedly, this is outside my area of expertise, but I am fairly certain that a foetus, biologically speaking, does count as a member of Homo Sapiens; if this is correct then you seem committed to the view that the extension of the class of Homo Sapiens is not identical with the extension of the class of humans. This seems to me to be a very counter-intuitive view, and I wonder if you have any argument or evidence which you might deploy to motivate the thought that this view is actually plausible? Note that it would be ad hoc for you to appeal to your intuitions about the abortion case in order to justify such a conceptual distinction.

Also, are premature babies humans? If you say they are, then it seems you would essentially be saying that having passed through the birth canal is a sufficient condition for being human (so long as one has the requisite DNA, of course). It seems absurd, to me, to think that a 7 month old baby in the womb is not a human, but a 7 month old baby on life-support in hospital is a human. If all that makes us 'human' is to pass through a birth canal, or breathe air, or some other arbitrary criteria, then it is difficult to see why anyone should regard being human as special at all.