Elective surgery is banned unless... it is for abortion

[Cooky]

I am just trying to understand how you came to conclude what is natural and unnatural in your view and now whether something less positive is automatically negative. Your view appears entirely based on subjective criteria that can easily be nullified by others for having different subjective criteria. I never was in the pro/con abortion debate. I am just curious how other people come to the conclusions they do.

Everything is natural because we all came from a warm underwater geyser some 3 billion years ago... So everything any living creature does is a product of nature.

...With that said, natural people disagree on things other natural people are doing... And over *time* we evolve our behavior as nearly unanimously as we can in a universal way, after refining our thoughts together collectively (interdependence)... The end result, is the *True Nature* of the human race.

Additionally, I think what tends to become the end result in the True Nature of humanity, is the most loving and positive end results possible. And this is done after refining our thoughts collectively as a group over time.

...And this is why I'm here today. To take part in this natural human disagreement, to help refine, and try to explain the big picture in my view.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I would like to ask @Evangelicalhumanist to be the spokesman for all aborted babies. Is it better to be aborted or adopted?

...Which of the two options would you have preferred for yourself?

Given I had no say in the matter at the time nor the ability and knowledge to understand, I cannot say what my opinion would have been other than non-existent. I was not aborted obviously. I have no direct knowledge of what my parents thought at the time. If I had been adopted, I was never up for adoption, I wouldn't have had a say as an infant either. I am glad to be alive.

I am more interested in your claims about natural and unnatural and positive and negative as the basis you consider in making your decisions. Subjective opinions do matter and have changed the world. I think you would consider subjective views to be positive and thus natural and objective views as negative and unnatural since the former probably adheres to your ambiguous standard of love more than the latter. Not that I agree with that. I am just applying your rules as I understand them to draw conclusions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My mistake. I thought you mentioned before that you lived in foster homes. Sorry.

Does living in a foster home count as adoption?

 

[Cooky]

Does living in a foster home count as adoption?

It's so close, just why not give me the benefit of the doubt out of good will and just help me where I fail.

...I know. It's easier to write off the question though. I get that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everything is natural because we all came from a warm underwater geyser some 3 billion years ago... So everything any living creature does is a product of nature.

...With that said, natural people disagree on things when other natural people are doing... And in *time* we evolve our behavior as nearly unanimously as we can in a universal way, after refining our thoughts together collectively... The end result, is the *True Nature* of the human race.

Additionally, I think what tends to become the end result in the true nature of humanity, is the most loving and positive results possible. And this is done after refining our thoughts collectively as a group over time.

Even with the day off, I haven't got time to dig deeply into this.

If all things are natural, including man made and man acted things, then abortion is natural under your original claim prior to your later adding the further stipulation of a requirement for love. Even if the source of the decision or outcome is negative. Think about that.

So whatever the group says is positive, natural and loving? Even during the period 1933 to 1945 in Europe?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's so close, just why not give me the benefit of the doubt out of good will and just help me where I fail.

I just asked a question.

 

[epronovost]

This coincides with my points about time earlier... When we do an abortion, an obvious negative for the fetus, out of convenience for us, how can we be sure that fetus wouldn't have wanted to live when it was old enough to consider it?

That's an irrelevant point. You cannot hurt a fetus' feelings or go against its will and desire; it doesn't have any. At this point, you are debatting with your own conscience not with another person.

 

[Cooky]

I just asked a question.

Then yes. Close enough. IMO.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's so close, just why not give me the benefit of the doubt out of good will and just help me where I fail.

...I know. It's easier to write off the question though. I get that.

I really would like to explore this more, but I do not want to be perceived as antagonistic to you. So let me just say that you have a different view and application process for natural and positive than I do. Perhaps when world returns to better times, we can bring it up again. I have no animosity towards you, but I can see my tenacious nature can seem like that. I actually read your posts frequently and consider you another voice worth listening to, even when I do not agree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then yes. Close enough. IMO.

Since it has little relevance to the discussion, we can leave it there.

Have a good day and stay healthy.

 

[Cooky]

I really would like to explore this more, but I do not want to be perceived as antagonistic to you. So let me just say that you have a different view and application process for natural and positive than I do. Perhaps when world returns to better times, we can bring it up again. I have no animosity towards you, but I can see my tenacious nature can seem like that. I actually read your posts frequently and consider you another voice worth listening to, even when I do not agree.

Thanks for your kindness. I'm sure you can understand the frustration of debating 4 or 5 people single-handedly at once.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks for your kindness. I'm sure you can understand the frustration of debating 4 or 5 people single-handedly at once.

I understand how difficult it is to debate one person with rapidly increasing numbers of post from that person amid other related and unrelated posts.

 

[ecco]

In my view, it's an intrusion on life by modern technologies. Something unnatural -so I have no interest in supporting it in any way. But that's just my opinion on the matter.

Likewise, I'm sure you are against special care and incubators for premature infants - right?

If it can't attach to a teat, let it die - right?

 

[epronovost]

Likewise, I'm sure you are against special care and incubators for premature infants - right?

If it can't attach to a teat, let it die - right?

From what I have gathered, it's not his point. He is trying to transform the "naturalistic fallacy". In his mind, from what I understood, "natural" equates to loving and "good" in general; a bit like if our nature was to flourish and love and thus that all that is good and loving is natural while all that is painful, "evil" or hateful is "unnatural". It doesn't have anything to do with technology or even what can be observed in the wild.

 

[Valjean]

It's not what I'm saying. It never was, and my posting history in this thread proves it. Go back and read again.

With time, slavery occurred naturally, from natural humans... Now slavery *over time* has been deemed unloving and negative, and so it is banned.

...Are you understanding yet?

I think you're using 'natural' more broadly than usual. It generally distinguishes something hard wired, neurologically, or physiologically based, as opposed to a cultural feature not intrinsic to the species.

 

[SomeRandom]

It is crucial to me as well. But what many people leave out of that "consent" aspect of the issue is that the parents consented to a choice well understood to be "where babies come from". "Penis in Vagina" sex is how procreation happens. If the mother doesn't have a choice it's a crime called rape. If she does, it's just potentially fertile sex.
There's lots of other kinds of sex. Nobody is required "abstinence". But abstaining from PiV sex is a 100% guaranteed, available, free from payment and side effects, form of birth control. Choosing not to use it is a choice.

Choosing to have PiV sex comes with responsibility. Unique responsibility, because pregnancy is a unique situation. All else being equal, PiV sex is about the only way for a couple of humans to involve another human, one who doesn't even exist at the time of the Choice much less give consent. One who is utterly dependent upon one particular human being for everything, for about 9 months.

There just isn't another comparable circumstance in the human situation. So none of the other moral guidelines quite fit. Oftentimes people compare pregnancy to a forced organ "donation". I don't see them as particularly comparable, unless the donor chose something resulting in the need for the organ and is the only possible donor. What I see as far more comparable is the "implied consent" of a motorist starting their car. If they hit a pedestrian, they owe that victim a ton. They aren't expected to personally get them to hospital, treat their injuries, or cover for them at work. Not because it isn't their responsibility, it is. But there are professionals who are far better able, all the motorist is expected to do is pay.
And pay.
And if it's inconvenient to pay, because you forgot to get insurance or something, society is going to seize your assets and garnish your paycheck and whatever for as long as it takes. Because you don't have a right to drive unless you're willing and able to take responsibility for the foreseeable outcomes. You cannot UnChoose the outcome of your choice because you didn't want it and it's inconvenient.

Same with sex. Nobody has a right to sex. But serious consequences of choosing it are very well known.
Tom

This is where we diverge, I’m afraid. I don’t equate consent to sex as the same as consent to pregnancy. Because I believe that bodily autonomy trumps all.

Where I live, the consenting age is 16. At that age you can’t even drive a car legally. But having sex? Whatever, teens be teens, I guess.
Informed consent for engaging in sex is not always the same as informed consent for a pregnancy. Especially when we’re dealing with hormonal teenagers. I mean as if they can emotionally grasp the full long term consequences of getting pregnant. And you know even when someone is in their early 20s, going to Uni (college) they might be having responsible sex with their partner. Or they might be having one night stands, I don’t know. People will do what people do. They might not be ready for a pregnancy. But you know, sexual release is also a way to maintain good health. And when you’re young and figuring out your limits, you might do some stupid things. I don’t feel it’s my place to force anyone to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of how it happened. Consenting or otherwise.

Sometimes an abortion is correct for the circumstances. Of course I’d prefer people waited or used other methods like condoms and morning after pills. But no one accused humans of being logical all the time. So I accept that reality will differ from my ideal scenarios.

I accept abortion as an option insofar as in our imperfect world, that might be the best choice for a person’s unique circumstances. More akin to a “necessary evil” than anything else.
It’s all very well to pontificate on personal responsibility and what have you. All very noble standards to hold people to. On some level I agree with you. People should take more responsibility for their actions, including sexual acts. But I just don’t agree with forcing a person to carry to term. For any reason. That’s my line in the sand, I guess.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My mistake. I thought you mentioned before that you lived in foster homes. Sorry.

Forty foster homes -- each and every one of which I hated -- is NOT even close to the same thing as being adopted. The Children's Aid paid them to board me -- more than my board actually cost, so that was good for them. But they never even thought of me as a member of their family.

You have no freaking conception of how awful that was. To this day, now I'm in my 70s, I hate going to other people's homes. I don't even visit my friends in their homes.

It's all too tidy, for you, isn't it? You have all the answers, without even bothering with some of the questions. Maybe you should think about those once in a while.

 

[ecco]

Abortion has been around since humans started thinking. It was even approved by the church up until "the quickening".

 

[Revoltingest]

Abortion has been around since humans started thinking. It was even approved by the church up until "the quickening".

Was that when one Pope beheaded all the other immortals?

 

[Regiomontanus]

This is where we diverge, I’m afraid. I don’t equate consent to sex as the same as consent to pregnancy. Because I believe that bodily autonomy trumps all.

Where I live, the consenting age is 16. At that age you can’t even drive a car legally. But having sex? Whatever, teens be teens, I guess.
Informed consent for engaging in sex is not always the same as informed consent for a pregnancy. Especially when we’re dealing with hormonal teenagers. I mean as if they can emotionally grasp the full long term consequences of getting pregnant. And you know even when someone is in their early 20s, going to Uni (college) they might be having responsible sex with their partner. Or they might be having one night stands, I don’t know. People will do what people do. They might not be ready for a pregnancy. But you know, sexual release is also a way to maintain good health. And when you’re young and figuring out your limits, you might do some stupid things. I don’t feel it’s my place to force anyone to carry a pregnancy to term, regardless of how it happened. Consenting or otherwise.

Sometimes an abortion is correct for the circumstances. Of course I’d prefer people waited or used other methods like condoms and morning after pills. But no one accused humans of being logical all the time. So I accept that reality will differ from my ideal scenarios.

I accept abortion as an option insofar as in our imperfect world, that might be the best choice for a person’s unique circumstances. More akin to a “necessary evil” than anything else.
It’s all very well to pontificate on personal responsibility and what have you. All very noble standards to hold people to. On some level I agree with you. People should take more responsibility for their actions, including sexual acts. But I just don’t agree with forcing a person to carry to term. For any reason. That’s my line in the sand, I guess.

This argument (abortion) is rather pointless, ultimately, because IMHO it boils down to whether one sees all human life as sacred, or whether one insists "that bodily autonomy trumps all".

Has anyone EVER changed an opponent's view on this issue? I doubt it! But have fun.