Woman dies in Ireland for want of an abortion

[Bottle]

Punish poor people for fucking...nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea!

If they're poor they probably shouldn't be fucking, but working to improve their situation.

I know, right? How dare they engage in leisure activities, or have relationships, when they should be working?!

[Esternial]

You do not seem to be reading any of my posts.
When me and my wife decided that even if the baby was "imperfect" we would keep it, we did not make a rule for everybody to follow. Okay?
It was a matter of OUR FEELINGS.
Our choice?
This choice, however, WAS informed by our feelings about the future conditions for the child, it's potential ..
I'm sorry if you so deeply embedded in the polemic that you cannot imagine yourself in that situation.
The potential of things IS relevant.
It IS a potential human being.
You ought not to be led to argue false things just to win an argument?

p.s. I am pro-choice and an atheist
You seem to have misunderstood my posts on some fundamental level.
I am NOT defending a pro-life position.
I am showing you, in the interests of truth and justice, the nature of the best pro-life argument ...
And I think we have come a deeper understanding of how to handle that argument? -- and how not to?
Yes?

No, because there are so much of them.

I'm saying that you work with the data you have at the moment you make your decision, and not make assumptions that it might turn out otherwise. I guess our opinion somewhat align. Where did I mention you made a rule for everybody to follow? I actually said that there SHOULDN'T be any laws to determine people's choices. You went with your feeling, that's okey, and I'm assuming you based them on the results at that time. Sure, the possibilities are always relevant, but comparing them to science is in no way possible, because the consequences are more severe.

And stop throwing assumptions at me. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to pass on my opinion. But if that's what's on your mind, then I'll concede and let you 'win'

Yay, you won. Cheers. Happy now?

[Grimlundt]

Do you know about fuzzy logic and probabilities?
Potential is not fixed and certain because it deals with future conditions.
You promoting a false duality: we either know everything or nothing.
LOL

Also, along with the liberal tradition (e.g. Locke), Kant's deontology is the ultimate philosophical groundwork of human rights.
Are you sure you want to dismiss it so blithely?
Especially since you are dumping utilitarianism and really don't care about avoiding acts that are likely to result in human suffering -- that would involve prediction

No I'm saying we often don't know enough to make an informed decision. We cannot determine what a child will do in it's long life so there's no reason to consider it.


I say again, the Categorical Imperative is bullshit and falls apart under the slightest test. Kant himself said he wouldn't lie to a murderer who asked him where to find more people to murder.

Utilitarianism is great, usually. If you legitimately believed in pure Utilitarianism you would rob banks and give the money to charity, you would become an organ donor and kill yourself, you would live in a box so you could give all of your money to the little children of Africa.

Re: We do not know enough. I think we sometimes do. As in the case of this irish woman.
Re: Kant falls apart.

Let's take the case of lying.
Can you will it that somebody ought to lie all the time?
No.
because if you did, you would be lying.
You have misunderstood Kant.
Now, Kant tried to make logic the basis of ethics?
He ultimately failed in many ways.
Similarly, utilitarianism results in some absurd equations?
But, for all their imperfections, we need both of these systems, imho.
They are better used as rules of thumb or some kind of ad hoc "test" than as a set of hard and fast rules?

p.s. What you might have asked me was:
Do you think it would be more "all right" to have aborted the Hitler embryo than the Beethoven embryo?

[Zweite Alaje]

If they're poor they probably shouldn't be fucking, but working to improve their situation.

I know, right? How dare they engage in leisure activities, or have relationships, when they should be working?!

If you're in a bad situation you haven't time for "leisure". Not to mention if you're broke you shouldn't be taking risky chances like having sex which causes having children. Of course though, then the couples want to bitch and complain about being pregnant and want abortions to cure their irresponsiblity.

[Grimlundt]

You do not seem to be reading any of my posts.
When me and my wife decided that even if the baby was "imperfect" we would keep it, we did not make a rule for everybody to follow. Okay?
It was a matter of OUR FEELINGS.
Our choice?
This choice, however, WAS informed by our feelings about the future conditions for the child, it's potential ..
I'm sorry if you so deeply embedded in the polemic that you cannot imagine yourself in that situation.
The potential of things IS relevant.
It IS a potential human being.
You ought not to be led to argue false things just to win an argument?

p.s. I am pro-choice and an atheist
You seem to have misunderstood my posts on some fundamental level.
I am NOT defending a pro-life position.
I am showing you, in the interests of truth and justice, the nature of the best pro-life argument ...
And I think we have come a deeper understanding of how to handle that argument? -- and how not to?
Yes?

No, because there are so much of them.

I'm saying that you work with the data you have at the moment you make your decision, and not make assumptions that it might turn out otherwise. I guess our opinion somewhat align. Where did I mention you made a rule for everybody to follow? I actually said that there SHOULDN'T be any laws to determine people's choices. You went with your feeling, that's okey, and I'm assuming you based them on the results at that time. Sure, the possibilities are always relevant, but comparing them to science is in no way possible, because the consequences are more severe.

And stop throwing assumptions at me. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to pass on my opinion. But if that's what's on your mind, then I'll concede and let you 'win'

Yay, you won. Cheers. Happy now?

I am sorry if I straw manned you ... that was never my intention. Please do correct me if I do that.
And, no. Winning arguments does very little for me, personally.
And as you say, we actually agree on most points, so I did not win the argument, we merely came to a deeper understanding of our mutual feelings and beliefs?

p.s. I will be off to work in a hour or so ... and not posting anthing
Yes. I have a lot to say.
I am 50 years old: I ought to have a lot to say

[New England and The Maritimes]

I know, right? How dare they engage in leisure activities, or have relationships, when they should be working?!

We you're in a bad situation you haven't time for "leisure". Not to mention if you're broke you shouldn't be taking risky chances like having sex which causes having children. Of course though, then the couples want to bitch and complain about being pregnant and want abortions to cure their irresponsiblity.

This is the dumbest argument I've heard in a while. Very, very terrible job of presenting any real position. Seems like a bunch of noises meant to communicate the simple message of "Look at how controversial I am."

[Esternial]

No, because there are so much of them.

I'm saying that you work with the data you have at the moment you make your decision, and not make assumptions that it might turn out otherwise. I guess our opinion somewhat align. Where did I mention you made a rule for everybody to follow? I actually said that there SHOULDN'T be any laws to determine people's choices. You went with your feeling, that's okey, and I'm assuming you based them on the results at that time. Sure, the possibilities are always relevant, but comparing them to science is in no way possible, because the consequences are more severe.

And stop throwing assumptions at me. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to pass on my opinion. But if that's what's on your mind, then I'll concede and let you 'win'

Yay, you won. Cheers. Happy now?

I am sorry if I straw manned you ... that was never my intention. Please do correct me if I do that.
And, no. Winning arguments does very little for me, personally.
And as you say, we actually agree on most points, so I did not win the argument, we merely came to a deeper understanding of our mutual feelings and beliefs?

p.s. I will be off to work in a hour or so ... and not posting anthing
Yes. I have a lot to say.
I am 50 years old: I ought to have a lot to say

No problem, I was just feeling a little cornered.

I guess we did.

[Apollonesia]

Because having sex always results in the woman getting pregnant...

Should not chance it.

Once again, if they were not financially secure (or did not want a child at the time), they should not have engaged in sexual intercourse.

They should have abstained until they felt that they could support a child.

People should face the consequences of their actions. When they have to, if they can avoid or mitigate those consequences then they absolutely should.

Not at the expense of life.

[Mavorpen]

I know, right? How dare they engage in leisure activities, or have relationships, when they should be working?!

If you're in a bad situation you haven't time for "leisure". Not to mention if you're broke you shouldn't be taking risky chances like having sex which causes having children. Of course though, then the couples want to bitch and complain about being pregnant and want abortions to cure their irresponsiblity.

Let me get this straight. You hate capitalism, yet you use laissez-faire capitalistic philosophy to try to defend your "pro-choice" stance? That's pretty sad.

[Grimlundt]

I know, right? How dare they engage in leisure activities, or have relationships, when they should be working?!

If you're in a bad situation you haven't time for "leisure". Not to mention if you're broke you shouldn't be taking risky chances like having sex which causes having children. Of course though, then the couples want to bitch and complain about being pregnant and want abortions to cure their irresponsiblity.

Right ... people endure the guilt and shame of having had an abortion ... to make themselves feel better about their "irresponsibility" ...
So you think, the Boss ought to have the say (who is this Boss, the government? the plantation owner? God?)

[Des-Bal]

Re: We do not know enough. I think we sometimes do. As in the case of this irish woman.
Re: Kant falls apart.

Let's take the case of lying.
Can you will it that somebody ought to lie all the time?
No.
because if you did, you would be lying.
You have misunderstood Kant.
Now, Kant tried to make logic the basis of ethics?
He ultimately failed in many ways.
Similarly, utilitarianism results in some absurd equations?
But, for all their imperfections, we need both of these systems, imho.
They are better used as rules of thumb or some kind of ad hoc "test" than as a set of hard and fast rules?

p.s. What you might have asked me was:
Do you think it would be more "all right" to have aborted the Hitler embryo than the Beethoven embryo?

In the case of abortion we don't have the information necessary to determine the potential of a child, that is irrelevant because had the woman just been given the abortion she asked for she would have lived. The clear path is to permit abortions regardless of medical need.


I didn't misunderstand Kant, that wasn't hypothetical. Another Ethicist called Kant out on his bullshit by asking him if he should lie to a murderer asking where his friend was so he could murder him, Kant said that it would be immoral to lie.

You can't believe in the categorical imperative AND utilitarianism. The categorical imperative says only your actions matter, you should never consider consequences. Utilitarianism says that only the consequences matter. They are diametrically opposed.

[Des-Bal]

Not at the expense of life.

A fetus is no more alive and no more human than a skin cell.

[Dyakovo]

Because having sex always results in the woman getting pregnant...

Should not chance it.

Bullshit.

People should face the consequences of their actions. When they have to, if they can avoid or mitigate those consequences then they absolutely should.

Not at the expense of life.

No person loses their life, so I see no problem.

[Samuraikoku]

Should not chance it.

Contraception. Reduces the chance greatly. Your argument is invalid.

Not at the expense of life.

A fetus cannot live without its host.

[EnragedMaldivians]

Punish poor people for fucking...nothing could possibly go wrong with this idea!

If they're poor they probably shouldn't be fucking, but working to improve their situation.

They did. My mother became a banker after she finished her economics degree (that was after the abortion) and my father served as a senior diplomat representing my country to yours. They had me, and later my sister, when they were secure enough, and gave us both a comfortable life and access to a good education. If my mom hadn't had been able to have an abortion when she did, whatever poor schmuck that would have been born in....errr, "my(?)" place would probably have had a pretty poor upbringing with nowhere near the opportunities that me and my sister had access to, especially in terms of education.

Awkward as it is to discuss my parents' sex life....it seems the availability of contraceptives AND abortion can allow a couple to enjoy a healthy sex life without having to worry about an unwanted child putting a dampener on their plans. Works just as well as abstinence....except with more sex.

[Martean]

So...

A fetus is a person which has all rights, his life ought to be preserved even at expenses of the mother but, when he is born, he can't vote, he can't own a house and, if he's an inmigrant, not even social security.

[Zweite Alaje]

We you're in a bad situation you haven't time for "leisure". Not to mention if you're broke you shouldn't be taking risky chances like having sex which causes having children. Of course though, then the couples want to bitch and complain about being pregnant and want abortions to cure their irresponsiblity.

This is the dumbest argument I've heard in a while. Very, very terrible job of presenting any real position. Seems like a bunch of noises meant to communicate the simple message of "Look at how controversial I am."

Typical of pro-choicers and liberals, if it doesn't agree with the Liberal agenda, it can't be an actual opinion it has to be a joke.

How is it dumb? I'm saying that people who can't afford to have certain things shouldn't risk getting them, it's like a guy buying a car that stretches his budget to the brink. People should avoid actions that comprimise their financial integrity, it's the smart and responsible thing to do, especially if it involves the lives of others.

If you broke bastards are brave enough to fuck when they know they're penniless, than they should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. If a pregnancy results from their intercourse than they should be obliged to bring it into this world.

[Samuraikoku]

Typical of pro-choicers and liberals, if it doesn't agree with the Liberal agenda, it can't be an actual opinion it has to be a joke.

How is it dumb? I'm saying that people who can't afford to have certain things shouldn't risk getting them, it's like a guy buying a car that stretches his budget to the brink. People should avoid actions that comprimise their financial integrity, it's the smart and responsible thing to do, especially if it involves the lives of others.

If you broke bastards are brave enough to fuck when they know they're penniless, than they should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. If a pregnancy results from their intercourse than they should be obliged to bring it into this world.

Tilting at the windmills again, I see.

[Mavorpen]

If you broke bastards are brave enough to fuck when they know they're penniless, than they should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. If a pregnancy results from their intercourse than they should be obliged to bring it into this world.

So if I can't afford health insurance, I should live with the consequences of someone hitting me with their car, and I do not deserve medical attention.

[EnragedMaldivians]

This is the dumbest argument I've heard in a while. Very, very terrible job of presenting any real position. Seems like a bunch of noises meant to communicate the simple message of "Look at how controversial I am."

Typical of pro-choicers and liberals, if it doesn't agree with the Liberal agenda, it can't be an actual opinion it has to be a joke.

How is it dumb? I'm saying that people who can't afford to have certain things shouldn't risk getting them, it's like a guy buying a car that stretches his budget to the brink. People should avoid actions that comprimise their financial integrity, it's the smart and responsible thing to do, especially if it involves the lives of others.

If you broke bastards are brave enough to fuck when they know they're penniless, than they should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. If a pregnancy results from their intercourse than they should be obliged to bring it into this world.

And if they did, we must do everything to ensure that they suffer the negative consequences for it, right? And preventing them from having easy access to options that would mitigate or better their situation. Brilliant.

[Zweite Alaje]

If you're in a bad situation you haven't time for "leisure". Not to mention if you're broke you shouldn't be taking risky chances like having sex which causes having children. Of course though, then the couples want to bitch and complain about being pregnant and want abortions to cure their irresponsiblity.

Let me get this straight. You hate capitalism, yet you use laissez-faire capitalistic philosophy to try to defend your "pro-choice" stance? That's pretty sad.

WUT?!?!

Please explain what my economic preferences has to do with this.

[Dyakovo]

This is the dumbest argument I've heard in a while. Very, very terrible job of presenting any real position. Seems like a bunch of noises meant to communicate the simple message of "Look at how controversial I am."

Typical of pro-choicers and liberals, if it doesn't agree with the Liberal agenda, it can't be an actual opinion it has to be a joke.

How is it dumb? I'm saying that people who can't afford to have certain things shouldn't risk getting them, it's like a guy buying a car that stretches his budget to the brink. People should avoid actions that comprimise their financial integrity, it's the smart and responsible thing to do, especially if it involves the lives of others.

If you broke bastards are brave enough to fuck when they know they're penniless, than they should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. If a pregnancy results from their intercourse than they should be obliged to bring it into this world.

Ho-hum...
Standard attempt at slut-shaming.
I give you 1/10.

[Des-Bal]

Typical of pro-choicers and liberals, if it doesn't agree with the Liberal agenda, it can't be an actual opinion it has to be a joke.

How is it dumb? I'm saying that people who can't afford to have certain things shouldn't risk getting them, it's like a guy buying a car that stretches his budget to the brink. People should avoid actions that comprimise their financial integrity, it's the smart and responsible thing to do, especially if it involves the lives of others.

If you broke bastards are brave enough to fuck when they know they're penniless, than they should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. If a pregnancy results from their intercourse than they should be obliged to bring it into this world.

Like how if your brave enough to drive you're required to not wear a seatbelt and remove the airbags from your car.

[Grimlundt]

Re: We do not know enough. I think we sometimes do. As in the case of this irish woman.
Re: Kant falls apart.

Let's take the case of lying.
Can you will it that somebody ought to lie all the time?
No.
because if you did, you would be lying.
You have misunderstood Kant.
Now, Kant tried to make logic the basis of ethics?
He ultimately failed in many ways.
Similarly, utilitarianism results in some absurd equations?
But, for all their imperfections, we need both of these systems, imho.
They are better used as rules of thumb or some kind of ad hoc "test" than as a set of hard and fast rules?

p.s. What you might have asked me was:
Do you think it would be more "all right" to have aborted the Hitler embryo than the Beethoven embryo?

In the case of abortion we don't have the information necessary to determine the potential of a child, that is irrelevant because had the woman just been given the abortion she asked for she would have lived. The clear path is to permit abortions regardless of medical need.

Well ...what if the embryo had a major problem that would make it suffer over a short life?
We can predict such things?

I didn't misunderstand Kant, that wasn't hypothetical. Another Ethicist called Kant out on his bullshit by asking him if he should lie to a murderer asking where his friend was so he could murder him, Kant said that it would be immoral to lie.

What Kant ought to have said and probably did was that lying is sometimes the lesser of two evils.

You can't believe in the categorical imperative AND utilitarianism. The categorical imperative says only your actions matter, you should never consider consequences. Utilitarianism says that only the consequences matter. They are diametrically opposed.

That's right. They contradict in some cases.
That's often problematic.
I have never felt that either system were really adequate.
They are just the best systems we have as yet.
And I think the principles of benevolence (utility) and respect (rights) are fundamental to future ethics we might develop if we can get past this current impasse?

[Samuraikoku]

If you broke bastards are brave enough to fuck when they know they're penniless, than they should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions. If a pregnancy results from their intercourse than they should be obliged to bring it into this world.

Rape. Failed contraception. Your argument is invalid.