How do you react?

This news article stopped my reading of the daily news on Google and is making me think about what I believe.

I realize the mother has the right to sue the hospital, but should she? I remember when the law was being debated to stop doctors from killing a baby if it was born during the abortion process. I thought of the horrible life the child would have. It seems that this has happened.
The mother did not want the child. She did everything in her power to end the pregnancy, but because of a mistake (or two), she is now a mother. You can tell the child the truth because that would ruin any chance the child has for happiness. “I’m sorry but I didnt really want you and tried to have an abortion but the doctors fucked up and now Im stuck with you. Oh by the way you had a twin brother, but he was terminated.” This childs life will be amoung the worse. The mother did not want the child. I see situations where the mother yells at the child screaming “I didnt want you in the first place”. Maybe not, maybe everything will be hunky dory and everyone will live happily off the settlement that will come soon from the hospital.

I should stop reading the news. I depresses me.


This entry was posted in main. Bookmark the permalink.

0 Responses to How do you react?

  1. mayfly says:

    the real question, if you ask me, is why she didn’t abort the second baby when she found out it was still there? was it too late to abort, by law? did she figure there was some kind of divine intervention? why did she make that decision? the article doesn’t say.

  2. snaars says:

    I’m with you SDP. That’s the first question that came into my mind as well. Another question is, how many of the details have been left out of the story? The fact that they polled the readership is a red flag to me that the news agency might be sensationalizing. Stories are often more dramatic when little explanatory details are conveniently left out. Wilbur, I am a little uncertain what i believe, too. A few years ago, I would have said that abortion is always wrong. Two years ago I would have said that i’m pretty sure abortion is always wrong, but I can readily understand why others do not think so. Now, I honestly have no clue. Who can stand by with a stopwatch and mark the moment when a fetus becomes a person with moral rights? And yet from what I read, I can’t help feeling that this young woman is being completely selfish and self-absorbed. What kind of parent would look at their 3-year-old and decide that raising the child is too much of a sacrifice? She apparently feels that she has a right to the same lifestyle she would have had if she had not gotten pregnant. Does she look on her child with resentment for the life she could have had? My wife Michelle and I didn’t plan for either of our two children, but I would never go back even if I could. I would do anything for them, anything at all. She got pregnant. That’s not the hospital’s fault. The procedure was not 100% successful. Hey, that’s life. She should learn to deal with it instead of looking for someone to blame.

  3. arglor says:

    and as though to accentuate my sleepy state, i double post. appolgies

  4. arglor says:

    I had a whole speal i wanted to say about how you can draw the line and how there is biological evidence for when suffering is apparent, but you guys know all of my song and dance. I’m getting sick of my song and dance. This is a truely unfortunate incident. Not to bring up song lyrics.. doesn’t marilyn manson have a lyric like, “Survived abortion, a rebel from the waste down” sorry hehe…… god i’m tired.

  5. mayfly says:

    my internet connection went down as i was posting so i saved it to my desktop as a .txt and restarted, promptly forgetting all about it. — in my opinion, biological evidence for suffering doesn’t mean we should draw the line there, because you can compare that one instant of terrible physical suffering to a life of emotional abuse, abandonment, or alienation from parents who do not want the child. the question of suffering is nothing, in my mind, when compared with more abstract ethical questions like, do i have the right to end consciousness of any sort (including perhaps animal)?, do i have the right to prevent another conscious being from living out the course of their life?, do i even have the right to prevent another consciousness from forming? . . . but of course i do, because i can choose not to have sex, or when to have sex, or to use contraceptives. and what really is the difference between all that? should we really have more respect for the embryo that just so happened to form as opposed to the separate eggs and sperm which just so happened not to? the only reason we should is if we believe in fate and destiny and conception as a sign of it. (which i don’t. even though i am sort of superstitious about it.) besides, a child is my responsibility, it would so affect my life, and depend on me for food and shelter, and…. basically, the whole issue gets so muddy so fast for me that i just sort of give up after a few point/counterpoint cycles and decide to be politically pro-choice and personally. . . “i have no idea (and thank goodness i’ve never had to make the decision).”

  6. mayfly says:

    [quote:69790f3144=”Arglor”]Not to bring up song lyrics.. doesn’t marilyn manson have a lyric like, “Survived abortion, a rebel from the waste down” sorry hehe…… god i’m tired.[/quote:69790f3144] oh jesus.

  7. snaars says:

    I definitely agree with SDP – suffering is not the only issue. It doesn’t seem right to say that it’s okay to kill someone so long as they don’t feel it. I would even venture to say that it might (maybe possibly) be wrong to kill someone even if they have no concept of death, or their own consciousness (depending on the circumstances). For me the main issue is when does a fetus become a person. (A person being an entity with moral rights.) [quote:86a37c5528]do i even have the right to prevent another consciousness from forming? . . . but of course i do, because i can choose not to have sex, or when to have sex, or to use contraceptives. [/quote:86a37c5528] I don’t think anyone should have to worry about whether contraceptive use is a moral harm against potential persons who are not born because of contraceptive use. For one thing, a potential person is not a person. Unfertilized eggs and sperm cells are potential persons, but they don’t have moral rights. I can’t think of any other real-world examples of potential people. But I can’t even imagine a fictitious example where it would be the case that a potential person had rights, just by virtue of the fact that it was a potential person. Even when a consciousness is forming, it might not be wrong to destroy it, if it is not yet a person, but this is one of the problems that we are dealing with in the abortion issue. Personally, I believe that it is wrong to justify destroying a child on the basis that it has not been born yet. Isn’t a baby pretty much the same the day before it’s born as it is the day after it’s born? And yet it doesn’t seem to be wrong to destroy a pre-conscious bundle of undifferentiated cells. ——- I just re-read SDP’s post and now i think she was saying the same thing I just said. I thought she was saying that it might be wrong to use contraception, but I was wrong. Oh well, I guess a little affirmation now and then doesn’t hurt. Can I get an “Amen”??

  8. arglor says:

    Never thought i’d read the words Oh Jesus! and Amen! come from Mary, the agnostic who has venom.. VENOM i tell you for all christians… 😉 hehe its not true.. she is all about the love i don’t think i ever mentioned that this was a simple situation with a simple answer. Obviously you cannot just say, “it doesn’t seem to suffer, kill it.” And i don’t think i said that was the case. I was just going to offer scientific* data for making the case there is a dividing line between non-baby material and baby material. Replies: I wouldn’t go so far as to say that [quote:e1ec430ed9]Unfertilized eggs and sperm cells are potential persons,[/quote:e1ec430ed9] It doesn’t appear that an egg left on it’s own will grow into a person, nor a sperm. I think the technical definition, or philosophical defintiion of a potential person is the zygote. The actual point where the egg is fertilized and if left up to causal design, the potentiality of the person will be droped and the person will be born. Secondly, i wouldn’t say [quote:e1ec430ed9] [potential persons] {I’m assuming this is what It refers to, maybe your refering to sperm and eggs, but on using the transitive nature of identity i can infer that Potential Persons are Unfertilized Eggs and Sperm cells according to your first quote, even though i doubt you meant they were identical, simply a part of, but i digress} do not have rights.[/quote:e1ec430ed9] I would argue that Potential Persons do have rights. They are morally lower then actual persons but that doesn’t mean they have no rights whatsoever. What rights do they have? To list one, it would be they have the right to have some kind of moral weight in the abortion equation. When making a decision about abortion, the simple fact taht the mother debates about the decision is evidence that the potential child has moral weight in the decision. This reason is because of the very nature of the potential child, it isn’t viewed as an un-moral entitity, i.e. a chair or table. The fact that there is intense counseling and discussion between the doctor and the mother before having the child aborted, and the fact that the future mother goes to a psychologist and talks about the situation as a whole, is evidence to suggest that the child has some kind of moral weight in the argument. It seems that if it was the case the child had no moral rights whatsoever, that the decision would be more of a decision of function and not of moral value. (Decisions of functions are like “how does one turn on a light”, “how does one build a house”, “how does a car start”, and even questions about actions, “Should i tie my shoe”, “should i turn on the light”. “should i take the job in conneticut instead of france.” You get the picture, of course decisions of function can be changed to decisions of moral value easily but placing moral objects/agents into the equation. “Should i tie my shoe thats tied to a bomb and will blow up the airplane,” “should i turn off the light and murder three men,” “should i move to conneticut and take a job butchering cows, or france and be a peace keeper in the U.N.” I’m done) There is a key point in the argument for abortion, the rule of suffering is simply to say: -You shouldn’t perform an abortion after Time T because that is when the potential person has developed a central nervous system and is recognized as able to suffer. The argument doesn’t say: -It is moral to perform abortions before Time T. Our current government’s stance is that it is illegal to perform the abortions after Time T. It doesn’t say you should, and let us promote, performing abortions before Time T. too much ambiguity in the definition of being alive. What they say is that you should approach it with your own morals and consult your own moral guides for the answer to the question, “Should i perform an abortion before Time T.” Of course appeal to government is irrelevant in moral issues, i’m just pointing this out. It might change in a little while. AS FOR ME! I do accept suffereing as a viable indicator for when we shouldn’t perform an abortion. YOU should not perform an abortion after the child suffers. Before then, you make your own call i am not going to hold you morally responsible for the actions because i cannot offer a clear and concise argument which ever way. On the other hand were i woman and pregnant etc. I would only get an abortion done when the baby: 1) endagers my life physically 2) is in severe threat of metal instability (can’t live on it’s own unless without mechanical intervintion) 3) is the effect of a rape 4) severe monetary failure on my own part. As time passes from the moment of conception i’d say the reasons detereorate. 4 is only relevant in the begining, day after pill situations. The other three are points in which i can’t define exactly when they detereorate out of moral consideration. Ok, now blast away with your objections and appeals. I’ll listen, mainly because i’m not dogmatic about this. I’m simply offering it as a full argument since you guys read my first speal as though i was giving a full argument with thought put behind everything. Points: Yes, of course it is more complex then a simple measure of suffering. No, i think potential persons have moral rights. Aborthion IS A DIFFICULT QUESTION!

  9. mayfly says:

    i don’t disagree with really any of that. re: numbered points 1-4. i didn’t know you were that personally pro-life. interesting. you’ve never really voiced that to me, so clearly. i always thought you were more personally pro-choice than i was, by a few degrees.

  10. snaars says:

    My own experience is that most people are pro-life. My understanding is that people who opt for abortions do it out of a feeling that it’s necessary, not because it’s something they really want to do. Someone can be both pro-life and pro-choice, of course. I don’t believe it’s possible very many people are pro-death. I disagree with you, Arglor, that potential people have moral rights. When people find out they are going to be parents, they immediately start imagining all the changes and adjustments they are going to have to make for the child. They imagine what the child will be like – whether it will be a boy or a girl, short or tall, sporty or intellectual, etc. They begin to anticipate the ups and downs and joys and trials of parenthood. They start preparing emotionally and financially and making plans for the future. This takes mental and physical effort and time. This is particularly true for the mother, since her body has already begun to change and prepare for parenthood, hormones and all. If the parents believe that the cluster of cells, or zygote, or whatever stage of development is considered a potential person (pp), carries moral weight, I think it has more to do with their own anticipations of having the child, rather than with the pp, itself. After all, their fantasies about the child (should the pp achieve actual personhood) are bound to be wildly inaccurate in nearly every way – and most potential parents know this. That mothers are encouraged to take counseling before an abortion is good policy regardless of whether the pp involved has moral rights, in part because of this attachment they can have to the idea of becoming a parent. If parents have religious beliefs that pp’s deserve moral consideration, then they will act accordingly. That’s not proof that there’s something about the pp itself that makes it deserving of moral rights. I could have a belief that green rocks have certain rights – would they really have rights then? I guess when it comes down to it, the problem is that you say pp’s have rights or ‘moral weight’ because the parents assign it to them. Are you saying that moral rights are assigned? I am not comfortable with that. I want to say that if something has rights, it is somehow deserving of them. Deserving means it should have those rights because of what it is, not because of what someone considers it to be. Maybe there is a distinction between ‘moral rights’and ‘moral weight’. I agree that pp’s can have moral weight if you mean that they can be valued by someone. On that view, it would be wrong to take the pp away from someone or destroy it because that would be a harm to the person who values it. But if you mean that a pp is intrinsically valuable, I have to disagree. It’s not a person, it’s only a potential person.

  11. arglor says:

    -changed will edit later again-

  12. wduluoz says:

    [quote:a6b7935d02=”Arglor”]-changed will edit later again-[/quote:a6b7935d02] I think you make a valid point. I will have to give this some more thought. Its the clearest example of completely understanding the entire situation from all sides. hehehe. Wilbur

  13. arglor says:

    it actually does warrant the complexity of the issue… i really want to read more on rights before i just begin spouting information half-cocked on this issue.

  14. snaars says:

    I always seem to do this. I realize I am very argumentative at times. Here we are in very close agreement overall, and I sought out the one point of contention and wrote, like, a whole essay on why you are wrong. Sorry, D. I hope I am not causing any high blood pressure or health problems or anything. I really do respect your opinions. Our conversations often help me to think and understand the complexity of some issues.

  15. wduluoz says:

    Governments should develop a way to sterilize individuals at birth. Then set up a state funded system where, similiar to getting a driver’s license, an individual would have to go through a period of preparation and testing to receive a parenting(or procreation) license. After successfully acquiring the license, they would be unsterilized and allowed to have children. This alone should reduce the number of unwanted children to nearly nil. Yes it is a radical idea, but it has merit. In fact, I think that debating this idea would be easier than the current hot topic of pro-life / pro-choice. Wilbur

  16. arglor says:

    snaars.. i understand what it is you are doing though… I like the fact that you do point to points of contention so we can approach it and attempt refinement. I do think there is a subjective nature to rights/obligation recognition, but in ethics we spent all of maybe 1 and 1/2 weeks covering the topic and it was toward the end of the semester so i’m not positive the full conception. I want to reply, but i have a tendency to argue the way i see it and in this instance it would be much more beneficial if i could quote an argument already laid out. (No stress, you guys are misunderstanding why i deleted the previous post. I had wrote a long exposition about the equivication of the phrase persons.. i was talking about human people of the species homo genus, and you were talking about moral persons… SO i deleted it thinking i’d clarify the issue when i could look at the work/research when i get home tomorrow night from work. I can’t actually delete the whole post so i was left with having to explain why i was deleting the post) NOW on to the statement of WDuluoz. I propose that humans have the instinctual right to bear children, no matter the product created. There is too many different things we don’t understand with the human race to be able to predict exactly what progeny would be produced. A point against your argument format: SECOND do you honestly think that someone who gets an A on his driving test, fully has all the merits necessary to drive? Does passing actually determine the quality of the individual? CAN we truely devise a test that measures the parenting potential of individuals? and if we could create a test would it be a good thing to attempt to utilize this test in defining who can and cannot get children? what would the qualifications be for such a test? money? intellegence? physical stamina? personal health? sanity? i can think of a problem with each one of those categories. The method of acquiring money is controlled by the people who have the money. Intellegence is horribly relative, we have determined various different types of intellegence. Trey, you and I are not the most physically strong, nor healthy, and thereby our rights for procreation would be withheld. Sanity? Many geniuses failed tests of insanity. We are not even sure what insanity is derived from, they might in some situations be the most sane of the human race. -=emotional plea=- SO such a program should never be introduced. It is a horrible notion, and should be abhorred.

  17. snaars says:

    What’s scary to me, WDuluoz, is that I can see how such a repugnant argument could be very well-defended. I can’t really tell you why, but I object vehemently to the idea that everyone should be sterilized at birth. I will have to think about this some more.

  18. snaars says:

    Hey – we posted at the same time! My puny post is no match for Arglor’s … this time!

  19. wduluoz says:

    What right do you have to screw up another individual’s life, albeit your child? If you are abusive, we take the kid. If you threaten to harm someone, you can be arrested or your rights can be restricted. I actually have no problem with this, but I dont want kids and for the government to fund the operation to keep me from having them would be a benefit. What if we could put a chip into peoples head’s that would prevent people from harming another individual? Would that be acceptable?

  20. arglor says:

    It would be immoral to punish someone before they commit a crime, for going to commit the crime. First off what you suggest requires two things, 1) complete understanding of the human mind. 2) no possibility of free will on the human part. Since the first requirement appears to be a long way off, and the second seems to be in some heated disagreement the argument can’t sustain it’s own weight. Regardless of your own personal designs for your life, you can’t suggest the world to take up your ideology and run with it. You solution to the problem appears ad hoc also. Why not confront the problem itself(which is people not being able to take care of their children after having them, i believe better sociological conditions would relieve this difficulty a lot better then mass sterilization). You do realize, from a pragmatists point of view, that such a “Sterilization” drug doesn’t exist? If the human body goes sterile for too long they stay sterile. So this idea that you can reverse the sterilization procedure after enacting it is housed around a practicalities standpoint. Every chemical sterility procedure, if reversed has a mediocre percentage of success. (50%-70% success rate, which is why doctors make sure it is a decision you have given a lot of thought, they also reject people under 30 who are unmarried, at least i think thats the criteria.) In the end, i doubt you believe your argument yourself. my conclusion is that the problem of unwanted children is not so dire as to limit all person’s ability to reproduce. This is like arguing that a nuclear bomb is the only solution to the last election. The solution is far to dire, and creates far to many problems to attempt to solve the problems.

  21. wduluoz says:

    [quote:01668cec17=”Arglor”]It would be immoral to punish someone before they commit a crime, for going to commit the crime. First off what you suggest requires two things, 1) complete understanding of the human mind. 2) no possibility of free will on the human part. [/quote:01668cec17] Ok lets start with #1. Why because there would be an application process to be able to procreate? Why not hold parents to the same criteria we do towards someone who is adopting (Financial, emotional, and mental wellness)? Why do we allow anyone to have babies but only select few to adopt children from people who didnt want them in the first place? Was it fair to the children to be put into this situation? Where is our priorities? #2 Free will to again destroy another human’s life? You would still have the free will to apply for a procreation license. I dont have the free will to drive a vehicle without a license, or hunt without one, or buy a gun without a security check or produce food and sell it without one or avoid taxes without penalties. There are abundant other precautionary measures taken to prevent people from harming other individuals. Varying driving license, licensing for professions, applying for visa’s for traveling outside of the us, . . . The only difference is that there does not seem to be a direct correlation in people’s minds with abortions and abandoned children as being a detriment to the society. The Daily Show last night had one of the co-authors to “Freakonomics”. He stated there was a correlation between abortions and the significant decrease in the crime rate. He noted that after Rowe vs Wade you can see a sharp decrease in crime rates at the time that unwanted and unaborted children would reach the age of maturity and start commiting crimes. He noted that in different towns, cities, states with varying amounts of police force, prisons, and other methods of preventing crime that they all showed a decrease about 15-20 years after Rowe vs Wade. But abortion is only effective for the people who can afford it. What if we eliminated all the unwanted children? How would that effect our crime rates? What about our unemployment rate? What about the general state of the economy? [quote:01668cec17=”Arglor”]my conclusion is that the problem of unwanted children is not so dire as to limit all person’s ability to reproduce. [/quote:01668cec17] How many abortions and abandoned children do we need for it to be a dire situation? What is the number of children in the US alone that are up for adoption. Foster care children in 2003: 523,000 or 7.2 per 1,000 children (These are children removed from their homes for their safety.) (currently the population clock for the US is 296,007,155) I cant find numbers for adoption. I did stumble onto a couple of large campaigns against adoption or the forced orphaning of children. In the next few decades, I think we will get to a point where mandatory sterilization with strict limits on procreation will need to be enforced. While the capacity to produce food does not manage to keep up with the demand of a growing population, I predict a shift in public opinion towards preventing people from procreating. China has already provided incentives and I think some penalties to motivate people to not have children (not entirely up to date with their policy). Ok a little more information there are initiatives in place to maintain a roughly 2 children per family. It is not strictly enforced, but their are penalties, and mother’s are sometimes forced to have abortions. Wilbur “. . . that just because we didnt have animals anymore that was no reason why we should change our lifes… After all, there were still babies. Babies cant talk, they can hardly move. A baby is not a rationally thinking creature. We made babies, and we used them.” Neil Gaiman

  22. arglor says:

    -=-disclaimer-=- I’m not sure why you quoted me, because you didn’t approach either of my points listed. My argument was that we cannot hold someone accountable for crimes the will commit in the future, because A) we don’t know for certain how the human mind works and therefore we don’t know for certain what action a human will take. To punish all of humanity because the poor are treated like animals, and therefore procreate more then the rich, doesn’t mean we should infringe on everyone’s right to procreate. B) Your account assumes no possibility for any conception of free-will. You argue that since a correlation that this guy suggests exists, we should take restrict everyone’s ability to procreate. Horribly hasty conclusion for data that could in essance be flawed*. Every example you use in above post to illustrate your point are flawed arguments by analogy, and the relevent points of contention are as follows: 1) driver’s liscense: you are not born with the ability to drive, but it is something that you learn over time. Driving is also an action that takes external coordination. If everyone were allowed to drive obeying the rules they create there would be no cohesion on the streets. (it doesn’t accurate to suggest that if everyone were allowed to procreate using their own laws, that chaos will reign, because it hasn’t reigned yet. Sounds similar to an appeal to tradition, but we are talking about biological behavior and in this case the biological/sociological data is relevant.) 2) Hunter’s liscense: This was instituted not to keep ignorant people from killing, but to alert the individuals involved of the rules and set quotas for amount of animals they can harvest. This was also completed as a method of income for setting up nature preserves and assist in maintaining wildlife. In effect the hunter’s lisense is supposed to be a ‘club’ that assists in preserving the life of the hobby itself. 3) Gun licenses were created to help teach people how to use guns, and lower the percentage of people who didn’t know how to use guns from owning guns. Also the proper wielding of a gun is not an inatly born activity. So the ‘only relevant dissasimilarity’ you mention is far from solitary. In the end your arguing to take away what some have argued is the defining virtue of being human (hobbes). -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-Ok i’m going to break from point and counterpoint-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Let us just step back because i’m afraid if i do a point by point analysis i will piss you off. There are some key points of contention though that i don’t think you are approaching here. You argue for governmental regulation of reproduction, take a minute an let the repercutions of this statement soak in. We have a government run by the people. In a perfect world with a perfect government, the government should be able to make all the life-threatening decisions for every human, but it is not a perfect world and it is not a perfect government. My whole aversion to the system is rooted in my aversion to our government. How many decisions has our government made that you accept? How much corruption is there? Now for you reproduction is unimportant and i can see where other’s reproductive rights can infringe on your freedoms (more people = more suffering + more space needed etc), but doesn’t this kind of approach your arguing assume everyone shares your non-chalance about reproductive rights? Am I the only one who sees that people are operating within social mechanics and therefore shouldn’t shoulder the full blame of their situations? I see a woman who has an abortion, as a person who is forced to make a choice. She might not be able to support the child financially, but who’s fault is that? Her’s? Why don’t we ask the relevant questions, why can’t these people find jobs that pay them enough to support children? I will agree some people have horrible methods of saving money and have little to no economic sense. Does this mean they cannot reproduce. In your whole post, you have neglected my main point in my reply, and perhaps that is because i did not make it explicit. When did you change to the point that you feel government makes better moral decisions for your life then yourself? This is key, forget all the other arguments because they bring up the analysis of abortion itself, (which i argue is too controversial). Government regulation of procreation isn’t the only solution. You do realize that the last census showed that people of modest to wealthy income have far less children then those below the poverty belt.** In fact, there is very little population growth on the higher end of the spectrum. Isn’t this a relevant point of reference? And finally i have a request. Re-read your last post, and think about the assumptions you draw on in order to make the claims you’ve made. Also evaluate the language you are using. It is clear there is no good “abortion” using your language, because in your mind abortion means the death of a “child”. Those appeals to emotion and red herrings aren’t helping matters and bring the topic of abortion back into the fold. I would argue that the zygote is at most a potential person, and not a child, but this is another argument. * The data could be flawed, i haven’t read it, but any social correlations derived from the data must be scrutinized thoroughly. RvW occured in 1973, and what i’m curious about is the recent rash of school shootings. Those same children who were killed off could have hindered the current hooligans from killing their classmates? correlation? not sure. We must be clear he isn’t performing a hasty generalization. But let us assume for the sake of argument he is accurate and since we allow children to be born to mothers who hate and abandon them, they commit crimes. Doesn’t this show even darker problems? why is it that the mother hates and abandons the child? Are all mothers who abandon their children, beasts who wanted sex but no child and got busted by russian roullet? i’m sorry i have serious problems with this belief. I think a majority of the abandoned children are abandoned because the mother cannot monetarily take care of them and also raise them. This is because we have yet to actually create a self-sustiaining lower class. ** Of course maybe it is because they can afford aboritions or quality birthcontrol. I won’t argue with this, but shouldn’t that be an argument for making better medical service available to everyone? You act like the abortion issue exists in a vacuum, and that by annihilating a right that you choose not to excersise is the only option. This is just not accurate, it isn’t a dichotomy.

  23. wduluoz says:

    He stated that was the one that had significance, the others were statistically insignificant. Procreation is a defining virtue of being a human? or procreating what is a human is a defining virtue of being a human? I could say some people need to learn how to properly wield their “weapon”. We are not born with the ability to procreate either. It develops in time. It does develop naturally, but social factors play a significant role in adapting it into a productive act. More later, when im not tired, maybe. I am probably not winning over the hearts and minds of people who read this blog. Keep in mind there will come a time when procreation is not a inherent right. I believe this because of the state of affairs concerning natural resources. Wilbur

  24. arglor says:

    [quote:6aa65df1cb=”WDuluoz”]Keep in mind there will come a time when procreation is not a inherent right. I believe this because of the state of affairs concerning natural resources.[/quote:6aa65df1cb] I’m sorry but this is such blatant fear mongering. Al queda is in the bushes about to get us, SO lets abandon our rights to privacy for security. On the subject of Natural Resources, i think life will continue. If we run out of natural resources we will not degrade into some distopian existence. I could just as likely predict that we will actually rise above it and discover a new source of power and humanity will evolve socially into a new species, one that realizes how socially connected we are and that all our actions effect other people. More socially aware. The problem with this is that i’m trying to predict something that i have a biased view on, period. –p.s. i was editing that post above far longer then first percieved… i began editing the last post at 11:30 or so when i realized that i couldn’t simply run down your post offering technical problems without actually tackeling the large issue. Doing so would have been disrespectful to you and to myself, and so i had to re-evaluate my approach and take it from an idea position and not a he-said position. I kept parts because i wanted to make certain ideas demonstrative.

  25. arglor says:

    [quote:f9cebf104f=”WDuluoz”]Procreation is a defining virtue of being a human? or procreating what is a human is a defining virtue of being a human?[/quote:f9cebf104f] Hobbes’ argument is that survival and procreation is humanity’s one goal, and in the end there are no selfless acts, simply acts dependent upon the self. –=–begins rambling for a moment thought ideas and all–=– I don’t agree with his conclusion, but what his argument does give us is a recognition that to be human IS to have in someway the procreation drive. Procreation is a fundamental biological/physiological virtue of being human. If it were not so fundamental, one would argue that it would be easy to deny the sex drive. This is not the case. Even if you don’t procreate, you perform the action because we are physically wired to want to perform the action. I suppose one could argue that simply because we perform the action that leads to procreation, doesn’t mean we desire procreation. I would suggest how recent in human development did the seperation of sex and procreation become obvious? Physiologically speaking i wonder if our bodies act as though it is performing actions without performing the actions neccessary. Phantom limbs perhaps? We move as though arms are there and yet they are not. Perhaps instinctually our body is simply performing the procreative act for procreation, hormones etc. but then what the hell am i saying… our body has drives our mind doesn’t? our body and mind is seperate? obviously this isn’t the case, but it does seem that some desires are uncontrollable and yet others are, and so if we define the mind as the compilation of ideas and desires that are controllable and the body as a compilation of ideas and desires uncontrollable where does that get us… hmm hmmm… heh ok.. this was serious degredation. can one man have a conversation with himself? yes…

  26. wduluoz says:

    Im ignoring the rant started with Hobbes because I don?t want to go down that dark road. Do we agree on what the problem is? I dont think we (David and I) do. Let me state my opinion and then I will get back to the argument. Abortion is a solution to a large problem. Some may feel it is too easy for individuals to correct mistakes or errors in judgement, but we have not provided a better solution. And maybe that?s the problem. What do I think the larger problem is? Neglecting children causes dire consequences for our society. Any reduction in this neglection would be a benefit to society. I am not going to argue why the neglection of the children is a detriment to society because I think we can agree on this idea, being that most of us are teachers / educated and/or have children. If you (David) do not agree, then I will go into detail about why I believe it is one of the biggest hurdles we have today. What solutions do we have to prevent children from being neglected, not the post neglect solutions we incorporate now? 1) Stop Randomn / Unintended births through a sterilization ? I have argued this one already, so I will refrain for now. 2) Abortion ? Due to the debate over the moral standing of abortions, abortions are only a viable solution to people who can pay for them since the government refuses to pay for the procedure. Therefore, they are not being performed for low income single soon to be parents who probably will not be able to provide for the child. This adds to the problem. Since the poor cannot afford protection or have not been educated on the safe sexual practices, they are primed for the largest percentage of unwanted pregnancies and neglected children. ? But could the population be convinced to pay for abortions for the good of society? 3) Adoption ? People always stress the supreme benefit of putting a child up for adoption instead of having an abortion, but the best results I can find for Foster children is that roughly 70% of them are adopted. If we removed abortion as an option, this percentage would decrease. But let argue that we want to solve the larger problem. The government would have to provide substantial incentives to parents who adopt instead of procreating. Would large incentives actually convince people who can afford to have children to adopt instead of having their own? I don?t think it would. If more individuals did not choose adoption over their own, then the number of abandoned children would dramatically increase (this is if abortion was not a solution). 4) Education and Financial Support ? This solution is not only the hardest and the costliest to implement, but also it would not be a guaranteed solution. Let me take a snipe at the republican party for a moment. What the hell is with their strict focus on absentinence only? What year are they living in? Ok this is all I will say for now. My back is killing me for some reason and I am still at work. Wilbur

  27. arglor says:

    your right, the problem is neglected children. The number one reason children are neglected is because people didn’t expect them in the first place. So my argument is i don’t see the necessity for the sterilization being mandatory, as stated in my arguments above. There isn’t a need for the actions to be mandatory. Humans are not animals, they can control themselves. This is our major point of contention. You argue that it must be mandatory, which is based on nothing more then a negative impression of humanity as a whole, and i argue that this isn’t the case. Humanity is far more intellegent then people give them credit for. They are just as much effects as everyone else, and most haven’t been given the opportunity for learning and education. Make the sterilization drug optional, and you will get a far greater success. But, we can’t do this. There is no such drug that exists, and therefore this argument is really quite irrelevant. Sterility treatment is not temporary, but leads to permanent problems with childbearing. p.s. sorry about your back…

  28. mayfly says:

    [quote:ad879a63dd]Make the sterilization drug optional, and you will get a far greater success. But, we can’t do this. There is no such drug that exists, and therefore this argument is really quite irrelevant.[/quote:ad879a63dd] but there are sterility drugs out there. basically. i mean there are shots and implants – depo provera, norplant – that you can get once every three months and the gov’t damn well ought to make them available free of charge to welfare mothers – if it doesn’t already. ’cause Pp, not everybody loves her like me.