Basejumper.com - archive

i'm getting pretty bored with the economics discussion, so i (and the rest of the world) wondered what base jumpers thought about abortion, and, more importantly, WHY? what is your reasoning? and do you consider it a religious reason?

remember, we're not done with debates until we all hate each other.

I'm pro choice--on everything.

Personally I find it weird that the Americans who are calling them selves "pro life" are usually the people who are most positive to wars, capital punishment and guns.

Here in Norway we are pro choice and it hasn't been a political issue the last 30-40 years.

 

I'm proabortion.

I'm stuck liveing here in Whitewright. Very very white trash Texas. It's almost on the boarder with OK if that tells you any thing and AR is not too far to the east. I can't describe some of the things around here. Young preganancies. Girs getting maried in high school. Unwed mothers. Poverty. Forget any of these people ever going to collage. Never crosses there mind. Wellfare.

I think birth control shoud be mandatory to receave wellfare.

I think any one on wellfare who becomes preganent should be required to have an abortion if they want to continue receaving support.

I think people should be required to show finantial responcabillity in order to be able to keep there children. Minimum incomes when they are dignosed or receave an abortion. Post a bond towards there education by the time of delivery or give the child up.

I think citizinship should be a requierment for the baby to become a citizen of the US.

At some point we are going to have to break this cycle of poverty and to do it is going to require actions that are nothing short of radical.

Lee

Leaving aside wars and guns...

I've actually found that most ardently pro-life folks also oppose the death penalty. It's the politicians (who are most likely just looking for votes) that lump the two positions together.

What? I can't be a heartless baby killer AND a supporter of rape, incest, and repressing women? I'm going to be really conflicted if I have to decide between the two.

I have noticed that too, at least where i've lived.

its also weird that many people who are pro-life, are the same folks who come into the abortion clinic to terminate and say, "well, normally its bad, but my case is different." (happens a lot)

i am pro choice and i think most of the pro-life arguments boil down to religious reasons that they want to impose on others.

why not just get rid of welfare? or limit it to, say 12 months in your lifetime, regardless of your parenthood status?

i think this is a good example of tomA's point that often people expect the government to bail them out, so they do stupid shit

BUT maybe if someone is stupid to begin with they would do it anyway?

I once heard an idea that at first pass
sounded quite facist but as I get older
it makes more sense & cents...

Offer any person who wants one a 1
time payment of $X to get sterilized.

Sure some people like me who have
money and don't plan to reproduce
could get paid for a free procedure
but think of all the marginal people
who would take the money: hookers,
drug addicts, etc.

I bet in the long run the program would
actually really save all of us tax paying
Americans lots of money!!

_________________________________________

As for abortion, I do not know why that the
availability of birth control AND the morning
after pill has not eliminated this debate!?!?

Many people use abortion as the basis for
their selection of a politician while I really
care much more about wars, economics,
and civil rights affecting those people who
are already alive.

for the record, I voted as a baby killer.

first. I seriously doubt many women take abortion lightly.

second. if we start declaring the unborn citizens (as some in the US propose), then that open up the door to all kinds of issues regarding their rights.


I believe in the personal responsibility angle. if you can't afford a child, do NOT have it. (maybe give a pass on the first, but expect them to learn before they get a second.)

it matters not how the money leaves the Treasury either. I see no real difference between "welfare" and "tax deduction." both reduce the money available to the government because someone chose to breed. if they can not afford the child without depleting the Treasury, maybe they ought to reconsider.

I agree...

Unfortunately, the majority breed
hence they voted themselves in a
set of rules that helps them.

If you wanna be totally 100% fair then
we should just scrap the income tax all
together & instead take annual budget
of the federal government and divided
it by every man, woman, and child and
then send each a bill for their share.

That would make people less prone to
make babies that can not afford plus
it make both citizens and government
more concerned about how much of our
money is wasted by various programs.

I worked for the the State of Florida for
a while and was shocked at the number
of people played solitaire for 8 hours!!

FYI -- I know I am online a bunch but
as a professor I have time to kill while
I sit in my office between classes and
during my mandatory '12 office hours'.

what I find curious is some of the most ardent critics of welfare just as ardently defend their tax deductions...

either way, the government has less money...

reduce the per person debt by reproducing A LOT

Sure, being math guys we know that
would work on paper... but the point
is trying to align the incentives with
the behavior....

same reason insurance companies
have co-payments and deductables.

Life begins at conception.

I'm a Christian, I'm pro-life, and while I wish that people wouldn't kill their babies I don't want this enforced in secular law.

Non-Christians do not see the point in Christianity and the values that it holds, nor would I expect them to. Forcing Christian laws on secular society is stupidity.

We're free to practice our beliefs, just like atheists/agnostics are free to do/believe what they will (FSM for instance).

Not everyone in any society is going to agree or believe the same as everyone else, and pretty much everyone believes that they're correct in their point of view (or they wouldn't follow their chosen beliefs).

A basic moral law should definitely be enforced, otherwise anarchy would ensue. Christians hold that this basic moral law is given by God and written on everyone's hearts, whereas non-Christian's arrive at this basic moral law in some other fashion - whatever that may be.

Let the Christian bashing begin.

yes, but what kind of life??? i have employees that suggest section 8 living is just like "hitting the lotto". a human being should not be used as a paycheck. people actually have kids for bigger checks and more food stamps . i'm sure these guys have never paid taxes. what kind of morals and beliefs are these offspring going to develope??
other employees of mine make ten dollars an hour, and still decide to have 4-5 children. they also recieve 2-3 thousand dollars a year in tax refunds. we wonder what is wrong with the economy??? the math on that has never made sense to me.
i agree with lee and china... Radical

is an unfertilitzed egg cell, or a sperm cell, "not alive" then?

Making babies is in general a good thing for any government as they will turn into tax payers in 18-20 years.
If a good welfare system causes people to stop working in order to get "free cash", then why is this a bigger problem in the US than in Europe. The US has a lot more poverty than here in the western Europe, but we have a lot better welfare system. Are Americans just more lazy?

I can mix two cells together in a petri dish - is that magic?

I heard a joke on xm comedy today similar to this...
"I'm against abortion... until it has to do with a woman I have impregnated!"

In a sense, yes. Don't you feel like there's something just a little bit magical about mixing two cells together and having them form a third, unique thing, a thing that will continue to grow?

I'm pro-choice, but I think that anyone who misses the magic in nature isn't looking very hard.

Well I *could* be just a little biased in the fact that I just see the scientific aspect of it
-Jen

that argument has always resembled a pyramid scheme to me. if we have a sustainable system, there would be no need for additional population. (the US also has many people who want to relocate here.)

(P.S. at least one European leader encouraged babies to help create a stronger army. that seems a bit more honest.)


well... that remains a distinct possibility. witness the desire to pay illegal aliens to do all the menial work.

Let me clarify for you; A new life begins at conception. Does your question have a point?

The real debate is not "what is life?" but rather "What is a new human life?"

The issue is identifying the moment at which the new person is entitled to the protection of the law for it's right to life. Does that happen at conception? At viability? At birth? At majority? Different societies have answered that different ways, and will continue to do so.

Semantic arguments about cells being alive in petri dishes and such are pretty much just semantic arguments.

Wow Tyrion - well said.

I don't get how those two options are exclusive?

Please record this post as "ALL OF THE ABOVE".

a funny similarity to rich lazy Norwegians paying Swedes to come over and do their work.

 there is also something magical about having your girlfriend eat the babies

Well, not completely. Norway has an unemployment rate of less than 1%. We need all the workers we can get. Swedes working in the bars and Polaks working as carpenters are the most popular these days.

of course... just making a joke, but it does depend a lot on how you look at it.

there are lazy people everywhere.

I'm just anti-baby. Babies are gross. Birthing babies is gross. Pregnancy is gross. And then they cry, poop, projectile poo, vomit, whine, make annoying stupid noises, whine some more, reach puberty (where the whining REALLY begins), use up all your money, then puts you in a nursing home.

Magic? I think not.

What about late term abortion? The kid inside the mother is aware of what is going on...I find that to be the taking of a human life that cant even defend itself...sounds like it should be against the law no? And partial birth? Obama wants to have that legal too. Thats kind of fucked up.
People on death row are not innocent. (Yes there have been very rare cases where they were. Wont argue there. Nothing is perfect.)

Insurgents in Iraq and Taliban in Afghanistan are not innocent either.

yes. There are a couple points, but one of them is, I'm pointing out that the saying, "life begins at conception," is vague and pretty meaningless. and technically incorrect, since the sperm and the egg are both already alive. if you wanted to say "a new human life" begins at conception, then, we can start talking about what level thats true on, and what that means.

to me, it doesn't mean all that much. as long as the fetus is in the womb, it survives only by the continued, voluntary generosity of the mother. otherwise, wouldn't some say that you are forcing one human being to live for another?

or would you say that mom should be forced to continue supporting the fetus against her will?

what about if the mom's life is endangered or her future well being is significantly at risk? in my book, it becomes self defense... late term, early term, whenever.

also there is a strange misconception that late term or, to use the hideously inappropriate phrase "partial birth" are common elective procedures. or that there are no circumstances where it might be the best thing for the mother. yet somehow the religious extremists in this country have managed to legislate their sectarian beliefs into decisions that should be between a woman and her doctor.

some people say the fetus is "innocent," but you can't be "innocent" or "guilty" until you are capable of some sort of moral agency. which the fetus is not capable of. therefore it is improper to call it innocent or guilty. not to mention, the pro-lifers like to keep the term "innocent" conveniently undefined.

I think that parents have a responsibility to care for their (born) children, regardless of the parent's wishes.

If you decide that the human life begins at conception, then yes, that duty extends to support of the fetus. Otherwise, you'd be saying that somehow it's ok to abandon a child that's in the womb, but not one who is out of it, which isn't very consistent.

Honestly, this is a messy issue, and one that I, personally, am not comfortable in deciding for other people (or having other people decide for me). Thus, my feeling that government ought not to mandate in this area (which goes well with my feelings that government ought not to mandate in most areas).

In a legal sense, I think that in the U.S., Roe was a poorly reasoned decision. I think the 9th Amendment is pretty clear on this issue. Abortion is not addressed anywhere in the constitution, so it's the right of the separate states to legislate (or not) on the issue, as they see fit.

more to provoke thought as a devil's advocate than disagree...


fixed it for ya.
it seems strange to me, but women have been known to give birth and claim they did not know they were pregnant. if true, they could not have actually made any choice.

also, we all have all kinds of organisms living entirely dependent on our bodies. all the mechanisms of reproduction and replication are amazing. that from one can come many, etc. all life is remarkable at some level.

it's just a question of when a developing fetus gains the special status of calling it a person.


isn't that the purpose of court ordered child support? against the will of the father (typically)?

Few quick replies to issues/ideas above:

Importing Labor - people who face lower
opportunity costs who always be the ones
stuck doing shitty work for low pay.

Abortion - while I am pro-choice, I personally
do think there should be a three caveats:
1) recepients of any surgical procedure, including
abortions, should be 18 years of age or older OR
get the approval of their parents or a judge.
2) elective abortions should take place in
the first tri-mester. 90 days is enough time
to sort through the options and feelings.
3) medical necessity abortions should be
allowed when a doctor deems its required.

Modern Americans - yes, many of them are
very lazy. I love my country but after many
years of teaching different disciplines I see
how weak, disorganized, and ill prepared
they are for life on their own.

Abortion should be legal until the fetus is 4 years old. and mandatory with all un-planned, or un-approved pregnancies. there will be no discrimination in parents, other than the monetary means for supporting a child.

only the first part of that is a joke.

there are two -MAJOR- problems with this earth. all of which can be the un-doing of the human race as we know it. the two go hand in hand with each other and are most likely the cause of each other.

- the church/organized religion. (this goes hand in hand with lack of diverse education)
- overpopulation. I mean that in any form you take it. food sources, energy sources, space sources, ecological balance, etc.

don't click on this! NSFW or anywhere & then DON'T click on pix!
i warned you
sorry
peace
ps don't ban me - not pedophilia

i have no doubt that's happened... of course, if they dont know they are pregnant, they wouldn't be considering an abortion either! and that wouldn't spare them from the health effects on their body (morning sickness, increased metabolic demand, etc)

You are the one who started this thread. It was understood by me (and I think probably everyone else) that you were talking about human abortions. Therefore I did not realize that you needed me to clarify that I too was talking about human life.


Maybe you've never been around new-born (human)babies, or even young (human) children, but I seriously doubt they could "fend for themselves" either.


That could be an exception to the rule, but clearly not a justification for abortion in other cases.


Actually the definition of the word "innocent" includes "guiltless" (the absence of guilt). I found it in the dictionary. Besides, innocence or guilt is not dependent on morals.

i was referring to cuming in a chicks mouth, "eat the babies" ... babies being the magical sperm... your comment was just as amusing. it also solves the food problem relating to overpopulation.

Life can mean more than just that, and it does require clarification. A human cell can be alive, but it might not be "a human" by itself. For instance, I do not believe that a fertilized egg is an individual human. It's just a cell. So even though that cell is alive, it would not necessarily be a "new human life" in my book. I assume you would differ with me on that point though. What I am wondering is, why. So far you have pretty much only stated your conclusion, not your reasoning, which is what I'm really interested in.

Even if human life does begin at conception (which you haven't convinced me yet) I still dont think that's good enough reason to give the embryo/fetus full protection of a human being. But I'm curious why you think it should.


We are not talking "fend for themselves" here. We are talking about being physically capable of survival without sucking the blood and flesh of another human.

Newborns can be put up for adoption if the mother won't/can't take care of it. At some point, you say, ok, the guardian is committed to caring for this kid or they're guilty of criminal neglect/endangerment. But even older kids can enter the custody of the state. And I think it's religious extremism to say Mom/Doc is guilty of murder if she removes it from her body before it is physically capable of survival outside the womb.


Lets blur the line a little. What if the mom's life is not endangered per se, but she's at risk for permanent disability? What's your take on that?

And other justifications might apply at other times. You obviously disagree with me, but you have yet to fully explain your rationale.


So, a rock or a tree is "innocent," because it isn't guilty of anything? That's a little absurd. My point is that if something lacks moral agency, it makes no sense to talk about innocence or guilt, even if a colloquial definition may be stretched to apply.

I would say that innocence and guilt are inherently moral concepts. How could they be otherwise? When is it helpful, when does it make sense, to accuse someone of being guilty if they can't tell right from wrong?

For instance. Someone may commit a crime, but if they are insane, they may be found "not guilty" by reason of insanity. And this is an example of how (your dictionary notwithstanding) "not guilty" might not equal "innocent." They are "guilty" only in the sense that they physically committed the act, and you can use the word "guilty" if you really want to, but it doesn't make sense in this context. Using those terms doesn't help one to understand or communicate the situation more clearly.

(edited to fix quote boxes)

You don't have kids, do you?

Seriously, my second daughter is 3 months old. She is physically incapable of survival without, in your words "sucking the flesh" of my wife. She probably won't eat solid foods for another 3 or 4 months, and is breastfeeding exclusively.

Do you believe that my wife still maintains a right to abandon our daughter, because the child is fully dependent on her for survival?

I'm pro-choice, but I think that some of your arguments are at the point of silly rhetoric. Parents do have an obligation to care for their children. The real question is when the child becomes a "human" in the sense of having the right to be cared for.

By making up standards about whether they can care for themselves, I think you're showing an ignorance of child raising, and also of medical technology. Care for themselves how? Survive how? In a state of the art NICU? Or in their own home, with no adult supervision? There's obviously a lot of grey area there. Drawing a bright line isn't going to work, simply because the process of a child growing to self sufficiency is so complex and lengthy.


Adoption is a process whereby parental rights and obligations are passed on to another person. Saying that a mother can "abandon" a child by offering it for adoption is a mis-use of the term "abandon." The child would still have a parent (or parents) to care for it.

pardon the interruption


it seems the two of you use the same terms, but not the same meaning regarding guilt/innocence.

AdamLanes uses "guilt" as the regret for ones actions, as in "feeling guilty" for offending someone.

Colm uses "guilt" in the legal sense.

please continue

Of course I'm ignorant about child raising, I've never done it. But I'm not talking about raising a child here, or when a child can care for itself. I'm talking strictly about when a fetus can be physically disentangled from the mother and still survive. So lets talk about that.

Like you said, society has to determine when a fetus/baby gets the right to be cared for by somebody. At one extreme, some pro-lifers say they get that right as soon as the sperm fuses with the egg, even in a petri dish. At the other extreme, some would say at birth.

I am merely suggesting, as a point of discussion, using about the time the fetus is physically capable of survival outside the womb (and therefore any qualified adult could care for it, not just the biological mother... see where I'm going with this yet?). This could theoretically happen around 23-24 weeks gestation when the surface area of the lung develops the ability to exchange gas effectively. This is one of the limiting factors in preemie survivability, and I dont know of any medical technology that can substiture for a placenta. There are some exceptions, but before that age, the preemie wont even survive in a NICU because their lungs wont be able to perform gas exchange.

------

To address some of your other points...
Not true. Your 3 month old is dependent on SOMEBODY to survive, but not necessarily any single specific person. And she physically could survive on formula. It is simply your choice as parents to nurture her that way. My point is merely that she doesn't need a womb anymore.

Please reference my previous statement:
Which would apply in the case of your daughter, obviously. So, to answer your question in a general sense, no.

You and I are basically saying the same thing: at some point, a embryo/fetus/baby becomes I'm just not saying anything yet about who it is who has the duty to care for them.


Then we have a semantic disagreement, not a substantial one.