Pro-life, or pro-choice?

[Muso]

On a kind of related note I think it is pretty sick that suicide is not legal for a person that is terminal and will have nothing but suffering until they die naturally. In some specific situations I am pro-suicide / doctor assisted suicide although I would never put a gun in my mouth from depression.

I completely agree. Having briefly spent some time working on palliative care wards I believe there are definitely instances where euthanasia is appropriate, moral, and cruel to deny.

These are very limited instances though, and there would need to clear protocols, planning, and family involvement wherever it was instituted.

[Muso]

On that note consider the average age of this community. I would be surprised if more than a handful of the people on this site have confronted this decision personally

This is likely true, and it is interesting to hear the opinions of the young. I know their views will grow and change over time, but it is always helpful and grounding to listen to what they have to say because they often present a different perspective (often one I can recall believing in myself).

[Bunny]

That's because those are the reasons people support 'pro-choice'. I also think less human life is good for the planet in general but more than anything I hate restricting freedom. Just because I am offended when I see an idiot with fake diamonds on their teeth is no reason to ban it for everyone. The line of making this law is that an innocent life hangs in the balance. I maintain my position because I value the life of all animals the same and yet I choose to eat a steak.

I think a lot of avoiding the shitty mother subject is just a fear of subjecting yourself to criticism. Not too many people are grounded enough to say they will stand up for an obviously immoral action with any real conviction because they are not really grounded on the subject. On that note consider the average age of this community. I would be surprised if more than a handful of the people on this site have confronted this decision personally

yah and consider that most of you are guys and don't really have to make that decision. As someone who has recently lost a pregnancy, i just feel that unless you are going to be homeless you can make it work, people make it work all around the world and are happy and have done so for all of time.

[Muso]

people make it work all around the world and are happy and have done so for all of time.

This is a bit of a generalization. It's true of the majority of people, yes. However, for almost as long as people have been having babies, they have also been having abortions, and before abortions there was always the mountain, the snow, or the river.

[Bunny]

This is a bit of a generalization. It's true of the majority of people, yes. However, for almost as long as people have been having babies, they have also been having abortions, and before abortions there was always the mountain, the snow, or the river.

lol what do you mean the snow

[Muso]

lol what do you mean the snow

Like what happened to Moses, only on the snow instead of the river.

[Helz]

yah and consider that most of you are guys and don't really have to make that decision. As someone who has recently lost a pregnancy, i just feel that unless you are going to be homeless you can make it work, people make it work all around the world and are happy and have done so for all of time.

You are right. In the end its the girl that really makes that call. But you should consider that in some countries children are considered property more than family.
When I was in Iraq I found that sometimes dads would send their kids or their wife to steal for them because if they got caught they could have a hand cut off. Although kids caught slack every time I was around for and I never saw a kid missing a hand because of theft. When I was in Afghanistan a mother killed 2 of her kids and tried to make it look like they were killed by a mortar strike to get money. 3rd world countries and cultures have very different values and ways of doing things. Take china for example. When they passed a law saying that families in certain provinces could only have one child it became common to find homeless girls everywhere who usually ended up as prostitutes at a very early age. This is because a girl would not carry on the family name and having a 2nd kid would cost a lot of money.
For every bit that a child could have a great life they could have a very miserable one. Either way its a hell of a tough call and men have the comfort of dealing with it from a much more detached position.

[oops_ur_dead]

I really have never understood how people can value the life of a human more than that of a cat or a chicken. We give rights and protection to creatures we interact with more and look at those we do not as less than worthy of their right to live. If we are to say that because of our self awareness and intellect we are superior then we are just placing a value on life itself based upon observable traits. A lot of people find this point to be particularly frustrating in abortion debates because logical reasoning fails. Its hard to make an argument against this other than saying 'I can't believe you said my life is worth the same as a chickens'

Jesus fuck I hate this argument so much.

Humans are better than animals because we think that humans are better than animals. I (and most sane people) sympathize with a human more than I sympathize with a cat or a chicken, thus humans are worth more to me. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying too hard to be an edgy cool nihilist.

We can sit around and say "hurr humans are the same as bacteria" or "hurrr we're just a bunch of chemicals" but then we're just saying shit for the sake of saying it. These arguments don't get us anywhere so they're fucking useless to everyone.

[CarolinaCrown]

Jesus fuck I hate this argument so much.

Humans are better than animals because we think that humans are better than animals. I (and most sane people) sympathize with a human more than I sympathize with a cat or a chicken, thus humans are worth more to me. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying too hard to be an edgy cool nihilist.

We can sit around and say "hurr humans are the same as bacteria" or "hurrr we're just a bunch of chemicals" but then we're just saying shit for the sake of saying it. These arguments don't get us anywhere so they're fucking useless to everyone.

From a purely evolutionary standpoint, we're developed to care about the survival of the offspring of our own species. That instinct is partially replicated towards a few domesticated species like dogs, but even so the genetic will for human genes to continue to spread / multiply is restricted to humans.

That is why humanity cares more about a human zygote than a fully-grown cow. That's what it comes down to. Whether it's neurologically or somehow "morally" better to kill the zygote or the cow is irrelevant. We have no reliable metric for valuing lives and so the base line is that humanity is the trump card.

Are our genetic instincts reliable in a point of history where we actually understand the system in which we operate? Doubtful - the propagation of the species doesn't depend on your daughter having an abortion. We're just programmed to say "BAD" upon seeing or imagining a dead member of our own tribe (country).

[Helz]

Jesus fuck I hate this argument so much.

Humans are better than animals because we think that humans are better than animals. I (and most sane people) sympathize with a human more than I sympathize with a cat or a chicken, thus humans are worth more to me. Anyone who says otherwise is just trying too hard to be an edgy cool nihilist.

We can sit around and say "hurr humans are the same as bacteria" or "hurrr we're just a bunch of chemicals" but then we're just saying shit for the sake of saying it. These arguments don't get us anywhere so they're fucking useless to everyone.

Why is it insane to think that all life is equal? You pretty much backed up your argument with circular reasoning and said that I only believe this because I am trying to be trendy. I have seen people do some pretty sick shit that I have never seen an animal pull. I really would like to hear an objective reason for why people should be valued so much higher than any other living thing. Every living thing naturally stands up for other living things in its group. Its natural to say 'I am human, This other person is human, So I care for it over a dog' But what happens when its a human you don't like and a dog you consider family? Obviously you take the position that the guy was an ass hole and your dog was totally justified for barking at him.

And on the note of humans being bacteria- Every 10 years you are alive no single cell is alive that was alive 10 years ago. So every piece of you from 10 years ago is now dead and you are 100% a new living thing. When you start breaking things down to how they are made and what comes into play life makes a lot of sense.

We sympathize with what we associate with. Sympathy is just a feeling of understanding a difficulty and what it requires to overcome this. If you really feel that a human life is so much more valuable than a chickens why not give logical reason? (This would be a recreation of a debate already done btw)

[oops_ur_dead]

Why is it insane to think that all life is equal?

Because all life isn't equal. The other day I killed millions of E.coli cells in the lab, are you saying I should have felt any empathy at all for them?

You pretty much backed up your argument with circular reasoning and said that I only believe this because I am trying to be trendy. I have seen people do some pretty sick shit that I have never seen an animal pull. I really would like to hear an objective reason for why people should be valued so much higher than any other living thing.

My argument was that humans are better than other animals because we think they are, and we feel more empathy for other humans than we do for animals. Considering anything else is a waste of time because it has no practical meaning. There is no objective reason for why people are better than any other living thing, but that doesn't dictate our emotions so it doesn't matter.

Every living thing naturally stands up for other living things in its group. Its natural to say 'I am human, This other person is human, So I care for it over a dog' But what happens when its a human you don't like and a dog you consider family? Obviously you take the position that the guy was an ass hole and your dog was totally justified for barking at him.

That's a lopsided example. I highly doubt that you would even hesitate to sacrifice the life of a dog for the life of a human.

And on the note of humans being bacteria- Every 10 years you are alive no single cell is alive that was alive 10 years ago. So every piece of you from 10 years ago is now dead and you are 100% a new living thing. When you start breaking things down to how they are made and what comes into play life makes a lot of sense.

That isn't relevant at all.

We sympathize with what we associate with. Sympathy is just a feeling of understanding a difficulty and what it requires to overcome this. If you really feel that a human life is so much more valuable than a chickens why not give logical reason? (This would be a recreation of a debate done by professors in the 1930's btw)

There doesn't have to be a logical reason for it. I sympathize with humans more than I sympathize with chickens because that's how I naturally think. I would far more readily sacrifice the life of a chicken to save a person, hell, I'd probably sacrifice thousands of chickens to save a person. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince myself that humans are as valuable as chickens because I gain absolutely nothing from that.

[Helz]

Because all life isn't equal. The other day I killed millions of E.coli cells in the lab, are you saying I should have felt any empathy at all for them?

No, But people kill other people without feeling bad. So how can this relate to human life being more important than other life when the reaction from taking life is relitive?

My argument was that humans are better than other animals because we think they are, and we feel more empathy for other humans than we do for animals. Considering anything else is a waste of time because it has no practical meaning. There is no objective reason for why people are better than any other living thing, but that doesn't dictate our emotions so it doesn't matter.

So when dogs get together in a pack and decide they are superior to a person and attack them wouldn't this mean that dogs are superior to humans because they think they are? This conversation may have no piratical application to your life but neither did the nature vs nurture argument which has been a subject of debate for over a hundred years. The fact that there is no objective reason for people being better than any other living thing is exactly my point. We consider ourselves better when we are not. On a grand scale we are much worse than any other living thing because we destroy the natural balance of things and will end up destroying this planet in the long run. You will never see a pack of deer totally destroy their habitat and die off.

That's a lopsided example. I highly doubt that you would even hesitate to sacrifice the life of a dog for the life of a human.

I would kill a dog in a second. But there are people that would sacrifice their own lives for a dog just as quickly.

That isn't relevant at all.

I think that it is in that it brings into question the idea of 'self' and 'what is life'. If we consider that we are constantly dieing and being reborn all the time it changes the idea of what life and death is. And to take it a step further if you believe in the big bang theory than there is a good chance the matter that makes you up has been alive and died thousands of times. If you believe in creationism then its the living soul that is the essence of life and our body is just a shell. in which case how do other animals that live long enough to have no living part of them around after a designated period of time maintain the same personal basis that they did before? Does this mean they have a 'soul' as well that should be respected as much as our own in spite of our dominion of them?

There doesn't have to be a logical reason for it. I sympathize with humans more than I sympathize with chickens because that's how I naturally think. I would far more readily sacrifice the life of a chicken to save a person, hell, I'd probably sacrifice thousands of chickens to save a person. I'm not going to sit here and try to convince myself that humans are as valuable as chickens because I gain absolutely nothing from that.

Why not consider the possibility? Your admitting you have no reason behind your belief other than that 'Its what you believed before' and at the same time saying you are indifferent to exploring why you believe what you do and what could potentially be because it has no value to your current situation that you can see. But at the same time you say this line of thought is something that you 'hate so much'. Its like saying you don't care if gay people marry but when it happens you are terribly offended at the site of it.


If you want me to drop the topic its fine. Im just pushing for you to consider a different perspective here.

[oops_ur_dead]

No, But people kill other people without feeling bad. So how can this relate to human life being more important than other life when the reaction from taking life is relitive?

People who kill people without feeling bad would also kill E.coli without feeling bad. Nobody who is not mentally ill will care about killing a bacteria more about killing a human.

So when dogs get together in a pack and decide they are superior to a person and attack them wouldn't this mean that dogs are superior to humans because they think they are?

Dogs are incapable of thinking that they are superior to a person. We are the only species capable of thinking of something like that, therefore we get to decide whether or not we are superior because we're the ones who define that very idea.

This conversation may have no piratical application to your life but neither did the nature vs nurture argument which has been a subject of debate for over a hundred years. The fact that there is no objective reason for people being better than any other living thing is exactly my point. We consider ourselves better when we are not. On a grand scale we are much worse than any other living thing because we destroy the natural balance of things and will end up destroying this planet in the long run. You will never see a pack of deer totally destroy their habitat and die off.

The nature vs nurture argument has practical applications to my life because it determines causes of conditions, from which treatments can be derived. And no, we aren't objectively better, but I value human beings more than any other animal, therefore humans are better to me.

I would kill a dog in a second. But there are people that would sacrifice their own lives for a dog just as quickly.

So then you agree with me.

I think that it is in that it brings into question the idea of 'self' and 'what is life'. If we consider that we are constantly dieing and being reborn all the time it changes the idea of what life and death is. And to take it a step further if you believe in the big bang theory than there is a good chance the matter that makes you up has been alive and died thousands of times. If you believe in creationism then its the living soul that is the essence of life and our body is just a shell. in which case how do other animals that live long enough to have no living part of them around after a designated period of time maintain the same personal basis that they did before? Does this mean they have a 'soul' as well that should be respected as much as our own in spite of our dominion of them?

The matter that makes me up doesn't die. Matter can't die. I can die.

I don't believe in souls so the second part of the argument doesn't pertain to me.

Why not consider the possibility? Your admitting you have no reason behind your belief other than that 'Its what you believed before' and at the same time saying you are indifferent to exploring why you believe what you do and what could potentially be because it has no value to your current situation that you can see. But at the same time you say this line of thought is something that you 'hate so much'. Its like saying you don't care if gay people marry but when it happens you are terribly offended at the site of it.

I've considered the possibility, but it's foolish and doesn't change my life in any meaningful way, and I have no reason to change the way I think for it.

[Helz]

If I push any further it will end up as a dog chasing its tail. You plainly say that you do not have an objective reason or logic for valuing peoples lives more than other creatures and I am arguing points I don't really believe to instigate a conversation that just will not happen.

I still maintain that all life is equal though.

[madbird20]

@TLL, on the Creationist thing, Creationists believe that God made man in his own image, and that we are the only race gifted with a soul, and that we were all made with compassion so that we would care for non-human life, but at the same time recognize that something with a soul > something without. (You probably already knew that but w/e lol)

[Damus_Graves]

If I push any further it will end up as a dog chasing its tail. You plainly say that you do not have an objective reason or logic for valuing peoples lives more than other creatures and I am arguing points I don't really believe to instigate a conversation that just will not happen.

I still maintain that all life is equal though.

This isn't factual. Life is hardly created equally and by the very definition of equal all life is at an imbalance. If all life was equal man would have been born base and without higher levels of thinking. Its evident by the conversation being had here, right now. Dogs and other animals cannot have such conversations about if life is equal across the board or if it isn't. A large majority of the human race would save a fellow human being from death than a dog if they were given the choice.

"A fire breaks out in the apartment next door. You quickly rush to the scene and immediately are faced with a choice. There isn't going to be enough time to save both the girl and her dog given how fast the fire is spreading. So you have to choose who is going to die. Do you save the girl or the dog?"

Most of the time you are going to get an answer of "the girl". This answer is another example of inequality in life. We naturally value other human beings lives over dogs, and other animals. If life were indeed equal the answer, reasonably, would be more split down the middle.

Additionally there isn't any justifiable way to reference equal life in all things because of the difference in culture/habits. In most contexts Humans have more luxury/standards than other animals, such as sturdy homes and a more consistent source of substance.


It's only a novel idea to consider all lives equal but in reality they are drastically not.

[Muso]

tl;dr the oops vs tll argument

And on the note of humans being bacteria- Every 10 years you are alive no single cell is alive that was alive 10 years ago. So every piece of you from 10 years ago is now dead and you are 100% a new living thing. When you start breaking things down to how they are made and what comes into play life makes a lot of sense.

But I do have to correct this quote above. This is not true.

There are numerous cells in the body that are created when yoú're an embryo and are never replaced at any point in your life. They are:

- neurons (the cells in your brain and spinal cord) - that's the main impediment to people with brain damage recovering because otherwise the damaged ones would just be replaced
- cardiac myocytes (the muscle cells of the heart) - that's why if you have a heart attack, that part of your heart is dead forever
- the hair cells in your ear that carry sound to the brain - that's why hearing loss from listening to too loud music is permanent
- the lens cells of the eye - that's why cataracts are permanent, and the way to treat them is to replace the old lens with a new synthetic one.

Certainly it's true that other cells in the body, like your skin are constantly turning over, but some parts of you are permanent.

[Helz]

This isn't factual. Life is hardly created equally and by the very definition of equal all life is at an imbalance. If all life was equal man would have been born base and without higher levels of thinking. Its evident by the conversation being had here, right now. Dogs and other animals cannot have such conversations about if life is equal across the board or if it isn't. A large majority of the human race would save a fellow human being from death than a dog if they were given the choice.

"A fire breaks out in the apartment next door. You quickly rush to the scene and immediately are faced with a choice. There isn't going to be enough time to save both the girl and her dog given how fast the fire is spreading. So you have to choose who is going to die. Do you save the girl or the dog?"

Most of the time you are going to get an answer of "the girl". This answer is another example of inequality in life. We naturally value other human beings lives over dogs, and other animals. If life were indeed equal the answer, reasonably, would be more split down the middle.

Additionally there isn't any justifiable way to reference equal life in all things because of the difference in culture/habits. In most contexts Humans have more luxury/standards than other animals, such as sturdy homes and a more consistent source of substance.


It's only a novel idea to consider all lives equal but in reality they are drastically not.

I am talking about life itself. That spark that man can not recreate. Not the ability's of a creature or a creatures ability to influence its environment.
Also I would maintain that we all value life more or less because we associate with it. We will save a human over a dog because we sympathize with a human being human. You can draw this parallel in many ways with factions of people through race, nationality, language and definitely familiarity. Take that same situation with a person that is a total recluse and only interacts with that dog. There is a good chance that person will save the dog over the person valuing the dogs life over another humans.

My point is that your argument for a persons life having more value is relative. From an objective stance life is equal. Its our natural bias that struggles with this point. Unless you want to bring God into the conversation.


@Muso-
I stand corrected. I caught that bit from vsause which I did have pegged as a reliable source. I think I will do some reading on this but given your field I bet you are right.

-edit
I should have said I whole heartedly agree that my opinion is not factual in the slightest. I just think life has its value.

[CarolinaCrown]

I am talking about life itself. That spark that man can not recreate.

**The spark that man can not yet recreate.

The same has been said of many things. What if man invents a true Artificial Intelligence? Shall we cast it off as unliving and non-sentient simply because it was made by man and not some entirely chaotic and uncontrolled process?

What if man discovers the process by which life began, and accelerates evolution through genome sequencing? Shall that, too, be considered "non-life" because the entire project happened to be controlled to the very atom?

How the idea of "life" relates to physical laws of the universe may be unknowable now, but in no way does that mean it is unknowable forever

[Helz]

**The spark that man can not yet recreate.

The same has been said of many things. What if man invents a true Artificial Intelligence? Shall we cast it off as unliving and non-sentient simply because it was made by man and not some entirely chaotic and uncontrolled process?

What if man discovers the process by which life began, and accelerates evolution through genome sequencing? Shall that, too, be considered "non-life" because the entire project happened to be controlled to the very atom?

How the idea of "life" relates to physical laws of the universe may be unknowable now, but in no way does that mean it is unknowable forever

If that happens I would say that the overall value of a life would decrease. Good point though.

I think that it would be more likely for us to create life than artificial intelligence. No matter how complicated we make a computer it will forever boil down to on or off. Even if we went back to vacuum tubes at heart computers are still just doing what they are told. This could never change but we could make something so complex it appears to be intelligent. Like that robot that (kinda) taught itself to walk.

[Admiral]

Because all life isn't equal. The other day I killed millions of E.coli cells in the lab, are you saying I should have felt any empathy at all for them?

You are basically Hitler.

Dogs are incapable of thinking that they are superior to a person. We are the only species capable of thinking of something like that, therefore we get to decide whether or not we are superior because we're the ones who define that very idea.

Everything assesses their opponent to a degree. Fight or flight. Of course the comment you're replying to is way wrong in how they are presenting the argument. The only point that was making was that the dogs felt superior in a group and not alone, thus meaning a dog was not superior to a human.

The nature vs nurture argument has practical applications to my life because it determines causes of conditions, from which treatments can be derived. And no, we aren't objectively better, but I value human beings more than any other animal, therefore humans are better to me.

The best way to understand this would be to think who you would execute first, a dog or a person? Even if you're completely indifferent towards the person (and you are totally sane) and the dog has a wagging tail you are going to execute the dog over the person.

[Cryptonic]

The best way to understand this would be to think who you would execute first, a dog or a person? Even if you're completely indifferent towards the person (and you are totally sane) and the dog has a wagging tail you are going to execute the dog over the person.

I'd execute the human first, because they'd be sad to see the dog die. A dog wouldn't care if the person was shot.

[Admiral]

I'd execute the human first, because they'd be sad to see the dog die. A dog wouldn't care if the person was shot.

No worries, I took that factor into consideration already.

[louiswill]

Life is equal, because Equality is not "=" on amounts of things such as intelligence you have but rather the meaning of existence.

It is just our inability to equally treat them as a limited being under current condition of our living.

I want to save everyone but I am no super man.

However, this is not the excuse for myself being cruel.

"I saw too much slaughtering and I am used to it." This is no different than drug yourself to feel better.

Everyone should be attitudewise pro-life and actionwise pro-choice at same time,
though People who suck at metaphor would never be able to embrace ideas to level high enough to actually help them.

Then, in a long run, humanity will be able to survive both machinism and reality.

[creedkingsx]

You kill more life when you tep on an ant then when someone has an abortion. If someone doesn't want their child so much that they are willing to get an abortion, they won't be a good parent. I'd rather the person do something that has the same result as a guy jacking off than a child be raised by someone that doesn't love them or not be raised at all in an orphanage.