106 replies to this topic

[chevalier des Trois-Tours]

Note To Any Who Are Against Abortion: Isn't it funny how Right To Lifers only care mainly about those who are not yet born/sentient and the elderly, when it comes to taking/preventing their life, why not worry more about people in the ages between who get killed elsewhere.

With your permission, you confuse two different matters. Go and blame Amnesty International for forsaking homeless cats.

And tell me nothing about the right to choose, please. You are always free to choose to murder whomever possible and then serve a term.

To topic starter: My apologies if this is too far from topic subject.

To anyone: Everyone is encouraged to PM me rather than hunt me down at topics. No need to involved innocent passers-by

[chevalier des Trois-Tours]

Just the fact that its arousing such debates is enough to leave the morality of it as a case-by-case basis. Don't agree with abortions? Fine, don't get one and keep your opinion to yourself. Agree with them, get one. You have no right to let your morality affect the lives of other people who think differently and have different opinions.

Now, of course, you'll argue the same towards the unborn fetus. Perhaps we can argue about the killing of bacteria using household cleaning products next?

Disclaimer: Nothing personal, no offence intended to anyone.

Raistlin: bacteria are not human beings nor even intelligent beings.

You state that if one's against abortion he shouldn't have one and keep quiet? Say this also to those who are for: have one and keep quiet. If it's allowed by the law, you do or not to and accept ALL the consequences of the fact WHATEVER they be.

And speaking of applying your values to other people: sometimes you have to. Wouldn't you intervene if two hugs were beating up a woman in your presence for example? What is this more than just applying your morality to other people?

And again I agree with Littiz: the matter is of whether you may or may not kill upon specific conditions. But you still kill even if hiding behind 'abortion' term. And good-aligned kill only if it cannot be avoided. Imoen is neutral good (notice: not much concerned about law) ergo she won't do that. QUED.

Sorry for three posts in a row, but I think it's better than one whole page long. I propose we establish another thread for this discussion. It doesn't really touch the subject of Quitch's mod.

[chevalier des Trois-Tours]

I'm afraid that being NG has very little bearing on it Chev. That's quite the generalization based on some arbitrary gaming rules.

Madam, do you thus imply that it is possible to kill innocent and remain good?

[Renmauzo]

Im so tempted to enter in, but Id feel bad starting a flame war.

Ive spent some time in bio ethics courses going over this very issue.

I also take exception to the fact people are blank slates. But I suppose we all really do not want to get me started

[Littiz]

I have clear ideas on the matter, yet I'd love to hear your points @Renmauzo.

[LSWSjr]

Yet I'd love to hear your points @Renmauzo.

Thats because he always gives a good argument right Littiz.

I fear no man or woman who can give a good argument for they are my brothers and sisters.

I just wonder when this debate will end, I am deeply regretting starting it.

LSWSjr of LSWSjr Publications OZ Mark 2, in Australia signing off.

[Renmauzo]

Ill try to keep it brief and objective, although abortion is a very subjective issue.

The argument against abortion typically goes like:
1. It is wrong to end the life of an innocent person
2. the fetus is an innocent person
--------------------------------------------------------------
3. it is wrong to end the life of a fetus

Most of us would agree on 1, but the contention seems to lie with 2.

Throughout the ages we've judged the begining and end of life in different ways; for example death was measured when someone stopped breathing or, later, when the heart stopped. However as medical science has advanced we've come to determine death by when the brain stops functioning, ie brain death. My personal opinion on this subjective matter is that we should judge life as we judge death. When the fetus has measurable brain activity it is no longer permissable to abort them, this usually occurs around 3 weeks. I think, and this is getting perhaps philosophical, but that which determines personhood (and by this I mean distinguishes us from other animals or plants) is our brain, and, in turn our rationality. I think personhood is imparted as soon as we can think, even if it is just a minimal sense--and since we cannot know exactly when thinking in a deep sense starts I would stipulate that its best to error on the side of caution, thus imparting personhood at the first sign of brainwaves. Also, it should be noted, this is when the fetus can first feel pain.

Another concern is that of viability. When a fetus can survive outside the womb with proper medical attention it should not be permissable to abort it, although currently it is. As medical science advances though we will see viability pushed further and further back, perhaps even to the point of being able to grow a fetus from conception in an artificial womb.

Bottom line is this: before 3 weeks its ok to abort as the fetus is merely a conceptus. After that its a bit of a grey area, but at 22 weeks (viability) abortion should never be permitted.

[Littiz]

@LSWSjr:
This is only a debate, where's the problem?
The reading is easily avoided.
Then, if Quitch gets bored, he/she can easily delete/remove the thread.
No harm done to anybody...

@Renmauzo:
You have a point with the brain activity thing. The first valid argument I hear in years.
But..
First, there's the problem of "measure". If we can't measure it, maybe it's a limit
of our machines. This leaves the limits again too vague. No point to put the limits there,
when just three weeks before you can mark a sure one.

Second, and more important, there's a crucial difference with the example of people in
comatose state.
Those would die themselves without cures and machines, and the criteria you speak about are
considered to decide about a stop in the therapy.
While in the case of the fetus without brain activity, he would naturally live on unless
actively killed by an abortion, AND brain activity is supposed to show up in time anyway,
it's not gone for good in this case..

[Renmauzo]

People in comas still have brainwaves, just a minimal amount. If brainwaves exist, we can detect them.

Potential is just that--potential. When someone commits a murder we dont prosecute him for the countless lives he ended because the victim may have had kids. Its simply too nebelous to be of consideration, I demand something more concrete.

[Raistlin]

As I have said before, I aim to offer options which have bearing on the situation. I do not plan to judge those options, nor offer only ones I consider "acceptable".

A view which would make murder acceptable.


It was my wording that doomed me on my argument, not so much the point I was trying to get accross. Murder is wrong. I'm not trying to state otherwise. Whether or not abortion is wrong is clearly *highly* controversial. The details of the debate (mostly regarding whether or not a fetus is an "innocent person") should be used to aid people in their judgement, not prevent others from judging.

I still agree with one of Gospel's original posts, about ending up in an orphanage. I believe (I mean "believe", so don't tell me my belief is wrong) that more lives would be ruined than saved if abortion were illegal. Did you ever think to consider the 16 year old girl who was just raped on a sidewalk and forced to give birth to a child. She will obviously be unable to provide for the child, as well as unable to provide for herself in the long run as well. Now you have a potential doctor forced to work at McDonald's living in a poor area (no offense, I've seen my fair share in the past) putting their lives in danger, and the list just goes on.

The chances of that child becoming a criminal are higher than him/her becoming the next Malcolm X. This isn't necessarily relevant, just a response to the "what if" arguments.

Now, be kind enough to disregard what I was trying to say and point out all of the inconsistencies, if you please.

[chevalier des Trois-Tours]

Notice: innocent = not guilty of any crime against you. Next: A realy heavy guilt is to be followed by death penalty if ever (some people fight against death penalty, but for abortion - typical). Last: Who are we to judge one we don't even know much of if ever to judge a human being (judge a being because there are simply no deeds to be weighed). As you see, nothing religious, nothing political. Continue your discussion please.

[Raistlin]

Who are we to judge one we don't even know much of if ever to judge a human being (judge a being because there are simply no deeds to be weighed). As you see, nothing religious, nothing political. Continue your discussion please.

Well, I did say that portion wasn't relevant. I agree with you completely. As long as its clear that it applies to the reverse as well: the reverse just being the argument that the aborted child could have been someone important.

[chevalier des Trois-Tours]

Who are we to judge one we don't even know much of if ever to judge a human being (judge a being because there are simply no deeds to be weighed). As you see, nothing religious, nothing political. Continue your discussion please.

Well, I did say that portion wasn't relevant. I agree with you completely. As long as its clear that it applies to the reverse as well: the reverse just being the argument that the aborted child could have been someone important.

Right. It was just general, not to (at ) you. And you're of course right. Hmm... as for the second part: many famous people in history grew up after being born in conditions that would encourage abortion were it possible then. Most artists did. Plenty of already born siblings, extreme poverty, no views...

Hmm... I also guess there are some people among us who know that by experience. Same to medical problems. And I don't think those people are disappointed with the fact they live.

[Quitch]

many famous people in history grew up after being born in conditions that would encourage abortion were it possible then

And many didn't because faced with these conditions they commited suicide rather than live a minute longer. Many others went on to prematurely end the lives of others.

[Raistlin]

many famous people in history grew up after being born in conditions that would encourage abortion were it possible then

And many didn't because faced with these conditions they commited suicide rather than live a minute longer. Many others went on to prematurely end the lives of others.

Right. Who a person may or may not be when they're older is irrelevent in relation to the moral issue surrounding abortion; unless, of course, you feel a priest is more worthy of life than a garbageman. Anyone agreeing with that statement, shouldn't be questioning the morality of others concerning abortion in the first place.

[Quitch]

Who a person may or may not be when they're older is irrelevent in relation to the moral issue surrounding abortion

Why?

If you hold that position then you of course oppose the death penalty?

[Renmauzo]

Who a person may or may not be when they're older is irrelevent in relation to the moral issue surrounding abortion

Why?

If you hold that position then you of course oppose the death penalty?

Its irrelevant because potential swings both ways, every person we abort may have been Hitler. We cant know so it doesnt matter. There are far more consistant reasons for and against abortion besides potential.

[serjeLeBlade]

Now I'm really wondering what kind of replies am I going to get if I try to remind you that you are talking about a fantasy game, and about a game in the first place.

Brainwaves? Murder? Abortion? Coma?
This is real life stuff!

In another existing mod, the pregnancy matter is handled very simply allowing the player (the only real person involved there) to choose if it is occouring or not.
The player wants a baby? The character is pregnant.
The player doesn't like it? Say it, and it just never happened.
This can hardly be called an "abortion", imho, or cause trouble to anyone!

To handle the matter in a more realistic roleplaying fantasy word way, the pregnancy could be prevented -or negated- via the use of a wish.
What if we wished that the child was never conceived?
Would you call it a murder?

And what if we wish for no risk of pregnancy in advance, as we are at it?
Imoen is a powerful spellcaster and the protagonist may be one as well.
Contraception is not necessarily achieved only by the use of 21st-century medicine.

[Littiz]

@Renmauzo:
You're right that we cannot consider "potential" crimes, but don't confuse beings NOT
in existance with beings already created, who started their own cycle of life, and their run
towards mature life and death.
It's the 3 weeks deadline that I cannot logically accept (though I can understand the reasoning).
Of course, I'm sure the being wouldn't suffer much at this stage, but for my concern about
definitions, it's still a human being. You'd kill it in the first 3 weeks...
Why not 3 weeks and 1 second?
Are brainwaves so different?
Who decides the deadline?
Is the deadline the same for every new "instance" of child?
Assuming the deadline is correct, have you precise enough clocks to decide when a fetus becomes a child?
And how long does this transition last?
Again, I believe the only start we can recognize is THE start.

About the environment subtopic, I'm in line with Renmauzo, such a reasoning leads nowhere.
Why don't we go killing all the poor and derelicts then? And what about murders, sexual abuses,
violences that happen in the "good society" ?? Are you so sure environment says it all, Quitch?
Maybe poorness can push more to thievery than else, while all the rest remain innate.
Do a thief deserve death? Even before he may actually become a thief?
And if you slaughter this mob of children just to kill some potential criminals
(assuming for the moment that those deserve death), what about the others?
Those who would have lived their simple and troubled lives, still maybe one day
warmed by friends, love, the simple pleasure of debates, or the rare presence of
someone to hug, just for a moment?
We have to preserve them, no need for them to become great artist or something (right Chev? )

There are far more consistant reasons for and against abortion besides potential.

I don't think we need reasons for or against anything. We have only to know if we are
speaking about homicides or not. The rest follows.

EDIT: I fear we're no more speaking only about the mod, Serje, my friend

[chevalier des Trois-Tours]

To handle the matter in a more realistic roleplaying fantasy word way, the pregnancy could be prevented -or negated- via the use of a wish.
What if we wished that the child was never conceived?
Would you call it a murder?

Prevented not, Negated yes. Do you feel any difference whether I hypothetically dismember you with Carsomyr or tell Nalia to desintegrate you (or to wish you ceased to exist)? Personally I wouldn't like either possibility applied to myself.

Edit: As for who the foetus could have become, I believe it's irrelevant and if I remember I've already said this. If you murder (non = kill) a murderer you are now colleagues. If we justify abortion in certain cases this will lead to further moving of the borderline as well as provide arguments for legalising euthanasia. Who then maybe? (RPG stat limit? 'everyone below sum total 75 will be kind to report to Royal Magic Labs for desintegration')