Pro Choice Democrats

Richard S. wrote:If my daughter were to be impregnated by rape and decided to have the child I'd treat it no different than any other child she had. Anyone in that situation that chooses to keep the child is making a great sacrifice and commitment. Having said that I don't agree with those in the Republican party that would take away the right of woman to abort a pregnancy caused by rape or if the mothers life is in danger. I'm moderate on most of these moral issues.

What if there was a third choice? I know this is America and we hate more than two choices but I found this interesting anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

jpete wrote:

Richard S. wrote:If my daughter were to be impregnated by rape and decided to have the child I'd treat it no different than any other child she had. Anyone in that situation that chooses to keep the child is making a great sacrifice and commitment. Having said that I don't agree with those in the Republican party that would take away the right of woman to abort a pregnancy caused by rape or if the mothers life is in danger. I'm moderate on most of these moral issues.

What if there was a third choice? I know this is America and we hate more than two choices but I found this interesting anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTAmwUHcLM

It's interesting, but mostly for the observation that almost anything can be rationalized.

What is always overlooked is that decisions are based on emotions and then rationalized, not the other way around. Logic and reason come second. When logic and reason come first as they do in philosophical systems, they fail because not enough weight is given to emotion or even to recognize it and its origins.

Where does emotion fit into "good" or "correct" decision making? Or POLICY making?

jpete wrote:Where does emotion fit into "good" or "correct" decision making? Or POLICY making?

It is your emotions that dictate what is good. It is what is part of what is called morality. The logic comes later to justify the wish. Good for each person is what they feel is good. Because we are the same species there will be many who feel the same way.

What you consider "good" is not necessarily good, though it might be. Most wars were considered good by many. Maybe some were, but the decisions to go to war were emotionally based.

When it comes to killing, we and the Chinese left Hitler in the dust years ago.
It's a problem to which I have no answer and hope I never have to answer for.

tsb wrote:It's a problem to which I have no answer

That's why it is the most pressing problem in the world today. Why do we do what we do?

The science that I believe has the best approach to finding the answers to human behavior is that of Ethology which is the study of how an organism adapts to its environment. To go back to root causes and basics is always the best way to learn something, and that is what ethology does. To understand behavior Niko Tinbergen, one of the founders along with Konrad Lorenz posed four questions that had to be answered to reach understanding. These were:


Function — How does the behaviour affect the animal's chances of survival and reproduction? Why does the animal respond that way instead of some other way?
Causation — What are the stimuli that elicit the response, and how has it been modified by recent learning?
Development — How does the behaviour change with age, and what early experiences are necessary for the animal to display the behaviour?
Evolutionary history — How does the behaviour compare with similar behaviour in related species, and how might it have begun through the process of phylogeny? Phylogeny being evolutionary change through time.

Names you might recognize that have contributed to this science are Jane Goodall, Diane Fossey, and Louis Leakey.

Concerning aggression an excellent book is Lorenz's "On Aggression"

franco b wrote:

jpete wrote:Where does emotion fit into "good" or "correct" decision making? Or POLICY making?

It is your emotions that dictate what is good. It is what is part of what is called morality. The logic comes later to justify the wish. Good for each person is what they feel is good. Because we are the same species there will be many who feel the same way.

What you consider "good" is not necessarily good, though it might be. Most wars were considered good by many. Maybe some were, but the decisions to go to war were emotionally based.

What I think is "good" may or may not be "moral".

I'm sure Manson though it was good to have several people killed and his emotions told him it was OK but that doesn't make it "moral".

Logic MUST come first, and emotion needs to stay the hell home!

jpete wrote:I'm sure Manson though it was good to have several people killed and his emotions told him it was OK but that doesn't make it "moral".

According to his morality it was. He was also probably crazy.

Something triggers an impulse and then logic proceeds in how to implement or satisfy that impulse. There has to be something to solve before logic can proceed. The hunger precedes how to get something to eat.

Getting back to the topic which is abortion both sides are emotionally correct since the primary emotion is the well being of the individual. Its just that one side sees one individual while the other side sees two. The result is strong emotional belief on both sides. It's not a thing subject to compromise.

You see the signs and symbols (semiotics) by the use of catch phrases in both conventions used to trigger emotional responses, no logic needed. Those symbols as well as the words we use which are also symbolic of of what we try to convey also trigger emotions, agreement and well being ,or maybe anger.

All human behavior is governed by emotion which is a plan of how to survive that has evolved over thousands of years. Responses can sometimes be detrimental to the well being of a group. The Japanese are an aggressive (competitive) people who have been forced to live in tight quarters so to counter aggressive tendencies an elaborate system of courtesy has evolved to avoid triggering that emotion. The emotion is still there however and it would be detrimental to the group if it could be removed, which it can't.

Fair enough.

I don't necessarily agree. But your point is well made.

jpete wrote:Fair enough.

I don't necessarily agree. But your point is well made.

Your fierce defense of the individual I think is the only correct one and the only scientifically correct one if we are to evolve into a better society. We may take different roads but they both lead to Rome.

just what if: the woman who is raped, and results in the 20k or so rape pregnancies, is forced, by repubs, to carry it to term, then years later, decides never to have any more children due to the trauma, or does not show real motherly love to the child, because the kid looks awfully alot the the sob who brutally raped her, since most rapes I would imagine involve at least some brutality. under repub values, is the criminal offender, rapist , responsible to pay child support? maybe out of his $1 a day prison salary. but for the un willing mother to be, do not worry, republicans are there to help you, by cutting social programs designed to help you, she will be happy to know that the money went to more tax breaks for the really super rich. what a party!

You can construct all the scenarios you want, but some believe the child has rights also. Primarily to life. The scenario of baby murder is not pretty either. There are 20 thousand rape pregnancies?

The pity of it is that both sides have good arguments.

That would mean that at all crimes scenes we get to kill the bystanders.

FACTS:

Abortions performed as a result of rape are at most 1%-2% of the total number of procedures done.

Roe v Wade is not going away. It doesn't matter what the wacky republican platform says.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Mine is that abortions should be legal up to the end of the first trimester then not allowed unless there is a true medical emergency that threatens the mothers life. I think 3 months is plenty of time for a women to make up her mind. Late term abortions are out and out murder of a baby. Obama voted to not allow medical attention to a baby born alive after a bothced abortion. Think about that now. We are talking about a live baby out of the womb and allowed to die rather than receive medical care. That's barbaric.

I also think a women should not be allowed to repeatedly have abortions. Contraception is $9.00 a month at Walmart.

Let me get this straight, the cons say that the unborn child has more of a right to life than the mother to be that was raped. So then a violent crime causing pregnancy is no big deal as long as the mother that is then forced to carry an unwanted child to what do you then call it when a being that (by your definition) that already was makes an appearance via another painful event for the mother. Is the child then 9 months old & on it's own or is the mother then forced to make still yet make another decision to keep & support the said child or give it up? Does the Gov. that forced her to carry the child pay for her & that person until what point if she keeps it 18? If she gives the child up can she ever change her mind? Who pays for the caring for the child if not adopted for some reason & for how long?
The reason for legal abortions was for the woman to have a choice, she (not the Gov.) has to carry it, pay for it, give up a good part of her life. Make another anti-abortion law & you won't stop one single abortion that would have happened legally there will be that # of abortions preformed under less than ideal conditions & put even more lives at risk.