Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Argumentative Git thread

1. I'm not off-topic, Übereil. Cleg asked how abortion can be justified - I answered and asked for his personal XP with this topic. He answered, I agreed about the after time. I see no sense in stigmatising females who aborted, as guilt is an important part in this decision.

2. XP => I see it as eXPerience <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/biggrin.gif" alt="" />

3. Where do you see off-topic?

You are SUPPOSED to talk about abortion in India because of gender, NOT abortion in general.
And I see it as eXperience too... But I'm allso kind of a Besserwisser, so I just had to point it out... Because I'm like that... Now, at least...

Isn't the time up soon?

Übereil

[ off_argument]



so it means the general problem is abortion no?

since when are you shocked by the Off-topic things anyway Ub?

[/off_argument]

Ub, just.... ahh... screw it. Go away. Just for a minute at least!

no xp means, excrusiatinglyperfect.


Just kidding... Or am I?

Oh, and ONTOPIC.

I personally think its a horrible thing, but people have the right to do it if they want to.

LOL, western culture dictates that rape taints a women and the child, ergo aborting a rape child is ok. What an odd carryover from the concept of women as property, and rape as a violation of that property plus a violation of "purity".

There are a number of questions and issues that invariably fail to be discussed during abortion discussions, which is why the topic can never be resolved intelligently. Half of the issues, indeed, the real issues, are largely or totally ignored.

With respect to the above quote - let's simplify the text a little.

1. Abortion is allowed in cases of rape, because the woman doesn't want the child, and it was forced upon her.

A) in the case of not wanting the child, how is the reason relevant to whether abortion should be allowed by society? Regardless of the reason for society allowing or disallowing, the fetus is still being destroyed for what is an arbitrary reason as described, regardless of whether it's imposed from the outside, socially tolerated or supported, or simply selected by the individual.

B) In the case of being forced, rape is no different from society dictating to a wife that she must bear children, or should and communicating this message so strongly that women don't feel as though they have a choice, or risk being ostracized. There are lots of ways to force a woman to have a child that have nothing to do with physical rape. From the perspective of arguing the fetus has a right to life, it's origin is not relevant at all (in the case of incest included, unless you intend to argue that physical health of the fetus and genetic health should determine whether the fetus should live - a profoundly caring, intelligent, and rational response and unlikely to be heard anywhere).

C) In the case of being forced in the sense of not being ready, age is not relevant at all, no more so than money or any other reason. If the woman or girl isn't ready to have and rear a child, only she can determine that. Now society may be willing to bear the burdens of having a child, however, it's still a physical imposition on the woman and in effect, society is physically raping women that want to have an abortion but cannot.

D) Issues of the mother's health - if arguing a fetus has a right to life, then any risk on the mother's part cannot possibly justify an abortion, since it's a risk versus taking the life of the fetus. Such a position is completely irrational. Even if it was a death sentence to the mother, the longer life of the fetus, assuming it could be carried to term, would necessarily take precedence.

In general however -

I don't even understand the topic. Are we supposed to argue about medical practices that seem to support abortion re: Indian social practice? Are we supposed to argue that an unborn child has a right to life but we how could we justify abortion?

I think your all over the map here, seems like 4-5 different topics.

So I'll address the issue in general.

2. Indian social practice is influencing abortion statistics and population balance.

a) Er, so? When this practice results in woman being so scarce that men start paying to have them as wives, the situation will normalize. This is certainly not intelligent behavior, however, the economics of the situation will necessarily resolve itself.

b) We could argue a similar side to the same issue re: gender balance by addressing all male armies. There are lots of ways to have a gender imbalance, indeed arguably the Indians are correcting the natural imbalance which is problematic in modern societies where women are not dying in childbirth as they previously had, so the population levels are soaring plus the number of women who cannot obtain stable mates/families can be seen as problematic from both a social and psychological view, not to mention the difficulties in child rearing in a single mother household (as a practical matter, not even discussing the early research on psychological impact to children who are monosocialized by a primary caregiver)

c) re: gender favoritism issues. How is this relevant to anything unless you arbitrarily decide a gender balance produces more viable/important/relevant people? Reproduction issues set aside, what difference does it make if all human beings or most are women or men, strictly talking about their individual value? Trying to say we should value a balance of some kind suggests that men or women have different values, not the same one. Personally I don't care whether every human in existence is male or female, not until I see some research indicating that a mix of genders necessarily produces some value to individuals (though current reality of procreation and child rearing make a gender mix necessary, this may not always be the case).
Indeed by arguing against female foeticide you are in fact saying that filling available population slots (people who can be fed, educated, etc.) with men preferrentially that women have some special value over men. (okay, probably true <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> )
Actually the Indian situation may be correcting a gender imbalance introduced by war, the fact that male children are slightly less healthy, plus the natural ratios disturbed by medical technology where women aren't dying as much proportionally as they had in the past plus living longer!

3. Abortion as choice vs right to life of the fetus.

A) Fundamentally this is two different issues and they must be addressed separately prior to being weighted and compared. Ergo the issue is never resolved, because it's never really discussed.

1. First, Abortion as female choice versus society's choice. Arguing that a women should not be allowed to choose but society should means that, regardless of contraceptives or intent issues, that at some point society has the right to force a woman to/stay impregnated and, currently, then be responsible for the child.

Let's all keep in mind that the pace of medical technology is such that within our children's lifetimes we can expect men to be capable of carrying a fetus to term inside their abdomen.

So do both sexes not have the right to not be used as social breeding factories for one or more children? Does society have the right to propagate itself?

Clearly the answer is no...why you ask? Because put simply, society does not exist. It's a virtual entity, a fiction. Your neighbors do not have a "right" to force you to bear children for their peace of mind because they want their traditions carried on. Should they do so? Of course not - you are a part of society, forcing others to carry on artificial traditions for their own sake twists the concept of society into a virtual living entity that really does dehumanize us all. Abortion as a choice, by contrast, illuminates our humanity and elevates it above those creatures who do not have intelligent choice.

2. Second, fetus having a "right to life". LOL LOL LOL LOL ROFL. Delicious irony that organized religion, responsible for more human deaths than any other force on earth, is considered "pro life" and their irrational positions are driving these arguments while obscuring them at the same time.

Does a fetus have a right to life? Effectively what you're asking is whether a potential human life is the same as a human life. Ignoring the impact to the woman under our current technology restraints (later, for instance, does every egg and sperm that can be combined and incubated in a machine have a right to life?), this is an absurd question. A potential life is clearly not the same as an existing life, and if you try to argue that a potential life has a "right to live", then you are in fact saying that every possible egg should be fertilized by every possible sperm at every possible time. The end result would be a world packed full of pregnant 12 years old girls who would always be pregnant, be forced to have twins or quadruplets or more, until the ecology collapsed and every living thing was dead.

But who cares, right? God will take care of it. But if Zeus is busy that week I guess we're all in deep doodoo.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/puppyeyes.gif" alt="" />

To keep this short, I won't discuss the issues re: morality of raising unwanted children and the devastating psychological consequences it can have, amounting to a lifetime of torture...

abortion is almost an action similar to dealing with nuclear fallout; damage is done & now what to do with the consequences.

thanks to lowkey for boggling my mind to think some more.

in any case, women who bear the fetus will bear whatever consequences abortion or otherwise brings. though i'm a christian & i kind of prefer if women not to go for abortion, the choice of women be it fickle or wise or whatever it is, is paramount & so the women themselves should choose for themselves. never mind the society.

the best way is still to control desire; by exercising forethought & caution when exercising it. or course rape is a totally different story.

personally i don't know anyone who has gone through abortion so i can't really relate even remotely how abortion affect the women.

Interesting aspects, Low - and indeed some that are not argued often.

A side track in this topic, but which triggered a spontaneous dissenting opinion:
[color:"orange"]Because put simply, society does not exist. It's a virtual entity, a fiction[/color]

This is simple - indeed too simple IMO. While I agree, that one can say that society is a virtual entity, nonetheless it becomes very real to our life. The moment humans start agreeing and implementing rules in order to regulate their living together peacefully, "society" becomes existant and influences the daily life. The same is true for cultural traditions - one may share or not share the views, respect them or not - they are very much existant and non-fiction.

Also:
[color:"orange"]what you're asking is whether a potential human life is the same as a human life.[/color]

Is that really the question? Is the argument not rather is it human life, or not? The question argued in abortion discussions was, is a fetus in the early weeks to be considered a human being or a "cell agglomeration"? The potential in its later life is a subsequent issue IMO

To me the fact that legalized abortion, promoted as "a woman's right to choose" has led to the choice to abort children is the height of irony. Rather than elevate the status of women, in India it has contributed to denigrating the status of women.

I must say that although Glance scored big in this argument by pointing out the questionable ethics of the medical field, I am declaring the winner to be Kiya. rather than just cold analysis Kiya brought into the argument a feeling of humanity.

Thanks, Cleg.

Next topic:
[color:"orange"]Assuming now, we were in the position to create a new belief that could unite mankind, unite the individual, bring peace to the world and your inner selves. What would be the core? Would this creation be possible at all? No one would be forced to take it - your offer has to be interesting/convincing enough for people to join. Show me your dreams <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" /> [/color]

These words made me think. What do you think of these words?





Please state at the beginning of your post if you choose the intellectual debating approach or your own true opinion.
Kiya

Don't let Kiya fool you! What she REALLY whants to know is: what's your politics?

I feel like going for a moderated form of Socialism, based on some kind of federal system. It would be democratical in the way that all would participate in ruleing, but not in the way of free elections. Instead everyone should be taught from birth how to run a state (this should be small states, so influence the place where you live should be easy). They would be taught valuations like solidarity, tolerance, honesty and equality of pepole (in general, black/yellow/white pepole shouldn't be a concept). Greed should be a thing pepole was taught not to feel. After a while I think this would work. Pepole would be used to a system where pepole are nice to eachother, if something goes wrong for somebody, it's everyone's trouble so evryone helps in setting it straight. This way pepole would allso get democracy, but everyone should be taught socialism (with common ownership (everybody owning nothing and everything at the same time) and equallity between pepole as main ideas) from birth, so there wouldn't be any problems because of idologies. Everyone should feel they had influence on their own situation. Maybe we should work out minor details (ok, school and such isn't very minor, but you get the point) later.

Übereil
PS As I said in bypass, this wouldn't work right away, but in time... DS

this is my true opinion:



i am convinced of that too...



I disagree, even violently, with that...

there must be an unit of mankind but i am also pretty convinced that this unit is unreachable. Factually understanding and respect are exercices that are far from being practised equally in this world.



each time that ideology of any nature (political, religious, and now i will say economical...)has attempted to release this unit the dreams have turned out to be nightmares
(catholicism=>inquisition, colonisation=>chaos in africa, socialism=>stalisnism or very utopic and unefficient view of the world, capitalism=>economic deregulation and exploitation etc...)

main reason is probably if you want to unit mankind that's because you have also a very united view of truth... Something that practically is probably contradictory with the notions of understanding and respect.

Any ideas about this unit how generous and how "good" they are, would be misunderstood or opposed by some... and how would you deal with this opposition except by using force in a while or another...

and anyway what would be the minim criterium that will be able to unit effectivly mankind? democracy, certainly not. In a way (and though i'm convinced democracy is necessary) democracy has not a really positive definition (anyway it is not the expression of freedom or at least it is no more): maybe something more like "the worst political system except all others"... Is democracy "exportable" anywhere... Probably not and anyway not without violence...

On the outside we are all different. Inside, at the level of the soul, we are all God--the same essence. To perceive this inner reality in oneself and others is the privelege of a rare few.

good quoting cleg...
but that's not the aphorisms' thread...

Even if the idea would merely be an invitation? An invitation you can accept or not?

My dreamy invitation, I call it "Energism" (made it up):

An energy surrounding you like air - as an invitation, if you open yourself up, it could enter and fill you with love and acceptance. This energy would only have messages for the individual.

it would be =>
- a direct conversation between 2, giving you what you need. For some maybe tolerance, or patience, or self-acceptance, or protection or...
- the decision would be only on your side
- the energy is there to encourage and aid you in your individual spiritual development
- existing religions would be considered as fragments of this energy, like in a puzzle - and new religions would be other puzzle pieces. And mankind might be able to make this puzzle larger, more colourful if all religions, beliefs would be combined? And if you wish to hang on to your own puzzle piece, it would be ok as well - as it is a part of Energism? And the puzzle piece reflects the whole?

it would not need -
- messengers, interpreters, prophets, popes, imams leaders telling you what to do and how to believe. Those propagating anything for all the energy would tell them, would be at once a betrayal towards this energy, as the contact is direct
- no intitiation as you are the one to open yourself
- no rules or rites for the way to worship, as worship is not the energy's intent (it's to serve). So, you can marry and it will aid you - you can decide to retreat and meditate, it will aid you - your hair can be long/short, it will aid you - you can wear a gown or jeans, it will aid you - you can be a vegetarian or carnivorous, it will aid you
- no temples or places of gathering as there are no universal, only individual messages
- no promises of wealth, riches, heaven, hell etc. as you decide
- NO expansion, NO war to convince others that Energism is the only way to live, no crusade, no Djihad, no Sharija
- no punishment or threats if you decide to stay at your own pace
- no kharma inflicting a punishment in the next life
- no state religion, no laws determining that the state is living Energism
- no absolutism, no pictures determining how this energy looks like

Would this be possible at all? Remember, this energy would be like the air surrounding you. You can breathe it in or not. It is not an extra-terrestrial being, but something that has existed always. Or, would Energism call a lot of protest, as leaders (worldly or spiritual ones) would fear, they lose power if Energism would fill up the people? Would Energism lead to a war, as it opposes the one-an-all God?
Kiya

as i understand it there are some thought's schools who have tried to release this "energism"... neo-platonicians, early christians (before the christianism was tainted by an "universal message" and i think some things like that have survived until relativly recently... see Master Eckhart for instance...) but also many dissidances of hinduism(janinist, and buddhist as buddhism can be seen as an hinduism dissidance, well at least historically it is)... it has always failed to be applied...

1- for the reason you've already mentionned, kiya... opposition of all those who have power and are decided to hold on it... And either they will oppose directly this idea or they will twist it to their advantages (what has done the Roman church with many pagan, and Jewish thoughts that seemed to oppose them, for instance... well Roman Church is far for being alone to have acted like this... and it is not proper to religious concepts)

2- Each time these attempts to create an energism are not unlinked to particular cultural and social background...
For instance the goal of neo platonism was to nurrish the Antic Greek society with some spirituality, the goal of buddhism (at its of founding but i think in a way it is always true) was to reform, open and elargish (to no indian and particularly no twice born indians) the very violent founding of indian society...
=> i think these attempts are just not understandable out of the circumstances where there are born then where there are developping.

i'm sorry i'm not sure i understand... if some accept it and some don't where is the unit?

anyway if i'm not misuderstanding the idea, this kind of invitation is a lack... not a pejorative word but i mean it contains no positive definition, right?

You won Cleg <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I don't agree with you about the privilege for a few, but the first part is put nicely and shortly. Maybe we will advance one day and see that all are capable to detect and live the godly part within us.

@MG => an invitation is not a positive definition? Hm, I thought it would show the freedom to join/not - as all beliefs we have so far are excluding and punitive if one does not follow?

@Übereil => I'm not sure, I saw Christiania in your post. It's ok, even a political system is a belief <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />

Kiya

What is Cristiania?

Übereil

@cleg: could you give your source please, i'm sincerely interested...

@kiya: does negative theology give more freedom than positive theology for instance?... i don't think so (except for Eckhart maybe)... that's not because there is no positive content that... ok the arguing is closed.

Thank you very much Kiya. When I used the words priveleged few I had no intention to express some kind of spiritual elitism and no wish to offend. Perhaps a better choice of words would be--lucky few or a few who have been graced by the Lord.

This is the 3rd time over a short period that I have won. I would like to give somebody else the opportunity to select a topic and moderate and so I am going to cede my position to Ubereil who has been highly vocal in this thread.