Abortion

[KageSora]

Thank you, KageSora. I've even seen some people drink unbelievable amounts of pennyroyal tea in the hopes of terminating their pregnancy, but they end up extremely sick.

It's just fact. People were doing abortion since long before it became a legal issue. All sorts of methods from consumption of dangerous chemicals to eating naturally occurring abortifacients, to causing physical trauma to their bodies in an attempt to get rid of the unwanted pregnancy.

 

 

Never said it shouldn't be a choice just implied it's morally wrong.

Ending someone's life is not a good option no matter what reason it is for but, until they are no longer needed and/or a better solution is found, it should remain legal.

 

 

 

And one last thing before I go to bed, you all argue that it is the woman's choice in every case that I've known that isn't true.

Every person I know who's had an abortion had one because they and their partner weren't careful and she was pressured into it by her parents or boyfriend.

They didn't have much say in the matter because their other option was homelessness and abandonment.

They all suffered from it greatly, one tried to commit suicide because her grief was so bad.

It's ruined relationships and ruined lives.

I don't know stats on how common that is or if having the child would have been the better option but, that's just my experience.

An over all negative one leading to a negative view on it.

And what I'm saying is that you can't prove it's universally morally wrong.

 

I don't believe that it's murder because I don't equate a clump of cells that may never become human with a fully formed human being. Therefore, it's not morally wrong to me.

 

However, you're entitled to believe that it's morally wrong and that's why choice is important--so you can chose to not have an abortion believing it to be morally wrong and I can chose to have an abortion since I don't have any moral issues with it.

 

 

If a person is being pressured into it, that's wrong. But it's just as wrong to pressure a woman into carrying to term if she wants to abort.

 

 

We need to not only ensure that it's legally a CHOICE, but to empower women to make that choice. No woman should be forced to abort or carry to term by another person. It should always be her choice. But too many are forced by both sides to do what they don't feel is best.

[hazeh]

Even if the fetus is to be considered another body or person inside of her, and therefore not hers to "violate", likewise her body is not the fetus's to violate. If the mother is unwilling, the fetus does not have a right to live in her body. That's the very basis of it. Just like we cannot be obligated to give our organs, even against our wishes, just so someone else will survive, if a woman views the fetus as an invasion of her body, she should absolutely be entitled to have it removed from her body.

 

Whether or not the fetus survives from being removed from her should not impact whether or not it should be allowed in the first place.

[RWyvern]

"The fetus is just a clump of cells"

That is the most biased site I have ever seen on this subject.

 

If I ever get abducted and raped, I would most definitely have that fetus aborted, thank you very much. The stress of caring for another human being is something I know I could never handle. I don't care how 'barbaric' and 'gruesome' this linked page describes the process of abortion as. I would want to preserve my own sanity and wellbeing, and possibly life. I hardly think gaining an unwanted, unmanageable child via a traumatizing experience at possibly the cost of my life is a gift from God <_<

 

/Endrant

 

Sooo yeah. IMHO, at the end of the day the choice ultimately comes down to the woman bearing the fetus.

 

[Infinis]

I feel that if a thing is within or on my body, I am well within my rights to remove it, be it a tick or a fetus.

 

Laws are not a manner of forcing a belief system on someone - disallowing murder is a basic tenet of general morality. It has nothing to do with the fact that this is also a tenet of many religions. However, the belief that a fetus is a person IS a highly religious belief. I personally do not believe that a fetus is a person until it comes out of the womb and begins to learn, because to be a person I feel that you need to be able to develop a self, and that takes active consciousness and life experience.

 

Also, to point something out: pro-choicers are not "hey let's all go get abortions." To be pro-choice means to support a person's choice to the matter. This does not mean we condone axe murders, and we may personally feel that it is murder to abort a fetus, but we will not disallow a person a choice.

 

I have lost a lot of respect for the anti-choice side in the past few years. Many anti-choicers seem to disregard the life, and indeed, the quality of life as well, of the person who has to bear the fetus. But you can't do that. You can't call yourself "pro-life" while disregarding the life of the bearer. You MUST look at both the life of the fetus and its bearer and consider them, because this matter greatly affects both. Is it really worth forcing a person to carry to term a fetus that may end up deformed or unwanted? Is it really worth forcing a person to carry if it will harm them greatly, physically and/or mentally? Is it really worth it, when a fetus still has a chance to die or deform, to ruin the life of a person who has already developed their self?

 

Many anti-choicers also turn to the adoption and foster system. But this is largely not working, and it's been pointed out many times in this thread. A ridiculously high percentage of children in the foster system wish they had never been born and an equally ridiculously high number attempt suicide. Is it really worth it to force a person to carry to term a child that might experience that?

 

Yes, a fetus has great potential for the future once born. But for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction: thus, a fetus also has great potential to die in the womb, to deform and become the subject of ridicule by peers and reduced/no quality of life, to be shoved into a broken and overloaded adoption & foster system, and/or to live a life of misery/abuse. I personally feel that it is very wrong to carry, or be forced to carry, a child to term when you know you can't care for it and/or where you know it will have little or no quality of life.

 

Yes, abstinence is an option. But it is not the only option, nor is it always the good or right option. People MUST be informed of ALL (and able to access) options, including abortion. Sex is not /only/ for procreative purposes, not even among other animals. Many women already know that abortion is the right choice for them when they go to get one.

 

The whole "women should have to deal with the consequences of sex" spiel also really gets to me. It takes two to tango - men MUST carry half the responsibility here, because the consequences are equally a man's fault. This cannot be looked at from just one direction.

 

Abortion should remain a choice. Illegalizing it will NOT make it go away - but it WILL increase the death rates from women who seek out unsafe illegal abortions.

[KageSora]

I have lost a lot of respect for the anti-choice side in the past few years. Many anti-choicers seem to disregard the life, and indeed, the quality of life as well, of the person who has to bear the fetus. But you can't do that. You can't call yourself "pro-life" while disregarding the life of the bearer. You MUST look at both the life of the fetus and its bearer and consider them, because this matter greatly affects both.

That's why I argue that to truly be "pro-life" you must be pro-choice, otherwise you're just pro-forced-birth.

 

I wish we lived in a world where the only abortions performed were those where the fetus was dead or dying, or there was a true medical need (mental or physical) for the mother. That no fetus was aborted because of financial reasons, or because it was unwanted an accident, or the result of rape. That any child born that the mother could or did not want to care for could go up for adoption and be guaranteed a loving home that would raise and care for it.

 

But we don't, and because of that, protecting choice is important to ensure the highest chance at a higher quality of life for both women and those children who do come into the world.

 

 

Another argument I keep seeing is the "but what if that child would have grown up to cure cancer?!" kind of thing. That's not really a good argument, IMO. The child could just as easily grow up to be the next Hitler.

 

A fetus has a potential future--but why throw away a solid reality (the current life of the woman) for something that is a potential and has just as much potential to go wrong as to go right?

[Corvidae]

Another argument I keep seeing is the "but what if that child would have grown up to cure cancer?!" kind of thing. That's not really a good argument, IMO. The child could just as easily grow up to be the next Hitler.

 

HA! Sorry, that made me laugh a little too much.

 

 

I read through some of that "Abolitionish FAQ" page. I noticed this: The baby is not a part of your body. Excuse me? The baby is indeed part of your body for the entire time it is in the womb. The woman is the one who supplies it with nutrients, protection, etc. The baby would not survive if it was not a part of the body during gestation. Sure it's not a body part, but it is a part of the woman's body. It is connected via tubes, cords, and the like. If the fetus was inside of an egg that was laid like a chicken's, then you could say that it is not a part of the body. But because the fetus is inside the woman's body and is being sustained through her body, it is a temporary part of her body.

 

Another thing I saw, which deals with rape victims' choice to abortion: "An abortion will not erase the fact that she has been raped". While that statement is true, I have to put this out there: a woman who is traumatized and is forced to keep her child will most likely see the child as a bad memento of the incident. It's like a scar. How would you like to look at something that resulted from your injuries, your own pain, your own suffering, your emotional trauma, and it was all against your will? How would you like to tell your child that they were forced into this world against her right to control her body?

 

Side note: That website is 100% biased bull.

[KageSora]

I suppose I could accept a fetus isn't part of a woman's body, in the way life support machines aren't part of a person's body.

 

But if those who have that power decided to pull the plug, that's it. It's kinda the same thing with an abortion--it's the fetus version of pulling the plug on life support when it's clear that it's better for all involved to allow the one being kept alive to die.

 

 

Just like those who have the power to decide to pull the plug can opt to remove the life support or to keep the person on the support, so too a woman must have the power to have an abortion or carry to term.

 

 

And before anybody says something like "but people can leave instructions for if they want to be kept alive or not!" consider abortion like the case of a person who did NOT make specifications. Not everybody has a specification on if they'd rather be kept on support or not.

[philpot123]

Side note: That website is 100% biased bull.

You say it's biased as if you aren't.

[KageSora]

You say it's biased as if you aren't.

Oh, I admit I'm biased.

 

However, if you want me to take you seriously, you'll have to link to something that doesn't appear to be 100% propaganda for your cause. How about something with strong scientific backing?

 

Also come back when you have a source that doesn't advocate ing the health of the mother as long as she pops out that baby.

 

Please, do tell me more about how women aren't broodmares when you back a movement that doesn't care how broken the mother is provided she gives birth to a child she never wanted.

Edited June 22, 2013 by KageSora

[Shienvien]

To me, science has with absolute certainty proven that an early fetus cannot be a person. Potential does not equal actuality. Something which is not a person cannot be murdered, and the rights of a person must always overrule those of a non-person. By my understanding, any limiting of early abortion is therefore morally wrong.

 

 

[philpot123]

Oh, I admit I'm biased.

 

However, if you want me to take you seriously, you'll have to link to something that doesn't appear to be 100% propaganda for your cause.  How about something with strong scientific backing?

 

It's not propaganda, it's responses to typical pro-death arguments. Where scientific backing is required, the answers are supported with links to viable sources. But here's a great one.

 

Abortion is never medically necessary

 

Also come back when you have a source that doesn't advocate ing the health of the mother as long as she pops out that baby.

 

Please, do tell me more about how women aren't broodmares when you back a movement that doesn't care how broken the mother is provided she gives birth to a child she never wanted.

 

If you looked into AHA, you'd see that they do incredible things for expectant mothers who decide not to murder their child. They have found women homes, adoptive parents, temporary care, you name it. We absolutely care about the women involved. We just don't think that murder solves problems.

 

To me, science has with absolute certainty proven that an early fetus cannot be a person.

 

How do you know science has proven that with absolute certainty?

 

Something which is not a person cannot be murdered, and the rights of a person must always overrule those of a non-person. By my understanding, any limiting of early abortion is therefore morally wrong.

 

How do you know that people have rights? From where do you derive your sense of morality?

[eritated]

It's not propaganda, it's responses to typical pro-death arguments.

"pro-death"? Since when has anyone here been "pro-death"?

[catstaff]

It's not propaganda, it's responses to typical pro-death arguments. Where scientific backing is required, the answers are supported with links to viable sources. But here's a great one.

 

Abortion is never medically necessary

So a group of Irish Catholic medical personnel, many of whom have participated in anti-abortion activities, claimed that abortion is never medically necessary. Yet they cited no case studies, no hard scientific evidence of this.

 

And then a couple of months later... this happened.

 

Woman dies after being refused abortion.

 

From the article:

Halappanavar's husband, Praveen, said doctors at University Hospital Galway in western Ireland determined she was miscarrying within hours of her hospitalization for severe pain on Sunday, Oct. 21. He said over the next three days, doctors refused their requests for an abortion to combat her surging pain and fading health.

 

(snip)

 

"Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby," he told The Irish Times in a telephone interview from Belgaum, southwest India. "When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning, Savita asked if they could not save the baby, could they induce to end the pregnancy? The consultant said: `As long as there is a fetal heartbeat, we can't do anything.'

 

"Again on Tuesday morning ... the consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita said: `I am neither Irish nor Catholic' but they said there was nothing they could do," Praveen Halappanavar said.

 

He said his wife vomited repeatedly and collapsed in a restroom that night, but doctors wouldn't terminate the fetus because its heart was still beating.

(bolding mine for emphasis)

 

So, the fetus was already dying, obviously not viable, but medical personnel allowed the mother to remain open to infection for over three full days, resulting in septicemia and death. This sure as heck seems to me like an example of when an abortion is medically necessary.

[philpot123]

Being refused an abortion didn't kill her.

 

"pro-death"? Since when has anyone here been "pro-death"?

I would consider those who call child sacrifice a choice to be pro-death. 55 million+ children destroyed in the womb attests to that.

Edited June 23, 2013 by philpot123

[KageSora]

It's not propaganda, it's responses to typical pro-death arguments. Where scientific backing is required, the answers are supported with links to viable sources. But here's a great one.

 

Abortion is never medically necessary

And I'm rather sure you'd tell me to come back with a better source if I pulled up a site that was designed to make pro-forced-birhters out to be terrible people who hate women and claim that it's not propoganda but responses to typical anti-woman arguments and provides--sometimes questionable--scientific backing claimed to be viable sources.

 

They're idiots, the lot of 'em. There are, in fact, cases where abortion is medically necessary. Pregnancies where the fetus is outside the womb, for one. Believe it or not, that still happens! Science has not magically found a way to make them vanish.

 

How about cases where the woman becomes emotionally distraught and suicidal? Would you just strap her down until she pops out that kid? Therapy and medication can only do so much if the source of the suicidal thoughts and/or actions is not addressed. If, in such a case, the desire for death stems from having something growing inside her that she doesn't want to give birth to, then the only means of addressing it is to abort it. Unless, like I said, you just want to strap her down and it if she never mentally/emotionally recovers from it.

 

If you looked into AHA, you'd see that they do incredible things for expectant mothers who decide not to murder their child. They have found women homes, adoptive parents, temporary care, you name it. We absolutely care about the women involved. We just don't think that murder solves problems.

 

Too bad that does nothing for those women who cannot give birth for whatever reason, or who hate their unborn hell-spawn enough to never want it to draw breath. Please, tell me how you'll help them aside from guilting them into something that makes them feel worse.

 

How do you know that people have rights? From where do you derive your sense of morality?

Not from some centuries-old, translated and re-translated and interpreted in a million different ways text!

 

I judge it by what I think causes the least harm as well as using logic. And since I don't find a fetus to be a person in much the same way that I don't find a corpse to be a person, I don't have any reason to feel that abortion (provided it IS the woman's choice or ends up being necessary for some reason--which is tragic when it happens and she truly wanted that child) causes a lot of harm (it is, however, unfortunate when women truly decide to get an abortion of their own free will, then suffer from it--but it's just as bad when a woman truly thinks she wants to give birth then regrets not getting an abortion).

 

"pro-death"? Since when has anyone here been "pro-death"?

Easy--since pro-choice means "murder all the babies", of course. Nevermind that plenty of us don't like abortion but just think the choice needs to be allowed. We still wanna murder them babies!

 

C'mon guys, let's go kill some unborn youngsters! We'll make a grand day of it! We'll have picnics and there'll be drinking and we'll have a good, clean competition of "abort the babies"! Winner gets dibs on what to do with the remains!

[Spelunker]

Being refused an abortion didn't kill her.

 

I would consider those who call child sacrifice a choice to be pro-death. 55 million+ children destroyed in the womb attests to that.

Technically, septicemia killed her, but an abortion could have saved her.

 

As far as I know, no children have been destroyed in the womb. Everything killed there was a fetus or embryo. Plus, there's this thing called miscarriage that you may want to fight against instead. It kills many embryos that are WANTED.

[DaniBoo]

If people are so against abortion, then why not start coming up with ways for more effective methods of birth controls and what not so that there won't have to be so many abortions?

 

 

 

 

[KageSora]

If people are so against abortion, then why not start coming up with ways for more effective methods of birth controls and what not so that there won't have to be so many abortions?

Plenty of them think just not having sex is the only acceptable alternative to giving birth.

 

But yeah, I'd rather like to know, too. They should be developing technology to take babies from the womb and put them in the bodies of men or transplant them into other women. Then THEY could give birth to the kids these women aren't able to give birth to.

[philpot123]

I judge it by what I think causes the least harm as well as using logic.

 

Why is causing harm wrong?

 

So you believe in the laws of logic? Are the laws of logic universal? I guess I'm just wondering where you get these absolute truth claims and the idea of universal, immutable logic within your worldview.

Edited June 23, 2013 by philpot123

[KageSora]

Why is causing harm wrong?

 

So you believe in the laws of logic? Are the laws of logic universal?  I guess I'm just wondering where you get these absolute truth claims and the idea of universal, immutable logic within your worldview.

Causing harm causes pain in another. As I do not enjoy pain, I don't usually enjoy inflicting it on others, though being human I do it without intending at times especially if I allow my emotions to cloud my judgment.

 

However, there are times when the pain is deserved, or unavoidable, or the pain is the cost of something greater (like getting a medical shot--it hurts like hell at the time and for a bit after, but it's generally ultimately good for you)

 

That's how I feel that causing harm to be wrong for the most part.

 

 

As for logic being universal... No, not really. There is some fairly common logic that is generally agreed upon by what society you are a part of, but logic IS different from person to person.

 

You don't find it logical that abortion is not killing babies as fetus =/= baby because your little world in your head doesn't follow the same internal logic that the world I live in in my head does.

 

We ALL view the world from within our own little worlds within our minds, and as each of our minds are unique we each have our own brand of logic that we feel the world as we see it should follow. While we may have some highly similar logic and truths that rule our views of the world, they will not always line up with 100% accuracy to the logic and truths found in the minds of others.

 

That's why I also don't think there is such a thing as absolute morality. What is moral and immoral can and does vary from person to person, as well as situation to situation. Generally, laws are enforced for the overall greater good of the society, even if the internal logic of various members of that society doesn't agree with the laws. (Or at least, that's how they would work ideally--doesn't always happen and laws get passed that screw over more people than they help all the time, sometimes without meaning to be that harmful and sometimes intentionally to oppress others)

 

If the laws are ultimately causing more harm to the society at large than they are preventing, then they should be challenged after being given due consideration by said members of that society.

 

I can't argue for "absolute truth" because I know that, while it may be absolute truth to me, it is not going to be absolute truth to everybody else. The best I can do is argue my view and hope that I can explain my logic in such a way that others can come to either accept or agree with my viewpoint. Much the same as anybody else, really. I can't even argue that the absence of absolute truth is absolute truth and the exception to the rule because I know there are people out there who think there IS universal absolute truth--and in their views of the world, there is, even if I don't accept that supposed absolute truth.

 

And the truths and logic that exist in my mind that I view the world with change as I learn new things and have new experiences and grow as a person, so that's another reason I really don't believe in absolute universal truths.

 

Science is closer to that than religion, IMO. Science relies on faith sometimes, yes, but not exactly in the same context as religion. And science, unlike religion, is not mostly reliant on faith but on observable, quantifiable information.

 

If it were a matter of their only being absolute truths, a looooot of debates that are ongoing wouldn't be happening right now because the absolute truth would be unable to be argued with.

 

I'll admit, being able to just go "Because God said so" simplifies things. But, as I don't believe in your god, I don't really see morality as something that's simple. Hell, I'm pretty sure I'm doing a y job of expressing my actual view on the matter because it's not a simple thing, but complex and changing constantly as I obtain new information and have new experiences and butt heads with people.

[philpot123]

Causing harm causes pain in another. As I do not enjoy pain, I don't usually enjoy inflicting it on others, though being human I do it without intending at times especially if I allow my emotions to cloud my judgment.

 

So your judgement that causing pain is wrong (generally) is based on your perception and reasoning? How do you know your perception and reasoning are valid?

 

As for logic being universal... No, not really. There is some fairly common logic that is generally agreed upon by what society you are a part of, but logic IS different from person to person.

If logic is different from person to person, then logic isn't different from person to person.

 

Or is it absolutely true that two contradictory statements cannot both be true?

 

That's why I also don't think there is such a thing as absolute morality. What is moral and immoral can and does vary from person to person, as well as situation to situation.

 

So based on that reasoning, even though you fundamentally disagree with me, you're essentially conceding that my view is morally equivalent to yours. But that doesn't make sense, because you morally disagree with it... I know I'm getting off on a little epistemological side track, but I believe this is really relevant to the abortion issue. How can you claim anyone is wrong about anything without an absolute standard of truth?

[KageSora]

So your judgement that causing pain is wrong (generally) is based on your perception and reasoning? How do you know your perception and reasoning are valid?

Simple--they're valid to me, and that's really the only way I can judge as I cannot jump into the minds of others to see through their eyes.

 

If logic is different from person to person, then logic isn't different from person to person.

Please explain how that works. Explain how something that makes logical sense to me can seem absurd, no matter how accurately I describe the (to me) logical reasoning behind it, to another person.

 

Or is it absolutely true that two contradictory statements cannot both be true?

While I consider that generally true, you can also have a situation where apparently contradictory statements aren't actually contradictory to all people.

 

As well as the idea of there being "exceptions to the rule".

 

So based on that reasoning, even though you fundamentally disagree with me, you're essentially conceding that my view is morally equivalent to yours. But that doesn't make sense, because you morally disagree with it... I know I'm getting off on a little epistemological side track, but I believe this is really relevant to the abortion issue.  How can you claim anyone is wrong about anything without an absolute standard of truth?

 

I concede that we cannot place absolute moral vale on something. Therefore, while I have my own perceptions that change the value I place on the views of others, I cannot say with absolute certainty that your opinion on the matter is universally agreed to be morally superior, inferior, or equal to mine.

 

I can only believe that your view is "wrong" as I believe that it goes against what I use to derive my morals--as in, I believe that it causes more harm than good to outlaw abortion on the basis of "murdering babies".

 

I do not view a fetus as a person, therefore I don't view abortion as murdering a baby. Therefore I do not feel that aborting a fetus causes harm to a baby. I do, however, view restricting a woman's right to choose what she does with her body and the clumps of growing cells within it as giving her lesser importance than what I view as something that is no more a person than a corpse is.

 

Thus I feel that causes more harm than good.

 

So, according to how I view the world, I believe that it is morally wrong.

 

However, I do acknowledge that, in your eyes, a fetus is a baby and that by aborting it you are murdering it and that you believe that you are giving it equal value to the life of the mother. I disagree, but I acknowledge your view.

 

 

As these are two very different, contradictory viewpoints, I support the option of choice--that way those who hold a view like yours on the matter are able to attempt to carry to term, while those who hold a view like mine have the option of doing what we feel is best in our given situation.

 

 

To each of us, our view is morally correct and the other supports the morally incorrect view. The best we can do is to repeat our arguments until we either get tired of it and agree to disagree, or one of us changes the view of the other.

 

Same as with any debate, really, IMO.

 

 

(I also acknowledge that, as a human, I am not always consistent in my words or behavior or even my views, as my emotional responses often alter my perception of the world or even my own perceived logic--what I feel makes logical sense in the heat of anger may not make logical sense to me when I have calmed down. Or the reverse.)

[philpot123]

Simple--they're valid to me, and that's really the only way I can judge as I cannot jump into the minds of others to see through their eyes.

 

 

 

 

 

So your reasoning is valid because you reasoned that it's valid? Isn't that circular?

 

Please explain how that works.  Explain how something that makes logical sense to me can seem absurd, no matter how accurately I describe the (to me) logical reasoning behind it, to another person.

My point is that if the laws of logic aren't universal, then your statement that "logic is different from person to person" is meaningless, because the opposite could also be true without violating any laws of logic, because the laws of logic don't apply beyond my own consciousness.

 

While I consider that generally true, you can also have a situation where apparently contradictory statements aren't actually contradictory to all people.

 

As well as the idea of there being "exceptions to the rule".

 

I'm not talking about apparent contradictions. I'm talking about abstract logical contradictions. All A is B, Some A is not B. Can both of those statements be true? If the laws of logic aren't universal, then they could be.

 

I can only believe that your view is "wrong" as I believe that it goes against what I use to derive my morals--as in, I believe that it causes more harm than good to outlaw abortion on the basis of "murdering babies".

Do you think that you could be wrong about all these things you claim to know?

 

*edit* I've clearly gone off track, so I'll just end it for the day. You can PM me if you want to play tennis with this whole knowledge topic some more. Thanks for the rousing discussion

Edited June 23, 2013 by philpot123

[KageSora]

So your reasoning is valid because you reasoned that it's valid? Isn't that circular?

Yeah, but I never said my reasoning was perfect. More seriously, I can only judge right or wrong based on what information I have at the time, how I judge morally right from morally wrong, and how I feel. Those are all things that I know I can't force other people to recognize or accept--therefore it can only be guaranteed to be valid in my own view. Others may agree with me either for the same or for different reasoning, or they may agree with me.

 

But, not having some external source to go to, that's the best I can do. It's the best many of us can do, really.

 

My point is that if the laws of logic aren't universal, then your statement that "logic is different from person to person" is meaningless, because the opposite could also be true without violating any laws of logic, because the laws of logic don't apply beyond my own consciousness.

 

Ah, sorry--I should have been clearer. My statement is not 100% provable, it is merely a belief that I hold based on what I've observed where two individuals attempt to explain what makes logical sense to them to each other and not understanding the other's logic. My statement may only be accurate within my mind, as I believe it to be accurate. However, you may believe that there is universal logic and truth, and I can't disprove that.

 

My statement holds meaning only in the minds of those who agree with it--must like pretty much any belief out there, IMO.

 

 

 

I'm not talking about apparent contradictions. I'm talking about abstract logical contradictions. All A is B, Some A is not B. Can both of those statements be true? If the laws of logic aren't universal, then they could be.

If the laws of logic are not universal, then one person could view them as both true while another can view them as only one can be true.

 

There are, also, I believe some exceptions to the "rules".

 

Or the logic is accepted as accurate by the overall population in general, which makes it as close to universal as possible, IMO.

 

 

Do you think that you could be wrong about all these things you claim to know?

Oh, of course. But then, you could also be wrong about all the things you claim to know. I know them right now based on what I've observed and experienced.

 

However, like I said, that can change based on new information. Tomorrow I could gain some information that completely changes my entire worldview and turns everything I know on it's head.

[hazeh]

I'm pretty surprised there are still people who don't view some abortions as medically necessary.

Like, hello, ectopic pregnancies? o_O Do people not know those are a thing?