Despite all the commotion surrounding the election thread which popped up in the 4th ed. general forum, it did not get locked until it drifted hard into abortion territory. I thought that it might just get moved before then, but what do I know.
The Australia epic fail thread went through a remarkable run of controversial topics before finally getting shut down. It seems to me that it had steered hard into abortion land when that happened. To be honest though, I didn't read all of the last few posts. So, I might be mistaken on the reason.
Perhaps it is just because all these threads seem to veer off-topic into the subject and don't come back. I don't know. Maybe the discussion is the reason the ORC's close some threads, but it appears that a lot of people wish to discuss it.
So, I will start with a somewhat innocuous statement to get things rolling for everone else.
I think that if a child (terminology deliberately chosen to produce responses...) is viable outside the womb, and there has been remarkable progress in that regard since Roe vd. Wade in America, then aborting it should not be allowed.
The topic finally has its own forum.
Looking for responses from both sides.
This can be a difficult subject, so please be civil to each other in your responses.
Note: I'm more interested to see how soon the ORC'sclose this thread than I am in participating. However, that might change.
I do not wish to use arbitrary definitions for when life begins; some use conception, some use birth, some use survivability feasibility. None of these have much argument for when life begins beyond faith-based ones at conception.
To procure a definition, I look instead to when life ends. This is not when the heart stops beating; that can cause death or be a result of it, but that is not the end of human life. Same with breathing.
No, human life ends when the part of the brain that provides self-awareness, identity, etc is destroyed.
If human life ends when this sort of brain activity ends, then human life begins when this sort of brain activity begins.
I do not believe we can precisely say when this occurs right now (although perhaps some neural specialists around here can provide some info as to most current knowledge). I believe in erring on the side of caution in this matter; therefore, the earliest possible time for this to be should be the cutoff time for abortions.
Abortions after this point are murder.
I think they should issue permits that allows you to kill one person regardless of age per year. They of course have the right to defend themselves...but permit hunting each other would do good to slim down this over population.
In short, as long as we're not giving people the tools to prevent the pregnancy and be willing to support her after the child is born, we shouldn't force her to follow through with a pregnancy she doesn't want.
Not the way I would want things to be, but that is my stance given the current situation.
Edit: Oh, and I suspect the thread will be deleted/locked before it goes a day or the end of the second page, whichever comes first.
I believe that when human life begins, then the right to life applies and trumps convenience rights of the mother (but not her life rights, if the pregnancy threatens those).
I do not wish to use arbitrary definitions for when life begins; some use conception, some use birth, some use survivability feasibility. None of these have much argument for when life begins beyond faith-based ones at conception.
To procure a definition, I look instead to when life ends. This is not when the heart stops beating; that can cause death or be a result of it, but that is not the end of human life. Same with breathing.
No, human life ends when the part of the brain that provides self-awareness, identity, etc is destroyed.
If human life ends when this sort of brain activity ends, then human life begins when this sort of brain activity begins.
I do not believe we can precisely say when this occurs right now (although perhaps some neural specialists around here can provide some info as to most current knowledge). I believe in erring on the side of caution in this matter; therefore, the earliest possible time for this to be should be the cutoff time for abortions.
Abortions after this point are murder.
Would you agree that your choice for life beginning would probably predate my opening statement. That would mean my innocuous statement would err on the side of homicide rather than caution.
Agree or disagree?
That question is to all who wish to answer as well as Solik.
(The Rumplestix wanders out of the clearing and into the deep threads.)
jk
As for when it passes over to the point where it becomes "murder", this is harder to define.
My own personal belief on when life, "begins" is when one can experience the world in their own eyes (yes a child in the womb can be influenced by outside stimuli, but they are actually experiencing/interacting with the world) thus my belief is death is when one can no longer experience/interact, ie: brain-dead.
BUT! This is my own personal belief and as such I don't believe that should have any lawful-mandate if I was to magically change the laws of the world nations. I believe that it is something that must take in multiple factors; the parents own beliefs, the health of the mother and what the doctors judge to be the proper time. As such a general consensus could be reached as too when the end of the time to abort has occurred.
One thing I believe should end for sure is the hostility towards mothers and couples who get abortions. 9 out of 10 times I would wager that the future of that child, either physical, financially, emotionally or psychologically will have been hampered in some manner if the child had reached term. There are numerous reasons for this such as the financial state of the parents, the mental state of the parent (such as say a child from ****, the mother could quite feasibily feel differently then a normal parent toward the child), etc. We have enough children who live in bad environments or are put up for adoption why simply add to this with more unwanted births.
My view it is both the mother's (and father's to a degree) choice to have an abortion or not. Now it certainly shouldn't be used as a means of contraception, but it shouldn't be outright outlawed.
As for when it passes over to the point where it becomes "murder", this is harder to define.
My own personal belief on when life, "begins" is when one can experience the world in their own eyes (yes a child in the womb can be influenced by outside stimuli, but they are actually experiencing/interacting with the world) thus my belief is death is when one can no longer experience/interact, ie: brain-dead.
BUT! This is my own personal belief and as such I don't believe that should have any lawful-mandate if I was to magically change the laws of the world nations. I believe that it is something that must take in multiple factors; the parents own beliefs, the health of the mother and what the doctors judge to be the proper time. As such a general consensus could be reached as too when the end of the time to abort has occurred.
One thing I believe should end for sure is the hostility towards mothers and couples who get abortions. 9 out of 10 times I would wager that the future of that child, either physical, financially, emotionally or psychologically will have been hampered in some manner if the child had reached term. There are numerous reasons for this such as the financial state of the parents, the mental state of the parent (such as say a child from ****, the mother could quite feasibily feel differently then a normal parent toward the child), etc. We have enough children who live in bad environments or are put up for adoption why simply add to this with more unwanted births.
I'm calling shenanigan's on something here.
First:
My own personal belief on when life, "begins" is when one can experience the world in their own eyes (yes a child in the womb can be influenced by outside stimuli, but they are actually experiencing/interacting with the world) thus my belief is death is when one can no longer experience/interact, ie: brain-dead.
and second:
BUT! This is my own personal belief and as such I don't believe that should have any lawful-mandate if I was to magically change the laws of the world nations.
You then go on to mention doctors, judges, etc. should make the choice. If you truly believe it is alive, does that not mean the child deserve to live regardless of what other people want to be done to it? Does it not have a right to live? If you truly believe it is alive, then why should it's life be ended at someone else's whim? (Note, this is mostly rhetorical, see below...)
The point I am trying to fathom, is as follows:
Do you truly believe that is where its life begins, or are you saying: well, if I have to pick a spot, I'll pick.....that one.
I also believe that only people who find themselves in a position that they must make a choice like that know exactly what they're going through at the time, and are the only ones competent to talk about their own situation.
The rest (myself included) who're just sitting around a bsing about their theories have no right to judge anyone, in any case.
people who find themselves in a position
Like missionary?
I know that the choice to abort or carry on a pregnancy is a hard one, and in any case, a final decision is never made lightly.
I also believe that only people who find themselves in a position that they must make a choice like that know exactly what they're going through at the time, and are the only ones competent to talk about their own situation.
The rest (myself included) who're just sitting around a bsing about their theories have no right to judge anyone, in any case.
I have to disagree.
In fact, stress is one of the factors most likely to lead to poor decision making. That is the reason that plans and contingencies are made for situations in advance.
That pre-thought is part of what is going on right here.
I have to disagree.
In fact, stress is one of the factors most likely to lead to poor decision making. That is the reason that plans and contingencies are made for situations in advance.
That pre-thought is part of what is going on right here.
Stress can also cause a miscarriage...among many things really.
I am still under the opinion that certain people simply should not breed...they need their gene pool shut down completely.
I have to disagree.
In fact, stress is one of the factors most likely to lead to poor decision making. That is the reason that plans and contingencies are made for situations in advance.
That pre-thought is part of what is going on right here.
You can disagree all you want and give as many theories about the effect of stress on decision-making procedures, but that doesn't mean I'll not include you in my point of view on this issue.
Like missionary?
Mo' like reverse cowgirl, because you suddenly find fortune turned its back on you and you're buried deep in sh*t.
Stress can also cause a miscarriage...among many things really.
I am still under the opinion that certain people simply should not breed...they need their gene pool shut down completely.
True, with respect to the first,but off-topic with respect to all.
That is unless you are trying to say in a roundabout way that there are many ways for abortions to occur when you say: 'among many things really'.
Also, ahough the latter may be listed as a reason some like the ideas of abortions, I believe that goes too far off the main topic.
Thank you.
You can disagree all you want and give as many theories about the effect of stress on decision-making procedures, but that doesn't mean I'll not include you in my point of view on this issue.
Mo' like reverse cowgirl, because you suddenly find fortune turned its back on you and you're buried deep in sh*t.
My point is that, if at a certain point a child is alive, do its needs become a proirity? How do the various issues that the mother to be is struggling with (I'll exclude possible mortal complications...) give her the right to destroy it, if it is alive? How can only the 'mother to be' be the only one able to determine when a child is alive.
I am addressing you with regard to this because you appear to be 'championing' the cause that it is the responsibility of the 'mother to be'.
And, if you still wish to include me, that is fine. I still will ask for a direct response to the question.
It is that while I have my own personal view of when life begins. I don't believe it is proper to impose my view on others, and thus the comment about the beliefs of the parents, doctors, and health of the mother.
But, if the child is alive, why do others have the right to impose their views on it, if you do not believe it right to impose yours on them? Their imposing is final.
And, if you still wish to include me, that is fine. I still will ask for a direct response to the question.
The point is, if you are not in a situation to seriously contemplate abortion, you have no idea of what the choice means. You just pass judgment on people from the comfort of your chair in front of your screen. And frankly, the abundance of saloon philosophers I'm running into lately has began to disgust me.
But, if the child is alive, why do others have the right to impose their views on it, if you do not believe it right to impose yours on them? Their imposing is final.
Who is saying if the child is alive or not. The parents are the ones who have the final say (as well as the doctors saying what is the final deadline for a safe-abortion). As such, the legal mandate on whether the child is alive or not falls to the parents, it is their own beliefs that make that final call. The only people have their view imposed on is the parents upon their own situation.
Just because I believe a child isn't alive till he/she is born. Doesn't mean that should be the global perspective/view on how such a delicate and quite-rightfully private decision should be made.
The point is, if you are not in a situation to seriously contemplate abortion, you have no idea of what the choice means. You just pass judgment on people from the comfort of your chair in front of your screen. And frankly, the abundance of saloon philosophers I'm running into lately has began to disgust me.
First, I never passed judgement on anyone. The closest I came was asking if interpreting another's post to mean he would consider it homicide is correct. I am trying to ask questions and move along the conversation. But yes, I have my own views. There is no helping that.
Second, does this mean you would not have a problem if a woman who faced the choice of whether or not to have an abortion, and chose not to, criticized abortion?
If Roe v Wade is overturned, women WILL be using coat hangers again. Suicides of young to-be mothers WILL go up. The numbers of abandoned newborns, dead or alive, WILL go up.
Regardless of the proscriptions of specific belief systems, the alternative to abortions simply being legal, and women and men alike being educated about how their bodies function, is much, much worse than giving women the right to choose what to do with their body.
Plus, as sigil_beguiler points out, if you've never been there, if you've never had to make that choice, you have no concept of how difficult it is, or the lasting implications of that decision regardless of the choice made.
I think that if a child (terminology deliberately chosen to produce responses...) is viable outside the womb, and there has been remarkable progress in that regard since Roe vd. Wade in America, then aborting it should not be allowed.
Any designation is by its very nature arbitrary, and as such, is pretty meaningless.
Exterior viability is pretty meaningless because the definition of it is itself arbitrary - if I create an external womb, which is capable of replicating the conditions of an animal womb, what then?
My rule is "If its in the mother, you can have an abortion". Simple and while as arbitrary as any other measure, it has the advantage of 1) being nothing but "known information" and 2) being something which is inside the mother and is thus acting as a parasite.
I also think any baby with severe birth defects should be left to die.
First, I never passed judgement on anyone. The closest I came was asking if interpreting another's post to mean he would consider it homicide is correct. I am trying to ask questions and move along the conversation. But yes, I have my own views. There is no helping that.
Sure, we all have opinions and views. But being anti-abortion is passing judgment on people. Saying that abortion is murder is claiming people who abort are murderers. There is no going around that.
Second, does this mean you would not have a problem if a woman who faced the choice of whether or not to have an abortion, and chose not to, criticized abortion?
Again, yes, because, again, she is not in the position of the one who has to make that choice. She was in a somewhat similar position, yes, but such issues are so complex and serious that each has to be viewed on its own merits, and establishing parallels of any kind is misleading. And again, the only competent people for that are those involved in this issue.
Who is saying if the child is alive or not. The parents are the ones who have the final say (as well as the doctors saying what is the final deadline for a safe-abortion). As such, the legal mandate on whether the child is alive or not falls to the parents, it is their own beliefs that make that final call. The only people have their view imposed on is the parents upon their own situation.
Just because I believe a child isn't alive till he/she is born. Doesn't mean that should be the global perspective/view on how such a delicate and quite-rightfully private decision should be made.
OK, this makes sense. One of Solik's earlier posts talked about brain activity in the womb, so when you mentioned something like reacting to stimuli (or whatever it was you said...) I took it to mean you personally believed it began in the womb instead of after birth. My mistake. I hope that explains why I perceived conflict within the reasoning.
On another note for clarity, once a child is born, are there any situations where you think it would still be OK to terminate the life? If so, mention them and try to draw it as close to the wire as possible. (Gives more debate that way.
)Terminating life, well again goes back to my own personal belief, so works under the same idea. It should be handled on a individual basis with those involved. But being brain-dead I believe in my own beliefs (...sounds odd :P) that is a proper time to terminate life.
What I personally really dislike though is the method, since killing the person would fall under "assisted suicide" and thus be illegal (have my own opinion on that but separate issue here) they have to simply turn the person off life-support and let them starve to death. This is incredibly insensitive/disrespectful, we don't even do this to animals so why should we let a human being, even a brain-dead one go in such a manner of death.
Sure, we all have opinions and views. But being anti-abortion is passing judgment on people. Saying that abortion is murder is claiming people who abort are murderers. There is no going around that.
Again, yes, because, again, she is not in the position of the one who has to make that choice. She was in a somewhat similar position, yes, but such issues are so complex and serious that each has to be viewed on its own merits, and establishing parallels of any kind is misleading. And again, the only competent people for that are those involved in this issue.
About the first paragraph, I must object. Homicide, the term used in an earlier quote, has the primary definition of the death of a human being caused by another human being. That does not necessarily imply murder. However, the second definition I looked up said: 'a person who kills another, murderer. So, I mistakenly chose a word with a second sefinition I did not realize. (Note: That is an odd word. The first def. is the act, the second is the committer of the act.) For clarity, I meant the first definition in the broadest terms possible when interpreting another's post..
On to the second.
So, is a juror not allowed to pass judgement on a person in a trial unless the
juror was faced with the exact same situation? If there are no grounds upon which one can judge another, how can we not have anarchy? If there are such grounds, what do you believe are the grounds that allow you to pass judgement on someone? Please list them and relate them to court type cases. Note, this is merely as a side excursion to figure out your thoughts on the subject.
Ok. The Baby is alive from the MOMENT of conception(sperm hits egg). After, that, it is gravely sinful to kill it.
I have a severe problem with this statement highlighted, as that very premise indicates that you are attempting to push a very specific dogma (the concept of "sin") on the populace through force of law.
It is NOT the mother's "choice". The baby has rights too. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex. People should not be running around like animals ****ing each other for fun. It is a sacred thing, to have a child. Nuff said.
The problem is, in part, the exact same people that use "abortion is a sin" as an argument likewise attempt to push some bull**** "contraception is a sin" and "teaching kids about sex is evil" malarkey. Educated kids with contraceptive tend to not get pregnant, and not spread disease. Kids in countries with abstinence-only teachings and no ready access to contraceptives STILL have sex, and are vastly more likely to both have kids and spread disease, oft times simultaneously.
Last check, 97% of people have sex before marriage. That is ninety-seven percent. NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT. In other words, expectations of abstinence are a joke. An absolute joke. Hormones beat out dogma and active attempts at holding off almost every time, nearly without exception.
Finally...please remember than even in ancient times, tinctures were given, oft times by rabbis themselves, to force a miscarriage...i.e. an abortion. And this was considered to be acceptable, provided it wasn't between a married woman carrying her husband's child. So even in the Abrahamic traditions, first trimester abortions through the use of chemicals was a part of life, and understood as sometimes being necessary, for the sake of the mother and the unborn child alike.
As for ****ing for fun? Bull. Sorry, but human beings have specifically evolved in a manner quite unlike most other species, where sex stimulates the skin, the erogenous zones, and the whole body in such a manner that is quite counterintuitive from a breeding perspective, but VERY intuitive for an enjoyment perspective. In other words, our societal evolution helped further biological evolution such that sex does, indeed, bring specific enjoyment whether copulation occurs or not, and whether or not it occurs via traditional procreation means, or via "alternative lifestyles". The erogenous zones present in certain parts of the human body are very revealing indeed, and evolved there. Perhaps because it allows for the pleasure of sexual relations without the risk of pregnancy?
Complex issues indeed. Using a set of texts a couple to few thousand years old as codified law...seems incredibly unwise, and does not adjust to reality, but rather interferes tremendously with it.
The fact of the matter is, abortions go down, and are much, much safer, and much cheaper when it is legal and education is available, and when contraceptives are available. When it is illegal, the mother is at much greater risk, there is a barrier by which the wealthy easily possess the means of hypocritically undergoing the procedure, and so on.
If Roe v Wade is overturned, women WILL be using coat hangers again. Suicides of young to-be mothers WILL go up. The numbers of abandoned newborns, dead or alive, WILL go up.
Regardless of the proscriptions of specific belief systems, the alternative to abortions simply being legal, and women and men alike being educated about how their bodies function, is much, much worse than giving women the right to choose what to do with their body.
Plus, as sigil_beguiler points out, if you've never been there, if you've never had to make that choice, you have no concept of how difficult it is, or the lasting implications of that decision regardless of the choice made.
But, if the child (embryo, fetus, take your pick...) is truly a human being, why should someone else's desire to kill it outweigh its right to live? If it has a right to live, why should we make it safer for someone to kill it because they are going to do it anyway? Why does someone get to choose what to do with the child's body and not be required to take it into account.
Ok. The Baby is alive from the MOMENT of conception(sperm hits egg). After, that, it is gravely sinful to kill it. It is NOT the mother's "choice". The baby has rights too. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex. People should not be running around like animals ****ing each other for fun. It is a sacred thing, to have a child. Nuff said.
I have a question.
Unless I am mistaken, the Catholic Church says that a soul enters the body at 40 days. (Note, I think they used to postpone that to 80 days for women. Sad, but true, I think.) I could be wrong, but I believe that before that point abortion is against church policy because the pregnacy is the work of god or something like that. (If anyone couldn't tell, I'm not Catholic...)
What is your basis for setting life beginning at the moment of conception?
Of course, people running around, etc., etc., may lead to pregnancies and then abortions, I believe that the morality of premarital sex is big enough for a thread of its own.
Ok. The Baby is alive from the MOMENT of conception(sperm hits egg). After, that, it is gravely sinful to kill it. It is NOT the mother's "choice". The baby has rights too. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex. People should not be running around like animals ****ing each other for fun. It is a sacred thing, to have a child. Nuff said.
Your religious beliefs are irrelevant.
The United States is a secular nation. We do not pass laws on the basis of religious belief.
You can believe whatever you want, but the moment you try to press those beliefs into law, you are a theocrat.
Any designation is by its very nature arbitrary, and as such, is pretty meaningless.
Exterior viability is pretty meaningless because the definition of it is itself arbitrary - if I create an external womb, which is capable of replicating the conditions of an animal womb, what then?
My rule is "If its in the mother, you can have an abortion". Simple and while as arbitrary as any other measure, it has the advantage of 1) being nothing but "known information" and 2) being something which is inside the mother and is thus acting as a parasite.
I also think any baby with severe birth defects should be left to die.
So, I will take it that 'right to live' of an unborn fetus is not high on the priority list. Bluntness in discussions can be refreshing, sometimes.
(The Rumplestix appears to be signing off for at least a little while.)
So, I will take it that 'right to live' of an unborn fetus is not high on the priority list. Bluntness in discussions can be refreshing, sometimes.
Right to live? Sure. Right to impose yourself on other human beings? Absolutely not. Unlike some others who share my viewpoint, I recognize that fetuses are alive human beings. And being human beings, they are subject to the exact same moral standards as everyone else is. That means that, yes, a woman is fully within her right to expel a fetus from her body. The fetus dying as a result is not her fault, nor that of anyone else.
But, if the child (embryo, fetus, take your pick...) is truly a human being, why should someone else's desire to kill it outweigh its right to live? If it has a right to live, why should we make it safer for someone to kill it because they are going to do it anyway? Why does someone get to choose what to do with the child's body and not be required to take it into account.
Can it survive without its mother? Is it ok to ruin a person's entire life for the sake of an embryo? Is it ok to allow nature to miscarry the child the solid 1/4 to 1/3rd of the time it happens, but not for the mother to decide the same? The primary point is, it is the mother's body. Period. She has the right not to have it in her body. If it can survive, good for it, it not, it is very unfortunate, yet the reality of the situation.
Take this as an example: If it were a living organism growing off of her left arm, that developed there 100% naturally by touching any common grass, and 97% of people both touch grass, and come into contact with it daily even wearing clothes, and said organism is sentient, requiring her bodily functions to survive, and took a huge portion of the nutrition she gains from food against her will, what is your stance?
HOWEVER, I also believe in "Bodily Domain." Bodily Domain means that no one can touch my body without my consent, and only in ways that I consent to, because it is my body. A woman can legally kill a man who is raping her for nine minutes without her consent because he is violating her Bodily Domain. An uninvited fetus using her uterus for nine MONTHS is also violating her Bodily Domain.
Yes, I do realize that the fetus doesn't have a choice in the matter, and I find that to be very tragic, but if the mother is seriously contemplating abortion, then she didn't choose this predicament either. She is perfectly within her rights of Bodily Domain to remove the fetus from her.
I will never suggest to any friend of mine that they get an abortion. In fact, I will try to convince them not to if possible, but in the end, it's not my decision to make. It's her decision. I do not support any woman's decision to have an abortion, but even worse would be to strip her of her right to make that decision. That is why even though I don't approve of abortion, I do support that it be legal and readily available, because I do not have the right to impose my beliefs and opinions on others, and I should not have that right.
This is why I hate terms such as "pro-life" and "pro-choice". It is very much possible to be both.
But...after the baby is born she is entitled to eat her offspring.
------------------
Seriously abortion is a good thing...it would be different if we had predation but we are kinda top of the food chain and there is not much out there besides ourselves to do a population check...
It is not a good thing for the world to have over population...nor is it good for the species...
Right to live? Sure. Right to impose yourself on other human beings? Absolutely not. Unlike some others who share my viewpoint, I recognize that fetuses are alive human beings. And being human beings, they are subject to the exact same moral standards as everyone else is. That means that, yes, a woman is fully within her right to expel a fetus from her body. The fetus dying as a result is not her fault, nor that of anyone else.
I believe there is a moral standard you left out. Parents are obligated to take positive steps to ensure their child's safety. (That is required by law, because people think it is the moral thing to do.) If you believe a fetus is a living human being, then it would have a mother like everyone else. That mother would be breaking the law and morals by not taking positive actions to ensure its health. Even a passive death (one caused by willful inaction) is still the parents' responsibility, if the fetus is a living human being. With regard to the premise, an abortion is active, rather than passive.
As a note, at one time a number of states passed laws requiring abortions to be performed with as much care taken as possible to ensure the fetus survived. This was an attempt at sidestepping Roe vs. Wade. Possibly Illinois was one of the states, but I don't remember where I found that tidbit. Anyway, the U.S. Supreme Court shot down those laws to the best of my knowledge.
I do not support any woman's decision to have an abortion. There are exceptions, of course, such cases of ****, incest, or when pregnancy may be harmful or even fatal to the mother, but I don't believe abortion is justified in the vast majority of other cases. I won't assign the embryo any label as being a "child" or not, but it is undeniable that the natural course is for it to at some unspecified point become human.
HOWEVER, I also believe in "Bodily Domain." Bodily Domain means that no one can touch my body without my consent, and only in ways that I consent to, because it is my body. A woman can legally kill a man who is raping her for nine minutes without her consent because he is violating her Bodily Domain. An uninvited fetus using her uterus for nine MONTHS is also violating her Bodily Domain.
Yes, I do realize that the fetus doesn't have a choice in the matter, and I find that to be very tragic, but if the mother is seriously contemplating abortion, then she didn't choose this predicament either. She is perfectly within her rights of Bodily Domain to remove the fetus from her.
I will never suggest to any friend of mine that they get an abortion. In fact, I will try to convince them not to if possible, but in the end, it's not my decision to make. It's her decision. I do not support any woman's decision to have an abortion, but even worse would be to strip her of her right to make that decision. That is why even though I don't approve of abortion, I do support that it be legal and readily available, because I do not have the right to impose my beliefs and opinions on others, and I should not have that right.
This is why I hate terms such as "pro-life" and "pro-choice". It is very much possible to be both.
With respect to your bodily domain conviction, how do you feel regarding the following:
Parents are obligated to take positive steps to ensure their child's safety. (That is required by law, because people think it is the moral thing to do.) If you believe a fetus is a living human being, then it would have a mother like everyone else. That mother would be breaking the law and morals by not taking positive actions to ensure its health. Even a passive death (one caused by willful inaction) is still the parents' responsibility, if the fetus is a living human being. With regard to the premise, an abortion is active, rather than passive.
At what point would you consider it alive and do you accept the previous tenent?
With respect to your bodily domain conviction, how do you feel regarding the following:
Your quote that followed had nothing to do with what I said. Responsibility over an embryo/fetus/child/whatever should be forced upon a woman any more than the embryo/fetus/child/whatever itself. It should be her decision whether she will accept responsibility over that embryo/fetus/child/whatever. If she is not willing or able to accept responsibility, I recommend that she consider putting her embryo/fetus/child/whatever up for adoption after it is born.
At what point would you consider it alive and do you accept the previous tenent?
At what point it is considered alive has nothing to do with my position. I accept your tenant when the embryo/fetus/child/whatever stops invading the woman's bodily domain without her consent, a.k.a. birth, unless of course her goal was to give it up for adoption, which, again, I always suggest over abortion.
If a woman feels that her bodily domain is being invaded against her will and she accepts no responsibility over the embryo/fetus/child/whatever, then she should have the option available to terminate her pregnancy. I would encourage her not to do so, but there we have it.
Can it survive without its mother? Is it ok to ruin a person's entire life for the sake of an embryo? Is it ok to allow nature to miscarry the child the solid 1/4 to 1/3rd of the time it happens, but not for the mother to decide the same? The primary point is, it is the mother's body. Period. She has the right not to have it in her body. If it can survive, good for it, it not, it is very unfortunate, yet the reality of the situation.
Take this as an example: If it were a living organism growing off of her left arm, that developed there 100% naturally by touching any common grass, and 97% of people both touch grass, and come into contact with it daily even wearing clothes, and said organism is sentient, requiring her bodily functions to survive, and took a huge portion of the nutrition she gains from food against her will, what is your stance?
First paragraph:
So, if it can survive, should she be required to have labor induced with the intent of keeping it alive instead of with the intent of killing it?
Last bit:
First of all, off-topic, that would be a heck of a thing to happen. Science would go nuts over a sentient creature.
How long would this last? If longer than 10 months, then it is a very bad analogy. (I left out breast feeding because I am not sure how long that is normally done for...) Although responsibility may last longer, it in no way comes near the analogy you have portrayed. Poor analogy only considering the first point.
Second, you are talking about a foreign bodyparasite. An embryo is what our bodies are designed to make and handle. I'm going to exclude involuntary sex (in other words, I'm saying that pregnancy can occur in many ways and I'm not trying to make a case that the following points apply to all...) So, if you willingly have sex, and as a result end up having the 'parasite' as a natural result of what your body is designed to produce when having sex, then the situation is immeasurably different than the analogy you described.
The analogy fails completely on both points and therefore does not pertain to abortion being discussed in this thread. The only analogy that will make comparable sense is pregnancy itself, which is no analogy. (However, I admit, saying 'only' worries me...)
However, it is a difficult answer. I think that steps should be taken to make it self-supporting and remove it. If her health becomes threatened, it might need to be terminated.
I predict this thread to fail before it reaches page 2...
I'm of the opinion that as long as single welfare-mothers are looked down upon, as long as pregnant teenagers are looked down upon, as long as comprehensive and reasonable sex education is looked down upon, and making contraceptions fully and easily available to everyone past puberty is looked down upon, that it would be hypocritical to outlaw abortion.
In short, as long as we're not giving people the tools to prevent the pregnancy and be willing to support her after the child is born, we shouldn't force her to follow through with a pregnancy she doesn't want.
Not the way I would want things to be, but that is my stance given the current situation.
Edit: Oh, and I suspect the thread will be deleted/locked before it goes a day or the end of the second page, whichever comes first.
Fair points up top, but they bring to mind a couple questions.
At what point do you consider the baby (embryo/fetus/parasite) an organism that has rights of its own and why?
If after the birth, why stop there? Why not some time during the first week? It sounds terrible, but why should it not be treated the same?
(I didn't notice the post until long after it was made...)
At what point do you consider the baby (embryo/fetus/parasite) an organism that has rights of its own and why?
You can't consider that question without also bringing up what rights the mother has. It's not just about the embryo/fetus/baby/child/whatever having rights. It's about the mothers having rights too. Unfortunately, rights conflict all the time. The real question is whether or not the rights of the embryo/fetus/baby/child/whatever should supersede the rights of the mother. I don't believe that they should.
If after the birth, why stop there? Why not some time during the first week?
Well, technically, the younger you are, the fewer rights you do have. Adults do have more rights than teenagers and toddlers and babies do.
I have a severe problem with this statement highlighted, as that very premise indicates that you are attempting to push a very specific dogma (the concept of "sin") on the populace through force of law.
The problem is, in part, the exact same people that use "abortion is a sin" as an argument likewise attempt to push some bull**** "contraception is a sin" and "teaching kids about sex is evil" malarkey. Educated kids with contraceptive tend to not get pregnant, and not spread disease. Kids in countries with abstinence-only teachings and no ready access to contraceptives STILL have sex, and are vastly more likely to both have kids and spread disease, oft times simultaneously.
Last check, 97% of people have sex before marriage. That is ninety-seven percent. NINETY-SEVEN PERCENT. In other words, expectations of abstinence are a joke. An absolute joke. Hormones beat out dogma and active attempts at holding off almost every time, nearly without exception.
Finally...please remember than even in ancient times, tinctures were given, oft times by rabbis themselves, to force a miscarriage...i.e. an abortion. And this was considered to be acceptable, provided it wasn't between a married woman carrying her husband's child. So even in the Abrahamic traditions, first trimester abortions through the use of chemicals was a part of life, and understood as sometimes being necessary, for the sake of the mother and the unborn child alike.
As for ****ing for fun? Bull. Sorry, but human beings have specifically evolved in a manner quite unlike most other species, where sex stimulates the skin, the erogenous zones, and the whole body in such a manner that is quite counterintuitive from a breeding perspective, but VERY intuitive for an enjoyment perspective. In other words, our societal evolution helped further biological evolution such that sex does, indeed, bring specific enjoyment whether copulation occurs or not, and whether or not it occurs via traditional procreation means, or via "alternative lifestyles". The erogenous zones present in certain parts of the human body are very revealing indeed, and evolved there. Perhaps because it allows for the pleasure of sexual relations without the risk of pregnancy?
Complex issues indeed. Using a set of texts a couple to few thousand years old as codified law...seems incredibly unwise, and does not adjust to reality, but rather interferes tremendously with it.
So you're saying it's pretty much impossible for people to control themselves? Yeah, that's a great societal lesson. I'm sure that our lessons about personal responsibility in all other areas....wait, nope. Forgot.
Is everyone overlooking the possibility of giving the child up for adoption? I mean, if the mother really doesn't want to take care of it, there are always, always people looking to adopt.
All this talk of not "imposing personal view". Okay, so if some guy walks up and says that he's going to kill you, are you going to let him so that you don't "impose your morality"? Where's the line of moral imposition?
I'm not arguing for making the Bible replace the Constitution. I am arguing to try to put an end to something horrific. Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right. Too many historical examples, here.
Once again: why would it be so hard to expect guys to keep it zipped up? How about spending a few weeks in sex ed on each and every veneral disease out there?
Is everyone overlooking the possibility of giving the child up for adoption?
No
All this talk of not "imposing personal view". Okay, so if some guy walks up and says that he's going to kill you, are you going to let him so that you don't "impose your morality"? Where's the line of moral imposition?
I hope you don't actually think that's a good argument. In your analogy, that guy is invading my rights while I am not invading his. Within the issue of abortion, both parties, the mother and embryo/fetus/child, are invading each others rights, and the moral dilemma is which one has more rights. If you suggest that they have equal rights, then bodily domain kicks in and the woman his the right to abort. Only if you suggest that the embryo/fetus/child has more rights, including the right to invade a woman's bodily domain without consent, does abortion become problematic.
Just because it's legal, doesn't make it right.
I agree. If it were legal to force a woman to carry and birth a baby she has no desire to care for and who is invading her bodily domain without her consent, for example.
Within the issue of abortion, both parties, the mother and embryo/fetus/child, are invading each others rights, and the moral dilemma is which one has more rights. If you suggest that they have equal rights, then bodily domain kicks in and the woman his the right to abort. Only if you suggest that the embryo/fetus/child has more rights, including the right to invade a woman's bodily domain without consent, does abortion become problematic.
So if someone's chained me to a wall in your house against my will and I cannot escape of my own volition, does that mean you get to shoot me for trespassing?
World is over-populated...
I think they should issue permits that allows you to kill one person regardless of age per year. They of course have the right to defend themselves...but permit hunting each other would do good to slim down this over population.
this made me feel all warm and happy inside!!!
So if someone's chained me to a wall in your house against my will and I cannot escape of my own volition, does that mean you get to shoot me for trespassing?
That analogy makes absolutely no sense.
With a pregnancy, you have two options:
1) Go through with the pregnancy.
2) Terminate the pregnancy.
With your scenario, I don't just have the options of:
1) Leave you there until you escape yourself.
2) Kill you.
I have more options than that. I can help you out and escort you off my premises, I can call a locksmith or something to unchain you, I can call the police and have them track down the guy with the key, or any number of things to get you out of my house without harming you. Such options are not possible in pregnancy.
That's the problem with abortion debates. People always come up with analogies that make absolutely no sense and do not fit. It happens in a lot of debates, sure, but for some reason, it runs completely rampant in abortion debates.
Now, if you want to argue against my position, then actually do that instead of coming up with insane analogies that do not fit.
With your scenario, I don't just have the options of:
1) Leave you there until you escape yourself.
2) Kill you.
I have more options than that. I can help you out and escort you off my premises, I can call a locksmith or something to unchain you, I can call the police and have them track down the guy with the key, or any number of things to get you out of my house without harming you.
Irrelevant. Now humour me; Is it acceptable to shoot me or isn't it?
Irrelevant. Now humour me; Is it acceptable to shoot me or isn't it?
The analogy is a false one, so my answer to that would be irrelevant to abortion.
I do not humor logical fallacies.
The "other options" that you have are not relevant to the matter. Suppose that you do not have any other options; the phone's dead so you can't contact a locksmith, you live out in the middle of nowhere and there's no police, whatever. I don't need to systematically come up with imaginary reasons why you have no other options, because it's a hypothetical situation; you just don't.
So, you can either shoot me dead or wait nine months, whereupon I will escape. Is it acceptable to shoot me?
Ok. The Baby is alive from the MOMENT of conception(sperm hits egg). After, that, it is gravely sinful to kill it. It is NOT the mother's "choice". The baby has rights too. If you don't want to have a baby, don't have sex. People should not be running around like animals ****ing each other for fun. It is a sacred thing, to have a child. Nuff said.
i agree with this wise man here!!!
sperm hits egg and BAM!! ITS A LIFE!
scientists have no idea about how to create one. it truly is mysterious!
some people try to justify by saying it is not developed yet... and maybe that helps them sleep at night, but the fact is it is a life.
and taking away that life is murder.
i believe that the mother has a choice...a choice to kill her baby or not to kill her baby.. currently it is legal to kill a baby in the womb.
Well, if you insist on being difficult, I'll elaborate.
I'm not being difficult. Your analogy is full of holes. Even if we do for some reason assume that I can't help you escape or get somebody to come help you escape before nine months of time, your analogy also assume that property is equivalent to a body, which it is not. I can leave my property and you won't come with me. I don't have to stay in the part of my property that you are in. I don't ever have to deal with you at all, and you never have to be an inconvenience to me.
The "other options" that you have are not relevant to the matter.
Yes, they are. Alternative options are always important when we're talking about abortion. It's only when alternative options are not viable that abortion should be considered.
Suppose that you do not have any other options; the phone's dead so you can't contact a locksmith, you live out in the middle of nowhere and there's no police, whatever. I don't need to systematically come up with imaginary reasons why you have no other options, because it's a hypothetical situation; you just don't.
So, you can either shoot me dead or wait nine months, whereupon I will escape. Is it acceptable to shoot me?
That's a stupid hypothetical situation. I really can't get a locksmith there for nine months? Where the hell do I live where there are no cops? Where do I shop that I never see anybody else? If I really live in the middle of nowhere, how the hell did you get there? And where the hell did the person who put you there go? If this hypothetical situation were even possible, I would have much bigger problems than some random dude chained to one of my walls. Your analogy makes no sense. Get over it and try something else.
EDIT:
sperm hits egg and BAM!! ITS A LIFE!
...You know that the sperm and egg are both living independent of one another, right?
i believe that the mother has a choice...a choice to kill her baby or not to kill her baby.. currently it is legal to kill a baby in the womb.
Good. Let's keep it that way.
sperm hits egg and BAM!! ITS A LIFE!
scientists have no idea about how to create one. it truly is mysterious
Not really, we can grow eggs and sperm from stem-cells either with or without dna-strands implant them with new dna-strands implant them inside a woman's womb and you got a child on the way.
It is actually being seen as a way for gay parents to truly have their own child. You take the DNA from both parents implant them in a womb and implant into foster mother and there you go.
Really the only thing we need is stem-cells and a womb.
I'm not being difficult. Your analogy is full of holes. Even if we do for some reason assume that I can't help you escape or get somebody to come help you escape before nine months of time, your analogy also assume that property is equivalent to a body, which it is not. I can leave my property and you won't come with me. I don't have to stay in the part of my property that you are in. I don't ever have to deal with you at all, and you never have to be an inconvenience to me.
Oh look, for whatever reason you're stuck in the same room as me. Now what?
Do you understand what a hypothetical situation is? It doesn't have to be entirely realistic. If someone said "Suppose, hypothetically, that you were on the moon..." would you reply with "That's a stupid situation. I'm not an astronaut, nor am I qualified to become one, so I can't go to the moon"?
It seems to me like you know exactly what my point is and you're just trying to pick holes in this situation I've proposed in order to avoid addressing it. Ultimately, the crux of the matter is that I am not violating your rights by choice. It's not my fault that I am stuck in your house any more than it's the baby's fault that it's stuck in someone's body. The child doesn't get a choice about "violating the woman's rights"; however, a woman does get a choice about whether or not to violate her child's rights, and should she do so she can be held fully responsible for it.
I think this thread needs to die off.
I dont. if you dont like it do not read it anymore...if people are willing to have a discussion they can. if you are not interested bugger off. there are a thousand other threads out there.
if it stays civil keep it ALIVE
ALIVE A LIVE A LIFE pro LIFE
hah hah hah
I dont. if you dont like it do not read it anymore...if people are willing to have a discussion they can. if you are not interested bugger off. there are a thousand other threads out there
These threads never go well. There's always an argument at one point or another. As for me, I think it's only accpetable in extreme circumstances (****, incest, ect.) there. I contributed to the thread in a meaningful way. I feel better now.
Do you understand what a hypothetical situation is?
Yes, but yours is ridiculous and bears no relevance.
It seems to me like you know exactly what my point is and you're just trying to pick holes in this situation I've proposed in order to avoid addressing it.
I do understand exactly what your point is, and what I'm telling you is that you're doing a horrible job of making it, because your analogy makes no sense and is not in any way similar to the dilemma faced by a pregnant woman.
Ultimately, the crux of the matter is that I am not violating your rights by choice. It's not my fault that I am stuck in your house any more than it's the baby's fault that it's stuck in someone's body. The child doesn't get a choice about "violating the woman's rights"
I know that. I fully understand that. That is exactly why in the vast majority of cases, I don't support a woman's decision to have an abortion. But that's just it. It's not my decision; it's hers. Her bodily domain is being violated against her will by another person (if you're the kind of person so inclined to insist that an embryo is in fact a person), and she should have the power to do something about that if she so chooses.
Ironically enough, the only way to not suggest that a woman should not be able to defend her bodily domain against another person in this case is to suggest that the embryo is in fact not a person.
These threads never go well. There's always an argument at one point or another. As for me, I think it's only accpetable in extreme circumstances (****, incest, ect.) there. I contributed to the thread in a meaningful way. I feel better now.
while not damning the thread myself, i predict a short lifespan for it. in that sense i agree.
im not feeling the whole **** incest thing as an excuse though....
just cause mommy didnt willfully choose half the chromosomes doesnt mean the kid shouldnt live....
Do you know anyone who is the product of ****? I do and he is pretty happy to be alive and I think his mom would feel sick at the thought of killing him.
same goes with incest, or any other physical or mental condition...I cant be the judge of whether or not someone should die because of their handicapps.
Yes, but yours is ridiculous and bears no relevance.
I do understand exactly what your point is, and what I'm telling you is that you're doing a horrible job of making it, because your analogy makes no sense and is not in any way similar to the dilemma faced by a pregnant woman.
I know that. I fully understand that. That is exactly why in the vast majority of cases, I don't support a woman's decision to have an abortion. But that's just it. It's not my decision; it's hers. Her bodily domain is being violated against her will by another person (if you're the kind of person so inclined to insist that an embryo is in fact a person), and she should have the power to do something about that if she so chooses.
Ironically enough, the only way to suggest that a woman should not be able to defend her bodily domain against another person is to suggest that the embryo is in fact not a person.
But let's look for a second at the two different end results.
In one, the mother goes 9 months, gets some swollen feet, weird cravings, and gets knocked out for the delivery. She puts the kid up for adoption. Everybody's alive, and recovers fine.
In the other, the child is killed. Considering the term it often happens it, the child feels pain. To prevent mod problems, I won't directly describe, or link to descriptions of, what happens, but...it's enough to make a person physically ill.
So in one, a life is temporarily inconvenienced. In another, a life is ended.
Yeah, that sums up America perfectly, actually. /sarcasm
In one, the mother goes 9 months, gets some swollen feet, weird cravings, and gets knocked out for the delivery
If you honestly believe that's all a pregnant woman goes though, then you know nothing of pregnancy.
Crimson_Concerto;17202907]
HEY YOU!!!!
its hard for me to ignore that guy if you keep quoting him!!!! I like this thread so dont duke it out with that guy....its worthless and a waste of your time.
I hate abortion activists. Their so annoying ! I see them all the time, crowding the streets with their signs. Okay holding up a sign isn't going to change anything. Activists with their kids are the worst. A six year old kid holding up a "Abortion kills Babies" sign probably has no idea what "abortion" means anyway. These people would rather stand outside freezing their butts off instead of actually accomplishing something.
But let's look for a second at the two different end results.
In one, the mother goes 9 months, gets some swollen feet, weird cravings, and gets knocked out for the delivery. She puts the kid up for adoption. Everybody's alive, and recovers fine.
In the other, the child is killed. Considering the term it often happens it, the child feels pain. To prevent mod problems, I won't directly describe, or link to descriptions of, what happens, but...it's enough to make a person physically ill.
So in one, a life is temporarily inconvenienced. In another, a life is ended.
Yeah, that sums up America perfectly, actually. /sarcasm
much better solution there.... and I dont see a need to be sarcastic...it is perfectly true.
I wouldnt put it past Americans in general to smote a life from existance for the sake of a little convenience....or even start a whole war.
My friends little brother got his girlfriend pregnant a few months back and she had an abortion... no **** there...no incest, not prenatal problems...JUST an inconvenience.
HEY YOU!!!!
its hard for me to ignore that guy if you keep quoting him!!!! I like this thread so dont duke it out with that guy....its worthless and a waste of your time.
. . . Is this guy serious?
. . . Wow.
Does he really just ignore everybody who disagrees with him? Even if they haven't been discourteous in any way? That's not mentally, emotionally, or socially healthy.
while not damning the thread myself, i predict a short lifespan for it. in that sense i agree.
im not feeling the whole **** incest thing as an excuse though....
just cause mommy didnt willfully choose half the chromosomes doesnt mean the kid shouldnt live....
Do you know anyone who is the product of ****? I do and he is pretty happy to be alive and I think his mom would feel sick at the thought of killing him.
same goes with incest, or any other physical or mental condition...I cant be the judge of whether or not someone should die because of their handicapps.
Yeah, I know a person who's the product of ****. His mom hates him, he hates his mom, and he REALLY hates his dad. He has serious anger issues and has been in juvenile hall for a while now. His whole life has been miserable. Unfortunately, he's turned to drugs to try and forget his pain. It's not working. He's just screwing himself over. As for a product of incest, no, I don't know one.
Now, lemme rephrase things. If I child is fatally defective, get it over with and save it some suffering. For products of **** or incest, it's the mother's choice, but if she chooses to get an abortion, I will respect her decision. Now, if the mother gets an abortion for the reasons my sister did, I will strongly dissaprove. That's just my opinion though. I don't force it on others. I don't even mention it unless they specifically ask me, and even then I'm reluctant to answer. I feel that it's not my place to decide who lives or dies.
Personally I'm against abortion. The majority of women who get an abortion, are not victims of sexual abuse. Their pregnacy is quite simply a result of being irresponsible. They don't want to go through the trouble of having a baby and instead get an abortion. There are alot of familys who can't have kids that would adopt.
I hate abortion activists. Their so annoying ! I see them all the time, crowding the streets with their signs. Okay holding up a sign isn't going to change anything. Activists with their kids are the worst. A six year old kid holding a "Abortion kills Babies" sign probably has no idea what "abortion" means anyway. These people would rather stand outside freezing their butts off instead of actually accomplishing something.
Very true. The people who go holding up signs for their 'cause' are just trying to look good. My sister got an abortion because she didn't wanto to have a kid and slept aroung too much. All of this is 100% true.
If you honestly believe that's all a pregnant woman goes though, then you know nothing of pregnancy.
The point stands nevertheless. If it was a case of "It's either the baby or me", then your position might have some merit. However, it isn't. The woman has to put up with some unpleasantness for nine months, but she still gets to live.
The child DIES.
. . . Is this guy serious?
I'm afraid he seems to be, yes. He's had it in for me ever since I put forward some sound points (that he didn't want to respond to) in that thread about atheists, and so now he seems compelled to yammer on to everyone about what a stupid unreasonable jerk I am whenever we happen to end up in the same thread.
This is the man who thinks that calling someone a homosexual is a valid argument. Go figure.
I hate abortion activists. Their so annoying ! I see them all the time, crowding the streets with their signs.
...but what, it's not annoying when anti-abortion activists do it?
. . . Is this guy serious?
. . . Wow.
Does he really just ignore everybody who disagrees with him? Even if they haven't been discourteous in any way? That's not mentally, emotionally, or socially healthy.
not talking about you...LOL i meant the guy you have been quoting...
heh heh I work in the mental health field i am quite healthy and stable..
Sham, instead of trying to chase Wight Chocolate off the forums, you could...y'know. Ignore him if you don't want to read what he says.
I have...a long time ago...but when he is quoted i can still read what he says... only in quotes.
other than that i am a river of peace
I have...a long time ago...but when he is quoted i can still read what he says... only in quotes.
other than that i am a river of peace
you shouldn't get too upset over what some person on the internet says. if you read his stuff in quotes...why does it really matter? Eh, whatever. Do what you want. Now back to the thread.
The point stands nevertheless. If it was a case of "It's either the baby or me", then your position might have some merit. However, it isn't. The woman has to put up with some unpleasantness for nine months, but she still gets to live.
The child DIES.
Depending on the specific woman's situation, "some unpleasantness" is the least of her worries. Being pregnant for nine months can ruin the rest of a woman's life, and of course, the nine months isn't even where the actual biological stuff ends even if she does put the child up for adoption.
Don't misunderstand me. I completely agree that most women have no good excuse to choose abortion. But then again, that's just the thing: she got to choose, and she is the only person who can, because it's the sovereignty of her own bodily domain that is at stake. It's completely up to her to consent. I have yet to understand why we are proposing to give the embryo more rights than a grown woman, the right to invade her bodily domain with no consent. Again, I understand that it's not their of it's own will, and I agree that that is very tragic, which is exactly why I discourage abortion, but I cannot agree that it is just to force a woman to surrender her bodily domain.
Of course, this concept of bodily domain only comes up if we are to consider the embryo or fetus to be an actual person. It is only then that I suggest that they have equal rights as one another and that this is where bodily domain kicks in. To suggest that the embryo or fetus has more rights than a person simply suggests to me that it's not actually equivalent to a person, in which case its death is no more significant than the death of a cockroach who decided he would visit my kitchen. I don't agree with that implication, of course, but that is how I'm understand it.
standing there blocking traffic like they are going to change peoples minds.
it seems they are looking for a fight....
i want to see a group of pro abortion people run into a group of anti abortion people......
They could have a huge battle!!!!
one side has the advantage of children or infant fighters, while the other side has the advantage of insensitivity, and are possibly armed with coat hangers!
would be a tough match!
Again, I understand that it's not their of it's own will, and I agree that that is very tragic, which is exactly why I discourage abortion, but I cannot agree that it is just to force a woman to surrender her bodily domain.
Then why can you agree that it is just to kill a child?
Depending on the specific woman's situation, "some unpleasantness" is the least of her worries. Being pregnant for nine months can ruin the rest of a woman's life, and of course, the nine months isn't even where the actual biological stuff ends even if she does put the child up for adoption.
Don't misunderstand me. I completely agree that most women have no good excuse to choose abortion. But then again, that's just the thing: she got to choose, and she is the only person who can, because it's the sovereignty of her own bodily domain that is at stake. It's completely up to her to consent. I have yet to understand why we are proposing to give the embryo more rights than a grown woman, the right to invade her bodily domain with no consent. Again, I understand that it's not their of it's own will, and I agree that that is very tragic, which is exactly why I discourage abortion, but I cannot agree that it is just to force a woman to surrender her bodily domain.
Of course, this concept of bodily domain only comes up if we are to consider the embryo or fetus to be an actual person. It is only then that I suggest that they have equal rights as one another and that this is where bodily domain kicks in. To suggest that the embryo or fetus has more rights than a person simply suggests to me that it's not actually equivalent to a person, in which case its death is no more significant than the death of a cockroach who decided he would visit my kitchen. I don't agree with that implication, of course, but that is how I'm understand it.
the problem is sometimes the father wants the child....In my friends little brothers case he wanted the baby but the girlfriend decided it would be to inconvenient and had an abortion.....
she basicly killed his kid and he had no say in the matter.
I feel that if the woman gets to choose then so should the man...If he does not want the kid then he should be able to order the woman to have an abortion, and she should legally have to do it...
good for the goose is good for the gander.... and its not the womans body its the babys body being killed.
Then why can you agree that it is just to kill a child?
I already said that in the vast majority of cases, I don't agree with that. However, I also realize that I am not the one who should have the power make that decision. I have never been nor will I ever be pregnant. I could not possibly understand what a woman in one of these situations goes through, the immense gravity of it. That is exactly why I believe abortion should remain legal and readily available even though I do not support it. It's a personal decision, and it should remain so.
the problem is sometimes the father wants the child....
she basicly killed his kid and he had no say in the matter.
I feel that if the woman gets to choose then so should the man...If he does not want the kid then he should be able to order the woman to have an abortion, and she should legally have to do it...
good for the goose is good for the gander....
WHOA! Back up a second...
Okay, first of all, it's not the man whose bodily domain is being violated against will. Only the woman's is.
Second... Did you just suggest that the man should have more control over the woman's bodily domain than she herself does? The man gets to decide the fate of the embryo, and it's okay, but the woman should have no say in the decision?
So, is a juror not allowed to pass judgement on a person in a trial unless the
juror was faced with the exact same situation?
You gave a really bad analogy which has absolutely nothing in common with the matter at hand. The purpose of the court is to establish if someone broke the law or not, not if he was right or wrong.
And second, I'm talking specifically about my position on abortion. Not general outlook on the world.
I already said that in the vast majority of cases, I don't agree with that. However, I also realize that I am not the one who should have the power make that decision. I have never been nor will I ever be pregnant. I could not possibly understand what a woman in one of these situations goes through, the immense gravity of it. That is exactly why I believe abortion should remain legal and readily available even though I do not support it. It's a personal decision, and it should remain so.
But that's just it. As soon as you start involving other parties, it becomes more than just a "personal decision"; and you are involving other parties, because your decision determines whether a child lives or dies. If I have a gun and I want to pull the trigger then sure, it's up to me. It's my gun, after all. The situation changes drastically when the gun happens to be pointed at someone's head.
If I have a gun and I want to pull the trigger then sure, it's up to me. It's my gun, after all. The situation changes drastically when the gun happens to be pointed at someone's head.
If the someone you're pointing it at has violated your personal bodily domain without your consent, then it is my opinion that you are perfectly within your right to pull that trigger. I know that if somebody decided they wanted to be inside of me without my permission, I would most definitely pull that trigger, and it would be perfectly within my right to do so.
EDIT: Furthermore, if somebody decided they would violate your bodily domain without your consent, I would be perfectly within my right to pull that trigger for you in your defense if you are willing but unable to. (a.k.a. doctors should have the right to perform abortions from from prosecution if a woman has decided that's what she wants.)
What if a decision you yourself had made resulted in this?
If the someone you're pointing it at has violated your personal bodily domain without your consent, then it is my opinion that you are perfectly within your right to pull that trigger. I know that if somebody decided they wanted to be inside of me without my permission, I would most definitely pull that trigger, and it would be perfectly within my right to do so.
Sure, if somebody decided that they wanted to. If doing so was completely beyond their control, then it's just murder.
See, this is what I don't understand. You agree that a woman shouldn't abort her baby, that doing so is effectively murder, and that since the baby's just a victim of circumstance it doesn't deserve to die...and yet apparently the woman is completely absolved because of this "bodily domain" thing.
Why? What is it about "bodily domain" that makes it such a special case? Why does murder suddenly become acceptable under these circumstances? No matter how you slice it, it still boils down to "You are inconveniencing me, and so I am going to kill you even though it isn't your fault."
What if they didn't make the decision?
What if a decision you yourself had made resulted in this?
I have no idea what your pronouns are referring to.
Who made what decision that resulted in what?
So you're saying it's pretty much impossible for people to control themselves? Yeah, that's a great societal lesson. I'm sure that our lessons about personal responsibility in all other areas....wait, nope. Forgot.
The evidence would indeed appear to bear that out since 95%+ of all people have premarital sex, even when given warning and education. It's just...with the latter, they are far, far less likely to get pregnant, or to spread disease. So...umm...yes, it would indeed appear that nature defeats mental fortitude in this subject, quite handedly at that. In this case, personal responsibility must be pragmatic, and that means preventing pregnancy in the first place, and moreover maintaining a woman's right to choose.
Is everyone overlooking the possibility of giving the child up for adoption? I mean, if the mother really doesn't want to take care of it, there are always, always people looking to adopt.
Nope, but the mother must go through many months of life-risking pregnancy, which also happens to be rather expensive quite a lot of the time. Who's going to pay for it? The state. I.E. all of us. Who's going to pay for the child to be adopted? The state. I.E. all of us. Who's going to pay for an extended hospital stay for a back-alley whackjob performing an "abortion", or a woman shiving something up her, or drinking poison, because, hint, hint, that is EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ABORTION IS ILLEGAL? The state. I.E. all of us. Which puts an enormous burden on the state, all of the above, or a simple procedure, contraceptives and education? Hint, not anti-abortion policy. Which reduces the number of abortions that occur, with reams of data to support it? Hint, not anti-abortion policy. Thus, which is the best solution overall? Hint, not anti-abortion policy.
Once again: why would it be so hard to expect guys to keep it zipped up? How about spending a few weeks in sex ed on each and every veneral disease out there?
It takes two to tango. He has to pull it out of his pants, but she still has to spread her legs (barring ****, of course, but that's a whole other can of worms right there).
Note, how I utterly advocate education, as that DOES reduce the risk, by causing thoughtfulness to be put into the decision. However, the major advocates against abortion, once more, likewise advocate against education before puberty (i.e. before it's too late and hormones drive the sexual response), and are against contraceptives, which tremendously prevent pregnancy. Because, you know, every sperm is sacred.
If you honestly believe that's all a pregnant woman goes though, then you know nothing of pregnancy.
Right? Absolutely nothing approaching reality was in that statement. That is downright laughably naive. No offense to the party being quoted, but seriously, there is SO much more to pregnancy than that, and there is quite a bit of risk to the mother's life and health on top of all of the rest of the stuff she must go through. And that is just HER side of the equation.
If doing so was completely beyond their control, then it's just murder.
That's not necessarily true. Somebody puts a gun to your wife's head and tells you that if you don't **** that woman outside, he'll kill your wife. That woman outside has the right to kill you if you try to **** her. This is not murder, this is killing in the name of self defense. An extreme and very unlikely example, probably with holes that I'm sure I don't care to fill, but it's the only thing I could come up with so fast this late at night. (Speaking of which, I'm going to bed after this post.) Anyways, that point is that you are a very unfortunate victim of circumstance, yes, but that woman still has a right to the sovereignty of her bodily domain, and consent is hers alone to give. If she does not give it, you are quite simply screwed. You don't deserve to be, but you are. I'm sorry.
the woman is completely absolved because of this "bodily domain" thing.
Yes, that is correct.
Why? What is it about "bodily domain" that makes it such a special case? Why does murder suddenly become acceptable under these circumstances?
Because nobody should have the power to be inside of me if I have not consented to that. If you consider the embryo as being a person, then it follows all of the same rules that the rest of us do, and so it does not have the right to violate bodily domain without consent. If you decide that it does have that right, then it is not equal to a person, and so I don't care if it dies any more than I care about those poor bacteria that are being killed when I take some medicine to boost my immune system.
No matter how you slice it, it still boils down to "You are inconveniencing me, and so I am going to kill you even though it isn't your fault."
Yes, that's right, and I agree that it's tragic, but repeating that over and over doesn't change the fact that it isn't my decision to make. It's the woman's. It is her bodily domain being violated against her will, and she has the right to decide what she is going to do about that, regardless of whether I agree with her decision or not.
Now that all for me for tonight. I have to wake up for work in 5 hours.
I have no idea what your pronouns are referring to.
Who made what decision that resulted in what?
The baby didn't make the decision that resulted in their presence in the woman.
Instead, barring ****, the woman has made a decision that resulted in the baby's life.
As for pregnancy being more that my original quote: yeah, I suppose. But then again, one of my friends (well, her and her husband) just had a kid. At 9 months, she was still able to go out and about. She was obviously a bit larger than normal, but essential function wasn't impeded.
As far as risk...I run a risk getting in a car every day. Life is risk. That's what regular doctor visits during pregnancy are for; catching problems.
Really, nobody's going to change anybody's view here. That's what's pointless about these discussions on a forum.
That's not necessarily true. Somebody puts a gun to your wife's head and tells you that if you don't **** that woman outside, he'll kill your wife. That woman outside has the right to kill you if you try to **** her. This is not murder, this is killing in the name of self defense.
Yes. However, this is not a case of something being completely beyond my control. I am still capable of not assaulting the woman, therefore I still get a choice, even if it isn't a very nice one.
A baby literally has no choice at all. It cannot choose to exist outside of its mother.
An extreme and very unlikely example, probably with holes that I'm sure I don't care to fill
OH SURE IT'S OK WHEN YOU DO IT
Because nobody should have the power to be inside of me if I have not consented to that.
Right. Likewise, nobody should have the power to be in my house if I have not consented to it. No argument here.
However, according to you, if someone ends up in my house against their will, it's not OK to kill them. If they end up inside my body, it is. Why? From whence does this huge distinction arise?
Note, how I utterly advocate education, as that DOES reduce the risk, by causing thoughtfulness to be put into the decision. However, the major advocates against abortion, once more, likewise advocate against education before puberty (i.e. before it's too late and hormones drive the sexual response), and are against contraceptives, which tremendously prevent pregnancy. Because, you know, every sperm is sacred.
Bah, education? What are you, some kind of drug-smoking, sex-loving hippie??? :P
What a bunch of chromasomists. You jerks think life starts at conception? Those 23-chromosome haploids that join to make the zygote are just as much deserving of life! Whether you draw the line of "life" at the existence of measurable neurons firing, conception, or 40 days, you still have to draw an arbitrary line somewhere. (to the vegetarians: Why is it ok to eat vegetables? Just because they don't scream in pain when you kill them...)
You will never know the baby's wishes and you will never know when consciousness or experience begins. So how can we make any assumptions about the child's right to life or individuality before it is actually separate from the mother? Simplicity states that we shouldn't...
Ian
the woman has made a decision that resulted in the baby's life.
That does not amount to consent.
Really, nobody's going to change anybody's view here. That's what's pointless about these discussions on a forum.
The point is to better understand your opponent's view, even if you're not going to change your mind.
OH SURE IT'S OK WHEN YOU DO IT
But when I do it, I admit that I'm doing it and don't press the matter. You're right. It's an imperfect analogy. I see that. :P
However, according to you, if someone ends up in my house against their will, it's not OK to kill them. If they end up inside my body, it is. Why? From whence does this huge distinction arise?
Because body and property are very different. You can chose to leave your property whenever you want. You don't have to deal with somebody on your property if you don't want to. If your property is damaged as a result of the uninvited visitor, you can have the damage repaired easily, or you can simply get some new property. You don't have these options when your body is invaded.
Body and property are not the same. They are different. That is the distinction.
Now seriously, I'm going to bed. :P
A fetus is less intelligent than a pig.
We eat pigs and have no compuctions about doing so.
Why do we have a problem killing fetuses when it is convenient for us?
Its inherently hypocritical. And no, "Its human" is not a valid counterargument, because so is hair, skin cells, sperm, ect.
scientists have no idea about how to create one. it truly is mysterious!
Er, no. We can and have cloned humans.
The idea that it is mysterious is quite funny. We actually understand a huge amount about this stuff because it is easy to study.
some people try to justify by saying it is not developed yet... and maybe that helps them sleep at night, but the fact is it is a life.
It doesn't matter if it is life. I have no moral compunctions about eating chickens, pigs, or cows. I have no moral compunctions about killing wasps which make a nest in a place which is inconvenient for me.
So why should I have compunctions about this?
The answer is, of course, that I should not.
Now, there IS a correct analogy for abortion.
Someone has a rare medical condition. One night after you have sex, the government randomly chooses you. You get them sewn to your chest for the next nine months in order to cure their disease.
You're saying that's morally right.
the problem is sometimes the father wants the child....In my friends little brothers case he wanted the baby but the girlfriend decided it would be to inconvenient and had an abortion.....
Tough. That's only fair.
Now, fairer would be for the father to be able to give up all parental responsibilities, a "male abortion" if you will, thus leaving the female the same choice as he has - the ability to give it up.
But that's a rather seperate discussion.
If the someone you're pointing it at has violated your personal bodily domain without your consent, then it is my opinion that you are perfectly within your right to pull that trigger. I know that if somebody decided they wanted to be inside of me without my permission, I would most definitely pull that trigger, and it would be perfectly within my right to do so.
Indeed.
What if they didn't make the decision?
What if a decision you yourself had made resulted in this?
They did make the decision though. The sperm and the egg merged. Obviously its their fault.
You can't argue they're a person and claim they didn't make that decision simultaneously.
So how can we make any assumptions about the child's right to life or individuality before it is actually separate from the mother? Simplicity states that we shouldn't...
Once a fetus has the ability to survive outside of the womb it's a child. Until that time, it's no more a human being than an appendix, lung, or spleen. If a woman decides to have it removed before it is capable of breathing or eating is her choice, protected by law.
I may not personally agree with the decision to abort a pregnancy, but I do agree that the law protecting the procedure is important. As long as the procedure is performed in a clean, sterile enviroment the woman having it doesn't have to worry of dying from sepsis. Making the procedure illegal increases the possibility of the patient (the woman) dying from a condition that is easily countered.
That was the point of the Roe vs Wade decision, it had nothing to do with morality. I applaud the justices that were able to set aside their personal morality and make a decision that, while controversial, was in the best interest of the nation as a whole. If you want to prevent abortions, please teach people how to be responsible enough to avoid pregnancy.
Here's the reality:
A fetus is less intelligent than a pig.
We eat pigs and have no compuctions about doing so.
Why do we have a problem killing fetuses when it is convenient for us?
Its inherently hypocritical. And no, "Its human" is not a valid counterargument, because so is hair, skin cells, sperm, ect.
Hell, technically it has more in common with a parasite then a animal like a pig. A fetus feeds off of and gains nourishment from the mother without any symbiotic relationship back toward the mother.
There has even been studies linking miscarriages to the mother's immune system attacking fetus cells by identifying it as a invading parasitic body.
Irrelevant. Now humour me; Is it acceptable to shoot me or isn't it?
No, but it is acceptable to throw you out, where you may or may not die as a result. If you cannot be removed, then the analogy is false (and no, it would still not be acceptable to shoot you).
In Titanium_Dragon's analogy, which is much more apt, it is pretty clear that forcing a woman to carry a child is morally comparable to **** (both acts involve taking away a person's control over their own body).
Also, I don't think anyone has the right to decide whether or not a woman wants what amounts to a parasite in her body or in her life. Only she does. Quite frankly I've seen the adoption system, it's full of fail. The kid's life is most usually miserable from what I've seen. And most often keeping the baby is even worse since the parents can not even really afford to support themselves.
As much as I'm an advocate of birth control and contraceptives, I also understand that some people are too stupid to use them. And that those said people who are too stupid to use them are usually too stupid to make good parents, and are too stupid to give up the baby after the fact. The ones that realize on some level that "me having a baby would be bad" get abortions, not because "it will ruin MY life" but because it might very well ruin their CHILD'S life.
Let's not even get started on **** and incest.
If you make it illegal, they'll find a way to do it regardless. Coat hangers included. It's better to have it take place in a much more controlled environment.
Coincidentally that's also why I think prostitution should be legal. Personally I'm against such a thing, I'd never "rent" one, nor be one. But I understand that it being illegal generates far more problems than it would if it were legal.
I think with all the other rights the Founding Fathers saw fit to spell out, had they intended a right to privacy they would have spelled that out as well.
Really though...it does not matter what laws they pass to take away choice. People are still going to do it...whether it is dosing up on meds or with a coat-hanger.
If you pass a law to disallow choice in the matter it does not stop there from being choice in the matter.
Hell, technically it has more in common with a parasite then a animal like a pig. A fetus feeds off of and gains nourishment from the mother without any symbiotic relationship back toward the mother.
There has even been studies linking miscarriages to the mother's immune system attacking fetus cells by identifying it as a invading parasitic body.
I'm sorry, but this is a woefully uninformed statement.
Plenty of research shows that the interaction between the mother and foetus is much more complex than a simple parasitic symbiosis.
From the article:
There is clearly active bi-directional
dialogue between cells of trophoblast, embryo and mother to
control implantation and establish vascular connections that are
critical for sustaining fetal growth.
Quite simply, the "foetus as parasite" argument is a memetic invention that really has no basis in biology.
Ultimately, the question of abortion is a moral one, as biology can only answer certain questions for us. It is a question about which I am severely conflicted, but at this time I believe the best option open to us is to preserve a woman's right to choose while simultaneously working to reduce the number of abortions performed to as close to zero as we can manage.
Faelar
Er, no. We can and have cloned humans.
The idea that it is mysterious is quite funny. We actually understand a huge amount about this stuff because it is easy to study.
When and where exactly have we cloned humans?
Now, fairer would be for the father to be able to give up all parental responsibilities, a "male abortion" if you will, thus leaving the female the same choice as he has - the ability to give it up.
I agree. It is unfortunate to me that males have absolutely no reproductive rights after intercourse.
Faelar
At what point do you consider the baby (embryo/fetus/parasite) an organism that has rights of its own and why?
If after the birth, why stop there? Why not some time during the first week? It sounds terrible, but why should it not be treated the same?
I'm not a doctor, biologist, or pre-natal specialist, so my opinion would be uninformed and ill-formed. In short, I have no pretensions that my opinion of when it becomes a baby has any relevance.
As for why a baby should be treated then a fetus... because at that point the mother isn't the only one capable of carrying the burden.
Re: the "**** and incest" waiver
... why? If the basic pro-life argument is that "it's alive! (maniacal laughter)" so it would be murder to kill it... why is it worth less as a human being due to incest or ****? Just because the mother might not want it? Hell, if she wanted it she wouldn't be thinking about an abortion in the first place! The adoption option is still there for **** and incest...
Re: Cloned humans
Wait, when did that happen? I heard that some people had claimed to have done it, but they didn't have any data, recordings, etc. to show they actually had and weren't just trying to scam free press.
Edit: not that I don't think it won't happen, just that as far as I know it hasn't happened yet.
Because body and property are very different. You can chose to leave your property whenever you want. You don't have to deal with somebody on your property if you don't want to.
...so you don't feel it's a problem at all to have someone on your property as long as you're not on your property at the time?
Do you have a burglar alarm? I'm just curious.
Here's the reality:
A fetus is less intelligent than a pig.
We eat pigs and have no compuctions about doing so.
Why do we have a problem killing fetuses when it is convenient for us?
Pigs are not humans.
It doesn't matter if it is life. I have no moral compunctions about eating chickens, pigs, or cows. I have no moral compunctions about killing wasps which make a nest in a place which is inconvenient for me.
But you do have moral compunctions about killing humans.
Do you determine what is human solely by its level of intelligence? Should we be keeping all those mentally handicapped folks out there in farms and eating them, or what? Hell, how intelligent is a baby that actually has been born? Certainly MUCH less intelligent than a grown person is; does that mean we can eat them too? What's a newborn baby contributing to our society? Can you teach it to be a scientist? A doctor?
Nope. They just lie around, crying and soiling themselves. Useless. Sounds like prime food material to me.
Someone has a rare medical condition. One night after you have sex, the government randomly chooses you. You get them sewn to your chest for the next nine months in order to cure their disease.
No. Your analogy suggests that the government decides that you become pregnant. Of course that's morally wrong.
What the government would be deciding is that you cannot murder a baby; and, funnily enough, we already have some rather harsh penalties associated with that particular act.
If you make it illegal, they'll find a way to do it regardless.
Well hell, let's make homicide legal. We've seen for ourselves that people are obviously going to do it anyway. We might as well get the government in on it so that it's all nice and clean and controlled, right?
Having sex is risking pregnancy. Period. You can take steps to reduce that risk, but the risk is always there. If you willfully have sex, and get pregnant, it's your fault. The mother is the one that put the child there. To now somehow pretend that it's the baby's fault that it's there is a grave miscoloring of reality.
I agree with the poster who suggested that it's possible to be pro-life and pro-choice. That's true. Abort the pregnancy before it's alive, or carry it to term.
It's really not that complicated.
BTW, if your response to this is going to be another one of those "IT'S ALIVE AT CONCEPTION" posts, you'd better be able to explain where my logic is wrong (see my page 1 post). Otherwise, you're just another loudmouth making assertions with no reasoned foundation.
Not nearly in the same amount, nor is killing a bunch of non sentient cells murder. You're trying to compare cells to humans here. Or make a mountain out of a mole hill. Heck I'll take the Catholic theologian Augustine's stance on this one here, It's not alive until somewhere around 40-80 days.
Also I am pro death penalty and pro assisted suicide.
What the government would be deciding is that you cannot murder a baby; and, funnily enough, we already have some rather harsh penalties associated with that particular act.
Which is not their decision. If they "decided" for you then people would still do what they are going to do anyhow. You may have more deaths related to self-done abortions.
From the moment of conception, when the sperm enters the egg, Catholicism considers it human life and therefore no willing harm should be done.
I watched a thing on CurrentTV last night. Just a pod on abortion in S. Dakota I think. There was a priest who probably said some of the most convincing stuff.
Basically he summed it up that if we were to decide that we can use life to benefit ourselves at a certain point, then what would be wrong doing it for other points. If we can benefit from the dividing cells that have the potential to be a fully formed human being then why should we not use the elderly or those close to their end on the opposite spectrum...or because they are a certain ethnicity. What will we be then?
I do come off really harsh, callous and apathic on the subject. Do not get me wrong I do value life, but I also value choice. If you look at life on earth there is a intricate and profound system of checks and balances. We do not really have predation, except from ourselves and there are very few things outside of ourselves to help control our population.
If from this moment on it was illegal (and impossible) to get an abortion then our population would only continue to grow. In response there would be greater shortages of essentials and that would lead to more war and genocide.
The focus really should be on prevention rather than abortion. In the above it is always possible regardless of whether it is legal or illegal. More effort should be spent teaching kids about preventative steps because there is nothing you can do to prevent abortion.
Remember kids...knowledge is power and reading is fun-da-mental!
Titanium Dragon;17203415]Here's the reality:
Er, no. We can and have cloned humans.
The idea that it is mysterious is quite funny. We actually understand a huge amount about this stuff because it is easy to study.
ok show me evidence that a scientist has made a sperm cell, and made an egg, and put them together and they grew into a living creature.
I dont care if it is only a fly but show me.
World is over-populated...
I think they should issue permits that allows you to kill one person regardless of age per year. They of course have the right to defend themselves...but permit hunting each other would do good to slim down this over population.
FTW
Not nearly in the same amount, nor is killing a bunch of non sentient cells murder.
Well then, since you're the expert here, at what point exactly does an unborn baby stop being "a bunch of non sentient cells" and start being a human?
Incidentally, the "amount" is irrelevant. If you made it legal to kill someone as long as you gouge out your eyes and disembowel yourself then I strongly suspect that you wouldn't see many more cases of that happening than you would with it being illlegal, but that doesn't mean it should have been made legal to begin with.
Which is not their decision.
Isn't it? Well god damn. There our government's been telling us that we can't murder or steal and this whole time it should have been my decision? I'm being OPPRESSED.
If they "decided" for you then people would still do what they are going to do anyhow.
See above. I've already covered why "People are going to do it anyway" is not a valid argument.
ok show me evidence that a scientist has made a sperm cell, and made an egg, and put them together and they grew into a living creature.
I dont care if it is only a fly but show me.
Because body and property are very different. You can chose to leave your property whenever you want.
You obviously don't live in Texas.
You really aren't very rational Wight. I have this visual of you just foaming at the mouth screaming "HERETIC BURN" as you post these rather irrational posts.
You're trying to apply "morality issue" where there isn't one. It's not murder. The thing's not even sentient enough to know the difference between being alive or not, nor is it really capable of making decisions.
The real morality issue is people being so uneducated as to not understand birth control methods or not even using them. The real moral dilemma is rather than sit down and talk about sexual reproduction like adults, it's pushed to the side with "Just don't do it" being said instead. Or denial of it even happening among teens and young adults. (or senior citizens. Did you know Aids is -really- bad among seniors in rest homes? bet you didn't) Heck I knew a girl that thought if you did it standing up you couldn't get pregnant. That shows several things, one she's stupid, and two society as a whole has already failed to properly educate her.
Ontop of that religious fruitcakes are also an issue of moral problem with sex. "Birthcontrol is a sin" I do believe that is the official catholic stance on contraceptives? now how is THAT right?
Isn't it? Well god damn. There our government's been telling us that we can't murder or steal and this whole time it should have been my decision? I'm being OPPRESSED.
It is your decision whether you engage in such activities.
See above. I've already covered why "People are going to do it anyway" is not a valid argument.
Sadly regardless it is a valid argument. Laws against abortion will not stop people from aborting. What needs to be done is to make more progress in preventative steps.
Neither of those links show anything relevant to the question asked.
if it is only a fly part...
I'll side with Augustine. somewhere after 40 days after conception, maybe up to 80.
"Somewhere." "Maybe."
Not good enough. Can you pinpoint the exact time? Because, you know, it'd be a bit of a bugger if we just assumed it was, say, 40 days and then a decade later or so we found out that it was actually 30 days and we have, in fact, been killing actual babies all this time.
And of course that assumes that every single unborn baby in the world develops at precisely the same rate, too.
Laws against abortion will not stop people from aborting.
Yes they will. What you mean is that laws against abortion will not stop everyone from aborting, the same way that laws against murder will not stop everyone from committing murder. That doesn't mean those laws should not exist.
if it is only a fly part...
No. They didn't create sperm or an egg from nothing.
"when it is fertilized" is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. As is any point where it is nothing more than a collection of cells (that doesn't even have a shape yet)
Sorry, you aren't in a position to place an arbitrary number on life. No one is. But the most general consensus I hear is "definitely alive in the third trimester and definitely undoubtedly after the fact of it being born"
Personally I'm willing to go as far as saying it's not really human until 60 days after if I had to nail down a concrete number.
Yes they will. What you mean is that laws against abortion will not stop everyone from aborting, the same way that laws against murder will not stop everyone from committing murder. That doesn't mean those laws should not exist.
How are you going to prosecute someone for taking IB profin? I am being a little critical on the close-hanger part but when it was illegal in the past that is what was used. To me if abortion became illegal it would not prevent in the least people from aborting and getting away with it by taking medication to miscarry.
There is the potential that the window for when one legally aborts currently needs to be adjusted. I am not knowledgeable on why it is how it is currently.
No. They didn't create sperm or an egg from nothing.
True but still cloning.
Personally I'm willing to go as far as saying it's not really human until 60 days after if I had to nail down a concrete number.
I'd say sometime around 30 years old myself, although that's not a hard and fast number.
Going with the "total complete development stops is when you're human" theory? :D
Generally it comes when you reach the point that you realize you don't know everything. 30 years old is a good round figure, although milage often varies.
Generally it comes when you reach the point that you realize you don't know everything. 30 years old is a good round figure, although milage often varies.
That makes sense. Some people never become human I guess then.
Why should I try?
Well, of course. You don't know, and at the moment there's not really any way for you to know.
And that is precisely the problem.
Sorry, you aren't in a position to place an arbitrary number on life. No one is.
Exactly. We do not know the precise moment at which an unborn baby becomes "sentient", and therefore every time we allow someone an abortion, there is a distinct chance that it's not "a bunch of non-sentient cells", but a baby that is being killed off.
"40 to 80 days". That's a LOT of room for error. Are you okay with taking that chance?
On a separate note, consider an adult human in a coma. For all intents and purposes, they are not sentient. Is it OK to kill someone in a coma?
On a separate note, consider an adult human in a coma. For all intents and purposes, they are not sentient. Is it OK to kill someone in a coma?
Brain-dead coma?
Brain-dead coma?
I don't mean someone who's a vegetable; just an ordinary, living, breathing human in a coma. A deep coma, mind you, but the kind you wake up from and are (mostly) healthy.
A person in those circumstances isn't technically sentient, according to any definition of the word that I know...and since sentience seems to be the deciding factor here, it'd obviously be fine and dandy to kill someone if they're in a coma. Right?
Well, of course. You don't know, and at the moment there's not really any way for you to know.
And that is precisely the problem.
Exactly. We do not know the precise moment at which an unborn baby becomes "sentient", and therefore every time we allow someone an abortion, there is a distinct chance that it's not "a bunch of non-sentient cells", but a baby that is being killed off.
"40 to 80 days". That's a LOT of room for error. Are you okay with taking that chance?
On a separate note, consider an adult human in a coma. For all intents and purposes, they are not sentient. Is it OK to kill someone in a coma?
However, assume the other side is right for once. (yes I know your brain just exploded) assume that the parents of the child are so heinously unfit for having children and they can't abort because it's illegal. Not only can they not support themselves but there's no way in hell they can support the baby. This child is going to grow up in misery and despair and probably grow up to amount to nothing positive. The baby is born with both a heroine addiction and fetal alcohol syndrome to heavy degrees. This child's life is nothing but suffering and despair which could have been prevented all together by an abortion -before- that child became a sentient being.
(Because let's face it some people are too stupid to not have sex. Or are too stupid/blasted out of their skull to use contraceptives)
I would much rather take that chance than attempt to justify my 'moral superiority' and force another being to live in conditions that it would be better off having never existed.
I would much rather take that chance than attempt to justify my 'moral superiority' and force another being to live in conditions that it would be better off having never existed.
Who are you to decide that it'd be better off having never existed? Is it your life?
You do not get to kill someone based on a prediction on whether or not their life is going to be "good enough", for a multitude of reasons. First of all, there are people that have been born in terrible circumstances that have nevertheless succeeded in rising above them and making something of themselves. Should those people have been aborted?
Secondly, where do you draw the line on where someone would be "better off dead"? Can you quantify "suffering" mathematically and then go on to show exactly how much suffering a person has to be enduring (or is likely to endure) before it's OK to kill them? No, so again, you just have to make an inaccurate and arbitrary judgement, and again, that is not good enough.
Thirdly, some people just want to live. Doesn't matter how horrible their lives are. Many people in underdeveloped countries live wretched, miserable lives, but they still live; they don't go off and commit suicide. Who are you to decide that that it just isn't worth it and they shouldn't have been born?
I could go on, but I think that's more than sufficient.
Ontop of that, when it's not even a fetus (literally just a handful of cells slapped haphazardly together) It's not a human. It's no more human than a collection of blood cells in the body. It doesn't even look human at that point. It doesn't respond to it's environment anything like a human.
It doesn't kick, twitch or show any outward sign of being human does it?
It's not human.
A puppy is more human than that collection of cells.
I'm pretty damned sure that someone born into such a life would probably not wish to exist on average.
I think you underestimate the human will to survive.
Regardless, it's not for you or anyone else to decide, and that's all there is to it. Even if, "on average", most people would have chosen not to live, what about the people that wouldn't? Are they not important, or what?
Ontop of that, when it's not even a fetus (literally just a handful of cells slapped haphazardly together) It's not a human. It's no more human than a collection of blood cells in the body. It doesn't even look human at that point. It doesn't respond to it's environment anything like a human.
It doesn't kick, twitch or show any outward sign of being human does it?
It's not human.
So again, I give you the person in the coma.
OK to kill 'em, yes or no?
Basically, the concept had him talking in front of a number of orphans and saying "No-one wanted these children. But were they aborted? No! And now they are here!"
Now, we never bothered to even try verifying its authenticity, so it might as well been someone's joke. But we liked to think it was actually seriously contemplated once.
Nevertheless, it's not for you to decide, and that's all there is to it.
So again, I give you the person in the coma.
OK to kill 'em, yes or no?
If it is brain-dead I would say sure...
If there is activity in the brain...then no...
A person in those circumstances isn't technically sentient, according to any definition of the word that I know...and since sentience seems to be the deciding factor here, it'd obviously be fine and dandy to kill someone if they're in a coma. Right?
Who is to say they are not just locked in their head at that time. I would really think activity of the brain comes into play but I am not knowledgeable on the subject. I have been there when a family member was brain-dead but kept "alive" even though it was a empty shell.
If it is brain-dead I would say sure...
If there is activity in the brain...then no...
OK.
Why not? I'm guessing it's because the person who still has brain activity is likely to recover?
Who is to say they are not just locked in their head at that time.
Oh, well, we don't really know for sure, but we're just making a guess here. You know, seeing as how that's OK.
OK.
Why not? I'm guessing it's because the person who still has brain activity is likely to recover?
Not always. Guess it is just left to fate or luck...or whatever.
Are you sentient when you dream?
Not always. Guess it is just left to fate or luck...or whatever.
Right, a person in a coma won't always recover, but presumably you would object to killing them on the grounds that it's possible (even probable) that they will recover and it would be wrong to deny them that chance. Correct?
Right, a person in a coma won't always recover, but presumably you would object to killing them on the grounds that it's possible (even probable) that they will recover and it would be wrong to deny them that chance. Correct?
Patients that have awoken after several months and years of being in a coma often tell the living that they did not experience anything out of the ordinary. They often tell their friends and family that it felt as though they were sleeping.
Are you sentient while you sleep. There is brain activity happening...
How much brain activity is happening before the brain even develops?
So with your analogy I would think it would be more fitting to question whether it is right to pull the plug on a "brain-dead" coma patient or remove rapidly dividing stem cells before they can develop brain activity.
Patients that have awoken after several months and years of being in a coma often tell the living that they did not experience anything out of the ordinary. They often tell their friends and family that it felt as though they were sleeping.
That may be how they explained it, but that doesn't mean that's what it actually was.
Suppose you're asleep and someone stabs you in the arm with a needle. You're going to notice, and you're going to wake up.
Now suppose you're in a coma and someone stabs you in the arm with a needle. Will the same thing happen? No, because otherwise every patient would instantly come around the moment you went to hook them up to a drip. Obviously there is a distinct difference on some level.
But let's just assume, hypothetically, that a person in a coma doesn't experience anything. They'll wake up eventually, but until they do, they're essentially just a human-shaped collection of cells, albeit living ones. Is it OK to kill them, then?
Neither of those links show anything relevant to the question asked.
thank you...they were not relevant at all....cloning is 3rd grader stuff...
I want to see proof that a scientist created life....
ill settle for even something more simple. a sperm cell. I would like to see evidence that even 1 sperm cell was created in a lab.
Back to my point life is very mysterious and scientists know VERY little about how it works. They have scratched the surface by understanding cells and organelle functions. Even knowing all the parts that make up a body such as carbon, minerals, water..etc...
if you arrange all these things together like Dr. Frankenstein how would you make it come alive? with a lightning bolt? there is a thing called "the spark of life" that baffles doctors. the "spark" is joked about with actual electricity, but know one knows what it is that makes cells live.
as soon as the sperm hits the egg all the requirements are met and all the dna and code is there for a unique individual person. it is a child. birds and reptiles guard their fertilized eggs and treat them as a baby because they are in fact children.. sure they may not have hatched yet. but it is still a baby. a miraculous life.
On a separate note, consider an adult human in a coma. For all intents and purposes, they are not sentient. Is it OK to kill someone in a coma?
Typically that decision is left to their family, precisely because people can't agree on whether or not it's right.
Now, who would be the most direct family to an unborn fetus... that's right! The mother! that it is inside of. So, by using the coma-patient precedent, a pregnant woman is in charge of the decision of whether or not to turn off life support on the fetus. Whether or not it is 'right' or 'wrong' is solely up to her to decide. Let's just hope that she goes over all the options first because, ultimately, it is her choice, and her choice alone.
Unless you're recommending the state take possession of her body for the nine months to force her to have the baby.
Typically that decision is left to their family, precisely because people can't agree on whether or not it's right.
Is it? What, even if they're fully expected to recover?
And if someone is on life support, then (typically) the family can choose to take them off it. This can lead to pretty quick death in extreme cases to slow cases in the cases of more other-wise healthy people.
I may be off on the legality of this in various places, but that's the way I've always understood it.
as soon as the sperm hits the egg all the requirements are met and all the dna and code is there for a unique individual person. it is a child. birds and reptiles guard their fertilized eggs and treat them as a baby because they are in fact children.. sure they may not have hatched yet. but it is still a baby. a miraculous life.
They do so to ensure the survival of their species - not because the eggs are their babies. They don't give a flyin' turd about their progeny beyond the most basic survival of the species level. In fact, many animals undergo hormonal changes when about to give birth (or lay eggs) to ensure that the "loving" mother doesn't eat her "beloved" children. It's one of the most basic behaviors that can be observed. Once the "babies" hatch and grow, they become competition to the parents. There is no love felt by an animal for it's offspring.
Reptiles generally abandon their progeny to their own devices once they pop out of their shells. And woe be to those that find their parents again in a week or so. They'll probably be eaten by their former caretakers. ;) Even in mammals, we see how the increased competition that results from continuing the species completely removes any misunderstanding of "love". A deer will stay with it's mother for about a year. During most of that time, she will protect the fawn. As that year winds down, though, she "cares" less and less eventually going so far as to fight with her beloved children forcing them to leave her side and fend for themselves. We also frequently see mothers unwilling to die or even take great risk to protect the young. They may fight, but when the danger gets too close, they flee. Why? They can have more babies and the youngsters that are not reproductively viable mean little overall. Hell, deer even use their "children" as safety screeners. They allow the inquisitive youngsters to head out first and they stay behind to see if there is danger ahead. How's that for "love"? ;)
What does all of this mean? First, I talk too damned much. Second, it's instinct and not love that dictates a reptile or bird protect it's eggs - not some knowledge that the egg is somehow a baby to be loved. Humans are not as much slaves to instinct as animals, so this theory is even less applicable to the discussion. What a bird does has little carry-over to what we do. And they can teach us no lessons.
If someone is in a coma, they're on life support. You know, on account of not being able to feed themselves.
Right, but that doesn't mean they won't recover. If the family is told that they're expected to be awake again by the end of the week, do they still get to say "No, screw it, kill them"? If so, that's absurd, but I don't want to take this off on a tangent, so consider this instead.
What about an artificially induced coma? Or what about just a plain old general anaesthetic? You're basically dead to the world a few seconds after that is administered, but I'm pretty sure the family doesn't get to burst into the operating theatre as soon as the patient's fallen unconscious and shout "OK, he's technically not sentient now! His fate is in our hands, and we say kill him!"
Its up to people to decide for themselves if they want abortion ... No other person has the right to push their oppinion onto someone else.
I'm pro legalisation of abortion, euthanasia and suicide.
What about an artificially induced coma? Or what about just a plain old general anaesthetic? You're basically dead to the world a few seconds after that is administered, but I'm pretty sure the family doesn't get to burst into the operating theatre as soon as the patient's fallen unconscious and shout "OK, he's technically not sentient now! His fate is in our hands, and we say kill him!"
I think you've taken the analogy to an absurd degree here.
Regardless, the basic idea is this: if someone is not capable of making decisions for themselves it typically falls to the next of kin (whether that be parent, child, spouse, or sibling) to make important decisions. Of course, a doctor has an ethical responsibility to see to their patients welfare while they are in their care, but that only goes so far in the cases of long-term patients.
Sentience really has nothing to do with it.
Sentience really has nothing to do with it.
Maybe according to you it doesn't, but my points here are being made to refute the arguments of those who say it does.
That's why taking this analogy to an "absurd degree" is still perfectly relevant; ultimately, the question I am attempting to address here is whether or not it's acceptable to kill someone based solely on the grounds that they are not currently sentient. That is what I am debating with this line of thought.
Its up to people to decide for themselves if they want abortion ... No other person has the right to push their oppinion onto someone else.
Um, OK. I guess we should legalise homicide and larceny and whatnot too, then, since we don't have any right to push our "opinions" on those poor murderers and thieves.
Maybe according to you it doesn't, but my points here are being made to refute the arguments of those who say it does.
Ah, sorry. I was just responding to the coma part but it looks like we got our arguments crossed.
Um, OK. I guess we should legalise homicide and larceny and whatnot too, then, since we don't have any right to push our "opinions" on those poor murderers and thieves.
That only works on the idea that the legal system is consistent. (Here's a hint: it isn't!)
It's silly.
It's unquantifiable, it's vaguely defined, it's basically a he-said she-said between Bob and Alice where the experts disagree. How can you base any rational decision when rationality didn't show up for the discussion?
It's as silly as agonizing on whether or not it's right to euthanize a dog because it may or may not have a soul depending on which religion you adhere to.
If that's the point when your life ends, then the point when your life begins is when that starts.
We can't pinpoint it yet because our understanding of the brain is limited. So we err on the side of caution.
I really can't see how this is complicated :\
Um, OK. I guess we should legalise homicide and larceny and whatnot too, then, since we don't have any right to push our "opinions" on those poor murderers and thieves.
Hyperbole Strawman.
Please use actual counter arguments, instead of fallacies.
(edit: for those who don't know what hyperhole strawman is:
person A: says X
person B: extrapolates X to extreme cases X' ; and then shows that X' is wrong.
its a fallacy, becasue X is not the same as X'
example:
person A: I collect pennies
person B: says person A is greedy, because he collects money)
Hyperbole Strawman.
Please use actual counter arguments, instead of fallacies.
We "push our opinions" on people every day in that we do not allow them to do things that are morally wrong. If abortion is morally wrong then making it illegal is no different from making murder illegal.
I think you'll find it's not a fallacy at all. It's perfectly simple.
All I have to say about this subject is that not wanting children is the worst reason ever to have an abortion. Don't want children? Give celibacy a try.
No.
Sex is enjoyable. People will engage in it for non-procreative reasons.
This is not a reasonable stance. In fact, it is a completely unreasonable one.
I am neither Pro-Life nor Pro-Choice at this time. I am anti Roe v Wade as it is bad constitutional reading which imparts a right to privacy not actually written into the Constitution.
The right to privacy is implicit in the Constitution, hence all of the protections related to it.
Plenty of research shows that the interaction between the mother and foetus is much more complex than a simple parasitic symbiosis.
Its very much a parasite. Just because it influences the biology of the host does not mean it is not a parasite.
There are parasites which cause their hosts to behave in such a manner to be more likely to be eaten, such as removing a rat's fear of cat urine.
When and where exactly have we cloned humans?
Laboratories. We haven't allowed them to grow to maturity, obviously.
Pigs are not humans.
It doesn't matter whether or not something is human. Being human has no inherent value, and indeed, any "it is not human" argument is inherently flawed because egg cells, sperm, skin cells, ect. are all "human", and yet we don't think of them as being valuable or worth saving.
But you do have moral compunctions about killing humans.
No. I have no moral compunctions whatsoever about killing humans.
I have moral compunctions about killing people.
A fetus may be human, but it is certainly not a person.
Do you determine what is human solely by its level of intelligence? Should we be keeping all those mentally handicapped folks out there in farms and eating them, or what? Hell, how intelligent is a baby that actually has been born? Certainly MUCH less intelligent than a grown person is; does that mean we can eat them too? What's a newborn baby contributing to our society? Can you teach it to be a scientist? A doctor?
I determine what is a person by its level of intelligence, because in the end, it is the only thing we have to distinguish them. And indeed, in the end, that is the only way to distinguish a person from a non-person.
Depending on their level of mental handicappedness, I do not consider them to be people, necessarily.
And yes, I do not consider a baby to be a person either.
However, the reality is that at some point you're going to be drawing an arbitrary line, so putting it fairly early (before birth) is simple and puts it well before the person line.
No. Your analogy suggests that the government decides that you become pregnant. Of course that's morally wrong.
No, it suggests that some arbitrary outside agency decides that you become pregnant. It being the government is irrelevant to the analogy. It could be space aliens or God or whatever. It doesn't really matter who does it.
Humans are not voluntary ovulators. Ergo, it is outside of our control, to some degree, whether or not someone becomes pregnant when we have sex.
Bodily Domain doesn't apply here, and it's for the exact reasons Wight Chocolate is communicating -- the child is not willfully violating anything. It was placed there by the mother (except in cases of ****, in which case this could theoretically apply -- but, you can still get an abortion before the fetus becomes a living human [see my earlier argument, which has been ignored as opposed to refuted]).
It was not WILLINGLY put there by the mother. Again, read the above. Any argument that it was WILLFULLY put there by the mother is inherently flawed because humans are not voluntary ovulators.
Basically he summed it up that if we were to decide that we can use life to benefit ourselves at a certain point, then what would be wrong doing it for other points. If we can benefit from the dividing cells that have the potential to be a fully formed human being then why should we not use the elderly or those close to their end on the opposite spectrum...or because they are a certain ethnicity. What will we be then?
Because they are people.
Every sperm is not sacred. Every sperm is not great. When a sperm is wasted, God is not irate.
ok show me evidence that a scientist has made a sperm cell, and made an egg, and put them together and they grew into a living creature.
Define "make".
We have "made" viruses from "scratch" (that is to say, synthesized all the parts of it, including the DNA, individually).
We have "made" sperm and egg cells in the sense that we've changed the DNA inside them.
And heck, I make sperm cells every day the old-fashioned way - biology.
Who are you to decide that it'd be better off having never existed? Is it your life?
I'm a person. In general, person > non-person.
Besides, by your argument preventing someone from being raped is wrong, because you're preventing any babies which might have occurred from existing. Using a condom is murder. Taking contraceptives is murder. Ect. Your logic leads to women having to conceive a child with whomever is convenient every nine months.
Your argument is clearly absurd.
This sort of decision is a perfectly moral and valid decision to make. Any argument on the basis of "you're preventing them from existing" is not valid for this reason.
Right, a person in a coma won't always recover, but presumably you would object to killing them on the grounds that it's possible (even probable) that they will recover and it would be wrong to deny them that chance. Correct?
Depends on the coma. You do not always have a chance of recovery.
In any event it is a bad analogy.
Scientists are very close to creating life. Primitive, single-celled life, but life.
We can create viruses already. I consider them to be a form of life.
No, it's not silly. It's how we define death. Humans die when that part of their brain is gone and is not coming back.
Again, people die. A human is not necessarily dead.
I determine what is a person by its level of intelligence, because in the end, it is the only thing we have to distinguish them. And indeed, in the end, that is the only way to distinguish a person from a non-person.
Depending on their level of mental handicappedness, I do not consider them to be people, necessarily.
And yes, I do not consider a baby to be a person either.
OK then.
Why not eat babies?
OK then.
Why not eat babies?
Nothing wrong with it inherently, but they're a pretty inefficient food source. I wouldn't eat a baby because there are lots of diseases you could get that way.
And now I have to ask myself if I really, honestly want to engage in a discussion wherein I have to convince someone that eating a living baby is not, in fact, acceptable behaviour.
I'm leaning towards "no". Someone else can field this one, I'm sure.
Nothing wrong with it inherently, but they're a pretty inefficient food source. I wouldn't eat a baby because there are lots of diseases you could get that way.
Are you serious? You don't consider babies (or those with low intelligence) to be people, and you see nothing inherently wrong with eating a baby? That's messed up. You are a sick person.
Eating babies is really a silly idea anyway. It takes nine months to bake the bugger and takes a toll on the woman that carries it. It's hardly an efficient means of providing food for yourself. Eating meat from a member of the same species is quite dangerous as well. There's some chance of contracting one of those nasty transmissible spongiform encephalopathies - among other things. Consuming your fellow man is just not a sensible thing to do.
We "push our opinions" on people every day in that we do not allow them to do things that are morally wrong. If abortion is morally wrong then making it illegal is no different from making murder illegal.
lets see:
- we forbid things that are morally wrong
- abortion is morally wrong
- so abortion should be made illegal
Basically: we do not forbid those things things solely becuase they are morally wrong (there are many things that are morally wrong, and still legal). so an argument "its morally wrong, so it should be illegal" is a fallacy.
Some things we forbit have as property 'morally wrong', that does not imply in any way that anything with the property 'morally wrong' should be forbidden.
It doesn't matter whether or not something is human. Being human has no inherent value, and indeed, any "it is not human" argument is inherently flawed because egg cells, sperm, skin cells, ect. are all "human", and yet we don't think of them as being valuable or worth saving.
Cells aren't HUMANS. They are of humans. There is a difference.
And since there's no inherent value in being a human, where's the inherent value in being a "person", or at least what you consider to be a person?
However, the reality is that at some point you're going to be drawing an arbitrary line
Which is an incredibly foolish way of determining what is and is not morally wrong.
Besides, by your argument preventing someone from being raped is wrong, because you're preventing any babies which might have occurred from existing. Using a condom is murder. Taking contraceptives is murder. Ect. Your logic leads to women having to conceive a child with whomever is convenient every nine months.
Your argument is clearly absurd.
Yes, it would be absurd if I were suggesting any of that. I'm not, and you have misunderstood.
Will a sperm cell grow into a baby by itself? No. Until conception actually occurs, no life exists for you to take. Therefore, the use of contraception is perfectly acceptable because it cannot possibly be considered murder; you haven't created a human and then destroyed it, you've simply not created a human.
Basically: we do not forbid those things things solely becuase they are morally wrong (there are many things that are morally wrong, and still legal).
And those should be forbidden.
What's confusing about this? Just because we aren't doing it at the moment doesn't mean we shouldn't.
I'm interested, though. If we're not forbidding homicide because it's morally wrong, why are we? What's the justification for doing that? If there isn't one then it is "pushing our opinions on people" to disallow it, and it should be legalised forthwith.
1. While I will never be able to be truely informed on this issue (due to being a bloke), all the information I have access to (friends/relatives acounts, science textbooks etc) indicates that giving birth is one of the most painfull experiences that a human body can go through, and not without risks. Because of this, I believe that no-one has the right to force a woman to go through this against her will.
2. The most important part of life to me is individuality. As a fetus is less able to behave as individual than its mother, the mother's rights take priority.
3. Quality of life matters more to me than quantity.
4. Less kids = less young offenders, and I think the world has far too many of them. Raise the limit from 24 weeks to 1000 in these cases!
(that last one was not ment to be taken as seriously as the rest)
And now I have to ask myself if I really, honestly want to engage in a discussion wherein I have to convince someone that eating a living baby is not, in fact, acceptable behaviour.
Are you serious? You don't consider babies (or those with low intelligence) to be people, and you see nothing inherently wrong with eating a baby? That's messed up. You are a sick person.
Hey, I have a consistent, logical philosophy. You don't. Moreover, you are saying it is bad, but your reasoning is a societal taboo.
The reason we have a taboo about cannibalism isn't moral in nature, but indeed because of disease transmission. The taboo against cannibalism has become deeply engrained, but there's nothing inherently wrong with eating a human who is not a person, particularly a dead one. But its a bad idea because of the chance of disease transmission.
You believe it is a moral issue because the taboo is so deeply engrained in your mind, but if you were to look at it objectively (something you are probably incapable of) you'd know it is nothing more than that.
Just because something is taboo doesn't mean it is morally wrong. Being gay and marrying outside of your race were both once taboos. Do you support those?
Cells aren't HUMANS. They are of humans. There is a difference.
A sperm cell and an egg cell are their own seperate organisms, and it is possible to culture human cells seperately from a human. Indeed, it is possible to take a skin cell, turn it into an embryonic cell, and grow a whole different human out of it.
And since there's no inherent value in being a human, where's the inherent value in being a "person", or at least what you consider to be a person?
Simple: I'm a person, and am capable of logical reasoning. Other people exist, and are likewise capable of logical reasoning. If we were to treat each other poorly all the time, there's a good chance one of us would die. And while in any individual interaction I may believe I might come out on top, in the long run I'll lose and die at some point. Ergo, it is mutually advantageous to everyone to treat each other in certain ways.
Non-people are not capable of logical reasoning on the same level as a person is, and ergo we cannot trust them to behave in a logical manner. So the same rule does not apply to them, and they can be exploited.
Which is an incredibly foolish way of determining what is and is not morally wrong.
Here's a hint:
It is the ONLY way of determining what is and is not "morally wrong".
Morality is in and of itself entirely arbitrary. Sure, my above reasoning was based on logic, but in the end, there's nothing innately superior about being alive than being dead. However, I arbitrarily choose to be alive, so I favor outcomes which favor survival.
Yes, it would be absurd if I were suggesting any of that. I'm not, and you have misunderstood.
No, I haven't. This is what is known as reductio ad absurdum. I took your premise (preventing people from existing is wrong) and took it to its logical conclusion. Technically it is a weak reductio because it isn't a proof by contradiction but rather a proof by actual absurdity - you're saying **** is good, which is not a particularly tenable position.
Will a sperm cell grow into a baby by itself? No. Until conception actually occurs, no life exists for you to take. Therefore, the use of contraception is perfectly acceptable because it cannot possibly be considered murder; you haven't created a human and then destroyed it, you've simply not created a human.
Wrong. A sperm cell is alive.
4. Less kids = less young offenders, and I think the world has far too many of them. Raise the limit from 24 weeks to 1000 in these cases!
Actually, this is a very interesting point. When you legalize abortion, afterwards, people born after the legalization of abortion are less likely to commit crimes than those born before the legalization of abortion. This pattern was observed in the United States - crime rates amongst those born after Roe v Wade dropped, and moreover, in places where abortion was legalized earlier the crime rate dropped earlier.
What's confusing about this? Just because we aren't doing it at the moment doesn't mean we shouldn't.
and just because you don't like it, doesn't me we should forbid it.
edit: I don't force you to commit abortion, why are you set on forcing me not to do it?
I'm interested, though. If we're not forbidding homicide because it's morally wrong, why are we?
dunno. Perhaps because it is harmfull for society.
It was not WILLINGLY put there by the mother. Again, read the above. Any argument that it was WILLFULLY put there by the mother is inherently flawed because humans are not voluntary ovulators.
The mother WILLINGLY accepted the risk of it. The mother decided that the benefits of the activity were sufficient to accept the risks.
If I play Russian Roulette for fun and giggles, and I shoot myself in the face, that's my fault, even though I didn't know which chamber the bullet was in. Extreme example, but same logic.
The mother WILLINGLY accepted the risk of it. The mother decided that the benefits of the activity were sufficient to accept the risks.
If I play Russian Roulette for fun and giggles, and I shoot myself in the face, that's my fault, even though I didn't know which chamber the bullet was in. Extreme example, but same logic.
Yes but if "she" was shot in the face she would not get pregnant.
The mother WILLINGLY accepted the risk of it. The mother decided that the benefits of the activity were sufficient to accept the risks.
Except you're trying to turn it into russian roulette by banning abortions.
The consequence is "getting an arbortion". You're saying the consequence is "having a baby".
So in short, you're for increasing the consequences of bad decisions.
To use your analogy, you're saying that if you shoot yourself in the face while playing russian roulette and don't die, someone else should kill you anyway.
Hey, I have a consistent, logical philosophy. You don't.
Oh, damn. I had no idea. And here's you able to read minds, so that you know I have no consistent philosophy. Hell, why even bother typing? I'll just communicate by thinking and you can pluck it all straight out of my head.
Moreover, you are saying it is bad, but your reasoning is a societal taboo.
The reason we have a taboo about cannibalism isn't moral in nature
I'm not concerned with the eating part, sparky. I'm concerned with the killing of the baby.
A sperm cell and an egg cell are their own seperate organisms, and it is possible to culture human cells seperately from a human.
I fail to see how this makes them "a human".
Simple: I'm a person, and am capable of logical reasoning. Other people exist, and are likewise capable of logical reasoning. If we were to treat each other poorly all the time, there's a good chance one of us would die.
You're also a human. Other humans exist. If humans were to treat each other poorly all the time, there's a good chance that one of you would die.
You're also a mammal. Other mammals exist. If mammals were to treat each other poorly all the time, there's a good chance that one of you would die.
You're also an animal.
Need I go on?
It is the ONLY way of determining what is and is not "morally wrong".
False.
Let's look at this example of "people" and "not people" for a moment. What you're suggesting is that it's perfectly acceptable for us to kill anything that is not a "person". However, you also admit that we are currently incapable of determining at exactly what point a human is a "person".
The keyword there is "currently". As we continue to make new discoveries, advance in science and become more enlightened overall, it's entirely possible that some day, we will be able to pinpoint it. However, up until that time, we cannot be sure, and therefore we are potentially killing "people" every time we take a human life.
We are not absolved by the fact that we're not absolutely certain that our actions will result in a person's death. If I have a gun pointed at someone and I pull the trigger, there's only a chance that that person will die. I might miss, or hit a non-lethal area. The gun might misfire. That does not, however, mean it was fine for me to pull the trigger.
Therefore, I err on the side of caution and don't shoot at people. As we should err on the side of caution and not kill humans until we can define, in absolute terms, what makes a person a person.
No, I haven't. This is what is known as reductio ad absurdum. I took your premise (preventing people from existing is wrong) and took it to its logical conclusion.
Except that's not my position. My position is that murder is wrong.
edit: I don't force you to commit abortion, why are you set on forcing me not to do it?
I don't force you to commit murder. Why are you set on forcing me not to do it?
dunno. Perhaps because it is harmfull for society.
...and did it occur to you that the fact that it's bad for us is what MAKES it morally wrong?
You're also a human. Other humans exist. If humans were to treat each other poorly all the time, there's a good chance that one of you would die.
You're also a mammal. Other mammals exist. If mammals were to treat each other poorly all the time, there's a good chance that one of you would die.
You're also an animal.
Need I go on?
If we are an animal then we have then you have the right to abort. As many in the animal kingdom do.
Therefore, I err on the side of caution and don't shoot at people. As we should err on the side of caution and not kill humans until we can define, in absolute terms, what makes a person a person.
Just the animal in us again...
Except that's not my position. My position is that murder is wrong.
To me trying to be apart from nature is wrong. We do it in many ways...
What do you propose in the way of population control?
Do not get me wrong I do think life is precious and that is the reason why abortion should be legal. We are very destructive to life on this planet in all its facets including our own.
Oh, damn. I had no idea. And here's you able to read minds, so that you know I have no consistent philosophy. Hell, why even bother typing? I'll just communicate by thinking and you can pluck it all straight out of my head.
I don't need to read minds, only posts.
Unless you're intentionally putting forward a point of view which is not your own.
I'm not concerned with the eating part, sparky. I'm concerned with the killing of the baby.
Arguably even that is a societal taboo. Infanticide is quite common in nature, and certain human societies did it as well as a means of population control.
I fail to see how this makes them "a human".
Because a human is a species of organism. They "a human" because they are genetically distinct.
You're also a human. Other humans exist. If humans were to treat each other poorly all the time, there's a good chance that one of you would die.
Invalid logic; the conclusion does not follow the premises.
Humans are not all capable of upper-order logical thought, ergo the rest of the logic does not fall out of it.
I'm sorry, but your counterarguments are completely without value.
Let's look at this example of "people" and "not people" for a moment. What you're suggesting is that it's perfectly acceptable for us to kill anything that is not a "person". However, you also admit that we are currently incapable of determining at exactly what point a human is a "person".
So you're suggesting you should go on a raid to free everyone's African Gray Parrot?
You're suggesting you go attack zoos to free the gorillas and chimpanzees?
More to the point, however, it is quite clear that when a baby is born, it isn't a person.
It is quite clear that an unimpaired adult of average intelligence is a person.
Where in between the transition occurs is totally irrelevant unless we're trying to establish some rule as to when you can kill a toddler.
I, however, am avoiding this issue entirely by setting the bar far below where personhood becomes ambigious.
Ergo your argument is a strawman.
Therefore, I err on the side of caution and don't shoot at people. As we should err on the side of caution and not kill humans until we can define, in absolute terms, what makes a person a person.
Invalid argument for the aforestated reasons. It is quite clear that a baby is not a person.
I am not advocating killing 3 year olds.
Except that's not my position. My position is that murder is wrong.
Who are you to decide that it'd be better off having never existed? Is it your life?
You're arbitrarily saying that it is murder to get rid of a subsentient, non-sapient lump of cells.
This is not a valid argument for why this is murder.
I don't need to read minds, only posts.
Unless you're intentionally putting forward a point of view which is not your own.
Maybe I am. When I play devil's advocate I do not call attention to it; I find that involving opinions in a debate tends to drag it off-course.
Arguably even that is a societal taboo. Infanticide is quite common in nature
Are you suggesting that something being "common in nature" makes it acceptable for us to do?
and certain human societies did it as well as a means of population control.
Yes, well, certain human societies also kill fully grown, healthy people. That doesn't mean they should.
They "a human" because they are genetically distinct.
I'm beginning to think you're just making up definitions here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
What you're telling me is that a strand of hair is a human. Is that correct?
Humans are not all capable of upper-order logical thought, ergo the rest of the logic does not fall out of it.
And? Perhaps a "person" is capable of higher reasoning, but that doesn't necessarily mean we can trust everyone to behave appropriately at all times. Quite the opposite, in fact; we only tend to trust those with whom we are familiar, and I hardly need to demonstrate that just because a person is intelligent doesn't mean they will never do anything wrong.
So you're suggesting you should go on a raid to free everyone's African Gray Parrot?
You're suggesting you go attack zoos to free the gorillas and chimpanzees?
...no. Where did you even get this idea from?
More to the point, however, it is quite clear that when a baby is born, it isn't a person.
I should point out that this is completely untrue according to every definition of "person" that I'm aware of, so perhaps you'd like to clarify which one you're using.
Why is a baby not a "person"? Why is someone of "insufficient" intelligence not a "person"? Do you have anything with which to demonstrate that a "person" is what you say it is beyond your own opinion on the matter?
Moreover, consider this. You claim to be one who is concerned with the future, correct? You also claim that people should treat each other in certain ways (i.e. not killing each other) because it is "mutually advantageous", and therefore morally right.
You're suggesting that killing babies is morally right, or at least not morally wrong.
Everyone kills their babies.
End of humanity.
Now, granted, it's not like everyone would kill their babies if it were acceptable to do so. They probably wouldn't. However, similarly, it's not like everyone would kill each other if it were acceptable to do that either, but you still say it isn't.
Are you suggesting that something being "common in nature" makes it acceptable for us to do?
No. But I am pointing out the fact that it isn't necessarily in our genetic programming not to commit infanticide.
Yes, well, certain human societies also kill fully grown, healthy people. That doesn't mean they should.
No, but on the other hand, your point of view is ENTIRELY based in the cultural taboo. You have not presented a logical, legitimate reason for why we should not do so.
What you're telling me is that a strand of hair is a human. Is that correct?
Not really, because it isn't genetically distinct.
In short:
A sperm is its own organism.
My hand is not.
And? Perhaps a "person" is capable of higher reasoning, but that doesn't necessarily mean we can trust everyone to behave appropriately at all times. Quite the opposite, in fact; we only tend to trust those with whom we are familiar, and I hardly need to demonstrate that just because a person is intelligent doesn't mean they will never do anything wrong.
No, and we punish them for breaking with it.
...no. Where did you even get this idea from?
Because you argued that if we aren't sure whether or not something is a person, we should give it the benefit of the doubt.
As you seem to be claiming that babies might be people, then you're definitely claiming things which are more intelligent than a baby might be a person as well. Ergo, the logical extension is to free things smarter than babies, such as African Grays.
I should point out that this is completely untrue according to every definition of "person" that I'm aware of, so perhaps you'd like to clarify which one you're using.
Mine. I think I defined it above. Basically, a sentient, sapient, intelligent being capable of strong logical thought.
Why is a baby not a "person"? Why is someone of "insufficient" intelligence not a "person"? Do you have anything with which to demonstrate that a "person" is what you say it is beyond your own opinion on the matter?
Because intelligence is ultimately the only thing which seperates us from gorillas, chimpanzees, dolphins, african gray parrots, ect.
Nothing else about humans is particularly unique. As we consider none of these things to be people, and we are not bigots, then our only real metric for seperating a person from a non-person is intelligence.
Moreover, consider this. You claim to be one who is concerned with the future, correct? You also claim that people should treat each other in certain ways (i.e. not killing each other) because it is "mutually advantageous", and therefore morally right.
You're suggesting that killing babies is morally right, or at least not morally wrong.
Everyone kills their babies.
End of humanity.
Now, granted, it's not like everyone would kill their babies if it were acceptable to do so. They probably wouldn't. However, similarly, it's not like everyone would kill each other if it were acceptable to do that either, but you still say it isn't.
Everyone would not kill their babies. Indeed, on the whole, abortion is legal yet few people choose to abort their children.
Thus this change would have very few consequences. The idea that it would is pretty silly on its face.
As I pointed out with my previous logic for why it is not a good idea to kill a person, your logic is invalid. The baby is not capable of that sort of logic.
If you are pro-life than abort abort abort!
Really Wight...it does not matter in the long run.
The estrogen mimicking chemical found in plastics is going to have some long term effects on not only us but other life. It tends to feminize so you do not really have to worry about abortion when you have same sex going at it unless we somehow mutate into something that can produce asexually...that would be crazy...
Oh...
btw...
SMURFS LAY EGGS!
No. But I am pointing out the fact that it isn't necessarily in our genetic programming not to commit infanticide.
So?
A sperm is its own organism.
Oh, so you're saying a SPERM is a human.
You know, I think I'm going to have to side with biology on this one; I don't find myself inclined to just take your word for it. If you can point me to some scientific journals explaining that sperm cells are, in fact, human beings, that'd be great.
Because you argued that if we aren't sure whether or not something is a person, we should give it the benefit of the doubt.
As you seem to be claiming that babies might be people, then you're definitely claiming things which are more intelligent than a baby might be a person as well.
No, because I'm taking more into account here than raw intelligence.
Mine. I think I defined it above. Basically, a sentient, sapient, intelligent being capable of strong logical thought.
OK, then perhaps the question I should be asking is why should we be accepting your definition on this? I mean, I could come up with my own definition for "person" too. Watch:
A person is a melon.
So, according to my definition of "person", we should not eat melons, because they are people.
See, it doesn't work.
Because intelligence is ultimately the only thing which seperates us from gorillas, chimpanzees, dolphins, african gray parrots, ect.
Really? So you wouldn't say we're distinct from these things because we're human, and thus we are not gorillas or chimpanzees or parrots? If we weren't so clever, there'd be no difference between us and a parrot?
The term "person" has about as much objective meaning as the term "nice". Someone might say "parrots are nice" and that's all well and good, but that doesn't mean there exists some absolute measure of whether a parrot is "nice" or not, nor does it mean they're right if they go on to say "They're nice because they've got pretty colours and can talk." The same thing applies to "person"; how do you measure objectively whether something is a "person" or not? Maybe parrots are people. Some certainly think they are. You say it's based purely on intelligence, but who left that decision up to you, pray tell?
One thing that we can say, with certainty, that we are and other animals are not, however, is "human". We are human in the same way that 1 is 1 and 2 is 2; it's a simple, immutable fact, untaintable by opinion. If someone tells me I'm not a human, they're just wrong. If someone tells me I'm not a person? Well, then there's as much room for error as telling me that I'm not "nice". Maybe I am "nice". How do you say exactly what "nice" is and know for certain that you are right?
I also maintain that, according to your definition, someone who has been anaesthetised, or is in a coma, or really has suffered any kind of lapse in consciousness is not a person. If you're not awake then you're certainly not capable of "strong logical thought", the issue of sentience notwithstanding.
Oh, damn. I had no idea. And here's you able to read minds, so that you know I have no consistent philosophy. Hell, why even bother typing? I'll just communicate by thinking and you can pluck it all straight out of my head.
Sorry, dude, but whether intentionally or not, you seem to vary incoherently between deontology and consequentialism. Your analogy about killing people is also fallacious as hell and I don't understand why anyone bought it.
Abortion is the removal of a fetus. It is absolution of responsibility. The fetus dies either as a result, or is killed by the doctor (in which case it is not the woman's fault either). It doesn't even come close to murder. At best you could argue for it being involuntary manslaughter, but even that is a stretch. People have an absolute and inalienable right to have control over their own body, and pregnant women are no exception. There is also no such thing as "a right trumping another." Such a notion is arbitrary and illogical. If a woman does not want something in her body, it doesn't matter if it's a human being, it doesn't matter if it's sentient, and it doesn't matter if it has an inherent right to live. Her right to control her body absolves her of any fault if an organism can't survive out of her body. Arguing otherwise leads to the opposite extreme: Legalized and ethical ****, among other things (involuntary surgery comes to mind as an immediate follow-up). Yeah, friggin' sweet. This isn't to say I don't care about the fetus; I'd rather they didn't abort, but I don't presume to argue against it because of what such an argument would imply (see: the sentence before the previous one).
However, her right to control them also ends at that point, so if a fetus is viable, then it is absolutely immoral to abort it. Then you are killing a separate individual that could otherwise have lived.
You know, I think I'm going to have to side with biology on this one; I don't find myself inclined to just take your word for it. If you can point me to some scientific journals explaining that sperm cells are, in fact, human beings, that'd be great.
That's not the sort of distinction biologists make, because it isn't particularly meaningful in the first place.
It doesn't really matter what you call it.
Its much like whether you call a virus "alive".
OK, then perhaps the question I should be asking is why should we be accepting your definition on this? I mean, I could come up with my own definition for "person" too. Watch:
A person is a melon.
So, according to my definition of "person", we should not eat melons, because they are people.
See, it doesn't work.
Irrelevant argument, because my definition of person is key to why we should not kill people - namely, reciprocal altruism.
Your definition of person as a melon is not, because it has no logical basis.
Please either respond to my arguments or stop posting. Your strawmen border on trolling.
Really? So you wouldn't say we're distinct from these things because we're human, and thus we are not gorillas or chimpanzees or parrots? If we weren't so clever, there'd be no difference between us and a parrot?
From the standpoint of how they should be treated, yes. If a parrot was as smart as a human, it would be wrong to treat them as inferior.
And honestly, the differences between us and chimpanzees, apart from intelligence, are pretty minor.
The term "person" has about as much objective meaning as the term "nice". Someone might say "parrots are nice" and that's all well and good, but that doesn't mean there exists some absolute measure of whether a parrot is "nice" or not, nor does it mean they're right if they go on to say "They're nice because they've got pretty colours and can talk." The same thing applies to "person"; how do you measure objectively whether something is a "person" or not? Maybe parrots are people. Some certainly think they are. You say it's based purely on intelligence, but who left that decision up to you, pray tell?
Which is precisely why I defined person.
You cannot whine about the imprecision of the term when I have defined it for the purposes of what I'm saying.
Any argument on the basis of "but person also means X" is pretty irrelevant to arguing with me, because it is a non-substantive argument.
One thing that we can say, with certainty, that we are and other animals are not, however, is "human". We are human in the same way that 1 is 1 and 2 is 2; it's a simple, immutable fact, untaintable by opinion. If someone tells me I'm not a human, they're just wrong. If someone tells me I'm not a person? Well, then there's as much room for error as telling me that I'm not "nice". Maybe I am "nice". How do you say exactly what "nice" is and know for certain that you are right?
Define human. Is a neanderthal human?
How about a cyborg, someone who has had a good portion of their body replaced by mechanical prosthetics. Are they human?
How about someone who has been genetically modified. Are they still human?
In any event, any standard relying on being "human" is inherently bigoted and is highly arbitrary, as there is no logical reason why being human requires certain behavior for enhanced survivability.
I also maintain that, according to your definition, someone who has been anaesthetised, or is in a coma, or really has suffered any kind of lapse in consciousness is not a person. If you're not awake then you're certainly not capable of "strong logical thought", the issue of sentience notwithstanding.
You can maintain that all you want, but you'll be wrong.
First off, if you've induced unconciousness, there's a fundamental difference between that and someone who lacks it to begin with. Additionally, someone who lacks brain activity due to brain damage (a vegetable) is not a person anymore, and among non-fundies, this isn't particularly controversial - it is okay to let such people die.
No, it's not silly. It's how we define death. Humans die when that part of their brain is gone and is not coming back.
What? No is isn't. Hell, in most cases they don't give a whit about brain scans, they use other cues to determine if someone is dead. Respiratory action, pulse, dilated eyes, whether or not the head is still connected to the shoulders.
The only case I can think of where brain activity is used to determine if someone is 'dead' is long-term coma patients, and that's something people often don't agree on.
What? No is isn't. Hell, in most cases they don't give a whit about brain scans, they use other cues to determine if someone is dead. Respiratory action, pulse, dilated eyes, whether or not the head is still connected to the shoulders.
The fact remains that the only cause of death -- ever -- is lack of oxygen transportation to the brain, which causes it to die. They use the other methods to determine whether someone is dead because they know deficiencies of those kinds lead to death, but brain death is the real death. Keeping a braindead person "alive" is impossible. You can at best force basic function to occur through artificial means.
You gave a really bad analogy which has absolutely nothing in common with the matter at hand. The purpose of the court is to establish if someone broke the law or not, not if he was right or wrong.
And second, I'm talking specifically about my position on abortion. Not general outlook on the world.
With respect to the first part, you are mistaken. Before the laws were ever written, there were debates and hearings making judgements upon what was wrong and what was right. After that, laws are written with the intent of holding people accountable when performing acts that are wrong. The analogy stands.
With respect to the second, there is a problem. You treat it as if simply judging others is something which shouldn't be done, but when forced to be specific about other cases, the statement becomes: I'm only referring to abortion and not my general outlook on the world. It is reduced to circular logic: You should not judge abortion because you should not judge abortion. Circular logic proves nothing.
There is another important point you dodge by simply saying I should not judge a woman having an abortion. I am for more interested in the child's (fetus/embryo/whatever...) position. Simply put, at some point in development between conception and the first week of life (to give a pretty wide range, but not even necessarily the widest by the standards of some posters...) it must start being considered a human being. If it is not until after birth, then your point of view would have merit for yourself. If it is before birth, your point of view will have cracks at the least. My problem is that because I believe a child becomes a human being before birth, simply saying "It is wrong to judge the woman, she has to deal with it not you.' does not cut it for the child who I believe has a right to live even if it causes her some trouble. (Note: I still give deference to endangering the mother's life...) Your point of view is simply a cheap cop-out because it keeps you from having to contemplate whether a child is being killed. If you simply do not believe it is a child until after its birth, then say so for clarity.
In summary:
1. Your reason for dismissing comparison of judging to trials is not valid. Right and wrong was discussed before it became law. Judgement on the issuebeing right or wrong had been determined.
2. If your 'do not judge' policy is only good for abortions then you are using circular reasoning; You should not judge abortions because you should not judge abortions. Mantras.
3. Please divulge at what point who believe the baby/fetus/embryo is a human being. The validity of your arguments, as tenuous as they are, rests upon it.
Due to the inherently touchy nature of the subject, nothing will ever be done politically. Reasonings...
1) The majority of the arguments come from the religions lobbyist groups on the basis that life begins at conception, which there is a slight problem with that statement for any of the religions that use the Old Testimate, but that's another argument. This would mean that their entire argument is based upon religion, therefore if the banning of abortion came from this route, the legislators would be placing the religious preferences of a part of the population upon the whole of the nation regardless of the religious beliefs of the rest of the country. A clear violation of the separation of church and state
2) In the unlikely event that abortion is banned, things will go back to the way they were, with young women preforming crude abortions on themselves or going to back alley doctors to have the operation done which increases the dangers to the women
3) In order to make an effective abortion ban, a clean cut ban on all abortions would have to be enacted, which means that doctors could not preform one if the mother's health was endangered. The reason a full ban would be necessary is the inevitable bending of the term "endangerment to the mother's health"
4) The country is pretty well split on the issue, anyone voting on the issue is likely to irritate half of the country, endangering their ability to be re-elected
I could keep listing reasons but those are the main ones from a political position.
> A sperm is its own organism.
Oh, so you're saying a SPERM is a human.
now, thats wrong: a sperm can not be human: it does not have enough chromosones for that. that however does not mean it is not 'alive' ... (IIRC its a sentient as the next one-celled organism ...)
I don't force you to commit murder. Why are you set on forcing me not to do it?
that is a very good point, but wait: merci killing is a form of murder by some definitions (its killing with Mens Rea). And I'm pro-euthenasia,... which means I am not forcing you not to commit murder.
So ... why did you think I forced you not to commit murder?
(Or were you trying to hyperbole to homocide? :P in which case, stop it: I'm arguing X, not X')
...and did it occur to you that the fact that it's bad for us is what MAKES it morally wrong?
indeed. thank you. I hope that you see your own mistake ...
no?
here it is:
- we fobit things that are bad for us
- things that are bad for us are morally wrong
- abortion is morally wrong
- conclusion: we should forbit abortion.
Textbook example of a fallacy. (we feed kittens, kittens are animals. tigers are animals, so we should feed tigers.)
Abortion is the removal of a fetus. It is absolution of responsibility. The fetus dies either as a result, or is killed by the doctor (in which case it is not the woman's fault either).
Firstly, what difference does it make if it's the doctor's fault? That just means the doctor shouldn't do it. It's not like if I hired someone to kill someone else, you'd just say "Huh. Well. I guess that's OK, then."
Secondly, forcing someone into conditions in which you know they cannot possibly survive is no different from just putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger. Essentially what you're trying to argue here is that if you locked someone in a room with no air, it's not your fault if they die; all you did was put them in a room. Nothing wrong with that. Your responsibility ends there.
Legalized and ethical ****
How exactly do you reach this conclusion?
Irrelevant argument, because my definition of person is key to why we should not kill people - namely, reciprocal altruism.
Whether you refer to it as "intelligence" or "instinct", members of the animal kingdom generally tend to avoid killing those of their own kind without reason. If such behaviour were the norm, we'd be seeing a lot less of...well, everything.
Unless someone is literally braindead, it is fairly safe to assume that they will act to defend themselves if they are threatened, and also that they will not go on psychotic killing sprees unbidden. Are we certain? No, but we also can't be certain that an intelligent human would adhere to such behaviour either. I fail to see, therefore, why it is any less mutually advantageous to treat someone with, say, Down syndrome in a respectful and moral fashion than it is to treat a healthy human in the same manner; ultimately, if you start treating them improperly, someone's far more likely to die than if you don't.
You may argue that this doesn't apply to babies because we do not have to worry about babies killing adults. However, this would also apply to someone who is, for instance, paralyzed from the neck down. Someone in those circumstances would certainly qualify as a person according to your definition, but there's certainly no chance of me or anyone dying at the hands of someone who cannot move. As far as I can see, then, showing altruism to such a person doesn't benefit me in any way, because what are they going to do if I don't?
Is it OK to kill someone in those circumstances, then?
From the standpoint of how they should be treated, yes. If a parrot was as smart as a human, it would be wrong to treat them as inferior.
Why?
And honestly, the differences between us and chimpanzees, apart from intelligence, are pretty minor.
And yet those differences still exist. "Minor" doesn't mean "unimportant". The only difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide is one fewer atom of oxygen, but overall, I know which one I'd rather be breathing right now.
You can maintain that all you want, but you'll be wrong.
No, I won't. An unconscious human is not capable of "strong logical thought". It doesn't matter if they will become such when they wake up. That's then. This is now. They aren't capable of it, therefore they do not fit your definition of a person for the duration of their unconsciousness. It's that simple. You cannot define "person" in such clear-cut terms, use it to support your argument, then suddenly turn around and say "Oh, but that doesn't count" when an example crops up that throws your argument into question.
The fact remains that the only cause of death -- ever -- is lack of oxygen transportation to the brain, which causes it to die.
See, now we're back to talking explicitly about the brain, but brains aren't the end-all and be-all of sentience. If it was then we would call animals and insects sentient. And as most people that bring up the sentience argument as a reason why killing someone or something is wrong don't object to eating a hamburger, I don't think sentience is intended to be applied to everything with a brain.
Which brings us back to sentience being poorly and nebulously defined, which is why it makes a poor measure to have something based around.
And yet those differences still exist. "Minor" doesn't mean "unimportant". The only difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide is one fewer atom of oxygen, but overall, I know which one I'd rather be breathing right now.
thats 33% of it total structure. (or in weight 28 vs 44). ... not really minor if you ask me.
No, I won't. An unconscious human is not capable of "strong logical thought".
Actually...we don't know for certain. There is brain activity. When you dream, you are capable of rather lucid dreams, and rather logical thought (or, at least, internally logical thought). However, such dreams and thoughts are fleeting, and quite often upon awakening, any such dreamer loses most if not all knowledge of said dreams. Thus...a comatose person who is not brain dead may very well be quite capable of logical thought, and moreover, will not remember anything upon awakening from their coma may, as with any such dreamer, remember little to nothing of said state save that it was much like sleeping.
So, this simply is not comparable to a fetus whose brain has not begun to take over its own bodily functions, relying on the mother's body to supply nutrients, blood flow, and so on, much less a blastocyst that has no brain to speak of, with absolutely no thought pattern whatsoever.
Sorry, it's just not. I know it is frustrating, and it seems so cruel. But, really, forcing women to give up their bodily domain because of a huge multitude of factors, and forcing children to live lives that their mothers are nowhere near ready for, or forcing everyone in the country to pay for tremendous numbers of orphans or otherwise abandoned kids, along with health care for huge numbers of women who poison themselves, put objects inside of them, see back-alley quacks taking their money...none of these are as good as the alternative of preserving the rights of the mother, educating kids before puberty, and providing adequate contraceptives to prevent pregnancy and disease.
Reality is FAR more important than the teachings of one or more ancient texts whose followers simply refuse to adjust to new information provided by actual evidence.
So here's a thing that's been bugging me about your arguments. They're all based on 'morals'. The thing is though, that there are no morals that everyone can agree on. Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about them. People can rationalize and justify just about anything, so ultimately it's an argument of "I think X, you think Y, so now I'll bludgeon you with a big rock until only one voice can be heard". Except less with the bludgeoning about the head with a big rock on account of not having force-feedback monitors. Yet.
Face it, even if there is an absolute moral authority, we don't have a direct line. As such, any argument based on morality is going to falter at the point where you have to get anyone else to accept your version of morality.
So to put it another way: What arguments do you have that aren't based on (your) morality? In the context of people not agreeing with your morality, it might be more productive to attempt a tact that doesn't require they do.
Actually...we don't know for certain. There is brain activity.
"Brain activity" is not "strong logical thought".
This is a hypothetical, "if" situation, however. I'm trying to establish if Titanium_Dragon is saying it would be OK to murder a sleeping or unconscious human *if* such a human cannot think as long as they are not awake.
Furthermore, there are other means of temporary impairment that would throw a human out of his classification of a "person", even if unconsciousness doesn't qualify. Sufficient quantities of alcohol, for instance, severely impair higher brain functions and sapience. Is it OK to kill someone if they're drunk enough?
1. Your reason for dismissing comparison of judging to trials is not valid. Right and wrong was discussed before it became law. Judgement on the issuebeing right or wrong had been determined.
2. If your 'do not judge' policy is only good for abortions then you are using circular reasoning; You should not judge abortions because you should not judge abortions. Mantras.
3. Please divulge at what point who believe the baby/fetus/embryo is a human being. The validity of your arguments, as tenuous as they are, rests upon it.
Dude, if you are unable to talk casually, please tell me, so I'll stop posting here. Really, I check these forums usually in the morning, when I drink my first coffee, so I have no intention of having some internet random trying to prove his intellectual superiority or whatever over me as the first impression of the day. You remained normal the first few posts, so what is the problem with just continuing like that?
First, thanks for your short, and completely unfounded lesson on origins of morality and laws. I believe absolutely nothing about it. Furthermore, I believe it is something you just pulled out of your ass. Please spare me of such waste of time.
The original point stands: Abortion is largely a moral issue. It is about being right or wrong. It is relative. Courts deal with if someone did something or not. They deal with facts. Two types of judgments are completely different.
As for "circular logic", sorry, but you asked about position on abortion, and I gave you mine. You then tried to take that view, and generalize to my entire life philosophy. Sorry, but, if we're talking on abortion, we're talking abortion, not morality of legal institutions.
And finally, I'm not dodging anything. The whole question is just irrelevant. I do realize you have spent quite a sizable time discussing abortion the way you do, but you must see I'm talking about something different. I'm talking about the nature of the debate. About being an ass to other people.
You want my position on abortion? If my girlfriend ever gets pregnant without us planning it, then I'll have one. As for others, I'll chose the only normal thing and I'll respect the decisions of those of my friends who did an abortion, and support them.
So to put it another way: What arguments do you have that aren't based on (your) morality?
I could ask anyone here the same question. Has anyone actually made an argument against abortion that doesn't boil down to "It is wrong to force a woman to hold a baby within herself against her will"? Is that not based on the morality of the person proposing it? Is that not going to "falter" if I do not accept that this is true?
Hell, if I were a nihilist and I did not accept that my survival or that of the human race as a whole mattered in the slightest, how would you argue that humans should not commit homicide without first getting me to accept your view that it does matter?
"Brain activity" is not "strong logical thought".
This is a hypothetical, "if" situation, however. I'm trying to establish if Titanium_Dragon is saying it would be OK to murder a sleeping or unconscious human *if* such a human cannot think as long as they are not awake.
Furthermore, there are other means of temporary impairment that would throw a human out of his classification of a "person", even if unconsciousness doesn't qualify. Sufficient quantities of alcohol, for instance, severely impair higher brain functions and sapience. Is it OK to kill someone if they're drunk enough?
And? Drugs, including alcohol, also causes religious-like experiences in human beings, causing them to see, hear and feel things both not present and simulating their specific interpretation of the divine. So, what exactly? did I say, anywhere, it is OK to kill someone drunk enough? Hell, no. You are putting those thoughts there, and projecting them onto my post, not me. A human being with a developed brain, including an infant's brain (contrary to TD's assertion, in this respect he is wrong, and I am certain of that with my studies...he is much better with biotech and engineering in that field, and I give him much respect in that regard, as he appear to know his stuff; My knowledge is grounded in psychology and development), is not the same as a blastocyst or even a second trimester fetus. Sorry, it simply isn't. Near the very end it is getting close. First trimester? No, sorry, you are projecting personal emotion to a collection of cells that, while having value, is not a thinking being yet.
Everyone would not kill their babies. Indeed, on the whole, abortion is legal yet few people choose to abort their children.
Right. As I said, establishing that abortion is morally correct, practically speaking, is highly unlikely to lead to the situation of everyone killing their babies.
Nevertheless, would you be alright with everyone killing their babies should such a thing happen?
If not, we encounter a problem. Suppose such a situation does arise. Suddenly, the act of abortion reaches a huge peak and everywhere babies are being killed off.
If your logic is consistent, nothing bad is happening this situation. People are just exercising their rights as people to kill babies; it's not any individual's fault that this will lead to our extinction, but nevertheless, that's what's happening.
Are you prepared to accept this situation should it arise, as someone who claims to be concerned with the future of humanity?
If not, when does it become OK to make people stop?
did I say, anywhere, it is OK to kill someone drunk enough?
Er, no. I never said you did. You were the one who jumped in on my discussion with Titanium_Dragon. I was referring to his arguments, not yours.
Right. As I said, establishing that abortion is morally correct, practically speaking, is highly unlikely to lead to the situation of everyone killing their babies.
Nevertheless, would you be alright with everyone killing their babies should such a thing happen?
If not, we encounter a problem. Suppose such a situation does arise. Suddenly, the act of abortion reaches a huge peak and everywhere babies are being killed off.
If your logic is consistent, nothing bad is happening this situation. People are just exercising their rights as people to kill babies; it's not any individual's fault that this will lead to our extinction, but nevertheless, that's what's happening.
Are you prepared to accept this situation should it arise, as someone who claims to be concerned with the future of humanity?
If not, when does it become OK to make people stop?
Er, no. I never said you did. You were the one who jumped in on my discussion with Titanium_Dragon. I was referring to his arguments, not yours.
You quoted ME, and I was responding to that quote. I was responding a quote directed to me, in response to a post of mine. Yes, I inserted my thoughts. Welcome to public forums. Hi, how's it going?
Having been on both sides of it...point blank, it's up to the woman. Period. End of discussion. It is up to her. It is her body, and she has to go through it. It takes two to tango, but the man DOES NOT HAVE TO CARRY IT TO TERM. She does. It is a huge difference, and her rights are, quite frankly, more important than a blastocyst with a good 25-33% chance of being naturally miscarried, and far, far preferable to the enormous weight on society as a whole that such women's decisions brings when the act is illegal. The decision was mind-bogglingly hard, and I have two kids I love dearly, so much it is staggering...yet, the decision made when younger was the right call. 100% the right call, and totally the woman's call to make. So, seriously, stop inserting your personal dogmatic beliefs into incredibly difficult, painful, personal decisions of a woman, and her right to choose how her body is used during her lifetime, whether or not you agree with her choice. It is not your place. If you are capable of bearing young in your body, it becomes your choice. If not, let your feelings be known, and leave the decision to the person who actually has to go through with a pregnancy, which is entirely possible no matter how careful, how meticulous one is with regards to it.
It is her body, the final decision is hers.
You quoted ME, and I was responding to that quote. Yes, I inserted my thoughts. Welcome to public forums. Hi, how's it going?
Yes. I quoted you in response to your quoting me, and that quote was taken from my discussion with Titanium_Dragon. Therefore, I was still speaking in the context of that discussion. Therefore, I did not say that you claimed it was OK to kill drunk people.
I'm not saying there was anything wrong with you jumping in, but if you do so to defend another person's arguments (or at least give the impression that that's what you're doing) then I'm still going to be talking about that person's arguments. When I continue to talk about that person's arguments, therefore, there's no point in taking umbrage and going "Well, *I* never said that."
So, seriously, stop inserting your personal dogmatic beliefs into incredibly difficult, painful, personal decisions of a woman
You do realise that this is just one big appeal to emotion, right?
I could ask anyone here the same question. Has anyone actually made an argument against abortion that doesn't boil down to "It is wrong to force a woman to hold a baby within herself against her will"?
yes. For example, it can be used to improved the gene pool.
Heck, the argument is very old ... remember Sparta?
also, much variation exist on "It is wrong to force a woman to hold a baby within herself against her will": the reason why.
- a woman choose what she does with her body (freedom of women)
- people can choose not to have children (freedom of choice) or they can't support children (economically, psychological (example, pregnancy of ****), ...)
- people can decide they don't want an ill child (either for them, or because the child will have a painfull life) (prebirth mercy killing)
- ...
does the counter-abortion argument ever is something more then "because its murder" (which is quite strange ... as killing kittens isn't murder ...), or "because some forms of abortion are horrible"
Have you talked about types of abortion?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/
And about post-abotion syndrome?
http://www.ramahinternational.org/post-abortion-syndrome.html
What is your opinion about the video "The Silent Scream" and Dr. Bernard Nathanson?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silent_Scream
Do you know about the suicide of Enma Beck?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1579455/Artist-hanged-herself-after-aborting-her-twins.html
Artist hanged herself after aborting her twins
An artist killed herself after aborting her twins when she was eight weeks pregnant, leaving a note saying: "I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum."
yes. For example, it can be used to improved the gene pool.
And in order for that to sway me, I have to accept that "improving the gene pool" is a good thing.
See the problem? Ultimately, any argument related to morals you can possibly throw at anyone will do precisely bugger if they do not accept the premise as morally sound. Asking someone to make an argument that doesn't require someone to first accept something as "good" in this situation is a bit of a lofty request.
"I should never have had an abortion. I see now I would have been a good mum."
No, you would not have.
If you are really that emotionally unstable, you would more than likely not have been a very good mother at all.
(EDIT: Not to mention the fact that you are irresponsible enough to have an abortion not because you wanted to but because your boyfriend wanted you to.)
now, thats wrong: a sperm can not be human: it does not have enough chromosones for that. that however does not mean it is not 'alive' ... (IIRC its a sentient as the next one-celled organism ...)
No, its human.
Many organisms have a haploid state. All we have are sperm and eggs, but for some plants, the most visible part is the haploid part. Its all the same species. Sperm is **** sapiens sapiens in its haploid form. Well, a haploid form.
Whether you refer to it as "intelligence" or "instinct", members of the animal kingdom generally tend to avoid killing those of their own kind without reason. If such behaviour were the norm, we'd be seeing a lot less of...well, everything.
Yes and no. It depends on the species, the gender, and a variety of other factors. And "reason" can be territorial in nature, for instance, or fighting over a kill or mate.
From the standpoint of how they should be treated, yes. If a parrot was as smart as a human, it would be wrong to treat them as inferior.
Why?
Again, reciprocal altruism.
And yet those differences still exist. "Minor" doesn't mean "unimportant". The only difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide is one fewer atom of oxygen, but overall, I know which one I'd rather be breathing right now.
In this case, it is pretty unimportant. Slightly different limb lengths and body hair is not really that big of a deal.
No, I won't. An unconscious human is not capable of "strong logical thought". It doesn't matter if they will become such when they wake up. That's then. This is now. They aren't capable of it, therefore they do not fit your definition of a person for the duration of their unconsciousness. It's that simple. You cannot define "person" in such clear-cut terms, use it to support your argument, then suddenly turn around and say "Oh, but that doesn't count" when an example crops up that throws your argument into question.
Funny how you didn't quote the explanation which explained why this line of thought was incorrect.
Here's a hint: read my post.
Actually...we don't know for certain. There is brain activity. When you dream, you are capable of rather lucid dreams, and rather logical thought (or, at least, internally logical thought). However, such dreams and thoughts are fleeting, and quite often upon awakening, any such dreamer loses most if not all knowledge of said dreams. Thus...a comatose person who is not brain dead may very well be quite capable of logical thought, and moreover, will not remember anything upon awakening from their coma may, as with any such dreamer, remember little to nothing of said state save that it was much like sleeping.
Being asleep doesn't shut off your brain; this is why we dream. And if you know what you're doing, you can intentionally trigger lucid dreaming.
You do realise that this is just one big appeal to emotion, right?
So the "you're murdering babies" argument is ok, even though it's just an appeal to emotion as well?
Asking someone to make an argument that doesn't require someone to first accept something as "good" in this situation is a bit of a lofty request.
it works both ways: calling abortion murder also assumes that the other party accept that murder is a bad thing
(As I said in my first post: I am pro-euthenasia ... murder IMO is not always a bad thing)
http://www.lifesitenews.com/abortiontypes/
life site news he ... sure, these people will be objective ... and even if they put in a complete list of all types of abortion, I'm sure they will give the gory details*
(*: isn't pregnancy also bloody?)
link to Post-Abortion syndrome
as opposite to childhood traumas of children who has unwilling parents? or traumas of people that have children that actually didn't want any?
What is your opinion about the video "The Silent Scream" and Dr. Bernard Nathanson?
never seen it. probably refer to my statement about the life site news ... since its a popular video by contra-abortion people.
Though if it is really an objective video (but I doubt it), then I would say that everyone planning an adoption should take a look at it.
I'm pro-freedom of choice, that doesn't mean it should be an uneducated choice.
artist commits suicide
well, she apparently cracks easely under social pressure, and also "She had a long history of anxiety and depression. Despite my best efforts, she was not willing to see a counsellor after the termination." (from he link)
IMHO, abortion was just the final straw ...
In response to Luis's links, I was wondering what the views were on abortion for babies who will be born with horrible birth defects?
--- and who is to decide wether something is horrible enough, if not the parents ?