Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
My post grows too long, so I will close by saying that, although I believe essentially all acts of abortion to be the immoral killings of morally significant human beings, the social consequences of banning abortions are too great. It is preferable to allow women to safely terminate the lives of the fetuses, rather than forcing them to seek back-alley abortions that risk the lives of mothers as well as those of fetuses.
|
i'm not going to reply to your post at the moment. i'm not sure how to do so, honestly. what is a 'morally signicant human being?' what is 'moral worth?' what are 'moral rights?' right now, my first reaction is that they're bullshit terms. they have no real meaning. they sound good, but they're really empty words. but i'm not sure. i'd like to hear what you mean by them and think about it a bit.
this part that i quoted though, a quick response. i disagree on the immoral part, but the rest i'm in agreement with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
As Bill Clinton once said: Abortions should be safe, legal, and rare. - The goal of the government should be to reduce the number of abortions being performed to the greatest possible degree.
|
i agree with this statement 100%.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Foolthemall
She's killing a human being that would grow into a more developed human being. Enlighten me: I do not see any scientific reason to look at a fusing skullcap and say, "that is a stage of development in a human being", and yet to look at the development of the lungs and say, "that is a stage of development in a potential human being". I've searched long and wide and found no scientific reason for the distinction.
|
and your point is?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foolthemall
Politicophile dealt with this well.
|
no. he didn't. lets look at what he said.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
People, including mothers and fetuses, have a right to life. I offer no proof for this statement: it is simply wrong to kill human beings, with exceptions built in such as self-defense, war, etc. One can argue about legitimate exceptions, but I'm not sure how to interpret an outright rejection of the principle that you should not kill humans.
|
he offers no proof that there is a right to life. he merely states it as though it were fact. and then he goes on to say that "it is simply wrong to kill human beings, with exceptions." i'm missing a proof of right to life. and considering the exceptions he lists, i fail to see how abortion is necissarily excluded from that list. he seems to feel that killing humans is a-okay depending on the justification. and that leaves a lot of room for abortion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foolthemall
If you own a cruise line, you have no right to throw a stowaway into the ocean to die. He had no right to steal your product through trespassing, but the solution of ejection is a greater evil than the problem of trespass.
|
if you're going to try an analogy, it would be a squatter in an apartment building, using your utilities, stealing the neighbors packages, disrupting the neighbors (keeping them up late at night, being a nusciance at other times), etc.
either analogy you choose though, you have only two options. either let the perpetrator go scot free or throw him overboard/out in the cold. and since a fetus has no rights, nor in my opinion should it, and the woman does, choosing to 'throw it overboard' seems like an acceptable solution.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foolthemall
It's not giving preference to the z/e/f, it's giving preference to a right with higher priority. Your inability to understand my position does not change it to an easier-to-understand, easier-to-attack position.
|
i understand your position. your position is that the z/e/f should have rights over the host. you can add however many words you want to flower it up, but that's what it boils down to.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foolthemall
Of course not. Thwarted plans, no matter how thwarted, are not equal to the injury of losing your very life. Would you really argue this?
|
i would definatly argue this. if someone tries to keep me from having the life i want, i will do anything and everything in my power to stop him. livilyhood is just as important, if not more important, than life itself. but i don't think this line of discussion really has a lot to do with whehter abortion should be legal, etc. i think this is on the edge of it at best, shows more towards attitudes we have.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foolthemall
You're either not making a good-faith attempt to understand my words, unable to make such an attempt, or you're lying. That is not my position, and you cannot make it my position by saying that it is.
|
i'm not lying. and i understand your position. how else would you say it? you've made your position clear a few times and each time it boils down to you believing that the z/e/f should have rights over the mother. "It's not giving preference to the z/e/f, it's giving preference to a right with higher priority. Your inability to understand my position does not change it to an easier-to-understand, easier-to-attack position." it's pretty clear. the z/e/f's rights should supercede the mothers. if you're really not saying that, then right here, right now, just quote this paragraph and underneath it, in plain english, state your position.