FoolThemAll

Correct me if I get this wrong, but you're implicitly saying that it's okay to murder a fetus if it serves a good purpose and yet not okay to murder an infant if it serves a good purpose.

Why?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

AngelicVampire

I suppose there is a theoretical difference depending on the time you consider abortion applicable, perhaps if the child is capable of surviving outside the womb we should induce labour/c-section instead and let the child develop outside the womb?

highthief

Doesn't really work - most very premature babies, though capable of surviving outside the womb - tend to have significant problems if born prior to 32 weeks - anything from physical handicaps such as blindness to mental disabilities (anything from slow learning to retardation).

How about people who get pregnant deliver a full term baby and give it up for adoption if they don't want children? Then get sterilized, maybe? Nobody gets killed using this method.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

hannukah harry

that's funny, i don't remember the embriyo/fetus contributing material (genetic or protein, or the energy to make use of those).

it's okay to have an abortion because a) it's wrong to force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want for 9-months, b) it is not a viable being yet, because it is an undeveloped group of cells. it's not okay to kill an infant (although according to a law signed by then gov. bush, there is a texas law that allows the hospital decide when to stop giving care to a child, parents wish's be damned) because a) it is a baby that the mother wished to carry to term and was born. because it is a living, breathing baby. because it is no longer analagous to a parasite on the womans body.

what exactly did you learn about the development of babies changed your mind?

1) do you realize how many different medical complications (life threatening and non) can come with preganancy? and that's not too mention the hormonal swings, physical discomforts, wierd food cravings, relationship complications, post-partum depression, etc, that a woman will go through (or may, depending on which thing). to force that on a woman who doesn't want it... you may as well lock her in a cell and torture her for 9 months. personally, i prefer my women to be incubators by choice, not force.

2) most people adopting want new borns. what happens when there are more new borns then people want to adopt? and then think about the older kids that people aren't taking. what about them? is brining kids up in the foster system really fair to the kids? and why should my taxes pay for your mistake for 18 years?

3) if you had them get sterilized after it, that's the same as murder. if they want to have kids one day, but are not ready yet (and that's why they'd have prefered an abortion to forced preganancy + adoption), then by sterilizing them you're pre-emptively killing any future children she planned on having.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

filtherton

Why wouldn't it be?

abaya

I'm not even sure why I'm jumping into this thread (or why it's even still going)... but I do want to say something here.

NOTE: I am pro-choice, and I will never support a political candidate whose platform is based on restricting women's choice. However, I do not ever see myself having an abortion, barring rape or extreme health complications.

Harry, your argument for abortion is based on the opinion that "forcing" a woman to have a child, if she doesn't want a child, is wrong. To me, that's like saying a woman is also "forced" to not use birth control (or to use it incorrectly) and that she is "forced" to choose to have unprotected sex.

Personally, I find that this opinion actually demeans women's reproductive choices. Women can and SHOULD be responsible for what happens to their bodies as a result of sex. If a woman doesn't want a child, no one (unless it's a rapist, or if they are very low-income and have ZERO access to birth control or condoms) can force a pregnancy on her. If she gets pregnant, well... sure, no one can actually force her to keep the child. But no one forced her to get pregnant in the first place; to believe that is to believe that woman cannot and should not be expected to take responsibility for their own bodies. Barring socioeconomic differences and education, it all comes down to choice and taking responsibility for one's decisions.

For me, I recognize that having an abortion is a valid way of taking responsibility for one's poor decisions. However, it's a responsibility I would clearly like to avoid, because I am just not emotionally able to handle doing something like that to myself. Therefore I take any and all precautions (short of abstinence) necessary to avoid getting pregnant. If I got pregnant, I would carry the child to term.

That is all there is to it, for me. Others can do what they wish; it is, after all, a free country. "Force" is not the right word to use in such an argument (again, unless we are talking rape).

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

hannukah harry

we agree that aborting a pregnancy that you are not prepared to have is the responsible thing to do.

unless i'm reading this wrong, your only objection is my use of the word 'force.'

while it's true, barring rape/incest, no one held a gun to the womans head and forced her to have sex, if we made abortion illegal it would be legally forcing her to keep the pregnancy. what else would you call it? if your only options are 9th months of pregnancy, risking your health with a back alley abortion, or trying to force a miscarriage, with the latter two bringing possible adverse health consequences (including the mothers death) and criminal charges if found out, how would that not be being forced to carry the baby to term?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

abaya

Well, we agree that it is one of the secondary choices that one should be free to make *after* getting pregnant. However, I would say that the really responsible thing to do would have been to not take the risk of getting pregnant in the first place.
Well, once again I am politically pro-choice, but let me think about this abstractly. If abortion was made illegal (I think that's what you meant, through you wrote "legal"), which I don't advocate precisely because of the reasons you cite (back-alley, whatnot), then yes it would be legally "forcing" a mother to carry a baby to term (or risk her health by having it done back-alley, etc).

However, I don't dispute you on that point. What I disagree with is the idea that a woman has no choice when getting pregnant in the first place. Women do have responsibility, they do have the power (again, unless poor/uneducated) to use birth control correctly, to ask their partner to use condoms, and to even practice abstinence if all else fails. To say that making abortion illegal would be forcing women to do something they don't want to do may be correct, but it ignores the logical precedence that a woman chose to take the risk of getting pregnant in the first place. I would guess that very few instances of abortion involve a woman feeling "forced" to have risky sex and get pregnant. It is still a choice.

I cannot logically be pro-choice about women getting rid of pregnancies without also being pro-choice about women preventing a pregnancy. That's all.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

FoolThemAll

Oh well. Can't force you to give me a straight answer. I'll look at harry's instead.

A) It's not wrong to prohibit a means to a legitimate end when the means is insufficiently justified. You shouldn't thwart a pickpocketer by killing him, to use an extreme example. If a woman could escape a pregnancy without killing a human being, or if the justification was sufficient (i.e. saving her life), then it would be wrong to "force a woman to carry a child".

B) Yes, it's not a viable being yet. So?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

pinkie

It always amazes me how so many people choose to think of "the beginning of human life" as simply, "a group of insignificant cells."

Life is life.

Killing is killing.

Jinn

It's not that cut and dry!

Life is not always life. Are vegetables still living a life as good as someone who isn't a vegetable?

Killing is not always killing -- what about animals? Is there killing the same as killing a human? If not, then you agree that there are degrees of life and degrees of killing.

Frankly, I don't see having an abortion as any worse than killing a cow for steak. Or a bug thats 'icky' or a plant that you need for food. Wherever you draw the line for killing, you draw it somewhere. They're lesser beings who don't have the same law-provided rights that we do. You just feel the need to protect vestigal cells from death, and not bugs. I do not. End of story.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

pinkie

Humans do not equal vegetables, cattle or birds.

We eat food out of necessity.

People abort out of convenience.

Jinn

We eat many of the things we eat of of convenience. Unless you can abstain from eating everything but leafy vegetables (or your one food of choice) than you are no longer eating out of necessity.

So then, if you can't stop eating the convenient foods, how can you other people to stop doing things for THEIR convenience?

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

pinkie

Gluttany and murder are two completely different sins.

I can't stop anybody from doing anything for their own convience.

I don't even try.

filtherton

That's an ironic thing to say, considering you just disregarded my question to you. Maybe you could tell me the difference between an infant and a fetus.

FoolThemAll

I recall you 'answering' my question with a question. Tit for tat.

An infant is more developed than a fetus. An infant resides outside of the mother's body. An infant is more likely to survive without assistance.

You care to answer the question now?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

highthief

what exactly did you learn about the development of babies changed your mind?

How the brain develops, the rate of growth, the physical transformation. It all happens much earlier than we previously thought.

1) do you realize how many different medical complications (life threatening and non) can come with preganancy? and that's not too mention the hormonal swings, physical discomforts, wierd food cravings, relationship complications, post-partum depression, etc, that a woman will go through (or may, depending on which thing). to force that on a woman who doesn't want it... you may as well lock her in a cell and torture her for 9 months. personally, i prefer my women to be incubators by choice, not force.

All of which is easily outweighed by the fact that taking the innocent life of a baby is about a million times worse than anything you just described.

2) most people adopting want new borns. what happens when there are more new borns then people want to adopt? and then think about the older kids that people aren't taking. what about them? is brining kids up in the foster system really fair to the kids? and why should my taxes pay for your mistake for 18 years?

I think we can cross that bridge when we come to it - right now there is a dearth of adoptable newborns, which is why people are going to China and Russia to adopt children.

3) if you had them get sterilized after it, that's the same as murder. if they want to have kids one day, but are not ready yet (and that's why they'd have prefered an abortion to forced preganancy + adoption), then by sterilizing them you're pre-emptively killing any future children she planned on having.

Not even close; no life was taken in this example you provide. That's like saying every time you jack off you're killing thousands of unborn children.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

hannukah harry

i agree with you here for the most part. the responsible thing to do is practice safe sex. make it so that the only times when an abotion should even need to be considered is when there's either a freak accident (if she's on the pill and he's wearing a condom, pregnancy should be rare) or when rape/incest occurs. but it almost sounds like you're talking about abstenance. which, while great in theory, it's a lot like communism, doesn't do so well in the real world.


i've never said women have no choice in getting pregnant. i highly doubt most woman having sex, whether with their boyfriend or a one night stand, are thinking "gee, i do sure hope i get preggers tonight!". both women and men have the responsibility of taking precautions. but shit happens, that's life.

any time you do anything, there can be unintended consequences. all we can ask is that people try to be smart and take precautions. not all of them do though... which is why we need to be teaching sex ed. there shouldn't be people out there who aren't educated about the risks of sex (std's and pregnancy). we as a society should be teaching safe sex, but not everyone gets it. but the ability to have an abortion needs to be an option for when an unwanted preganancy does occur.


a) if you are going to be prohibiting something, the onus is on you to justify the prohibition. you have to justify why a group of cells should have rights over the body of woman. why the incubated should have rights over the incubator. you have to justify turning a living, breathing, independent woman into a forced incubator.

b) so? so why should a non-viable group of undeveloped cells take precedence over a woman?




who says the cells are insignifcant? but that doesn't make them more important than the woman carrying them.



i think if you looked into abortion a bit beyond the superficial layer, you'd find woman abort for many, many reasons and most are not for 'convenience.'




thank you. i disagree with you as to whether abortion should be legal and easily accessable, but i respect your opinion.

here's part of the problem... you view it as 'taking the innocent life of a baby.' i view it as 'removing cells that one day could develop into a baby. which is probably the main reason this is such a horrible debate. there is no one frame of reference.


people are going to china and russia not because there aren't enough children looking to be adopted, it's because there aren't enough a) white kids to be adopted and b) adoption in america is a pain in the ass. it's a lot easier to go out of the country. i read an article a few months ago how not only were black kids in america being adopted by foreigners much more than americans are adopting them, but there has also been legislation (not sure if it was in the development stage or going through the system yet) to make that illegal. we have the kids, we just don't have people wanting to adopt our kids.



i'm sorry, but you're wrong. the only difference between an abortion and forced sterilization is that one is stopped pre-fertilization and the other post-fertilization. in both cases, left alone, a child would be born. if a woman wants to have 3 kids, and you sterilize her before she has any, you are keeping 3 kids from being born. if she got pregnant 3 times and you made her abort them, you are keeping three kids from being born. sterilization is just one logical step ahead of abortion. at least abortion has the benefit of allowing the woman to have a child at a later date when she's ready and wants one.

jerking off isn't murder because those sperm weren't intended to be used for making babies. sterilization keeps ovum (planned for fertilization) from being used to make babies. notice a difference in the intent?

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

filtherton

You kind've just answered it for me. It's okay to kill a fetus because it isn't a viable human being yet. An infant generally is a viable human being.

And please, drop the cross examination bullshit. I answered a couple of your questions, the least you could do was answer one of mine without acting like i was trying to hide something from you.

raeanna74

I doubt many here would agree with my point of view. BUT I would not push my ideas on anyone either. That is one of the problems that I have with this issue.

When I first knew I was pregnant I did not go to my Dr until about 3 months along since we did not have good health insurance until then. My Dr asked if we'd planned this pregnancy and the answer was no. Then he asked if we wanted the baby and the answer was yes. Both my husband and I were working, I had a bachelors degree and a good job. We had an apartment in a good part of town and we had health insurance. We were in one of the best situations to have a baby. BUT - my Dr asked me repeatedly if I wanted to terminate. He asked me at more than one appointment. I don't know what his agenda was but I believe that if you've asked a person a question twice and they resolutely say NO you should not ask again. I felt like he WANTED me to abort.

I wish there were stronger restrictions on repeat abortions. I've known women who used it as a form of birth control. They didn't bother with condoms or pills and slept with every guy they could get ahold of. She didn't care about her body or her children that she DID have. She did not desire to protect her body. She was too lazy to deal with the consequences of her promiscuous irresponsible lifestyle. She had 4 repeat abortions and 4 other children in foster care. I wish there was some way at that point to have her sterilized. She was 30 and should have learned by then how to use birthcontrol.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

hannukah harry

that's the best answer to the question of abortion. have your opinion, but don't push it on others. if you want one, have one. if you don't want one, then don't.

and these are not the type of woman who should be having kids, period.

does anyone know if there's a safe, 100% reversable procedure to sterilize a woman? i know there's the tube tying thing, but i've always heard that's permanent, or close to it.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

FoolThemAll

Why does viability matter?

A) Nature is what forced the woman to be an incubator. She's simply not allowed - shouldn't be allowed - to escape incubation by means of killing a human being. That isn't a sufficient justification. It's not a good thing that the mother would be forced to incubate. But it's the lesser of the two evils.

B) A non-viable group of undeveloped cells - a human being - should have no precedence over the mother. But its right to life should have precedence over the right to an unoccupied womb. You don't have that latter right without the right to life.

When it's right to life against right to life, the mother wins out. When your life is threatened, even unintentionally, you have every right to take every necessary measure in response to save your life.

No matter how many times I get into an abortion debate, that tired strawmen always seem to show up: "why is the z/e/f more important?" No one's arguing that. Give it up.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

raeanna74

Tube tying is the only physical form of sterilization that is SOMEWHAT reversible. OTher forms that use implants, shots, or pills depend on the woman to be faithful in appointments yearly and responsible to take the pills, get the shots, or get new implants when necessary. Tube tying isn't even 100% effective as there is some risk of tubal pregnancy or the tubes not sealing completely. If the tubes are too thick to tie properly they have to cut them to be sure the sterilization will be effective. When the tubes are cut it reduces the possibility of reversal drastically. Tube tying can be reversed but it requires a surgery where the woman must be put under. There is sometimes too much scar tissue for things to go back functioning properly so it's not always worth the trouble. Insurance does not always pay for that type of procedure either.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

abaya

You're preaching to the choir, man. For the record, I am not a proponent of abstinence-till-marriage (or I would be a hypocrite ), and I VERY much believe in thorough and relevant sex education. I do think that teenagers should be warned against having sex until they are emotionally, physically, and financially able to handle whatever comes their way (pregnancy, STDs, abortion)--abstinence-till-mature, I suppose? But, as I stated several times already, I agree that abortion always needs to be a legal option. My only point was to put more responsibility on the woman before getting pregnant (for exactly the example that Raeanna gave). So it appears we are in agreement, then.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

hannukah harry

and she's not killing a human being. she's removing cells that would grow into one. yes, that removal kills them. no, i don't care that it does. it is not a developed member of our species. once it can live outside the womb, i'm not big on abortion, but until then, there is absolutely no justification for forcing a woman to go through 9 months of hell.


what? first of all, there's no such thing as a right to life. the only 'right' to life is a social construct. second of all, an embryo/fetus has no right to an unoccupied womb. that womb is part of the mother. and you just said that it has no precedence over the mother.

and how threatened does that have to be? if i were pregnant right now, i'd abort it. why? because even though my health might not be at risk, my life would be. the life i want for myself would be threatened. is that enough of a risk for you?

give it up? give what up? there's no strawman there. your argument is that the rights of the z/e/f is more important than the womans rights. otherwise there would be no debate. generally, people who try to end debates by refusing to answer honest questions do so because they know their position doesn't hold any water. kinda like a non-pregnant woman. <zing!>

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

politicophile

Forgive my somewhat redundant comments, but I feel the need to crystalize a few points:

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.

People, including mothers and fetuses, have a right to autonomous decision. Because the fetus is totally unable to communicate, it is not possible for it to express its will. It is certainly possible that fetuses and even infants do not have any will to speak of. The mother, however, sometimes wills the destruction of the fetal life.

Fetuses are human beings... in the genetic sense. They contain a complete human genetic code that will automatically construct a human body within the confines of the womb. It does not necessarily follow, however, that this physical human being has the same rights as a morally significant human being.

Without offering an argument (again), I claim that it is wrong to murder healthy infants. If you disagree with me on this point, I will do my best to respond with a logical condemnation of infanticide.

The question: is there a morally significant difference between an infant human being and a third trimester fetus human being? My answer is that I have yet to find one. I do not deny the possibility that a meaningful difference exists, but I have not discovered one yet.

The second question: is there a morally significant difference between a third trimester fetus human being and a first/second trimester fetus human being? The obvious answer: viability!

Humans that are not yet able to live outside the womb have less moral worth than humans who can survive. An interesting claim, to be sure. It is hardly self-evident.

Suppose one were able to construct an oversized artificial womb. Further suppose that a middle-aged man contracted a terrible physical disease that caused his lungs to deteriorate until they were (like a premature fetus') unable to function properly outside the womb. Naturally, the man is put in the artificial womb and is then able to receive nutrients and oxygen through an artificial umbilical cord. Does the man lose moral worth when he is put in the artificial womb?

I believe:
1. that it is not possible to make a morally significant distinction between fetuses with the same moral rights as infants and those who do not.
2. that it is not possible to make a morally significant distinction between late-term fetuses and infants.
3. that infants should not be actively murdered.

Unsupported premise: A mother does not have the right to kill her newborn child even if that child will cause a significant amount of inconvenience to the mother.

Unsupported premise 2: two beings with the same moral worth should be afforded equal treatment in the same circumstances.

Conclusion: It is not moral for a mother to abort her fetus unless the fetus threatens the mother's life or health.

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.

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.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

filtherton

Because until an fetus can survive outside of the womb it isn't really alive in any kind of meaningful sense.

Do you have a point with all these questions?

If all these questions are trying to somehow get me to say something specific so you can launch into whatever defense of the "right to life" you currently subscribe to you might as well just come off it and explain why you think unborn children are entitled to a birthday.

FoolThemAll

Grows. Develops organs. Takes in nutrients. For crying out loud, there's three meaningful senses right off the top of my head. And now you get to say, "But they're not meaningful!" And then I get to respond, "Why not?" when I discover that that exclamation point is the end of your post.

You keep getting these questions because you fail to explain your answers adequately. It's okay because it's not viable? Without an explanation, that makes as much sense as "it's okay because it doesn't look human" or "it's okay because it can't fight off infection without the mother's antibodies".

Fyi, unborn children don't have a birthday because they haven't yet been born. Not sure where you were going with that, but I won't ask since questions irritate you.

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.

Politicophile dealt with this well.

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.

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.

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?

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 wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

filtherton

Metabolic processes and cellular division aren't senses. On a prioritized list of all the things "meaningful" about being a human, metabolic process come in pretty far down the list unless perhaps you happen to be a biologist.

One definition of viable: "Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn." Let me interpret what i said for you: I think that it is okay to terminate a pregnancy when the fetus isn't viable. That's it. That's where i draw the line. If you want to keep playing the "but why" game that's fine. Eventually we'll get to a point where i say, "just because" because when you clear away all the rationalizations, "just because" is the basis for all philosophical reasoning. Somewhere deep down "just because" is the basis for every conviction you subscribe to.

I was asking you your opinion on why abortion is wrong.

FoolThemAll

Except that you didn't say 'human', you said 'alive'. Changing the question is one way to render an answer false, I guess, but I can't say I'm too impressed by it.

Glad it's fine. So, "but why"?

*shrug* I'm not sure I disagree with that, but we can still argue for the purpose of clarity.

Funny way of doing so. It's wrong because it's the insufficiently justified taking of a human life. And by the way, you can ask me questions about that if you desire. I don't mind.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

hannukah harry

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.

i agree with this statement 100%.


and your point is?

no. he didn't. lets look at what he said.

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.


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.

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.


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.


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.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer

abaya

That's a good summary of this entire thread. Which is why I don't see the point of why some people are continuting to post things that their adversaries are certainly not open to listening to.

Not to say I didn't enjoy a healthy debate here, for a few posts... but this is getting outrageous. Is there a point here, beyond the expression of one's ego?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

politicophile

Well, by "morally significant human being", I mean a genetic human being with the same set of "moral rights" that all other humans possess. This category is intended to anticipate the response that not all genetic human beings are automatically entitled to the equal concern and respect to which morally significant human beings are entitled.

"Moral rights" are claims about good and evil (or right and wrong, if you prefer) that require certain conduct from individuals. For example, if a mother has a moral right to control her body, then her moral claims as a morally significant human being are being violated whenever her moral right to control her body is being violated.

As I said earlier, I believe that all morally significant human beings have a right to live. It is, admittedly, a very difficult position to argue in favor of: I will conclude by saying that I believe killing people who have never used their autonomous will to bring harm to you is always, always wrong... unless, of course, killing would prevent a greater number of deaths from occuring - you are also not expected to sacrifice your own life in order to avoid killing. Thus, we are in agreement that abortion to save the life of the mother is ok.

It's wrong to kill your neighbors, friends, coworkers, family, etc. - what's the moral difference between them and a fetus?

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

FoolThemAll

I'm wondering if our only disagreement here is whether the fetus has rights. IF you agreed that the fetus has rights, would you still view ejection as an acceptable option? Are we only disagreeing on the rights part?

Livelihood is not possible without life itself. It cannot be more important or equally important.

The z/e/f's right to life should supercede the mother's right to an empty womb. Changing "right to life" and "right to an empty womb" to " rights" is a distortion on your part.

I am not saying that the z/e/f's rights are more important than the mother's. I am saying that the z/e/f's right to life is more important than the mother's other rights besides the right to life. Similarly, the mother's right to life is also more important than the z/e/f's other rights.

It's not z/e/f > mother, it's right to life > all other rights.

I don't think I can put it any simpler. I'm not sure what to suspect here if it isn't a matter of density or dishonesty.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Frosstbyte

Completely off topic, I wonder how this little gem of a thread got bumped after being started almost three years ago to the day. I was very surprised to come across a three year old post of mine. I'm not sure now-me necessarily agrees with then-me.

Yay for kicking a cold, dead horse! Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion. I will add to it by commenting that, regardless of feelings about the result, Roe v. Wade is a horrible horrible decision from a legal standpoint. Rules regarding social phenomena like gay rights and abortion should not be decided by courts on the basis of a wildly expansive reading of the 14th amendment, they should be decided by the people through constitutional amendments or state legislatures. The only reason no one has touched Roe v. Wade is because it's Roe v. Wade, not because it's a shining pinnacle of impervious legal excellence.

filtherton

Fine, prepare to be impressed. Go back and mentally replace everywhere i said "human" with "alive". POW!

Because it is.

I have my clarity and it is this: discussions about controversial issues on internet message boards are generally useless. People actively engaged in these discussions fall into three camps: 1. Those who want their own opinions on above mentioned controversial issue validated; 2. Those who want their own opinions on the irrationality of anyone who doesn't agree with them validated; and 3. Those who pretend that they haven't made up their minds yet. The members of these groups will attempt to gain validation from each other through a process consisting of repeated reassertion of various rationalized and rephrased statements. These statements will be based on ultimately subjective underlying assumptions; despite this fact, statements often will be made as though they represent absolute truth/morality. Typical interactions occur. Side A starts by setting up a framework for the discussion. This framework is most often just rephrasing of one of the central themes of their position. Sometimes the initial framework is rejected by the opposing team. If Side B finds the framework acceptable it then works within this framework to try assert that, no, in fact Side A is wrong. Sometimes side B then sets of the framework for side A to try to dismantle. The sides repeat this process over and over and over again until one of them quits. No one is ever convinced of anything, but that's okay because the vast majority of the participants were just after some sort of validation and you don't need to convince the other side to feel validated, you just have to convince yourself that the only reason they don't agree with you is because they, in some remote way, suck.

Not really.

No thanks. No offense, but i kind of feel like it would be a waste of both of our time.

savvypup

As an ongoing 'contraception' (for want of a better word), no.

But I am pro-choice. When we had our 8 week scan, it really hit home that this little baby, even at 8 weeks was moving and apart of us. However, there's too many neglected kids in the world that I think this needs to be a big deciding fact in the consideration of having an abortion. What's worse do you think - having an abortion, or bringing a child into a world that you are unable to care for?

__________________

ciao bella!

highthief

Respectfully, you are on crack.



An abortion is an active act of killing - people can argue whether it is "murder" or whether it is something else, but undeniably, a life is extinguished when an abortion occurs, and at some of the later stages of development, the infant feels pain before death. Nice.

Sterilization (although I was not seriously advocating its use, but lets go down that road anyway) kills no one.

Notice a difference?

Let's review: abortion kills. And the people who are vehemently pro-choice, who can only couch their meaning in terms like "it's just a bunch of cells, dude", are, IMO, in denial.

We used to practice infanticide in the West and not that long ago. We figured that such practices were barbaric and uncivilized and we now look with disgust on people in India and China and Nigeria who continue to kill excess children and call them savage.

IMO, a couple of generations from now, when we are more enlightened, we will look with disgust on abortion (at least after the first trimester or so) and call the people who did it savage and selfish, in this land of plenty.

We will in the future look with more understanding on the poor third world dirt farmer who kills the extra infant mouth than we will on virtually anyone in the Western world who killed their child in the womb because it would force them to buy a house in the suburbs, wreck their dress size or stop them from partying on a regular basis.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

FoolThemAll

Has human DNA. Has underdeveloped human organ systems. POW!

And abortion should be illegal because God says so. (Crap! Hope analog doesn't see this.)

Nah, believe it or not, I don't think that way.

I kind of wonder why you came into this thread in the first place. Sounds like it's all a huge waste of time. (Not that you aren't, in some senses, right.)

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

florida0214

This argument about abortion can and will go on for as long as women are getting pregnant and convienantly having abortions for whatever reason. I am sure that they can validate it to themselves. Fact of the matter is they could something that either was alive or would be some day. Who knows. Mom doesnt and we certainly don't. You will always have people for abortion and people against it. Pro Life= Anti-choice, Pro choice= Anti life yeah yeah whatever. I guarantee this thread is not going to convince any women to have their baby if they are considering abortion and it wont turn your average pro-lifer into a pro-choicer.
Fact of the matter is that this thread is dead and nothing new is being said. I have read the other abortiont hreads and nothing new is being said. Same stuff from mostly the same people. I think thread starter wanted to stir the pot a little and wish granted now can we all move on? HEHE And yeah I know I am a horrible typer and an ever worse speller but oh well. You'll live and thank god your mom didnt abort you.

__________________
"Two men: one thinks he can. One thinks he cannot. They are Both Right."