TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Abortion
Pages (5): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »

quote:

Originally posted by venomX I'll go ahead and suggest that his point might be related more to not letting the individuals that 'took the decision' to have sex and are therefore 'responsible' for the outcome get away unscathed. The fact that there is a running theme of abortion being an 'easy out', might be due because, more than caring for the actual potential life that is lost, there is a resentment towards people being able to take the decision to not complicate their lives with a child they don't want.

I'm not trying to punish anyone, but I will say that I believe people should be responsible for their actions. I'm sorry if pregnancy is difficult for some, but again, if a pregnancy is not wanted a very simple decision can be made to avoid it. My main argument is that if the decision to have sex is willingly made and new life is formed, it is wrong to kill that life.

I have no problem with people making the decision not to complicate their lives with a child they don't want, as long as they do so before they make the child.

"We're not ready/let's not have kids, so we'll do everything in our power to avoid having kids via birth control, abstinence, etc., but in the remote chance we do get pregnant, we'll be responsible and not kill it." = OK

"Oops, we're pregnant, let's kill it so we don't complicate our lives" = Not OK

I'm sure if one really wanted to they could move somewhere that abortion is illegal. Sounds like a great option to me. As long as you don't try to force your beliefs and morals on other who don't feel the same way then I don't care go for it.

My own beliefs and morals tell me that killing full term unhealthy/unwanted infants by exposure (dumpster diving anyone?) leads to a stronger society. But I would never support a law that required all infants with retardation, physical deformities, genetic diseases, etc to be left to die in a dumpster because I know others have their own beliefs, and it is wrong to force them to behave in accordance with my own morals.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Is an infant a "person?" How about a toddler, adolescent, teenager, senior citizen? A label designating developmental state determines if a "thing" is a member of a species now?

Is an egg a chicken? Is an acorn a tree? Is a maggot a fly? Is a catapiller a butterfly? These would be more appropriate comparisons for foetus:human. Just because something has the potential to be something does not mean that it is that thing.

I'm totally conflicted on the issue of abortion....
I think that there are a whole host of situations where aborting a feotus is the best option for all concerned (including the feotus). I also believe that there are some out there who use abortion as a form of birth control, which I believe is deplorable. My church tells me that abortion is a sin, I do not agree; however, I would consider abortion as a form of birth control to be immoral. That said, I don't think that my moral objections are grounds for anyone to be preasured or forced to bring a feotus to term against their will and while I may object I believe it is the woman's right to choose and I would not support anyone that tried to infringe upon that right.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I don't know, looking back on my statements, I think I've been very consistent... I've said time and time again that once you have a genetically unique living being, of the human genetic variety, it's death is the death of a human.

Okay, so just to clarify, are you saying that if you have a genetically non-unique living being, of the human genetic variety, it's death is not the death of a human? If so, why? If not, then why do you continue to raise genetic "uniqueness" as if it has some sort of relevance here?

quote:

And I never, never said that a fetus has the ability to be human, but that it is.

You stated: "even if you do not consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to be human, it unquestionable has the capacity to be and therefore its death is even more wrong."

So according to your own words, if some "thing" has the capacity to be human, then therefore its death is "even more wrong."

If you want to be "very consistent" then is the death of any human tissue, i.e. that which might be used for cloning or other artificial reproductive processes, which unquestionably has the "capacity to be human," wrong? According to your own words, it is, but when Renegade introduced the same issue, you responded with a serious of rather irrelevant distinctions:

quote:

However, in the case of cloning, we aren't dealing with genetically distinct individuals, merely copies of existing ones. More importantly we're dealing with a completely artificial reproduction process that is even more voluntary than sexual reproduction. We also have to separate the reproductive process from normal cellular turnover. Under normal biological conditions a zygote will progress to viable human; no somatic cells will do that under normal conditions.

This seems to suggest you believe that things which have the "capacity to be human" in these cases should not be treated the same with respect to the morality of their death. But you fail to explain why any of this should play a role in such moral judgments, and I can't even begin to imagine a reason which would be remotely coherent.

quote:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; 1) if the pregnancy is the result of a consensual act, the pregnancy (consequence of the action) is the responsibility of the parents, and 2) whether or not you consider the developing "thing" to be a person, it is genetically human, a living being, and killing it, along with any other living thing for no valid reason, is wrong.

How do you propose we determine whether a pregnancy is the result of a consensual act? It seems to me this is nothing more than an incentive for pregnant women to make false accusations of rape in order to secure their right to an abortion.

In any case, the pregnancy is surely the responsibility of the parents, but that only begs the question why someone not involved in the matter ought to be dictating to them how to handle it. It seems to me that abortion is a perfectly legitimate way of resolving the matter, and in most cases demonstrates greater responsibility than actually having the child. For that matter, who exactly determines what constitutes a "valid reason?" I'm sure that most women who have gone through abortions believed they had a valid reason for doing so, and I agree with them. And if -- as you state -- killing any living thing for no valid reason is wrong, and furthermore our own comfort, pleasure, et cetera do not constitute a "valid reason" then we all have the wrongful deaths of innumerable lives on our hands. Such a facsimile of morality fails to draw any meaningful distinction between something as innocuous as consuming more than the bare minimum amount of food needed for survival and something as clearly immoral as gunning down 25 women and children in a strip mall. And yet this is the preposterous moral standard that you use to judge abortion?

quote:

I'm also not quite sure what the Homer Simpson/Abraham Lincoln analogy has to do with anything. I've listed a set of terms that define human based on development. Each term still defines "human," but merely changes the time frame. Calling someone a completely different name designed to designate one human/person from another is not the same.

"So if it's not a person, then what is it? A Giraffe?"

You, in your own words, believe that is a "good question." Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but actually it's incredibly, mind-bogglingly vacuous; in that regard it rather reminds me of the "morality" you seem to be preaching here. Maybe that's why you like it?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'm totally conflicted on the issue of abortion.... I think that there are a whole host of situations where aborting a feotus is the best option for all concerned (including the feotus). I also believe that there are some out there who use abortion as a form of birth control, which I believe is deplorable. My church tells me that abortion is a sin, I do not agree; however, I would consider abortion as a form of birth control to be immoral. That said, I don't think that my moral objections are grounds for anyone to be preasured or forced to bring a feotus to term against their will and while I may object I believe it is the woman's right to choose and I would not support anyone that tried to infringe upon that right.

ZOMG rational, logical thought and religion CAN co-exist....

Fine abortion is legal, blah blah blah. I made my point already let's ask a new question.

Should the father have a say in the abortion? Or is it completely 100% up to the mother.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Should the father have a say in the abortion? Or is it completely 100% up to the mother.

it should always be up to the mother; otherwise you have to argue that it is ok for a man to

a) force his partner to have an abortion

b) force his partner to carry a child to term

neither of those ideas is acceptable.

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp ZOMG rational, logical thought and religion CAN co-exist....

Ha.

If you are pro-life, then act like it. Abortion, believe it or not, isn't the only thing threatening life right now. You know what? You could sell your computer and then donate the money to charity to help the starving kids in Ethiopia. Surely you could save one life? No? You don't want to? Don't you care about life? Don't you care about little Sabaweezo?

quote:

Originally posted by Hand Signal X If you are pro-life, then act like it. Abortion, believe it or not, isn't the only thing threatening life right now. You know what? You could sell your computer and then donate the money to charity to help the starving kids in Ethiopia. Surely you could save one life? No? You don't want to? Don't you care about life? Don't you care about little Sabaweezo?

You know the best solution to starving children in Africa is, in fact, starving children in Africa. The problem is having too many people for what the resources available. We've tried providing more resources... turns out that doesn't work very well... maybe we should try fewer people. Let the population thin itself out to a point that the land can again support it.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You know the best solution to starving children in Africa is, in fact, starving children in Africa. The problem is having too many people for what the resources available. We've tried providing more resources... turns out that doesn't work very well... maybe we should try fewer people. Let the population thin itself out to a point that the land can again support it.

perhaps you should have a word to the pope and his influence on contraception in the region?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN perhaps you should have a word to the pope and his influence on contraception in the region?

I wish I could.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN perhaps you should have a word to the pope and his influence on contraception in the region?

reminds me of a billboard is saw ont eh side of the health ministry in nassau bahamas... "Protect ya tings, use a rubba every time"



no shit, exact spelling. ill dig up the pic and post it later....


it is along the lines of my point tho, why push to make every conceived child come to term so we have more babies in teh world, when in fact we cannot, as a global society, feed and support the ones we already have?

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp why push to make every conceived child come to term so we have more babies in teh world, when in fact we cannot, as a global society, feed and support the ones we already have?

This is a falsehood... we have more then enough resources to feed and support every person on this planet; however, rather then doing that we who have control of the resources choose to horde them for our own advantage. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting children in Africa starve - hell, I even encourage it (I can't help but think back to Thus Spoke Zarathustra "let all that is falling also be pushed"), but if the will were there then they could be supported.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This is a falsehood... we have more then enough resources to feed and support every person on this planet; however, rather then doing that we who have control of the resources choose to horde them for our own advantage. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for letting children in Africa starve - hell, I even encourage it (I can't help but think back to Thus Spoke Zarathustra "let all that is falling also be pushed"), but if the will were there then they could be supported.

true, but the same could be said for domestic poverty. Look at all the people in north america living below the poverty line we could help them too, but we dont.


but really, we pay thousands of dollars for gym memberships, magical weight loss drugs etc..... and then you see these emanciated ethiopian kids on television taking photo ops with alan thicke, and you cant help by think.... lucky...... i would have to spend thousands to get that figure.....

quote:

Originally posted by colonelcrisp true, but the same could be said for domestic poverty. Look at all the people in north america living below the poverty line we could help them too, but we dont. but really, we pay thousands of dollars for gym memberships, magical weight loss drugs etc..... and then you see these emanciated ethiopian kids on television taking photo ops with alan thicke, and you cant help by think.... lucky...... i would have to spend thousands to get that figure.....

You know, it's too bad those starving kids aren't quicker... if they were they wouldn't have to starve... they could eat all the flies that are always around them.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You know, it's too bad those starving kids aren't quicker... if they were they wouldn't have to starve... they could eat all the flies that are always around them.

/COR

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard You know the best solution to starving children in Africa is, in fact, starving children in Africa. The problem is having too many people for what the resources available. We've tried providing more resources... turns out that doesn't work very well... maybe we should try fewer people. Let the population thin itself out to a point that the land can again support it.

That's completely illogical - Africa has a much lower population than Europe or Asia. In fact, population density in Africa is lower than both those places as well - and much of Africa's population lives in outliers such as Egypt (80 million) and Nigeria (120 million) where starvation isn't much of an issue. The majority of African populations that are suffering from malnutrition do so because of displacement, not a lack of resources. According to IDMC there are 12 million displaced persons in Africa still today - is it any real surprise that people fleeing Darfur are starving as a result of leaving their traditional agrarian communities behind?

In addition, where stability can be maintained there has been a drastic increase in sustainability. I'd refer you to the work of Norman Borlaug on that one:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/9...aug/borlaug.htm

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov That's completely illogical - Africa has a much lower population than Europe or Asia. In fact, population density in Africa is lower than both those places as well - and much of Africa's population lives in outliers such as Egypt (80 million) and Nigeria (120 million) where starvation isn't much of an issue. The majority of African populations that are suffering from malnutrition do so because of displacement, not a lack of resources.

Wait, wait, wait... there can only ever be one reason for mass malnutrition and that is lack of resources. Displacement may very well compound the lack of reasorces; however, if a person were displaced to a location that could sustain them then they would not be starving. As I said earlier... if the will to support these persons were there then the resources could be provided to them but the cold hard truth is that there is insufficient will to assist these people thus they are left to live off of whatever can be obtained locally, which is insufficient for the number of people concentrated in the area. If there were sufficient local resources then none of these people would starve to death. Since it seems the world is unwilling to send additional resources then the only solution to the imbalance of people:resources is to reduce the number of people.... the most effective way to do this is to simply let nature take it's course. Once the population is reduced to the point that the locally available resources can support it then all that survive and future generations will be better off.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Wait, wait, wait... there can only ever be one reason for mass malnutrition and that is lack of resources. Displacement may very well compound the lack of reasorces; however, if a person were displaced to a location that could sustain them then they would not be starving. As I said earlier... if the will to support these persons were there then the resources could be provided to them but the cold hard truth is that there is insufficient will to assist these people thus they are left to live off of whatever can be obtained locally, which is insufficient for the number of people concentrated in the area. If there were sufficient local resources then none of these people would starve to death. Since it seems the world is unwilling to send additional resources then the only solution to the imbalance of people:resources is to reduce the number of people.... the most effective way to do this is to simply let nature take it's course. Once the population is reduced to the point that the locally available resources can support it then all that survive and future generations will be better off.

You're missing the point. Displacement isn't a simple matter of re-locating. It's about the movement of people through violence or the threat of violence into an area that can't support them. The solution here isn't "let everyone who is displaced die off" - that's lunacy. The solution is to address the root causes of malnutrition in the first place. Like you've said, that is not a lack of resources, because thanks to people like Norman Borlaug those resources do exist. It is about limiting the factors that do cause malnutrition in the first place - violence, discrimination, and destroyed infrastructure for the most part.

African states can easily obtain the capability to feed all of their citizens with our help. Whether they have the necessary desire to do so (limiting factors that increase malnutrition) is up to some debate, but that's not the issue you've raised.

The fact is, even where malnutrition is the worst the resources do exist, so a Malthusian equilibrium has not been disturbed.

For more reading on the subject, I'd suggest that Borlaug piece (even though it is outdated and the World Bank has begun to adopt the policies it is criticized for ignoring), and some of the work on the infamous Ethiopian famine of 1983, which is where most of the images of starving African children come from. The Derg regime used starvation as a weapon - it had the capability of addressing malnutrition in the population, but it chose to quell opposition movements by making citizens more concerned with basic survival. In the process, millions were killed.

This paper from the University of Oslo does a pretty good job of covering the basics on that issue:
http://folk.uio.no/alexanv/Famine%2...%20Ethiopia.pdf

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov African states can easily obtain the capability to feed all of their citizens with our help.

The key to all you have said is "with our help." I agree, with our help all of their problems are solveable. Unfortunately, "we" don't seem very interested so instead of solving the problems we provide just enough assistance to act as a band aid to the solution and make "ouselves" feel better about "ourselves." The end result of these band aid solutions and half-measures is that we relieve the problems just enough to stave off the natural consequences, which really just serves to allow this suffering to continue generation after generation in perpetuity. If we're not going to do it right (which we clearly aren't else we would have already) then we're really exacerbating the problem by not allowing nature to take it's course and balance to be restored through starvation, disease, and eventually death. We really need to choose... either we go all out and make the sacrafices (money, food, the lives of our armed servicemen/women) to solve the root issues or we leave it alone and let the problems sort themselves out; however, allowing the status quo to continue is unreasonably cruel.

** edit; I think we both actually want the same thing; however, I'm a realist and have to resign myself to the fact that what we want isn't going to happen... those in a position to enact the best solution simple won't, therefore, I'm willing to accept the second best solution.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Okay, so just to clarify, are you saying that if you have a genetically non-unique living being, of the human genetic variety, it's death is not the death of a human? If so, why? If not, then why do you continue to raise genetic "uniqueness" as if it has some sort of relevance here?

No, again I'm referring back to abortion; the topic of the thread. The argument exists that the fetus is simply part of the mother or a non-human parasite. I'm stating, as I have again and again, that it is a genetically unique (separate from the mother or father) living organism, that is in fact human. The death of an exact twin, or somehow a genetically non-unique individual is of course still the death of a human. Again though, this is to separate the fetus from the mother since the "I can do what I want with my body" argument does not include the fetus, since it is another human inside her body.

quote:

You stated: "even if you do not consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to be human, it unquestionable has the capacity to be and therefore its death is even more wrong." So according to your own words, if some "thing" has the capacity to be human, then therefore its death is "even more wrong."

As normally occurs in a debate/discussion, I'm dealing with other people's arguments, hence the "you" part of "even if you do not...". Looking at my other posts, I consistently state what I believe (that once you have a genetically unique organism, you have a human - in the case of human sexual reproduction obviously). I'm stating that even if a person does not consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to be human, it unquestionably has the potential to be human, so even though you believe you are merely killing a living "thing," it is more "wrong" than killing other non-human living things. I'm really not sure what's so complicated about that.

Case A - You believe a zygote/embryo/fetus is human, therefore if you kill it, you're killing a human.

Case B - You believe a zygote/embryo/fetus is not human, therefore you are just killing a living "thing," but a thing that would have become human, which puts it in a different category than killing other non-human "things."

quote:

If you want to be "very consistent" then is the death of any human tissue, i.e. that which might be used for cloning or other artificial reproductive processes, which unquestionably has the "capacity to be human," wrong? According to your own words, it is, but when Renegade introduced the same issue, you responded with a serious of rather irrelevant distinctions:

Again, everything I'm relating back to the context of abortion; the purpose of this thread. I'm making distinctions between that and all other hypothetical situations that are trying to be drawn in parallel and somehow are thought to justify the abortion. As I've already said, normal human somatic tissue/cells do not spontaneously form new, complete living organisms. The only capacity for them to do so is by completely artificial and voluntary means. A zygote on the other hand does have the capability to do that very things, and by completely "natural" means, in that scientific intervention is not required. So, unless humans are now reproducing by binary fission, budding or some other asexual means, normal somatic human tissue does not have the capacity to form a "new" human.

quote:

This seems to suggest you believe that things which have the "capacity to be human" in these cases should not be treated the same with respect to the morality of their death. But you fail to explain why any of this should play a role in such moral judgments, and I can't even begin to imagine a reason which would be remotely coherent.

I just discussed this issue, but if we're trying to bring cloning ethics into an abortion debate that's fine; but they're two different topics and I've already stated my basic belief on that issue as well, which is consistent with my abortion stance.

From my post on page 7:

quote:

If you want to talk about the morality of cloning or of artificial reproduction methods, we can start another thread about that. I do think I have hinted pretty strongly that I'm against the killing of life in general, and even if its creation is "artificial," I'd be against its killing.

Moving on...

quote:

How do you propose we determine whether a pregnancy is the result of a consensual act? It seems to me this is nothing more than an incentive for pregnant women to make false accusations of rape in order to secure their right to an abortion.

If a woman can prove she was raped, and she doesn't mind dragging the father under the bus to do so, I guess that's an unfortunate outcome I'd have to live with. I would find it easier to live with false accusations of rape before the death of millions.

quote:

In any case, the pregnancy is surely the responsibility of the parents, but that only begs the question why someone not involved in the matter ought to be dictating to them how to handle it. It seems to me that abortion is a perfectly legitimate way of resolving the matter, and in most cases demonstrates greater responsibility than actually having the child. For that matter, who exactly determines what constitutes a "valid reason?" I'm sure that most women who have gone through abortions believed they had a valid reason for doing so, and I agree with them. And if -- as you state -- killing any living thing for no valid reason is wrong, and furthermore our own comfort, pleasure, et cetera do not constitute a "valid reason" then we all have the wrongful deaths of innumerable lives on our hands. Such a facsimile of morality fails to draw any meaningful distinction between something as innocuous as consuming more than the bare minimum amount of food needed for survival and something as clearly immoral as gunning down 25 women and children in a strip mall. And yet this is the preposterous moral standard that you use to judge abortion?

A child is the responsibility of their parents or guardians, yet society puts standards on the way they raise their child. Is this wrong? We force children to go to school, or at least be home schooled. Is this wrong? Public schools and many other places that take care of children require them to be immunized. Is this wrong? Society/government puts many standards in place as to how parents raise their children. This to me is even more basic. We do not allow parents to kill their own child if they decide they are not wanted, but we aren't allowed to tell parents not to kill a fetus if it is not wanted? In either case I just stated we're dealing with the killing of a human child simply in different states of development. We have many restrictions put on us by the government and society and killing others is at the top of that list.

The definition of valid would be difficult to define exactly, but my broad definition (as I've stated before) includes reasons that sustain life and restore the rights of others (before jumping on that one, as I've said before you give up your "right" to be pregnancy free by having sex, but even in this case I'd try to talk the mother into carrying the child to term).

We all have killed other living things, I agree. I also hope that no one comes away from killing another living thing, no matter what it is, feeling "good" about themselves. Most of the times we do kill it is out of instinct, self-defense or simply unknowingly. That is why I do not put those types of deaths in line with mowing down 25 people or going through a pre-meditated abortion procedure.

quote:

"So if it's not a person, then what is it? A Giraffe?" You, in your own words, believe that is a "good question." Well, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but actually it's incredibly, mind-bogglingly vacuous; in that regard it rather reminds me of the "morality" you seem to be preaching here. Maybe that's why you like it?

Again, I'm challenging other people's beliefs instead of simply restating my own. I want to know what people think they're killing, if it's not human, when an abortion is performed. What is so vacuous about that? Is a human fetus not part of the human species? Are the cells in a chicken egg of a different species than the chicken? If human, or any species for that matter, is not determined by genetics, what is it determined by?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im happy to be a liberal

I thought you were a "Centrist"?



No surprise anyway, it's TA.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono No, again I'm referring back to abortion; the topic of the thread. The argument exists that the fetus is simply part of the mother or a non-human parasite. I'm stating, as I have again and again, that it is a genetically unique (separate from the mother or father) living organism, that is in fact human. The death of an exact twin, or somehow a genetically non-unique individual is of course still the death of a human. Again though, this is to separate the fetus from the mother since the "I can do what I want with my body" argument does not include the fetus, since it is another human inside her body.

Right; so we've gotten past the whole issue of genetic "uniqueness," which you seem to have raised repeatedly for absolutely no reason.

quote:

I'm stating that even if a person does not consider a zygote/embryo/fetus to be human, it unquestionably has the potential to be human, so even though you believe you are merely killing a living "thing," it is more "wrong" than killing other non-human living things. I'm really not sure what's so complicated about that.

It's not complicated at all; I'm just curious why you will not stand by the same principle regarding living "things" that aren't zygotes/embryos/fetuses, but which do have the potential to be human -- for instance, any tissue which could be used for artificial reproduction and/or cloning. You know, the issue you continue to try to evade at every turn? I mean, now that we've got that whole "genetically unique" thing out of the way, all we seem to have left is the "artificial" and "voluntary" things. Which, of course, are just as nonsensical as the first.

quote:

Again, everything I'm relating back to the context of abortion; the purpose of this thread. I'm making distinctions between that and all other hypothetical situations that are trying to be drawn in parallel and somehow are thought to justify the abortion. As I've already said, normal human somatic tissue/cells do not spontaneously form new, complete living organisms. The only capacity for them to do so is by completely artificial and voluntary means. A zygote on the other hand does have the capability to do that very things, and by completely "natural" means, in that scientific intervention is not required. So, unless humans are now reproducing by binary fission, budding or some other asexual means, normal somatic human tissue does not have the capacity to form a "new" human.

According to your own words (time and time again), you believe it is wrong to kill a living thing that is genetically human. Apparently you feel it is an exception if this "thing" will only "form new, complete living organisms," with scientific intervention.

But if that follows, then at what point in the development of an "artificial" human being would it become "wrong" to kill it? Is it okay to kill a fully grown artificial human merely because he did not originate the way you speciously believe is "natural?" How about when it is partially developed, but continues to require scientific intervention to keep it alive? Am I really to believe that the "artificiality" of a human should affect its moral status?

And let�s take care of "voluntary" while we are at it. Is it okay to kill an individual who happened to have been conceived as the result of a rape, or other non-voluntary conception? At what point in that human being's development does it no longer become morally okay to kill it? Do you seriously believe that the circumstances under which a human was conceived should affect its moral status?

quote:

If a woman can prove she was raped, and she doesn't mind dragging the father under the bus to do so, I guess that's an unfortunate outcome I'd have to live with. I would find it easier to live with false accusations of rape before the death of millions.

Well, you're stuck with the death of billions either way. After all 60-80 percent of your precious human lives are spontaneously aborted very shortly after conception. So where have you been on this mass destruction of human life? I have hardly seen you preaching from the street corner about the necessity of a brobdingnagian scientific project designed to avert the senseless death taking place every day on a massive scale. Surely this should be the priority, rather than the comparatively insignificant number of deaths caused by deliberate abortions. No?

You could even say that every person should be aware that any decision to have sexual intercourse could very plausibly lead to the unnecessary death of a human. So by your twisted logic, maybe we should just not permit people to do that anymore...

quote:

A child is the responsibility of their parents or guardians, yet society puts standards on the way they raise their child. Is this wrong? We force children to go to school, or at least be home schooled. Is this wrong? Public schools and many other places that take care of children require them to be immunized. Is this wrong? Society/government puts many standards in place as to how parents raise their children. This to me is even more basic. We do not allow parents to kill their own child if they decide they are not wanted, but we aren't allowed to tell parents not to kill a fetus if it is not wanted? In either case I just stated we're dealing with the killing of a human child simply in different states of development. We have many restrictions put on us by the government and society and killing others is at the top of that list.

The two situations are not remotely analogous. No parent or guardian has the sort of responsibility that you propose a pregnant woman should have. First of all, any parent or guardian unwilling or unable to raise their child in accordance with the law can opt out of custody; clearly a pregnant woman cannot opt out of pregnancy (at least, not without an abortion!)

Secondly, these laws are designed to protect the rights of the child which, legally speaking, does not extend to a fetus. Hence, there is no legal reason that analogous restrictions would be justified.

quote:

The definition of valid would be difficult to define exactly, but my broad definition (as I've stated before) includes reasons that sustain life and restore the rights of others (before jumping on that one, as I've said before you give up your "right" to be pregnancy free by having sex, but even in this case I'd try to talk the mother into carrying the child to term).

So, just out of curiosity, who died and made you the moral arbiter of what constitute valid reasons for the termination of a pregnancy? I mean, as far as I'm concerned it's just a matter of opinion, and if that is the case, then it would seem obvious to me that each woman should be left to act in accordance with her own opinions, rather than, say, yours.

I believe you referred to the notion of personhood having "muddied the waters." Well, my well-meaning but woefully misguided friend, your absurdly arbitrary notion of "valid" may as well be pouring raw sewage into the waters.

quote:

We all have killed other living things, I agree. I also hope that no one comes away from killing another living thing, no matter what it is, feeling "good" about themselves. Most of the times we do kill it is out of instinct, self-defense or simply unknowingly. That is why I do not put those types of deaths in line with mowing down 25 people or going through a pre-meditated abortion procedure.

Speaking of befouled waters, if we're going to go with some spectrum of certain types of killing being "more wrong" than others, where do we draw the line on which should be illegal? Going back to my example, I think that it is pretty clear that eating more than the bare minimum necessary for survival should be legal, and gunning down 25 people should be illegal. You may disagree -- it certainly wouldn't be out of character -- but I think any reasonable person would agree. So, I'm dying to know: where exactly in the spectrum of "wrongness" do you arbitrarily place abortion?

quote:

Again, I'm challenging other people's beliefs instead of simply restating my own. I want to know what people think they're killing, if it's not human, when an abortion is performed. What is so vacuous about that? Is a human fetus not part of the human species? Are the cells in a chicken egg of a different species than the chicken? If human, or any species for that matter, is not determined by genetics, what is it determined by?

I am pretty sure they think it is a human fetus, which is distinguished from a human person in a multitude of ways. Do you honestly think that the issue of abortion revolves around what species the fetus is? I cannot begin to fathom why you believe species is a relevant issue here; do you think that a being's moral status is somehow etched into its genetic code? I am thinking of a word that describes your position perfectly, and it resembles the word "species," only with one vowel replaced by two others. Care to offer a guess?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.