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

Africa is and has been in drought for quite some time and probably will remain that way for a time to come. The soil is not fertile enough to grow much of anything and the lack of a government system and technology due to warlords and lazy men means that it probably will never sustain itself even with all the help in the world. Also take into fact that the people in the right areas that would be willing to make food are constantly under threat of civil war and just random killings. The only thing to do is either let them die or educate them to the point that they will stop killing and raping long enough to survive.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD Africa is and has been in drought for quite some time and probably will remain that way for a time to come. The soil is not fertile enough to grow much of anything and the lack of a government system and technology due to warlords and lazy men means that it probably will never sustain itself even with all the help in the world. Also take into fact that the people in the right areas that would be willing to make food are constantly under threat of civil war and just random killings. The only thing to do is either let them die or educate them to the point that they will stop killing and raping long enough to survive.

Seriously, every assertion you just made is flat wrong, lol. Please tell me you were joking with this stuff.

First of all, Africa is composed of 54 countries and isn't a single political entity.



I can't even reply to the rest.

Where the hell do people get this stuff? Hollywood? I suggest you read a book first and then try posting again.



lol.

quote:

Originally posted by Nostalgic I thought you were a "Centrist"? No surprise anyway, it's TA.

liberals can be centrists, what planet are you on? indeed, half of conservatism comes from liberalism in the first place!

quote:

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

Said it before, I'll say it again...the genetic "uniqueness" is important in light of those who say that abortion is simply a matter of a woman having freedom over "her own body." An abortion does not just affect her own body, but also a genetically unique individual. I'm not exactly sure how much more clearly I can make that point. If you can show me some fetuses that are genetically identical to the mother and are the result of natural procreation, then we can start delving into how genetic uniqueness would not play a part when it comes to abortion.

quote:

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.

How am I avoiding it? I just said (again) that if we want to discuss the morals of cloning we should start another thread. However, I also went on to say (again) that the killing of life created through cloning was still wrong. What am I avoiding? I also further said (again) that the cells used in cloning will not spontaneously form new living organisms on their own.

Voluntary - unless you are raped or have people come and forcibly steal your cells in order to clone you, both sex and cloning are a voluntary choice

Artificial - somatic/stem cells without scientific intervention do not have the capacity to form new organisms on their own, it is completely artificial. If you can find an example of any human, any mammal, any vertebrate arising spontaneously from the somatic cells of another, please let me know.

Natural - after sex and fertilization, a new organism is formed without any outside scientific intervention. It is a natural process that has occurred since the beginning of sexual reproduction.

Those being stated; the production of life through sex is a natural, voluntary process and cloning is an artificial, also voluntary process. The destruction of life created through either process is wrong, but the reason why the death of some skin cells or isolated stem cells is not the same as the destruction of a fetus is because those cells are not a separate individual and have no natural capability of being one.

quote:

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.

If you aren't killing an organism then yes I do make an exception if you want to call it that. I don't equate the death of individual cells of an organism with the death of a complete being. I'm not upset with the death of somatic cells that are not and never will be a complete individual organism.

quote:

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?

Said it before, I'll say it again; I don't believe killing a living being, even if created through artificial means, is right. I'm still not sure how cloning ethics is somehow a means to justify abortion, but as I said I don't think killing a cloned individual is any more right than killing a sexually produced one.

quote:

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?

I made an exception in the case of rape because the mother's rights have been violated. I also stated that I would still try to talk the mother into keeping the child. Even though I feel it morally wrong to terminate the pregnancy, I realize that the pregnancy is a violation of her rights. I don't think the circumstances of how a pregnancy was begun changes abortion's ultimate killing of a human.

quote:

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...

Spontaneous abortion is a natural (I know you hate word) process. It's like saying dying of "old age" is murder. Abortion is not a natural process.

quote:

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.

I agree they're not analogous in that the parents of a child can opt out of custody but not kill it whereas a pregnant mother has no ability to opt out of custody without killing it. However, my point was that the government/society does put restrictions on what parents can and cannot do with their offspring and there should never (in my opinion) be the option of killing it. You wondered how someone not involved in the situation could dictate what can and cannot be done, I gave examples of how that already happens.

quote:

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.

No one, I'm stating my opinion. Some people have the opinion that child pornography is OK, global warming doesn't exist, God is real. Do all opinions hold equal merit? No, of course not, an individuals own opinions nearly always carry the greatest weight. That doesn't mean each person's individual opinion should equate to law. I gave basic guidelines as to when an abortion may be considered valid and I'm sure if I had enough time I could write an entire rubric as to when it would and wouldn't be valid.

quote:

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.

Really? Then define for me when a fetus transforms into a "person." What constitutes a "person" that makes it different or above merely human? If "person" is not an intrinsic property of human, what must a person do in order to achieve "person hood." Is it ok to kill a "non-person" human?

That is less muddy than me saying the termination of a pregnancy is only valid when the mother's life is in danger or the mother's rights were violated in the process of her becoming pregnant?

quote:

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?

Right next to killing a human.

quote:

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?

I just said it; define "person." Tell me exactly when and how a human becomes a person and it is no longer acceptable to kill them.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Seriously, every assertion you just made is flat wrong, lol. Please tell me you were joking with this stuff. First of all, Africa is composed of 54 countries and isn't a single political entity. I can't even reply to the rest. Where the hell do people get this stuff? Hollywood? I suggest you read a book first and then try posting again. lol.

I was being sarcastic obviously i failed.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ UD I was being sarcastic obviously i failed.

Phew, ok thank God.

Bwahaha we got JOEBIALEK's thread over 100 replies!

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Said it before, I'll say it again...the genetic "uniqueness" is important in light of those who say that abortion is simply a matter of a woman having freedom over "her own body." An abortion does not just affect her own body, but also a genetically unique individual. I'm not exactly sure how much more clearly I can make that point. If you can show me some fetuses that are genetically identical to the mother and are the result of natural procreation, then we can start delving into how genetic uniqueness would not play a part when it comes to abortion.

In your own words:

"The death of an exact twin, or somehow a genetically non-unique individual is of course still the death of a human."

You also stated that:

"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."

So the death of a genetically non-unique human is wrong. And the death of a genetically unique human is wrong. Therefore, the genetic uniqueness, or the lack thereof, of a human has no effect on their moral status.

quote:

How am I avoiding it? I just said (again) that if we want to discuss the morals of cloning we should start another thread. However, I also went on to say (again) that the killing of life created through cloning was still wrong. What am I avoiding? I also further said (again) that the cells used in cloning will not spontaneously form new living organisms on their own.

I'm definitely getting the idea that you weren't being intentionally dense earlier; it appears entirely unintentional.

Again, you said:

"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."

If that is true (and I submit that it is not), then the killing of cells that could be used in cloning is wrong. They have the capacity to be human -- otherwise, they couldn't be used in cloning. It does not matter whether they will form a new living organism "spontaneously" or not; they have the capacity to be human and therefore, by your own words, killing them is "even more wrong." You've attempted to append many more requirements after the fact, e.g. "natural," "spontaneous," but don't seem to be able to carry any of them through to any logical conclusion.

quote:

Said it before, I'll say it again; I don't believe killing a living being, even if created through artificial means, is right. I'm still not sure how cloning ethics is somehow a means to justify abortion, but as I said I don't think killing a cloned individual is any more right than killing a sexually produced one.

So you agree that how "natural" the process by which a human would develop has no effect on its moral status. Well, I'm glad we can now discard your harebrained appeals to "naturalness" along with those to "genetic uniqueness" and the rest of your innumerable red herrings.

quote:

I made an exception in the case of rape because the mother's rights have been violated. I also stated that I would still try to talk the mother into keeping the child. Even though I feel it morally wrong to terminate the pregnancy, I realize that the pregnancy is a violation of her rights. I don't think the circumstances of how a pregnancy was begun changes abortion's ultimate killing of a human.

So you agree that terminating such a pregnancy is still "wrong." Therefore, how voluntary or involuntary the process by which a human is created has no effect on its moral status. We'll kick that one to the curb as well.

It's amusing how permissive you are regarding people doing things that you believe are "wrong," in this regard. If only you had the good sense to extend the same limitation to the rest of your simple-minded opinions...

quote:

Spontaneous abortion is a natural (I know you hate word) process. It's like saying dying of "old age" is murder. Abortion is not a natural process.

I never said it was murder, so you are -- as usual -- way off the mark. Further, it is clear that abortion is a natural process: human beings, by virtue of their biological nature, have developed the ability to terminate pregnancies. And due to the underlying natural forces that govern human behavior, they occasionally choose to exercise that ability.

Show me the super-natural forces that contribute to abortion, and I'll agree that it is not natural. Otherwise, it is natural.

In any case that's quite apart from the point. Namely, that you, apparently, believe that these human lives have the same value as any other human lives. Well, if that's the case, then this process is killing more humans than every other cause of death combined, several times over! So, surely you would then agree that developing ways to prevent or combat it should be a higher priority than developing means to prevent or combat any other causes of death. No?

quote:

I agree they're not analogous in that the parents of a child can opt out of custody but not kill it whereas a pregnant mother has no ability to opt out of custody without killing it.

Great! Then we can stick that one in the pile with the rest of your pointless arguments that are neither here nor there.

quote:

No one, I'm stating my opinion. Some people have the opinion that child pornography is OK, global warming doesn't exist, God is real. Do all opinions hold equal merit? No, of course not, an individuals own opinions nearly always carry the greatest weight. That doesn't mean each person's individual opinion should equate to law. I gave basic guidelines as to when an abortion may be considered valid and I'm sure if I had enough time I could write an entire rubric as to when it would and wouldn't be valid.

Well, I am so relieved that you have the capacity to expound upon your opinions at considerable length (vacuous though they may be.) I certainly agree that not all opinions hold equal merit -- yours, for instance, appear to hold just about none!

quote:

Really? Then define for me when a fetus transforms into a "person." What constitutes a "person" that makes it different or above merely human? If "person" is not an intrinsic property of human, what must a person do in order to achieve "person hood." Is it ok to kill a "non-person" human? That is less muddy than me saying the termination of a pregnancy is only valid when the mother's life is in danger or the mother's rights were violated in the process of her becoming pregnant?

Neither is objective, and they are both equally muddy. The difference is that yours just fucking stinks. Well, that and there's the small fact that you were the one hypocritically crying about the muddying of the waters in the first place.

To answer your questions, in order to have a right to life (or any right), one must be a person. There may be other reasons why it would be wrong to kill a human, including one who is not a person, but they would have to be justified by more than an appeal to an inherent "wrongness" in killing human beings.

As for what constitutes a "person," I have already stated that, so I will simply quote myself here:

"... any meaningful criteria for personhood must be rooted in that which makes us people as opposed to mere assemblages of biological tissue. That seems to me to be our capacity for higher brain functions such as individual volition, memory, and the comprehension of stimuli rather than a mere response to them."

And furthermore:

"To reduce the quality of personhood such that it requires only basic functions like circulation, digestion, et cetera or the presence of certain organs, cells, or genetic material strikes me disrespectful of the dignity of human individuals."

quote:

Right next to killing a human.

Well, you are certainly free to opine as you will, so I guess I'll just go ahead and restate that last part for emphasis:

"... disrespectful of the dignity of human individuals."

It's really rather sad; not only can you seemingly not cease appealing to conditions you later agree are not relevant, but when you actually manage to squeeze an idea out that doesn't conflict with something else you've said, it turns out to be an incredibly contemptible one. Oh well...

Men really have no place deciding these sorts of things, unless you're in a relationship with someone looking at it as an option.

It's amusing how America has a tendency to make non-issues of issues, and issues of non-issues.

Besides, last I checked, every time a male ejaculates, millions of potential "life" cells are left to compete and die. Only one survives.

What's the deal when religious nutheads are trying to use science as their defense for their bullshittery non-issues?

Re: Bwahaha we got JOEBIALEK's thread over 100 replies!

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter In your own words: "The death of an exact twin, or somehow a genetically non-unique individual is of course still the death of a human." You also stated that: "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." So the death of a genetically non-unique human is wrong. And the death of a genetically unique human is wrong. Therefore, the genetic uniqueness, or the lack thereof, of a human has no effect on their moral status.

I'll say it yet again, I'm discussing certain pro-choice arguments, which in this case is the idea that abortion is simply the "woman having control over her own body." The genetic uniqueness has a role because abortion is not simply a woman altering her own body, but also that of another entirely unique human. I completely agree once a life has begun, whatever process that brought it there is completely irrelevant to whether its death is morally acceptable. One more time; uniqueness does have importance, because it makes the pro-choice argument I just stated completely inaccurate.

quote:

I'm definitely getting the idea that you weren't being intentionally dense earlier; it appears entirely unintentional. Again, you said: "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." If that is true (and I submit that it is not), then the killing of cells that could be used in cloning is wrong. They have the capacity to be human -- otherwise, they couldn't be used in cloning. It does not matter whether they will form a new living organism "spontaneously" or not; they have the capacity to be human and therefore, by your own words, killing them is "even more wrong." You've attempted to append many more requirements after the fact, e.g. "natural," "spontaneous," but don't seem to be able to carry any of them through to any logical conclusion.

Somatic cells have no natural, intrinsic capacity to become complete living organisms. A zygote/embryo/fetus has the natural, intrinsic capacity to become a human even if a person doesn't think they become human until later developmentally (which I've already said I don't believe; a human already exists). I'm not going to get upset with the normal death of cells that have no ability on their own to become a unique organism.

If I burn a log in my fireplace, should I be arrested for destroying money? Trees have the capacity to be made into paper and printed as money, but they don't have the natural, intrinsic capability to do so. If trees spontaneously formed money we'd all be much richer, and I would potentially be committing a crime if I burned one. The exact same thing goes into this whole cloning thing that's somehow been thrown into the mix.

I've further refined my definition of "capacity" with terms like "natural," "spontaneous," "intrinsic," because my initial statement was obviously too succinct and to prone to be torn apart. I have no problem with people dissecting what I've said, but I'm simply better defining my position, not appending any more requirements than I initially felt was appropriate.

If you must, simply replace "capacity" with "intrinsic ability." That's probably more accurate anyway.

quote:

So you agree that how "natural" the process by which a human would develop has no effect on its moral status. Well, I'm glad we can now discard your harebrained appeals to "naturalness" along with those to "genetic uniqueness" and the rest of your innumerable red herrings.

You're right, once you have a living thing, how it got there bears no importance on the morality of killing it. However, "naturalness" does have an impact on whether I think killing somatic cells is right or wrong (in that they have no natural ability to form into a unique individual) and "genetic uniqueness" does play a role in contradicting the thought that abortion is simply a woman having "control over her own body." All things I've stated before. I'm not obsessed with cloning precursor cells and what they may be able to do only after extensive scientific intervention. This is just the same as I don't think there's been a murder after every menses or sperm that is spilt or reabsorbed. Without fertilization an egg and sperm do not have the ability to become a new human on their own and without lots of test tubes and money, somatic cells also lack that ability. I don't get upset with the death of either.

quote:

So you agree that terminating such a pregnancy is still "wrong." Therefore, how voluntary or involuntary the process by which a human is created has no effect on its moral status. We'll kick that one to the curb as well.

It's still wrong, but it's also wrong to remove someone's right at no fault of their own. I'm not fan of abortion, regardless of the circumstance, but I'm also no fan of unjustly revoking someone of their personal rights and freedoms.

quote:

I never said it was murder, so you are -- as usual -- way off the mark. Further, it is clear that abortion is a natural process: human beings, by virtue of their biological nature, have developed the ability to terminate pregnancies. And due to the underlying natural forces that govern human behavior, they occasionally choose to exercise that ability.

What exactly is your definition of "natural?" I'm getting the feeling that you're going down the line that anything humans develop "by their biological nature" is natural? Pesticides, antibiotics, tattoos, plastic surgery, doping in sports are all natural because they're things we've developed and decided to do occasionally? Is there anything that is not natural then?

quote:

Show me the super-natural forces that contribute to abortion, and I'll agree that it is not natural. Otherwise, it is natural.

I'm not looking for super-natural forces, simply external ones. And I do consider surgical abortions or those caused by chemical means to be by external forces. If you remove the surgeon or the drugs, the abortion does not occur "naturally."

quote:

In any case that's quite apart from the point. Namely, that you, apparently, believe that these human lives have the same value as any other human lives. Well, if that's the case, then this process is killing more humans than every other cause of death combined, several times over! So, surely you would then agree that developing ways to prevent or combat it should be a higher priority than developing means to prevent or combat any other causes of death. No?

We are constantly trying to reduce miscarriages. In most cases miscarriages occur due to genetic defects that make the developing fetus non-viable. If we can cure these, we should. Just like we should be looking for a cure for cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, inborn errors of metabolism...the list goes on and on. However, in all these cases of death by genetic error, there was no conscious decision by another individual to kill that person. Death through abortion is a preventable death; death through spontaneous abortion is not.

quote:

Well, I am so relieved that you have the capacity to expound upon your opinions at considerable length (vacuous though they may be.) I certainly agree that not all opinions hold equal merit -- yours, for instance, appear to hold just about none!

Classy. Is that your opinion?

quote:

Neither is objective, and they are both equally muddy. The difference is that yours just fucking stinks. Well, that and there's the small fact that you were the one hypocritically crying about the muddying of the waters in the first place. To answer your questions, in order to have a right to life (or any right), one must be a person. There may be other reasons why it would be wrong to kill a human, including one who is not a person, but they would have to be justified by more than an appeal to an inherent "wrongness" in killing human beings. As for what constitutes a "person," I have already stated that, so I will simply quote myself here: "... any meaningful criteria for personhood must be rooted in that which makes us people as opposed to mere assemblages of biological tissue. That seems to me to be our capacity for higher brain functions such as individual volition, memory, and the comprehension of stimuli rather than a mere response to them." And furthermore: "To reduce the quality of personhood such that it requires only basic functions like circulation, digestion, et cetera or the presence of certain organs, cells, or genetic material strikes me disrespectful of the dignity of human individuals."

Well, that's quite troubling in my opinion. We're now at the point where you're stating it's only wrong to kill a human if they're deemed a "person," and that definition is based only on the beliefs of other "persons." So if someone doesn't fit your definition of "person," there's no harm in killing them or revoking their rights. Premature infants, those in comas, with severe mental or physical retardation may not meet someone's definition of "person" and therefore no longer have what in the past we called "human rights."

Is that what you believe?

quote:

Well, you are certainly free to opine as you will, so I guess I'll just go ahead and restate that last part for emphasis: "... disrespectful of the dignity of human individuals." It's really rather sad; not only can you seemingly not cease appealing to conditions you later agree are not relevant, but when you actually manage to squeeze an idea out that doesn't conflict with something else you've said, it turns out to be an incredibly contemptible one. Oh well...

Contemptible? I've stated that I believe all humans have the right to life. You're stating that only humans deemed worthy of the title "person" have the right to live.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Men really have no place deciding these sorts of things, unless you're in a relationship with someone looking at it as an option. It's amusing how America has a tendency to make non-issues of issues, and issues of non-issues. Besides, last I checked, every time a male ejaculates, millions of potential "life" cells are left to compete and die. Only one survives. What's the deal when religious nutheads are trying to use science as their defense for their bullshittery non-issues?

Where has religion ever entered my argument? Are you saying that if I believe something even remotely analogous to that of an established religion I'm using religion to defend my position? Most religions are against rape and murder, so I guess if I'm against rape and murder I must be a religious nuthead. Further, if we aren't supposed to use religion to defend our arguments, which I agree with to a certain extent, and we're not allowed to use science either, exactly what are we supposed to use?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Shibby Men really have no place deciding these sorts of things, unless you're in a relationship with someone looking at it as an option. It's amusing how America has a tendency to make non-issues of issues, and issues of non-issues. Besides, last I checked, every time a male ejaculates, millions of potential "life" cells are left to compete and die. Only one survives. What's the deal when religious nutheads are trying to use science as their defense for their bullshittery non-issues?

You should read this http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ship_of_Fools

Re: Re: Bwahaha we got JOEBIALEK's thread over 100 replies!

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono I'll say it yet again, I'm discussing certain pro-choice arguments, which in this case is the idea that abortion is simply the "woman having control over her own body." The genetic uniqueness has a role because abortion is not simply a woman altering her own body, but also that of another entirely unique human. I completely agree once a life has begun, whatever process that brought it there is completely irrelevant to whether its death is morally acceptable. One more time; uniqueness does have importance, because it makes the pro-choice argument I just stated completely inaccurate.

Are you suggesting that if the fetus were genetically identical to the woman, then it would be part of her body? I don't see the relevance there, either. Even if a woman somehow conceived a 'clone' of herself, it wouldn't make it part of her body, would it?

Moreover, a "woman having control over her own body" would include a woman being able to determine whether or not things that are not part of her body may remain inside her body, would it not? So unless you disagree that a woman should have control over her own body in the first place, in which case, your "genetic uniqueness" argument is even less relevant, then you must agree that she ought not to be forced to keep a fetus in her body against her will.

quote:

I've further refined my definition of "capacity" with terms like "natural," "spontaneous," "intrinsic," because my initial statement was obviously too succinct and to prone to be torn apart. I have no problem with people dissecting what I've said, but I'm simply better defining my position, not appending any more requirements than I initially felt was appropriate. If you must, simply replace "capacity" with "intrinsic ability." That's probably more accurate anyway.

Very well; that certainly does solve the apparent problem.

It's really not relevant to the discussion anyway, since we both agree that the thing being aborted is, in fact, human, but, purely out of curiosity, suppose that someone did not consider either of two things being killed to be human. Further suppose that they agreed that one of them had the intrinsic ability to become a human, and the other, while it was capable of becoming a human, required considerable scientific intervention in order to do so.

On what basis would you suggest to them that they should consider the killing of the former wrong, and be unconcerned with the killing of the latter?

quote:

Without fertilization an egg and sperm do not have the ability to become a new human on their own and without lots of test tubes and money, somatic cells also lack that ability. I don't get upset with the death of either.

Most of that explanation was unnecessary given your prior adjustment of your verbiage, but I must take issue with this particular statement because it implies that a fetus has the ability to become a new human "on its own." A fetus' ability to become a new human is entirely dependent on the woman carrying it, at least for the majority of pregnancy. If that woman were to die, for instance, the fetus would not develop into a new human "on its own."

quote:

It's still wrong, but it's also wrong to remove someone's right at no fault of their own. I'm not fan of abortion, regardless of the circumstance, but I'm also no fan of unjustly revoking someone of their personal rights and freedoms.

If the fetus is a person and has a right to life, then you are revoking someone of their personal rights and freedoms either way -- why, in this case and only this case, should it be the fetus? Do you believe the right to life is less important than the woman's rights which would be removed if she were forced to carry the child to term?

Why should the fetus of an involuntary conception be condemned to death while the fetus of a conception that resulted from a voluntary act be protected above and beyond the rights of the woman carrying it?

quote:

What exactly is your definition of "natural?" I'm getting the feeling that you're going down the line that anything humans develop "by their biological nature" is natural? Pesticides, antibiotics, tattoos, plastic surgery, doping in sports are all natural because they're things we've developed and decided to do occasionally? Is there anything that is not natural then? I'm not looking for super-natural forces, simply external ones. And I do consider surgical abortions or those caused by chemical means to be by external forces. If you remove the surgeon or the drugs, the abortion does not occur "naturally."

Anything which follows from nature is, in my view, natural. If not, then what distinguishes the natural from that which is not natural? How does that which is not natural follow only from that which is natural?

quote:

We are constantly trying to reduce miscarriages. In most cases miscarriages occur due to genetic defects that make the developing fetus non-viable. If we can cure these, we should. Just like we should be looking for a cure for cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, inborn errors of metabolism...the list goes on and on. However, in all these cases of death by genetic error, there was no conscious decision by another individual to kill that person. Death through abortion is a preventable death; death through spontaneous abortion is not.

It may be preventable if sufficient research were devoted to it -- but I doubt you would claim that the amount of research devoted to preventing spontaneous abortion is commensurate to the proportion of human fatalities it causes. Given the apparent disparity, that billions die while we devote our energy to solving problems that affect fewer than 1% as many human beings, don't you object? If you believe all human lives have equal value, then it seems to me that you would have to agree that our research efforts are, at the very least, misplaced.

quote:

Classy. Is that your opinion?

I prefer to call it a "reasoned judgment."

quote:

Well, that's quite troubling in my opinion. We're now at the point where you're stating it's only wrong to kill a human if they're deemed a "person," and that definition is based only on the beliefs of other "persons."

Are you suggesting that it would be less troubling if we were at the point where you're stating that it's ok to kill a human if someone deems there to be a "valid reason" based only on the belief of another human?

quote:

So if someone doesn't fit your definition of "person," there's no harm in killing them or revoking their rights. Premature infants, those in comas, with severe mental or physical retardation may not meet someone's definition of "person" and therefore no longer have what in the past we called "human rights." Is that what you believe?

I must refer you back to my own words:

"There may be other reasons why it would be wrong to kill a human, including one who is not a person, but they would have to be justified by more than an appeal to an inherent 'wrongness' in killing human beings."

I do not propose that "personhood" is the be-all, end-all measure of what human beings are okay to kill and what human beings are not. I do propose that it limits what human beings may be afforded rights.

Given that those fetuses which have not reached personhood have neither presently or in the past had meaningful interactions with other human beings in society, have never possesed desires, dreams, ambitions, et cetera, are of little utilitarian value to society (under present circumstances, at least), and so on, I fail to see any justification for prohibiting their killing that outweighs the limitation that such a prohibition would definitively place upon the rights of the women required to carry them.

In the case of a premature infant, for example, there is no conflict created by protecting the infant's life -- no one's rights may be impinged upon in order for that infant to live. Consequently, a prohibition against anyone killing that infant requires considerably less justification.

quote:

Contemptible? I've stated that I believe all humans have the right to life. You're stating that only humans deemed worthy of the title "person" have the right to live.

Yes, it is absolutely contemptible as far as I can see. The notion that the life of a zygote, incapable of the most basic precursors of human thought, deserves the same protection as do the lives of my friends and family is a grave insult to those people and it is one that I positively have nothing but the most extreme contempt for.

How can one even operate sensibly under such a premise? If the lives of embryos and actual people are of equal value, all manner of implausible things follow. For example, if we extrapolate upon the birth rate and spontaneous abortion rate, then, by a conservative estimate, over 200 million "humans" are spontaneously aborted each year. If two-thirds of the population of the U.S. died of some widespread plague in a single year, then it might be as many "people." Would you seriously suggest that I consider those 200 million deaths to be of no greater significance than a year's worth of spontaneous abortions which effectively no one cares one whit about?

I can't even begin to understand where you're coming from; the premises which are apparently fundamental to your opinion appear so unconscionable to me that to see someone who reasons from them preach morality is one of the most outrageously ludicrous things I have ever observed in my entire life, and that is saying something. And in spite of all that, I still believe that your life deserves a level of protection that an embryo simply does not -- a dignity that you apparently refuse to even extend to those people closest to you.

I really, truly hope that I am right in my belief that the beliefs that underlie your opinion in this matter are not beliefs that you actually hold, but merely post hoc rationalizations for a position decided upon intuitively which take the form of canned arguments with premises never meant to be considered in a context outside of the issue for which they were adopted. If that's not the case -- scratch that. It is the case. It has to be.

good points

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