I'm with PKC on this one, a woman has and should have the right to choose whether to proceed with a pregnancy or not. There are many situations that would warrant the termination of a pregnancy such as the child as a result of rape example that has already been used.

I think that giving a woman the choice is what is important, regardless of YOUR moral stance on the matter, SHE should have the opportunity of choose. Some women would see it as wrong and not go through but some would see it as the only course of action left open to them. I highly doubt that any woman will go around having abortions for the hell of it. I think that for anyone, regardless of them being for or against abortion, deciding to have one would be one of the hardest decisions they would ever make.

The mention of a fathers right to also have a say in a termination raises an interesting point. If I was having a baby with someone and they decided to end the pregnancy and I didn't agree I would try to convince them otherwise and hope that she would see my point of view but in the end I would have to respect their right to decide what is going to happen to their body, because what right do I have to make a woman have a baby that she doesn't want to have.

Outlawing abortion is a completely ridiculous idea, all that would achieve is illegal abortions being carried out but untrained people in poor conditions. keeping abortion legal means that it is safer for the mother and that it can be regulated in so far as limitations in gestation after which a pregnancy can't be terminated.

The greatest problem with this issue is that every circumstance is different and it is impossible to cover ever circumstance in a law.

___________________
Pioneer CDJ-200s, Sony MDR-V700DJ,ASUS M51Sn Ableton Live 8, Behringer BCF-2000, Behringer BCR-2000, Vestax VMC-004FX

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 get that feeling as well, but if such petty resentment is at the root of his point of view then that's pretty contemptible itself. Honestly his position is so incoherent I just want more for the sheer entertainment value of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Um, a fetus? Are you being intentionally dense? That question is about as "good" as this one: If you're not Abraham Lincoln, who are you? Homer Simpson? Given your take on this issue, I'd be inclined to suspect the latter. You first claimed that "[a fetus] unquestionable has the capacity to be [human] and therefore its death is even more wrong." But in your response to Renegade, you started affixing lots of additional requirements beyond the mere "capacity to be human": that is, it must be "genetically unique," it must be the result of a "normal" reproductive process instead of an "artificial" one, it must be the result of a conscious decision of a parent, et cetera, et cetera...

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. I also said that cloning was an artificial process that was completely voluntary that had issues of its own to deal with, but that is not the topic of this thread. And I never, never said that a fetus has the ability to be human, but that it is. The question that has muddied the water is when a "person" comes into existence being the defining factor of when an abortion is acceptable, even though "person," in my definition, is a cognitive construct.

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.

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.

quote:

What on Earth do any of those things have to do with the rightness or wrongness of killing something? Look, regardless of what you want to call "it," that developing human life is the same thing whether it was the result of normal biological reproduction or some other artifice, whether it happens to have different or the same genetic structure as another, and so on. Why should any of these factors even remotely play a part in whether or not it is wrong to prevent that life from developing fully? Why should a human life that was created "artificially" be less worthy of protection than one that wasn't? Why should a human life which isn't genetically unique be allowed to perish, while you consider it morally repugnant to kill one that is? The underlying morality here is so half-baked I can't even begin to unravel its grotesqueries.

I'm completely missing the part where cloning/artificial reproductive methods entered the picture. I deferred that issue long ago when it was first presented. Again, I'm dealing with abortion in the case of normal sexual reproduction between consenting individuals. 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. The only time I ever said otherwise was when a pregnancy was forced, and even then I said I'd do everything I could to try to talk the woman into carrying the child to term.

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.

___________________
I've never been able to eat a whole baby.
Kill the women. Eat the children.
It's just one of those days where you want to bend over everyone you know and kiss their ass goodbye with a big sideways boot.

Latest Mix

Last edited by Zild on Feb-07-2008 at 14:57

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.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

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 RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

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....

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine?

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.

___________________
http://www.myspace.com/topix101

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.

___________________
I wish I were 日本語.