|
So my friend is driving his ex girlfiend up to DC for an abortion. (pg. 11)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
What is blue and yellow and sits at the bottom of the pool?
Baby with slashed floaties.
|
You guys are sick... but this made me laugh :haha:
I like the word "floaties". Haha! *Cue me envisioning someone swimming up to a baby and knifing their floaties*
LOL! :stongue: |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | | Theresa posting, with some valid points |
it depends on what period of time you consider babies to have "moral status". according to christians it is when the baby is first concieved, i.e. sperm-fertilize-egg. perhaps it's when the fetus begins to develop human characteristics?
saying that kids thrown "into the system" will end up being dysfunctional (and therefore claiming it is ok to kill them) is a claim, opinion, whatever. not every child will become charles manson because they were put in foster care. based on this assumption, if you agree that fetuses have moral status at the moment of conception (which you don't) then you must agree that any kid of any age thrown into foster care can be killed morally (otherwise they might turn into a PSYCHO KILLER!!1)
i think what thomson is trying to say is it's NOT okay for a woman to knowingly have intercourse, up and become pregnant, and then say "meh, i never wanted this" and kill it. that's irresponsibility a) for taking a risk such as intercourse, knowing full well the possible repercussions and b) for not taking care of their offspring/taking responsibility for their actions.
So no, thomson isn't saying "you must keep the baby no matter what", thomson is saying that if you know of the full consequences of your actions, you cannot abort. The violinist mimics the idea of rape- you never asked to get raped. you never asked to get plugged into a violinist. therefore you have the right to abort.
Now say you did something that gave you the RISK of having a violinist attached to you, and you knew that there might be a POSSIBILITY of having said violinist attached. IF a violinist became attached to you, it would be morally impermissible to detach yourself.
which goes back to my original point: abortion is wrong, except for in cases of self-defense, rape, and incest. |
|
|
| Zild |
| Nobody gives a man we want dead baby jokes OK? |
|
|
| Arbiter |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
it depends on what period of time you consider babies to have "moral status". according to christians it is when the baby is first concieved, i.e. sperm-fertilize-egg. perhaps it's when the fetus begins to develop human characteristics? |
21 |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
21 |
:stongue: that sounds about right |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
Nobody gives a man we want dead baby jokes OK? |
oh, my bad. i'm pretty sure i wasn't talking to you.
...
what do you get when you put a dead baby in a blender??
...an erection :wtf: |
|
|
| Zild |
See there we go. Now you feel better?
I also agree 21 is a good age for babies to have rights. |
|
|
| Ivand |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
21 |
exactly, i dont see how some cells can have 'human' status |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
See there we go. Now you feel better?
|
due to the raging erection... ?
.. a little bit. |
|
|
| Theresa |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
it depends on what period of time you consider babies to have "moral status". according to christians it is when the baby is first concieved, i.e. sperm-fertilize-egg. perhaps it's when the fetus begins to develop human characteristics?
saying that kids thrown "into the system" will end up being dysfunctional (and therefore claiming it is ok to kill them) is a claim, opinion, whatever. not every child will become charles manson because they were put in foster care. based on this assumption, if you agree that fetuses have moral status at the moment of conception (which you don't) then you must agree that any kid of any age thrown into foster care can be killed morally (otherwise they might turn into a PSYCHO KILLER!!1)
i think what thomson is trying to say is it's NOT okay for a woman to knowingly have intercourse, up and become pregnant, and then say "meh, i never wanted this" and kill it. that's irresponsibility a) for taking a risk such as intercourse, knowing full well the possible repercussions and b) for not taking care of their offspring/taking responsibility for their actions.
So no, thomson isn't saying "you must keep the baby no matter what", thomson is saying that if you know of the full consequences of your actions, you cannot abort. The violinist mimics the idea of rape- you never asked to get raped. you never asked to get plugged into a violinist. therefore you have the right to abort.
Now say you did something that gave you the RISK of having a violinist attached to you, and you knew that there might be a POSSIBILITY of having said violinist attached. IF a violinist became attached to you, it would be morally impermissible to detach yourself.
which goes back to my original point: abortion is wrong, except for in cases of self-defense, rape, and incest. |
I really think you are taking your own complete spin on Thomsons literature. She is pro-abortion, so however you manage to get a message suggesting she is anti-abortion is completely fabricated by your own opinion.
I think it is safe to say that any child put into the "system" will be dysfunctional on some level, whether it be socially, mentally, emotionally or whatever. Being brought up in foster homes your entire life takes a toll on a human being, and has been scientifically proven that a lack of interaction with the mother during infancy will cause irreversible consequences. Do some research of the affects on children and animals that have been brough up without a mother. It is actually very interesting.
Anyway, I digress.
It is very hard to make a point to someone who is religious, primarily because their beliefs are based off of what an old book says, and most religious people aren't willing to accept that all of what the bible says isn't necessarily true, or interpreted properly.
I am obviously not religious, but I was brought up in a very religious family, and so come from a very religious foundation. I know a thing or two about christianity. I don't think that God, all merciful and powerful as he is, would smite someone for not choosing to have a baby that was made without the intentions of ever wanting it. I believe God, of all entities, would be appreciative of the true intentions of an abortion, which is to avoid bringing a life into the world that cannot be properly sustained in love and care.
I understand your argument about knowing the risk of possibly "having a voilinist attach itself to you", and therefore making it your responsibility to accept those consequences. However, on the same turn, is it ok to accept those consequences, and then leave the violinist to suffer? Is it fair to let that violinist attach itself to you and then later abandon it for someone else to take care of it?
I don't like the whole "morally" correct stuff... I don't think there is anyone on this planet that has a moral high ground to make a judgement call on what is "moral" or not.
I think it all comes down to what you feel is right for you. |
|
|
| Omega_Blue |
| quote: | Originally posted by Theresa
|
perhaps thompson is pro-abortion, but i'm saying that her argument (whether purposely or not) only suggests justification in cases of rape. what steps did you take to avoid getting attached to the violinist? none? well then that's your up. remember, you were KIDNAPPED. forced. most cases of pregnancies are not "forced."
the main idea is, abortion is ok in cases of SD, R, I. it is NOT okay because of irresponsibility on the mother's part.
another thompson analogy...
| quote: | J.J. Thompson cites another analogy to illustrate the absurdity of the claim that a woman does not have the right to terminate an accidental pregnancy:
An intruder enters a house because a window is left open and is asked to leave. However the intruder refuses to leave because he has the right to stay since he was able to get in.
This is absurd – an intruder (foetus) has no right to your property (body) |
the problem with this, as with most feminist-ethics views on abortion:
- this theory treats offspring as an object, not a person.
- this theory assumes the offspring is an "intruder."
- the offspring has no choice as to whether it should be in the "house" or not.
...ANNNDDD.. the religion thing will not work in an abortion argument. God would NOT want you to kill your baby. under any circumstances. unless he/she deemed so. It's part of the ten commandments. And furthermore, since God creates life, he created your baby, and has a plan for said baby. to kill the baby would be to defy God's plan. (but then again one could say that you would kill it no matter what, God planned on you killing it, and the death of the baby is part of God's plan also. you could never truly figure that out). You can't possibly say that God would definitely want you to kill the baby, for the sake of a "better life." In the end, you can never know what life that child will lead, so i think the "better life" argument is flawed. |
|
|
|
|
