Okay folks. Here's another abortion thread.
First things first.
Do you think abortion is good or bad/right or wrong/okay or not okay? Do you think it should be allowed? If so, why? If not, why?
I don't think early abortion it should be banned. Why not? Because I don't see concieved featus's, before a certain stage, as being actual human lives. We've already argued about that to death, everyone has a differing opinion.
I dont think it should be encouraged, and it should be done as early as possible before the featus develops too far from multi-cell organism to somehting that actually looks like an unfinished child.
But I wouldn't ban it, there are cases where the child just isn't needed, wanted, or anything. I wouldn't want to deny said women the chance not to be mothers, which is a ridiculous emotional strain; whether they keep the child or not.
I'm less interested in "right" and "wrong" and more interested in the nature of the question and what about it makes it so divisive. It really comes down to the tension between two "rights." In order to come up with an informed decision, one must determine three things.
Firstly, we must consider the extent to which a human fetus has a "right to life."
Next, we must consider the extent to which a pregnant woman has the "right to choice" concerning her own body.
Once both of these rights have been determined, the question is one of proportionality. One of the rights must trump the other.
Most people would agree that the right to life, IN GENERAL, trumps the right to choice. What this means is that while you have "freedom of choice" to act as you please, my "right to life" trumps it in that you cannot kill me simply because you choose to. The question of abortion, however, complicates things by questioning the applicability of BOTH of these rights.
Here is one hypothetical position.
Position A
The human fetus has NO RIGHT to life because it is not yet a human person. The woman has EVERY RIGHT to choose because it is her body. Abortion is all right.
Here is its opposite.
Position B
The human fetus has EVERY RIGHT to life because it is a human person. The woman has NO RIGHT to choose because her body is not merely her own, but shared with the fetus. Abortion is wrong.
Most "pro-choice" people agree with Position A. Most "pro-life" people fall somewhere between Position A and B.
That said, I suppose I ought to give an actual answer to the original questions.
The Fetus does indeed have a right to life. A fetus is both (A) human and (B) alive, which makes it a human life. If not, then WHEN does it gain its right to life? Is there some magical cut-off date at which it becomes right? If it is wrong to kill a fetus when it is "viable" to survive outside the womb, then what about three minutes before? six minutes? an hour? an hour and three minutes?
At the same time, a woman does have the right to have control over her own body. But the fetus is not merely part of her body. It has its own DNA. From the moment of its conception, it was an entirely seperate person.
In my opinion, the fetus's right to life will (in most cases) trump the woman's right to choice. Therefore, I am opposed to the idea of abortion. But should it be illegal? Probably not. After all, if all the laws in the U.S. were based on my personal opinion of right and wrong, it would be a sorry country to live in.
There are Jews in the world.
There are Buddhists.
There are Hindus and Mormons, and then
There are those that follow Mohammed, but
I've never been one of them.
I'm a Roman Catholic,
And have been since before I was born,
And the one thing they say about Catholics is:
They'll take you as soon as you're warm.
You don't have to be a six-footer.
You don't have to have a great brain.
You don't have to have any clothes on. You're
A Catholic the moment Dad came,
Because
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Let the heathen spill theirs
On the dusty ground.
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found.
Every sperm is wanted.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Hindu, Taoist, Mormon,
Spill theirs just anywhere,
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood!
Every sperm is useful.
Every sperm is fine.
God needs everybody's.
Mine! And mine! And mine!
Let the Pagan spill theirs
O'er mountain, hill, and plain.
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is good.
Every sperm is needed
In your neighbourhood.
Every sperm is sacred.
Every sperm is great.
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite iraaaaate!
I only start caring from the moment of conception. Once the sperm and egg cell fully join to form a zygote, then I start caring.
I could care less about the sperm and egg cell on their own. That means a yes for condom use. Monogamously, that is.
What Dirk said, but I'd use, in a practical sense, a graduated system. The earlier the abortion is done, the better, and the later, the more like murder it is. If it has virtually no brain, I consider it not an owner of rights. Braindead people can be disconnected legally and it is often better for them and everyone involved to do so, and the same can be said in some cases of abortion.
Quote:
I only start caring from the moment of conception. Once the sperm and egg cell fully join to form a zygote, then I start caring.
I could care less about the sperm and egg cell on their own. That means a yes for condom use. Monogamously, that is.
Why? Does having combined DNA make a huge difference in your moral system? Or do you believe the soul enters at that time? You won't find much support, scientific or biblical, for it, so should a person's conjecture decide laws?
I'm pro-choice, for a fairly simple reason: if the child is not wanted, then it is unfair to force the family into a commitment they may not be able to afford. The child is unlikely to have a good quality of life, and it places the mother at risk during her pregnancy, and shortly afterwards.
Also, just being pragmatic, abortions are potentially dangerous if performed without appropriate care, but if people really don't want the child they will find some way to get an abortion.
In an ideal world there would be no need for abortions, since people would only make such a commitment if they were willing and able. However, contraceptive methods are imperfect (other than celibacy), and our current culture is generally relaxed and open about sexual relationships - indeed, it is almost becoming expected that a couple will both be experienced before marriage (some may claim it already is the expectation, but I think it is more not unexpected), and that people reaching the age of 20 or so will have lost their virginity. For better or worse, unwanted pregnancies occur - regardless of contraceptive measures - and so being allowed to have an abortion seems to me to be the price of living in a permissive society.
That said, I generally trust that those involved in the decision to have an abortion do not do so lightly, and so the choice is very much left to the conscience of the prospective parents and family.
I believe that every woman has a right to choose. If she does not believe that she should abort, then she does not have to. If she believes that she cannot care for a child or does not want a child at the current time, then she can abort and her decision can be between her and her doctor and God if she so believes in the latter.
Since such a very small percentage of abortions happen outside the first trimester, I'm not even going to raise the subject of late term abortion.
I do,however,find it somewhat troubling that the slaughter of animals who have higher brain functions than a 3 week old zygote is seen of as of lesser importance than first term abortion in our society. But that's an entirely other thread that I have no desire to start or participate in.
Is this going to be some kind of annual tradition?
I believe that every woman has a right to choose. If she does not believe that she should abort, then she does not have to. If she believes that she cannot care for a child or does not want a child at the current time, then she can abort and her decision can be between her and her doctor and God if she so believes in the latter.
But... but Astrid! Think of all the children who won't have a chance to liiiive!!!
I know, I am a truly evil woman.
If this is in anyway different from the last thread which involved the exact same people, notify me.
I don't think I have ever posted in an abortion thread, and if I did, then my position was probably different, because my current position is a relatively recent development.
In any case, can someone link to the antecedent to this thread that everyone keeps talking about? I can't seem to find any other abortion thread on the first four or five pages (although I do recall it being brought up briefly in other topics).
It's this sh*tfest over here, Dirk. I can't blame you for missing it; it's a pretty uninformative title.
You know, I didn't truly realize just how much Ultra has improved until I reread some of that thread. It's been so long since I've seen him act so obtuse and bigoted. Nice work, soldier 
Deck you really should re-read the whole "GAYZ R BAD!!11" debacle. It'll open your eyes, mang.
...Oh and I still think pro-life is a ridiculous standpoint.
Quote:
...Oh and I still think pro-life is a ridiculous standpoint.
Please elaborate.
I shall not.
Although I find that it is an interesting thing to consider that there aren't many female pro-lifers (or at least not many vocal ones).
Ann Coulter doesn't count, obviously because she's completely frigging insane.
Feminists for Life
Pro-Woman, Pro-Life
Also, as for the annual March for Life in D.C. that just occurred less than two weeks ago, most of the +100,000 crowd are young women.
So yes, there are a lot of female pro-lifers.
Female Prolifer? Isn't that like being a Jewish KKK member?
~Tobe
Quote:
Female Prolifer? Isn't that like being a Jewish KKK member?
What kind of comparison is that?
Being something and supporting something that goes against it. 
~Tobe
So being feminist =/= being pro-life in your eyes? Why?
Because prolifers are against giving women control over their bodily functions. This was all covered LAST year when you did this exact same thing. I will not get drawn into another financial debate with you Dennis, I really will not!
~Tobe
So being feminist =/= being pro-life in your eyes? Why?
We already went over this last time, so I'm only going to say this once more. Even if it's not a personal hate, pro-lifers show a distant contempt for women's rights by assuming that outright bans of any sort are needed. You obviously don't think women can or will think through the same issues you did. You think they are too dumb to make their own decisions on this issue, and you assume that they'll gravitate to the worst possible one unless given a "strong guiding hand". The sheer arrogance is astounding. You are not all that and a box of crackers.
Quote:
Because prolifers are against giving women control over their bodily functions.
This is under the assumption that the unborn child is just a part of a woman's body. Which isn't true.
Quote:
Even if it's not a personal hate, pro-lifers show a distant contempt for women's rights by assuming that outright bans of any sort are needed.
Again with the rights? How is killing an unborn child a 'right'? Explain that to me.
Quote:
You obviously don't think women can or will think through the same issues you did.
Some do. Some don't. Some are misled by abortionists. Some are convinced that the only way out is abortion. Some aren't, but are persuaded to anyway. This kind of logic is akin to saying this:
"Even if it's not a personal hate, abolitionists show a distant contempt for property rights by assuming that outright bans of any sort are needed."
A lot of people used to think that blacks were nothing more than property (in other words, less than human). That's why they thought the Constitution was on their side. We know how that turned out.
Now a lot of people think that unborn children are nothing more than just a part of a woman's body, which is not true by any biological standard. Despite that, it was somehow ruled that abortion was protected under the "right to privacy" of the Constitution's 14th Amendment.
How killing an unborn child falls under "right to privacy" is beyond me.
Quote:
You think they are too dumb to make their own decisions on this issue, and you assume that they'll gravitate to the worst possible one unless given a "strong guiding hand".
So why don't we just remove all of our laws? After all, it's just downright mean of all us to assume that we'll all gravitate to the worst possible choices. The people who murder? We don't need laws; it's just arrogant of us to assume that murderers will gravitate toward murdering someone.
It's not about arrogance. It's not about thinking that women will gravitate to the worst possible choice. It's about the practicality and principle of banning aborion.
Can we ban murder? No; there are murderers out there. That's why there are laws against murder. That's why criminals go to prison and receive punishment: to disuade society as a whole AWAY from the idea of murder and TOWARDS one that "Murder = Bad". Same applies to other crimes as well. "Crime = Bad."
Same thing here. Laws criminalizing abortion (which is what a ban would essentially be) would persuade society along the line of thought that "Abortion = Bad".
Quote:
The sheer arrogance is astounding.
If you're saying that "Feminist =/= Pro-Life", then the above statement also applies to you.
And personally, I prefer Doritos to crackers.
Quote:
pro-lifers show a distant contempt for women's rights by assuming that outright bans of any sort are needed.
Not meeeeee! Being exceptional is fun. MARBLE GARDEN IS A RIOT!!!
I'm pro-life for the same reason I'm against racism, gender discrimination and about everything else pertaining to such facts. I don't believe it's right to base humanity on anything but actual humanity. I consider myself no better or worse than what many perceive to be an insignificant clump of cells, and were the opportunity presented to me, in some twist of ironic fate, and I had to choose between my life and the life of the child, would probably have to choose the child, as I have had sixteen pretty good years on it. I can understand where someone could find this logic flawed, but then again, I suppose there are people that find every logic flawed.
That said, I would like to pose a 'what-if' question to pro-choicers:
If, by some unnatural method, we completely turn our governments around to be perfectly self-reliant and we could literally pay all medical expenses through the birth, including pain-killers, the whole nine yards, and support any (quote-unquote) unwanted fetuses through their entire life until the point of a job, or whatnot, would you change your mind at all, instead of resorting to abortion?
~Nytloc Penumbral Lightkeeper
Quote:
Again with the rights? How is killing an unborn child a 'right'? Explain that to me.
See, this @#%$ is why the abortion debate just doesn't work. It's a clash of ideologies, neither of which will ever let up.
It's a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants her body to be home to a clump of human cells for nine months. It's her right to choose whether or not she wants to go through excruciating childbirth. As has been said countless times, the majority of scientists agree that before the second or third trimester, the fetus is just a tiny clump of cells as opposed to what most people would call a "person". You're saying that a woman should give up her right over her own body for a little blob of human cells.
But everything I just said in that last paragraph is redundant. Seriously, don't even bother reading it, Ultra. Everyone who is pro-choice already knows that, and everyone who is pro-life has heard it before. There's no way people like you are going to listen to what I just said, because you have your own steadfast belief about human life that, ultimately, overrides things like scientific fact or women's rights. If you really believe that the moment sperm and egg join together is when a sacred human life is begun, then there really isn't anything I can say that will change that. And I respect that, as long as you stop pretending to be open to debate when you're just preaching to us about the evils of abortion.
That last paragraph poses an interesting what-if, nytloc. Still, unless this magically delicious society you present can somehow make up for a woman going through all the trouble of carrying a baby for nine months just to give it away to the government, my views remain pretty much the same.
Imbuing a fetus with all the rights of a person is akin to keeping a brain-dead woman on life support for twenty years for the sake of "erring on the side of life".
Quote:
See, this @#%$ is why the abortion debate just doesn't work. It's a clash of ideologies, neither of which will ever let up.
It's a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants her body to be home to a clump of human cells for nine months. It's her right to choose whether or not she wants to go through excruciating childbirth. As has been said countless times, the majority of scientists agree that before the second or third trimester, the fetus is just a tiny clump of cells as opposed to what most people would call a "person". You're saying that a woman should give up her right over her own body for a little blob of human cells.
But everything I just said in that last paragraph is redundant. Seriously, don't even bother reading it, Ultra. Everyone who has common sense is pro-choice already knows that, and everyone who is pro-life has heard it before. There's no way people like you are going to listen to what I just said, because you have your own steadfast belief about human life that, ultimately, overrides things like scientific fact or women's rights. If you really believe that the moment sperm and egg join together is when a sacred human life is begun, then there really isn't anything I can say that will change that. And I respect that, as long as you stop pretending to be open to debate when you're just preaching to us about the evils of abortion.
no your wrong
Quote:
Again with the rights? How is killing an unborn child a 'right'? Explain that to me.
Not until you answer how it is a child. I gave you this opportunity.
Quote:
Quote:
I only start caring from the moment of conception. Once the sperm and egg cell fully join to form a zygote, then I start caring.
I could care less about the sperm and egg cell on their own. That means a yes for condom use. Monogamously,
Why? Does having combined DNA make a huge difference in your moral system? Or do you believe the soul enters at that time? You won't find much support, scientific or biblical, for it, so should a person's conjecture decide laws?
If you cannot explain in a logical way why it is a child who has rights then you have no argument. What I am doing is analyzing the issue to its base argument and ignoring the cultural crap and generic talking points. This is the central question. "Murdering children" "women's rights" blah blah blah blah blah. We've heard that before since the moment we paid attention to the issue.
Quote:
As has been said countless times, the majority of scientists agree that before the second or third trimester, the fetus is just a tiny clump of cells as opposed to what most people would call a "person". You're saying that a woman should give up her right over her own body for a little blob of human cells.
"Person" must include every man, every woman, and every one of their living offspring, beginning with the totipotent cell. (Two important adjectives: "living" because we exclude corpses, including embryos or fetuses who have already died naturally. "Totipotent" because we're not talking skin or liver.)
What you're not grasping is importance of the universal human dynamic of development. A skin cell is not a person because it has no capacity to develop a mind. A totipotent human cell (that is, a zygote created by fertilization or cloning) DOES have that inner dynamic.
A human zygote at day one already has a human nature (which was transmitted at fertilization), and therefore a rational nature, and needs only 6 weeks to manifest this via measurable brain waves.
If your "strict definition" of personhood includes the criterion of brain activity which is "manifest and measurable" your cut-off point should be, at the latest, 6 weeks. But even then, you are ignoring the point about the dynamic of development. A single-cell zygote meets your criterion incipiently, because in 6 weeks his brain actvity will be manifest. A single-cell zygote, because of the dynamic and self-directed unfolding of his own nature, is not just a "potential person." He (or she) is a person...with potential. Just as a person in a coma is not a "potential person," but a person with potential.
Note: embryos are "developing" human beings. That's not what makes them different from us: that's what makes them one of us. There are only two kinds of human beings, and they're not classified as embryo and adult. I'm speaking of developing and dead.
Quote:
It's a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants her body to be home to a clump of human cells for nine months.
In the case of human conception, this is not the case (except arguably in the case of rape, which requires a different line of reasoning from which I will stay away from for the time being.) Aggressive embryos don't wander the streets awaiting their chance to take up residence in and exploit women's bodies. They are brought into being by adults: adults who are presumed - unless they are imbeciles - to know where babies come from.
Thus all people of normal intelligence ought to uphold the principle of parental obligation, because the parents brought into being their child, with his or her condition of dependency.
A fetus is a human; and moreover, a fetus has a right to be supported by his mother, because it is morally reprehensible to compel a human being who is incapable of resisting to come onto your property, and then kill him for trespassing.
Or do you think that would be okay?
Quote:
Imbuing a fetus with all the rights of a person is akin to keeping a brain-dead woman on life support for twenty years for the sake of "erring on the side of life".
There are documented cases where people who been in a coma for years have come back. For all intents and purposes, they were brain-dead (or in a vegetative state, if you want to be technical; people who are truly brain dead are in a condition of irreversible death. People in a vegetative state? Not so much). Do they stop being human?
Ultra, I don't think you read the part of my post that I actually wanted you to read.
Not that I didn't expect you to ignore it or anything. That would be too much to ask for.
Quote:
But everything I just said in that last paragraph is redundant. Seriously, don't even bother reading it, Ultra. Everyone who has common sense is pro-choice already knows that, and everyone who is pro-life has heard it before. There's no way people like you are going to listen to what I just said, because you have your own steadfast belief about human life that, ultimately, overrides things like scientific fact or women's rights. If you really believe that the moment sperm and egg join together is when a sacred human life is begun, then there really isn't anything I can say that will change that. And I respect that, as long as you stop pretending to be open to debate when you're just preaching to us about the evils of abortion.
I listen. I don't agree.
A fetus is a person in the morally relevant sense of the word, because a fetus is a living human being; the two historically recent atttempts to create two classes of human beings - one class with rights, and one class without rights - in the mid-18th and mid-20th centuries, didn't have a very good outcome.
But since morals don't seem to be of any use whatsoever, let's move onto scientific fact. Let's operate on the presupposition that, for public policy purposes, we would want to define "human" on the basis of scientific objectivity, without reference to assumptions about "souls" and "spirits" and so forth. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Now look at my previous post, and tell me what you disagree with, and why.
I wonder how much correlation there is between pro-lifers and vegetarians...
What is the correlation you speak of?
I find it funny how Ultra said he didn't agree with Deck's post and then went on to drive Deck's point home unintentionally by being just as pigheaded as he was before =)
MG really is quite lovely for things like this.
By "don't agree", I mean that I don't agree with his POV on abortion. Not my particular debating habits, which I think his observation is quite accurate.
Considering all I've learned on the subject, the odds of me changing my viewpoint are slim to none.
And I'm still waiting for an actual discussion on the information I presented in the previous post, instead of discussing me. If I had wanted that, I'd have titled this post "Ultra Sonic 007" or something to that effect.
Also, to be technical, I wasn't the one who brought up 'debate'.
Well, it is a debate forum, so if you just wanted to tell us why you're right and those of us who don't share your views are horrible people and murderers and will burn in hell and blablabla, you should have posted it somewhere else.
Like fox.com's forums. (Note that my last statement is based on the assumption that they even have forums at fox.com, I wouldn't ever go there to check)
From the top of the forum;
"This forum is for discussion involving sociology, philosophy, science, culture, opinions, gender, politics, etc."
Discussion does not always equal debate.
Back to the original question I posited; do you think abortion is good or bad/right or wrong/okay or not okay? Do you think it should be allowed? If so, why? If not, why?
Please state actual reasons. Saying "I think pro-life is a ridiculous standpoint" is insufficient. Especially when you flat-out refuse to offer justification for your reasoning. Posting a song about sperm and talking about me doesn't count either.
Well, good sir; if you do not terribly mind my saying so, the very nature of your question is inherently flawed, as it implies both that there are moral absolutes, and that there are only two answers to the given question, which there are not- there are many.
Asking a man "Is abortion good or bad?" implies that both you and the man you are asking both A) Are in knowledge of what is universally good and bad and B) Are aware of every single possible situation anyone considering an abortion could be in. As I'm sure even you will agree, both of these statements are preposterous, as no man is omniscient and, furthermore, there are no moral absolutes. Both of these are significant hurdles to be overcome before your question can logically be considered a proper question worthy of answering, but for simplicity's sake we shall focus upon your latter assumption.
Now, simply by saying "I think abortion is good" or "I think abortion is bad" you are, in effect, saying "I know everything there is to know about people and their circumstances." Simply in the issue of abortion, there are many hundreds of millions of variables involved, far too many for an absolute answer to be given. A man cannot state without seeming a fool that all abortions are immoral and should not be done, as he is saying both that one choice (not having a potentially needless abortion) is morally superior to the other (having a potentially life-saving abortion) and that he is in full knowledge of the circumstances of both the mother's current state (rape/incest victim, impoverished, etc.) and the child's future life (born with terminal illness, etc.).
Conversely, a man cannot say the opposite without, again, seeming a fool, as he is again claiming both moral superiority and omniscience.
Furthermore, in the question of whether or not to abort, there are again hundreds of smaller questions which cannot be universally decided. For example, is the life of a future human always worth the life of a current one? We, as humans, are fundamentally flawed beings and giving a positive answer to this question is far beyond the scope of our power, as with a universal ban we attempt to make ourselves into gods, creatures to toy with the fabric of life.
So no, I will not answer your question, as it is in and of itself a deeply flawed question, not worth asking or answering. I shall not attempt to make myself into a god by answering it, but will merely say this:
In a mathematical problem, one cannot always assume every variable to be the same number, for to do so would be to produce innumerable errors. So, too, goes life: One cannot assume all circumstances to be the same, for one could potentially destroy one or more lives. Thus, it is best to examine each problem individually and isolate the value of each and every variable. If this proves impossible, perhaps it is better and more merciful to take the life which has not yet lived, has not yet experienced life as it is and as such will not miss it when it is gone, in order to save uncountable amounts of pain and suffering, as well as the quite-possible death of those who have been in the throes of life.
Thusly, do I think abortion is good?
No, I do not think the act in and of itself is a good thing, but I am not so blind as to be unable to see a bright side.
Do I think it is a horrible, evil thing to be kept from those who should be able to make their own choices?
No, I am not that conceited to think I know what is best for others.
Clearly, any rational, thinking being such as we humans are supposed to be should be able to see that the answer clearly lies in the median between these two extremes, and that applying global rule is a flawed, conceited act.
Quote:
What is the correlation you speak of?
I'm merely wondering based on the similarity of arguments between why we shouldn't eat animals (They're living things that feel pain, and so should be cared for and respected and given the right to live, rather than killed for our own convenience) and why abortions should not be allowed. I guess the distinction comes down to whether you believe that something which may have greater potential for intelligence/awareness, but has no/limited present awareness is to be considered more, less, or equivalently alive as animals - which have demonstrable intelligence/awareness, although not as great as the average human.
Just a little thing I thought of...
[qoute]able. However, contraceptive methods are imperfect (other than celibacy)[/qoute]
And, because the people in the world aren't perfect and often FORCE other people to do things, even celibicy isn't perfect.
At least you actually provided some reasons.
Now granted, my original question does apply a moral absolute of sorts, despite the fact that, even on the pro-life side, there are others who would agree in certain cases where an abortion may be allowed (for instance, if a mother will be killed during the process of giving birth).
Quote:
that he is in full knowledge of the circumstances of both the mother's current state (rape/incest victim, impoverished, etc.)
Here's how I personally think of the rape situation.
Imagine that your father went out and committed a heinous crime. Then the police come to your house, arrest you, and sentence you to death without trial.
That is what happens when abortion occurs due to rape. Did the unborn human do anything wrong? No. But this line of reasoning would only apply if we are indeed human before birth. Of course, we are still human beings before birth; it's not like there's a possibility of a human embryo becoming a chicken, a whale, and a canine before coming out as a human. The human embryo is human through and through, making the following question-
Quote:
For example, is the life of a future human always worth the life of a current one?
-a flawed one. We don't become human. We are living humans through and through from conception until death.
Quote:
and the child's future life (born with terminal illness, etc.).
Now this is an interesting premise. The law does give differences between unborn children and adults, but let's just step back for a moment and look at the big picture. Other than size, level of development, the current environment, and the degree of dependence on someone else, there is no difference between a fetus and an adult. Likewise, no difference between a fetus and an infant; the former is just smaller, less developed, and more dependent on others than an infant (not by much), and the former is constricted to his mother's womb, whereas the latter is constricted only to wherever his guardian allows.
Yet we can see that, if it is okay to abort a child before birth, does that mean it would be less of a crime to kill a child than an adult? Obviously this is not the case; children are usually seen as defenseless against larger adults such as pedophiles and child molestors, hence leading to much greater outrage, most of the time, if a child is murdered than if an adult had been murdered.
Following this line of reasoning even further, would it imply that killing a teenager is less of a crime than killing a young adult? Or killing a 20-year old as less of a crime than killing a 60-year old?
Oh dear; looks like this current line of reasoning has veered off course. Let's try another one.
Considering your line about "terminal illness", one must considered what is considered a terminal illness. Would an abortion be needed in the case of something like Down's Syndrome? I should hope not; life is not perfect, as many people who have endured crippling diseases and injuries will tell you. Since we've already determined that the unborn are human, does this mean we can go around and kill the terminally ill because they are terminally ill? Even those who have a life expectancy of only a few months can go on to live even longer, maybe for a year or more.
Do we define one's human nature by their health? Do we determine that cripples or the sick are less human than the physically fit? I should hope not.
As for unborn children who are so debilitated that they'll likely die (and due to a TRULY terminal illness, not something like a jaw defect.), I'll leave that one alone.
Quote:
We, as humans, are fundamentally flawed beings and giving a positive answer to this question is far beyond the scope of our power, as with a universal ban we attempt to make ourselves into gods, creatures to toy with the fabric of life.
The same line of reasoning could be applied to abortion; does deciding who gets to live and who gets to die also not our attempt to toy with the fabric of life, to make ourselves into gods? To have the lives of the truly defenseless at the mercy of others?
Quote:
So no, I will not answer your question, as it is in and of itself a deeply flawed question, not worth asking or answering. I shall not attempt to make myself into a god by answering it, but will merely say this: In a mathematical problem, one cannot always assume every variable to be the same number, for to do so would be to produce innumerable errors. So, too, goes life: One cannot assume all circumstances to be the same, for one could potentially destroy one or more lives. Thus, it is best to examine each problem individually and isolate the value of each and every variable. If this proves impossible, perhaps it is better and more merciful to take the life which has not yet lived, has not yet experienced life as it is and as such will not miss it when it is gone, in order to save uncountable amounts of pain and suffering, as well as the quite-possible death of those who have been in the throes of life.
Is it not also conceited to determine the value of a life that hasn't been lived yet? To determine that it would be better to die than experience pain (death also removes the chance to experience things other than pain, FYI)?
Likewise with abortion, the circumstances differ for those who murder. Some are just nuts. Some have legitimate reasons ("revenge killing"). Does the law treat murderers differently from other murderers? No.
The same goes for abortion.
THS (11:26 am): "Ultra this is a debate forum, but your opinion is unyielding so there's no point." "THIS IS NOT A DEBATE TOPIC AIR YOUR OPINION." "ungh, fine *do*" "YOUR OPINION IS WRONG. HAHAHA I WIN."
I think Wes summed up what just happened quite well.
Personally, I refuse to follow this "discussion" anymore. Talking to a brick wall makes you look insane in real life, so why shouldn't it be that way on the internet?
You don't f**king get it, do you?
Jesus Christ f**king a crackwhore, it's like trying to have an open intellectual discussion with one of those pullstring dolls that say the same thing over and over.
This has gone past talking to a brick wall, it's progressed to beating our heads into a bloody pulp against the brick wall's unyielding face.
Look at the brick wall calling the brick wall a brick wall.
All I'm trying to point out is that, after following your lines of reasoning to their logical conclusions, flaws arise.
Instead of insulting me ad hominem, why don't you actually do something more productive? Because if this were a real live debate, this would be the point - judging from your latest post - that you lose your cool, rant and swear at me, and stomp away from the podium.
Probably refreshing to let loose like that, but it wouldn't go a long way towards convincing the audience of your viewpoint.
I really should know better than to waste my time here, but oh well...
Quote:
Here's how I personally think of the rape situation.
Imagine that your father went out and committed a heinous crime. Then the police come to your house, arrest you, and sentence you to death without trial.
I find something very interesting about your comparison here. Particularily, it only accounts for the rapist and the embryo. I'm left to assume the rape victim doesn't factor into your view.
Pregnancy and assault on their own are both extremely emotional things. With pregnancy as a result of something so horrible as rape it's hugely compounded. Even without taking the possibility of abortion into question, the stress and emotional turmoil are huge.
Purely in the sense of "person being is killed because the father commited a crime," sure, it doesn't sound fair, but that's not the entire situation and it doesn't take a very important aspect into consideration at all. At least try to comprehend all the aspects of growing a potential human being within one's body over a period of nine months, especially if one didn't intend to become pregnant and love wasn't involved.
I'll credit Ultra with presenting a scientific response. Many responses to it were ad hominem and uncalled for. What he said, however, fits my opinion that the level of rights should be gradual. He said that brain activity can be detected at 6 days, however the level of brain activity is also something to be considered. And of course the circumstances of each situation - as Bat said, it's too unique to make any but the most liberal statements.
However, I don't see a practical difference between 9-month abortion and killing the baby after birth. It's rarely used, however, and is generally done so as an emergency. I would support making it emergency-only legally.
