Also, you keep asking for proof that a fetus is a living thing, a person. Can you proove that it is NOT? You're armchair quarterbacking everyone's opinion without putting forth any valuable information yourself.
In what ways is a fetus not a living thing, ADF?
__________________
"Pull up a stool. Nothing to do except shot after shot. Drink till I puke, and I'm standing on the edge of what is real." - Smile Empty Soul
"I love those moments. I like to wave at them as they pass by." - Captain Jack Sparrow
You say personhood begins at conception. That is an opinion, not a fact. You've addressed my questions somewhat, but haven't really answered any of them. I still need to hear a plan for taking care of tens of millions of additional children. I am still wating to hear how your plan to enforce an abortion ban would differ from pervious plans. You are kind of repeating talking points, not providing answers.
Or you're just refusing to understand the arguments.
Well, I think personhood beginning at conception is factual. Tell me: how do you define and indicate personhood? Let me take a swing at your potential response: personhood comes to be when an individual has the ability to exorcise reason and has some kind of self-awareness? If that's the case, then people in comas, some of the mentally disabled, infants and children, as well as those people suffering from mentally degenerative diseases i.e. dementia are no more persons than embryos. In which case, they have no right to life.
You should really consider how you define who is a person i.e. has a right to life, because the route you're bound to take is one with detrimental logical conclusions, I assure you.
There's no way there would be tens of millions of additional children if abortion was made illegal. Maybe if people knew that they couldn't go around having unprotected sex without having to worry about the consequences because they can just go to their local clinic and get it "taken care of," they would actually be more responsible in their actions.
Just a thought.
__________________
"Our dad use to murder us in cold blood each night and dance about on our graves singing, 'Alleluia!'" John Cleese in the skit Four Yorkshiremen
You've clearly explained your views about the human feotus. The questions I would ask you include:
1) Considering 1 in 4 pregnancies in the US are terminated, how would you go about feeding, housing, educating and providing health care for the tens of millions of additional children who would be be born each year if abortions were no longer performed? I've never heard anyone from the pro-life camp address this issue.
To say it would be too expensive to care for all these children were they allowed to live is a very weak argument. Especially when you point out that there are more than enough resources considering we produce twice as much food as necessary to sustain life. To demand a firm, worked out plan from people who's opinion is pro life is absurd when you yourself have no plan either other than "continue aborting". Where there is a will there is a way. If we can afford to give AIG executives millions in bonuses, we can afford to cloth, house, and feed children given up for adoption. You make very weak arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADF
2) You've made clear the basis for your opposition to abortion is religious. Do you think religious people should be able to deny desired medical services to non-religious people? That seems like forcing one's own religious views on others.
She also backed up these religious views with scientific facts, a fetus is a living thing, it has a heartbeat, breathes, and requires nutrition to stay alive. Don't ignore scientific fact and focus merely on religious views. Another weak argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADF
3) How would you go about enforcing the abortion ban? Banning abortions has never prevented them from occuring. How would you make sure it did this time?
As stated before, abortions have been happening since the dawn of time, and are not likely to stop happening any time soon. But to say that heavy regulation wouldn't have any effect on abortion rates is absurd. You're assuming that all women will simply have it done anyway in an illegal manor- wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADF
The last point I would make is that the comparison between murder and abortion is a faulty one.
That really is tough. I'm pretty sure that if it became illegal, fewer women would get abortions, although many still would. If it were illegal, abortions would be a dangerous operation that would could possibly injure the mother as well. Personally, I think it should be a requirement that anyone going in for an abortion be put through at least 3 weeks of some sort of counseling class that educates the woman on abortion and what exactly she is killing. If that were to happen, I think the number of women to actually go through with it would decline.
Also, the whole "woman's choice thing" is deffinitely missing one vote: the man's. It takes two to make a baby, and two to give the baby up for adoption. I think the man should have the right to stop the woman from killing her unborn child.
Personally, I am very against abortions of all kinds, but I understand that not everyone in the country is going to feel this way. Sometimes the best you can do is take baby steps.
I will preface my opinion by saying that I am against late term abortion only.
Aside from that, I think that people need to stop using terms like "baby" and "child" to describe blastocysts, embryos and zygotes. A clump of cells no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence is NOT a baby. It is no more morally wrong for a woman to rid her body of these cells using a pill than it is for her to do it via menstruation.
__________________
"Master, he must be dreaming! Well, if he is dreaming, then he must be asleep, and if he is asleep, then I will wake him up!"
Do you think it is possible to believe abortion is morally wrong, yet still see that criminalizing it is bad public policy?
I ask becasue the unstated assumption behind the anti-choice (aka "pro-life) position seems to be that if legal access to abortion can be curtailed, the practice will end. This is nonsense. Women had abortions in the US before Row v. Wade. Millions of women have illegal abortions all over the world every day.
Since ending abortion is an impossibility, what is to be gained by criminalizing it?
Quote:
But I think I need to restate part of my original post because it's essence has gotten lost during the course of this discussion. My point was that even if I believed abortion were inherently wrong, I would still hold that criminalizing it is bad public policy. Making abortion illegal won't ever stop abortions from happening. The "pro-life" position is, in practice, a pro-criminalization position. Debates about when life begins are totally theoretical and philosophical; they have nothing to do with the reality of the situation at ground level.
For one, I don't think you can seperate the importance of the theoretical in the actualization of the practical. So, yes: it is important to know whether or not a zygote is a person in order to indicate whether or not abortion is morally wrong in order to answer your original question as to whether it should be made illegal. The whole point of our legal system is to uphold morality. If it is not doing that, then the system needs to be altered. So, for example, if dating someone of the opposite race were illegal, the question of morality would have to be considered, then, once it was determined that dating someone of the opposite race is perfectly moral, the legal system would have to be altered.
So, in light of that, to answer your question--again: abortion should be made illegal because it is the immoral destruction of an innocent human-person's life. Period.
Quote:
Making abortion illegal won't ever stop abortions from happening.
You're absolutely right. Just as making murder illegal doesn't stop it from happening. Just like making theft illegal doesn't stop it from happening. Just like making rape illegal doesn't stop it from happening.
Whether or not making abortion illegal stops it from happening is irrelevant--what's relevant is that the law reflects a certain moral code put into practice. That's all. That's why we have an established government instead of an anarchy. It's not a relativistic, do-what-every-you-want, the strong prevail, and the winner-takes-all kind of establishment. Here in America, we are interested in objective equality that is established in theoretical morality and put into practice by the law.
Actually, the purpose of the law is NOT to create a moral society, at least not within Western theories of jurisprudence. Now if you turn to some non-Western sources of law--Sharia, for example--it's a different story.
Deciding whether a zygote is a person is arbitrary. There is no definitive test to determine when life begins, because no such moment exists. "Life" is an abstraction. People who claim life begins at conception are just repeating a religious dogma. Trying to craft social policy around such an idea is like to trying to determine how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. It can't be done.
A much better measure is what creates the most positive benefits for people in the society while causing the least harm. By that measure, the pro-choice position wins hands down.
Actually, the purpose of the law is NOT to create a moral society, at least not within Western theories of jurisprudence. Now if you turn to some non-Western sources of law--Sharia, for example--it's a different story.
Deciding whether a zygote is a person is arbitrary. There is no definitive test to determine when life begins, because no such moment exists. "Life" is an abstraction. People who claim life begins at conception are just repeating a religious dogma. Trying to craft social policy around such an idea is like to trying to determine how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. It can't be done.
A much better measure is what creates the most positive benefits for people in the society while causing the least harm. By that measure, the pro-choice position wins hands down.
Wow. A utilitarian, are you?
Still, claiming to know "positive benefits for people in the society while causing the least harm" is a consideration of morality. As soon as terms like "positive" and "negative" get thrown around, we are talking about morality. "Killing is negative" equates "Killing is immoral."
If you are so set on holding the morality of abortion, I would ask you to explain why abortion is acceptable but infanticide is not. If one is going to legalize abortion, why not infanticide? How one can be disturbing to you, but not the other is disturbing to me!
The human-organism's life clearly begins at conception (after potential twinning, day 14, at the latest), just as the kitten's life begins at conception (after potential twinning, at the latest). VERY few educated people--none that I know of--would ever argue against that point. Now, whether or not that life is a person who is deserving of a right to life: that is where there is debate.
Last edited by always_searching; 25th October 2009 at 10:23 PM..
The human-organism's life clearly begins at conception (after potential twinning, day 14, at the latest), just as the kitten's life begins at conception (after potential twinning, at the latest). VERY few educated people--none that I know of--would ever argue against that point.
Sorry, but that's just false. That's just not accurate. But, as I said before, it is irrevelant to the discussion.
The difference between a feotus and a baby is that the former is a potential human being, while the latter is a human being. It's not complicated. An egg that never gets fertilized is also a potential human being. A sperm cell that never finds an egg is also a potential human being. Maybe we should ban masturbation as well as abortion.
Infantacide occurs in a completely different social context than abortion. For example, societies in which infanticide commonly occurs (or used to commonly occur) are often societies where women were devalued. Male children were seen as a family asset; female children as a family liability. Female infanticide both reflected and reinforced those values.
By contrast, societies that allow women access to safe and legal abortion are also societies that value gender equality and thr rights of children. In pro-choice Denmark, children recieve free day care, health care, education, and many other benefits. In pro-life El Salvador, children commonly die of malnutrition and preventable diseases. It is better to have starving children than aborted feotuses?
Maybe what we're looking at is the difference between religious morality and humanistic morality. Humanistic morality says we must do what is right regardless of what God says; religious morality says we must do what God says regardless of what is right.
Sorry, but that's just false. That's just not accurate. But, as I said before, it is irrevelant to the discussion.
The difference between a feotus and a baby is that the former is a potential human being, while the latter is a human being. It's not complicated. An egg that never gets fertilized is also a potential human being. A sperm cell that never finds an egg is also a potential human being. Maybe we should ban masturbation as well as abortion.
Infantacide occurs in a completely different social context than abortion. For example, societies in which infanticide commonly occurs (or used to commonly occur) are often societies where women were devalued. Male children were seen as a family asset; female children as a family liability. Female infanticide both reflected and reinforced those values.
By contrast, societies that allow women access to safe and legal abortion are also societies that value gender equality and thr rights of children. In pro-choice Denmark, children recieve free day care, health care, education, and many other benefits. In pro-life El Salvador, children commonly die of malnutrition and preventable diseases. It is better to have starving children than aborted feotuses?
Maybe what we're looking at is the difference between religious morality and humanistic morality. Humanistic morality says we must do what is right regardless of what God says; religious morality says we must do what God says regardless of what is right.
Wow, pretty much all of your assumptions are fallible.
Human-beings begin at conception, there's really no question. I'll back up my claims with some other authors and their arguments some other time, as I have a ton of homework to finish tonight.
The kind of morality I am claiming has nothing to do with divine revelation. It would be entirely ridiculous and certainly not advantageous to argue for American legalization issues based upon divine revelation. At least, that would rightly not fly in America, and is not what I was claiming when I said that American government created laws based upon morality.
I am arguing for morality based upon plain ol' human reason--nothing more. Nowhere in any of my discussions did "because God says so" enter into the equation. There are philosophical arguments based upon biological evidence that state human life begins at conception (or after potential twinning, at the latest) that most all (even atheist) philosophers I can think of agree with.
I am using "morality" in the humanistic sense of the term, not the religious sense. Not all humanistic morality is utilitarian. I think you need to take an intro level philosophy course--and a biology course for that matter.
Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion! I have to go for now, but have a good night!
By contrast, societies that allow women access to safe and legal abortion are also societies that value gender equality and thr rights of children. In pro-choice Denmark, children recieve free day care, health care, education, and many other benefits. In pro-life El Salvador, children commonly die of malnutrition and preventable diseases. It is better to have starving children than aborted feotuses?
Denmark is a developed country, and El Savador is an underdeveloped third-world country.
A lot more seperates the two than just abortion.
Spreading the abortion is not my idea of being merciful to the kids. Why have them succumb to the environment when we can have them succumb to some modern technology. Some cyanide laced candy should do the trick.
Do you think it is possible to believe abortion is morally wrong, yet still see that criminalizing it is bad public policy?
I ask becasue the unstated assumption behind the anti-choice (aka "pro-life) position seems to be that if legal access to abortion can be curtailed, the practice will end. This is nonsense. Women had abortions in the US before Row v. Wade. Millions of women have illegal abortions all over the world every day.
Since ending abortion is an impossibility, what is to be gained by criminalizing it?
Under what circumstances would you consider destroying a human life acceptable?
You seem to be saying that because of the logistical problems with protecting a fetus from an abortion, that the only reasonable solution would be to sanction it.
Why don't we supply our enemies with weapons so that we know how many guns they have.
Under what circumstances would you consider destroying a human life acceptable?
You seem to be saying that because of the logistical problems with protecting a fetus from an abortion, that the only reasonable solution would be to sanction it.
Why don't we supply our enemies with weapons so that we know how many guns they have.
The same could be said, if you own a gun yourself... utter hypocrisy.
__________________
A person starts to live when he can live outside himself.
You seem to be saying that because of the logistical problems with protecting a fetus from an abortion, that the only reasonable solution would be to sanction it.
Actually, my reasons for supporting abortions rights are much broader than that.
Abortion rights are a matter of gender equity; women will never be the social equals of men unless they are allowed to decide when, and if, to bear children.
Abortion rights are a matter of economic justice; the rich will always find a way to get whatever medical services they want. Only the poor suffer from abortion bans.
Abortion rights are a matter of privacy rights; the decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term ought to be between a woman and her physician. It is none of the government's business.
Abortion rights are a matter of maintaining a secular society; let's face it, the anti-abortion crowd is almost entirely made up up right-wing Christian zealots. They've no right to deny the public neccessary medical services on sectarian religious grounds.
Abortion rights are a matter of public health; banning abortion just forces it underground. That creates a black market run by organized criminals, staffed by unqualified quacks, and women dying needless deaths.
Abortion rights are a matter of maintaining a just and humane society. All around the world, societies that allow safe and legal abortion also take the best care of children. Societies that forbid abortion let children die in the streets. Pro-choice, quasi-socialist Denmark provides free day care, free health care, free education. Pro-life Brazil is overrun with homelss children who rob and steal to survive.
Abortion rights are a matter of gender equity; women will never be the social equals of men unless they are allowed to decide when, and if, to bear children.
That is easy. STOP SCREWING AROUND!!!! (literally) Maybe there wouldn't be quite so many STDs moving around.
Quote:
Abortion rights are a matter of economic justice; the rich will always find a way to get whatever medical services they want. Only the poor suffer from abortion bans.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
[color=red]Ironically, this this thread was aimed at religious people.[/color]
Quote:
Abortion rights are a matter of privacy rights; the decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term ought to be between a woman and her physician. It is none of the government's business.
And you are unwilling to extend the right-to-life to the human being she is carrying.
Quote:
Abortion rights are a matter of maintaining a secular society; let's face it, the anti-abortion crowd is almost entirely made up up right-wing Christian zealots. They've no right to deny the public neccessary medical services on sectarian religious grounds.
It is no more necessary than a bikini wax.
Quote:
Abortion rights are a matter of public health; banning abortion just forces it underground. That creates a black market run by organized criminals, staffed by unqualified quacks, and women dying needless deaths.
Banning it might force girls and boys to take the issues of sex and pregnancy a little more seriously.
Quote:
Abortion rights are a matter of maintaining a just and humane society. All around the world, societies that allow safe and legal abortion also take the best care of children. Societies that forbid abortion let children die in the streets. Pro-choice, quasi-socialist Denmark provides free day care, free health care, free education. Pro-life Brazil is overrun with homelss children who rob and steal to survive.
Again. A lot more seperates underdeveloped 3rd world countries and developed countries than just the issue of abortion.
Do you honestly think enabling abortion (by itself) in Brazil will turn it into another Denmark?
Please note: The suggestions and advice offered on this web site are opinions only and are not to be used in the place of professional psychological counseling or medical advice. If you or someone close to you is currently in crisis or in an emergency situation, contact your local law enforcement agency or emergency number.
Hybrid Mode
