Abortion Discussion

[tiglathpileser]

You are confusing an ethical question with a legal one. In so doing you are making the exact same argument those who supported slavery during the 19th century made. Its legal, so shut up. Well done.

Your liver will never grow into a sentient, independent organism. Give us a break.

Sistrin, very well said. I have noticed that the pro-aborts are very selective in their application of fake facts, twisting the truth to suit their own agenda.

 

[Archivist]

(shaking my head)......Because the outcome whould have been different with Burnside. What difference does it make if SCOTUS is 5/4 or 9/0? None....it is still law.......I can't believe you don't lunderstand that.. And if you knew what kind of Army Commander Burnside was, you would have picked a better comparison.....

Grew up near Gettysburg, Been to Fredericksburg several times, aware of what an incompetent boob Burnsude was and, frankly, how underrated Meade was. The difference between you and I is that I expect to be corrected when I am wrong, you apparently get upset when you are corrected. Sorry you just can't say "I was wrong, it was seven not nine."

 

[tiglathpileser]

I don't see how that's relevant to the comparison. I'm comparing the woman to the donor.

I must be more intelligent than you because I see very clearly how it is relevant.

 

[tiglathpileser]

You are confusing an ethical question with a legal one. In so doing you are making the exact same argument those who supported slavery during the 19th century made. Its legal, so shut up. Well done.

I must admit that it gives us a bit of a laugh when the pro-aborts put their foot in their mouth when they open it.

 

[tiglathpileser]

But it does mean something to the baby that is a human life. That it means nothing to you is irrelevant. If it is human life then it is wrong to kill it. The only caveat is in the case if the mother's life is at stake. Why Because taking a life to save a life is ok.

Personally I fail to see in scripture where it is OK to have the baby in the womb killed if the mother's life is in danger.

 

[Archivist]

As I said here is a pro-abort advocating that she should have her baby killed because it was the product of rape.

I get tired repeating myself. If you have read the thread you know that I have said several times that of a rape victims chooses to carry the fetus to term that he wonderful, but the choice needs to remain with her, not with some third party.

 

[tiglathpileser]

No fetus survives birth.

My two fetuses (babies) survived birth. Not only that they have negotiated life and I am the proud grandfather to nine grandchildren, all of whom survived birth. If they didn't where did they come from? The supermarket in the sky? No I just realised that you believe the stork brings them.

 

[tiglathpileser]

I get tired repeating myself. If you have read the thread you know that I have said several times that of a rape victims chooses to carry the fetus to term that he wonderful, but the choice needs to remain with her, not with some third party.

As I said, here is a pro-abort advocating the rape victim abort the baby becuase it was the product of rape. So much for being pro-choice. Definitely a misnomer.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Grew up near Gettysburg, Been to Fredericksburg several times, aware of what an incompetent boob Burnsude was and, frankly, how underrated Meade was. The difference between you and I is that I expect to be corrected when I am wrong, you apparently get upset when you are corrected. Sorry you just can't say "I was wrong, it was seven not nine."

Actually Burnside was a competent Corp Commander especially on defense; he was offered command of the AofP after McClellan's failure in the Pennisular Campaign but turned it down. Sorry you can't say SCOTUS made abortion legal in the US regardless of how many voted for or against it.

 

[Chany]

But it does mean something to the baby that is a human life. That it means nothing to you is irrelevant. If it is human life then it is wrong to kill it. The only caveat is in the case if the mother's life is at stake. Why Because taking a life to save a life is ok.

My point is that possessing human DNA does not seem to be morally relevant; there is something else, another feature of our humanity that seems to be the giver of moral worth. The conceptus may have it; if one can point to what this feature is and point out how the conceptus possesses it, I'll buy your argument.

No one has yet. The only argument is that the basis of our moral worth is our soul, which is given to us at birth. I am not sure that this argument even works, depending on how you define "soul".

 

[Archivist]

As I said, here is a pro-abort advocating the rape victim abort the baby becuase it was the product of rape. So much for being pro-choice. Definitely a misnomer.

Who is "advocating" an abortion? I am simply saying that the choice remain with the rape victim. That isn't "advocating" anything.

 

[Archivist]

Actually Burnside was a competent Corp Commander especially on defense; he was offered command of the AofP after McClellan's failure in the Pennisular Campaign but turned it down. Sorry you can't say SCOTUS made abortion legal in the US regardless of how many voted for or against it.

In most places they did make it legal, but not for the whole US. It was already legal in some states. They couldn't make it legal there--it was already legal.

Burnside might have been alright at the corps level, he did well in Carolina. But he was a disaster at the army level. I seem to recall that Grant (or Shetman perhaps) said he was unfit to command an army.

 

[Chany]

Quite the contrary, it is the only consideration necessary to establish moral consideration. Deflections aside we are not discussing magical cows or Ferengi Pirates. We are discussing the ethical, moral, political, and emotional ramifications of terminating the product of human reproduction. For the record, human reproduction does not lead to magical talking cows. It leads to more humans.

The talking cow is a thought experiment to show that we can easily consider non-humans as worthy of moral worth. If possessing human DNA were necessary for moral worth, then we wouldn't consider non-human entities as possessing moral worth. But I consider all the fantasy and science fiction I have seen, from Chronicles of Narnia to Star Trek, and how I view the nonhuman characters who are practically persons as worthy of the same respect as the human ones. When I imagine them as real or think of other beings like them as, my feelings of moral worth towards the hypothetical do not diminish. However, if humanity was a necessary condition, then I should not have these feelings of moral worth. Because of this, I can only conclude that possessing human DNA is not a necessary condition for moral worth. If it was, I would discount any possibility of moral worth

If possessing an organism posessing human DNA was a sufficient condition to moral worth-i.e. if it was enough to warrant moral worth- then any organism with human DNA would require the same care and respect we give to all the all other people. However, I can take a petri dish, put a human cell in it, change some of the DNA through mutation, and watch it fill out the petri dish. I would not consider the petri dish as posssssing moral worth. However, if human DNA was sufficient for moral worth, then the petri dish would possess moral worth, as it fulfills all that is required for moral worth- namely, possessing human DNA. But it clearly does not.

Because of these thought experiments, particularly the second one, it appears that having human DNA does not automatically make some biological organism worthy of the same moral respect we give another person. If human DNA did automatically grant something moral worth, then we should arguing for the moral rights of petri dishes with human skins cells in them. But we aren't. So long as my petri dish thought experiment holds true, then saying "human DNA alone is all that is required for moral worth" is false.

And you would be wrong.

What is wrong with my argument?

This is PETA, Enviro-marxist, VHEMT nonsense.

Great counter argument. Please explain why you aren't petitioning for the rights petri dishes with human cells in them if an organism possessing human DNA is all it takes for that organism to possess moral worth.

 

[redleghunter]

Which is what I said. See it didn't make a difference. Now here's the kicker, who's the one that makes the decision?

A capricious approach?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Another pro-abort who believes that the baby in the womb is a parasite. Which scripture describes the baby in the womb as a parasite? Oh, by the way fetus = baby in latin.

You mean in latin they can't distinguish between the two? That's crazy! An easy solution to the debate I suppose, which you are trying to suggest.

Please notice I actually said "like a parasite." I agree with you that it is not a parasite because if it were an actual parasite it would be a living being, which it is not. (Although you think it is - another way the "pro-life" position is demonstrated to be wrong.)
It is VERY PARASITIC in that it attains all it sustaining substance from its host, the pregnant woman to which it is necessarily physically attached.

 

[redleghunter]

Life in being is an old legal concept the comes from the celebrated Rule against Perpetuities, a rules that has baffled generations of law students. The pregnant woman is a life in being. The fetus is a life in being only if it survives until birth.

Given that the fetus cannot make a decision and the pregnant woman can, why should the choice to rest with her? If not her, who else? You?

As I mentioned to another poster we cannot be capricious with any human life.

 

[redleghunter]

You mean in latin they can't distinguish between the two? That's crazy? An easy solution to the debate I suppose, which you are trying to suggest.

Please notice I actually said "like a parasite." I agree with you that it is not a parasite because if it were an actual parasite it would be a living being, which it is not. (Although you think it is - another way the "pro-life" position is demonstrated to be wrong.)
It is VERY PARASITIC in that it attains all it sustaining substance from its host, the pregnant woman to which it is necessarily physically attached.

Please explain how a human life in gestation is not a living being.

 

[redleghunter]

And in a case of rape how do we know that the fetus, if it could talk, wouldn't tell the pregnant woman "You have already been punished enough. Don't put yourself through any more on my account. Feel free to abort me if that is your choice."

That's quite bizarre.

 

[redleghunter]

Sorry, a human being that is "a new distinct human life" is created in the womb. That is what pregnancy is.
IT (the human being) IS NOT CREATED BEFORE IT IS CREATED.

Then when is this new human life created?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

My two fetuses (babies) survived birth. Not only that they have negotiated life and I am the proud grandfather to nine grandchildren, all of whom survived birth. If they didn't where did they come from? The supermarket in the sky? No I just realised that you believe the stork brings them.

Your two fetuses? So you have two fetuses (that "survived birth"). VERY FUNNY.

You try to be funny but are only really funny when you are so wrong, speaking of fetuses after (surviving) birth.
At least most people know they are BABIES THEN, and NOT FETUSES,
and many are not mislead into thinking they are babies before that.