Definitive answer on abortion

[IzzyPop]

I disagree. In that case, we should do everything we can to ensure that the mother's life is the priority, but we should not actively kill the baby.

What about ectopic pregnancies? The mother is almost certain to die. And the fetus is not even close to viable.

Why punish the baby for something the rapist did?

It is awful hard to punish something that is alive in only the most technical of senses.

So then, I assume you're against killing the baby after the 25th day?

Personally, I am opposed to killing any babies. I am even opposed to abortion. That is why I will never get one. Unfortunately, I am also opposed to controlling someone else's body, and that one is more important to me.

You can't kill a baby who's already dead. If you favor killing a baby who's dying, then do you favor killing all human beings who are dying?

Nope. Only those that want to.

Tragic, but not an excuse to kill the baby.

Why not when it can be a twofer, right?

So then, your logic is kill the baby now so the baby won't be killed later?

Sounds about right. Callous, but right.

We're not the ones killing anyone. The abortionists are.

Tell Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph about that.

 

[cantata]

Perhaps in YOUR country.
But the morality of YOUR country regarding strays does not apply across the board.

Of course, you knew that before you posted your statement.

Morality and law are very different.

In any case, my point is that regardless of the law, I think that there's nothing particularly wrong with shooting a stray dog, but there is something very wrong with shooting someone's pet.

Unless you're a vegetarian, I don't see how you can disagree. And since you're a tentacled man-eating monster, I think I'm onto a winner here.

Quite right
Simple as pie
I place no value on your life, as in the end, all you are going to do is feed others (like me!)
So are you saying I can kill you with impunity and based on your personal definition of "value that others place", you're okay with this pardigm of mine?

I seriously doubt it.
And to deny such is the height of humor

Of course not, but I think you deliberately misunderstand me.

Does a foetus place value in its own life? Can it desire life? I don't think it can. Because it can't, all its value is in the value placed upon it by others. So if it's wanted, it's wrong to kill it, and if it isn't, it isn't. Humanely killing and eating a chicken is probably fine, as long as it's not someone's beloved pet chicken.

An adult human being is very different. An adult human being can desire to live and fear death. He or she places value in his or her own life, and as such you can't kill him or her with impunity.

Actually, yes it is
Not that I have a stake in this.
A tentacled non-Euclidian projection into 4 dimensional spacetime has opinions that really dont matter to mortal humans.

Tell me what's confusing you about the law, and I'll try to help you out with it.

Start by trying to define it in regard to your own life.
If you see absolutely no sanctity in regard to your own life...MORE power to you!
EDIT- perhaps the more appropriate term here is "right to life" Subsitute that in the above if you will

In the end, you're just food.

I don't believe my life is sacred or that I have a right to it in any sense other than a legal one. In any case, I'm not sure how rights can be afforded to anything that doesn't have the capacity to know what a right is.

I know that I like living and I don't want to die; that's the only good reason I can think of for asking someone not to kill me. Death is only bad if it hurts and/or you know it's going to happen, and since a foetus, before a certain point, neither feels pain nor fears death, I see no reason not to kill it if that's what the mother wants to do.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

yes but the heart is what determines whether something is alive or not. It is quite literally the uthora for the god given spark.

A heart can be kept beating indefinitely by machines. It's the brain that determines life. 'Brain death' is a pointless phrase that just means 'death'.

 

[cantata]

Hi there.

If I didn't find life sacred, I suppose I wouldn't take a stand on human rights issues.

I am opposed to Capital Punishment because though many of these criminals are horrible murderers, there is still value in a life, and they can live theirs out in a life sentence without parole. When I think of how Saudi Arabia decapitates people for instance, it's barbaric.

I support Gay marriage because I feel people should share equal rights in a society. If they want to marry, who are we to say they cannot?

I oppose most wars because they seem senseless, and innocents are killed in mass numbers. So many die for some misguided, puffed-up view of patriotism which is a whole nother matter here.

I don't consider life sacred, and I oppose capital punishment, support gay marriage, and object to war.

I oppose capital punishment because I regard it as a form of torture, I consider it unnecessary and uncivilised, and I am troubled by the potential for miscarriages of justice.

I support gay marriage because, like you, I think that there is no relevant difference between gay couples and straight couples which should prevent the former from enjoying the same legal rights.

I object to most wars because, like you, I object to the murder of innocents - not because life is sacred, but because causing someone to fear for their life is an horrific form of torture, and wars cause people to lose loved ones, to be horribly maimed, to lose their homes and other property, &c.

I'm just trying to be logically consistent with the value of life. What is it, disturbing condor eggs is a crime but aborting a human fetus is not?

Because the law about not disturbing condor eggs is not a law which is there because condor life is sacred, but because condors are presumably an endangered species which your government is attempting to preserve for aesthetic reasons or for the protection of some ecosystem. Human beings are definitely not an endangered species. It's not a valid comparison.

Or, NASA is concerned that astronauts may contaminate extra-terrestrial microbes so they are considering ways to use robots as explorers as to not kill off bacteria, but a human fetus is valued less? I'm just trying to see the logic in that.

Again, you're not making a valid comparison. I assume that NASA's view is that we have a duty not to endanger extra-terrestrial flora and fauna, again for aesthetic reasons, in the hope of future discovery, or for the preservation of biodiversity. It has nothing to do with the life of micro-organisms being sacred.

By your example, I ascribe more value to a human fetus than a stray dog, though I love animals and would never shoot a stray dog either.

Well, what I was offering was an analogy to explain why killing an unwanted foetus is not murder but killing a wanted one is.

I would really like you to explain from where this special, apparently intrinsic value of human life comes. In what does it consist? Are you simply asserting that human life is sacred? Shall I then just assert that it isn't? I think the burden of proof is on you to show how, why, and in what way human life comes to have this special value.

I'm open to any conversation, so I thank you for this exchange. Perhaps you will show me some logic in your position and I can consider it.

Well, I've tried. Do tell me if and how you find it to be inconsistent.

 

[reverend B]

mercuryandy started this thread with the assertion that his was the final word on this subject. it was unquestionably the perfect rhetorical argument on the subject and he clearly thought that any dissent was misguided and ridiculous.
i am sure most people giggled at the strident stance young andy made, realizing there are many positions on this topic that collide with his and are held with at least as much fervor. it was humorous to read...until you continued and read the rest of the thread.
what you found was post after post where people felt essentially the same way about their own point of view; that this was the final word and that any other would be tantamount to blasphemy and would certainly result in hellfire for the objector. people are adamant about their positions on this topic and find no way to engage others in a conversation about it. absolute faith in ones own position seems to be the norm throughout this thread.
as a result, i can see no other choice but to be pro-choice, regardless of my personal choice when it comes to abortion. others will not be convinced by the opposing argument, so the ultimate wisdom of their decision will have to be a conversation between them and God, and not them and me. on a secular level, which is the level where the law lives, the population is not ready to take this decision away from the woman who must make it, and she must weigh the argument for herself and then make a decision she can live with now and forever. this thread, however, makes it very clear that the population is not in the position to make it for her, and the law should remain as it is.
this is why someone can be personally opposed to abortion and vote pro-choice.

 

[WarEagle]

If one of them has to die or they both will, who do you let live?

You just quoted my answer to this question so I know that you know I already answered this.

Would you like to have a reminder of a tramatic experiance growing within you. Would you like to be reminded of it every time you look into its eyes? Is it fair to thrust a child upon someone beacuse some sick minded individual raped them?

Innocent people have to live with the terrible consequences of evil things done to them every day. That doesn't mean that we find another innocent person and kill them.

There is dieing with hope then there is dieing with no hope. I am in favor of the latter.

This makes no sense.

pretty much. May as well kill the baby before it is fully developed rather than let it start its path of life then kill it.

I see. So then, you'd have no problem killing a six month old, either? After all, a six month old isn't fully developed.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Would you like to have a reminder of a tramatic experiance growing within you. Would you like to be reminded of it every time you look into its eyes? Is it fair to thrust a child upon someone beacuse some sick minded individual raped them?

I really don't see how this line of reasoning can justify abortion in cases of rape and not in a multitude of other situations, such as a to baby that is the unwanted result of consensual sex (since it would remind the mother of a mistake that she made, and if that relationship went sour, of the pain that that caused. Not the same level of discomfort as rape certainly, but the principles seem to be the same.)

The thing is that saying "a woman should be allowed to abort a fetus that is the result of a rape" is admirable in that it is an attempt to help the woman who was raped, it ultimately is problematic because it throws the question of abortion away from "is this extinguishing the life of a real human being" which seems to be your criteria in other circumstances.

 

[xXThePrimeDirectiveXx]

I don't consider life sacred, and I oppose capital punishment, support gay marriage, and object to war.

I oppose capital punishment because I regard it as a form of torture, I consider it unnecessary and uncivilised, and I am troubled by the potential for miscarriages of justice.

I support gay marriage because, like you, I think that there is no relevant difference between gay couples and straight couples which should prevent the former from enjoying the same legal rights.

I object to most wars because, like you, I object to the murder of innocents - not because life is sacred, but because causing someone to fear for their life is an horrific form of torture, and wars cause people to lose loved ones, to be horribly maimed, to lose their homes and other property, &c.



Because the law about not disturbing condor eggs is not a law which is there because condor life is sacred, but because condors are presumably an endangered species which your government is attempting to preserve for aesthetic reasons or for the protection of some ecosystem. Human beings are definitely not an endangered species. It's not a valid comparison.



Again, you're not making a valid comparison. I assume that NASA's view is that we have a duty not to endanger extra-terrestrial flora and fauna, again for aesthetic reasons, in the hope of future discovery, or for the preservation of biodiversity. It has nothing to do with the life of micro-organisms being sacred.



Well, what I was offering was an analogy to explain why killing an unwanted foetus is not murder but killing a wanted one is.

I would really like you to explain from where this special, apparently intrinsic value of human life comes. In what does it consist? Are you simply asserting that human life is sacred? Shall I then just assert that it isn't? I think the burden of proof is on you to show how, why, and in what way human life comes to have this special value.



Well, I've tried. Do tell me if and how you find it to be inconsistent.

Thanks for further clarification on your views. They are definitely something to consider.

Regarding life as sacred, I don't mean it in any sort of religious manner. Maybe I should say I hold life to be of unique, and utmost priority in terms of protecting it and preserving it. If I didn't place a high value on life, I don't see why I would strive to be an internet activist of sorts with these kinds of discussions/debates. I am truly bothered by injustices against people and their rights. Not privileged or elitist rights that only some possess like a religion in the majority, but basic rights that everyone should have, such as the gay marriage situation for instance.

Anyway, I welcome the continued discussion.

 

[MercuryAndy]

You just quoted my answer to this question so I know that you know I already answered this.



Innocent people have to live with the terrible consequences of evil things done to them every day. That doesn't mean that we find another innocent person and kill them.



This makes no sense.



I see. So then, you'd have no problem killing a six month old, either? After all, a six month old isn't fully developed.

of course six month old babies aren't fully developed. Do you forget about the twelve figure they sprout at 5?

There are brain waves when a person is capabile of doing nothing but breath for themselves. But would you say those people are still alive?

 

[WarEagle]

of course six month old babies aren't fully developed.

So then, should we kill them?

But would you say those people are still alive?

Yes.

 

[Stinker]

I think we get caught up in the emotion of it all. We do not stop and think about the reality of the implications of our arguments taking up motion and becoming reality. For instance, in the Warren-Flew debate, Anthony Flew admitted that he believed senile people should not be classified as 'human' . That it would not be legally or objectively morally wrong for the Government to do away with them like Nazi Germany did with their 'undesirables' . One may believe that they think this to be the cold hard scientific true course that mankind should follow until......they personally witness the method/s taking place. Especially if any of their loved ones happen to get reclassified.

 

[cantata]

I think we get caught up in the emotion of it all. We do not stop and think about the reality of the implications of our arguments taking up motion and becoming reality. For instance, in the Warren-Flew debate, Anthony Flew admitted that he believed senile people should not be classified as 'human' . That it would not be legally or objectively morally wrong for the Government to do away with them like Nazi Germany did with their 'undesirables' . One may believe that they think this to be the cold hard scientific true course that mankind should follow until......they personally witness the method/s taking place. Especially if any of their loved ones happen to get reclassified.

Yet clearly there are good reasons not to kill senile people, even if they can't be considered human. It would terrify people who weren't senile yet; can you imagine living in a world where senile people are routinely killed? Wouldn't you worry about what might happen to you? And, of course, it would terribly hurt those who had loved ones who were senile.

Can foetuses worry about being aborted? No. Is an unwanted foetus a loved one of anyone? No. So we've found at least two explanations for why killing senile people is not okay but killing foetuses is.

 

[cantata]

Thanks for further clarification on your views. They are definitely something to consider.

No problem Thanks for asking!

Regarding life as sacred, I don't mean it in any sort of religious manner. Maybe I should say I hold life to be of unique, and utmost priority in terms of protecting it and preserving it.

Can you explain why?

If I didn't place a high value on life, I don't see why I would strive to be an internet activist of sorts with these kinds of discussions/debates. I am truly bothered by injustices against people and their rights. Not privileged or elitist rights that only some possess like a religion in the majority, but basic rights that everyone should have, such as the gay marriage situation for instance.

But do you need to believe that life is sacred or special in order to uphold these rights? I don't believe life is sacred, but I find myself very much in favour of gay marriage, against capital punishment, &c., and I think that's because I empathise with people, with their feelings. If I were to see a gun aimed at someone, my thought wouldn't be "I must prevent them from being shot because their life is sacred!" but more along the lines of "I must prevent them from being shot because they don't want to die!"

If I believed life was sacred, I'm sure that I would have to oppose abortion - and euthanasia and suicide as well. As it is, I oppose none of these things, because I believe that we should be trying to prevent suffering, not death per se. Death, and the fear of it, frequently cause suffering, and that, I'm sure, is why your views and mine tend to overlap on matters such as capital punishment and war. But I do not see death as an inherent evil.

Anyway, I welcome the continued discussion.

Me too It's nice to have a calm, reasonable discussion about this subject!

 

[MercuryAndy]

So then, should we kill them?



Yes.

no but there has to be a clear distinction between an undeveloped fetus and a child.

 

[ReverendDG]

no but there has to be a clear distinction between an undeveloped fetus and a child.

children are.. born?

 

[Asimov]

Development is largely irrelevant in the abortion equation. The point is whether or not any person has the right to incubate themselves in another person against their will. No one does, therefore the argument is moot.

 

[WarEagle]

no but there has to be a clear distinction between an undeveloped fetus and a child.

To what level of development?

What stage must a baby reach before you feel that it's no longer OK to kill them?

 

[MercuryAndy]

To what level of development?

What stage must a baby reach before you feel that it's no longer OK to kill them?

when its heart begins to beat. Look at the first post.

 

[IzzyPop]

To what level of development?

What stage must a baby reach before you feel that it's no longer OK to kill them?

I must have missed where anyone said it is okay to kill a baby. A fetus? Different story.

So to answer your question, I'd say once it is a 'baby'.

 

[WarEagle]

when its heart begins to beat. Look at the first post.

I already addressed that. The heart begins to beat within the first thirty days, and as little as twenty-five days.

Are you saying that it's wrong to kill a baby after 25-30 days?

Essentially, what you're saying by saying that the first heart beat marks sufficient development is that you're against all 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions and 2/3 of all 1st trimester abortions.

Other than that 1/3, I agree completely.