|
On April 28 2011 13:32 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 13:28 Alzadar wrote:
I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception. This logic doesn't work either, because the line one draws isn't necessarily arbitrary. You seem to think that simply because killing a fetus the day before it is born is wrong, and the day before that is wrong, that it must go all the way back to conception, but that doesn't follow logically. One can draw the line at: "A reasonable estimation of when the fetus can be expected to develop the ability to feel." for example, which is what 20 weeks basically is.
There shouldn't be any estimation involved when deciding if something is a human being to-be or not.
The line is completely arbitrary because it varies from case to case.
You seem to agree that killing a fetus the day before birth is wrong. What about the day before it develops the ability to feel? Or the day before that? Why should a few mere hours make a difference when determining human-hood? It's ok to kill the fetus today, but not tomorrow? I don't see how that's logical.
The only line that makes any sense to me is conception. A sperm or an egg will NEVER become a human being on their own. A zygote will, thus it should be granted the same moral protection as any other human.
|
So when does a baby become "alive"? For some reason there seems to be this arbitrary point where it's no longer ok. babies can live even if their births are induced... are they not a person until they "should have" been born? if it's wrong to kill a 30 yr old, then it's wrong to kill a 20 week old (in the womb), why act as if being inside the womb makes one less alive? the stupidity. Also, a woman doesn't have a right to "terminate" the "development" of a "fetus". She took a risk, got pregnant, now it's time to be responsible and deal with it. And with rape... that requires another debate, but these points stand.
|
On April 28 2011 14:12 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 14:03 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 28 2011 13:33 Romantic wrote:On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote:
Abortion at any stage is morally wrong
The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? Because we don't care if it is self aware. Your goalpost, not ours. On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:
A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm.
Spermies aren't really like somewhat developed fetuses, no. I'm guessing you are using the self aware goalpost again, with everything not self aware needed no consideration. You're making an excellent point here, Romantic. I'd be really surprised if it gains any traction though. As I think you're aware, the abortion debate always revolves around a definition of personhood, but most participants in said debate like to conceive of their own definition as the only "rational" one, as if an issue as multifaceted and as ideologically situated as the concept personhood is something about which two reasonable human beings couldn't disagree. And frankly it's difficult to call which pole in this debate has less of a claim to "rationality." We have seen an unborn child analogized to a cancer tumor, a banana, a sperm, and a parasite. Call me a cynic, but I don't think such fanciful metaphors are actually helping us establish a mutually comprehensible starting point for the discussion. They recall, for me at least, one of my favorite diatribes on the subject: A View of Abortion, With Something to Offend Everyone What really gets me is the language and analogies people use. Fetuses aren't cancer, parasites, or goldfish. Things like reproductive rights, childrens rights, womens' rights, and privacy rights are just terms involving some madeup rights that muddle things even further and are usually based on a complete inability to understand or compensate for what the other person is saying and aren't defined. People try to generalize their views into a principle that they then selectively apply while making up make up rights. It all ends up being pretty nonsensical and partisan with nobody really conceding anything. I realize this happens on every issue, but with abortion it is just more pronounced. I think you're dead right on all accounts. You run for office, and you have my vote. 
But the sort of semantic gymnastics that you're pointing out there are the ones that reminded me of Walker Percy's essay in the first place. I think I found a working link here? I mean it's not like even totally necessary that you read it. It's probably not life-changing or anything. I just love old Doc Percy and have him on my mind these days as he's the subject of the MA thesis that has been beating my ass this whole semester.
|
First, a minor quibble:
On April 28 2011 11:41 Wegandi wrote:
Natural Law stipulates that your body is your own property, just as the fruit of your body (labor) is your property.
I think that when you apply Natural Law to this, you should keep in mind the context that humans are naturally viviparous and that only the females have wombs and carry children. So when a baby is in the uterus, he can't really be trespassing against his mother--he's exactly where he's supposed to be. The mother obviously owns her womb as long as it's empty, but once the baby begins to inhabit it I think she has to share her claim to it. After all, the whole reason for the uterus's existence is to house that baby. (It hasn't been menstruating every month for the mother's benefit. :D )
Second, a BIG quibble:
On April 28 2011 12:21 Dhalphir wrote:I refer to the axiom that a generally reliable way of determining the objective morality of an action is to imagine what the world would be like if everyone did things a certain way. Thieving and murdering are obviously objectively immoral because if everyone stole and killed as much as they wanted, society would degenerate.
This is an awful axiom. It leads to a lot of absurd conclusions because of its reliance on the effect on society. For example:
If everyone decides to become a history professor, society collapses.
Becoming a history professor is objectively immoral.
If everyone locks one of his daughters in the basement as a sex slave but otherwise leads a normal life, society goes on.
Josef Fritzl made an acceptable choice; don't impose your beliefs on him.
|
On April 28 2011 14:44 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 13:32 Whitewing wrote:On April 28 2011 13:28 Alzadar wrote:
I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception. This logic doesn't work either, because the line one draws isn't necessarily arbitrary. You seem to think that simply because killing a fetus the day before it is born is wrong, and the day before that is wrong, that it must go all the way back to conception, but that doesn't follow logically. One can draw the line at: "A reasonable estimation of when the fetus can be expected to develop the ability to feel." for example, which is what 20 weeks basically is. There shouldn't be any estimation involved when deciding if something is a human being to-be or not. The line is completely arbitrary because it varies from case to case. You seem to agree that killing a fetus the day before birth is wrong. What about the day before it develops the ability to feel? Or the day before that? Why should a few mere hours make a difference when determining human-hood? It's ok to kill the fetus today, but not tomorrow? I don't see how that's logical. The only line that makes any sense to me is conception. A sperm or an egg will NEVER become a human being on their own. A zygote will, thus it should be granted the same moral protection as any other human.
So you are a believer that a woman who was raped has a responsibility to carry a resulting child?
An arbitary line must be drawn at some point.
My belief however is there should be no arbitrary line drawn at all. A person's body should be their own, and no entity should have rights to live off of them. There are a lot of people here who seem to be saying pregnancy isn't dangerous to mothers. However this is rediculous. Pregnancy destroys the human body doing irrepairable damage and can lead to deadly consequences. Now if the baby is viable, then yes measures should be taken to remove it from the womb without killing it, however no-one should be forced to harm themselves or risk harming themselves for someone else.
|
On April 28 2011 11:16 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 11:09 gogogadgetflow wrote:
You can't be banned for arguing for/against abortion as long as you keep it civil and substantive. No need to paint tl negatively.
For now the solution for Hoosiers is simple. Leave the state if you need an abortion. On one hand 20 weeks is plenty of time for an abortion, so the law is at least moderate in that respect. Ethically, however, I support the right of a woman to expel the fetus at any stage of pregnancy; because the baby lives inside the woman its right to life is forfeit. Whether or not it can feel pain is a non-factor (legally - I myself would consider such a factor but I cannot force someone else to). No one has the right to kill another individual unless your life is in danger. Yes, you have the right to evict, but not kill, which means the woman can have (induce) early pregnancies and put the child up for adoption. You do not have a right to kill a trespasser on your property who is not a danger to you, your family, or your property. I really do not like to get into this debate, because both sides are pretty well set in their views. My personal view is pretty moderate -- a woman has a right to evict, but not kill.
Certainly an interesting view.
I am curious, though - why is this the appropriate role of Government? If you are the poster I'm thinking of, you believe in a voluntary society, right? Then shouldn't people who believe that life begins at birth should have the right to live under a chosen set of laws that reflect that axiom?
There are numerous firms that use private resources to encourage pregnant women to choose motherhood or adoption rather than abortion. What about these? Seems no different than relying on private charity to provide for those who cannot afford food or health care (also life and death issues).
Pet peeve:+ Show Spoiler +I cannot stand the wolf in sheep's clothing "libertarians" who make convenient use of libertarian arguments on poverty/environmental/health care/etc issues, then say that the government should outlaw abortion, grant marriages to heterosexuals but not homosexuals, ban religions they don't belong to, invade the OPEC villain du jour, etc etc. Politics is of course the land of logical inconsistency, but this really bugs me more than the rest. However, reading more about this philosophy, I don't think this criticism applies to you. Which is good, I want ideological opponents who are principled 
As a practical note, though, eviction in (say) the 7th week is going to result in fetal death. Eviction in (say) the 25th week is going to require heavy medical assistance to keep the fetus/baby alive - I assume you are against public use of funds for health care and against laws mandating that the woman purchases health care? This is likely sentencing the fetus to die unless a private donor steps up; even if we assume that a fetus at 25 weeks is alive, natural death on the operating table is arguably a fate more cruel than abortion.
|
On April 28 2011 15:10 Fen2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 14:44 Alzadar wrote:On April 28 2011 13:32 Whitewing wrote:On April 28 2011 13:28 Alzadar wrote:
I used to be pro-abortion, but I'm unable to justify to myself why any arbitrary line (e.g. 22 weeks) makes sense as a point where it becomes justified to kill a soon-to-be human being. I think we can all agree that killing a newborn is wrong. And killing it the day before it is born is wrong too. Same goes for two days before, and so on.
Thus, by the Principle of Mathematical Induction, abortion is wrong at any point after conception. This logic doesn't work either, because the line one draws isn't necessarily arbitrary. You seem to think that simply because killing a fetus the day before it is born is wrong, and the day before that is wrong, that it must go all the way back to conception, but that doesn't follow logically. One can draw the line at: "A reasonable estimation of when the fetus can be expected to develop the ability to feel." for example, which is what 20 weeks basically is. There shouldn't be any estimation involved when deciding if something is a human being to-be or not. The line is completely arbitrary because it varies from case to case. You seem to agree that killing a fetus the day before birth is wrong. What about the day before it develops the ability to feel? Or the day before that? Why should a few mere hours make a difference when determining human-hood? It's ok to kill the fetus today, but not tomorrow? I don't see how that's logical. The only line that makes any sense to me is conception. A sperm or an egg will NEVER become a human being on their own. A zygote will, thus it should be granted the same moral protection as any other human. So you are a believer that a woman who was raped has a responsibility to carry a resulting child? An arbitary line must be drawn at some point. My belief however is there should be no arbitrary line drawn at all. A person's body should be their own, and no entity should have rights to live off of them. There are a lot of people here who seem to be saying pregnancy isn't dangerous to mothers. However this is rediculous. Pregnancy destroys the human body doing irrepairable damage and can lead to deadly consequences. Now if the baby is viable, then yes measures should be taken to remove it from the womb without killing it, however no-one should be forced to harm themselves or risk harming themselves for someone else.
You're imputing an opinion to him about the "responsibilities" of a woman who has been sexually assaulted, but he all he was doing was attempting a definition of what makes a person a person. That strikes me as a really captious move. First of all, the rape discussion is strictly speaking irrelevant to his definition, and, second of all, it's more of an emotional and political appeal than a logical one anyway.
You're also implying that your position has no "arbitrary lines." But actually it's chock full of arbitrariness. It's predicated on arbitrariness. You posit a right (arbitrary). You posit a moral obligation to preserve a "viable" baby (arbitrary on two counts). And you also include in your argument "harm" and "risk of harm" (the definitions of which are almost entirely arbitrary).
I mean... I just feel like you're generalizing a lot from the fact that your assumptions feel completely natural and neutral to you.
|
I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo.
|
Abortion is a sticky issue that I hate to deal with and comment on. I think it is the woman's decision and body in the end, but I dislike hearing about an abortion occurring at all. I wish the abstinence teaching and/or religious zealots would preach contraception and stop making sex an ugly scary monster coming to get you. It is the 21st century and people are still afraid of their sexuality, it makes me sad.
|
On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ?
Listen up, hippie. Equating a fetus to the same level of importance as an egg or an acorn only means anything if you consider killing a chicken or cutting down a tree to be as immoral as butchering a human being.
A fetus represents the potential for a fully grown human life. Potential that has already passed, on the slimmest of odds, through all the preliminary rounds of fate. If someone were to ask you, right now, whether you would prefer it if your mother had aborted you instead of giving birth to you, you would say no. Don't tell me otherwise, because if you felt so you would have shot yourself in the head by now.
I admit, I consider the act of killing a fetus less morally repugnant than killing a fully developed human being, in the same way I consider punching a child less morally repugnant than raping it. But that doesn't mean I consider it in any way morally neutral.
Just ask any expecting mother who receives the news that her 20 week old fetus has died how unimportant it is, and you might get some moral truth past that thick skull of yours and stop spouting this college liberal bullsh!t.
|
On April 28 2011 15:39 GertHeart wrote:
I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo.
Right because that's how democracy works. Guys vote on guy things. Girls vote on girl things. Children vote on children things. Pets vote on pet things. And so on and so forth.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On April 28 2011 15:46 naggerNZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ? Listen up, hippie. Equating a fetus to the same level of importance as an egg or an acorn only means anything if you consider killing a chicken or cutting down a tree to be as immoral as butchering a human being. A fetus represents the potential for a fully grown human life. Potential that has already passed, on the slimmest of odds, through all the preliminary rounds of fate. If someone were to ask you, right now, whether you would prefer it if your mother had aborted you instead of giving birth to you, you would say no. Don't tell me otherwise, because if you felt so you would have shot yourself in the head by now. I admit, I consider the act of killing a fetus less morally repugnant than killing a fully developed human being, in the same way I consider punching a child less morally repugnant than raping it. But that doesn't mean I consider it in any way morally neutral. Just ask any expecting mother who receives the news that her 20 week old fetus has died how unimportant it is, and you might get some moral truth past that thick skull of yours and stop spouting this college liberal bullsh!t.
My Kiwi brother, I laughed so hard at the "Listen up, hippie" part :D:D:D:D
But yea - it's just so interesting how people these days say "As long as it doesn't harm other people, anything can be done."
Yea right.
And before I ever got into the abortion debate, I was fascinated as a young teenager by the "good news" of pregnancy when our family friends got pregnant. It was something we rejoiced over, because we knew a new life had begun, and that we all rejoiced for their sake that they were going to have a baby and have a beautiful child grow up in their arms.
And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On April 28 2011 16:05 HULKAMANIA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 15:39 GertHeart wrote:
I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo. Right because that's how democracy works. Guys vote on guy things. Girls vote on girl things. Children vote on children things. Pets vote on pet things. And so on and so forth.
Hulkamania you Boss, did some debating in high school? You sure are spotting logical inconsistencies like no tomorrow : )
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On April 28 2011 14:02 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 13:58 LosingID8 wrote:On April 28 2011 12:59 TuElite wrote:On April 28 2011 12:40 naggerNZ wrote:
Abortion at any stage is morally wrong
The only way to address the issue of abortion is to remove the factors that cause it to occur at all, i.e. poverty, education, ineffective sexual education.
How would better sexual education or better overall education as you mentioned it twice and less poverty change the scientific fact an abortion kills off something that is totally not self-aware ? A fetus younger then 22 weeks is basically the same exact thing as a sperm. It can develop into a human, yes, but it is not a human. Should we condone masturbation because we're killing possible future human beings ? + Show Spoiler +I believe that more education would normalize abortions and put an end to this irrational debate, as people will realize that lol a fetus has more in common with a sperm or the tree in my backyard than me. ok come on, if you have any knowledge of basic biology you should not be equating sperm to a fetus. your argument is intellectually dishonest. sperm are HAPLOID, a fetus is DIPLOID. humans are diploid organisms. fetuses also have unique DNA that is a combination of both the mother and father. these are two main reasons why many pro-lifers view conception as the starting point of life. I disagree with this. I knew a girl in high school that was pregnant and took a paternity test because she wasn't sure who the father was. It turned out the father was an oak tree.
LOL - and yea... I think half the people in this thread probably need to go see an ultrasound, see the fetus with it's developing organs, see it move and see his/her heart beat. Then hopefully get an abortion specialist hold their hand while they let the TL-netizen do the procedure. I'm sure it'll be a sobering experience
|
On April 28 2011 16:17 JesusOurSaviour wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:05 HULKAMANIA wrote:On April 28 2011 15:39 GertHeart wrote:
I have to agree with some people here who say guys shouldn't be voting on this. This should be a woman's decision to make. As they are doing the majority of the work, I myself don't allow myself to have an opinion of this since I am male, gather woman have them make the vote.
edit fixed typo. Right because that's how democracy works. Guys vote on guy things. Girls vote on girl things. Children vote on children things. Pets vote on pet things. And so on and so forth. Hulkamania you Boss, did some debating in high school? You sure are spotting logical inconsistencies like no tomorrow : )
No, I'm just an English literature dude with an agenda. I'm getting snarky, though, so I'm going to bed!
P.S.: GertHeart, sorry that I was terse with you. I hope we can still be friends.
|
On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise.
You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now?
|
You know I don't have a position for or against it, though I've always been the more "well it's her choice not mine" kinda guy in that respect. I will say I am okay with the idea of this law coming into being so long as it's a state law and not a Federal Law.
Odd how that works huh?
I still think in general the best way to avoid an abortion is don't get in the situation in the first place.(rape/other situations aside of course)
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On April 28 2011 16:23 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise. You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now?
well we are all fools - for rejecting God when he is our loving Father and our Creator.
Besides that -
1. when did I equate my moral values with yours? We have different moral values.
2. short-sighted vs Far-sightedness. Short-sightedness referring in this case to how a lot of posters on this thread don't look into the complexity of this issue, both in the breadth/depth of consequences and the many mental and emotional complications of abortion that arise with time. (I'm a 2nd year medical student, abortion gets discussed to death..... T_T)
3. conclusion: who's the fool now? I think we all are. Jesus is coming back soon and I'm here arguing about issues which will not affect me (since I will never ask my wife to abort). While I am supposed to be doing God's work. Ag man, I will admit first that I am the fool in this case!
|
On April 28 2011 16:23 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2011 16:15 JesusOurSaviour wrote:And I would NEVER of wanted my mother to have an abortion - I wouldn't be stating my arguments against post-modern, short-sighted liberalists on this forum otherwise. You equate your moral values with mine, then call me short-sighted for not seeing it your way? Who's the fool now?
He is just trolling, just search post history. He is also unable to edit, maybe a browser malfunction?
|
20weeks is 5th month i think in germany its legal for 14 weeks or somehow.
i think 20 is ok and later should not be legal because its nearly a human being
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img862.imageshack.us/i/1300245458476.png/)
