|
On October 27 2008 04:51 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 04:32 Savio wrote:
The only real issue is if you see the unborn child as a human being or not.
That is not true. Even if embryos and fetuses had personhood, it wouldn't matter. The womb is the woman's and the woman's alone and any occupant of the womb can only remain an occupant if she consents to that occupation.
My home is my home and mine alone. Any occupant of my home is subject to death at my pleasing.
Now you may say "you can kick people out of your house, so you should be able to kick them out of the womb". But abortion isn't just removing the baby, it often involves stabbing the baby through the base of the skull first and THEN removing it. Or subjecting it to fatal chemicals that kill it, and then removing it.
I would have no problem with people waiting until the baby is viable (that is way earlier now a days than it use to be), then inducing labor and then putting the baby up for adoption. That is removing the baby without killing it first. At least then it gets to live and makes its life what it wants and uplift the life of others.
|
On October 27 2008 04:55 Rygasm wrote:
abortion should be a choice of the individual not the government, besides it keeps the population down anyways. We have too many people running around already
/replaces the word "abortion" with "rape".
or
/replaces the word "abortion" with "murder" or "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide".
The latter is a better replacement since it concurs with your second assertion.
In other words, this is not a valid argument imo.
|
On October 27 2008 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:00 Sfydjklm wrote:On October 27 2008 04:51 Mindcrime wrote:On October 27 2008 04:32 Savio wrote:
The only real issue is if you see the unborn child as a human being or not.
That is not true. Even if embryos and fetuses had personhood, it wouldn't matter. The womb is the woman's and the woman's alone and any occupant of the womb can only remain an occupant if she consents to that occupation. So you can kill your own child as long as he lives under your roof? No, but you can evict said child.
I predicted this response and addressed it in my post.
You can't stab the child through the skull, then evict it.
You can't expose said child to fatal chemicals, then evict it.
|
keep setting up those straw men
|
On October 27 2008 05:11 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:03 Mindcrime wrote:On October 27 2008 05:00 Sfydjklm wrote:On October 27 2008 04:51 Mindcrime wrote:On October 27 2008 04:32 Savio wrote:
The only real issue is if you see the unborn child as a human being or not.
That is not true. Even if embryos and fetuses had personhood, it wouldn't matter. The womb is the woman's and the woman's alone and any occupant of the womb can only remain an occupant if she consents to that occupation. So you can kill your own child as long as he lives under your roof? No, but you can evict said child. I predicted this response and addressed it in my post. You can't stab the child through the skull, then evict it. You can't expose said child to fatal chemicals, then evict it.
as i said, its not legal to evict a child.
so unless were back to square one of embryo isnt alive then it doesnt work.
|
On October 27 2008 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 04:44 Savio wrote:
I would like to point out 1 thing.
There is a group of people in the US who think the war in Iraq is OK, but it is wrong to kill unborn babies.
There is another one (most of you here) who argue that that isn't consistent. Yet most of these think the Iraq War is morally wrong, but that it is OK for a woman to kill her unborn baby.
It could be argued that both sides are inconsistent, but the Catholic Church, actually opposes BOTH abortion and the Iraq War (correct me if I am wrong here).
For all the bashing of the Catholic Church I have heard here, it seems like they are the only ones who have a consistent argument.
I am not Catholic but I have a lot of respect for the Church and especially its leaders. That's probably why the Church was always supporting the wrong sides. Catholic Church has been supporting right side bourgeois order since ever. They supported all the XIX century kings and dictators. They supported Franco. They supported Mussolini. They supported the Versaillais against the Communard in 1870. They were against Dreifus in France in 1901. They supported all the dictatures in Central and South America: they supported Pinochet, Videla etc etc etc. Their campaign against condom is directly responsible of the death of countless Africans and South Americans theses last 20 years, places were they are very established and people often uneducated. They fought against the distribution of contraceptive pills to raped women in ex Yougoslavia during the civil war. etc etc etc etc etc etc Catholic Church sucks. Catholic Church is a structure of power, always supporting the strongest and the established order. What I notice is that in America, the one who fight so much against abortion (sorry, but a 6 weeks foeutus is smaller than half your little finger, so calling it "baby" is a bit exagerated) are also the one defending death penalty. Imo death penalty is an assassination. A criminal is a human being, whetevr he has done. "Killing" a 5 weeks foeutus is not. A 5 weeks foeutus can't be considered as a human being yet. Especially when the justice system is completely fucked up. So yeah, republican lack coherence. We knew that already.
The Catholic church has done a lot of bad things in the past, but we are talking about today.
I disagree with them on contraception too.
I am also surprised that people are OK with equating murdering rapists with innocent children.
You went a step further to say the murdering serial rapist is better or "more human" than the child (actually you said fetus, but I have not yet read a coherent argument against the "human-ness" of the unborn child--just "its small"....wow)
|
|
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On October 27 2008 04:35 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 02:04 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:
In the politics of the western powers some seem to see abortion and gay marriage as "moral issues" subject to the most absolute of constraints (often claimed to come from God) while at the same time being happy to indulge in the most chilling, objectionable consequentialist calculations when it comes to killing dark people in far away lands. You could flip that around and say that people who view the Iraq war as morally wrong are happy to indulge in the chilling, objectionable consequetialist calculation when it comes to killing babies.
Interesting point. However, there are a number of complexities which mean that the reverse formulation is unlikely to have the same significance. For example, if we consider the hypocrisy/inconsistency axis: in the original formulation the point is that the parties cite absolute moral constraints against killing and the sanctity of life but then show themselves willing to accept that innocent people may be sacrificed in order to achieve some purported benefit (although obviously not a benefit for those sacrificed nor there family and other loved ones). In the reverse formulation the pro-choice party will simply point to the purported differing moral status of the foetus and thus not be open to a charge of hypocrisy or inconsistency (so long as the view is honestly held and not merely a device). This is not to say that the pro-choice party would be correct with regards to the substantive claim about the moral status of the unborn, merely to point out that your interesting reverse formulation is not quite as straightforward as might be first thought.
|
United States22883 Posts
They're still doing a lot of bad things today. I think the point they're making is that even if they're on the right side, their motivations are not very ethical.
|
On October 27 2008 05:09 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 04:55 Rygasm wrote:
abortion should be a choice of the individual not the government, besides it keeps the population down anyways. We have too many people running around already
/replaces the word "abortion" with "rape". or /replaces the word "abortion" with "murder" or "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". The latter is a better replacement since it concurs with your second assertion. In other words, this is not a valid argument imo.
That's the argument here. All those things are people harming other people. Abortion is not necessarily people harming people, it's a mother removing a fetus. A fetus that belongs to her and is inside her. I read your post about the fetus being a different entity and it makes a good argument if being a different entity is the sole reason the fetus should live. But, no reason to list hyperbolic "replacements" like ethnic cleansing or genocide. Murder I guess you could argue. But if you try to argue that it comes back to if fetuses are human beings, and there is never going to be a definition to satisfy everyone. You murder humans unlawfully, for everything else you just kill it.
|
The abortion matter is already decided to most people.
It's not even a child yet. You are defending potential life, not true conscious life.
It has no self-awareness. Without self-awareness it is not truly alive.
Your above statements with rape/murder are ludicrous, as those infringe upon fully self-aware beings that are living their lives.
Nobody here remembers the first 3 months of being inside their mothers womb. Nobody even "felt" "heard" "saw" etc anything. Without all those feelings and sensations, one is not truly alive. We are closer to being dead then we are alive, as we are in the process of gaining life.
Why is it hard to understand that there is a process of building up to being alive. While it is not something we like, we see abortion as a necessary tool for various reasons. There are so many cases it is justified, such as rape / health. In the cases it is not justified, some people just make big mistakes, or are irresponsible. Which is a sad reality, but sometimes these cases too have many reasons.
When an abortion is done, you are not truly infringing on someone else, because that someone else is not even a person yet. Sometimes it is more merciful as well.
When you are completely pro-life, you are not truly having empathy for those people that need this procedure done. That they should tough it out, no matter the circumstance. To have more feeling for something that is not truly alive yet, over a person who may be suffering and having a difficult time making this huge decision... I just don't know what to say after that.
|
On October 27 2008 05:19 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 04:35 Savio wrote:On October 27 2008 02:04 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:
In the politics of the western powers some seem to see abortion and gay marriage as "moral issues" subject to the most absolute of constraints (often claimed to come from God) while at the same time being happy to indulge in the most chilling, objectionable consequentialist calculations when it comes to killing dark people in far away lands. You could flip that around and say that people who view the Iraq war as morally wrong are happy to indulge in the chilling, objectionable consequetialist calculation when it comes to killing babies. Interesting point. However, there are a number of complexities which mean that the reverse formulation is unlikely to have the same significance. For example, if we consider the hypocrisy/inconsistency axis: in the original formulation the point is that the parties cite absolute moral constraints against killing and the sanctity of life but then show themselves willing to accept that innocent people may be sacrificed in order to achieve some purported benefit (although obviously not a benefit for those sacrificed nor there family and other loved ones). In the reverse formulation the pro-choice party will simply point to the purported differing moral status of the foetus and thus not be open to a charge of hypocrisy or inconsistency (so long as the view is honestly held and not merely a device). This is not to say that the pro-choice party would be correct with regards to the substantive claim about the moral status of the unborn, merely to point out that your interesting reverse formulation is not quite as straightforward as might be first thought.
That's a valid point except for the fact that pro-choice people do not spend their resources arguing that a fetus is not a baby. Their argument is usually about the woman and everything else while they try to say as little as possible about the fetus.
|
On October 27 2008 05:07 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 04:51 Mindcrime wrote:On October 27 2008 04:32 Savio wrote:
The only real issue is if you see the unborn child as a human being or not.
That is not true. Even if embryos and fetuses had personhood, it wouldn't matter. The womb is the woman's and the woman's alone and any occupant of the womb can only remain an occupant if she consents to that occupation. My home is my home and mine alone. Any occupant of my home is subject to death at my pleasing. Now you may say "you can kick people out of your house, so you should be able to kick them out of the womb". But abortion isn't just removing the baby, it often involves stabbing the baby through the base of the skull first and THEN removing it. Or subjecting it to fatal chemicals that kill it, and then removing it. I would have no problem with people waiting until the baby is viable (that is way earlier now a days than it use to be), then inducing labor and then putting the baby up for adoption. That is removing the baby without killing it first. At least then it gets to live and makes its life what it wants and uplift the life of others.
and then you either have a parents who dont want their children (guess how well those children are going to be raised) or a lot of orphans
if you mandate people who dont want have children raise children you have problems
if you have parents who dont want children bearing children and then leaving it to society to provide for them you also have a problem
it would be nice if contraception was 100% effective and people only had sex if they wanted and could afford to raise children, but that doesnt happen.
Allowing abortion isnt about morals, its about realism
|
hmm
funny I dont remember that guy complaining in 2004 lol
hes a partisan hack complaining that the facts and perceptions dont go his way
oh well
|
|
|
On October 27 2008 05:19 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 04:35 Savio wrote:On October 27 2008 02:04 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:
In the politics of the western powers some seem to see abortion and gay marriage as "moral issues" subject to the most absolute of constraints (often claimed to come from God) while at the same time being happy to indulge in the most chilling, objectionable consequentialist calculations when it comes to killing dark people in far away lands. You could flip that around and say that people who view the Iraq war as morally wrong are happy to indulge in the chilling, objectionable consequetialist calculation when it comes to killing babies. Interesting point. However, there are a number of complexities which mean that the reverse formulation is unlikely to have the same significance. For example, if we consider the hypocrisy/inconsistency axis: in the original formulation the point is that the parties cite absolute moral constraints against killing and the sanctity of life but then show themselves willing to accept that innocent people may be sacrificed in order to achieve some purported benefit (although obviously not a benefit for those sacrificed nor there family and other loved ones). In the reverse formulation the pro-choice party will simply point to the purported differing moral status of the foetus and thus not be open to a charge of hypocrisy or inconsistency (so long as the view is honestly held and not merely a device). This is not to say that the pro-choice party would be correct with regards to the substantive claim about the moral status of the unborn, merely to point out that your interesting reverse formulation is not quite as straightforward as might be first thought.
You could just say that the pro-life make a distinction between murder and killing and unborn babies are murdered on purpose. While in a war the enemy is killed and civilians are killed by accident. If innocent civilian casaulities were not intended to happen that is not murder. The pro-choice people are doing the same thing, claiming it is not okay to kill humans but it is okay to kill living entities below human status. I don't think reversing it changes the significance much. I'm not trying to argue which side's priorities or morality is more or less correct.
|
On October 27 2008 05:24 boghat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2008 05:09 Savio wrote:On October 27 2008 04:55 Rygasm wrote:
abortion should be a choice of the individual not the government, besides it keeps the population down anyways. We have too many people running around already
/replaces the word "abortion" with "rape". or /replaces the word "abortion" with "murder" or "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". The latter is a better replacement since it concurs with your second assertion. In other words, this is not a valid argument imo. That's the argument here. All those things are people harming other people. Abortion is not necessarily people harming people, it's a mother removing a fetus. A fetus that belongs to her and is inside her. I read your post about the fetus being a different entity and it makes a good argument if being a different entity is the sole reason the fetus should live. But, no reason to list hyperbolic "replacements" like ethnic cleansing or genocide. Murder I guess you could argue. But if you try to argue that it comes back to if fetuses are human beings, and there is never going to be a definition to satisfy everyone. You murder humans unlawfully, for everything else you just kill it.
I am going to argue the abortion point until it finally comes down to the inevitable end point of "Is the fetus a human being". That IS the crux of the argument. Its not about freedom to choose, its not about health, its not about anything else. All of those arguments are easily countered by equating them to doing to to a BORN baby.
This is my MAIN point about abortion. The question IS and HAS TO BE whether the fetus is alive and if it is a human being. No other argument will suffice.
As soon as it looks like we reach that point, I will simply state I think it IS alive and IS human, then drop the issue because there is no way to convince someone to change their mind about this. They have to do it on their own.
But any other argument for abortion should quickly be torn down because it doesn't hold water.
|
Mr. Conservative disagreed.
|
On October 27 2008 05:25 MYM.Testie wrote:
The abortion matter is already decided to most people.
It's not even a child yet. You are defending potential life, not true conscious life.
It has no self-awareness. Without self-awareness it is not truly alive.
Well why dont u tell us at what time exactly does one become self aware. And dont forget to substantiate it with some scientific data.
|
On October 27 2008 05:25 MYM.Testie wrote:
The abortion matter is already decided to most people.
It's not even a child yet. You are defending potential life, not true conscious life.
It has no self-awareness. Without self-awareness it is not truly alive.
What are you backing this up with? Especially in light of the fact that is has been shown that babies move of their own accord, sleep, wake up, suck their thumbs, and recognize their mother's voice?
Nobody here remembers the first 3 months of being inside their mothers womb. Nobody even "felt" "heard" "saw" etc anything. Without all those feelings and sensations, one is not truly alive. We are closer to being dead then we are alive, as we are in the process of gaining life.
Nobody remembers being 1 year old either. You second sentence is not true.
When an abortion is done, you are not truly infringing on someone else, because that someone else is not even a person yet.
You still have yet to show that.
When you are completely pro-life, you are not truly having empathy for those people that need this procedure done. That they should tough it out, no matter the circumstance. To have more feeling for something that is not truly alive yet, over a person who may be suffering and having a difficult time making this huge decision... I just don't know what to say after that.
I have already stated my position of legally allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life.
I have also said that people should consider adoption. Toughing it out for a few months is worth not taking a human life.
I also have yet to hear from any of you empathy toward to life that is taken from the baby. What would he/she have done. What happiness/success would that person have enjoyed?
I simply think that
1 life >> 9 months of discomfort (especially when that person chose to make a baby-- ie, anything that isn't rape)
Convenience is not a valid reason to end a life imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
