Aileron Posted November 7, 2005 Report Posted November 7, 2005 one cannot use one contraversial issue to prove another.We can use anything we like to help explain our world view. We aren't debating facts, we are debating ethics. Sure, you can explain your opinion that way, but it won't prove anything. Your opponant will simply disagree with you on the first issue. Astro, a patient without any brain functions is dead. Persons in comas might have no VISIBLE brain functions, in which case the idea of not pulling the plug is dependant upon our uncertainty over the patient's condition - the patient might have brain functions we can't detect. ........I'm at a shock over your second arguement. You can't execute people for crimes they might or might not commit in the future! Even if you could predict the future completely accurately, it would still be a bad policy. Your third arguement uses a bad comparison. Either Iraq was about oil and was an immoral war, or it was about something more than oil and was a moral war. Neither case contradicts my statement, which I will rewrite formally now for clarification: "A war is moral only if it is advancing a great cause." And no, the right to this particular choice is not a great enough cause...each instance involves the death of an individual, which includes a lifetime of choices. One person's right to the 10,000 or so decisions they would make over their life time overrules another person's right to one decision.
MonteZuma Posted November 7, 2005 Report Posted November 7, 2005 (edited) Sure, you can explain your opinion that way, but it won't prove anything. Your opponant will simply disagree with you on the first issue.Maybe I'm missing the point, but I don't think there is anything to prove. Our disagreement isn't about a point of fact which can be proven or disproven. We disagree about a moral stance.And no, the right to this particular choice is not a great enough cause...each instance involves the death of an individual, which includes a lifetime of choices. One person's right to the 10,000 or so decisions they would make over their life time overrules another person's right to one decision.Fetuses aren't people and they don't have rights. Women do. Edit: I don't support the abortion of fetuses in the latter stages of development. Edited November 7, 2005 by MonteZuma
Greased_Lightning Posted November 7, 2005 Report Posted November 7, 2005 I havent read much of any of the posts for this topic but here goes:Since a fetus has no decision or rights or whatever was said and can therefore be terminated... ...Suspense...... THEN I AM GOING TO KILL PEOPLE IN THEIR SLEEP BECAUSE THEY CANNOT MAKE THE DECISION TO LIVE IF THEY ARE UNCONSCIOUS!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
MonteZuma Posted November 7, 2005 Report Posted November 7, 2005 I havent read much of any of the posts for this topic but here goes:Since a fetus has no decision or rights or whatever was said and can therefore be terminated... ...Suspense...... THEN I AM GOING TO KILL PEOPLE IN THEIR SLEEP BECAUSE THEY CANNOT MAKE THE DECISION TO LIVE IF THEY ARE UNCONSCIOUS!!! MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! On a serious note.... A sleeping person has legal rights, can sense stimuli (sentience), has awareness (the most basic form of consciousness), has subjective experiences and a capacity to reason (a mind/thinking), can feel pain and suffer, has an immediate capacity for self-awareness (a higher level of consciousness) and can be aware of the environment and the existence of others (a sense of place) An embryo has none of these things. I guess this is a legal debate as much as it is a moral debate. Should an embryo have a right to life. I say no. I say the mother's right to choose whether or not she wants to be pregnant is more important than any moral obligation we may feel towards an embryo.
Greased_Lightning Posted November 8, 2005 Report Posted November 8, 2005 I'm old fashioned but I believe in responsibility and living with the consequences of your decisions. Now, I know theres the argument about victims of rape, but in the overwhelming majority of cases where unwanted pregnancy is a result of a decision to have sex, that was their choice and they should have to live with the consequences of their actions. Getting pregnant shouldn't be like blowing your nose.
MonteZuma Posted November 8, 2005 Report Posted November 8, 2005 I'm old fashioned but I believe in responsibility and living with the consequences of your decisions. Now, I know theres the argument about victims of rape, but in the overwhelming majority of cases where unwanted pregnancy is a result of a decision to have sex, that was their choice and they should have to live with the consequences of their actions.Everybody makes bad choices. You speak as though sex resulting in an unwanted pregnancy is a crime that should be punished. In our society we don't hold people accountable for all of their mistakes. If you are badly injured in a car accident, the doctors will try to ensure that you continue to live a normal life, even if it was your fault. If you play sports and dislocate a shoulder, someone will put it back in for you. If you leave the iron on and set fire to your house, the fire brigade will try to rescue your home and your possessions. Why should we be unforgiving of women that get pregnant? In any case, whether women give birth or have an abortion, they will have to live with the consequences of their decision for the rest of their life. I can understand why people would choose not to have an abortion for an unwanted pregnancy. What I can't understand is why some people feel it is important that they take away the option from other people. How does the decision affect you? How does it affect anybody else aside from the pregnant woman or her partner/husband? I'm sure that this is where the 'right to life' or 'future life' arguments comes into play, but why do you care more about the future life of an un-named, un-feeling, un-thinking and un-wanted embryo than you do about the future life of a living, breathing, thinking woman? Getting pregnant shouldn't be like blowing your nose.Having an abortion is nothing like blowing your nose. It is traumatic.
SeVeR Posted November 8, 2005 Report Posted November 8, 2005 I don't know how many women post here (probably not alot...) but i think if i were a woman i'd be more strongly pro-abortion. When it's your choices being taken away by self-righteous moral fools alot of you anti-abortion people may feel a little bit differently.
Aileron Posted November 8, 2005 Report Posted November 8, 2005 But actually its the men that benefit more out of abortion than women. If a man gets a woman pregnant, and he is just a deadbeat that wants to get out of there, all he has to do is persuade/bully her into getting an abortion. Then he rides off into the sunset while she feels a life time of guilt over the event. Fetuses not having rights would be a circular arguement. I say that while they may not necessarily be a person, they have as much right to life as a person, because they have as much to lose as a person if they lose their life. They may not be persons per se, but they have some of the same rights as persons.
»i88gerbils Posted November 8, 2005 Report Posted November 8, 2005 Men forcing women to have abortions reminds me of special interest groups forcing Congress to p!@#$%^&* a bill. :/ Suggestions for women going through the inital stage of pregnancy:1. I am pregnant. Am I ready to care for my own child, go through the process of having a baby, live for my children, etc ...? 2. Sex Partner, I am pregnant. Are you ready to care for your own child, go through the process of having a baby, live for your child, etc ... either together or separate? 3. Make a choice which has tradeoffs on all sides. If you were going through the process what other things would you add?
MonteZuma Posted November 8, 2005 Report Posted November 8, 2005 (edited) But actually its the men that benefit more out of abortion than women. If a man gets a woman pregnant, and he is just a deadbeat that wants to get out of there, all he has to do is persuade/bully her into getting an abortion. Then he rides off into the sunset while she feels a life time of guilt over the event.So you are worried about men persuading/bullying women into having abortions, but you aren't worried about anti-choice activists who want to take away her right to choose altogether. Double standard. I'm sure that men do sometimes put pressure on women to have abortions. I'm also sure it works both ways, with women pressuring their husbands partners to have or not to have kids. Most women aren't weak and powerless victims that can't make their own decisions. but they have some of the same rights as persons.They have no rights. Who (edit...or what) do you think gave them these rights? Edited November 8, 2005 by MonteZuma
LearJett+ Posted November 8, 2005 Report Posted November 8, 2005 Right to life isn't something that is given by any person.
Greased_Lightning Posted November 9, 2005 Report Posted November 9, 2005 In response to your question why I care more about an embryo than a person is that I don't care more for one than another. In my book, that embryo is alive and subject to the rights that all people should have, namely the right to live. The biggest issue is what you consider alive and obviously we have differeing opinions on that and won't change one another's minds. You mention car accident and a shoulder dislocation. Doctors take an oath to heal the sick, treat the wounded, etc. One of, if not the major tenet of that oath is to first do no harm. In my mind, since I believe that that embryo is a living being, the do not harm tenet comes into play. Yes, everybody makes bad choices but that doesn't mean we have to punish an absolutely innocent being just for the sake of expediency. No, you do not hold people accountable for all their mistakes but we do for most of them. That's why there's insurance, liability, laws, etc. If you get in a car accident, if it's your fault, you are held responsible. If you are injured and it isn't your fault doctors will fix you because that's their job, same with firemen. They can't distinguish because that would defeat the purpose of having them. If you dislocate your shoulder falling down some stairs, you pay the hospital bill (or your insurance does or whatever). Actually, I have trouble thinking of instances where if you make a mistake that is YOUR fault you are not held accountable even if it affects no one else (after all, you pay for repairs). You may not be held accountable by any legal or social body, but any action taken to reverse the mistake is on you. I am not unforgiving of people who become pregnant accidentally but I am very unsympathetic to those who become pregnant through their own bad choices. That's life. You don't get do-overs. I have a real problem with abortion because I AM ALIVE. My parents didn't decide that letting me live was too much of a financial burden and I am happy as !@#$%^&* for that. This all comes back to your definition of what is a living being. My opinion is that the embryo has the right to survive. My feeling is summed up pretty well in something my pastor said one day a long time ago that has stuck with me... those of you who don't like God-talk probably would rather ignore this... Man said to God on his death, "God, why didn't you cure my cancer? I prayed a lot. Why didn't you end war? So many prayed for that. Why didn't you clean the air and the waters?"To this, God turned and said, "I sent gifts to cure disease. I sent gifts to settle your differences. I sent gifts to clean the air and the waters. You sent them back unopened." Why do I care more about something that can't express itself? Someone has to.
»i88gerbils Posted November 9, 2005 Report Posted November 9, 2005 I was thinking back on Solomon. He had an older brother (absolute blood-related). However because David & Bathsheba did not have proper sex the kid died young. It was thought it was God's punishment for their adultery. The fact that we are alive is something to be thankful about. One thrust of your father's penis too many and you may have turned out a girl or a miscarraige. One sin and an abortion may have taken a child's life away due to SIDs or an abortion (if one believes in God). If a child dies in the womb or outside of the womb we think it's God's will, but if a woman has an abortion it is suddenly only the woman that is evil. Cannot God give women the strength to give up a child for further calling? Cannot God take away a child if the meaning behind the sex or the process was not "correct" or timely? I say these things not to provoke a response from a specific Christian group. I do not know what God does & nobody truly knows what God(s) does. We are not Nietzche supermen and that is fallatic to think we are. Instead we must think of ourselves like in Chuan-Tzu's story: Are we men dreaming we are butterflies or butterflies dreaming we are men? An impossible question to be certain of. However, is it legal to get rid of a fetus? It wouldn't be Murder I think we can all agree on that based on discussion from previous pages. Then again we can approach from a different side and ask a question in different situations. A mother-to-be asks herself, "Is this right?" when she finds out of her pregnancy.A mother asks herself, "Is this right?" when she has had the baby in the world a few months.A mother asks herself, "Is this right?" when she had a child in the world several years. Since the last case contain children, teenagers, or adults that can establish themselves on their own we don't think much of the mother's opinion. The second case also shares this attribute to some extent because a baby can survive on its own for a short while, but to abandon it is seen as cruel though Murder is usually charged only for direct infanticide. A baby in this second case can also be left, in most U.S. states, 3 days after birth with a law enforcement, EMT, or Medical facility with no questions asked. The same process is impossible for a fetus and thus a mother must choose between destroying a fetus or carrying it 9 months only to abandon it later. I have another interesting abortion situation. Should pregnant teenagers still in high school (or even middle school) have the choice, with doctor's or parent's permission, to have an abortion? I have known some who can cope 9 months & a baby throughout their education, but others who have not. Once again it all depends.
Aileron Posted November 15, 2005 Report Posted November 15, 2005 The legal status of abortion is undebatable. The legal status of abortion is defined by the sum of legal statutes affecting the region and time it takes place. It is the moral status we are arguing about. Why would it be different for high school students? True, there is a social stigma attached to being pregnant in high school, but somebody's high school social life amounts to very little. It at most 4 years, everybody is out of there and for the most part will never !@#$%^&*ociate with their classmates again.
MonteZuma Posted November 15, 2005 Report Posted November 15, 2005 Why would it be different for high school students? True, there is a social stigma attached to being pregnant in high school, but somebody's high school social life amounts to very little. It at most 4 years, everybody is out of there and for the most part will never !@#$%^&*ociate with their classmates again.There is a stigma attached to single-parenthood and/or being poor. Being a teenager just makes things worse because there will be nothing else in life to define who they really are.
Aileron Posted November 16, 2005 Report Posted November 16, 2005 I guess when you put it that way, teenagers should be given access to additional financial and child support options. I don't know i88gerbils really meant..whether it was "teenagers should be given abortion access because they have less ability to raise a child" or "teenagers should be given abortion access because their friends will think less of them if they are pregnant in high school." I apologize. I !@#$%^&*umed that you meant the second one, which is a bit of a straw man agruement, because that viewpoint is clearly ridiculous. I guess what you meant by that was more along the lines of the first one. While I think that an abortion is too much here, I think that high school students should be given additional adoption, daycare, and welfare options.
Siaon Posted December 1, 2005 Report Posted December 1, 2005 "Over 90% of abortions done in the United States employ the suction method, used during the first three months of the child's life. In this method, a tube connected to a suction device is inserted into the mother's womb. The force created by the device tears the child's body apart and draws the pieces into a container for disposal." "The most common method of abortion between 13 and 20 weeks of the baby's life, is dialation and evacuation. In this method, a pair of forceps(tweezers) is inserted into the mother's womb, where they are used to dismember the child and then drag out the body parts. These tiny parts are often re!@#$%^&*embled to make sure none of the child's remains are left in the womb." Think of the last baby you held in your arms. Now think of tearing it to pieces. There's a reason pregnancy takes 9 months. You will not have a baby in just 3 months. It's still a fetus. Anyway, I don't fully intend to participate in this discussion yet, I do wish to express my view that I'm pretty much pro the option of abortion, but when it's caused by irresponsible behavior there should be at least some kind of social service involved. For both involved of course.
LearJett+ Posted December 2, 2005 Report Posted December 2, 2005 Anyone else ever find it ironic that liberals are all for killing fetuses, but they're against killing criminals with the death penalty?
AstroProdigy Posted December 2, 2005 Report Posted December 2, 2005 a ) Spyed stfu...b ) Anyone notice are opposed to killing fetuses but embrace killing full developed human beings?If conservatives really cared about human life they would give the worst criminals life in prison rather than death. Why do conservatives value the life of non corporeal collections of cells over disturbed human beings?
Dr.Worthless Posted December 3, 2005 Report Posted December 3, 2005 b ) Anyone notice are opposed to killing fetuses but embrace killing full developed human beings?If conservatives really cared about human life they would give the worst criminals life in prison rather than death. Why do conservatives value the life of non corporeal collections of cells over disturbed human beings? I find it extremely amusing that you value the life of someone who's taken a life over one that hasn't had the chance to exist. Though, considering you were awefully quick to point the finger back instead of replying to the jab, I'm not terribly suprised. Besides, we should make serial killers liabilities of the tax dollar, right, after all they deserve to live, but fetus's dont.
AstroProdigy Posted December 6, 2005 Report Posted December 6, 2005 No...Christianity teaches compassion and forgiveness. If evangelical Christians opposed both abortion rights and the death pentalty, then that would be understandable. The way it is now is a giant contradiction. As for liberals, they are pro life when the life is corporeal while the believe non corporeal life does not get the same rights as corporeal life, regardless of potential. By the way, spyed spammed on this thread like four times already is anyone going to do something about that?
Aileron Posted December 6, 2005 Report Posted December 6, 2005 Actually, the official Catholic view is to oppose both abortion and capitial punishment. If one is absolutely positively sure that the person committed murder, execution of that person is considered moral, but the official church position is that since one cannot be absolutely positively sure, one shouldn't be using capital punishment. So, Astro, the church doesn't contradict itself at all. I, on the other hand, being the not-so-good christian that I am, think capital punishment should be legal, so that it could only be used when we are absolutely positively sure that the piece of s!@#$%^&* did the crime, the crime being multiple homicides of people, atleast one of which not deserving death. (For example, someone who offs 12 drug dealers illegaly should not be executed (infact, if it were not for the legal mess it would cause, I'd say that person should be given a medal and deputized), but someone who shoots random people off the street should be executed.) I read an editorial in the newpaper a few weeks ago. The writer could respect both fringe positions but not the moderate one. In his opinion either the fetus has the rights of a person and its wrong to kill it, or the fetus doesn't and abortion is acceptible...those that think the fetus has the rights of a person but do not wish to interfere with the rights of the woman's choice are fools. I can agree with the statement the moderation in this issue is clearly immoral. I guess I should ask at this point if those on the left agree. yeah, Spyed's posts are deleted now. I like to be a little patient with ppl, give them a few chances before taking action (as long as giving them those chances doesn't hurt anything). For the record: Spyed, your posts are deleted for being spam and off-topic.
»D1st0rt Posted December 13, 2005 Report Posted December 13, 2005 I just had to write a paper for my philosophy class concerning two essays about how we should rethink the way we look at abortion if anyone is interested. It's not very good because I'm limited to three pages and I did it in about an hour and a half since I only need a 63% on it. The two readings the paper is based on:Susan Feldman - From Occupied Bodies to Pregnant Persons (Kantian)Rosalind Hursthouse - Virtue Theory and Abortion (Obviously Virtue Theorist) Note that these are moral considerations and not legal ones.
Recommended Posts