Abortion - is it wrong?

[McBell]

But we've already established that a fetus doesn't possess the qualities that define person hood. A zygote has more in common with an amoeba than it does with you or me.

Seems to me that the problem here is that he is just as guilty of equivocation as he claims others to be.

I never did understand why pro-lifers are all the time crying "it is a human life".
Like they think pro-choicers believe that the fetus is somehow a pig or something during the process.

 

[Sleeppy]

IMO, reserving sex only for marriage is more destructive than constructive.

And if someone was to ask me to list the terms that describe ideal sex, I don't think "efficient" would be anywhere on my list.

I don't know why you might think that, but ok. Efficiency should be used in everything when necessary. It is necessary with sexual relation.

 

[Alceste]

Well, at the very least you are certainly aware what is a good reason without "judging".

Thanks anyways.

IMO, before the embryo develops any capacity for awareness or sensation, "I don't want to have a baby" is a perfectly acceptable reason. On the flip side of the coin, I have never seen anybody offer one good reason that a woman who is absolutely certain she doesn't want to have a baby should go ahead and have one anyway because of a single birth control slip-up.

Of course, what I mean when I say "reason" is probably quite different from that of a theist. If your assumption is that a benevolent, loving hand is directing your destiny and knows better than you do what is good for you, I can see how it might feel more natural to just play whatever cards you're dealt.

Although I can understand that way of thinking and have no problem with it, I utterly reject (along with many believers) the right of believers to impose their religious morality as public policy.

 

[Alceste]

Potential for offspring is being initiated. No.

When sex is contained within a marriage - which has its own prerequisites - it is the most efficient. Now people use it destructively more than they do productively.

The way that sex is widely being used is destructive and ignorant. It has given way for sexual disease to spread rampant, and families to be mostly non-existant and unfulfilling. Orphans, abuse, etc.

To say that sex shouldn't be enjoyed is like saying we shouldn't enjoy our food. However, when the better tasting food is more harm than nourishment, you sacrifice that particular food to survive. And depending on the situation it can still be enjoyed in moderation or in substitute.

Put simply.. use sex in a responsible way. If you are incapable of that, accept the consequences or avoid them if you can.

But why? I don't agree with any of your opinions (and that's what these are: opinions - not facts). I believe sex is for fun, for bonding, for sharing, for stress relief, for a million great things other than squeezing out babies. I also prefer being with an experienced partner to somebody who doesn't know a ****-ring from a **** fight.

And, we have loads of options for controlling our exposure to disease and pregnancy. People who accept the likelihood that at some point they're likely to have pre-marital sex are better prepared for it. And, when all else fails and something slips through the net, we have the ability to terminate an unplanned pregnancy quickly, safely, non-invasively and long before the embryo can experience any sort of pain or disappointment.

With all this opportunity to enjoy sex (which is incredibly good for your mental and physical health, btw) without inadvertently spreading disease or making extra humans, why in the world should I accept making some of our tools inaccessible, just because of your opinion?

I'm sorry, but you do need a reason. Spite for people you deem to be sexually immoral and therefore deserving of a lifetime of "consequences" for a moment of bad luck (IOW, one in three of the women in your life) is NOT a "reason".

(BTW, I would be happy to introduce you to the concept of reason if you're finding any of this confusing. )

 

[Me Myself]

But we've already established that a fetus doesn't possess the qualities that define personhood. A zygote has more in common with an amoeba than it does with you or me.

o.0 a...ha..... an ameba that is going to become a human being?


When a human male and a human female reproduce they make amebas?

does the babies that wil be aborted have any didferent constitution than that that we had when we were in our mother´s wombs?

 

[McBell]

o.0 a...ha..... an ameba that is going to become a human being?


When a human male and a human female reproduce they make amebas?

does the babies that wil be aborted have any didferent constitution than that that we had when we were in our mother´s wombs?

Huh?

I'm sorry, but your post here makes no sense.

 

[Drolefille]

o.0 a...ha..... an ameba that is going to become a human being?


When a human male and a human female reproduce they make amebas?

does the babies that wil be aborted have any didferent constitution than that that we had when we were in our mother´s wombs?

Potential for personhood does not equal personhood.

Because you became a person, you had a 100% chance of personhood. Results indicate odds. Your average fertilized egg has somewhere from a 30-50% chance of personhood ONLY considering the chance of miscarriage. Those cells might be a person, but they're not guaranteed to do so. Assuming they will is taking a losing bet.

 

[Me Myself]

Potential for personhood does not equal personhood.

Because you became a person, you had a 100% chance of personhood. Results indicate odds. Your average fertilized egg has somewhere from a 30-50% chance of personhood ONLY considering the chance of miscarriage. Those cells might be a person, but they're not guaranteed to do so. Assuming they will is taking a losing bet.

They are a human being, legal terms matter little. Since they are conceived they are already regulating everything to think, speak, walk, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They are a human being, legal terms matter little. Since they are conceived they are already regulating everything to think, speak, walk, etc.

"Since they are conceived"? :areyoucra

A thing with no brain, mouth or legs is "regulating everything to think, speak, walk"?

 

[Songbird]

Sorry. Using an argumentum ad populum is STILL a logical fallacy, whether you side with her or not.

Originally Posted by Alceste
Sorry, espo, but the proportion of women in the population who have elected not to continue with an unplanned pregnancy is directly relevant to my point: the women you are calling "murderers" are all around you. They are in your own family. In your workplace. In your neighbourhood. In your church. You can call women in general "murderers" all you like, but don't expect a very warm reception.

She wasn't using a logical fallacy, hence your strawman.

Putting those who disagree with her on "ignore" is another fallacy- argumentum ad weaksuckium.....

Ah, I see how you apply your definition of fallacy.

Speaking of strawmen-


Originally Posted by Alceste
What I am against is legislating that no other choice is even possible.
*********************************************************************************

The title of the thread has nothing to do with "legislation", does it?

Yes, it actually does.

 

[Songbird]

Potential for offspring is being initiated. No.

When sex is contained within a marriage - which has its own prerequisites - it is the most efficient. Now people use it destructively more than they do productively.

The way that sex is widely being used is destructive and ignorant. It has given way for sexual disease to spread rampant, and families to be mostly non-existant and unfulfilling. Orphans, abuse, etc.

To say that sex shouldn't be enjoyed is like saying we shouldn't enjoy our food. However, when the better tasting food is more harm than nourishment, you sacrifice that particular food to survive. And depending on the situation it can still be enjoyed in moderation or in substitute.

Put simply.. use sex in a responsible way. If you are incapable of that, accept the consequences or avoid them if you can.

Well, if you've got a new idea for making responsible sex widespread, have at it. So far, preaching about saving sex for marriage hasn't worked.

 

[Me Myself]

"Since they are conceived"? :areyoucra

A thing with no brain, mouth or legs is "regulating everything to think, speak, walk"?

Who is it then? At least I know you wont tell me it´s God

Edit: Sorry maybe I probably didn´t put it clearly enough

I mean that since they are conceived they are regulating everything so to be able to do this things. Having legs, a brain, etc, all those things most of you think are what makes it a "person".

 

[Alceste]

Well, if you've got a new idea for making responsible sex widespread, have at it. So far, preaching about saving sex for marriage hasn't worked.

Also, lots of women who have abortions ARE married - some even have other kids, so it's not going to solve the abortion "problem" to try to badger everybody into waiting until marriage to have sex.

 

[Drolefille]

They are a human being, legal terms matter little. Since they are conceived they are already regulating everything to think, speak, walk, etc.

I'm not using legal terms.

only 30-50% of them will ever think, speak, walk, etc. And this is a high estimate. Odds are any one fertilized egg will never be a person.

 

[Me Myself]

I'm not using legal terms.

only 30-50% of them will ever think, speak, walk, etc. And this is a high estimate. Odds are any one fertilized egg will never be a person.

All of them are already working for all those traits. Only human beings can work for those traits. Since conception, it is in our DNA.

this make them persons

 

[Drolefille]

All of them are already working for all those traits. Only human beings can work for those traits. Since conception, it is in our DNA.

this make them persons

Only human beings walk, think and speak? No, you're wrong.

So then, when nature, or the divine, causes the majority of persons (by your definition) to die before ever being born, why is it wrong for other persons to do the same, and cause them to die before they're ever born?

Tumors also have human DNA, are they persons?

As a side question, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy - that is the egg implanted in the ovarian tubes, for example, rather than the uterus. Is it acceptable to kill that human being?

As another side question, what are your opinions on shooting a trespasser on your property? Is it always OK or never OK or sometimes OK depending on if you felt threatened?

 

[Me Myself]

Only human beings walk, think and speak? No, you're wrong.

At least with our refinement. Humans work on all this traits since conception. We not only have the potential but we are developing it since conception.

So then, when nature, or the divine, causes the majority of persons (by your definition) to die before ever being born, why is it wrong for other persons to do the same, and cause them to die before they're ever born?

When nature or the divine kills most people before they turn 75 years old, why is it wrong to kill them when they are 75 year old?

I am not sure how your question is relevant.

Tumors also have human DNA, are they persons?

Are they developing a rational mind with our level of refinement o.0?

As another side question, what are your opinions on shooting a trespasser on your property? Is it always OK or never OK or sometimes OK depending on if you felt threatened?

It´s not relevant. If the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother, the subject is very different that what happens in most cases, where it doesn´t.

We are supposing the traspasser is not my harmless and 100% inocent son, right?

 

[McBell]

We are supposing the traspasser is not my harmless and 100% inocent son, right?

wow.
Talk about spouting pure unadulterated bull ****

 

[Drolefille]

At least with our refinement. Humans work on all this traits since conception. We not only have the potential but we are developing it since conception.

So does a parrot. Polly wants a cracker.
You're simultaneously arguing in different threads that animals are worth as much as humans and then that humans are worth more than animals. I'm finding this rather inconsistent.

When nature or the divine kills most people before they turn 75 years old, why is it wrong to kill them when they are 75 year old?

Keep it in the uterus please. We're talking about embryos, and you have already indicated you see them differently than a born human.

Are they developing a rational mind with our level of refinement o.0?

Who knows? Better let it grow and find out. It has the potential, after all, however small the odds.

It´s not relevant. If the pregnancy is dangerous to the mother, the subject is very different that what happens in most cases, where it doesn´t.

It's very relevant. You're OK with killing a person to save another's life? We're talking morals here, not legality, remember? You insisted.
Either it is always the same as killing a person, or it isn't.

We are supposing the traspasser is not my harmless and 100% inocent son, right?

Irrelevant to the question. It's a trespasser. May one defend their property, morally, with deadly force, none of the time, all of the time or some of the time?

 

[Me Myself]

So does a parrot. Polly wants a cracker.
You're simultaneously arguing in different threads that animals are worth as much as humans and then that humans are worth more than animals. I'm finding this rather inconsistent.

You are probably confusing me with somebody else. I do argue that we should value animal life and that they shouldn not be eaten by us if unnecesary, I am sure I´ve never said they are as valuable as humans though. (not wanting to get off topic here btw)


About Polly wanting a cracker, would you truly believe that Polly is capable of as much understanding as a human being? I am not sure what you are doing here, are you equaling animals to humans? It isa clear that most ziggotes are developing an inteligence far superior to any parrot. Not more inteligent in the momt of conception, but since then, developing already tobe far more inteligent. Though I don´t think inteligence would be the only facotr for humanhood, I would guess you don´t think that neither? After all, many animals have the ineligence of 3 year old childs, and I wouldn´t put them the same importance as 3 year old childs.

Keep it in the uterus please. We're talking about embryos, and you have already indicated you see them differently than a born human.

I am not sying it is the same cost (to lose the life of a human zygote than the life of a 3age human), I am saying the logic is the same for both questions.

I just don´t understand the relevance of the question. Do I need to say "just because it happens doesn´t mean it´s okay to make it happen" ?

People die, yet murder is wrong.

Who knows? Better let it grow and find out. It has the potential, after all, however small the odds.

I´ll humour you and lay along as if the tumor was as important as an actual baby (even for "potential" human being I would believe there would be greater value o.0) and I´ll keep the same posture than with the actual baby. If for some supernatural reason the mother loves her tumor baby as much as to put her own life at risk for it she may let it grow, but given that it risks her life, she may very well remove it.

Are you seriously comparing atumor with ababy?! Is there ANY evidence that a tumor can become a human being?! :areyoucra

It's very relevant. You're OK with killing a person to save another's life? We're talking morals here, not legality, remember? You insisted.
Either it is always the same as killing a person, or it isn't.

You yourself pointed out up ther eI don´t give the human zygote the same value as a born human being.

In any case, I do have talked about this, and yes, if it is survival you may kill someone who is threatening your life (like in kill or live, not like kill or live the way you don´t want to live), even if s/he is doing so unwillingly.

Irrelevant to the question. It's a trespasser. May one defend their property, morally, with deadly force, none of the time, all of the time or some of the time?

o.o I think it is inmoral to kill your 100% inocent harmless son if it comes to your place even if you are literaly responable of him being there... as crazy as it sounds :areyoucra