Abortion

[columbus]

Pro-Life does not mean anti death penalty. It is only a stance on abortion and I do not know where you are getting this from as I have long researched this years ago.

If you are pro-death in most issues, but anti-abortion, you aren't Pro-Life. That's what I see from Christians, by and large.

And worse still, they are not even anti-abortion as a general rule. They just want to punish people afterwards, not prevent the abortions in the first place. Such as you, when you opposed making birth control as available as possible. You would rather have a few thousand more abortions than pay a few more bucks in taxes.
Don't tell me you are even anti-abortion, much less Pro-Life, when you are also opposing efforts to reduce abortion.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is not true.
People still refer to the deaths of Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin as "murder", despite the shooters having been cleared legally.
Here in the real world, murder is any death that someone considers unacceptable morally. "Murder" doesn't have a specific meaning, it's quite subjective and arbitrary in the common usage.
Even in the more objective usage, an extralegal killing of a human being, laws vary hugely. What is legal in Mississippi isn't legal in Massachusetts, much less Pakistan or Chile.
Tom

That is not the "real world". Trayvon Martin's death may have been unnecessary and Zimmerman may have been a total jerk, but that was still self defense. Martin attacked an innocent man, at least that night Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal, and Martin paid the price. The same applies to Michael Brown. Don't listen to just the rhetoric of the left. The reason that the Martin one his court case is because he was not guilty. Those were not murders.

 

[Curious George]

That is not the "real world". Trayvon Martin's death may have been unnecessary and Zimmerman may have been a total jerk, but that was still self defense. He attacked an innocent man, at least that night Martin was not doing anything illegal, and he paid the price. The same applies to Michael Brown. Don't listen to just the rhetoric of the left. The reason that the Martin one his court case is because he was not guilty. Those were not murders.

This is confusing. Do you think Trayvon Martin won? And what is the price one must pay for not doing something illegal (which is to say, doing something legal)?

 

[Sha'irullah]

Depends. if it is a cancer, I call it treatment. if it is a fetus, I call it abortion.

So cancer's grow into people?

Fetuses don't breath. In fact, one of the big issues for premature births is lung development.

Adults in comas do not breathe either, I guess I should murder one if it suits me.

That the position isn't coherent is the issue. For example, and I am being quite series, sperm and egg cells are *fully human*. They are the haploid stage of our life cycle. But I bet you have no issue with killing them (or letting them die). Any one of your organs is *humans* (it certainly isn't a cat liver), but if it is causing your disease, I suspect you will have it removed and it will die.

But such cells do not contain potential to become persons by themselves. By your logic a rusted engine in a junkyard is a whole car despite not having common properties to be identified as such.

So, there is more than simply being human involved. And I claim that the *relevant* aspects are not there until the fetal brain develops enough to feel pain, which is quite late in pregnancy. Certainly a fertilized egg or an embryo is *far* from being a 'breathing human' nor, for that matter a 'thinking human'. I don't feel any particular moral issue at those stages, especially when the woman in which this thing lives does want it there.

I wish I could respond to this but it saddens me that is how you view life.

And that gets to another BIG point. If I or you or anyone else decided to take over someone else's body, they would have a full right to self-defense, including killing us if that was required to get their body back. Think about that one for an instant.

This argument makes no sense and has no relevant point of discussion. A fetus is not taking over somebody's own body, it can become a nuisance in a woman's daily life but so can everything else become a nuisance . . . and often is.

Stay on topic bro, abortion is murder. We are talking about justified murder here bruh.

Abortion can be justified in context sure especially if the baby threatens the mother's life, or if adoption is not viable. But willy nilly abortion is the issue here nobody set the criteria.

Sure they do, *if* nurtured by the pregnant woman's body, and *if* there are appropriate nutrients, and *if* the woman doens't die, and *if* a while collection of other things either go right or fail to go wrong. The point isn't what they can become, the point is what they are NOW. And right NOW they are not a human being.

I have already addressed this before in the other post to @Subduction Zone. The same occurs in cars going from point A to point B and their likelihood to be in a collision it doesn't you mean scrap every

Every cell of your body has the same DNA as you. That doens't make each cell a human being. It is even human DNA. No question about that. But that is NOT what is involved in the abortion debate.

So a fetus does not have human DNA? And no fetus ever grows into a little child and we are all born from cosmic dust with no biological parents?

And you wonder why us pro-lifers mock you people and call you murderers?

Your logic is flawed.

Murder is wrong. Abortion is not murder.

Abortion is the killing of potential life for petty reasons. It is murder.

 

[columbus]

Abortion is the killing of potential life for petty reasons. It is murder.

Since my goal is to reduce or eliminate elective abortion, I avoid the word murder in this sort of conversation. It's too emotional and not objective enough to be useful.

I stick to more clearly defined words like killing and homicide. Similarly, I avoid the word person, and stick to human being. It's a matter of clarity. When people can dismiss your argument with a semantic nit pick they usually will.
Tom

 

[Sha'irullah]

If you are pro-death in most issues, but anti-abortion, you aren't Pro-Life. That's what I see from Christians, by and large.

Pro-life is a social movement, it does not literally mean what it states. With your logic people who are pro-choice are pro free market yet that is the opposite of the case. Pro-life is merely a bad moniker that got stuck to a bunch of people like me.

And worse still, they are not even anti-abortion as a general rule. They just want to punish people afterwards, not prevent the abortions in the first place. Such as you, when you opposed making birth control as available as possible. You would rather have a few thousand more abortions than pay a few more bucks in taxes.

People make decisions and I am not punishing them. I am not even concerned with making abortion illegal yet alone a felony. I just do not want tax dollars spent on it or anything that should be purchased by the public that would infringe on their beliefs in a pragmatic manner.

Birth control is available as much as it needs to be and nobody is forcing anybody to have sex. You are essentially stating that you wish to keep the populus as infantile as possible.

I would rather have as little taxes for everybody and ensure that they hold the power in their hands to lead a moderate and practical life. I have been doing this for decades WITHOUT BIRTH CONTROL and have been sexually active for years.

Don't tell me you are even anti-abortion, much less Pro-Life, when you are also opposing efforts to reduce abortion.
Tom

You obviously do not understand the correlation between abortion and those who use contraception. People have consistently shown a complete lack of capability of using contraception even when available. and there will be no increase in abortions if it is not practical to do so.

Also I am not anti-abortion since I have no desire to make it illegal and that is the definition of anti-abortion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Since my goal is to reduce or eliminate elective abortion, I avoid the word murder in this sort of conversation. It's too emotional and not objective enough to be useful.

I am only using the word murder for the sake of being asinine, it is a bit of an MO for me on this forum . Playing Devil's Advocate and systematic hyperbole is just a trope of mine at this point.

I do believe it is murder in the strictest sense of the word as it is an unjustified death. I obviously do not believe every abortion is such.

I stick to more clearly defined words like killing and homicide. Similarly, I avoid the word person, and stick to human being. It's a matter of clarity. When people can dismiss your argument with a semantic nit pick they usually will.
Tom

Murder and homicide are just the difference between colloquial and legalese words. They hold the same function in common dialogue and I have never found a reason to seperate the two especially if I believe an abortion argument is leading down the same path which they usually do.

 

[Valjean]

It is not a child or adult if that is what you are saying. It is still human and contains all necessary traits to be identified as such.

I'm saying that a potential cannot claim moral consideration.

So imagine making that argument about a mentally challenged person who lacks the all too human trait of competence. In this case you know he will never achieve full adult competency and he is a burden upon society or perhaps his caretakers. You are saying that person due to their inherent lacking should die? I am dating a person with a learning disability who although is very competent is very innocent and immature. Should she die due to the insignificant burden she places on me for it?

Good points, Sha'irullah
It's not about competence. It's about the capacity for suffering, for pain, for anxiety or for joy. It's about self awareness and anticipation of futurity. A mentally challenged person generally has these traits, as do children. Ergo, they have a claim to moral consideration.

A foetus has none of these traits. It has no claim to moral consideration. Potentiality is not a current reality.
In my opinion, it's immoral, in most circumstances, to kill children, chickens, the mentally challenged, or cows. These possess the qualities mentioned above that confer 'personhood'. A foetus is a hominin; a human, but is not a person.

Personhood comes into play the minute that said being has the potential to become a person the same way a baby lacks adulthood. Why is personhood even relevant to you if it does not matter?

You misread me. Personhood is crucial, species is not.

A potato has no moral receptiveness. It cannot accept moral action or give them. There is no death in the sense that a potato has lost nothing in its being and lacks sentience and will never become sentient. Unless Morty gets to it but that is a whole other story .

Exactly. Sentient creatures can claim moral consideration. Potatoes and foetuses (?) can not.

Neither are human or are capable of moral reciprocation. I am dealing with cats acting like lunatics now and you mean to tell me they perceive moral behavior offered by a human?

Moral reciprocation has nothing to do with our moral duty toward the individual in question, nor his/her/its understanding or awareness of our moral behavior toward them.

The objective fact that a a fetus is a human. Humans all become persons unless they endure obstructions that do not permit it . . . like death.

Again. Species doesn't count. Future possibilities don't count. I focus my moral consideration on real, existing individuals, not potentials.

Seriously you baby killers puzzle me.

Seriously,-- no-one's advocating killing babies. A foetus is not a baby.
I'm probably more opposed to killing babies than you are.

But free birth control means taking money from working people. People have been reducing their pregnancies for years. It is called NOT HAVING SEX! I have had sex for years and never bothered with birth control pills.

Preaching abstinence is all well and good, but the fact is, it just doesn't work. It's unrealistic idealism.

Free birth control saves money for working people. An IUD costs less than a family on the dole. It costs less than the crime poverty forces people into, or the police and prisons to deal with it.

Lots of social programs take money from working people: Fire departments, food and water inspectors, police, the military, the schools... It's the price of living in a safe, secure, civilized society.

People have more than enough orifices for intercourse and women have plenty. I am not going to be forced to pay for somebody's birth control the same way I am not gonna be forced to pay for their car.

Then you'll be paying for their food stamps, medicaid, housing assistance, &c.

 

[columbus]

Pro-life is a social movement, it does not literally mean what it states.

Pro-life is merely a bad moniker that got stuck to a bunch of people like me.

I just do not want tax dollars spent on it or anything that should be purchased by the public that would infringe on their beliefs in a pragmatic manner.

Having read all of the above, the following makes good sense.

Also I am not anti-abortion since I have no desire to make it illegal and that is the definition of anti-abortion.

You're not even anti-abortion, much less Pro-Life

I am only using the word murder for the sake of being asinine,

Well, you got one thing right.

This ugly attitude towards the issue is why I find Christians so frustrating. They get their self-righteous indignation on, while supporting pro-death policies more often than not.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Most anti-abortion people are Christian. It was a reasonable assumption.

I can understand why you thought this.
But here's some current information:
The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights
and
Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here’s Why I’m One of Them

I see this issue as rather like the issues that used to revolve around slavery. People were accustomed to the privilege of deciding who is a "person" and therefore matters, and who is not a person and is therefore disposable. It was pretty self serving then and it still is.
Tom

 

[Sha'irullah]

I'm saying that a potential cannot claim moral consideration.

Good points, Sha'irullah
It's not about competence. It's about the capacity for suffering, for pain, for anxiety or for joy. It's about self awareness and anticipation of futurity. A mentally challenged person generally has these traits, as do children. Ergo, they have a claim to moral consideration.

You must have never been around mentally challenged people then. I have met people who not only have no clue of race yet alone their own they no concept of chronological awareness. I am talking about autistic people to some degree along with others I cannot identify.

A foetus has none of these traits. It has no claim to moral consideration. Potentiality is not a current reality.

A fetus has all the considerations it requires though in any other circumstance as it has potentiality while the mentally challenged do not. A fetus is ensured childhood if all goes well and it is also ensured a biological need for preservation hence an umbilical cord. What about that negates your assumption if you will forgo that assumption for the mentally challenged.

In my opinion, it's immoral, in most circumstances, to kill children, chickens, the mentally challenged, or cows. These possess the qualities mentioned above that confer 'personhood'. A foetus is a hominin; a human, but is not a person.

But we owe moral obligations to a cow who cannot conceive of our own morality and a lion which will show hostility toward us? Now you moved your principle backward to my position.

You misread me. Personhood is crucial, species is not.

I did not misread you I was pointing out the absurdity of the claim as I am noticing the shifting of your standards.

Exactly. Sentient creatures can claim moral consideration. Potatoes and foetuses (?) can not.

Wrong conclusion, a potato has no potentiality yet alone obligations to survival by our species or standard of personhood.

Moral reciprocation has nothing to do with our moral duty toward the individual in question, nor his/her/its understanding or awareness of our moral behavior toward them.

So if moral reciprocation is not relevant we had no moral necessity to keep Charles Manson locked up? Or to defend our lives from attackers?

An immoral injustice cannot be met with a moral reaction?

Again. Species doesn't count. Future possibilities don't count. I focus my moral consideration on real, existing individuals, not potentials.

So then you have shifted back to the mentally challenged again. They have no moral justification to survive or be allowed to live by this standard of your now which keeps going in flux.

Seriously,-- no-one's advocating killing babies. A foetus is not a baby.
I'm probably more opposed to killing babies than you are.

Yet you wish to kill a fetus which is just a baby in development. It is a life and just like a baby it will one day be an adult. So what does a fetus not have that a baby does?

Some cases have existed of children not feeling pain and injuring themselves do to neurological issues. I guess it is right to drag this baby outside and kill it for being too much of a handful and a burden to the mother.

Because whether or not it feels pain is regardless of the issue, you are forcefully ending something that has biologically demonstrated a wanting to survive, a potential for independence and a family member in your species. Plants do not have this and animals only meet the criteria partially.

Preaching abstinence is all well and good, but the fact is, it just doesn't work. It's unrealistic idealism.

LOL tell that to a couple thousand years worth of humanity. I am also not teaching abstinence I actually mentioned before one has other sexual options which I would rather not mention in detail.

Free birth control saves money for working people. An IUD costs less than a family on the dole. It costs less than the crime poverty forces people into, or the police and prisons to deal with it.

You obviously do not know the statistical data on black families. I was born because it was a way for my mother to get money shortly before I was put in police custody as a baby. This was done over 9 times and is quite the norm in ghettos and it includes most of the people I know in lower income brackets who are ethnically the same.

Free birth control is not a fix it all and has no signs of improving anything other than allowing for more high schoolers to copulate like rabbits.

Lots of social programs take money from working people: Fire departments, food and water inspectors, police, the military, the schools... It's the price of living in a safe, secure, civilized society.
Then you'll be paying for their food stamps, medicaid, housing assistance, &c.

Yet such services are justifiable and actually promote safety. Free birth control does not, it is merely a matter of principle and not a matter of what makes me feel good.

You also have not seen the atrocity of housing assistance, it is an abomination. Food stamps is a whole other issue in of itself.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Having read all of the above, the following makes good sense.

If you are just figuring this out you must have never paid any attention to pro-lifers in the last 3 decades. It is merely a very bad name that in all instances should be titled anti-abortion but anti-abortion somehow means something else.

I make this same complaint with Utilitarianism not being named Happyism. The usage of the word utility is misleading in the philosophy.

You're not even anti-abortion, much less Pro-Life

If you mean with the socially understood terms I am pro-life but pragmatically speaking I am anti-abortion if you take the words literally.

I still cannot fathom how you do not know this, I just checked Wikipedia and they have the same info available. This is just common knowledge in the US.

Well, you got one thing right.

This ugly attitude towards the issue is why I find Christians so frustrating. They get their self-righteous indignation on, while supporting pro-death policies more often than not.
Tom

This comes about from political parties using social platforms as emotional hoisters. I felt the same way as an atheist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is confusing. Do you think Trayvon Martin won? And what is the price one must pay for not doing something illegal (which is to say, doing something legal)?

Trayvon Martin died, he attacked someone and that person defended himself. The price one pays for one's crimes depends upon the circumstances.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can understand why you thought this.
But here's some current information:
The atheist’s case against abortion: respect for human rights
and
Yes, There Are Pro-Life Atheists Out There. Here’s Why I’m One of Them

I see this issue as rather like the issues that used to revolve around slavery. People were accustomed to the privilege of deciding who is a "person" and therefore matters, and who is not a person and is therefore disposable. It was pretty self serving then and it still is.
Tom

I agree that there are pro-life atheists too, as my quote said "most anti-abortion people are Christian" at least those that I run across. The problem with banning abortion is that one cannot tell when one crosses the line from a mass of cells to a human being. Since I cannot decide when a fetus becomes a person I am not going to legislate it. I can see putting restrictions on late term abortions, but anything in the first trimester gives me very few qualms at all. It is ultimately up to the person that is getting the abortion.

 

[Curious George]

Trayvon Martin died, he attacked someone and that person defended himself. The price one pays for one's crimes depends upon the circumstances.

What was the crime? Attacking someone in self defense? There was no crime. You used poor word choice. Own the mistake. The price we pay for poor word choice depends, of course, on our circumstances.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What was the crime? Attacking someone in self defense? There was no crime. You used poor word choice. Own the mistake. The price we pay for poor word choice depends, of course, on our circumstances.

Sorry, my wording was bad. Martin attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman was not doing anything illegal. Edited and fixed.

 

[columbus]

If you are just figuring this out you must have never paid any attention to pro-lifers in the last 3 decades.

I have known this for decades.
It's you that I now understand. You aren't Pro-Life, you aren't even anti-abortion.
You are pro-death and pro-abortion, as long as it gets you more money.
How Christian.
Tom

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have known this for decades.
It's you that I now understand. You aren't Pro-Life, you aren't even anti-abortion.
You are pro-death and pro-abortion, as long as it gets you more money.
How Christian.
Tom

Judging your earlier conflations I doubt this, a lot.

I never claimed to be anti-abortion as it is absurd in practical life. I am also not pro-abortion and my income is very meager and I have no intention on increasing it. I do whatever is morally right and justifiable. You seem only interested in taking from other to accommodate an easier life for yourself. I have spent my entire life poor and with complete capability to buy contraception and the need to thrive.

If that astonishes you then you have not lived. Life is hard and tough toenails to anybody who complains.

 

[Polymath257]

So cancer's grow into people?

No, but they are genetically human. So genetics isn't the key point. Agreed?

Adults in comas do not breathe either, I guess I should murder one if it suits me.

If they are not breathing, they die. Now, there may be a respirator helping them breath, but such would not work for a fetus.

But such cells do not contain potential to become persons by themselves. By your logic a rusted engine in a junkyard is a whole car despite not having common properties to be identified as such.

An embryo does not have the potential to become a human being *by itself*. It requires the body of a woman in order to be able to grow and develop.

And again, *potential* isn't the same as reality.

I wish I could respond to this but it saddens me that is how you view life.

What? Do you deny that the woman who is getting the abortion doesn't want that fetus inside of her?

This argument makes no sense and has no relevant point of discussion. A fetus is not taking over somebody's own body, it can become a nuisance in a woman's daily life but so can everything else become a nuisance . . . and often is.

The fetus most certainly *is* taking over the woman's body. It is feeding off of her, it is growing inside of her. It is suppressing her immune system.

If the woman wants that fetus out of her body, she has an absolute right to make sure that happens.

Abortion can be justified in context sure especially if the baby threatens the mother's life, or if adoption is not viable. But willy nilly abortion is the issue here nobody set the criteria.

Will nilly abortion? Really? Let's face it, using abortion as a means of birth control is stupid. It is much, much less costly and destructive to simply use BC. it is when BC fails that abortion becomes a crucial choice to have.

I have already addressed this before in the other post to @Subduction Zone. The same occurs in cars going from point A to point B and their likelihood to be in a collision it doesn't you mean scrap every

That made no sense at all that I can determine. And it certainly didn't address the point: a potential isn't a reality. The fetus is NOT YET a person. So no moral consideration is owed.

So a fetus does not have human DNA? And no fetus ever grows into a little child and we are all born from cosmic dust with no biological parents?

Yes, huan fetuses have human DNA and some can go on to develop into adults. As pointed out above, these are irrelevant. What is relevant is the current status, not the future status.

And you wonder why us pro-lifers mock you people and call you murderers?

Your logic is flawed.

No, my logic is good. It is based on different values than yours. That doe it bad logic.

Abortion is the killing of potential life for petty reasons. It is murder.

*POTENTIAL* That one word is what makes it not murder.

 

[Valjean]

It is not a child or adult if that is what you are saying. It is still human and contains all necessary traits to be identified as such.

If by human you're referring to our species, then, yes, even a zygote is human. But humanness per se does not command moral consideration.

So imagine making that argument about a mentally challenged person who lacks the all too human trait of competence. In this case you know he will never achieve full adult competency and he is a burden upon society or perhaps his caretakers. You are saying that person due to their inherent lacking should die? I am dating a person with a learning disability who although is very competent is very innocent and immature. Should she die due to the insignificant burden she places on me for it?

Is she capable of pain, or fear, or happiness? A person doesn't need competence or intelligence to command moral consideration

Personhood comes into play the minute that said being has the potential to become a person the same way a baby lacks adulthood. Why is personhood even relevant to you if it does not matter?

No.
Personhood involves self-interest, sentience, &c, not potential. Membership in a future category does not confer the rights and responsibilities of that category on one's current situation.

Neither are human or are capable of moral reciprocation. I am dealing with cats acting like lunatics now and you mean to tell me they perceive moral behavior offered by a human?

Neither species, capacity for reciprocation, nor awareness of proffered moral behavior is relevant, though. Morality isn't a contract.

The objective fact that a a fetus is a human. Humans all become persons unless they endure obstructions that do not permit it . . . like death.

How are you defining "human," Sha'irullah?

Seriously you baby killers puzzle me.

Again, your conflation of foetus and baby is your own peculiar belief.

You must have never been around mentally challenged people then. I have met people who not only have no clue of race yet alone their own they no concept of chronological awareness. I am talking about autistic people to some degree along with others I cannot identify.

So what's your point? Mentally challenged people can suffer and hurt, they can fear, they value their lives. That's why they're usually accorded moral consideration.

A fetus has all the considerations it requires though in any other circumstance as it has potentiality while the mentally challenged do not. A fetus is ensured childhood if all goes well and it is also ensured a biological need for preservation hence an umbilical cord. What about that negates your assumption if you will forgo that assumption for the mentally challenged.

Again, you're according the moral consideration of a future status to an entity that doesn't currently have that status. You don't salute a ten year old just 'cause he plans to become an army officer.

But we owe moral obligations to a cow who cannot conceive of our own morality and a lion which will show hostility toward us? Now you moved your principle backward to my position.

What does awareness of rights or of moral status have to do with anything?

So if moral reciprocation is not relevant we had no moral necessity to keep Charles Manson locked up? Or to defend our lives from attackers?

An immoral injustice cannot be met with a moral reaction?

I'm not sure I'm getting your point. I do believe it can be morally justified to restrain someone if he poses a threat to other people.

So then you have shifted back to the mentally challenged again. They have no moral justification to survive or be allowed to live by this standard of your now which keeps going in flux.

Either I'm being very unclear or you're being very obtuse. When did I ever say the mentally challenged had no claim to moral consideration?

Yet you wish to kill a fetus which is just a baby in development. It is a life and just like a baby it will one day be an adult. So what does a fetus not have that a baby does?

It doesn't have sentience or self awareness, it doesn't anticipate futurity or value its own life.

Because whether or not it feels pain is regardless of the issue, you are forcefully ending something that has biologically demonstrated a wanting to survive, a potential for independence and a family member in your species.

How does an entity unaware of its own existence demonstrate a a 'wanting to survive' -- or any sort of want, for that matter?

Free birth control is not a fix it all and has no signs of improving anything other than allowing for more high schoolers to copulate like rabbits.

Reducing the numbers of dependent individuals isn't an improvement?
I'm skeptical of a correlation between birth control and copulating like rabbits, but I think there is a correlation between the availability of contraception and fewer abortions, as well as a numerical reduction of a demographic dependent on social services.

Yet such services are justifiable and actually promote safety. Free birth control does not, it is merely a matter of principle and not a matter of what makes me feel good.

You also have not seen the atrocity of housing assistance, it is an abomination. Food stamps is a whole other issue in of itself.

Free birth control reduces births, specifically, births to people who are not psychologically or economically prepared to raise children and would likely become a burden on society, as you put it.
People not logistically and economically burdened by unwanted children are less likely to need housing assistance, and are in a better position to obtain employment or to further their education and move up a few tax brackets.