Debate on Abortion.

[Humanistheart]

There is nothing that I believe is morally wrong that I think others should have the right to do if they feel its OK. If I thought it was OK for people to do, I wouldn't think it was morally wrong..

That's because you're 'morals' are based on a delusion that a god exists and can change morality at his whim.

 

[TheKnight]

I also think it is immoral to try to make my own personal morals and ideals law for everyone else to follow.

Is it immoral to have standards? If not, then what exactly is it that you are doing when you argue against murder, rape, etc? You are promoting your particular standard. What about pedophilia? That doesn't affect you or me. It affects the child and the adult involved. Sure, we don't agree, does that mean we should let them do it just because they have a right to free choice?

I guess my thing is...how can you say something is wrong and then say it's OK for people to do it if that's the decision they want to make?

Abortion affects the woman who is pregnant and her partner and should be between them as to what they do. If Sally in New Hampshire decides to get an abortion, no matter her reasons, it doesn't affect you.

I'm sorry, but it also affects the child. If Sally and her husband Tom decide to kill Jim, that doesn't affect me either. But I would be against that action by Sally and Tom. And I'm sure you would too. In fact, unless you're the one getting murdered, murder doesn't affect you. But we tell people that they can't do it. Even though it doesn't affect us.

We may not agree with the particular thing she is doing, but it's not for us to make her decision.

We're not making her decision. We're telling her which decisions she is and is not allowed to make. That's part of what having standards does.

 

[TheKnight]

That's because you're 'morals' are based on a delusion that a god exists and can change morality at his whim.

Does anyone have morals where they will say that something is wrong to do, and say it's OK for people to do it?

If you believe it's OK for a person to do, why exactly do you think it's wrong? How can you say something is wrong if you think that it's OK for people to do it if they disagree?

 

[Humanistheart]

Does anyone have morals where they will say that something is wrong to do, and say it's OK for people to do it?

If you believe it's OK for a person to do, why exactly do you think it's wrong? How can you say something is wrong if you think that it's OK for people to do it if they disagree?

I cannot think of an example for myself, so I admitt the answer for me is no. I assume this is because I have correct ethical standards. I would however ask in any situation if, assumming what they are doing is in fact wrong or that I believed it, is it hurting anyone? For example, I know some christians who do believe homosexuality (or at least acting on it) is a sin, but did not vote against gay marriage? Why? Because it didn't affect them or hurt anyone (not to mention the idea of it being 'wrong' is contingent on there being a god and that people on earth actually know what he wants).

 

[TheKnight]

I cannot think of an example for myself, so I admitt the answer for me is no. I assume this is because I have correct ethical standards. I would however ask in any situation if, assumming what they are doing is in fact wrong or that I believed it, is it hurting anyone? For example, I know some christians who do believe homosexuality (or at least acting on it) is a sin, but did not vote against gay marriage? Why? Because it didn't affect them or hurt anyone.

The American gay marriage debate is not really one of "Can homosexuals have relationships" so much as it is one of "can homosexuals have the same rights as those who are straight when it comes to their relationships."

I would think, however, that a Christian who were to say "it is wrong to act on homosexual desires" would be expressing a relatively dissonant emotion in saying "it is OK for people to act on homosexual desires."

I don't see how in one breath a person can say "X is wrong, but you can do X". It's a lot like saying that one can do wrong.

 

[Humanistheart]

The American gay marriage debate is not really one of "Can homosexuals have relationships" so much as it is one of "can homosexuals have the same rights as those who are straight when it comes to their relationships."

I would think, however, that a Christian who were to say "it is wrong to act on homosexual desires" would be expressing a relatively dissonant emotion in saying "it is OK for people to act on homosexual desires.".

Not particularly, it would merely be acknowledging that, since the 'sin' only affects the individuals involved and no one else, that it is between them and their god (or rather between them and the god/system of the person evaluating the situation, in your case G_d.) Besides, the very definition of christian is hypocrisy thanks to the jesus depicted in the bible, so inconsistancy is not a problem for any christian; in fact it's required.

But as I said, unless you can prove something is wrong, using logic, facts, empiracle means then your morals are just based on beliefs, and this is a country of seperation of church and state. This is a good indicater that your personal morals, if not backed up properly, are meant to stay with you and you alone.

Oh, I thought of one! (Referencing the last post) I don't think it's ethical for humans to reproduce, does that mean I should go out of my way to force other's to stop breading?

 

[TheKnight]

Not particularly, it would merely be acknowledging that, since the 'sin' only affects the individuals involved and no one else, that it is between them and their god (or rather between them and the god/system of the person evaluating the situation, in your case G_d.) Besides, the very definition of christian is hypocrisy thanks to the jesus depicted in the bible, so inconsistancy is not a problem for any christian; in fact it's required.

But as I said, unless you can prove something is wrong, using logic, facts, empiracle means then your morals are just based on beliefs, and this is a country of seperation of church and state. This is a good indicater that your personal morals, if not backed up properly, are meant to stay with you and you alone.

Oh, I thought of one! (Referencing the last post) I don't think it's ethical for humans to reproduce, does that mean I should go out of my way to force other's to stop breading?

Do you think it's immoral to reproduce?

And while I think one could argue about separation of church and state. From a Biblical religious standpoint (for the Jew, Christian, or Muslim) you cannot make that argument. Because we are to "in all our way acknowledge Him."

There is no separation. To do so is to downgrade what we believe from true lifestyle, to compartmentalized past time.

 

[Draka]

When a human being actually begins to be human?

Draka, you'll have to forgive me, I'm not religious, at all. The idea that a young human somehow isn't a human until it get's some kind of unidentifiable quality that no one can agree on or explain sounds too much like a soul to me. Prove this soul exists or give me some other reason that the child growing in it's mother's womb is anything but that, a child.



That is not accurate. Homicide is killing a person, ILLEGALLY. Killing is killing, period, but things like murder, homicide, etc are defined purely by societies acceptance of them. A cop killing a gang member who's attacking him in the heat of struggle or to save a cicilians life, for example, is the killing of another human being, but it is not homicide. I do not have a possition on weather or not abortion should be murder, but regaurdless of the legality abortion is ending a life, it is killing.

At any rate, keep in mind there was a time when doctors made up excuses to blur the lines in favor of african slavery. Among the claims was that black's didn't posses the mental faculties of real humans, and needed to be told what to do or they would no survive. That is about the level of reasoning on the side of those claiming that the embryo is not a human life.Is there any reason biologically to think that the embryo is not a humane? Not that I know of, but if there is please enlighten me with it. No, so one must relly on philosophical pondering to come up with the question, "well, is it really human?"

As I told Kerr, go find an endangered condor egg, find some members of the EPA and smash it in front of them. Try your argument that it's debatable if it was really life, or really a bird at that point, see if it keeps you out of jail.



I'm well aware of this, but you've clearly missed the point and your statement does nothing to derail my point that your phrase 'choise goes both ways' is not, in any way, apt.



This may come as a bit of a surprise for you, but you and I are made of cells as well.



You don't see something distinct about this? If I scrape some cells off my nose does it grow to become a person? In my experience, no. Oh, but the embryo does, If the embryo is 'just cells' how do you explain this?



It's dishonest to use titles that would lead other's to a less than accurate conclusion. I covered both sides in my commentary in an equal fashion, I see nothing particularly cheap about it.



I agree, and I did address the hypocrisy of the term 'pro-life'.



You don't fight for abortion to be a legal right if you don't expect some women to use said right now do you? And come on, you don't know one woman who's been pressured by someone to get an abortion at some point in your life? Obviously non of your friends got pregnant in high school. At any rate, I can see this becomming an undesired tangeant, shall we skip this portion in future posts?



So you don't support a woman getting an abortion for the benifit of the child, but have no problem with them getting one because they think it's 'their body' and thus can do what ever they feel like. How lovely. If you're going to support abortion, do it for the right reasons, with people's (yes, that includes the innocent children that no one can prove are not children) best intrests in mind.

I too thought of adoption as a more positive alternative to abortion at one time. Then I got into social services and saw the life that many people who go through the system end up with. Bottom line, LIFE is horrid, period. Perhaps your familair with the first noble truth of the Bhudda, life is suffering?

It's late and I'm about about to go to bed so please excuse the brevity of my response.

First off, in regards to the soul thing and the argument about when a human becomes a human. Try to follow me here...I believe that a life is a life from the moment of conception. I do, however, recognize that some people don't think the same way. All my comments about what the embryo is biologically and so forth come from just that, biology. How a person interprets that information and digests that differs from person to person. I do not make up the rules of how everyone reasons with themselves the thing that is life. I just know and accept that some people reason differently and yes, sometimes that includes beliefs in souls.

I really don't understand what is so hard for some people to accept that one can feel a particular way about something and still support the rights of others to feel differently.

Oh, and I have had a friend that was more than just coerced into getting an abortion, she was threatened by her husband that if she didn't get one he would take the daughter they already had and run and she'd never see her again. However, that does not make him a person who pushes abortion to all people. That makes him a manipulative douche. Someone who is pro-abortion would be someone who thinks all pregnancies should be aborted. Just as someone who is anti-abortion thinks no pregnancies should be aborted. See the difference?


One last thing. Abortion, especially due to the reasons I named above, is not a clear cut thing and is a issue wholly unto itself which simply cannot be compared to issues such as homicide, rape, and so on. To do so is a dishonest tactic in trying to make issues with definitives and their treatment apply to an issue without clear definitives.



I'll try to check in tomorrow though it should be a busy day for me so it might not be until late...don't know. Until then. Goodnight.

 

[Humanistheart]

Do you think it's immoral to reproduce?.

For some people, in some cercumstances yes.

And while I think one could argue about separation of church and state. From a Biblical religious standpoint (for the Jew, Christian, or Muslim) you cannot make that argument. Because we are to "in all our way acknowledge Him."


There is no separation. To do so is to downgrade what we believe from true lifestyle, to compartmentalized past time.

This is why you should not have a say in politics or legality.

 

[Smoke]

That is not accurate. Homicide is killing a person, ILLEGALLY. Killing is killing, period, but things like murder, homicide, etc are defined purely by societies acceptance of them. A cop killing a gang member who's attacking him in the heat of struggle or to save a cicilians life, for example, is the killing of another human being, but it is not homicide.

You're mistaken. Homicide is killing a person, legally or not. If you get up in a tower and start shooting at passersby, and a police sharpshooter takes you out, your death certificate will say homicide, even though the sharpshooter did nothing illegal and will in fact be hailed as a hero.

 

[Smoke]

And while I think one could argue about separation of church and state. From a Biblical religious standpoint (for the Jew, Christian, or Muslim) you cannot make that argument. Because we are to "in all our way acknowledge Him."

That's the problem with Jews, Christians, and Muslims. So many of them think, as you do, that religious freedom is intolerable.

 

[Humanistheart]

It's late and I'm about about to go to bed so please excuse the brevity of my response.

First off, in regards to the soul thing and the argument about when a human becomes a human. Try to follow me here...I believe that a life is a life from the moment of conception. I do, however, recognize that some people don't think the same way. All my comments about what the embryo is biologically and so forth come from just that, biology. How a person interprets that information and digests that differs from person to person.

Okay... perhaps you can stick to something. Don't give me other people's arguments if you're just going to say 'oh, those weren't MY idea's' when you can't or don't feel like backing them up.

I do not make up the rules of how everyone reasons with themselves the thing that is life. I just know and accept that some people reason differently and yes, sometimes that includes beliefs in souls.

I really don't understand what is so hard for some people to accept that one can feel a particular way about something and still support the rights of others to feel differently...

I'm not like Kight, I can see situations where that is the case that your own moral code does not need nor should be forced on others, but I'm not like you either, I also admit there are causes that that can't be accepted either, slavery, homicide, child abuse, etc.

Oh, and I have had a friend that was more than just coerced into getting an abortion, she was threatened by her husband that if she didn't get one he would take the daughter they already had and run and she'd never see her again. However, that does not make him a person who pushes abortion to all people. That makes him a manipulative douche. Someone who is pro-abortion would be someone who thinks all pregnancies should be aborted. Just as someone who is anti-abortion thinks no pregnancies should be aborted. See the difference?..

You make a good point, I had not thought about it like that. In theory I agree but this leaves me with unfinished thoughts here. First, most of the people who would be called 'anti-abortion' do not in fact hold that NO pregnancies shall be aborted. There are times when even old fashioned organizations like the catholic chuch recognize abortion is the best option, the typical example being that complications threaten the womans life. So, in effect anti-abortion would no more be the banning of all abortion than pro-abortion would be the call to abort all babbies. Or we could say that neither are apt discriptors, but then neither were the traditional pro-choice/life discriptions.

I'm curious, can anyone think of an all encompussing term for both groups that isnt' misleading?

One last thing. Abortion, especially due to the reasons I named above, is not a clear cut thing and is a issue wholly unto itself which simply cannot be compared to issues such as homicide, rape, and so on. To do so is a dishonest tactic in trying to make issues with definitives and their treatment apply to an issue without clear definitives..

I agree that abortion is a uniquely complicated matter, but homicide wasn't compared to abortion per say, it was used to illuminate your argument that no one has the right to force their morality onto another person, dispite the many many examples one can give to the contrary. Also, everything, every issue including homicide, rape, child abuse or what have you can be complicated in the right (or wrong depending on how you look at it) culture or circumstances. You might think what we define as 'homicide' is clear cut, but people from various other time's and cultures would not agree on your definition. At one time, slavery was complicated as well, but it's not now. Perhaps one day we'll get to a point when we as a society do not feel abortion is complicated and there was a difinitive answer.

Basically your entire argument comes down to moral relativism, but selective releativism for this one particular topic only.



'

 

[Humanistheart]

You're mistaken. Homicide is killing a person, legally or not. If you get up in a tower and start shooting at passersby, and a police sharpshooter takes you out, your death certificate will say homicide, even though the sharpshooter did nothing illegal and will in fact be hailed as a hero.

Really? That does change things. I guess abortion does fit the definition of homicide, and the term homicide just dropped in importance significantly. Well, live and learn.

 

[Smoke]

I guess abortion does fit the definition of homicide

Only if a fetus -- or as some anti-abortion zealots would have it, a zygote -- is a person. The notion that it is a person is a novel notion, put forth solely for political reasons. It has no basis in legal or religious tradition. Traditionally, a fetus was not considered alive until the time of quickening (that's what it means), and was not considered to have a soul until after birth.

 

[Humanistheart]

Only if a fetus -- or as some anti-abortion zealots would have it, a zygote -- is a person. .

True, this is all contengent on the idea that the fetus is a child; I already said that when I started talking with draka. Still, no one has ever put forth any compelling scientific evidence to think otherwise, although that is probably because of the reasons draka listed concerning the fact that we don't currently have one accpeted definition of the conept of a human being. I personally feel the mental gynastics required to argue that a fetus is not a human child is a little too existential/philosophical for my taste, but conversly perhaps that's how people who don't see the fetus as a human feel about those who do.

The notion that it is a person is a novel notion, put forth solely for political reasons. It has no basis in legal or religious tradition.
Traditionally, a fetus was not considered alive until the time of quickening (that's what it means), and was not considered to have a soul until after birth.

That's interesitng. Traditionally, in what culture? Or are you saying that is the case in every culture throughout time and space? And did these cultures actually know what a fetus was, or was this before we had proper science? I ask more out of curiosity than anything as I don't think tradition really matters. Do you? Plus you're far too intellegent to think religious traditions of people would matter on a purely ethical conern. Socially I'm sure, but not ethically.

Edit: Oh, I'm not directing this at you storm as you've never suggested otherwise, but I thought I'd add that even if one does conclude that the fetus is a human it does not mean that they would inherently be against abortion.

 

[DallasApple]

So, I do accept that it's no one's buisness to tell a woman what to do with her body, but likewise why should she then have the right to deside what's going to happen to another human's body (her child)? That seems to me a somewhat hypocritical claim. It's putting the issue of the womans body (which is certainly an issue) over the issue of the child's body as they are, unfortunatley, intertwind until birth. I soppose it would be a case of womens rights vs childrens rights. (And yes, I have no moral issue with abortion if carrying the child meant endangering the mothers life or health, as that can be seen as the same as a self defence situation.)

All pregnancies and child birth carry a risk to the mothers health period.Who else should get to decide for a woman besides her whether or not she should take ANY risk at all besides her?Or where to draw the line on what risk factors are good enough reason to terminate?

And the whole just give it up for adoption after its born is so easy to suggest for someone else.What if she does not want to go through that?What if she doesnt want to take the risk that the child will end up a ward of the state or in the hands of adoptive parents that are neglectful or abusive?

What if she already has children and she doesnt want her children to suffer any emotional damage from giving away their sibling?

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

Also as far as the mothers right to do with her body versus someoen elses body.A fact of the matter is most pregnancies and childbirth carry a risk of some sort of permenent damage.

Not to get to graphic but its a fact that many women have to have episitomies which is the doctor slicing a cut in her vagina to minimize tearing during delivery.It leaves a scar that can cause pain during sex.(fo rthe REST of her life)

Thats a minimal possible risk.

My mother had a healthy 4th pregnancy all the way to delivery.the delivery however was rough and she ended up with blood clots in her vagina due to tearing.They had do surgery on that right after delivery.during the surgery (its assumed) she picked up a staph infection.That was spreading around in her body for months after unbeknownst to her and the doctors untill she finally got extremely ill ..She almost died.She had to have a total hysterectomy at the age of 31.

The point is the mother is always at risk even if its "only" scarring.

Having said all that..I dont think most women contemplate abortion due to fear of possible injury to her.

Love

Dallas

 

[DallasApple]

No one forces a woman to bear a child because no one forces a woman to get pregnant.

The act of "getting pregnant" and the act of carrying a child for 40 weeks and delivering that child are two completely different things.

You can not compare a woman choosing to have sex to her then being held hostage for 40 weeks and forced to deliver a baby against her wishes(because someone else gets to make that choice for her).And then having to choose to give the baby away or keep it and raise it herself.

As well as others have mentioned a woman can be forced to have sex resulting in said unwanted pregnancy.

Love

Dallas

 

[Willamena]

What? Outside of situations where her life is endangered, I fail to see how killing her unborn fetus is a choice of life.

What I meant is that the "choice" includes the right to decide "no to abortion."

The Pro-life stance does not offer choice.

 

[DallasApple]

No one forces a woman to bear a child because no one forces a woman to get pregnant.

Im sorry this is really getting on my nerves.

It would be forcing her if a relativley safe and inexpensive alternative to continuing with the pregnancy was made illegal.

Again I will point out ..having sex and being pregnant for 40 weeks and then delivering a baby are two completely seperate things.

I've done both I know the difference trust me.You being a man obviously have only used your body for the sex part.(assuming your arent a virgin).

One example is C-section..last I heard having sex didnt involve having to have a needle stuck in your spine to paralyze and and a knife cutting through abdnominal muscles and your reproductive organ called a uterus sliced open to complete the act.

You as a man would never have to go through something like that at someone ELSES order against your will from one single sexual encounter.

Thats not even to mention the FORTY WEEKS of pregnancy that can involve the woman suffering things such as diabetes..urine incontinence..back aches..headaches ..vominting...leaking swollen painful breast...edima..(extreme and painful swelling of extremeties)..acid reflux...tooth decay..etc.

Love

Dallas