Abortion - No Matter What

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

Life begins at the moment a sperm combines with an egg. It is, in fact, human life, because it is comprised of human cells. Until it attaches to the uterine lining, it is very vulnerable life, with a very low probability of survival. The probability of it surviving increases with every passing day. But the odds are still pretty good that a first-tremester baby will end up as a blood clot on a maxi-pad.

So alive, check. Human, check. Viable outside the womb? Hmmm. Jury’s still out on that, but it looks like 20 weeks is about bare minimum, and even then there are no guarantees.
[/quote]
And Varq wrote in another post:

Theoretically, two men could do this as well, but they’d still need a surrogate mother until the technology exists (and it will, in time) to gestate a fetus to term starting with a single-celled zygote.

So which is it Varq? A measure of current technology or something else? Is technology not arbitrary when it comes to deciding when one has a right to life?

[quote]
A better question is, when does consciousness begin? Our tools are inadequate for the task of measuring consciousness, but an EEG detecting brain activity is a pretty good indication. If a man is brain-dead, that is, he has a no brain activity as detected on an EEG, is it murder to stop keeping him alive?

If not, then perhaps we can make consciousness our gold standard: killing a conscious being without cause constitutes a crime. I know this won’t satisfy the diehards like Pat who would save every last zygote, but how about it? If there’s activity on the EEG, then it’s a human being with a functioning mind, and it’s not okay to kill it anymore.[/quote]

So without the EEG activity, who exactly has the right to murder the unconscious? Who defines the sensitivity of the instrumentation? Finally, do you understand the difference between letting one die and killing?

223

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]tedro wrote:
As heinous as it is, at least you can make a logical argument for abortion no matter what as opposed to at arbitrary times in the gestation period. If a babies is inside you, then you have the right to kill it. It’s pretty sick but I can respect the defined argument much more than I can the wishy-washy ones that are based on the convenience of what “feels” right.[/quote]

I get what your saying but logically either your cool with infanticide or you are against abortion. The being inside of you argument doesn’t even hold much water. Any thing other than being cool with killing your baby, means that you are blurring the lines and just doing what you feel may be right. [/quote]

The lines get blurred between morality and legality here. If you think abortion is wrong, don’t get one. Just like you don’t cheat on your girlfriend if you think that’s wrong. It’s still legal and lots of other people are going to do it.

The fact is, government doesn’t and can’t legislate morality. Laws only exist to maintain the stability of governing bodies. Many illegal things are immoral, but they are not illegal BECAUSE they are immoral, they are illegal because otherwise chaos would ensue. In any case, when it comes to morality, you are responsible for your actions and yours alone, it is up to no one to hold all others accountable for whether or not they have done the right thing

224

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The question here is: When does life begin? That is the one and only question. If you believe that a baby is not alive until birth, then you are ok with someone who walks up to a pregnant woman and punches her in the belly, causing a miscarriage only being guilty of assault. Which is fine if that’s what you believe. But don’t be wishy washy. Choose what you believe and have a conviction. Either you believe its right or you believe its wrong there is not middle ground.[/quote]

Life begins at the moment a sperm combines with an egg. It is, in fact, human life, because it is comprised of human cells. Until it attaches to the uterine lining, it is very vulnerable life, with a very low probability of survival. The probability of it surviving increases with every passing day. But the odds are still pretty good that a first-tremester baby will end up as a blood clot on a maxi-pad.

So alive, check. Human, check. Viable outside the womb? Hmmm. Jury’s still out on that, but it looks like 20 weeks is about bare minimum, and even then there are no guarantees.

A better question is, when does consciousness begin? Our tools are inadequate for the task of measuring consciousness, but an EEG detecting brain activity is a pretty good indication. If a man is brain-dead, that is, he has a no brain activity as detected on an EEG, is it murder to stop keeping him alive?

If not, then perhaps we can make consciousness our gold standard: killing a conscious being without cause constitutes a crime. I know this won’t satisfy the diehards like Pat who would save every last zygote, but how about it? If there’s activity on the EEG, then it’s a human being with a functioning mind, and it’s not okay to kill it anymore.[/quote]

Good points, but there is a distinct difference between the brain dead man (most likely due to trauma of some sort) and an unborn child that does not yet show brain activity. The man’s chances of regaining brain activity are slim and is probably only alive due to the machines he is attached to. The unborn baby is in the process of gaining consciousness and is very likely to exhibit brain activity in the near future. [/quote]

Sure, it’s an imperfect metric, but a more precise one than, say when does life, or viability, begin.

It’s a compromise, but it’s a compromise that is more comfortably in line with my “fundamental world view” (to borrow a Pushism) than the views espoused by either the “every fertilized egg is a precious child” crowd or the “it’s almost out of the birth canal, quick! Grab the hedge clippers” crowd.

Just had a funny thought: abortion and guns have a lot in common. They both kill lots of children, and they both divide normally rational people into the side who thinks nobody should ever have one ever, and the side that says they should be available for every responsible adult who wants one.

These two sides are irreconcilable, of course, but there is another similarity between guns and abortions: you will never ban them in every country, and even if you could, there’s always a way to get one if you really, really want one. Even if you have to settle for a homemade one.

225

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

…Abortion and capital punishment are both the killing, with malice aforethought, of another human.[/quote]

Nope.

Malice is the intention or desire to do evil.

Capital punishment does not fit that definition.[/quote]

The death penalty is certainly given out with a desire to cause harm to another person. However, we don’t need to argue about that. Just realize that capital punishment gives the pro-abortion crowd an argument.

226

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
The question here is: When does life begin? That is the one and only question. If you believe that a baby is not alive until birth, then you are ok with someone who walks up to a pregnant woman and punches her in the belly, causing a miscarriage only being guilty of assault. Which is fine if that’s what you believe. But don’t be wishy washy. Choose what you believe and have a conviction. Either you believe its right or you believe its wrong there is not middle ground.[/quote]

Life begins at the moment a sperm combines with an egg. It is, in fact, human life, because it is comprised of human cells. Until it attaches to the uterine lining, it is very vulnerable life, with a very low probability of survival. The probability of it surviving increases with every passing day. But the odds are still pretty good that a first-tremester baby will end up as a blood clot on a maxi-pad.

So alive, check. Human, check. Viable outside the womb? Hmmm. Jury’s still out on that, but it looks like 20 weeks is about bare minimum, and even then there are no guarantees.

A better question is, when does consciousness begin? Our tools are inadequate for the task of measuring consciousness, but an EEG detecting brain activity is a pretty good indication. If a man is brain-dead, that is, he has a no brain activity as detected on an EEG, is it murder to stop keeping him alive?

If not, then perhaps we can make consciousness our gold standard: killing a conscious being without cause constitutes a crime. I know this won’t satisfy the diehards like Pat who would save every last zygote, but how about it? If there’s activity on the EEG, then it’s a human being with a functioning mind, and it’s not okay to kill it anymore.[/quote]

Good points, but there is a distinct difference between the brain dead man (most likely due to trauma of some sort) and an unborn child that does not yet show brain activity. The man’s chances of regaining brain activity are slim and is probably only alive due to the machines he is attached to. The unborn baby is in the process of gaining consciousness and is very likely to exhibit brain activity in the near future. [/quote]

Sure, it’s an imperfect metric, but a more precise one than, say when does life, or viability, begin.

It’s a compromise, but it’s a compromise that is more comfortably in line with my “fundamental world view” (to borrow a Pushism) than the views espoused by either the “every fertilized egg is a precious child” crowd or the “it’s almost out of the birth canal, quick! Grab the hedge clippers” crowd.

Just had a funny thought: abortion and guns have a lot in common. They both kill lots of children, and they both divide normally rational people into the side who thinks nobody should ever have one ever, and the side that says they should be available for every responsible adult who wants one.

These two sides are irreconcilable, of course, but there is another similarity between guns and abortions: you will never ban them in every country, and even if you could, there’s always a way to get one if you really, really want one. Even if you have to settle for a homemade one. [/quote]

Fair enough, and LOL.

I wonder what people think of a scenario where an unborn child is 99% likely to have a mental handicap and is developing without legs and arms… Would it be okay to abort for sake of the child’s quality of life?

228

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

[quote]jbpick86 wrote:

[quote]tedro wrote:
As heinous as it is, at least you can make a logical argument for abortion no matter what as opposed to at arbitrary times in the gestation period. If a babies is inside you, then you have the right to kill it. It’s pretty sick but I can respect the defined argument much more than I can the wishy-washy ones that are based on the convenience of what “feels” right.[/quote]

I get what your saying but logically either your cool with infanticide or you are against abortion. The being inside of you argument doesn’t even hold much water. Any thing other than being cool with killing your baby, means that you are blurring the lines and just doing what you feel may be right. [/quote]

The lines get blurred between morality and legality here. If you think abortion is wrong, don’t get one. Just like you don’t cheat on your girlfriend if you think that’s wrong. It’s still legal and lots of other people are going to do it.

The fact is, government doesn’t and can’t legislate morality. Laws only exist to maintain the stability of governing bodies. Many illegal things are immoral, but they are not illegal BECAUSE they are immoral, they are illegal because otherwise chaos would ensue. In any case, when it comes to morality, you are responsible for your actions and yours alone, it is up to no one to hold all others accountable for whether or not they have done the right thing[/quote]

I don’t know when I last saw so many cliched aphorisms strung together so artfully in one post.

230

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:

…The fact is, government doesn’t and can’t legislate morality. Laws only exist to maintain the stability of governing bodies. Many illegal things are immoral, but they are not illegal BECAUSE they are immoral, they are illegal because otherwise chaos would ensue…

[/quote]

Have you ever considered the magnificent idea that something might be immoral (and subsequently made illegal) precisely because the chaos that would ensue?[/quote]

Yes, but I’m curious what you had in mind.

Think of murder. Why is there a law against murder, because if there weren’t there would be complete chaos as the people that are willing to kill freely do so, right? Existing social institutions would crumble, for instance in a bid for power the murderers would kill all law enforcement so no laws could be enforced. Thats why there has always been a law against it.

But murder isn’t immoral because of this potential chaos and destruction of social order. Murder is immoral because even without an existing social order, when I encounter another person I have to recognize their right to live is equal to mine. That’s the moral issue.

What does your objection have to do with the present discussion? You can’t surely believe that the legality of abortion is causing the social order to crumble?

And I’d like to hear you address my other point about the government not legislating morality

231

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
The lines get blurred between morality and legality here. If you think abortion is wrong, don’t get one. Just like you don’t cheat on your girlfriend if you think that’s wrong. It’s still legal and lots of other people are going to do it.

The fact is, government doesn’t and can’t legislate morality. Laws only exist to maintain the stability of governing bodies. Many illegal things are immoral, but they are not illegal BECAUSE they are immoral, they are illegal because otherwise chaos would ensue. In any case, when it comes to morality, you are responsible for your actions and yours alone, it is up to no one to hold all others accountable for whether or not they have done the right thing[/quote]

Seriously then, why not murder? Why can’t I kill my own kids or a stranger on the street? Why don’t we legalize murder and just leave it up to individuals so that those that think murder is wrong will abstain, while others will kill? I’d argue that the matter of legality has nearly no effect on the actual murder rate anyways.

And what exactly is chaos? Over a million dead babies a year in this country alone doesn’t qualify?

232

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

…Abortion and capital punishment are both the killing, with malice aforethought, of another human.[/quote]

Nope.

Malice is the intention or desire to do evil.

Capital punishment does not fit that definition.[/quote]

I would say killing someone who is not an imminent threat is evil. However, we don’t need to argue about that. Just realize that capital punishment gives the pro-abortion crowd an argument.[/quote]

I think it does precisely the opposite because of the distinction (always important) between guilt and innocence.[/quote]

Do you mean guilt or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

233

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]Facepalm_Death wrote:
The lines get blurred between morality and legality here. If you think abortion is wrong, don’t get one. Just like you don’t cheat on your girlfriend if you think that’s wrong. It’s still legal and lots of other people are going to do it.

The fact is, government doesn’t and can’t legislate morality. Laws only exist to maintain the stability of governing bodies. Many illegal things are immoral, but they are not illegal BECAUSE they are immoral, they are illegal because otherwise chaos would ensue. In any case, when it comes to morality, you are responsible for your actions and yours alone, it is up to no one to hold all others accountable for whether or not they have done the right thing[/quote]

Seriously then, why not murder? Why can’t I kill my own kids or a stranger on the street? Why don’t we legalize murder and just leave it up to individuals so that those that think murder is wrong will abstain, while others will kill? I’d argue that the matter of legality has nearly no effect on the actual murder rate anyways.

And what exactly is chaos? Over a million dead babies a year in this country alone doesn’t qualify?[/quote]

You can go ahead and kill whoever you want I guess, if you do then its on your conscience. And if that sounds reasonable to you then you don’t care about morality anymore than the proabortion crowd does so playing the morality card in all arguments against abortion would never convince them anyway. The truth is most people don’t really have a conscience so they don’t act in fear of a feeling of guilt, they only act in fear of the legal repercussions

234

[quote] Facepalm_Death wrote:

Think of murder. Why is there a law against murder, because if there weren’t there would be complete chaos as the people that are willing to kill freely do so, right? Existing social institutions would crumble, for instance in a bid for power the murderers would kill all law enforcement so no laws could be enforced.[/quote]

Hold everything.

Did you just imply that the only thing holding ordinary people back from murdering each other, and the only thing stopping murderers from killing all the cops, is that there’s a law against it?

Ah ha.

Ah ha ha.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

235

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Hold everything.

Did you just imply that the only thing holding ordinary people back from murdering each other, and the only thing stopping murderers from killing all the cops, is that there’s a law against it?

Ah ha.

Ah ha ha.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha![/quote]

The government is the reason the sun rises, is it not?

236

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote] Facepalm_Death wrote:

Think of murder. Why is there a law against murder, because if there weren’t there would be complete chaos as the people that are willing to kill freely do so, right? Existing social institutions would crumble, for instance in a bid for power the murderers would kill all law enforcement so no laws could be enforced.[/quote]

Hold everything.

Did you just imply that the only thing holding ordinary people back from murdering each other, and the only thing stopping murderers from killing all the cops, is that there’s a law against it?

Ah ha.

Ah ha ha.

Ah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha![/quote]

Obviously, things are a lot more complicated now, in this country.

But if you looked at society as it originally formed, or if you look at countries with massive unrest or civil war, my point stands

Look at the tribal warfare that has always existed in africa, i.e. Sudan, Somalia, its all been pretty recent

240

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

…Abortion and capital punishment are both the killing, with malice aforethought, of another human.[/quote]

Nope.

Malice is the intention or desire to do evil.

Capital punishment does not fit that definition.[/quote]

I would say killing someone who is not an imminent threat is evil. However, we don’t need to argue about that. Just realize that capital punishment gives the pro-abortion crowd an argument.[/quote]

I think it does precisely the opposite because of the distinction (always important) between guilt and innocence.[/quote]

Do you mean guilt or guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?[/quote]

Our legal standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. Folks don’t go to death row without having been judged to that standard.
[/quote]

Just clarifying because innocent die in both capital punishment and abortion, but the former is okay because the number is much smaller I guess?