I agree. But we can build exceptions into the law that guarantee that allow for abortions in special cases (life of the mother threatened, etc), and still protect innocent human life.
The point of the article I posted is that there is a slippery slope. Once one thing becomes acceptable, another becomes thinkable, and then pretty soon that becomes acceptable as well. Using the tissues of aborted babies is morally acceptable. What will be next? [/quote]
Exceptions aren’t necessary. The death of a baby due to the side effects of treatment to the mother, such as chemotherapy, is not abortion. There was never any intent to kill the baby, only to save the mother. It’s not much different than saving the life of a conjoined twin, knowing the procedure will kill the other twin, but never intending to kill.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
HH, would you unpack that difference for us?[/quote]
Certainly. The difference is subtle for most people, yet it does exist.
To give or help because I see value in another person and wish to correct unjust suffering is a selfish act, and therefore moral PROVIDED that I gain more than I give. For example, if I give someone what to me is a trivial sum yet prevents them from suffering disaster, I enjoy that. I perceived a rational being and valued their well-being more than the sum.
Now, if I gave that person help at the cost of disaster to me, that’s an altruistic act. I put the welfare of another above my own. I lost more than I gained, I sacrificed a larger value (my well-being) for the sake of another.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
HH, would you unpack that difference for us?
Certainly. The difference is subtle for most people, yet it does exist.
To give or help because I see value in another person and wish to correct unjust suffering is a selfish act, and therefore moral PROVIDED that I gain more than I give. For example, if I give someone what to me is a trivial sum yet prevents them from suffering disaster, I enjoy that. I perceived a rational being and valued their well-being more than the sum.
Now, if I gave that person help at the cost of disaster to me, that’s an altruistic act. I put the welfare of another above my own. I lost more than I gained, I sacrificed a larger value (my well-being) for the sake of another.
[/quote]
(with apologies to prcaldude…)
I see what you mean, but that means altruism, as you’ve defined it, would be exceedingly rare, if it exists at all. And where your definition seems to apply to the few real-world examples I can think of, it seems to denigrate what we might otherwise call a noble act. For example, the marine who jumped on the grenade to save his buddies - should he be extolled for his bravery? Or is he an altruistic shmuck?
If you’re really worried about collapsing morals in this country, turn off your fucking TV.
So much shitty nastiness comes through this set these days. Humor has ALL become ‘tear-down’ humor. It’s divisive, vulgar, humiliating, and vile. ‘Reality’ TV is the nearly the worst of it (topped only by advertising), but it’s everywhere. Abortion is a small drop in the bucket compared to that.
Television (and video games) slowly and insidiously drug people into a kind of imbecility. Yes, that’s bad - especially when it keeps them from waking up to the true nature of the fresh & daily horrors around them.
And abortion? A state-sanctioned, legalized, efficient, quick slaughter of human life on an hourly basis.
Television is a slow and corroding drip wearing away at the moral fabric of our nation; abortion denies the very existence of that moral fabric.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
No it isn’t. They said it was the health of the mother which was a much looser standard intended to let the procedure be used as birth control.
It did allow for protecting the mothers life but only in a true life or death situation, not because the child would be born with Downs Syndrome.
A little over a year ago my wife and I went in for an ultrasound. The doctor said the baby had markers for Downs Syndrome and advised “genetic counseling” an amniocentesis and god knows what else. We told them to piss off.
Here is a picture of our perfect baby. We still would have had her and loved her if she was born with Downs Syndrome. Murdering a baby for convenience should never be an option.[/quote]
Genetic counseling has nothing to do with abortion Zap, it’s about being prepared for the worst even when you hope for the best.
Otherwise, how does a baby with downs syndrome endanger the “health” of the mother exactly? Regardless.
I’m all for banning abortion anywhere past the first trimester except for those cases in which the child will be dead at birth, or close to it, or the mothers life is in danger. I agree with most of what you’ve said, and that’s pretty rare for a thread. Hooray?
Oh and congrats on the beautiful baby Zap. Good luck with fatherhood and all that jazz.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
No it isn’t. They said it was the health of the mother which was a much looser standard intended to let the procedure be used as birth control.
It did allow for protecting the mothers life but only in a true life or death situation, not because the child would be born with Downs Syndrome.
A little over a year ago my wife and I went in for an ultrasound. The doctor said the baby had markers for Downs Syndrome and advised “genetic counseling” an amniocentesis and god knows what else. We told them to piss off.
Here is a picture of our perfect baby. We still would have had her and loved her if she was born with Downs Syndrome. Murdering a baby for convenience should never be an option.
Genetic counseling has nothing to do with abortion Zap, it’s about being prepared for the worst even when you hope for the best.
[/quote]
One of the things they counsel is that it is OK to have an abortion.
It doesn’t, yet partial birth abortions are done for this reason. Perfect illustration that the “health of the mother” clause is a cop out. All the doctor has to do is point put a blood pressure or insulin sensitivity issue that occurs with every pregnancy and the abortion meets that clause.
[quote]
I’m all for banning abortion anywhere past the first trimester except for those cases in which the child will be dead at birth, or close to it, or the mothers life is in danger. I agree with most of what you’ve said, and that’s pretty rare for a thread. Hooray?
Oh and congrats on the beautiful baby Zap. Good luck with fatherhood and all that jazz. [/quote]
Well somethings have changed for the better. To continue the metaphor you could call it a complete U-turn in morality. It’s way more humane to abort a fetus than it is to smash its head with a big fucking rock after it’s been birthed. Technology has allowed us to become more “humane” when alleviating a burden.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well somethings have changed for the better. To continue the metaphor you could call it a complete U-turn in morality. It’s way more humane to abort a fetus than it is to smash its head with a big fucking rock after it’s been birthed. Technology has allowed us to become more “humane” when alleviating a burden.[/quote]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well somethings have changed for the better. To continue the metaphor you could call it a complete U-turn in morality. It’s way more humane to abort a fetus than it is to smash its head with a big fucking rock after it’s been birthed. Technology has allowed us to become more “humane” when alleviating a burden.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well somethings have changed for the better. To continue the metaphor you could call it a complete U-turn in morality. It’s way more humane to abort a fetus than it is to smash its head with a big fucking rock after it’s been birthed. Technology has allowed us to become more “humane” when alleviating a burden.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
When a life is deliberately taken, everyone’s humanity is diminished.
Literally, yes. But you must understand that the idea of “humanity” has changed.[/quote]
How has the idea of “humanity” changed? Lifty, you’re the last person I expected I’d have to point to Orwell’s warning about the corruption of language for political purposes.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
katzenjammer wrote:
How has the idea of “humanity” changed?
The idea that the methods used to purposefully kill a living organism should be as painless as possible.
Not only that, there are many scientific and philosophical ambiguities concerning the nature of where life begins.[/quote]
accelerating…
We’re not talking any “life” here - we’re talking about human life. It’s not murder to kill a cow. It is murder to deliberately kill a human, though I’m not sure we have a consensus on that anymore in teh West.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
It is murder to deliberately kill a human, though I’m not sure we have a consensus on that anymore in teh West. [/quote]
Exactly why I call it a philosophical ambiguity. There are many who would disagree with you. I am not one of those people. I am just raising it as a point.