[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Abortion is much more humane than the way it used to happen.[/quote]
humane? in what way is killing an innocent life humane, I mean sure it’s not eating it while it is still alive, but sucking the baby part by part out of the womb while it can start to feel at ~13 weeks isn’t much better.
[quote]makkun wrote:
All the examples you use are about one person using their body to force someone else to certain (illegal) actions - except with regards to the suicide example (which is handled differently in a variety of legal systems). That’s why no one’s defending these examples - they aren’t equivalent to a woman doing something (or better having something done) to her own body.
Makkun[/quote]
So there isn’t a human inside her womb that she is aborting…okay. Just wanted to clear that up.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]makkun wrote:
All the examples you use are about one person using their body to force someone else to certain (illegal) actions - except with regards to the suicide example (which is handled differently in a variety of legal systems). That’s why no one’s defending these examples - they aren’t equivalent to a woman doing something (or better having something done) to her own body.
Makkun[/quote]
So there isn’t a human inside her womb that she is aborting…okay. Just wanted to clear that up.[/quote]
Yes, it is a human developing inside her - and yet just as with all the other legal scenarios in which our societies allow to legally kill humans (and which still no one seems to want to address in the discussion), her right of self determination trumps the developing human’s right to further proceed.
I see you haven’t really invested the time and attention to read my more detailed posts on this. Shame, could have been an interesting discussion.
Makkun
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]makkun wrote:
Addendum: While I’m fully in the pro-choice camp, I agree with you that doing everything should be done to avoid abortions. Partially this is driven by the view that indeed from a certain time in a pregnancy onwards an abortion is most probably a killing - which however is outweighed by the mother’s right of self-determination about her own body - which includes securing her economical and emotional future. Enabling women to avoid having to face this terrible choice though is not achieved by restrictive abortion laws, but by education, information and availability of appropriate contraceptive methods and promoting healthy and risk reducing sexual behaviours - in both men and women.
Makkun[/quote]
If only the pro choice camp agreed with your line of thinking but most pro choice groups seek to expand abortion by getting around the requirements for notification of parents in case of underaged, not providing proper counciling, playing down adoption and on and on.
These abortion mills actually tell people how brave and courageous they are to decide to get an abortion before they discuss other options. It is an absolute mockery of the laws and human decency.[/quote]
Isn’t that more of a regulatory question? I would think that under scrutiny of the pro-life lobby, the legislative framework should be fairly restrictive and controls quite rigid. Obviously, activists who aim to control and keep in check practitioners in this field should uphold the highest standards themselves.
Makkun
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]makkun wrote:
All the examples you use are about one person using their body to force someone else to certain (illegal) actions - except with regards to the suicide example (which is handled differently in a variety of legal systems). That’s why no one’s defending these examples - they aren’t equivalent to a woman doing something (or better having something done) to her own body.
Makkun[/quote]
So there isn’t a human inside her womb that she is aborting…okay. Just wanted to clear that up.[/quote]
Yes, it is a human developing inside her - and yet just as with all the other legal scenarios in which our societies allow to legally kill humans (and which still no one seems to want to address in the discussion), her right of self determination trumps the developing human’s right to further proceed.
I see you haven’t really invested the time and attention to read my more detailed posts on this. Shame, could have been an interesting discussion.
Makkun[/quote]
I would, but I’m not advocating legally killing any innocent lives (most of the time am not attempting to justify the killing of non-innocent people, either). So, how can I get past this, when it seems to be the basis of your argument. If your first premise is it is “her body” and “you advocate legal killings of other people” then the first one we already established as I have to point out that people can’t do what they want to their body, like they can’t do drugs, they can’t drink and drive, they can’t walk around naked in a public place, all things a person can’t do with their own body. Now, I’m not saying a woman doesn’t have a choice to do with her body as she wishes, of course she does. I have the right to do with my body as I wish, however that freedom comes with consequences. If I do drugs, I might lose my job, go to jail, lose my house, &c. If I attempt to kill myself, I can go to jail. If I walk around naked in public I’ll have to register as a sex offender, go to Jail, possibly lose my family, &c.
The second premise doesn’t matter at all, non sequitur. Not the same, the woman is not in war, she is not a police officer, she is not a prison executor, &c. She is a mother of her baby and she has the option to kill it, I’m not arguing if she has the option, everyone has the option legal or otherwise. I say this because I am sure we all recognize that we have the free will to do with our bodies what we are capable of doing.
The question on the table is should she kill her child, should she be allowed to kill her child, and what consequences should she face besides biological, physical, and psychological consequences, if a mother does kill her child.
To the first, I say no with extreme prejudice. No ifs, no ands, no buts. With a universal rule there has to be an exception (sometimes…see even universal rules about universal rules have exceptions). Let me clarify, a indirect abortion of the baby is one that the purpose of the surgery is not to kill the baby, but to save the mother. If the intent of the surgery to to terminate the pregnancy, then it is unethical and immoral. However, if the intent of the surgery is to save the mother, such as a C-section (induced labor, baby in the fallopian tube attempting to move it to the uterus, &c.) and the baby is killed because it could not live with reasonable assistance through or after the surgery, then that is an “indirect abortion.” The same goes for things like chemo/radiation for the eradication of uterine cancer. In the instance of “accidental abortion” if a woman were to be pregnant with a child and were to trip and kill the baby in the womb on accident to where it was aborted or miscarried then that could not be considered immoral or unethical.
The reason I am pointing this out, is because there is some black and white people, and even though I am black and white, I am not giving false dichotomies. In order for it to be immoral, just like the Catholic Church (we got it from Aristotle or someone) says that in order for something to be a mortal sin, it has to include the willful intent and the person has to have the full knowledge of what they are doing. So, if someone was getting treatment for cancer while they were pregnant (if they decided not to that is the more brave thing to do, but in the case of a life threatening situation it is unnecessary to postpone treatment) but we can see getting treatment for cancer and losing the baby in the process is not a immoral because there was not willful intent and the operation of treating cancer does not automatically mean that a baby will die. Unlike abortion which the procedure’s sole intent is to kill the baby, and unless there is a mistake in the operation of an abortion will always lead to a baby being killed.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]makkun wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]makkun wrote:
All the examples you use are about one person using their body to force someone else to certain (illegal) actions - except with regards to the suicide example (which is handled differently in a variety of legal systems). That’s why no one’s defending these examples - they aren’t equivalent to a woman doing something (or better having something done) to her own body.
Makkun[/quote]
So there isn’t a human inside her womb that she is aborting…okay. Just wanted to clear that up.[/quote]
Yes, it is a human developing inside her - and yet just as with all the other legal scenarios in which our societies allow to legally kill humans (and which still no one seems to want to address in the discussion), her right of self determination trumps the developing human’s right to further proceed.
I see you haven’t really invested the time and attention to read my more detailed posts on this. Shame, could have been an interesting discussion.
Makkun[/quote]
I would, but I’m not advocating legally killing any innocent lives (most of the time am not attempting to justify the killing of non-innocent people, either). So, how can I get past this, when it seems to be the basis of your argument. If your first premise is it is “her body” and “you advocate legal killings of other people” then the first one we already established as I have to point out that people can’t do what they want to their body, like they can’t do drugs, they can’t drink and drive, they can’t walk around naked in a public place, all things a person can’t do with their own body. Now, I’m not saying a woman doesn’t have a choice to do with her body as she wishes, of course she does. I have the right to do with my body as I wish, however that freedom comes with consequences. If I do drugs, I might lose my job, go to jail, lose my house, &c. If I attempt to kill myself, I can go to jail. If I walk around naked in public I’ll have to register as a sex offender, go to Jail, possibly lose my family, &c.[/quote]
I wouldn’t venture to go and say that you advocate the killing of any people. My general point on this is that as societies we make rules which legislate for issues as serious as legally taking lives. A totally pacifist stance would have to forbid any killing under any circumstance - not taking it essentially leads to having to accept that the rules hinted at are based on conventions on what’s acceptable and what’s not. Your examples in the paragraph above are still based on conventions and are regulated different depending on culture and history. I fully recognise that you think abortion as a killing should be clearly not acceptable. And no sane pro choice supporter will say that abortions don’t have consequences - and that is why avoiding them is the highest priority. Yet, currently, abortions under certain legal circumstances are legal (or illegal but unpunished) in our respective societies.
I think the second premise matters very much, contrary to your assertion: being at war, enforcing the law, even executing someone are functions within which the law has given the right to take lives. So it has with abortions. I gather that you don’t agree with the ethical foundation on which this specific right to legally abort hangs - and that is fine imho - yet my point is that the above functions exemplify the fact that societies make choices of what they deem acceptable. I happen to be opposed to the death penalty - yet I recognise it as an attempt (within your society) to dispense justice and support the common good. Now this is the tough one: I feel the same about laws that allow women the choice whether to abort. It’s a terrible choice and best avoided - yet I interpret the evidence on more restrictive rules as counterproductive to actually avoiding abortions and against the imho higher value of self-determination on the part of the woman. I get more conservative the later the abortion happens in the pregnancy, as I do - just as you - not relish the destruction of a life. I think though that in the context of the above, social reality makes a totally life affirming stance unrealistic, and the consequences acceptable.
I think that point is partially moot - she is already allowed (albeit heavily regulated) to kill her child; or if you want to be more open to the argument made by some, the fetus which will become the child. The question that I see as more prevalent is - should we be allowed as a society to take that current permission away again - and what will this achieve. While unpalatable, the current option strikes me as less worse than the alternative: more abortions in less medically safe ways, leading to even more suffering than the current solution produces.
I think we both agree on this. Accidents and medical incidents carry no ethical burden on the potential mother.
I don’t really comment on views based on religious convictions, but your point strikes me as generally reasonable - see paragraph above. I’m just a bit unclear on this point now: are you saying that an abortion to enable treatment is not unethical, or it is so only essentially when the abortion happens as part of the treatment? I don’t get that fully. If you would see it as acceptable to abort for supporting or enabling a treatment, then we would be in agreement. Yet, I would have to raise the point again that it comes down to what we accept as a convention - in this case allowing the normally unallowable. If I got you wrong, well, then we disagree on that as well. 
Makkun
[quote]makkun wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]makkun wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]makkun wrote:
All the examples you use are about one person using their body to force someone else to certain (illegal) actions - except with regards to the suicide example (which is handled differently in a variety of legal systems). That’s why no one’s defending these examples - they aren’t equivalent to a woman doing something (or better having something done) to her own body.
Makkun[/quote]
So there isn’t a human inside her womb that she is aborting…okay. Just wanted to clear that up.[/quote]
Yes, it is a human developing inside her - and yet just as with all the other legal scenarios in which our societies allow to legally kill humans (and which still no one seems to want to address in the discussion), her right of self determination trumps the developing human’s right to further proceed.
I see you haven’t really invested the time and attention to read my more detailed posts on this. Shame, could have been an interesting discussion.
Makkun[/quote]
I would, but I’m not advocating legally killing any innocent lives (most of the time am not attempting to justify the killing of non-innocent people, either). So, how can I get past this, when it seems to be the basis of your argument. If your first premise is it is “her body” and “you advocate legal killings of other people” then the first one we already established as I have to point out that people can’t do what they want to their body, like they can’t do drugs, they can’t drink and drive, they can’t walk around naked in a public place, all things a person can’t do with their own body. Now, I’m not saying a woman doesn’t have a choice to do with her body as she wishes, of course she does. I have the right to do with my body as I wish, however that freedom comes with consequences. If I do drugs, I might lose my job, go to jail, lose my house, &c. If I attempt to kill myself, I can go to jail. If I walk around naked in public I’ll have to register as a sex offender, go to Jail, possibly lose my family, &c.[/quote]
I wouldn’t venture to go and say that you advocate the killing of any people. My general point on this is that as societies we make rules which legislate for issues as serious as legally taking lives. A totally pacifist stance would have to forbid any killing under any circumstance - not taking it essentially leads to having to accept that the rules hinted at are based on conventions on what’s acceptable and what’s not. Your examples in the paragraph above are still based on conventions and are regulated different depending on culture and history. I fully recognise that you think abortion as a killing should be clearly not acceptable. And no sane pro choice supporter will say that abortions don’t have consequences - and that is why avoiding them is the highest priority. Yet, currently, abortions under certain legal circumstances are legal (or illegal but unpunished) in our respective societies.[/quote]
You don’t have to be a pacifist to be just. Self defense, protection of property, &c. proves this otherwise. And, no I disagree about the different depending on culture and history. Through history killing of babies, may have been allowed, but was still looked down upon through history by a majority of people.
[quote]
I think the second premise matters very much, contrary to your assertion: being at war, enforcing the law, even executing someone are functions within which the law has given the right to take lives.[/quote]
You would have to ignore the fact in situations like execution of self defense of society, same for war. Even in those circumstances though, killing of innocent lives is still unappeasable.
Abortion is not heavily regulated, Texas the most regulated abortion state in the Union requires an inspection every four years. A fetus is a child. What will it achieve it will stop societal suicide. The medically unsafe argument is worthless, it’s the should we make it more unsafe for criminals to do crimes argument. More suffering, you mean the increase in abortions since Roe v. Wade and the still small amount of illegal and medically dangerous abortions that happen now?
[quote]
I think we both agree on this. Accidents and medical incidents carry no ethical burden on the potential mother.
I don’t really comment on views based on religious convictions, but your point strikes me as generally reasonable - see paragraph above. I’m just a bit unclear on this point now: are you saying that an abortion to enable treatment is not unethical, or it is so only essentially when the abortion happens as part of the treatment? I don’t get that fully. If you would see it as acceptable to abort for supporting or enabling a treatment, then we would be in agreement. Yet, I would have to raise the point again that it comes down to what we accept as a convention - in this case allowing the normally unallowable. If I got you wrong, well, then we disagree on that as well.
Makkun[/quote]
What I am saying is that, say that you are having a radiation because of the mother’s health and the mother dies because of that radiation, the radiation did not and does not have the purpose of killing the mother. So, the operation although killed the mother does not have the intent of killing the mother and therefore cannot be deemed immoral on the account of the mother dying. Now replace mother with child. So, if a mother is pregnant and she has radiation and the possible side effect happens to be the child dying, then it is not immoral because the child dying is not a direct effect (the intent of the radiation is not to kill the child), but an accidental side effect.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
I think it’s hilarious that all the very empathetic people here emoting over a bunch of tadpoles, and lamenting the fact so many are prematurely killed would probably freak out and stomp on a small fetus if you just tossed one at them.[/quote]
So, because someone might be squeamish about having a baby thrown at them, that means what about being empathetic? [/quote]
It means that the fetus is NOT “obviously” a human at that point, and so any argument against abortion that depends upon the intrinsic worth of human life, or the immorality of killing a human, etc., is null and void, because it assumes what it is trying to prove.
You’re over-simplifying the question to lead to the answer you want. If those consequences are inevitable, and unfailingly result from the action in question then yes, they should be held accountable for them. Example:
I shoot you in the head (or you shoot me in the head, whatever, I’m not implying anything), and you (or I) die. I (or you) should be punished in accordance with the law.
But, if there’s an alternative, then the answer is not automatically yes. Example:
A man and a woman have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant. The woman discovers quickly that she is pregnant. She doesn’t want a child. So, she has an abortion at 4 weeks.
No problem here, because there was another option that prevented the undesirable consequences of the sex, and no, no matter what you say, no one was hurt.
What’s far more interesting to consider is how authoritarian your ideas are. Because not only is there the obvious: you are using the power of the government to strip a woman of her right to her own person (if there’s a more fundamental right, I don’t know what it is, and if this right is not guaranteed, I don’t know why you’d give a shit about any other ones), and thus are enshrining sexism into law, but there’s also the implied restrictions: if you are saying that no abortions are allowed, then what you are saying is, if you don’t want a child RIGHT NOW, then you shouldn’t have sex. You’re putting the government into the bedroom, and telling people when they can and can’t have sex.
I don’t know why you’d even suspect that this is acceptable.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
What is silly is Ryan equates HUMAN embryos with tadpoles. Once he makes that ridiculously false statement the rest of his argument is invalidated.
What is silly is that anyone takes Ryan seriously when he has proven himself a fool and liar.[/quote]
Oh Jesus, I didn’t think anyone could be this stupid, but apparently the right wing knows no bounds when it comes to distortion.
Let’s be clear: you are either a liar, or a sloppy thinker. No surprise–you’re a conservative, and so at least one of the two is a prerequisite. But let’s be equally clear: your dishonesty and/or sloppy thinking is not my fault. I will not further tolerate your idiocy.
Ryan does no such thing.
equate:
to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent
Now, since you claim to have a degree in a hard science, you must be familiar with the concept of a function. To take a simple example, y=x and y=x^2 are obviously not equivalent. I do not equate them. Yet nevertheless, there exists a point at which the value of the two functions are equal: x=1.
In the very same way, a human embryo is obviously different from a _____ embryo. No one is denying that. Yet, there does exist a point (and I posted pictures of this point) at which the two are, for all practical purposes, identical. For you to call me a fool, and then make arguments about the development of the human is the height of both hilarity and foolhardiness, for the future development of the human is totally irrelevant at the point we are considering.
Indeed, it makes no sense to label things based on their conditions arbitrarily far in the future. An embryo is not a human, or else a human is not even a human. Because it you wait long enough, the human dies, and ceases to be anything, other than a collection of chemicals. If you wait longer still, part of that material may be incorporated into some other organism. No no, the classification of things is based on their current state, however inconvenient it may make political argumentation.
I am neither a fool nor a liar, though your numerous incapacities may make it appear that way from time to time.
Sorry to be gone for the day. First we need to understand the difference between America and Europe. America will let anyone, at any time of the pregnancy have an abortion performed some states have restricted the procedure [edit]. If the abortion fails while trying to kill the child in say the first trimester, the doctor/s and nurses on staff will leave a viable (kicking and screaming, aka healthy) life on the table until the child dies from lack of being cared for.
In all conditions, abortion is murder. Someone in the end WILL die. And just so you know, I do not support in the killing of ANYONE. I don’t care who the person is, or what they have done, no one has the right to kill another human. NO ONE!! From an adult to a fetus the moment after conception. - The only exception would be if someone broke into my house and threatened to kill me and my family. The son of a bitch will die or I am going down with him. My ideal way would be to sacrifice my life for another person/s. I would even lay my life down for a stranger.
I would also like to bring Chile as an example of a country who has outlawed abortion. If a Dr. is caught performing an abortion, he has his license pulled immediately and he goes to jail for a number of years. The woman will spend the rest of her life in jail. OMG, a travesty right? Well, they have NONE of the problems America or Europe would supposedly have if they adopted similar laws.
[quote]makkun wrote:
I think that point is partially moot - she is already allowed (albeit heavily regulated) to kill her child; or if you want to be more open to the argument made by some, the fetus which will become the child. The question that I see as more prevalent is - should we be allowed as a society to take that current permission away again - and what will this achieve. While unpalatable, the current option strikes me as less worse than the alternative: more abortions in less medically safe ways, leading to even more suffering than the current solution produces.
[/quote]
edit - women can have an abortion at ANY stage of pregnancy, if it effects their “health”.
No ryan, YOU are trying to add areas of gray. If you/I kill another person, we will be held accountable for our actions. No one should have any exceptions, including the woman who has the free will to partake in an activity that may result in the creation of life. If she can not handle the responsibility of another life gasp do NOT partake in the activity.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You’re over-simplifying the question to lead to the answer you want. If those consequences are inevitable, and unfailingly result from the action in question then yes, they should be held accountable for them. Example:
I shoot you in the head (or you shoot me in the head, whatever, I’m not implying anything), and you (or I) die. I (or you) should be punished in accordance with the law.[/quote]
Provide an example of how the child is NOT a separate person from the mother, please no more OPINIONS that are simply that, with no medical backing.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
But, if there’s an alternative, then the answer is not automatically yes. Example:
A man and a woman have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant. The woman discovers quickly that she is pregnant. She doesn’t want a child. So, she has an abortion at 4 weeks.
No problem here, because there was another option that prevented the undesirable consequences of the sex, and no, no matter what you say, no one was hurt.[/quote]
Where am I trying to take away the right of a woman/man to partake in activities of an adult? I simply wish her/him to be held accountable for their actions. Remind me again the consequences of the father that does not wish to pay child support for the child he helped to create? “I don’t know why you’d even suspect that this is acceptable.”
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
What’s far more interesting to consider is how authoritarian your ideas are. Because not only is there the obvious: you are using the power of the government to strip a woman of her right to her own person (if there’s a more fundamental right, I don’t know what it is, and if this right is not guaranteed, I don’t know why you’d give a shit about any other ones), and thus are enshrining sexism into law, but there’s also the implied restrictions: if you are saying that no abortions are allowed, then what you are saying is, if you don’t want a child RIGHT NOW, then you shouldn’t have sex. You’re putting the government into the bedroom, and telling people when they can and can’t have sex.
I don’t know why you’d even suspect that this is acceptable.
[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
What is silly is Ryan equates HUMAN embryos with tadpoles. Once he makes that ridiculously false statement the rest of his argument is invalidated.
What is silly is that anyone takes Ryan seriously when he has proven himself a fool and liar.[/quote]
Oh Jesus, I didn’t think anyone could be this stupid, but apparently the right wing knows no bounds when it comes to distortion.
Let’s be clear: you are either a liar, or a sloppy thinker. No surprise–you’re a conservative, and so at least one of the two is a prerequisite. But let’s be equally clear: your dishonesty and/or sloppy thinking is not my fault. I will not further tolerate your idiocy.
Ryan does no such thing.
equate:
to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent
Now, since you claim to have a degree in a hard science, you must be familiar with the concept of a function. To take a simple example, y=x and y=x^2 are obviously not equivalent. I do not equate them. Yet nevertheless, there exists a point at which the value of the two functions are equal: x=1.
In the very same way, a human embryo is obviously different from a _____ embryo. No one is denying that. [/quote]
The world was once believed to be flat. So because the embryo’s look the same, WHAT? You need to answer the claim you are making ryan.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yet, there does exist a point (and I posted pictures of this point) at which the two are, for all practical purposes, identical. For you to call me a fool, and then make arguments about the development of the human is the height of both hilarity and foolhardiness, for the future development of the human is totally irrelevant at the point we are considering.
Indeed, it makes no sense to label things based on their conditions arbitrarily far in the future. An embryo is not a human, or else a human is not even a human. Because it you wait long enough, the human dies, and ceases to be anything, other than a collection of chemicals. If you wait longer still, part of that material may be incorporated into some other organism. No no, the classification of things is based on their current state, however inconvenient it may make political argumentation.
I am neither a fool nor a liar, though your numerous incapacities may make it appear that way from time to time.[/quote]
On a related note, please tell me which event deems a person into existence? Another way of saying, what event suddenly gives a person rights?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
What is silly is Ryan equates HUMAN embryos with tadpoles. Once he makes that ridiculously false statement the rest of his argument is invalidated.
What is silly is that anyone takes Ryan seriously when he has proven himself a fool and liar.[/quote]
Oh Jesus, I didn’t think anyone could be this stupid, but apparently the right wing knows no bounds when it comes to distortion.
Let’s be clear: you are either a liar, or a sloppy thinker. No surprise–you’re a conservative, and so at least one of the two is a prerequisite. But let’s be equally clear: your dishonesty and/or sloppy thinking is not my fault. I will not further tolerate your idiocy.
Ryan does no such thing.
equate:
to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent
Now, since you claim to have a degree in a hard science, you must be familiar with the concept of a function. To take a simple example, y=x and y=x^2 are obviously not equivalent. I do not equate them. Yet nevertheless, there exists a point at which the value of the two functions are equal: x=1.
In the very same way, a human embryo is obviously different from a _____ embryo. No one is denying that. Yet, there does exist a point (and I posted pictures of this point) at which the two are, for all practical purposes, identical. For you to call me a fool, and then make arguments about the development of the human is the height of both hilarity and foolhardiness, for the future development of the human is totally irrelevant at the point we are considering.
Indeed, it makes no sense to label things based on their conditions arbitrarily far in the future. An embryo is not a human, or else a human is not even a human. Because it you wait long enough, the human dies, and ceases to be anything, other than a collection of chemicals. If you wait longer still, part of that material may be incorporated into some other organism. No no, the classification of things is based on their current state, however inconvenient it may make political argumentation.
I am neither a fool nor a liar, though your numerous incapacities may make it appear that way from time to time.[/quote]
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Yet, there does exist a point (and I posted pictures of this point) at which the two are, for all practical purposes, identical.
[/quote]
Bullshit, human embryos are not identical to anything even to other human embryos.
[quote]
An embryo is not a human, or else a human is not even a human. Because it you wait long enough, the human dies, and ceases to be anything, other than a collection of chemicals. If you wait longer still, part of that material may be incorporated into some other organism. No no, the classification of things is based on their current state, however inconvenient it may make political argumentation.
I am neither a fool nor a liar, though your numerous incapacities may make it appear that way from time to time.[/quote]
State is irrelevant. There is no break in the human life cycle between conception and death. To say the as small embryo is not human just because it doesn’t look like one is to not understand what life is. It’s not what convenient to you, it is what it is.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]makkun wrote:
[…]
You don’t have to be a pacifist to be just. Self defense, protection of property, &c. proves this otherwise. And, no I disagree about the different depending on culture and history. Through history killing of babies, may have been allowed, but was still looked down upon through history by a majority of people. [/quote]
And that’s exactly my point: we are making allowances for self-defense, etc. But I’ll get to that a bit further down. With regards to culture and history though - sure, it’s been looked down upon (e.g. pretty much anything that women have done when trying to practice self-determination has), yet I guess we agree that our current ethics shouldn’t necessary be defined purely by majority vote. I think we both believe in more consistent values which defy societal ‘snap’ decisions.
[…]You would have to ignore the fact in situations like execution of self defense of society, same for war. Even in those circumstances though, killing of innocent lives is still unappeasable.[/quote]
I can’t ignore those situations: I guess we’re on the same page on immediate self-defence - it’s still wrong to kill, but the right of the defender to stay unharmed supersedes whatever the attacker is trying. For executions, it’s clear to me that the margin of error is just too high - judicial measures are too often wrongly applied and need to be reversible, which an execution is not.
War is the tough one, but it makes my point most clearly: it can be seen as self-defence (yet it’s often a long shot and mostly turns into a self-serving function itself), yet innocents will undoubtedly be killed. And here’s the point I’m trying to make: we assess the measures taken in (even if believe in a just cause for it) and then judge whether the collateral killing of innocents was ‘unavoidable’ - otherwise we would have to pull every soldier who made ‘a mistake’ (and their commanding officers and their executive government) in front of a court. Yet this only happens in cases where there are what is being perceived as severe abuses and breaches of the rules of engagement. And that’s the clincher - there are ‘rules’ which govern a killing, and as long as we accept our armies to function in the above way, we accept them killing innocents on our behalf. Not on purpose and with intention of course - I would generalise that the soldiers of western and democratic regimes are motivated by the highest of motives - yet the professional risk is not only to be killed, but to kill innocents by mistake and function of their role. We accept that though as it’s perceived as a function to defend our values and right to be unharmed as a society (or sometimes as a legitimate instrument of foreign policy) - with often quite some mind bending justifications as current conflicts show - but it exemplifies quite well how we as societies accept the convention that innocents (defined as collaterally killed non-combatants) under certain circumstances are killed.
Now this situational argument can be opposed by saying that it’s valid for the above examples, and abortion shouldn’t be. Be my guest, that’s of course your prerogative, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s built on convention. My values allow me to justify something yours don’t - yet we’re merely working off two slightly different sets of instructions.
[quote][…]
Abortion is not heavily regulated, Texas the most regulated abortion state in the Union requires an inspection every four years. A fetus is a child. What will it achieve it will stop societal suicide. The medically unsafe argument is worthless, it’s the should we make it more unsafe for criminals to do crimes argument. More suffering, you mean the increase in abortions since Roe v. Wade and the still small amount of illegal and medically dangerous abortions that happen now?[/quote]
I would be surprised that with the scrutiny by the pro-life lobby and with a succession of anti-abortion governments, regulation hasn’t been sharpened up. This may of course be a matter of perception - if you’re completely opposed, then any legal abortion will still seem like a failing system. That a fetus is a child is disputed by some, and currently it seems legal to apply procedures upon it, which of course is ethically questionable (in the sense of having to be scrutinised), but seems to reflect the sustained legal thinking. Again, I think it’s fine to challenge it, but it’s not a crime - within the legal safeguards put in place. I don’t really know what ‘societal suicide’ is, but I don’t see the population of the US reducing significantly through abortion - is it factually decreasing? And - when I look at the figures, then yes, official (non-illegal) numbers have gone up since RvW in 1973, went up over a number of years to about 1.3m, and in the mid noughties are basically fell back to around the 1975 figure of about 850k. This doesn’t strike me as a continuous rise - especially if you take (an assumed) growing overall population into account.
[quote][…]
What I am saying is that, say that you are having a radiation because of the mother’s health and the mother dies because of that radiation, the radiation did not and does not have the purpose of killing the mother. So, the operation although killed the mother does not have the intent of killing the mother and therefore cannot be deemed immoral on the account of the mother dying. Now replace mother with child. So, if a mother is pregnant and she has radiation and the possible side effect happens to be the child dying, then it is not immoral because the child dying is not a direct effect (the intent of the radiation is not to kill the child), but an accidental side effect.[/quote]
Hm, I think I see your point. The death essentially has to be accidental. Does this mean that in order to enable a therapy of the mother, an abortion may be indicated to a) increase the likelihood / ease the therapeutic prognosis, or b) when it’s clear that the unborn will not survive the procedure anyway, for which I gather a) applies again. Take certain interventions against leukaemia which as a part of course require a lethal dose of radiation to applied to the whole body and then a bone marrow transplant to avoid the patient actually dying. While aggressive, this a procedure which is nowadays a standard and by no means an improbable scenario. No chance that the child will survive - is it ethical to do the abortion first?
Makkun
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
What is silly is Ryan equates HUMAN embryos with tadpoles. Once he makes that ridiculously false statement the rest of his argument is invalidated.
What is silly is that anyone takes Ryan seriously when he has proven himself a fool and liar.[/quote]
Oh Jesus, I didn’t think anyone could be this stupid, but apparently the right wing knows no bounds when it comes to distortion.
Let’s be clear: you are either a liar, or a sloppy thinker. No surprise–you’re a conservative, and so at least one of the two is a prerequisite. But let’s be equally clear: your dishonesty and/or sloppy thinking is not my fault. I will not further tolerate your idiocy.
Ryan does no such thing.
equate:
to regard, treat, or represent as equivalent
Now, since you claim to have a degree in a hard science, you must be familiar with the concept of a function. To take a simple example, y=x and y=x^2 are obviously not equivalent. I do not equate them. Yet nevertheless, there exists a point at which the value of the two functions are equal: x=1.
In the very same way, a human embryo is obviously different from a _____ embryo. No one is denying that. Yet, there does exist a point (and I posted pictures of this point) at which the two are, for all practical purposes, identical. For you to call me a fool, and then make arguments about the development of the human is the height of both hilarity and foolhardiness, for the future development of the human is totally irrelevant at the point we are considering.
Indeed, it makes no sense to label things based on their conditions arbitrarily far in the future. An embryo is not a human, or else a human is not even a human. Because it you wait long enough, the human dies, and ceases to be anything, other than a collection of chemicals. If you wait longer still, part of that material may be incorporated into some other organism. No no, the classification of things is based on their current state, however inconvenient it may make political argumentation.
I am neither a fool nor a liar, though your numerous incapacities may make it appear that way from time to time.[/quote]
You are the halfwit spreading lies across the forum and then trying to lie your way back out of them.
This is written for ryan because he lacks the ability of understanding the words he writes. I will type my rebuttal for each claim, above his post.
So here you admit the fetus is a human, how are humans and animals even close to the same thing?! All biological creatures share the same mechanics, yet they are all different!! An animal will always be different than a human!! ALWAYS!! Here is a web site arguing for your case of animals and humans being the same.
Yet how many animals protect humans from other animals? You might find a few examples, yet that would be the reason it was on the news, this does NOT normally occur. Human life has more intrinsic value than an animal ever would. How many animals listen to classical music, how many possess opossable thumbs, how many animals have our knee function/labyrinth of tendons and blood vessels? How many animals fight for our rights in their judicial systems?
Here is a chapter I found about the differences and similarities between animals. A child can follow this logic, so I hope you can as well ryan.
Creationists recognize that similarity [b]sometimes[/b] does indicate close relationship (but not always). For example, why do identical twins look so much alike? Obviously it is because they are closely related. On the other hand, there are other people who look very much alike who are not closely related at all. Even two brothers from the same family can look quite different! Thus creationists believe that similarity and resemblance does not always indicate close relationship.
Some light bulbs are made in almost the same shape as eggs! They may be similar in appearance, but does this mean that eggs and light bulbs are related? _________ The atom resembles our SOLAR SYSTEM (electrons orbit around the nucleus of an atom just as planets orbit around the nucleus of our solar system, which is the sun). Does this mean that our solar system evolved from an atom? ______ Can you think of some ways in which airplanes are similar to birds? Does this mean that airplanes evolved from birds? _______
Cars may be made by different companies (and thus they are not related), but they all have many similarities.
YOUR first sentence is gold, you say you will not argue humans and the fetus are the same, WITH NO ARGUMENT, yet what is it you are doing? Fighting for the right to kill another person?!
Pg 2
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Even if I give you the assumption that the fetus is a human with no argument, it’s your right to go hunting and kill animals if you wish, an act that is far more capricious than ending a pregnancy which will have consequences for the rest of the woman’s life. A one or two month old fetus is no different from an animal.[/quote]
So birth is the act that christens ‘rights’ upon a person? Then why is there cases of men who kill a pregnant woman and are charged with two counts of murder? This happened in Chicago on 1/7/11
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7886048
So should we change the laws to fit your lines because you THINK yourself to be correct? Murdering a pregnant woman is the same as killing two people because the crime is synonymous!!
Pg 4
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
After it is born and no longer directly dependent upon the mother’s body to live. [/quote]
She was part of the act, knowing the creation of life would result. Yet she should have the option to kill another human because she wanted sex? The embryo never hijacks the body of a mother. The biology of the whole event determines the mechanics of the experience. The mother was a portion of the conception and the results of sex have been well known for decades. Don’t try and tell me she doesn’t need to be a responsible ADULT to partake in ADULT activities.
Pg 5
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Sure. Just so long as you not literally hijacking the woman’s body and telling her what to do with it. [/quote]
You have double standards ryan. The embryo IS another life!! A human life!!
Pg 7
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Uh, yeah, it IS a big deal, you idiot. That’s the ENTIRE debate–it’s OBVIOUSLY not a human in the very early stages of pregnancy which, I will remind you, is when the majority of abortions occur. Not content, however, to allow women control over their own bodies for even a few weeks, you are compelled to invent controversy.[/quote]
Where is the science to back your claims? ‘Pretty close’ and the ‘same’ are not synonyms!!
Pg 8
[quote]Ryan P McCarter wrote:
I think animals and humans are pretty close to the same at any stage of life. And at any rate, since you go on in your next paragraph about wanting scientific evidence, you should know that a huge body a biological science shows many many ways that we are like animals. We ARE animals.[/quote]
I have shown you how animals and humans are NOT the same!! If you refuse to accept this obvious fact, then I can not help you further. Just because you think you know the world is flat does not make it so.
Abortion is the murder of another human being. Abortion is wrong for that reason alone, yet imagine if we tore another person apart, limb from limb and you want to justify this atrocity because the mother finds the life she helped create, she thinks the life an inconvenience? Or not the right time? Abortion/murder can never be justified!! EVER!!
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
No ryan, YOU are trying to add areas of gray. If you/I kill another person, we will be held accountable for our actions. No one should have any exceptions, including the woman who has the free will to partake in an activity that may result in the creation of life. If she can not handle the responsibility of another life gasp do NOT partake in the activity.[/quote]
No, you’re oversimplifying. Even you know this, and your newfound desperate tone clearly indicates it. Abortion does not kill a person, it kills an embryo that would otherwise have become human. The very fact that you can’t tell a human embryo apart from a pig embryo at around a week is all the evidence for the “shades of gray” that you need.
It doesn’t matter whether it is seperate or not–the woman’s body is hers, not yours, and you have no control over it.
And you have no right to complain of other people’s opinions, when your argument is based entirely on opinions.
I can’t believe the arrogance of this paragraph. “The father who has to pay child support?” Oh, woe is me! I engaged in sexual intercourse, and now for my short-sightedness, I must pay child support! You are a joke for even intimating that having to pay child support in any way compares to carrying a child you do not want for 9 months, painfully delivering that child you do not want, and then dealing, not only with the extreme inconvenience and financial burden of caring for the child you do not want, but also the emotional difficulties of constantly being around that child you do not want. To say nothing of the probably less-than-stellar family life that child is going to have, being raised by a (likely) single mother who never wanted them.
Is the sheer magnitude, not only of your disrespect for women, but also your wanton disregard for the well-being of the mother, child, and public finances, becoming clear?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
On a related note, please tell me which event deems a person into existence? Another way of saying, what event suddenly gives a person rights?[/quote]
You are free to debate this with others–it does not interest me. But I do know the extent of the mother’s rights, which you do not.