[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Are you sure about that Big Banana?[/quote]
awesome
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Are you sure about that Big Banana?[/quote]
Great logic, what is this the Minority Report?
What about that child that could have produced the cure for cancer or HIV/AIDs? Other diseases?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Are you sure about that Big Banana?[/quote]
Great logic, what is this the Minority Report?
What about that child that could have produced the cure for cancer or HIV/AIDs? Other diseases?[/quote]
I think he was joking, not advocating aborting every baby as a crime preventative.
lol Yeah I was joking Chris.
But if you could, would you go back and slit the throat of an infant hitler?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
apbt55 hit the nail right on the head!! If a woman partakes in an activity knowing full well the consequence/s of the act, her rights are superseded when another life is created. Save your breath Ryan, do NOT argue a case for rape and incest when they account for less than one percent of the total number.[/quote]
I don’t have to argue “the case” for rape and incest. If she wants an abortion, it is her right to have one, regardless of the circumstances or how it makes you feel. Deal with it.
[/quote]
Look I don’t agree with just about anything this guy posts regarding either economics or life in general but he’s right about this. Abortion is legal and its nobodys business but the person who wants it.
It shouldn’t be funded by taxpayers but either you think the govenement should stay out of peoples lives or you don’t. [/quote]
False Dichotomy.
A lot of bad things were legal through the years, from slavery, genocide, lynching, quartering, lethal human experimenting, &c. So…because those things are legal it’s nobody’s business but the person that wants to do it? I am not saying abortion is wrong because of this, but legality doesn’t make it right or wrong. The action itself is right or wrong by itself.
People that fought to turn over prohibition saw that just because it was illegal to have alcohol, doesn’t dictate whether alcohol or drinking alcohol is inherently right or wrong.[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about morality. My morals don’t have anything to do with someone doing something that is entirely legal.
There are some great thought experiment battles over this topic, but I will drop this one in for the time being:
Suppose you moved to an area you really enjoyed to live with your fiancee, but that area was a high crime area. One day you leave the window open to get some fresh air into the apartment, despite knowing that your area has a high concentration of building-scaling thieves present. If one of these thieves crawls into your apartment while you are there, do you have the right to defend yourself/kill them even if you knew there was a possibility this would happen? Would killing the person and kicking them out of your apartment be considered taking ‘personal responsibility’ for leaving the window open?
It was just that facility.
O…
Wait, it appears not to be isolated:
I would say that you do. While you obviously are assuming some risk leaving your window open in that area, they’re the ones that are still trespassing, and invading your home. So they were assuming the risk that they could be killed or beaten from their actions.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
There are some great thought experiment battles over this topic, but I will drop this one in for the time being:
Suppose you moved to an area you really enjoyed to live with your fiancee, but that area was a high crime area. One day you leave the window open to get some fresh air into the apartment, despite knowing that your area has a high concentration of building-scaling thieves present. If one of these thieves crawls into your apartment while you are there, do you have the right to defend yourself/kill them even if you knew there was a possibility this would happen? Would killing the person and kicking them out of your apartment be considered taking ‘personal responsibility’ for leaving the window open?
[/quote]
Since a thief is an independant agent whereas an embryo is not this does not a good comparison make.
What if you woke up in a hotelroom and someone is attached to you for the next 9 months and will die if he is separated from you.
Are you morally obliged to be attached to him the next 9 months?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
There are some great thought experiment battles over this topic, but I will drop this one in for the time being:
Suppose you moved to an area you really enjoyed to live with your fiancee, but that area was a high crime area. One day you leave the window open to get some fresh air into the apartment, despite knowing that your area has a high concentration of building-scaling thieves present. If one of these thieves crawls into your apartment while you are there, do you have the right to defend yourself/kill them even if you knew there was a possibility this would happen? Would killing the person and kicking them out of your apartment be considered taking ‘personal responsibility’ for leaving the window open?
[/quote]
Since a thief is an independant agent whereas an embryo is not this does not a good comparison make.
What if you woke up in a hotelroom and someone is attached to you for the next 9 months and will die if he is separated from you.
Are you morally obliged to be attached to him the next 9 months?
[/quote]
What if you attached that certain someone?
What if that someone was forced on you?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
There are some great thought experiment battles over this topic, but I will drop this one in for the time being:
Suppose you moved to an area you really enjoyed to live with your fiancee, but that area was a high crime area. One day you leave the window open to get some fresh air into the apartment, despite knowing that your area has a high concentration of building-scaling thieves present. If one of these thieves crawls into your apartment while you are there, do you have the right to defend yourself/kill them even if you knew there was a possibility this would happen? Would killing the person and kicking them out of your apartment be considered taking ‘personal responsibility’ for leaving the window open?
[/quote]
Since a thief is an independant agent whereas an embryo is not this does not a good comparison make.
What if you woke up in a hotelroom and someone is attached to you for the next 9 months and will die if he is separated from you.
Are you morally obliged to be attached to him the next 9 months?
[/quote]
You’ve read the same paper it would appear! I can’t take credit for the above analogy, but I will try to rationalize for it a bit to make it more suitable. For a woman engaged in sexual activity, it is quite possible she does not want a child inside of her, even if she knows that act has the possibility of bringing this scenario around. To her the embryo might be every bit a “trespasser” as the thief in this scenario. If that isn’t doing it for you, suppose she was on birth control on top of everything else AND they were using a condom yet still became pregnant. They did everything they could think of to prevent a pregnancy, does that change the situation at all?
Orion to answer (sort of) your own though experiment I would say the following: It depends.
If you are married, have a family, and they will suffer gravely from you being locked in a room for 9 months you clearly are not morally obligated to care for this strangers life more than your own family. Your life and those of your loved ones does not cease having value and worth just because someone else also has worth. Their right to life does not supersede your own. Now you might OUGHT to save his life if it is feasible, but I wouldn’t say that you are OBLIGATED to save his life. A subtle but important distinction.
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
My morals don’t have anything to do with someone doing something that is entirely legal. [/quote]
“It was the Law of the Land” - Nazi Generals and Soldier’s defense during the Nuremberg Trials. Glad all ya’ll are on the same page.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
There are some great thought experiment battles over this topic, but I will drop this one in for the time being:
Suppose you moved to an area you really enjoyed to live with your fiancee, but that area was a high crime area. One day you leave the window open to get some fresh air into the apartment, despite knowing that your area has a high concentration of building-scaling thieves present. If one of these thieves crawls into your apartment while you are there, do you have the right to defend yourself/kill them even if you knew there was a possibility this would happen? Would killing the person and kicking them out of your apartment be considered taking ‘personal responsibility’ for leaving the window open?
[/quote]
No, it’s called self defense. And there is a big difference between an innocent child and a man that willfully climbed up a wall into your window.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
There are some great thought experiment battles over this topic, but I will drop this one in for the time being:
Suppose you moved to an area you really enjoyed to live with your fiancee, but that area was a high crime area. One day you leave the window open to get some fresh air into the apartment, despite knowing that your area has a high concentration of building-scaling thieves present. If one of these thieves crawls into your apartment while you are there, do you have the right to defend yourself/kill them even if you knew there was a possibility this would happen? Would killing the person and kicking them out of your apartment be considered taking ‘personal responsibility’ for leaving the window open?
[/quote]
Since a thief is an independant agent whereas an embryo is not this does not a good comparison make.
What if you woke up in a hotelroom and someone is attached to you for the next 9 months and will die if he is separated from you.
Are you morally obliged to be attached to him the next 9 months?
[/quote]
You’ve read the same paper it would appear! I can’t take credit for the above analogy, but I will try to rationalize for it a bit to make it more suitable. For a woman engaged in sexual activity, it is quite possible she does not want a child inside of her, even if she knows that act has the possibility of bringing this scenario around. To her the embryo might be every bit a “trespasser” as the thief in this scenario. If that isn’t doing it for you, suppose she was on birth control on top of everything else AND they were using a condom yet still became pregnant. They did everything they could think of to prevent a pregnancy, does that change the situation at all?
[/quote]
You’re missing the point, the dual purpose of sticking a cock in a vagina is union between a man and a woman AND procreation. No other way does procreation happen besides this, this is the inevitable effect of having sex, opening your window doesn’t cause the effect of someone coming through that window.
[quote]kilpaba wrote:
Orion to answer (sort of) your own though experiment I would say the following: It depends.
If you are married, have a family, and they will suffer gravely from you being locked in a room for 9 months you clearly are not morally obligated to care for this strangers life more than your own family. Your life and those of your loved ones does not cease having value and worth just because someone else also has worth. Their right to life does not supersede your own. Now you might OUGHT to save his life if it is feasible, but I wouldn’t say that you are OBLIGATED to save his life. A subtle but important distinction.[/quote]
Um…you had sex, sex leads to babies. Not the same thing as some stranger being attached to you for 9 months.
Chris- I am not advocating for either side here (for what it is worth I have a young son and a marriage from knocking my girlfriend up and we decided against an abortion- we have a great family now). These are simply thought experiments. I would point out sex more often than not actually DOESN’T lead to babies. Average length of time for a couple “trying” to have a baby is 1 year. Point being you probably stand better odds of NOT impregnating someone via intercourse than impregnating them even though it is a distinct possibility. On a long enough time line you will most likely get pregnant, but you catch my drift.
Ryan, when does the child gain rights??
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
You are arguing the case for the whole because less than 1 percent of the total? Am I following you correctly?[/quote]
No, you are not. Your entire premise starts with the assumption that abortion is wrong unless the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest. Or in other words, that you have the right to make a woman’s personal decisions for her except in a couple of scenarios. I am telling you that your assumptions are flawed.
In actuality, the circumstances under which conception took place are utterly irrelevant–it is the woman’s body in all cases, and you don’t have the least to right to tell her what she will and will not do with it. If she wants an abortion because she doesn’t like the way it makes her belly look in her favorite dress, that is her right.
It would be quite a shame if that were the only reason she sought an abortion, but it is still her right.
[/quote]
Joe, when does the child then have a voice?
[quote]JoeGood wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
apbt55 hit the nail right on the head!! If a woman partakes in an activity knowing full well the consequence/s of the act, her rights are superseded when another life is created. Save your breath Ryan, do NOT argue a case for rape and incest when they account for less than one percent of the total number.[/quote]
I don’t have to argue “the case” for rape and incest. If she wants an abortion, it is her right to have one, regardless of the circumstances or how it makes you feel. Deal with it.
[/quote]
Look I don’t agree with just about anything this guy posts regarding either economics or life in general but he’s right about this. Abortion is legal and its nobodys business but the person who wants it.
It shouldn’t be funded by taxpayers but either you think the govenement should stay out of peoples lives or you don’t. [/quote]