Author Topic: Abortion  (Read 72628 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JTW

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1983
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #29 on: September 03, 2008, 12:44:02 PM »
Abortion is an excuse for women to not have to face the music of the mistake they made when they had unprotected sex. It is an awful solution to an irresponsible decision that kills a living creature.

If a woman is raped she should have the choice to have the baby or not.

If the baby endangers the life of the woman she should not have the choice to keep it.

All other instances of unwanted pregnancy can be solved through adoption.


[/pot stir]




Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #30 on: September 03, 2008, 12:47:45 PM »
Davedave, if I may add;
I do recognise you touched lightly on your own personal opinion on abortion.
That killing is not much of a bother for you?
Not in your words, so forgive me if I'm wrong.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #31 on: September 03, 2008, 12:52:06 PM »
In that case, you need to much better define "slightly" and "very much", and exactly how many people either way.

Certainly.  Right after you define "most", "best", "impression, "generally", and "everybody".  

But again, that really doesn't matter, because that is only a lawful definition, it might be wrong.

The definition isn't wrong.  You may not agree, but that doesn't make it "wrong".  Even if the whole world disagrees, it doesn't make the definition wrong.  It only means that people disagree.

The question here is one of vesting.  When does a clump of cells become vested with the rights of a human?  The truth is that there is no right answer.  There is no true answer.  There is only the answer that the society chooses.  Our society chooses to vest rights in stages.  Some of those stages are clearly delineated, others less so, and all of it is piecemeal, and not all of it makes a lot of sense.  Asking when a fetus or infant becomes a human or when it becomes illegal to act in a manner that results in the termination of the fetus or infant is sort of like asking when a person should be allowed to drink alcohol.  There is no "right" or "true" answer; there are only the answers that work for individuals personally and the answer that society takes as its own.  The law in the US says on the 21st anniversary of the date of birth.  Is that "right"?  No.  It's neither right nor wrong.  But it IS true.  Is it moral?  Who knows?  I imagine we all have our own opinion of that.  The abortion laws are no different.  They assign certain rights to a fetus or infant at certain points under certain conditions.  That's it.

And your point, if I can clarify, is that aborting children does not matter because the law states that it isn't murder because they are not legally "people?"
That is entirely an opinion.

No.  As xphobe correctly pointed out above, murder is defined as illegal killing.  Since abortion is not illegal, abortion is not murder.  That's not an opinion.  That is a description of the current state of affairs.

Societal decision works on "highest number"

Not at all.  There are many times when lower number can prevail and many times when number is completely irrelevant.  

You said that the abortion of an unborn child is okay primarily because the law states that it is.

It is legal.  In the eyes of the government, that means it's okay.  That answer suffices for me.

So you say that a law that is literally unjust, should not be changed?

Unjust is a matter of opinion.  Again, you act like there is an underlying and knowable "truth" or "right" here, but there isn't.

By legal definition yes, but again, that does not count for anything in terms of morality, and therefore results in an opinion, which is exactly what debate is about.

No.  The legal definition is fact.  Morality is where it becomes an opinion.

You dodged the central point, Jack.  You are entitled to hold your own opinion.  You are also entitled NOT to have an abortion if your opinion is that it is morally wrong.  You already have both of those rights.  It is only when you try to apply them to others that it becomes a legal matter.  So, if you can keep from trying to apply your personal opinions to others, then this will remain a morality debate.  However, if you can't, and you insist on trying to find societal solutions, this becomes a legal issue, and thus, already clearly settled, as a matter of the law.  And that is a fact and true and right.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Abortion
« Reply #32 on: September 03, 2008, 12:53:45 PM »
Quote
sensations and thoughts are quite different.  A planaria feels sensation.  I am pretty sure it doesnt' "think".  So is it conscious?  

Quote
I agree, thoughts and sensations are different, I never said they were similar, and I believe, exactly as I said, that a conscious state of mind is that which feels sensations and thinks.
Forgive me, but I don't understand what your point is?
Please state to me what it was.
A fetus doesn't think.  Therefore is it conscious and a "human being"?  
Quote
IMO, until it can exist on its own, a fetus is not a human being.
Quote
I don't believe existing on it's own is an attribute assigned to a human being, correct me if I'm wrong? Putting it this way, a person who is extremely ill and cannot live without life support, are they not human being's?
Good for you, you caught the problem with my argument!  A fetus requires a human female to exist and grow, at least at the level of techonology we have. I should have been more clear. My point is that a person on life-support does not require the abrogation of another human being's equalness to exist.  
Quote
A woman is a human being and always trumps the potential human being.  I find it heinous that politicians and theists feel they can tell a woman that she has to put her physical and mental well-being in jeopardy for their beliefs. 
Quote
So do I!
That is why the issue is debatable ;)
Ain't it though?  This is probably one of my favorite debate topics since it can be pretty fluid. :)
Quote
I find abortion amazingly stupid as a means of birth control. 
Quote
Of course it is!
It is argumentatively too late.And it can damage the mother.It's also highly controversial.
Not quite sure what you mean.
Quote
There are sooo many better things for that.  An abortion is surgery, and as such should not be taken lightly.  I do believe that if a woman is so scared or so ignorant to allow a pregnancy come to a point where technology can support the fetus, it should be given a chance.  However, only if there is someone who wants it.  To simply warehouse children in foster homes is not acceptable to me for the treatment of human beings.  I do get quite sick of Christians who so piously want to take everyone's choice away but who are not taking care of as many children as they possibly can and who vote against welfare, education, etc. 
Quote
Precisely my opinion also!
Good for you!
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #33 on: September 03, 2008, 01:10:21 PM »
Quote

You dodged the central point, Jack.  You are entitled to hold your own opinion.  You are also entitled NOT to have an abortion if your opinion is that it is morally wrong.  You already have both of those rights.  It is only when you try to apply them to others that it becomes a legal matter.  So, if you can keep from trying to apply your personal opinions to others, then this will remain a morality debate.  However, if you can't, and you insist on trying to find societal solutions, this becomes a legal issue, and thus, already clearly settled, as a matter of the law.  And that is a fact and true and right.


If I can address just the central point then;

If you are entitled to your own opinion, you are therefore entitled to debate it, which is where the "debate" is justified.

If you're entitled not to have an abortion because you feel it is morally wrong, then a debate is jusitified.

The point I think you're missing is that any debate regarding legal matters (abortion) is a legal matter already?

My point is that debating about abortion is justified by opinions.
Law really doesn't matter, because it is the law that is being debated.
You cannot say that "you cannot debate the law, because it is the law"
That is a silly statement, is that the basis of your argument or am I attacking the wrong points?


Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #34 on: September 03, 2008, 01:18:22 PM »
Quote
sensations and thoughts are quite different.  A planaria feels sensation.  I am pretty sure it doesnt' "think".  So is it conscious?  

Quote
I agree, thoughts and sensations are different, I never said they were similar, and I believe, exactly as I said, that a conscious state of mind is that which feels sensations and thinks.
Forgive me, but I don't understand what your point is?
Please state to me what it was.
A fetus doesn't think.  Therefore is it conscious and a "human being"?  

I think a cultural separation between "thoughts" and "thinking" is apparent.

The fetus' brain is active, for me, that is consciousness.

Despite that, the fetus, if left to be born, is going to become a child.
Is aborting the fetus potentially eliminating the future-child's right to live?
Quote
Quote
IMO, until it can exist on its own, a fetus is not a human being.
Quote
I don't believe existing on it's own is an attribute assigned to a human being, correct me if I'm wrong? Putting it this way, a person who is extremely ill and cannot live without life support, are they not human being's?
Good for you, you caught the problem with my argument!  A fetus requires a human female to exist and grow, at least at the level of techonology we have. I should have been more clear. My point is that a person on life-support does not require the abrogation of another human being's equalness to exist.  

I am unsure what you mean, I genuinely don't understand, can you use simpler wording?
I think you mean "A person on life-support does not require the written agreement of another person's equalness to exist"?
I really don't know what that means, sorry.

Quote

Quote
I find abortion amazingly stupid as a means of birth control. 
Quote
Of course it is!
It is argumentatively too late.And it can damage the mother.It's also highly controversial.
Not quite sure what you mean.



I agreed with what you said, that's all I meant :)

Quote
Quote
There are sooo many better things for that.  An abortion is surgery, and as such should not be taken lightly.  I do believe that if a woman is so scared or so ignorant to allow a pregnancy come to a point where technology can support the fetus, it should be given a chance.  However, only if there is someone who wants it.  To simply warehouse children in foster homes is not acceptable to me for the treatment of human beings.  I do get quite sick of Christians who so piously want to take everyone's choice away but who are not taking care of as many children as they possibly can and who vote against welfare, education, etc. 
Quote
Precisely my opinion also!
Good for you!

I am glad that we have reached some sort of agreement then :)

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #35 on: September 03, 2008, 01:21:32 PM »
If you're entitled not to have an abortion because you feel it is morally wrong, then a debate is jusitified.

No one here is debating this with you.  I'm certain that everyone here will grant you the right to follow your own heart and mind on the matter of terminating a pregnancy under your control.

The point I think you're missing is that any debate regarding legal matters (abortion) is a legal matter already?

Abortion, as a legal matter, is settled.  Abortion as a moral matter is personal.  If you wish to "un"-settle the legal matter, the proper format for such a debate is a Constitutional Amendment.  Many people that are against abortion on personal, moral grounds are also against legislating a ban against it.  Just because I personally may think that something is okay or not okay doesn't bind me to also think that it must be legal or illegal.  I don't like the lottery, but I wouldn't ban it.  I don't like gun ownership, but I would not ban it.  I don't like people that change lanes eight times in thirty seconds on the freeway, but I wouldn't ban that.  I don't like super long fingernails or fuzzy sweaters or plain yogurt or Fox News, but I wouldn't ban them either.  So you need to clear up what it is that you intend to accomplish.  What do you want to talk about?  If you just want to say that you think abortion is murder, well, you're factually wrong.  It's not murder.  If you want to say that you think abortion should be considered murder because you think it is morally wrong and wish to legislate that, then that's just you whistling in a cage.  Fine.  You think it is morally wrong.  You are entitled to never break your morality and have an abortion.  You wish to legislate that?  Start up a Constitutional Amendment.

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #36 on: September 03, 2008, 01:32:14 PM »
If you're entitled not to have an abortion because you feel it is morally wrong, then a debate is jusitified.

No one here is debating this with you.  I'm certain that everyone here will grant you the right to follow your own heart and mind on the matter of terminating a pregnancy under your control.

The point I think you're missing is that any debate regarding legal matters (abortion) is a legal matter already?

Abortion, as a legal matter, is settled.  Abortion as a moral matter is personal.  If you wish to "un"-settle the legal matter, the proper format for such a debate is a Constitutional Amendment.  Many people that are against abortion on personal, moral grounds are also against legislating a ban against it.  Just because I personally may think that something is okay or not okay doesn't bind me to also think that it must be legal or illegal.  I don't like the lottery, but I wouldn't ban it.  I don't like gun ownership, but I would not ban it.  I don't like people that change lanes eight times in thirty seconds on the freeway, but I wouldn't ban that.  I don't like super long fingernails or fuzzy sweaters or plain yogurt or Fox News, but I wouldn't ban them either.  So you need to clear up what it is that you intend to accomplish.  What do you want to talk about?  If you just want to say that you think abortion is murder, well, you're factually wrong.  It's not murder.  If you want to say that you think abortion should be considered murder because you think it is morally wrong and wish to legislate that, then that's just you whistling in a cage.  Fine.  You think it is morally wrong.  You are entitled to never break your morality and have an abortion.  You wish to legislate that?  Start up a Constitutional Amendment.

So your reason for the un-justification of posting opinions on this thread, is that it doesn't take the form of a constitutional amendment?

I think debating abortion flexes the english-skills muscle in your brain, and it's also quite fun :)

I agree that if change is to be made, debating on a forum is not the way to do it, but I am not debating for change, and I don't believe the poster of this thread desired change. I'm simply offering my opinion in the curiosity of how it will stand by other people's opinions, and whether my opinion is shared, or disagreed with.


Offline Red McWilliams

  • Illuminati
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Darwins +1/-0
Re: Abortion
« Reply #37 on: September 03, 2008, 01:42:48 PM »
Never did I say that.

Right, you never said anything.  You simply redirected the question posed to you about this that would have put the matter to rest.  My question to you was to clarify your position, which you've been reticent to expand on.

Quote
However I did offer some reasons as to why a fetus can be considered a person if you read my other posts.
Such as the conscience, which you obviously did read :)

No, you asked a question that included "conscious" in it as a redirection away from a specifc question asked of you.  I could infer your position from some of your answers, but as I said, I prefer to have evidence, especially when it's so readily available.


Today I step into the shoes of a great man, a man by the name of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #38 on: September 03, 2008, 01:47:29 PM »
I started off with a minor correction to xphobe's original post.  I personally feel that, no matter what you think about abortion as an issue of personal morality, there are many far more pressing issues of concern.  Poverty, sexual education, access to decent healthcare, these issues are related and generally ignored because abortion is such a hot topic.  JTW was properly ignored when he suggested that adoption was a sufficient answer to the problem of unwanted children.  The foster care system in the US is swamped.  There are a half million children in the foster care system.  There are only about 150,000 adoptions every year.  There are 850,000 abortions performed in the US annually.  If the so-called pro-lifers would pay more attention to the people that everyone already agrees ARE alive, if they would help the clearly alive solve some of the serious life problems they have, maybe they would find that as they worked their way back towards increasingly debatable stages, the problem they perceive would disappear beneath them.  But they won't do that, because far more than anything else, this is an election issue.  It's easy to make a big flap about, to campaign on and talk about, but it's like asking a pharmaceutical company for a cure for a disease.  They'd much rather treat the disease than cure it.  Pro-life is a sham.  It's a bunch of bleeding hearts being duped into electing a group of people for whom "life" is nothing more than a slogan, the train they ride into capitol buildings so they can plunder and pillage.

Offline Red McWilliams

  • Illuminati
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Darwins +1/-0
Re: Abortion
« Reply #39 on: September 03, 2008, 01:50:23 PM »
Is aborting the fetus potentially eliminating the future-child's right to live?

This question is invalid.  The future-child has no right to live.
Today I step into the shoes of a great man, a man by the name of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #40 on: September 03, 2008, 01:58:09 PM »
Never did I say that.

Right, you never said anything.  You simply redirected the question posed to you about this that would have put the matter to rest.  My question to you was to clarify your position, which you've been reticent to expand on.


Have I?

Here are a selection of quotes for you to read and check to clarify that I have definitely not been reticent to expand on why I feel a fetus has the same general value and unofficial definition as a person.

Quote

Before this moment, aborting the Fetus is arguably as moral as uprooting a plant.
Yet then there are other issues; A plant does not have the ability to Become a child.
A Fetus probably does.

No, of course a fetus is not a person, otherwise abortion would always legally be referred to as murder.
But a Fetus is an individual Human body, and in definition, a person is an individual Human body.

I believe that the only reason why a Fetus is not literally defined as a person is because abortions have happened and have been performed regularly for a very long time.
And If I am right, then aborting a Fetus is as bad as murder, and it should be law.
But I think that it is a conditional affair, and possibly at times the lesser of two wrongs.

Furthermore, why is the killing of a conscious fetus, not as bad as that of a "person"?



I have to now ask, did you read my other posts or did you ignore them?

Quote
Quote
However I did offer some reasons as to why a fetus can be considered a person if you read my other posts.
Such as the conscience, which you obviously did read :)

No, you asked a question that included "conscious" in it as a redirection away from a specifc question asked of you.  I could infer your position from some of your answers, but as I said, I prefer to have evidence, especially when it's so readily available.




First of all, you are referring to the wrong quote, it was the reference I made to my explanation of conscience I meant.
Secondly, the reference you are referring to is still relevant regardless.

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #41 on: September 03, 2008, 02:00:39 PM »
Is aborting the fetus potentially eliminating the future-child's right to live?

This question is invalid.  The future-child has no right to live.

That's absurd
You said that there is no right to live for the child when it is born?

The question is not at all invalid
it is the value the question's point implies which validates it.

As a rough explanation; a collector will pay a lot of money for something that will definitely cost a lot of money.
That is because the sentimental value of the item is large, despite the official value being not so.


Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #42 on: September 03, 2008, 02:12:55 PM »
Are you serious or ... ?
I think it's obvious why I would think such a thing.
Why is a fetus not a person?
Furthermore, why is the killing of a conscious fetus, not as bad as that of a "person"?


I am serious. Don't act so stunned, as if your position is self evident and thinking otherwise is unheard of.  You don't live in a cave. 

Why would a thing that contains fewer cells than a fly's brain be considered a person?  What criteria are you using to define a person?


What gave you the impression that I meant the fetus in early development?
I believe my very first post and several after have clearly highlighted that I feel that termination is conditionally the greater option.
I also made reference to the "conscious"
Which a few lines down, you recognised and responded to, so what was is your point if you already know that I did not mean that?
I'm not sure if there is a recognisable point here, it just seems like a reply for the sake of replying.

Quote

Destroying a fetus is not as bad a killing a person because it is not developed enough to be a person.


Good point, but it has the potential to be a person, and therefore it has the same value, arguably, there is my point.

Quote



knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts.

So there is at point at which you feel it is morally acceptable to terminate a gestating embryo?  How about when you are asleep?  You do not have awareness of surroundings then.  May I kill you then?


Strawman.
The ability to know and to perceive does not completely disappear forever the moment you start sleeping.
You know that, so it's obvious that you have no particular point behind this?
You're just pointlessly stabbing at my definition of consciousness and how it applies with the fetus.

Quote

I am answering the question by asking the adverse, if there is no answer, than that provides an answer for the original question

Yeah.  That's sort of like when the fundies come here and say "prove there isn't god!"


It does it's job.
And it's a very good point, despite having not much effort or intelligence behind it.
Because we cannot disprove God.

Offline Red McWilliams

  • Illuminati
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Darwins +1/-0
Re: Abortion
« Reply #43 on: September 03, 2008, 02:55:21 PM »
Okay.  I'm bored, I'll dance.  These are your explanations for why you consider a fetus to be a person:

Before this moment, aborting the Fetus is arguably as moral as uprooting a plant.
Yet then there are other issues; A plant does not have the ability to Become a child.
A Fetus probably does.

"Probably"?  And this is your best one!

Quote
No, of course a fetus is not a person, otherwise abortion would always legally be referred to as murder.
But a Fetus is an individual Human body, and in definition, a person is an individual Human body.

A fetus is not a person but it is an individual human body just like a person (wtf).  Sorry, it's either a person or it isn't.

Quote
I believe that the only reason why a Fetus is not literally defined as a person is because abortions have happened and have been performed regularly for a very long time.
And If I am right, then aborting a Fetus is as bad as murder, and it should be law.
But I think that it is a conditional affair, and possibly at times the lesser of two wrongs.

So you consider murder a conditional affair?  This still doesn't explain why a fetus should be considered a person.  It's your assertion that it should be, but no reason as to why.  Again, you've made "fetus is person" the de facto starting position and then set up a false dichotomy that, if it can't be proven the other way, must mean your unevidence position is the correct one.  As I've said twice now, I don't work that way.

Quote
Furthermore, why is the killing of a conscious fetus, not as bad as that of a "person"?

This seems to make a clear distinction betweena fetus and a person.  Also, this was your first response to the question of why you consider a fetus to be a person and does nothing to answer that question.  You're very good at asserting that it should be so, I'll grant you that, but you've done a very poor job in explaining why any of us should think that way too.

Quote


First of all, you are referring to the wrong quote, it was the reference I made to my explanation of conscience I meant.

Your comment about conscience came after my question to you and did not answer it.

Quote
Secondly, the reference you are referring to is still relevant regardless.

How so?
Today I step into the shoes of a great man, a man by the name of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

Offline Red McWilliams

  • Illuminati
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Darwins +1/-0
Re: Abortion
« Reply #44 on: September 03, 2008, 03:02:03 PM »
This question is invalid.  The future-child has no right to live.

That's absurd
You said that there is no right to live for the child when it is born?

No, that's not what I said.  The child has the right to live, but the future-child is not the same as the child.  If we were to apply your logic to immigration, Osama bin Laden should be allowed to vote for US president because he could potentially become a US citizen.  If the future-child is not yet a child, it has no right to live, it has no rights at all because it's not a person.

Quote
The question is not at all invalid
it is the value the question's point implies which validates it.

What implied point?  That a potential child will never possibly become an actual child if it's aborted?  So what?

Quote
As a rough explanation; a collector will pay a lot of money for something that will definitely cost a lot of money.
That is because the sentimental value of the item is large, despite the official value being not so.

You're right, that's a very rough explanation.  If the collector wants to buy some trinket for a million dollars and then set it on fire, that's his right.  You might never want to burn a million dollars like that, but to try to take away the collectors right do so would be the immoral thing to do.


Today I step into the shoes of a great man, a man by the name of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #45 on: September 03, 2008, 03:23:10 PM »
Jack,

This isn't hard.  The right to be considered an individual with one's own right to life is granted at birth in this country.  It's no different than the right to vote.  It's a right that one achieves at a certain point defined by law.  At 18 years of age, you gain the right to participate in elections.  At birth, you gain the right to not have your right to exist trumped by a mother's right to control her own body.  There is no "right" or "true" answer.  There is only the legal decision made made our society, as well as personal opinions.

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #46 on: September 03, 2008, 03:29:17 PM »
Okay.  I'm bored, I'll dance.  These are your explanations for why you consider a fetus to be a person:

Before this moment, aborting the Fetus is arguably as moral as uprooting a plant.
Yet then there are other issues; A plant does not have the ability to Become a child.
A Fetus probably does.

"Probably"?  And this is your best one!


And exactly what is your point at all?
I said "Probably" primarily because the Fetus is not guaranteed to become a child.
I suggest you reanalyse my statement and actually say something that is relevant if you wish to discard it.
If you can't then don't bother, please.
It does not make me appear to be wrong, people reading your reply are more intelligent than that.

Quote

Quote
No, of course a fetus is not a person, otherwise abortion would always legally be referred to as murder.
But a Fetus is an individual Human body, and in definition, a person is an individual Human body.

A fetus is not a person but it is an individual human body just like a person (wtf).  Sorry, it's either a person or it isn't.


And your point is?
Again you come to no logical explanation to discard the quote you are trying to make sound like it doesn't make sense.

My point was, if a fetus has the same basic value as a person, the killing of one has the same basic value as murder.
Although I do not stand by that, as I said, it is conditional, which you now try and ridicule in some way, as follows...

Quote

Quote

I believe that the only reason why a Fetus is not literally defined as a person is because abortions have happened and have been performed regularly for a very long time.
And If I am right, then aborting a Fetus is as bad as murder, and it should be law.
But I think that it is a conditional affair, and possibly at times the lesser of two wrongs.


So you consider murder a conditional affair? 


Strawman.
It is obvious I do not consider "Murder" conditional.
I implied that killing the fetus is conditionally "Murder".

I'm sorry but I am getting the feeling you are trying to subtly insult me.
I am also highly inclined to believing such things, so I may well be wrong.
But if you wish to do so, Just do it in a private message, there's no need in making it public.

Quote

This still doesn't explain why a fetus should be considered a person.  It's your assertion that it should be, but no reason as to why. 


Really?

I wont humiliate you by offering more quotations as to where you're wrong, I'll just ask you to re-read my posts.
You can find one in a quotation not long before here in this post.

Quote


 Again, you've made "fetus is person" the de facto starting position and then set up a false dichotomy that, if it can't be proven the other way, must mean your unevidence position is the correct one. 


No.
I have never advocated such a statement.
Please tell me where I have?

Please do not refer to my position as un-evidential either, when I have repeatedly shown you evidence which I have previously posted.
It's only opinionated, so don't treat it like I think my word is Law, either.

Quote


Quote
Furthermore, why is the killing of a conscious fetus, not as bad as that of a "person"?


This seems to make a clear distinction betweena fetus and a person.  Also, this was your first response to the question of why you consider a fetus to be a person


No.
It is not.
The first "response" was the 6th reply on this thread, go look.

Quote


 and does nothing to answer that question.


You are entitled to your opinion, definitely.
But I believe that in asking that question I was going somewhere with it, before you assumed I side-stepped the initial question.
Also, I provided an interesting perspective on the original question posed at me, which is what I wanted to acheive.

Quote

You're very good at asserting that it should be so, I'll grant you that,


Thanks

Quote

 but you've done a very poor job in explaining why any of us should think that way too.


I'll try and improve, I guess.

Quote


First of all, you are referring to the wrong quote, it was the reference I made to my explanation of conscience I meant.

Your comment about conscience came after my question to you and did not answer it.

[/quote]

I apoligise then, I must have replied to that before I read your post which is where the confusion is coming from.

Quote

Quote
Secondly, the reference you are referring to is still relevant regardless.

How so?

"Furthermore, why is the killing of a conscious fetus, not as bad as that of a "person"?"

In using that I attempt to derive an opinion, in which I can either correct or agree with.

Also, I implied within the tonality of the question and in the context of the question, that;
Killing a conscious fetus may well be as bad as that of a "person".
In the context it is in, in reply to the adverse question, I hoped to achieve a relative comparison between a person and a Fetus.


Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #47 on: September 03, 2008, 03:32:50 PM »
Jack,

This isn't hard.  The right to be considered an individual with one's own right to life is granted at birth in this country.  It's no different than the right to vote.  It's a right that one achieves at a certain point defined by law.  At 18 years of age, you gain the right to participate in elections.  At birth, you gain the right to not have your right to exist trumped by a mother's right to control her own body.  There is no "right" or "true" answer.  There is only the legal decision made made our society, as well as personal opinions.

Dave, I do understand that.
I have known that before you told me, don't worry.

But you are using law to give an explanation.
And I insist that law has no say over morality.
And morality is opinionated.
Do you agree?

And I do understand that Law is the final say in terms of what is going to happen.
But the morality of Law can still be debated.
Which is what I am doing.


Offline JTW

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1983
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #48 on: September 03, 2008, 03:38:58 PM »
So what if the law is changed tomorrow to define a fetus as a person?

Let's talk on moral terms here Dave, not pedantry.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #49 on: September 03, 2008, 03:40:23 PM »
Jack,

You are MAKING this a legal issue, NOT a moral issue, when you try to invoke government power into forcing your opinions on others.  If someone were trying to force you to act against your morality, then there would be a moral issue there, but no one is doing that.  You and your morality are entirely intact.  You are free to hold your own opinion about the morality of abortion and live your life according to it.  When you start trying to impose your morality on others, though, it becomes a legal issue, and morality is left behind.  Pro-life is NOT about morality; it's about using force of law to put your morality over the morality of others.  So stop saying this isn't a legal issue.  You are the one making it a legal issue.  Whether this conversation is about legality or morality is up to you, but I won't let you make it a legal issue while pretending you are sticking to the morality of it.

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #50 on: September 03, 2008, 03:41:19 PM »
So what if the law is changed tomorrow to define a fetus as a person?

That is every bit as immoral as forced abortions.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Abortion
« Reply #51 on: September 03, 2008, 03:42:52 PM »
Quote
sensations and thoughts are quite different.  A planaria feels sensation.  I am pretty sure it doesnt' "think".  So is it conscious?  

Quote
I agree, thoughts and sensations are different, I never said they were similar, and I believe, exactly as I said, that a conscious state of mind is that which feels sensations and thinks.
Forgive me, but I don't understand what your point is?
Please state to me what it was.
A fetus doesn't think.  Therefore is it conscious and a "human being"?  [/quote]
Quote
I think a cultural separation between "thoughts" and "thinking" is apparent.
The fetus' brain is active, for me, that is consciousness.
Thoughts are produced when yuo are thinking. Fetuses don't think.  Therefore your defintion of conscionessess is not what you first claimed it to be.  

Quote
Despite that, the fetus, if left to be born, is going to become a child.
Is aborting the fetus potentially eliminating the future-child's right to live?
Indeed an egg will be a chicken if left along.  Is an egg a chicken?  A future-child has no rights since it doesn't exist.

Quote
IMO, until it can exist on its own, a fetus is not a human being.
Quote
I don't believe existing on it's own is an attribute assigned to a human being, correct me if I'm wrong? Putting it this way, a person who is extremely ill and cannot live without life support, are they not human being's?
Good for you, you caught the problem with my argument!  A fetus requires a human female to exist and grow, at least at the level of techonology we have. I should have been more clear. My point is that a person on life-support does not require the abrogation of another human being's equalness to exist.  [/quote]
Quote
I am unsure what you mean, I genuinely don't understand, can you use simpler wording?
I think you mean "A person on life-support does not require the written agreement of another person's equalness to exist"?
I really don't know what that means, sorry.
Machines keep a ill person alive.  A human being, a individual entity, keeps a baby alive.  To force a human being to do something that may harm them is enslaving them to this possible human.  There is nothing enslaving the machines to the ill person.  Clearer?  

Quote
I find abortion amazingly stupid as a means of birth control. 
Quote
Of course it is!
It is argumentatively too late.And it can damage the mother.It's also highly controversial.
Not quite sure what you mean. [/quote]

Quote
I agreed with what you said, that's all I meant :)
<laughter>  well, now I can see that you did.  

Quote
Quote
There are sooo many better things for that.  An abortion is surgery, and as such should not be taken lightly.  I do believe that if a woman is so scared or so ignorant to allow a pregnancy come to a point where technology can support the fetus, it should be given a chance.  However, only if there is someone who wants it.  To simply warehouse children in foster homes is not acceptable to me for the treatment of human beings.  I do get quite sick of Christians who so piously want to take everyone's choice away but who are not taking care of as many children as they possibly can and who vote against welfare, education, etc. 
Quote
Precisely my opinion also!
Good for you!
Quote
I am glad that we have reached some sort of agreement then

I am too.  I am glad that at least one theist realizes at least part of the problem that being anti-choice causes.  

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline JTW

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1983
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
Re: Abortion
« Reply #52 on: September 03, 2008, 03:48:40 PM »
So what if the law is changed tomorrow to define a fetus as a person?

That is every bit as immoral as forced abortions.

How?

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #53 on: September 03, 2008, 03:54:04 PM »
It's someone else dictating that their morality supersedes yours.  That's why this will continue to be a legal issue, not a moral one.  We have two ideas of morality coming into conflict here, yours and mine.  The difference is that if mine is put into law, it doesn't take away your right to do as your morality dictates, whereas instituting your "morality" necessarily inflicts itself upon everyone else.  To find an equivalent to that, we'd have to find another morality that impinged upon your right to practice your morality.  The handiest example of that is forced abortions.  If we instituted a policy of forced abortions, that would be an application of the moral position that life begins at birth that impinged on your right to hold and practice your own personal morality.

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #54 on: September 03, 2008, 03:54:33 PM »
Jack,

You are MAKING this a legal issue, NOT a moral issue,

That is not my intention, forgive me.
However I do not believe that matters, as it is still the morality of the legality I am discussing, and law doesn;'t matter when regarding morality.

Quote

when you try to invoke government power into forcing your opinions on others.


If it appears to you that I am forcing my opinion onto you, forgive me again.
But I do not believe I have forced my opinion on anybody, and I have gone out of my way to insist at times that my opinion is only that, an opinion.

Quote

If someone were trying to force you to act against your morality, then there would be a moral issue there, but no one is doing that.


Now that's a good point.

How does it fare when the question is changed to
"If someone were allowing other people to act against your morality ...."?
That is also a moral issue.
I'm playing the devil's advocate for that person.

Quote


 You and your morality are entirely intact.  You are free to hold your own opinion about the morality of abortion and live your life according to it.  When you start trying to impose your morality on others, though, it becomes a legal issue, and morality is left behind.


Again, I do not feel I am enforcing my opinion onto anybody, and I have went out of my way at times to insist that my opinion is just that, and opinion.
Why do you make it sound this way when my intentions are clearly not so?

Quote

Pro-life is NOT about morality; it's about using force of law to put your morality over the morality of others.  So stop saying this isn't a legal issue.  You are the one making it a legal issue.  Whether this conversation is about legality or morality is up to you, but I won't let you make it a legal issue while pretending you are sticking to the morality of it.


I don't fully support Pro-life.
I don't feel I have a full opinion on abortion yet, which is why I began posting on this thread.
And again, it does not matter if this is a legal issue, the morality of the legality can still be discussed.

If it is truly just up to me, I would prefer that this conversation is purely about the morality of abortion, which, I feel, is all I have been sticking to.
The only Legal assumption I have made is whether the Law is morally correct.
Which is also a moral discussion.

Besides that, you can regard my points, without continually implying that you cannot because of the legality of the issue.
I don't see why you cannot just discuss the points I make.
Perhaps convince me that I'm wrong in the morality of them or something.

I would like to dissuade the tenancy to refer to legality in this thread, it's not what I intend from what I say.
So if you will, just discuss the morality, instead?
Even if I fail to keep it a moral case, as you say.
I'm sure you can adapt it somehow; I can think of many things you can say, for instance ;)

« Last Edit: September 03, 2008, 03:56:53 PM by JackWhitehead1 »

Offline Red McWilliams

  • Illuminati
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Darwins +1/-0
Re: Abortion
« Reply #55 on: September 03, 2008, 03:59:14 PM »
And exactly what is your point at all?
I said "Probably" primarily because the Fetus is not guaranteed to become a child.
I suggest you reanalyse my statement and actually say something that is relevant if you wish to discard it.
If you can't then don't bother, please.
It does not make me appear to be wrong, people reading your reply are more intelligent than that.

You said the fetus probably has the ability to become a child.  If you're going to qualify your opinions to the point where they're little more than vague statements of common knowledge, how can you expect any of us to put any stock in anything you say?

Quote

And your point is?
Again you come to no logical explanation to discard the quote you are trying to make sound like it doesn't make sense.

My point is that you explicitly stated that a fetus is not a person while trying to convince us that a fetus is a person.

Quote
My point was, if a fetus has the same basic value as a person, the killing of one has the same basic value as murder.

Well this is certainly a "no duh!" moment.  Of course IF it has the same basic value as a person, killing it would be viewed in the same manner as killing a person.  You offer no reason to think that it does have the same basic value as a person though.  You tried to tie it to having an "individual human body" but most fetuses don't have anything close to what we would consider a human body at the time they are aborted.

Quote
Although I do not stand by that, as I said, it is conditional, which you now try and ridicule in some way, as follows...

What is conditional?  I wouldn't ridicule you if your position wasn't so ridiculous.

Quote
Quote

Quote

I believe that the only reason why a Fetus is not literally defined as a person is because abortions have happened and have been performed regularly for a very long time.
And If I am right, then aborting a Fetus is as bad as murder, and it should be law.
But I think that it is a conditional affair, and possibly at times the lesser of two wrongs.


So you consider murder a conditional affair? 


Strawman.
It is obvious I do not consider "Murder" conditional.
I implied that killing the fetus is conditionally "Murder".

Okay, under what conditions?  And it's not a strawman if I'm simply asking a question.  It seemed that you were implying that murder actually was conditional, hence my question.

Quote
I'm sorry but I am getting the feeling you are trying to subtly insult me.
I am also highly inclined to believing such things, so I may well be wrong.
But if you wish to do so, Just do it in a private message, there's no need in making it public.

You're welcome to feel however you want.  I find your position incongruous and I want you to explain yourself better.

Quote
Quote

This still doesn't explain why a fetus should be considered a person.  It's your assertion that it should be, but no reason as to why. 


Really?

I wont humiliate you by offering more quotations as to where you're wrong, I'll just ask you to re-read my posts.
You can find one in a quotation not long before here in this post.

You mean humiliate me like you did here?  It would seem your threshhold of credible explanation is much lower than mine.

Quote
Quote


 Again, you've made "fetus is person" the de facto starting position and then set up a false dichotomy that, if it can't be proven the other way, must mean your unevidence position is the correct one. 


No.
I have never advocated such a statement.
Please tell me where I have?

You did it in your first response to screwtape that started this whole mess.

Quote
Please do not refer to my position as un-evidential either, when I have repeatedly shown you evidence which I have previously posted.
It's only opinionated, so don't treat it like I think my word is Law, either.

Okay, I'll refer to it as a crappily evidenced position.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Furthermore, why is the killing of a conscious fetus, not as bad as that of a "person"?


This seems to make a clear distinction betweena fetus and a person.  Also, this was your first response to the question of why you consider a fetus to be a person


No.
It is not.
The first "response" was the 6th reply on this thread, go look.

This was your first response to the question screwtape asked you which is what got me interested in this thread.

Quote
But I believe that in asking that question I was going somewhere with it, before you assumed I side-stepped the initial question.

Then just go there.  We're here to discuss things, not play games.

Quote
Also, I provided an interesting perspective on the original question posed at me, which is what I wanted to acheive.

You did?  I guess if you define "interesting" in a certain way.

Quote
"Furthermore, why is the killing of a conscious fetus, not as bad as that of a "person"?"

In using that I attempt to derive an opinion, in which I can either correct or agree with.

Also, I implied within the tonality of the question and in the context of the question, that;
Killing a conscious fetus may well be as bad as that of a "person".
In the context it is in, in reply to the adverse question, I hoped to achieve a relative comparison between a person and a Fetus.

Again with the qualifiers!  Do you think killing a fetus is as bad as killing a person?  Tell us why.  There are millions of reasons a person is not the same as a fetus, some of which have been discussed.  What's relevant is that currently our society deems them to be different, so if you want to change the thinking of the people or the laws of the land, you're going to have argue for your case.


Today I step into the shoes of a great man, a man by the name of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

Offline JackWhitehead1

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Time's owned every thought I've known.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #56 on: September 03, 2008, 04:01:06 PM »

Quote
I am glad that we have reached some sort of agreement then

I am too.  I am glad that at least one theist realizes at least part of the problem that being anti-choice causes.  



Ahhh I am an atheist!
I just enjoy playing the devil's advocate ;)

Offline Davedave

  • Emergency Room
  • *******
  • Posts: 2995
  • Darwins +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm back, hoes.
Re: Abortion
« Reply #57 on: September 03, 2008, 04:10:20 PM »
However I do not believe that matters, as it is still the morality of the legality I am discussing, and law doesn;'t matter when regarding morality.

You are not discussing morality when you are discussing outlawing abortion.  That is a legal issue.  The moral question here is whether it is moral to impose one's opinion on others against their will.  That's the only relevant moral question.  Here's the bottom line.  You think the right to life ought to begin at point M.  Others believe it should be at Point L or at Point N or maybe even not at any set point at all.  The idea that something is moral at some point in time, but not at another, simply because time has passed, is absurd.  That's not how morality works.  Something else must be at stake.  Until you introduce an argument for why some point ought to objectively be considered a logical point for consideration (which you haven't), then this isn't even about morality at all.  It's just an opinion.

To illustrate with a hypothetical:  I say, "I think it is okay to steal on Wednesdays, but not any other day of the week."  You say, "That's crazy.  It's only okay to steal on Thursdays.  Anything else is immoral."  Until one or the other of us provides some other justification for our position, outside of day of the week, we really aren't arguing morality at all.  We're just arguing opinions.  Do you see why what you have presented so far basically fails as a discussion?  Two people arguing over whether stealing is okay on Wednesdays or Thursdays, without any deeper reasoning, is basically a wank.

But I do not believe I have forced my opinion on anybody, and I have gone out of my way to insist at times that my opinion is only that, an opinion.

Fine.  You have an opinion.  We've all heard it.  Congratulations.  What now?

"If someone were allowing other people to act against your morality ...."?

Yes, exactly.  THIS is a legal issue.  This is where you keep crossing over.  When you make this change, you open the door for the legal counterargument.  It's exactly what I just said, which is that the only moral issue really at stake here is the one about imposing your morality on others using force of law.

ps - Enter into the record my objection regarding use of the word "allow".

That is also a moral issue.

Yes, but it's not longer a moral issue about abortion or right to live.  It's a moral issue about use of government authority and power.

Why do you make it sound this way when my intentions are clearly not so?

Because just a moment ago, you started in again on asking about "allowing" others to violate your morality.  Your intentions clearly ARE so.

Even if I fail to keep it a moral case, as you say.

No, I will not.  If you fail to keep it to the morality of abortion, and keep trying to encroach on the morality of use of government power to impose morality on others who disagree, I will stop you every time until you stop.  I hope that's clear.