an abortion thread with no personal attacks

Hmmm. So it isn't a matter of when a fetus becomes aware or sentient or whatever but rather at the very point a human is conceived they have rights. Interesting.

This is merely my opinion, not my committment. I'm not willing to hurt or kill anyone over it. As a couple we decided on the one and not the other.

Well it really doesn't matter due to the fact that Glassfan has left it in the realm of personal opinion (or mutual opinion with his partner), and does not seek in anyway to impose on others.
 
My personal line is at viability. If the fetus can survive outside the womb, then don't abort it. Others may draw the line elsewhere, like at first trace of heartbeat or at conception or even before conception (i.e., anti-contraception). Some don't bother drawing a line at all. But my personal line falls on viability.

If the fetus can survive outside the mother, then abortion should be forbidden.

That's my view.
 
My personal line is at viability. If the fetus can survive outside the womb, then don't abort it. Others may draw the line elsewhere, like at first trace of heartbeat or at conception or even before conception (i.e., anti-contraception). Some don't bother drawing a line at all. But my personal line falls on viability.

If the fetus can survive outside the mother, then abortion should be forbidden.

That's my view.

My opinion too: I don't see a fertilized egg as a human being yet. It's hard to draw the line, but this is where I would draw it if I had to.
 
Sorry, I was sloppy with terminology. What I should have said:

On the one end of the spectrum, preventing a pregnancy by killing a sperm cell or egg is not considered murder but killing a 1 month old baby is. The difficulty with the topic of abortion is determining at what point to draw the line.
This is actually not difficult in the theorical department. There is murder only if you kill a person, not if you just destroy some cells. See the several (mostly ignored, probably because anti-abortion ayatollah tends to have absolutely no leg to stand beside "there is some kind of invisible soul that we arbitrarily consider to exist as soon as it's convenient for us") posts about what makes someone a person and why it requires a brain and why it's precisely when an embryo becomes a fetus that a brain starts to develop.

In the practical department, it's of course more difficult, as you pointed. The difficult point is "when is the brain developped enough that you can determine if the fetus is a person or just a pre-person", but at least for the first 12 weeks you're completely safe.
 
because anti-abortion ayatollah

Hiya! We've been doing a relatively good job at not chain spamming insults at each other, and most of the pro-lifers in this thread seem to have had enough for now and gone to sleep. Think we can dress this sentiment up a little more than the standard posturing? :)
 
My personal line is at viability. If the fetus can survive outside the womb, then don't abort it. Others may draw the line elsewhere, like at first trace of heartbeat or at conception or even before conception (i.e., anti-contraception). Some don't bother drawing a line at all. But my personal line falls on viability.

If the fetus can survive outside the mother, then abortion should be forbidden.

That's my view.

While there are people who think that contraception is wrong (And I'm iffy on it, morally speaking) I don't think anybody really thinks contraception is murder anymore. Well, obviously SOMEONE does, but "Anybody" is a relative term. I know Catholics as a group don't think its murder anymore, even the ones who actually obey the teachings of their Church. It was always faulty science that said that sperm was full human life, it was a totally "Male-centered" view on life.

Hiya! We've been doing a relatively good job at not chain spamming insults at each other, and most of the pro-lifers in this thread seem to have had enough for now and gone to sleep. Think we can dress this sentiment up a little more than the standard posturing? :)

Of course not, if we consider anti-abortion views, pretty soon we'll think masturbation is murder and that everyone who uses contraception should be put to death:mischief:
 
Every sperm is sacred?
 
Every sperm is sacred?

Well, I've never heard anyone who knows modern science argue that sperm are alive, but I've heard plenty of "Pro-choice" people use it to try to argue against the apparent "Silliness" of our position. Its ridiculous because it only has the DNA of one of the two partners NECESSARY to create life.

Obviously I'm ignoring cloning, but the difference is that cloning is an artificial action, and so may not be bound by "Natural laws" (Then again, I'm against cloning of humans anyway) but sperm is a naturally existing thing.
 
Of course not, if we consider anti-abortion views, pretty soon we'll think masturbation is murder and that everyone who uses contraception should be put to death:mischief:

That silly comment would be more effective if you didn't actually think that abortion was murder.
 
Well, I've never heard anyone who knows modern science argue that sperm are alive, but I've heard plenty of "Pro-choice" people use it to try to argue against the apparent "Silliness" of our position. Its ridiculous because it only has the DNA of one of the two partners NECESSARY to create life.

Obviously I'm ignoring cloning, but the difference is that cloning is an artificial action, and so may not be bound by "Natural laws" (Then again, I'm against cloning of humans anyway) but sperm is a naturally existing thing.

Is it natural or man made?
 
That silly comment would be more effective if you didn't actually think that abortion was murder.

No, because its a ridiculous strawman that I felt the need to attack before it inevitably gets brought up again. Abortion actually destroys human life.

Wait, what? :huh:

Technically you're right, but I'm talking in "Common person" speech, not "Scientific speech." While technically "My arm" is alive, common people wouldn't address it as a living thing. This is universally the same thing with sperm. The conceived embryo is actually disputed.
 
In my opinion, the 'common person' vernacular is not useful for forming policy. It's fine for discussing policy or for communicating quickly or easily ... but the fact that 'common people' don't think of 'sperm as alive' shouldn't enter the discussion as if it's an argument.
 
Dern, I was hoping to break into a musical number regarding when God gets quite irate.
 
In my opinion, the 'common person' vernacular is not useful for forming policy. It's fine for discussing policy or for communicating quickly or easily ... but the fact that 'common people' don't think of 'sperm as alive' shouldn't enter the discussion as if it's an argument.

Considering I was basically going for a rhetorical trick, the technical language wasn't really the point.
 
No, because its a ridiculous strawman that I felt the need to attack before it inevitably gets brought up again. Abortion actually destroys human life.

So do soldiers, alcohol, tobacco, lethal tools improperly used and capital punishment.
 
Considering I was basically going for a rhetorical trick, the technical language wasn't really the point.

I get that. The real objection is that if we actually deconstruct your rhetorical trick, you see that it actually supports the position that embryos are not morally important.

You said that a sperm is not 'alive' (and I knew what you meant, though it was pretty sloppy language!), but that's not true in almost all the ways it wouldn't be true for an embryo.

A sperm is a unique, human, living organism that, with a little bit of help, has the potential to become a being that we all recognise as human.

I'll write it again, it IS unique and living.
 
Technically you're right, but I'm talking in "Common person" speech, not "Scientific speech." While technically "My arm" is alive, common people wouldn't address it as a living thing. This is universally the same thing with sperm. The conceived embryo is actually disputed.
No, can't say I've encountered that. In fact, it's kind of hard to see how one could actually think that without a fairly specific reference to a certain sort of idealist metaphysics, which you'll presumably be aware is not held by the majority of the population.
 
A sperm is a unique, human, living organism that, with a little bit of help, has the potential to become a being that we all recognise as human.

Sperm are haploid sex cells. Come on now. This is like sixth grade biology.
 
Back
Top Bottom