Another abortion article...

[cgannon64]

I have not yet commented on rape and abortion.

I have not given too much thought to this particular angle of the issue, though if I had to take one now, I would say that I would personally advocate that the girl give birth and put it up for adoption (or have it raised by competent family members) but she should have the right to abort it.

 

[brennan]

Now you are accepting murder (by your own terms). Are you starting to see that this is not black and white?

 

[cgannon64]

I already accept the killing of fully-adult humans in several circumstances.

As I say every time someone brings up "black-and-white": Beleiving in black and white does not mean you cannot beleive in grey, also.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

FL2 wrote: Obviously the distinction I was making was between a single cell and a person.

Remember the comment you made? In my mind the difference between a single celled organism and a multi-celled one is more significant.
Not to mention the difference between a zygote and a person.

So Human A has 1 cell, Human B has 4 cells, and Human C has 15,billion or so cells. B&C are okay, but A is medical waste waiting to be scraped out? How is that not an appearance-based argument for termination?

Not me, I have no idea. I was trying to get at that point to wonder what happens to all that animating spirit that never even manages to attach to the uterus.

Can that possibly matter? Are you honestly implying that murder should be legal because the murdered go to heaven? Do I even have to mention how absolutely insane that is?

No. In that case you may have competing rights.

And the right to life trumps the right to privacy.

You, as Keirador, have brought up erring on the side of caution.

I am not Keirador.

This makes the implicit assumption that something bad happens to aborted zygotes... doesn't it?

Um, the aborted ones DIE, that's pretty bad.

I mean otherwise, what's the big deal? The zygote goes to heaven (or wherever you feel the dead end up, again I don't know your beliefs). Is that so bad? So much worse than living on earth for a brief spell (vanishingly small as you call it) and then possibly burning in hell (or whatever you believe happens to the unsaved)?

Again, you cannot justify murder with some sort of afterlife mumbo-jumbo.

I wonder why would God punish all those zygotes that it has chosen not to allow to implant? I don't claim to understand God, but equally I don't think anyone does. Personally I refuse to worship a spiteful God.

Niether you nor a great many other people have any idea who the God of the Bible is or what He is all about. Rather tahn listen to the rumors you've heard, or the obvious lies that obvious liars have told for centuries, perhaps you might spend a few hours a week reading the Bible yourself to learn of that which you speak.

No, any fetus is a threat. Just last week a good friend of my wife's died to to complications in labor. She was young and healthy, her pregnancy was proceeding well, and she had good medical care (she lived in Australia).

I am sorry to hear that. I reccommend a sizable lawsuit. However the situation you describe is rare in the extreme, and not at all representative of modern health care. To claim it creates a valid threat for self-defense is non-viable.

The force is involved in not allowing her to abort according to her own belief system. As I've said before abortion is easy, especially early on in pregnancy. The force is in not allowing her to make a decision about her own body, it's about you imposing you belief system on others and making it stick.

No one forced her to create what may be a human life. Now that one may be present, prudence dictates that we err on the side of caution and prevent its destruction. We all agree that murder is wrong, and that killing someone for person gain is murder. What we don't know is whether a developing human in utero is a person. We cannot therefore allow that possible person to be killed for personal gain, or a murder has been committed. Until the question of when life begins is answered, abortion must be seen as a last-ditch defense of the mother's life and sanity (in the ultra rare rape cases).

and this is the specific reference to slavery that I already made and the slippery slope it involves. I don't trust a government with that sort of power.

I must say, what you outline above falls well into my definition of force.

Force, absolutely. But not force to become pregnant, just force to defend what may well be human life. I have no problem at all with using force to prevent murder. Until I know for a fact that abortion is not murder, I will oppose it.

 

[Gothmog]

cgannon wrote:

I would say that I would personally advocate that the girl give birth and put it up for adoption (or have it raised by competent family members) but she should have the right to abort it.

Care to change you're vote in the "Your personal opinion of abortion" thread?

It seems that neither you nor Keirador really understands what the term 'illegal' means, that or you've very recently changed your opinion on abortion.

 

[Gothmog]

@FL2
Again, your comment was

They differ from me no more significantly than does a black man, an elderly woman, or an Asian baby.

we disagree. Now for you to say

Human A has 1 cell

is again the same argument. Zygote = person, we disagree.

Can that possibly matter? Are you honestly implying that murder should be legal because the murdered go to heaven?

I do not believe in God as you understand the term (an anthropomorphic biblical type God), nor heaven. So my criteria for value are different. I was trying to understand the POV of someone who does believe in a biblical type God.

As I said earlier in the thread I define value in terms of human relationships upto and including the value towards creating a viable society. I see no danger to society through legal abortion (unlike legal murder), quite the opposite, and so feel that its terms should be decided by the mother, doctor and whoever else the mother decides to consult (father, family, pastor, God, whoever).

You, and others, apparently define value in terms of relationship to God (e.g. God created everyone so they are intrinsically valuable). Now it seems to me (you can correct me) that if I defined value this way than the ultimate value would be eternity in heaven (in terms of how I understand the term heaven).

So in that case I would still not advocate legal murder simply because of the effects such a choice would have on social stability, on those who remain behind. But I would understand that the greatest value could still be gained by the murdered (His Will Be Done). With this infinitesimally short life on earth inconsequential in comparison.

In this case I would feel happy for all the zygotes that never got to implant and were sent straight to heaven without having to risk separation from God through their actions during their infinitesimally short time on earth.

If I equally believed that aborted embryo's got the same treatment then I would feel happy for them too.. I would still not advocate that everyone get abortions, again because of the effect that would have on society (its end) as well as my selfish desire for happiness (I want to have kids, they bring happiness).

This was also the context I mentioned a spiteful God, not that I necessarily think the biblical God is spiteful (especially the new testament version - though many human interpretations of the new testament God are certainly spiteful), but that a God who would send zygotes that fail to implant to an eternity of separateness from God would be spiteful.

And the right to life trumps the right to privacy.

The discussion was about competing right's to life AFAIK, i.e. self defense and where to draw the line.

perhaps you might spend a few hours a week reading the Bible yourself to learn of that which you speak.

I have done that at various times in my life, and that experience is one of the reasons why I am agnostic. I do value much that the Bible has taught me about human nature.

I reccommend a sizable lawsuit.

Underway.

However the situation you describe is rare in the extreme, and not at all representative of modern health care. To claim it creates a valid threat for self-defense is non-viable.

Disagree, it all depends on what you believe, where you draw the line, and information from your doctor.

You again invoke prudence, but on what basis? That's what I've been trying to understand. Is the basis the fear that God is spiteful and would punish the aborted zygotes? It certainly doesn't seem to be fear that the mother will go to hell for taking the action (it seems you are desirous of her punishment), also in most people's view she could still be redeemed (the Bible implies as much IMO). What?

I commend you on your desire to keep abortion legal for the rare cases where the mother's life or sanity are at risk, and for rape cases. Am I right in assuming that your line is 50%. That is if the risk to the mother's life or sanity is 50% or greater then an abortion is justified, and that that risk needs to be evaluated by a licensed medical practitioner?

It seems to me that if the embryo goes to heaven in either case (abortion or not), and the mother goes to hell (or does not go to heaven) in the case of abortion, then I would have to advocate that the mother die for her embryo.

Finally, from my way of evaluating value, your method of preventing women from having abortions would certainly be in the loss column. For everyone, the society it implies would be a loser IMO.

 

[Keirador]

Keirador wrote: Care to change your vote in the "Your views on abortion?" thread? Or are you saying that only people rich enough to fly to another country should be allowed this "necessity"?

In rare cases where the mother's life is seriously jeapordized, I can understand abortion. In the vast majority of situations, I still think it should be illegal. I am sure you believe killing in self-defense is justified, but you would generally assert that you believe murder to be illegal.

Ah, but what are the relevant thresholds? There is a statistical pattern to how likely a pregnancy is to go term, and another to how likely a pregnant woman is to die. Early in pregnancy the fraction that go to term is low, and the chance of death to the mother at some point higher. As the pregnancy progresses the fraction that go to term increases, and typically some causes of death are ruled out and that likelihood decreases. Where does the relevant threshold lie? What fractional probability of the potential person becoming a real person, vs. the probability of the woman losing her life is enough for her to claim self defense? Should it be 75%? 50%? 25%? less? more?

I'll admit quite freely that I do not know, however that does not mean I believe the answers to be ineffable.

Why do you think you are qualified to make that judgement for everyone? Isn't it a personal decision? As you say you think it would be proper for the mother to give her life (though you will never be faced with this choice), you also allow that you would not enforce your personal preference.

As I said in the other thread, I would have an abortion if my wife's life was threatened. I would want to be able to make the call about what level of likelihood in consult with my wife, doctor, and God. I would not desire your opinion, nor that of legislators.

To impose on a woman in such a fashion is anathema to me, and is something I am not wont to do, but the imposition of governmental controls on a woman's free will is not the object, just an unpleasant side-effect. The object is the saving of a life. The government has always thought itself justified in arresting the rights of others in order to preserve human lives.

Are you saying that people do not have a right to protect their property, or means of livelihood, through deadly force if necessary?

Yes, that is correct.

I'm not sure what you mean by private societal intervention. I think 'how much intervention by society' is pretty clear. What steps should society take to prevent a woman from ending her pregnancy. It is not hard to do, a few raw lima beans can even do the trick. Should the state pay for any medical procedures necessary to remove the embryo from the woman as early as possible? Does the woman have a right of compensation to lost wages, or job opportunities, due to impairment during pregnancy? Obviously the state would be liable for care of the resulting child. How would that work?

If a woman is absolutely hell-bent on killing her child, there is little the state can do about it, just as the state cannot actually prevent murder if one is determined to commit it. It being a crime, she should expect punishment, however.

They relate to the question of intrinsic worth, and why society should prosecute murderers. Is the intrinsic worth related to human relationships, and the necessity to ensure a stable society? Or is the objective value imposed by God and related to the eternal soul. In the first case the value of the person might outweigh the value of the potential person, in the second they would be equal. This would weigh into the self defense / livelihood probability question outlined above.

I should not want to invoke an eternal soul per se into the legal equation, but the first option is most definitely wrong. If intrinsic worth could be measured according to value to society and value to other people, then it should be quite legal to hunt friendless drifters and bums. Our current laws only make sense if one takes as true the axiom that all human life has equal value. Do you in fact deny this axiom? If you do, I should like you to defend this denial.

 

[Gothmog]

In rare cases where the mother's life is seriously jeapordized, I can understand abortion. In the vast majority of situations, I still think it should be illegal. I am sure you believe killing in self-defense is justified, but you would generally assert that you believe murder to be illegal.

In the vast majority of situations...

but still not illegal the way I understand the term. That is, not against the law.

Are you going to change your vote in the other thread now?

AFAIKT you think abortion should be legal, with restrictions (like many things, driving 50 mph for example); not illegal (like for example the recreational use of perscription drugs).

Murder is illegal, killing in self-defense sometimes not.
Therefore it seems that killing in self-defense is not murder.
The OED agrees, murder is: to kill (a person) unlawfully, spec. with malice aforethought.

You are unwilling to offer a % threat to the womans life below which abortion is murder. FL2 seems to put it at 50%. How do you suggest we deal with this problem? Are you suggesting we pick an arbitrary % and then enforce that number through threat of force? Once you pick a number, how do you measure it. Is any licenced professional's opinion enough?

Hmm, you might want to think a bit about if protecting ones property or means of livelihood through deadly force is sometimes justified. This is the justification for many military actions, where deadly force is applied. But in america at least you are in the majority with respect to private citizens and property, but perhaps not means of livelihood. That's a more difficult issue as destroying ones means of livelihood can be thought of as an attack on ones life.

Personally, I basically agree with you on this point (though IMO there are exceptions), but many social conservatives in the US do not. Thus all the 'tresspassers will be shot' signs, and people who believe they can protect themselves from robbery with a gun.

I should not want to invoke an eternal soul per se into the legal equation, but the first option is most definitely wrong. If intrinsic worth could be measured according to value to society and value to other people, then it should be quite legal to hunt friendless drifters and bums. Our current laws only make sense if one takes as true the axiom that all human life has equal value. Do you in fact deny this axiom? If you do, I should like you to defend this denial.

First you are wrong, some people do care for friendless drifters and bums. Other people feel that any sort of hunting is wrong, even that of non-human animals.

Second, the axiom that all human life has equal value is, in general, necessary for a viable sucessful society. There is intrinsic value in believing that society values every life equally (though this is demonstrably untrue by many measures in the US at least).

Just like their is intrinsic value in allowing a woman the right to decide what to do with her own body. Not to say that right is necessarily more valuble than the decision to make abortions illegal, but that there is intrinsic value to society there.

For example if you really believed what you are saying, and were willing to sacrifice your own comfort in order to take up arms against the government, or just attack doctors who performed abortions etc (like I would be forced to do if the government started systematically killing off any large group - jews for instance or blacks). Just like certain groups did in the civil rights struggles here in the US (which were mostly about livelihood btw not right to life).

There would be a cost to society there, in terms of your direct actions and also the loss to society of your contribution. If enough people behaved that way then there would be an intrinsic value to sociey to making all abortions illegal.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

@FL2
Again, your comment was

So Human A has 1 cell, Human B has 4 cells, and Human C has 15,billion or so cells. B&C are okay, but A is medical waste waiting to be scraped out? How is that not an appearance-based argument for termination?

Now for you to say (portion in bold above) is again the same argument. Zygote = person, we disagree.

Why do you dodge the question? Very well, I shall make a semantic alteration to eliminate this direction of dodging. Should I have left other avenues of escape open, please save us all some time and not utilise them, and just answer the question, okay?

So Potential Human A has 1 cell, Potential Human B has 4 cells, and Potential Human C has 15 billion or so cells. B&C are okay, but A is medical waste waiting to be scraped out? How is that not an appearance-based argument for termination?

I do not believe in God as you understand the term (an anthropomorphic biblical type God), nor heaven. So my criteria for value are different. I was trying to understand the POV of someone who does believe in a biblical type God.

Hence our confusion. I don't believe in a 'biblical type god'. I believe in Jehovah, God of my fathers, Author of the Bible, the Alpha and Omega, etc..., not the watered-down version used to get money on the plate and as a social control method.

As I said earlier in the thread I define value in terms of human relationships upto and including the value towards creating a viable society. I see no danger to society through legal abortion (unlike legal murder), quite the opposite, and so feel that its terms should be decided by the mother, doctor and whoever else the mother decides to consult (father, family, pastor, God, whoever).

And I cannot understand how you can not see that the devaluation of human life that abortion represents has a profoundly negative impact on society. When human life is taken for granted, society suffers greatly. The relaxed, permissive attitude of sex in the 60s led to unfettered abortion in the 70s, and an explosive outbreak of teen pregnancy and AIDS in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. Why is this so hard for you to see?

You, and others, apparently define value in terms of relationship to God (e.g. God created everyone so they are intrinsically valuable). Now it seems to me (you can correct me) that if I defined value this way than the ultimate value would be eternity in heaven (in terms of how I understand the term heaven).

Who wants to live in heaven? BORING! Why do you think God's only sticking 144,000 in heaven, and the rest of us get to enjoy the earth as it was meant to be enjoyed, as immortals free of pain death and fear?

So in that case I would still not advocate legal murder simply because of the effects such a choice would have on social stability, on those who remain behind.

You mean like the effect that declaring the unborn as insignificant had on America?

But I would understand that the greatest value could still be gained by the murdered (His Will Be Done). With this infinitesimally short life on earth inconsequential in comparison.

And you would be wrong. After the battle at Har-Meggido, there will be a 1,000-year period of rule by Jesus during which Satan will be allowed to walk the earth openly and try to convince anyone he can to join him. This is also the time of the Resurrection. At the end of this 1,000-year reign of Christ, is Judgement. 1,000 years sounds like just about enough time for the few millions of Resurrected adults to raise up the Resurrected tens of millions of aborted and very young children that did not have a chance to hear the Word and decide whether to listen or not. So the murdered and aborted do not have a guaranteed, laminated, all-access pass to Heaven. They still have to make the same decisions we have to. They will have the benefit of actually experiencing immortality while they do it though, which sounds nice to me.

This was also the context I mentioned a spiteful God, not that I necessarily think the biblical God is spiteful (especially the new testament version - though many human interpretations of the new testament God are certainly spiteful), but that a God who would send zygotes that fail to implant to an eternity of separateness from God would be spiteful.

I agree. But Jehovah is a loving God, so thankfully that is not the case.

You again invoke prudence, but on what basis? That's what I've been trying to understand. Is the basis the fear that God is spiteful and would punish the aborted zygotes?

No, it's on the basis (and given how many times I've said this, what good is one more time going to do, but hope springs eternal, eh?) that we just don't know for sure where human life begins, so why take the chance that we're committing murder if we don't have to?

It certainly doesn't seem to be fear that the mother will go to hell for taking the action (it seems you are desirous of her punishment),

No, I am desirous of her not killing what may be her child. I'll settle for punishing her for doing it, because it's the most I can ask of this crappy society I was born into.

also in most people's view she could still be redeemed (the Bible implies as much IMO).

Yep.

I commend you on your desire to keep abortion legal for the rare cases where the mother's life or sanity are at risk, and for rape cases. Am I right in assuming that your line is 50%. That is if the risk to the mother's life or sanity is 50% or greater then an abortion is justified, and that that risk needs to be evaluated by a licensed medical practitioner?

Yes, to all of that. The line has to be arbitrary, and it's possibly a choice between two lives of equal value, so both should have an equal chance at life.

Finally, from my way of evaluating value, your method of preventing women from having abortions would certainly be in the loss column. For everyone, the society it implies would be a loser IMO.

Hopefully you can now see your error.

Yeah, riiiiiight.

You may begin deliberately misinterpreting and selectively 'misunderstanding' me now.

 

[Norlamand]

One abortion may be truly a mistake. 3, 4 ,5 ....you are either <snip> or totally morally bankrupt. Pregnancy is 99% preventable with simple precautions. It is, largely a self inflicted problem. Stupid people do stupid things.

Moderator Action: Language - removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Bump to keep her on first.

 

[Gothmog]

FL2, I did not dodge any question. I did describe the criteria that I use to define value. A single cell only meets my criteria if the mother thinks it does. As the 'potential human' grows its value can be defined by more people. Heck my children had value to my wife and I long before I actually impregnated her.

In the case on a single cell the issue seems simple to me, humans are multi-celled organisms. Defined by the various collective behaviors of those cells. Obviously a single cell is neither multi-celled nor can in exhibit collective behaviors.This is my personal view.

Many people choose the collective behavior known as consciousness to define an initial value, that seems as good a place as any. For myself, I think its a choice people should be able to make for themselves. I feel that provides the greatest measure of social good.

Your description of the problem of abortion in terms of a negative impact on society is one I can relate to. I agree that when human life is taken for granted society suffers. This is a question of context though, since most people don't believe that a zygote is a person - while a pregnant woman certainly is by any criteria. Also, I don't believe that human life is being taken for granted in the vast majority of abortions. It's at least as rare as rape cases IMO. It's a highly personal and emotional decision.

I think part of our difference in this respect is my desire to limit authoritarian control structures in society. Power corrupts and all that. As I intimated previously, with freedom comes responsibility but also abuse. I still love freedom I just don't think that good things stem from an authoritarian patriarchal bureaucracy.

But I think our difference is larger yet...

AFAIKT you do believe in an anthropomorphic type God. Different from many other peoples conception but still biblical at heart. Doesn't that mean that you believe that humans have an intrinsic value based on their having been created by God? I don't believe that, and that is the difference I was trying to delineate in previous posts. This must affect how we view value and blame, and so competing rights to life.

144000 in heaven, the rest of us in paradise on earth... whatever. The point is the same, there is some greater purpose for us than just life on earth. That is something I just don't believe, nor see any evidence of.

So, in your digression on Har-Meggido; it doesn't seem that any harm has been done to the aborted souls, no matter how late the abortion. In fact you say 'it sounds nice to me'. Is that right?

What's left then is that you feel the act of abortion is (or at least may be) murder and that murder is an intrinsic wrong (as outlined in the 10 commandments etc.). Here I use murder in the context of biblical law and your interpretation of it, I do not mean to imply that I think abortion is murder (as this implies unlawful and usually malice aforethought).

So when you say 'why take the chance' you are referring to the chance of breaking God's law (which btw I still think it could have been a lot clearer about), yes?

You want to punish her, but couldn't you just as well leave that up to God? Don't you think that more come to salvation through application of Love than threat or punishment? Isn't that the message of the New testament? IOW shouldn't you be washing her feet rather than desiring her corporal punishment?

I don't see any error in my ways, we just evaluate the situation differently. I don't see first trimester abortions as a big threat to society. I do see taking away women's rights to own their bodies as a big threat to society. I don't believe in the objective evil of stopping a fertilized egg from implanting.

Finally a quick question. If a given embryo has a 50% chance of going to term, does that imply that a 25% risk to the mothers life or sanity would give her justification for having an abortion? Or is it always 50:50... just wondering.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted you, or engaged in selective misunderstandings.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Ok, apparently you're simply not going to answer the question. Does that mean I win again?

 

[Gothmog]

again



Nothing in the human body is medical waste waiting to be scraped out.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Well, at last, you finally alluded to the question, and ackowledged its existence. Maybe I should consider that progress? Perhaps in another 2 days I'll get an answer.

 

[Keirador]

In the vast majority of situations...

but still not illegal the way I understand the term. That is, not against the law.

Are you going to change your vote in the other thread now?

AFAIKT you think abortion should be legal, with restrictions (like many things, driving 50 mph for example); not illegal (like for example the recreational use of perscription drugs).

Fair enough, you're right: I think it should be legal but with inredibly high restrictions- restrictions prohibitive enough that current abortion laws would be null, and the most common form of abortion currently practiced would be illegal, making the majority of abortions illegal. I find it more convenient to just say I think it should be illegal.

You are unwilling to offer a % threat to the womans life below which abortion is murder. FL2 seems to put it at 50%. How do you suggest we deal with this problem? Are you suggesting we pick an arbitrary % and then enforce that number through threat of force? Once you pick a number, how do you measure it. Is any licenced professional's opinion enough?

Abortion's always murder, the only question is how justified is the murder? (An alternate dictionary defines murder as: "To kill brutally or inhumanly." I don't think the law is the final determinant; else no Jews were murdered during the Holocaust.) I admit the difficulty in nailing down an exact percent is great, but it's not as big a problem as the deaths of millions of children every year.

First you are wrong, some people do care for friendless drifters and bums. Other people feel that any sort of hunting is wrong, even that of non-human animals.

Friendless bums are, by definition, friendless. The people who care for them care for them only in an abstract way, not in a personal way. Sort of in the same way one can care for the unborn children of the world.

Second, the axiom that all human life has equal value is, in general, necessary for a viable sucessful society. There is intrinsic value in believing that society values every life equally (though this is demonstrably untrue by many measures in the US at least).
Just like their is intrinsic value in allowing a woman the right to decide what to do with her own body. Not to say that right is necessarily more valuble than the decision to make abortions illegal, but that there is intrinsic value to society there.

But I believe there is greater value in protecting life than in protecting privacy. This appears to be our central conflict: I value life so highly as to prefer to err on the side of caution in protecting it, and you value personal freedom so highly as to err on the side of caution in protecting. I doubt either of us can be convinced out of convictions, though I believe I can understand and sympathize with your view, and you mine. Let's just leave it at that.

For example if you really believed what you are saying, and were willing to sacrifice your own comfort in order to take up arms against the government, or just attack doctors who performed abortions etc (like I would be forced to do if the government started systematically killing off any large group - jews for instance or blacks). Just like certain groups did in the civil rights struggles here in the US (which were mostly about livelihood btw not right to life).

There would be a cost to society there, in terms of your direct actions and also the loss to society of your contribution. If enough people behaved that way then there would be an intrinsic value to sociey to making all abortions illegal.

The difference between legalized abortion and extermination of Jews is that, in the second case, the government is clearly engaged in an obviously evil and malicious act, whereas in the first the government is simply wrong. I believe in the sacredness of life, and am not about to take life in support of my cause: especially since doing so would earn my cause instant revilement across all spectrums of society and lessen the chances of my campaign succeeding. Don't get me wrong, I'm not lazy: I am an active and ardent participator in anti-abortion campaigns, and intend to become only more active as I get older and can afford such freedoms, but I won't resort to terrorism to advance my aims. People don't respond well to terrorism.

I'll have to leave our abortion discussion at that; I really think we've both made our views quite clear to the other, and it seems we each understand them. Our central disagreement is not one that will be solved. Thanks for your intelligent and cogent dedication to this debate. You've presented the most legitimate and compelling defense of abortion I've yet seen.

 

[Keirador]

Well, at last, you finally alluded to the question, and ackowledged its existence. Maybe I should consider that progress? Perhaps in another 2 days I'll get an answer.

You know, being mean won't get you anywhere. If you're being mean, you can't convince people of anything no matter how good your arguments, you can't provide a good defense of your own views as your tone will prejudice people against you, and you can't even create an environment for an exchange of ideas, because it creates an air of hostility and confrontation. I know you don't have to resort to personal hostility, you seem a pretty smart guy. If you don't seek any of those three things, why even bother with discussion? The only possible end to be achieved is bad feelings for both parties. Is that all you're after? To make enemies and irritate others?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Mean? Because I want a straight answer to a straight question, I'm mean?!?

Well, yeah, I guess it IS pretty heartless of me to insist on an answer to THAT question, either there's no difference and abortion is killing a human being, or ... um, well, that's pretty much it, isn't it?

Well, if someone can answer that question,

So Potential Human A has 1 cell, Potential Human B has 4 cells, and Potential Human C has 15 billion or so cells. B&C are okay, but A is medical waste waiting to be scraped out? How is that not an appearance-based argument for termination?

I'll relent.

Until then, I'll keep this thread on page 1.

 

[Perfection]

No it's not it FL2, just because one can't draw an objective line between human/nonhuman doesn't mean that we should treat single cells as a human. There's a vast grey area between what we should consider a human vs. a non-human. Just because there's grey between the black (embryos) and white (me) doesn't mean there's no difference.

 

[Birdjaguar]

to all. What a great read. It kept me up past my bedtime.

Parry, lunge, pirouette and thrust,
The battle rages over what is just
Is anyone right or is it all spam?
"A feeling of compassionate mercy,
The rest doesn't matter a damn."

And thanks Gothmog for representing NM so well.

@Kierador: I thought you left OT?