Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by GoldEagle, Mar 11, 2007.
Because I think it's wrong to kill humans?
Agnostic/Non-religious, support abortion until the thrid trimester.
Well, I'm an atheist, but I couldn't ascribe glibly to either of those labels. Everyone on both sides of the debate agrees that at a certain point, the life becomes valuable enough to be protected, the disagreement is over where on the 9-month spectrum this is.
Neither of the two extremes make much sense to me. If we cut it off at the very instant of birth, we know that babies can be delivered perfectly healthy weeks beforehand. If we cut it off at the very moment of conception, we are protecting a completely non-sentient cluster of cells, while willingly slaughtering millions of animals with far more intelligence for food. The general pro-choice point seems to be third semester, but what changes from the day before or the day after? Any threshold in between is fairly arbitrary, and, as neither a biologist nor a cognitive scientist, I am hardly qualified to judge the exact instant.
As a human, I feel that it is okay for humans to interrupt natural processes (as I type on my computer). I also don't believe the statement "all it needs is time" to be true.
I believe that if a woman intends to bring a baby to term, she has a moral obligation to maintain her health and nutrition, in order to allow the baby every advantage. The baby certainly needs more than time.
I would refute the claim that my position on abortion has anything to do with my religion. I have been pro-life ever since I was -9 months old.
Catholic-raised Atheist, pro-choice
Logically one would then conclude that you would not oppose abortion after rape, considering the woman then definately did NOT choose to procreate...
There are decent odds that your embryo consumed a clone or twin early in your development, actually.
Eh. At least you noticed
Atheist, pro choice.
And you didn't answer why should this definition stop at conception?
So when you were a sperm and ovum, you were pro-choice? Interesting. What were your views on contraception at that time?
By just about any useful definition, an embryo is not a human.
As a member of the Involuntary Human Extinction Movement I'm against both choice and life.
If you don't agree that killing humans is wrong, there is no argument I can make that it is. Either you accept it and join the majority of humanity or you don't.
As to whether "human life" begins at conception, it simply seems the only stopping point. Anything else seems arbitrary and reduces humanity to a difference of degrees. Why not bet on the safe side and not kill something that you're not 100% sure could be considered human?
Doesnt matter if it is human (or what religion humans have) or not, its a matter of choice. Before humans there was pure life, so we make with our life what we want, well almost, for example if you are smoking next to a person you can kill that person, well abortion doesnt kill the person next to you, so other ppl dont have nothing to do with it.
And I think is not easy for women to do it, and will be sorry or with remorse for the rest of their lifes.
You do realise that the woman is forcing her beliefs on that child. That it an utterly crap argument.
@Erik Mesoy, the actual rate of Abortions actually increased with the legality of it.
Mainly because I like to scratch once in awhile, and don't want to feel guilty about it. Maybe I'm lazy and immoral, and I should be disparaged for scratching. But I doubt it.
What if I'm pro-choice, but still believe abortion is a very bad thing?
"That" is not a child. She's not forcing any beliefs on anyone, she's refusing to play host to a parasite. And there was no argument, just a statement of belief. This isn't an abortion debate thread.
Separate names with a comma.