Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[Akka]

No because most of the people that are killed in the military were threats to the people who killed them. Most fetuss' are no where near a threat to anyone. I see that abortion an act of violence and people are just trying to cover it up. This practice is a crime against humanity.

Just because you seem to selectively ignore what you don't like : an embryo isn't a person, and as such hasn't rights.

 

[Little Raven]

Just because you seem to selectively ignore what you don't like : an embryo isn't a person, and as such hasn't rights.

Not to jump to his defense, but zlg56 made that remark in response to me, and for the purposes of our debate I have granted the assumption that a fetus is human upon conception. (I'm choosing the argue the 'right to life' assumption instead.)

I have to go to fencing now, though, so my response is going to have to wait.

 

[shadowdude]

For what it's worth, I hope you don't die.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

No, not really. You're saying that it's wrong to kill fetuses because they are human and therefore have a 'right to life.' Ok, fine. The people of Darfur are also human. Don't they have a 'right to life?' And if they do, aren't we violating that right by failing to make sure they have everything they need in order to live?

If you're asking me if we should intervene in Darfur, Yes I think we should.

Help me out here. Are you suggesting that we change the law to force people to pay for the medical care of others

Ever hear of socialized medicine?

I must retain the right to refuse TLC the use of my machine, or the concept of property rights flies out the window.

Ever hear of the good samaritan act?

 

[The Last Conformist]

to kill a human is mudered, no mater how u put it..

Interesting. I would think that virtually every military in the world would disagree with that. I mean, killing people is their job. Is every policeman who kills a criminal a murderer? Every soldier who shoots an enemy? Every doctor who inserts a needle into the arm of a person on death row?

I assume common law countries recognize a crime similar to our (directish translation) "causation of other's death"? You can be convicted of it if your actions lead to someone else death, which, altho not your intention, should have been clear to be a likely or possible consequence of your actions.

I think everybody remotely sensible* would recognize this as quite different from murder or manslaughter.


* A non-remotely-sensible person at DAF suggested, some months ago, that anyone who, by action or inaction, causes someone's death has forfeited their life, and should be put to death (presumably with an exception for executioners!). He was not daunted when it was pointed out that if a doctor had to pay with his life if he failed to save a patient, no one remotely sane would accept a position as a physician who'd have to deal with potentially life-threatening conditions, and thus plenty of innocent people would die due to lack of care.

 

[The Last Conformist]

This practice is a crime against humanity.

Show me the relevant paragraph in the relevant treaty.

 

[Little Raven]

To answer your question everyone has a right to life but they do not have the right to do it purposely. Criminals are threatening people at their own will and killed that is their fault. If a fetus is threatening is causeing health problems the baby should not just be killed since it has done nothing wrong. The baby did not choose to hurt the mother.

Interesting. You argue that because a fetus does not intend harm, it should not suffer any consequences even though it may cause harm.

Ok, fine. But if a fetus is just a human, like any other human, then why are we applying a different standard to it than we do to normal humans?

Consider the case of Amadou Diallo. A black man in New York city, Diallo was flagged down by officers who felt he matched the description of a serial rapist. On the steps of his apartment building, he reached into his pockets and pulled out a wallet, presumably to provide identification. The officers responded by pumping Mr. Diallo full of 41 bullets. He was later found to be unarmed, and witnesses said that he had made no threatening motions.

As best we can determine, Mr. Diallo intended the officers no harm. And even if he did, he wasn't capable of inflicting any harm, since he had no weapon. So, did the police violate Mr Diallo's 'right to life' by killing him on the steps of his apartment building?

A jury said no. They acquitted all four police officers who were brought to trial for the killing. The jury said that while the police made a mistake, they had reason to believe that Mr. Diallo represented a threat, and as such, their conduct was justifiable. It didn't matter if Mr. Diallo intended harm, or was even capable of inflicting harm. All that mattered was that the police believed their lives were in danger.

That is the standard we use for determining if self-defense is justified: Do you have reason to believe that the other person is going to cause you harm? If the fetus is human, why should we apply a different standard to them? If the mother has reasonable cause to believe that the fetus will cause her harm, how is she not justified in aborting it?

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Two words : Rape cases.....

 

[shadowdude]

Two words : Rape cases.....

Two words : Still murder.....

 

[Little Raven]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions...

That may be. But I notice that you did not provide an example of a state whos laws dictate that I must let you in to my house if you have nowhere else to go. I suspect that is because there is no such state. And there is no such state because it is not for the law to determine my karmic balance. If we are to be judged in the next life, we must leave that up to God. The law is a creation of man, to deal with the world of man. And the law is clear: If I own the dialysis machine, then I get to determine who uses it. If we allow TLC's medical need to arbitrarily override my right to my property, then the entire concept of property rights becomes meaningless, and our society cannot function that way. I may go to hell if I withhold my machine from TLC, but I'm within the law. Why should a woman have fewer rights over her body than I have over my dialysis machine?

If you're asking me if we should intervene in Darfur, Yes I think we should.

No, it's a deeper question than that. I'm asking if the people of Darfur have the right to demand we intervene and give them everything they need to live. Because if humans truly have the 'right to life,' as you claim, then they should be able to do so. So should everyone else who for whatever reason does not have everything they need to live.

The sad fact is, our society does not believe that people of the Sudan have that right. We have no intension of getting involved in Darfur, but even if we're forced to, we certainly won't do anything for the oppressed people of Zimbabwe, or the starving masses in Eritrea, or even the millions of Americans without health insurance. It's not that we don't believe the people involved are human…we do. We simply recognize that simply being human isn't enough to be worth saving.

Ever hear of socialized medicine?

Yes I have, but socialized medicine is just another way of distributing resources. It still has to deal with the fact that there will always be more demand for medical services than there is supply, and that eventually, somebody will have to be cut off. Look at Trizka Litton, who had to fake vomiting blood in order to obtain surgery for a hernia.

Private healthcare and socialized healthcare are just two different ways for determining who gets cut off. In private healthcare, the rich get whatever they need, the poor get whatever they can afford. Socialized healthcare attempts to be more egalitarian. But both systems recognize that there is only so much to go around, and nobody has the right to 'whatever they need to live.'

Ever hear of the good samaritan act?

Yes I have. Most only serve to protect people who inflict accidental harm while attempting to help in an emergency. A few states require a person to render emergency care, but even those cases are extremely temporary in scope. No state demands that you provide 9 months of care for someone at your expense. Unless you care to come up with a counter example?

 

[Little Raven]

I assume common law countries recognize a crime similar to our (directish translation) "causation of other's death"? You can be convicted of it if your actions lead to someone else death, which, altho not your intention, should have been clear to be a likely or possible consequence of your actions.

I think every first world nation recognizes several categories of incidents in which you take the life of another. Everything from pre-meditated murder to justifiable homicide. (like self-defense)

Here in America, I think what you're talking about would commonly be called manslaughter, though the term might vary from state to state.

I certainly can't think of any society which strictly abides by the rule that anyone who takes a life or is in any way responsible for taking a life is sentenced to death. That's lunacy. Even zjl56 seems to be admitting that there are circumstances in which humans must be killed.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I certainly can't think of any society which strictly abides by the rule that anyone who takes a life or is in any way responsible for taking a life is sentenced to death. That's lunacy. Even zjl56 seems to be admitting that there are circumstances in which humans must be killed.

Larry Niven claimed to know about some Central African culture that does take that view. I'm inclined to think he's misinformed.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

FL2, do you support the death penalty?

Nice try, but I am adamantly opposed to it.

About a year ago now I publicly declared that I could not support the DP with all its flaws and be pro-life, and made the switch. That's makes my open mind a matter of public record here, as I am the only person to date to ever have his mind changed by one of these debates. I gave up my hypocrisy, when will you give up yours?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Calm down. For the point of this exercise, we’re assuming the fetus is human at conception. That question has been answered. I admit that if humans do have a ‘right to life,’ then we have a problem. Now you need to convince me that allowing humans to die is unacceptable.

I don't have to convince anyone of that that I consider worth the time to have a discussion with. If you want to secede from the human race, then please go find an island somewhere far from the things of man to live your life on. There is no legal system on earth that is not based wholly or in part on the concept of a human right to life; so as long as you live within such a system, your beliefs are secondary to the base assumptions of that system.

There is a right to life, and children (and you already agreed with me that embreyos et al count as such) have a right to the things they need to live. You said your STATE cut its CHIP program, that means it is in the USA. No hospital in the US can turn a patient with a life-threatening condition away based on ability to pay, not one. The myth that such is not the case is prevalent outside the US, where everyone wants to crow about how much better than the US they and their systems are, but the truth is no one in the US can die from lack of health care just because they couldn't pay. If it happens and hospitals get away with it, it's only because people are believing that myth and noone is pressing charges against the parents for not getting help because they don't want to expose that myth and face the costs.

They are children. They have a right to the things they need to live. They have a right to life. The answer to my question is clear:

There is no legitimate difference. Abortion as after-the-fact contraception is murder. No moral person can support 98.5% of the abortions that occur in the US, or similar percentages worldwide.

ainwood-
Not much fun being up against the ropes in the neutral corner getting hammered by blow after blow, is it?

So you are advocating that women who smoke then have a miscarriage be charged with manslaughter?

If the miscarriage can be directly linked to the smoking, I can't imagine why not. The pre-natal risks of smoking and drinking are well-documented matters of public record. A woman who does either during pregnancy ought to be jailed where she can do neither, and if she shows signs of intent to harm the child within, bound hand and foot to prevent that as well. A woman who abuses her born children can be imprisoned in the worst instances, and lose her children most of the time. If they are entitled to protection from her, then so should her unborn children be protected as well.

What about women who (say) do something strenuous like an aerobics session before they actually know they're pregnant? Involuntary manslaughter perhaps?

It would be hard to prove that a miscarriage that early in a pregnancy was the result of outside forces, or even that there was a pregnancy to lose. Why do you insist on bringing up these million-to-one odds scenarios instead of answering the question?

EDIT: silly quote tags

 

[ainwood]

It would be hard to prove that a miscarriage that early in a pregnancy was the result of outside forces, or even that there was a pregnancy to lose. Why do you insist on bringing up these million-to-one odds scenarios instead of answering the question?

I did answer it, you just didn't agree with the answer.

And its not 1,000,000 to one. Go check - more like 25 to 50% of all foetuses are spontaneously aborted (mostly befoer the woman even realises she is pregnant).

 

[FearlessLeader2]

It's really a series of questions. Which one do you want answered, and I'd gladly help you find the light.

It's an essay question with several parts, as you well know. It's worded the way it is to counter at the get-go any attempts to squirm out of answering or to evade the matter. Your continued attempts at equivocation are as telling as any answer you could ever give.

To all my adversaries-
You have no answer for this question, because your position is indefensible. All that remains is for you to abandon that position, abandon the hypocrisy it entails, and accept, as I once did (RE the death penalty), that your position on this matter is not the right one, and then change it.

I did it. Why can't you? Am I the only person on these forums with an open mind?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I did answer it, you just didn't agree with the answer.

And its not 1,000,000 to one. Go check - more like 25 to 50% of all foetuses are spontaneously aborted (mostly befoer the woman even realises she is pregnant).

Hoo-boy. You're a laugh riot, Alice, a regular riot.

As you fully well knew I was saying, the sports-induced miscarriage is the 1,000,000 to 1 shot. I am fully aware that well over half of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry in the first two weeks.

I did not disagree with your answer, I pointed out that your answer was to a question that I didn't ask. Answer the question that I am asking, not one that you can safely answer and pretend you answered mine.

EDIT: missing some zeroes...

 

[ainwood]

Well, to help me phrase my answer to meet your needs, could you please clarify why you place a higher value on a foetus than nature (God) does?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

It supercedes the right of a foetus to have a life period. Your question leaves no room for that point of view. As long as you keep refering to a bunch of cells as a person, a human being, a baby, or a child, you cannot possibly find an answer to your question.

Same here. That would not be right.
But it is not what we discuss imho.

If you would just answer my question, you wouldn't have to continue equivocating like this. Shut me up. Prove that there is a legitimate, non-age-based difference between an embreyo and any other stage of human development, or that age-based discrimination alone is sufficient to make life-or-death decisions, and be sure that you can apply that proof equally to the other stages of human development.

Until you can do that, you cannot say what is and is not a human life. Prove that a 'bunch of cells' is not a human without resorting to age-based discrimination, or grant legitimacy to age-based discrimination in matters of life and death. If you can't do one or the other, then you have no moral, non-hypocritical choice but to join me.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

A human fetus requires (under normal circumstances) either the consent of the mother or a crime to be committed against the mother to be harmed. An aged, injured, or very young human being does not.

A human fetus cannot be transferred to the care of someone else without either the consent of the mother or a criminal assault upon the mother. An aged, injured, or very young human being can.

This does appear to be a valid difference between the two demographics, and I congratulate you on finding it. However, it still leaves you with a dillemna. Bear in mind that we are not discussing 100% of abortion cases, only the 98.5% that are contraceptive after the fact. The only way to accomodate the mother's wishes in these matters is by killing the child within. Given that the only difference you have established between the unborn and any other type of dependant is the level of dependancy, is it morally justifiable to accommodate the mother's non-life-threatening wishes by killing the unborn child?

As such, I believe a human fetus can reasonably under existing law be treated as a part of the woman's body until it exits said body.

(Normal circumstances refer to a pregnant mother who has medical assistance reasonably available to her, adequate living standards, and is intelligent enough to understand that her actions affect the fetus she carries.)

I disagree. The placental barrier and basic biology do too. Any failure of the placental barrier will result in war between the organisms on either side, with the baby being treated as a foreign organism by the mother's immune system. This is well-documental medical fact, so my disagreement has something backing it besides my personal convictions. What backs your belief other than the dependancy described above?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Well, to help me phrase my answer to meet your needs, could you please clarify why you place a higher value on a foetus than nature (God) does?

Keep trying. All you have to do to answer my question is detailled fully in the posts above.

As far as the supposed higher value I place on a foetus, frankly, I'm not even sure where you're coming from with that.

My position is that it is not justifiable to deliberately end one life for nothing more than the social and financial convienence of another. Your apparent position is that pre-natal life is not life. The question in my signature is a simple demand for some sort of proof of that assertion based on anything other than age-based discrimination (which is what every argument to date has boiled down to).

IglooDude made a very good go of it, but still fell short. Can you do better?