Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[The Last Conformist]

Then it's kind of up to you to show why age discrimination is OK in some areas but not in others.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Does anyone want to challenge my assertion that questions of life and death are more pressing than questions of who gets to decide how late who can stay up, or what the family is having for dinner?

No? Good. Then it follows that rules can change depending on the consequences of following or not following them. Not opening a door because it violates someone else's privacy is not as important a concern as not opening a door because all the atmosphere that everyone in the doored area is breathing will rush out into the cold vacuum of space and kill everyone inside, yes?

I consider this matter settled.

EDIT: BTW, answer the question.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Since when does the seriousness of the issue determine whether discrimination on a given trait is acceptable?

Anyway, denying human rights to zygotes/embryos/(early) foetuses can be seen as a kind of age discrimination, and I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[Mise]

It's not a dumb question.

AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED IT!

If you expect me to believe your question isn't dumb, answer mine:
When does a clump of cells or a bunch of atoms become a human?

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

Ok I have on this forum that alot of people are pro-choice. I am going to ask them why do they support abortion.
People should not be able to have the freedom to kill. Abortion is legal and it is pure murder. Since the legalization act of it an estimated forty million abortions have occured in the U.S. I want to ask people why do they not object to 40 million dying? A huge of those babies if they were given the chanve to live would be average citizens.

Who is going to take care of those 40 million babies. If there is no one to take care of these then they should not be brought into this world. The world is overpopulated enough to try and save unwanted babies.

 

[shadowdude]

You have the right to live. You do not have the right to everything you need to live.

Ohhhh...ok, I'll die of dehydration and hunger then.

So are you saying they are tragedies, or that they are legally or morally wrong?Do you believe that we have a responsibility to protect the people of Darfur?

Thats a topic for another thread, another time.

Do you believe that I have a responsibility to support your life? If I am going to die for lack of medical care, is it your responsibility to pay my bills?

WWJD

AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED IT!

If you expect me to believe your question isn't dumb, answer mine:
When does a clump of cells or a bunch of atoms become a human?

I was hoping that you would realize that the question is not dumb, but rather a crucial one.

I believe that it is human from conception to natural death.

 

[Mise]

I believe that it is human from conception to natural death.

I don't.
....

 

[betazed]

@Betazed. Care to take a shot at my points?

Sure.

1. There is no law that says marriage means the spouses co-own each other (or the woman's womb). In the absence of something more explicit, your hypoteses seem arbitrary.

Just because there isn't a law does not mean there should not be, or that the said law if it exists is incorrect. Long ago there was no law banning slavery. However, slavery was as wrong/right then as it is now. Existence/Absence of human laws cannot/should not judge the moral certitude of any pov.

2. Ignoring point 1, two spouses do co-own the woman's womb. Does the father have any right if he is not married to the mother? Say the father is just as emotionally involded as a married man.

Sure. As Gothmog said earlier, it all depends on the quality of relationship. I admit it is pretty hard to nail down what exactly we mean by quality. However, LR seems to be arguing that under no circumstances does the father have any right on the mother's womb. It is there where I disagree with him.

2'. How can we gauge "emotional involveness" as to asess wether or not a father has a right to the foetus in the mother's womb?

See above. It is difficult. But currently we are arguing about the principle. Once we agree on the principle then we are argue/debate on teh specifics of the implementation.

3. If a couple has protected, consensual sex does the mother have full rights to an eventual pregrancy?

She has as much right/reponsibility whether the sex was protected or not. Protection does not change the rights/responsibilities.

4. If a couple has unprotected, consensual sex, but have no intention to produce a baby and also are ignorant about contraception methods what happends?

Ignorance can never be a reason for absolvement of duty/responsibility. If that were so then any murderer can get away by saying that he was ignorant that committing murder was a crime.

btw, I think this thread has too many open subthreads going. Maybe we should split them.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Just because there isn't a law does not mean there should not be, or that the said law if it exists is incorrect. Long ago there was no law banning slavery. However, slavery was as wrong/right then as it is now. Existence/Absence of human laws cannot/should not judge the moral certitude of any pov.

To gather it all into one place. What are your arguments for implementing such a law?

btw, I think this thread has too many open subthreads going. Maybe we should split them.

Agreed. Perhaps we should make a list or something.

1. When does the "stuff" in a mother's womb become a human with rights?
2. Does a father have a right to a prospective mother's womb?
3. Does random, casual but protected sex imply the responsibility of a pregnancy?
4. ...

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Answer my Question, or slink away in shame, hypocrites!

 

[Perfection]

Except you are assuming it has a right to life in that question...

It's called a loaded rhetorical question.

 

[Little Raven]

Answer my Question, or slink away in shame, hypocrites!

Fearless, calm down for a moment.

Are we calm? Good.

Now....you keep asking, "When does a fetus become human?" You seem to believe this has some bearing on the abortion debate. However, it only has bearing if you believe that humans have a 'right to life.' Moreover, you have to believe that a human has the right to everything he needs in order to continue living.

I believe I can demonstrate that neither is true in our society, nor is that likely to change in the near future. In fact, I believe I already have, but if you disagree, I'd love to hear your argument.

Once a person no longer assumes that a human has an innate right to everything he needs to live, then the question of when a fetus becomes human no longer applies. Assume a zygote is a human if you like. A woman is still perfectly within her rights to remove it from her womb.

Holding that belief may make me very popular at dinner parties, but it does render me completely immune to charges of hypocracy.

 

[Ian Beale]

My belief is that human life begins at conception, therefore abortion is wrong. That is my opinion and my belief. To a non Christian (etc...), it is a blob of cells. I think abortion is wrong unless the woman's life is in danger, human life is very precious IMHO. Someone could respond by saying, "It isn't life etc..." This just goes round in circles, my conclusion is that i should do as i wish, but how can i force others to accept my belief- they should accept the consequences of their action and make up their own mind.

 

[Benderino]

My belief is that human life begins at conception, therefore abortion is wrong. That is my opinion and my belief. To a non Christian (etc...), it is a blob of cells. I think abortion is wrong unless the woman's life is in danger, human life is very precious IMHO. Someone could respond by saying, "It isn't life etc..." This just goes round in circles, my conclusion is that i should do as i wish, but how can i force others to accept my belief- they should accept the consequences of their action and make up their own mind.

That's fine, but what give you the right to speak for those that disagree with you. Abortions may not be a good thing, and you may choose to never have one, but why deny it from those who would seriouly benefit from one?

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Now....you keep asking, "When does a fetus become human?"

That is not my question. My question is repeated several times in this thread, and it doesn't even boil down in part to that. What it asks is why a human at one age can be murdered, and a human at antoher age can't.

You seem to believe this has some bearing on the abortion debate. However, it only has bearing if you believe that humans have a 'right to life.' Moreover, you have to believe that a human has the right to everything he needs in order to continue living.

I'm intrigued, do go on.

I believe I can demonstrate that neither is true in our society, nor is that likely to change in the near future. In fact, I believe I already have, but if you disagree, I'd love to hear your argument.

Hah, you're already wrong on both counts. Murder is illegal, and even accidental homicide carries stiff penalties. Clearly, whether there is a natural law or not, there is definitely a secular right to life.

Further, parents are bound by law to provide many things for their children, and to assume responsibility for their misdeeds until they reach the age of maturity. Failure to provide these things is one of the ways that they can lose their children to the custody of the state. This clearly implies that children at least have the right to those things they need to continue living.

Once a person no longer assumes that a human has an innate right to everything he needs to live, then the question of when a fetus becomes human no longer applies. Assume a zygote is a human if you like. A woman is still perfectly within her rights to remove it from her womb.

Holding that belief may make me very popular at dinner parties, but it does render me completely immune to charges of hypocracy.

The law disagrees with you on every point, therefore your conclusions have nothing to draw on. At best you can claim that as an anarchist, you can support abortion rights, but you can't ever make the (non-hypocritical) claim that children born and unborn in modern legal culture do not have the right to both life and the things needed to sustain it.

Now, I have demonstrated that abortion legality is inherently hypocritical. Answer the question:

Tell me, what is the difference between a 'human fetus' and a 'human being' that gives one the right to live, and denies it to the other? Show how this difference means more when a 'human fetus' displays it than when an aged, injured, or very young 'human being' displays it. Explain why your assertion is not the same as age-based discrimination. Explain why this difference which may be permanent in a 'human being', but which is certain to be temporary for a 'human fetus', can be used to legitimately discriminate against the 'human fetus', but the 'human being', even if permanently afflicted with the difference (say a permenently vegetative coma) still has full human rights.

 

[ainwood]

Murder is illegal, and even accidental homicide carries stiff penalties.

Tell me, what is the difference between a 'human fetus' and a 'human being' that gives one the right to live, and denies it to the other? Show how this difference means more when a 'human fetus' displays it than when an aged, injured, or very young 'human being' displays it. Explain why your assertion is not the same as age-based discrimination. Explain why this difference which may be permanent in a 'human being', but which is certain to be temporary for a 'human fetus', can be used to legitimately discriminate against the 'human fetus', but the 'human being', even if permanently afflicted with the difference (say a permenently vegetative coma) still has full human rights.

So why isn't a women who suffers a miscarriage the subject of these 'stiff penalties'? Or is this simply more of the legal hypocrisy of which you speak?

 

[shadowdude]

So why isn't a women who suffers a miscarriage the subject of these 'stiff penalties'? Or is this simply more of the legal hypocrisy of which you speak?

A miscarriage isn't intended.

 

[Benderino]

A miscarriage isn't intended.

What about masturbation? That's intended.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Not only is it not intended, it is not normally caused by negligence or deliberate act (except that sometimes it is, and a legal penalty is applied when such is the case.)

Pregnant women have all kinds of limitations placed on their activities, from smoking to skydiving.

Honestly, are any of you going to ANSWER THE QUESTION?

COWARDS!!

 

[FearlessLeader2]

What about masturbation? That's intended.

Maybe that's why God says it's naughty...