Originally posted by red g jacks
@ bashari understand the concern... i guess my counter concern is that i believe in abortion but only as a last measure. i do think it is a morally tricky situation that we are essentially allowing human beings to be killed as a measure to prevent unwanted babies from being born. as such, i think there should be some practical reinforcement of the principle that this should be a last resort measure and not the primary method of birth control being used.
that's why i chose 3 abortions within 5 years as the arbitrary criteria in this case. that's a lot of abortions to have in such a short period of time. so unless there's a legit medical reason... i.e. each pregnancy is either threatening to the life of the woman or the baby is likely to be born with some sort of birth defect, i think 3 abortions in 5 years is most likely indicative of irresponsible sexual habits than anything else.
regarding rape... that's an extremely questionable scenario. is the woman being raped by the same man repeatedly? if so, then clearly something needs to happen about that. the man needs to be in jail. if it's by 3 different men then one needs to question how it is this woman keeps finding herself in this dangerous situation within a short period of time. once again there's either a problem with her current environment or her current behavior, most likely. and so that's what should be addressed, rather than just keep killing fetuses and sending her back into the world to continue to get repeatedly raped.
obviously no solution is perfect and is going to result in ideal results that are best in every case. i think that also applies to the current system of allowing as many abortions as one wants. in this case the less than ideal results are that human beings are being systematically killed to make up for the lack of proper birth control methods being used.
Wouldn't the last measure be to carry the baby to full term, and then place it up for adoption? I can agree with a lot of the other stuff that you said, but even a law can not get around murder being murder. Just today a deranged woman threw a new born infant out of a window to its death, and everyone that spoke of the act seemed to be gasping for air. Is what she did any worse than aborting a fully formed fetus? It just seems that society is fine with anything that's passed as law, but there aren't many people that are capable of seeing right from wrong.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i disagree about pre-embryo=human being, so the idea is much more palatable for me obviously.
pre-em·bry·o
prēˈembrēˌō/
noun technical
a human embryo or fertilized ovum in the first fourteen days after fertilization, before implantation in the uterus has occurred.
but either way i think using any straightforward scientific definition of the term "human," even plan b is essentially ending a human life. to suggest otherwise is to me somewhat dogmatic and delusional. that's what i don't like about it. if you want to advocate being able to end a human life in this particular case... at least be honest and straight forward about it. don't hide behind deceptive language.
once again... 3 times in 5 years? something is amiss regardless of what the situation is. if someone finds themselves in need of an abortion 3 times in 5 years and all 3 times were due to rape, they are honestly probably better off being infertile and honestly possibly even being institutionalized.
not necessarily the same man repeatedly. you're leaving out many other scenarios. off the top of my head: what if the victim lives in terror of their attacker (like a molester guardian for example)? what if they are being trafficked in the sex slave trade? what if they were drugged/unconscious and cant identify their attacker?
i just think the best solution is one that doesnt involve placing the rights of embryonic cells over conscious sentient beings. (not trying to marginalize issues like late term abortions. i too find that practice mostly troubling)i agree which is why i'm not against abortion altogether. i'm against habitually using it as a method of birth control
Originally posted by Stoicwhen i say 'last measure' i mean least desirable solution
Wouldn't the last measure be to carry the baby to full term, and then place it up for adoption? I can agree with a lot of the other stuff that you said, but even a law can not get around murder being murder. Just today a deranged woman threw a new born infant out of a window to its death, and everyone that spoke of the act seemed to be gasping for air. Is what she did any worse than aborting a fully formed fetus? It just seems that society is fine with anything that's passed as law, but there aren't many people that are capable of seeing right from wrong.
i'd say the adoption solution is more desirable than abortion but in some cases people aren't willing to do that. banning abortion might just prompt them to try to terminate the pregnancy the old fashioned/illegal way.
Abortion should be legal for the right reasons..possible death to the mother, diseased, disabled, or will die in child birth or shortly there after. It should not be tax payer funded, or have any ties to the government for corruption is sure to set in with the lobbyists and campaign contributions to senators and representatives., ie: PP.
Originally posted by red g jacks
when i say 'last measure' i mean least desirable solutioni'd say the adoption solution is more desirable than abortion but in some cases people aren't willing to do that. banning abortion might just prompt them to try to terminate the pregnancy the old fashioned/illegal way.
I know bro. I just think that people should be more responsible and own the mess that they themselves willfully create. I can't think of one thing more innocent and precious than that of the life of an infant. There has to be some means of holding the act of abortion up to the light to determine if it is the proper way to do things in all cases. Bill Nye is looking at this from a scientific point of view, which can at times be an inhumane outlook. Justifying an evil act is something that many people can not, and will not get behind.
Originally posted by Surtur
I also realize this is harsh but..I don't care much about aborted babies. We have enough people on the planet already. I am not saying we are over populated or anything like that..but we aren't in a "Children of Men" situation either.So for me it's unfortunate if an abortion happens but..it is not the end of the world. There are more important things to worry about. We need to focus on the people that are here.
Originally posted by Surturthe problem for me with this line of rhetoric is what is 'already here'...? outside the womb? there's nothing magic about a womb that renders it a barrier between what is already here and what's not here. to me, if human life is expendable for the sake of convenience then that expendability can easily be extended to human lives that exist outside the womb.
I also realize this is harsh but..I don't care much about aborted babies. We have enough people on the planet already. I am not saying we are over populated or anything like that..but we aren't in a "Children of Men" situation either.So for me it's unfortunate if an abortion happens but..it is not the end of the world. There are more important things to worry about. We need to focus on the people that are here.
tbh if you throw a newborn baby in the dumpster it's not the end of the world either. and to me it's not all that different from an abortion, depending on how far along the fetus is.
i suspect that the real distinction lies in the fact that you can see the newborn baby you're murdering. and you can hear it crying. where as you don't necessarily have to interact with the unborn fetus you have aborted.
also.. regarding sentience... for anyone who uses that distinction to justify abortion...
unless you are a vegetarian that line of rhetoric is likewise irrational to me
you are skirting the fact that the real dilemma is the species involved (i.e. human), not necessarily its capacity for thinking
otherwise it should be more wrong to kill a adult pig than a newborn human child
Originally posted by red g jacks
also.. regarding sentience... for anyone who uses that distinction to justify abortion...unless you are a vegetarian that line of rhetoric is likewise irrational to me
you are skirting the fact that the real dilemma is the species involved (i.e. human), not necessarily its capacity for thinking
otherwise it should be more wrong to kill a adult pig than a newborn human child
All anti-abortionist should be vegan just to be safe.
Originally posted by red g jacks
also.. regarding sentience... for anyone who uses that distinction to justify abortion...unless you are a vegetarian that line of rhetoric is likewise irrational to me
you are skirting the fact that the real dilemma is the species involved (i.e. human), not necessarily its capacity for thinking
otherwise it should be more wrong to kill a adult pig than a newborn human child
The capacity for thinking is what matters.
HeLa cancer cells are alive and independently human. Killing them is no biggie.
A brain-dead person is brain dead, pulling the plug isn't murder.
There's a variety of situations where living human-species but not intelligent is not considered a big deal.
And heck, as the Bill Nye video points out, a lot of the time this is what happens entirely naturally on it's own anyway. Most abortions are inducing a natural process- why is it bad when induced and not when it happens on it's own?
And we do provide smarter animals protection from inhumane treatment, so we recognize intelligence as a factor even with non-humans for that matter....
It's the most consistent factor we use in everything else.
Nor is 'at conception' a historic line either, it's a modern invention that, like Nye noted, was only added after science gave us additional information.
Heck, for that matter, I bet a lot of people here don't realize when conception takes place- here's a hint, it's not the time of the sex.
Originally posted by Q99you are right that killing humans is considered acceptable in certain situations
The capacity for thinking is what matters.HeLa cancer cells are alive and independently human. Killing them is no biggie.
A brain-dead person is brain dead, pulling the plug isn't murder.
There's a variety of situations where living human-species but not intelligent is not considered a big deal.
And heck, as the Bill Nye video points out, a lot of the time this is what happens entirely naturally on it's own anyway. Most abortions are inducing a natural process- why is it bad when induced and not when it happens on it's own?
And we do provide smarter animals protection from inhumane treatment, so we recognize intelligence as a factor even with non-humans for that matter....
It's the most consistent factor we use in everything else.
Nor is 'at conception' a historic line either, it's a modern invention that, like Nye noted, was only added after science gave us additional information.
Heck, for that matter, I bet a lot of people here don't realize when conception takes place- here's a hint, it's not the time of the sex.
you are wrong that killing sentient beings is not likewise considered acceptable
unless you are a vegetarian.
Republicans need to take a stats class.
EDIT - Actually someone already brought that up in another thread.
Whatever. Republicans are filthy degenerate trash.
Originally posted by red g jacksto expand on this... you note we grant protections to some smarter animals... this is true
you are right that killing humans is considered acceptable in certain situationsyou are wrong that killing sentient beings is not likewise considered acceptable
unless you are a vegetarian.
we grant little to no protections to pigs in terms of killing them for food. we ask they be treated humanely beforehand, and even there that is more of an ideal than something that is rigorously put into practice. but otherwise they are bred and raised to be slaughtered on an industrial scale.
an adult pig has to be smarter than a newborn child. and yet one is murder and the other is a legit business model.
my point isn't that sentience/intelligence is irrelevant... my point is that to act as if it's all that matters is incorrect. clearly the species involved plays a large role. there is literally no other species that you can be convicted of murdering with the same kinds of strict penalties that murdering a human carries. and it's not simply a matter of a human's intellectual capacity. because if you sneak in a hospital and murder someone in a coma, you nonetheless can be convicted of murdering that person. if you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries, you can be convicted of murdering her unborn child. simply because she had no intent to kill it, suddenly the unborn child is granted with the same rights as any other human. yet if she decided to kill it herself then it's 'just a bunch of cells.'
likewise... the other side of the debate is similarly confused. TI said something along the lines of it would be considered OK to abort if the fetus had disease or something wrong with it. yet murdering a kid that's already been born just cause he/she has a disease is considered morally reprehensible. so he is unknowingly making the same kind of distinction between a fetus and a child that pro-abortionists make.
my point is basically that drawing any concrete moral boundaries concerning this topic is not nearly as straight forward as either side would have you believe. it's basically a big mess of emotionally and ideologically charged confusion.
Originally posted by red g jacks
TI said something along the lines of it would be considered OK to abort if the fetus had disease or something wrong with it. yet murdering a kid that's already been born just cause he/she has a disease is considered morally reprehensible. so he is unknowingly making the same kind of distinction between a fetus and a child that pro-abortionists make.
Yes it sounds horrible I know, but thats the way it is. I am a realist, not a dreamer.