Originally posted by Emperordmb
There was a time when a different kind of human being was considered "biological property" and their worth was determined based on the owner's convenience...
Originally posted by Silent Master
No, the people trying to get laws passed are the ones trying to apply a quantitative meteric. I'm just asking for them to explain the meteric.
I just gave you the only quantitative metric you need to understand about abortion:
The life of the woman is greater than the life of her unborn child.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
I just gave you the only quantitative metric you need to understand about abortion:The life of the woman is greater than the life of her unborn child.
You’re assigning your own subjectve arbitrary metric for dertermining the value of human life.
The law and society should be above such things.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
The same can be said for anyone claiming life is sacred, so then, with both our subjective values canceling each other out, we're left with the expectant mother having to decide whether to give birth to her child, or to preserve her own life and quality of life by aborting it.
What do you mean by preserve her own quality of life?
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
The same can be said for anyone claiming life is sacred, so then, with both our subjective values canceling each other out, we're left with the expectant mother having to decide whether to give birth to her child, or to preserve her own life and quality of life by aborting it.
Incorrect. Society and the law value all life equally as the application of value of one life over the other or the devaluation of life due to subjective arbitrary metrics has historically had grossly negative results in the past. We learned from our history. Slavery. The Holocaust. Oppression. To have a fair and humane society all human life must be eaually sacred and all human life must have equal value.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Incorrect. Society and the law value all life equally as the application of value of one life over the other or the devaluation of life due to subjective arbitrary metrics has historically had grossly negative results in the past. We learned from our history. Slavery. The Holocaust. Oppression. To have a fair and humane society all human life must be eaually sacred and all human life must have equal value.
Equal value I'm much more accepting to than the declaration that life is sacred, however, the thread is about late-term abortions to save expectant mothers' lives. There's nothing equal about a life and death situation like that. Either the mother dies, or the child dies. A choice has to be made, and it should be the woman's choice to either preserve her own life, or to sacrifice her own to give birth to her child.
Originally posted by Eternal Idol
Equal value I'm much more accepting to than the declaration that life is sacred, however, the thread is about late-term abortions to save expectant mothers' lives. There's nothing equal about a life and death situation like that. Either the mother dies, or the child dies. A choice has to be made, and it should be the woman's choice to either preserve her own life, or to sacrifice her own to give birth to her child.
Life IS sacred. That is a bizzare thought, how is it NOT?
From your post of calling an unborn child the “biological property” of the mother, I seriously doubt that this is all about simply deciding to save a mother or the child. I personally think that kind of thinking is quite abhorrent.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Life IS sacred. That is a bizzare thought, how is it NOT?From your post of calling an unborn child the “biological property” of the mother, I seriously doubt that this is all about simply deciding to save a mother or the child. I personally think that kind of thinking is quite abhorrent.
It's fine if you find that notion abhorrent, and I realize it sounds much colder than I intended it to be. Property rights are hotly debated in the US, and I think one's body is one of the most important things one could have. I didn't want to make the comparison at first, because it seems to devalue life, but I felt it was important in order to make my point.
Men don't have to worry about an unwanted human being growing inside of them, and I think that's why it's easy for you and others to apply the principle of justice and claim that all life is sacred and has equal value. Women, for most of human history, did not have a choice. Having sex, willingly or forced, resulted in pregnancy, wanted or unwanted. Now, thanks to advances in sexual technology, medicine, and medical procedures, they now have a choice, and we should respect that.
This thread is about late-term abortions to save the lives of expectant women. To be perfectly frank, it doesn't make a difference to me if it's to save her life or if she simply doesn't want it. You could go on about the potential of the unborn, but that goes both ways.
Today is my 35th birthday. I've had a good life, my parents care about me, and have no regrets about having me, but then again, I was wanted even if unplanned. Suppose that wasn't the case. I would be gutted if I knew they had given up their life ambitions or were put through a major financial or health crisis because of me, or worse if my mother had died giving birth to me. I would rather I had not been born than to have had them go through that, especially if they felt even a bit resentful toward me for it. Sure, I wouldn't have experienced the life I have, but I wouldn't have given a **** as I never would have known I ever existed.
Maybe this view seems ****ed up, but I think it is a more grounded approach to the matter than naively going on about the sanctity of life.