Abortion

Originally posted by inimalist
i imagine irresponsible people will be irresponsible when deciding to have an abortion or not

i really don't see the connection you are trying to make

Sometimes having an abortion is the responsible thing to do.

I'm not trying to make a connection, I only pointed out that there are many actual children out there who could use some help. And if the good people put down their "abortion is murder" picket sign and picked up a "stop domestic abuse" one, it would be much more useful.
It's really not a hard logic to follow.

actually, what I took issue with was the suggestion that legalized abortion was going to reduce child abuse

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, I think we should determine exactly what it is that makes us things that deserve rights. And unless we can do that, and prove that the fetus doesn't fit into that category, we shouldn't allow the killing of it.

Originally posted by Dulcie
Don't you think this world would be a tad better place if all anti-abortion people were out there fighting for the rights of abused children? And maybe less abuse would occur if only children who are truly wanted came to this world?

Isn't that what they are doing?

Fighting for the rights of children that are being "murdered" rather than abused seems like a much more just cause, using your logic.

Originally posted by Dulcie
Oh, and it's killing you, right? Women? WOMEN? Deciding left and right if and when they want to have babies. Like they're God or something.

Obviously I don't think women shouldn't have the right to have babies when they want. I'm saying they don't have the right to kill children. Do you disagree?

Originally posted by Dulcie
IF a fetus is a person (and person = women, men, children) then you're interested in other people's kids which makes you a creep.

😆 Not sure if you meant that as a joke or not.

Originally posted by Dulcie
Don't you think this world would be a tad better place if all anti-abortion people were out there fighting for the rights of abused children? And maybe less abuse would occur if only children who are truly wanted came to this world?

😑 Wow... That was pretty twisted.

Originally posted by Dulcie
Sometimes having an abortion is the responsible thing to do.

I'm not trying to make a connection, I only pointed out that there are many actual children out there who could use some help. And if the good people put down their "abortion is murder" picket sign and picked up a "stop domestic abuse" one, it would be much more useful.
It's really not a hard logic to follow.

Why can't they hold both signs?

Originally posted by King Kandy
But we can't prove that a cow doesn't fit in that category; should we ban killing cows?

The difference between cows and fetuses is that fetuses are at least a "potential" person, where as cows are not. The fetus is a human being, like you or me, only in an earlier stage. A cow never is, nor ever will be a person.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Obviously I don't think women shouldn't have the right to have babies when they want. I'm saying they don't have the right to kill children. Do you disagree?

Oh yes, they do definitely not have the right to kill children.

Separate children clinging to them, whether they would die or not, that right they do have though.

To quote the example Adam Poe refers to most often in this thread:

Imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.

That's a rubbish argument as it involves an undoubtedly real person. Sure, it sucks if it happens but yes, it's definitely morally wrong to unhook him- you are stuck with that quandary. Ludicrous though the example is.

If 'separating' the child (assuming it 'counts' as a child, which is what the real argument is) would kill it that counts as killing a child. You can't distance that by using terms like 'clinging' to imply that it is ok to kill it. It still amounts to the same thing- if it really IS a child, then it's not ok to kill it no matter what.

Those sorts of examples are pointless distractions. We all know what the entire argument comes down to- when does a fetus count as a person? In all circumstances, it is wrong to destroy it when it is a person and that is what the law attempts to reflect.

The central problem in the debate is that we do not and likely never will know when that point is. Talk of a 'potential' person is incredibly loose.

You say you don't want to take the risk, tacdavey, which I understand but if you consider the immense trouble and hardship that banning abortion would bring to women, don't you think that against that the burden of proof in this case is to establish that it IS a 'person' at such-and-such a point? For you to bring that much hardship to women on a vague perception of risk... I don't think that puts you in the morally superior position.

If we knew, you'd have a point., But we don't, and in a match up between a potential moral wrong and a definite moral wrong, the definite one will win out. No-one can prove if early abortion is killing a child or not. We can prove that forcing women to carry children to term is a problem. It wins out.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's a rubbish argument as it involves an undoubtedly real person. Sure, it sucks if it happens but yes, it's definitely morally wrong to unhook him- you are stuck with that quandary. Ludicrous though the example is.

If 'separating' the child (assuming it 'counts' as a child, which is what the real argument is) would kill it that counts as killing a child. You can't distance that by using terms like 'clinging' to imply that it is ok to kill it. It still amounts to the same thing- if it really IS a child, then it's not ok to kill it no matter what.

Those sorts of examples are pointless distractions. We all know what the entire argument comes down to- when does a fetus count as a person? In all circumstances, it is wrong to destroy it when it is a person and that is what the law attempts to reflect.

The central problem in the debate is that we do not and likely never will know when that point is. Talk of a 'potential' person is incredibly loose.

You say you don't want to take the risk, tacdavey, which I understand but if you consider the immense trouble and hardship that banning abortion would bring to women, don't you think that against that the burden of proof in this case is to establish that it IS a 'person' at such-and-such a point? For you to bring that much hardship to women on a vague perception of risk... I don't think that puts you in the morally superior position.

If we knew, you'd have a point., But we don't, and in a match up between a potential moral wrong and a definite moral wrong, the definite one will win out. No-one can prove if early abortion is killing a child or not. We can prove that forcing women to carry children to term is a problem. It wins out.

I suppose that is a point of disagreement. I believe one is morally justified to separate the hypothetical violinist, even if it causes their death. I agree that it is not the main issue though.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's a rubbish argument as it involves an undoubtedly real person. Sure, it sucks if it happens but yes, it's definitely morally wrong to unhook him- you are stuck with that quandary. Ludicrous though the example is.

If 'separating' the child (assuming it 'counts' as a child, which is what the real argument is) would kill it that counts as killing a child. You can't distance that by using terms like 'clinging' to imply that it is ok to kill it. It still amounts to the same thing- if it really IS a child, then it's not ok to kill it no matter what.

Those sorts of examples are pointless distractions. We all know what the entire argument comes down to- when does a fetus count as a person? In all circumstances, it is wrong to destroy it when it is a person and that is what the law attempts to reflect.

The central problem in the debate is that we do not and likely never will know when that point is. Talk of a 'potential' person is incredibly loose.

You say you don't want to take the risk, tacdavey, which I understand but if you consider the immense trouble and hardship that banning abortion would bring to women, don't you think that against that the burden of proof in this case is to establish that it IS a 'person' at such-and-such a point? For you to bring that much hardship to women on a vague perception of risk... I don't think that puts you in the morally superior position.

If we knew, you'd have a point., But we don't, and in a match up between a potential moral wrong and a definite moral wrong, the definite one will win out. No-one can prove if early abortion is killing a child or not. We can prove that forcing women to carry children to term is a problem. It wins out.

I would want to; personally, get the violinist seperated.. That's just me though.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's a rubbish argument as it involves an undoubtedly real person. Sure, it sucks if it happens but yes, it's definitely morally wrong to unhook him- you are stuck with that quandary. Ludicrous though the example is.

If 'separating' the child (assuming it 'counts' as a child, which is what the real argument is) would kill it that counts as killing a child. You can't distance that by using terms like 'clinging' to imply that it is ok to kill it. It still amounts to the same thing- if it really IS a child, then it's not ok to kill it no matter what.

Those sorts of examples are pointless distractions. We all know what the entire argument comes down to- when does a fetus count as a person? In all circumstances, it is wrong to destroy it when it is a person and that is what the law attempts to reflect.

The central problem in the debate is that we do not and likely never will know when that point is. Talk of a 'potential' person is incredibly loose.

You say you don't want to take the risk, tacdavey, which I understand but if you consider the immense trouble and hardship that banning abortion would bring to women, don't you think that against that the burden of proof in this case is to establish that it IS a 'person' at such-and-such a point? For you to bring that much hardship to women on a vague perception of risk... I don't think that puts you in the morally superior position.

If we knew, you'd have a point., But we don't, and in a match up between a potential moral wrong and a definite moral wrong, the definite one will win out. No-one can prove if early abortion is killing a child or not. We can prove that forcing women to carry children to term is a problem. It wins out.

No, I don't. I see the possible killing of children FAR worse than the mother being uncomfortable for 9 months. And we should also take into account the fact that 99% of the time its the woman's fault she's in this situation.

I gave the hypothetical argument earlier:

"Say there is a new illness going around that makes women uncomfortable for about 9 months. Now, there is a cure, but every time a woman takes it, there is the possibility a child dies somewhere. It isn't know for sure if any kids die, but it is a glaring possibility. Would you think it is right to allow women to take this cure? Or would you say we should find out if kids are dying BEFORE we allow women to use it freely?"

I don't see this as an acceptable risk at all.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And we should also take into account the fact that 99% of the time its the woman's fault she's in this situation.

source?

Originally posted by inimalist
source?

What do you mean? Aside from rape, a woman has multiple means to prevent pregnancies, not the least of which would be to not have sex.

so, you have no source?

and no, I don't believe that a woman is 99% responsible for the conditions that lead her to have an abortion. It is mythology that people have anywhere close to that much control of their lives

Originally posted by inimalist
so, you have no source?

and no, I don't believe that a woman is 99% responsible for the conditions that lead her to have an abortion. It is mythology that people have anywhere close to that much control of their lives

I don't know what you mean. The woman decides her own actions. With the exception of rape, or course, which I accounted for.

well, ok, but that would only be true if 99% of women were just having an abortion on a whim.

Originally posted by TacDavey
No, I don't. I see the possible killing of children FAR worse than the mother being uncomfortable for 9 months. And we should also take into account the fact that 99% of the time its the woman's fault she's in this situation.

I gave the hypothetical argument earlier:

"Say there is a new illness going around that makes women uncomfortable for about 9 months. Now, there is a cure, but every time a woman takes it, there is the possibility a child dies somewhere. It isn't know for sure if any kids die, but it is a glaring possibility. Would you think it is right to allow women to take this cure? Or would you say we should find out if kids are dying BEFORE we allow women to use it freely?"

I don't see this as an acceptable risk at all.

If you are seeing an entirely theoretical possibility that you have no useful evidence for as worse than an actual and demonstrable harm that can be seen being inflicted on the women involved, then your moral compass is at fault.

Your example is pointless and ludicrous as 'possibility a child dies' in it is completely unlike the situation with an abortion where the matter is at the extreme edges of science and philosophy- the definition of life.You are also ignoring the huge social and practical issues caused by abortion being unavailable.

These theoretical examples continue to be useless so don't bother. Aside from anything else, you won;t ever convince anyone with silly theoreticals.

'Acceptable risk' is a poor term for you to use compared to demonstrable risk. The risk here is not 'acceptable', it is 'theoretical', and that is no basis to override a genuine problem.

And now you are very much putting yourself into a highly questionable position once you start saying "oh the condition is the woman's fault anyway", which misses the point of the whole thing by a country mile- as if that changes the final practicality of the issue. It's an outright sinister view to hold. If we are being generous here, the situation is that you grossly underestimate the impact pregnancy has on women both as individuals and as a group. If we're not being generous, then you are basically being anti-woman.

That's a very disappointing moral stance you have. Luckily, such a view will never be widely legally accepted.

-

As for those of you who would separate the pianist in the other silly example- ok. And you'd probably go to jail for it. Taking an action that ends another's life puts you firmly in the wrong. It also implies that it is ok to abort at, say, eight months, because your pianist is DEFINIELY a human.

Originally posted by Bardock42

To quote the example Adam Poe refers to most often in this thread:

Imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.

And it's as silly an example now as it was back then.

Originally posted by TacDavey
And we should also take into account the fact that 99% of the time its the woman's fault she's in this situation.

Really? It's takes two to tango buddy. It takes a sperm. You could've but the condom on.

It's never fully the woman's fault, though she's the one left with all the responsibilities, burdens, criticism, and decisions.

It's just as much the man's fault as it is the woman's.

Originally posted by TacDavey
Not a single person here so far has been able to tell me what a person is. But you are all ready and willing to admit the fetus isn't one.

You are saying that not a single ''person'' here has been able to respond to your question. But why you are asking what a person is if you are already technically saying we are one? Why don't you tell us what it means to be a ''person'' for you, Tac?

Originally posted by GrieverSquall
You are saying that not a single ''person'' here has been able to respond to your question. But why you are asking what a person is if you are already technically saying we are one? Why don't you tell us what it means to be a ''person'' for you, Tac?

for him it is pretty easy. Life begins at conception. As soon as the sperm penetrates the egg, you have a life worthy of attributing the "right to life"