The Abortion Debate (continued) (2 Viewers)

[Not-That-Bright]

That therefore means that you cannot use examples which kami has shown to be illogical as a rebutal for those who come to different conclusions. Also I thought kami said that he was pro-choice and not neccesarily pro-abortion?

Ok believe that. To me kami has not shown the examples to be illogical but I can understand somewhat his problems with some of the analogies. I don't necessarily agree with him but at the same time I think our argument was taking away from arguments against people of very different perspectives such as bshoc or yourself.

To me the discussion before was little more than academic as the 'rights' of the fetus is of little issue to me, it is more to address those whom centre rights fetus/mother in their decision making. As I explained in other thread and here I am utilitarian in my approach to abortion. I look at all the different possibilities and then decide which will lead to the most happiness for the most people.

Is murder really that much of a mental challenge for some people?

Hi again bshoc.

 

[BradCube]

If it is (and I'm sorry if I've misinterpreted it), would it not be a more consistent and logical application of your beliefs (to not kill) to refrain from killing either group, as opposed to being selective?

It would be if my logic could only be deducted from the natural, which is the type of logic I was reffering to in my previous statement. However my views on this matter are slightly different since I do believe that supernatural events can occur and therefore have given me reason to believe that humans are in fact of a higher existance then other organisms.

I don't however want to take this into a debate on the occurance of supernatural events as it would be off topic for this thread.

So I would conclude that unless anyone can find a reason (for which I have my own) that puts us on a higher level of priority then other organisms, it would be just as wrong to kill an animal as it would a human.

Although there is another piece to the puzzle. I don't know that I have really formulated an opinion on it as of yet, but would like to raise it anyway. Is there any difference in the moral value of mudering the same species as compared to another. Or would they be of the same value? (This assumes that both are of equal right to existance which I don't think we can prove anyhow.) Actually I think that is exactly the same issue as I have said in the previous paragraph. Anyway, comments?

 

[BradCube]

As I explained in other thread and here I am utilitarian in my approach to abortion. I look at all the different possibilities and then decide which will lead to the most happiness for the most people.

Ok no problem, you are already aware of the issues I have raised even when this principal is applied.

Hi again bshoc.

lol, at that comment.

I'm off to bed now. Thanks for the thought provoking discussion guys

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Ok no problem, you are already aware of the issues I have raised even when this principal is applied.

I am? what were they? These are the main issues as I see them;

- Australian study shows 97% of women are fine with their abortion.
- The vast majority of the 3% that aren't were forced into it by a partner/their family.
- The best research I have found so far overwhelmingly indicates that fetus's do not feel pain at all until at least the 3rd trimester and in the 3rd trimester I would be supportive of tighter controls.
- The pain that will be inflicted by attempting to outlaw abortion (gaol time/lack of access for women/backalley abortions.

I think my entire point was siderailed by bshoc when he claimed that he had 'pwnt utilitarianism PEWPEW!' and I had to take some time out to find out whether that was accurate (ATM I think it stands as he's wrong).

 

[kami]

So I would conclude that unless anyone can find a reason (for which I have my own) that puts us on a higher level of priority then other organisms, it would be just as wrong to kill an animal as it would a human.

Although there is another piece to the puzzle. I don't know that I have really formulated an opinion on it as of yet, but would like to raise it anyway. Is there any difference in the moral value of mudering the same species as compared to another. Or would they be of the same value? (This assumes that both are of equal right to existance which I don't think we can prove anyhow.)

If they had equal right to life then in theory the injustice would be the same.

However in a more practical setting it would probably come down to whether we could accept that being into our society - when slaves for instance were considered other than human, then that society was accepting of a slave death. Now that our society has changed enough to allow some degree of integration with convicts and other races rather than view them as belongings without life rights. And to be even more practical, life rights are in some ways something we as a society only accord when we have the luxury to or when its expedient.

Hmm...this is probably enough of a tangent to warrant another thread.

 

[withoutaface]

Is murder really that much of a mental challenge for some people?

edit: Brucemaster its nice to know I have a fan, but if you're gonna use my peragon-like statements as a sig, be sure to quote the whole thing, rathen than misquote me.

Stop making up words.

P1. There cannot be a general agreement among experts on when a foetus qualifies as human at any time earlier than the third trimester.
P2. The burden of proof for any new laws should lie upon the state.
C. Because, as demonstrated in P1, the State cannot satisfy P2, the State should not legislate against abortion until the third trimester. If the parent, however, believes life begins at conception, they are more than welcome to abstain from having an abortion.

 

[bshoc]

Stop making up words.

P1. There cannot be a general agreement among experts on when a foetus qualifies as human at any time earlier than the third trimester.

When one extinguishes a life knowingly and willingly, we call that killing, when the life is human, we call that murder.

P2. The burden of proof for any new laws should lie upon the state.
C. Because, as demonstrated in P1, the State cannot satisfy P2, the State should not legislate against abortion until the third trimester. If the parent, however, believes life begins at conception, they are more than welcome to abstain from having an abortion.

There is already a universal proof, that being that something has two states, alive or dead, there is no in between. May I remind you that the abortion "rights" we have today are not the result of the removal of any laws banning abortions, but rather the introduction of clauses exempting abortion as a criminal offence. If a parent (mother) believe that they have a right to take a life due to their own shallow socio-economic existance, and absolve themselves of responsibility from lifes mistakes by killing another human being, they are welcome to spend the rest of their existance rotting in a prison cell for murder, or more preferably, a lethal injection room. Abortion became legal when? Mid 70's during the hippie era, now that the hippies are dying away slowly but surely, this brief era of stupidity is coming to its painful end, that I assure you. There is no burden of proof on the state, even if there were the state could easily prove it, and even if the case was that abortion was somehow "acceptable" the state has every resource to fake it anyway, the state has every right to intervene to ensure its own power and existance (i.e. birthrates), and on behalf of the citizenry, reguardless whether the citizenry feel it right or wrong.

 

[withoutaface]

When one extinguishes a life knowingly and willingly, we call that killing, when the life is human, we call that murder.

Suppose that I have sex with a woman who's ovulating and it's almost certain that if it's unprotected she will conceive. Suppose then that I use a condom. This is extinguishing a human life.

Therefore condoms are murder.

There is already a universal proof, that being that something has two states, alive or dead, there is no in between. May I remind you that the abortion "rights" we have today are not the result of the removal of any laws banning abortions, but rather the introduction of clauses exempting abortion as a criminal offence. If a parent (mother) believe that they have a right to take a life due to their own shallow socio-economic existance, and absolve themselves of responsibility from lifes mistakes by killing another human being, they are welcome to spend the rest of their existance rotting in a prison cell for murder, or more preferably, a lethal injection room. Abortion became legal when? Mid 70's during the hippie era, now that the hippies are dying away slowly but surely, this brief era of stupidity is coming to its painful end, that I assure you. There is no burden of proof on the state, even if there were the state could easily prove it, and even if the case was that abortion was somehow "acceptable" the state has every resource to fake it anyway, the state has every right to intervene to ensure its own power and existance (i.e. birthrates), and on behalf of the citizenry, reguardless whether the citizenry feel it right or wrong.

What the state can potentially do is irrelevant, I'm talking about what the limits of the state's powers should be to ensure that the populous is not oppressed.

 

[BradCube]

If they had equal right to life then in theory the injustice would be the same.

Yeah, I kept on thinking about this and I'm glad that you started another thread because it is not exclusive to abortion. For this reason I don't think your comment about anti-abortionists needing to be a vegetarian is quite accurate. Rather it would seem more appropriate to say that anyone who has a moral objection to murder should be a vegetarian.

I'm pretty sure you have already realised this, but I thought I would point it out because it is not neccesarily an argument supporting abortion, but rather a moral question that every human should have to consider. My apologies if I am pointing out the obvious.

 

[BradCube]

Suppose that I have sex with a woman who's ovulating and it's almost certain that if it's unprotected she will conceive. Suppose then that I use a condom. This is extinguishing a human life.

I think extinguish usually implies that the life has already begun. In the case of the condom you are stopping this life from starting rather then "putting it out" once it has.

 

[miss random]

Tough call to make. I think abortion should be legal bcz ppl would just have them anyway but in unsafe ways. Personally i don't think i could do it just bcz i consider a foetus to be "alive". I wouldn't judge anyone for having an abortion though, i'm sure it's not a decision entered into lightly.

 

[bshoc]

Suppose that I have sex with a woman who's ovulating and it's almost certain that if it's unprotected she will conceive. Suppose then that I use a condom. This is extinguishing a human life.

Therefore condoms are murder.

No sperm and egg are not human, its only when they come together to form a unique genetic sequence and the required chromosomes do "your cells" become another human being

What the state can potentially do is irrelevant, I'm talking about what the limits of the state's powers should be to ensure that the populous is not oppressed.

One mans oppression is another mans nurture.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I think extinguish usually implies that the life has already begun. In the case of the condom you are stopping this life from starting rather then "putting it out" once it has.

ie Morning After Pill?

According to the definitions addressed by people in this thread, it would mean the morning after pill is murder.

I'm not sure if that's valid, unless people have interesting ideas about religion and when a soul enters a bunch of cells.

 

[kami]

When one extinguishes a life knowingly and willingly, we call that killing, when the life is human, we call that murder.

There is no scientific consensus on when the foetus is truly alive so if you want to be pedantic about it, its only killing if they believe(or have been told) it is alive and only murder if they believe (or have been told) it is human. Otherwise they would be terminating something without the same knowledge and will you describe as a requisite for it to be murder.

There is already a universal proof, that being that something has two states, alive or dead, there is no in between.

I wouldn't call plastic a living thing but neither would I call it dead (as that implies it once lived) so something doesn't have to be either alive or dead - it could simply not be alive. Furthermore, even if you believe it must either be alive or not alive there is no absolute proof (only your presumption) that at all stages a foetus is alive.

 

[BradCube]

ie Morning After Pill?

According to the definitions addressed by people in this thread, it would mean the morning after pill is murder.

I'm not sure if that's valid, unless people have interesting ideas about religion and when a soul enters a bunch of cells.

I'm still unsure as to what stage we call this new creation "alive". The BruceMaster has made some interesting points and until I see more evidence I am undecided.

If this matter is in fact alive before it attatches itself to the wall of the uterus, and in the span of one day, then yes I would agree that the morning after pill would be murder/abortion. However since I am undecided in whether it is alive at this stage that is not my final answer.

To quote my self from an earlier post:

If there is in fact absolutely no change until it is implanted on the wall, then I think I would change my view to that of the family planning specialist whereby it is contraception since nothing has actually been conceived yet.

On another note, I am convinced that the matter/child is alive before most abortions take place.

 

[The Brucemaster]

First of all bshoc, in regards to my sig: Fuck you.

Now on to the subject at hand:

There is no burden of proof on the State

Yes there is you moron, this is a legislative issue, if the burden of proof is not on the State then who the hell is it placed upon?

the state has every right to intervene to ensure its own power and existance (i.e. birthrates), and on behalf of the citizenry, reguardless whether the citizenry feel it right or wrong.

If you don't agree with democracy then fuck off to North Korea.

I have already outlined why the foetus from the moment of conception is not alive based on FACTS that are agreed upon by a SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
Once the foetus enters the uterus the grey area begins as those characteristics that weren't present in the time the foetus was in the fallopian tube now start to become apparent.
It is not enough however, to simply consider the scientifically verifiable facts of life (in my opinion) because otherwise by this definition there is no difference between killing a foetus and killing a plant or animal. Thus the issue comes down to whether or not the baby has conscious thought/self awareness and so on and so forth.
Obviously this cannot be proven but if what WAF said about foetuses only feeling pain from the third trimester onwards is true then this may be a reasonable point to draw the line.

 

[BradCube]

I have already outlined why the foetus from the moment of conception is not alive based on FACTS that are agreed upon by a SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY of the SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

I'm still not sure that you have, you laid down the conditions of life, but I don't feel that you have prooved that this is not the case for the foetus from conception.

I would still like to know how the featus is able to develop in anyform before it hits the uterus wall if it is unable to metabolise. It would not be able to process any energy, therefore not allowing it to reproduce etc would it?

It is not enough however, to simply consider the scientifically verifiable facts of life (in my opinion) because otherwise by this definition there is no difference between killing a foetus and killing a plant or animal.

Or adult human for that matter. If we are taking that line of thought we must be able to show that an adult human is more deserving of life then the other life forms reffered to. I know this is not neccessarily what you are saying, but I thought it was important to make this distinction.

Thus the issue comes down to whether or not the baby has conscious thought/self awareness and so on and so forth.
Obviously this cannot be proven but if what WAF said about foetuses only feeling pain from the third trimester onwards is true then this may be a reasonable point to draw the line.

Yet killing an animal which does feel pain and is conscious is fine according to your logic?

 

[AntiHyper]

Or adult human for that matter. If we are taking that line of thought we must be able to show that an adult human is more deserving of life then the other life forms reffered to.

An adult human has the power to save other species and take responsibility for the environment. However good this may seem there are always some adults out there that would be acting "couldn't care less" towards the environment and endangered species (ie. the Japanese killing the whales).

 

[BradCube]

An adult human has the power to save other species and take responsibility for the environment. However good this may seem there are always some adults out there that would be acting "couldn't care less" towards the environment and endangered species (ie. the Japanese killing the whales).

I'm lost. Was that supposed to be a rebuttal or a comment?

 

[AntiHyper]

It answers ur question about the distinction between adult humans and animals.