Originally posted by telerionSounds complicated. I would have no problem with you killing someone if you can prove that it is what they would want for themselves. If you don't think a fertilized human egg will grow into human, then I am not sure what to say.
That's not what I wrote. Of course the fetus is human. It is after all a member of homo sapiens sapiens. I was pointing out a flaw commonly found in pro-life thinking which says that because a fetus has the potential to become a person that terminating a fetus is equivalent to terminating a person.
The basic argument goes something like this:
...[text shortened]...
So now, why are my reasons for maintaining legal abortion not compelling in your estimation?
Originally posted by telerionI would say that having sex and not being able to properly care for the baby is irresponsible behavior.
Engaging in sex outside of marriage is not irresponsible. It could be argued that in some cases (even most cases), willfully having sex and unwantingly getting pregnant as a result is irresponsible, but I don't think even that is necessarily true.
Originally posted by telerionI did misunderstand what you were saying. It was more clear to me in your longer post.
Let me point out one other thing about your post. Even if I had made the argument "not really human = ok to disregard" (and I most certainly did not!), there is no immediate or obvious reason to think that the actions and arguments of slave owners have any bearing on a discussion of abortion.
Originally posted by lepomis
I would have no problem with you killing someone if you can prove that it is what they would want for themselves.
That seems excessively stringent. For example, what about the case of self-defense? If a human made a reasonably believable imminent threat against your life or some else's life, would you not be justified in using force to remove that threat, even force sufficient to kill the aggressor? Does it really matter whether the aggressor wishes to live or not?
Originally posted by lepomis
If you don't think a fertilized human egg will grow into human, then I am not sure what to say.
That's not what I have written. First, my position throughout is that all fertilized human eggs are humans. Whether they multiply enough times and in the proper manner to become persons is another matter entirely. It is a medical fact that most zygotes and many embryos do not reach such a stage due simply to natural causes. This is just one fact that weakens the common pro-life argument that "fertilized human eggs have the potential to become children and therefore killing a fertilized human egg is morally as reprehensible as killing a born child." It does so because it draws into question the likelihood of such potential begin achieved.
My argument is that it is personhood that we should have an interest in protecting, not humanness or the potential to personhood. Therefore in regards to my argument, the question of whether or not a fertilized egg can grow into a human is incoherent and not relevant to the issue.
Originally posted by telerion
For example, what about the case of self-defense? If a human made a reasonably believable imminent threat against your life or some else's life, would you not be justified in using force to remove that threat, even force sufficient to kill the aggressor? Does it really matter whether the aggressor wishes to live or not?
OK, you can kill them too.
It is a medical fact that most zygotes and many embryos do not reach such a stage due simply to natural causes.
It is also a medical fact that some people do not reach age 33 due simply to natural causes.
Listen, if you can talk yourself into feeling fine about killing so many things... then have at it.
I will never agree that killing a developing baby on purpose is anything other than wrong.
I am curious how many "pro-lifers" would agree to keep abortion legal for situations including incest, rape, and endangerment of the mother.
I understand the moral reasoning behind not supporting abortions otherwise; believe me, I am still on the fence there. But I do think that the scenarios above should always present abortion as an option.
Originally posted by lepomisThat rules out abortions even in the case of rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life.
Originally posted by telerion
[b]I will never agree that killing a developing baby on purpose is anything other than wrong.[/b]
You've focused on the fetus to the exclusion of all else.
Originally posted by wittywonkaI have no problem with the women deciding to save her life if carrying the baby to term would kill her... especially if both lives are in danger.
I am curious how many "pro-lifers" would agree to keep abortion legal for situations including incest, rape, and endangerment of the mother.
I understand the moral reasoning behind not supporting abortions otherwise; believe me, I am still on the fence there. But I do think that the scenarios above should always present abortion as an option.
the baby can't feel anything so why are you angry at it you should be angry at birth control and pretty much everything, then you consider pretty much everything a sin, it might wreck someones life if they have a baby and they are way more important than the baby, the fetus is just like a sort of unconscious animal(i phrased that wrong it sounds awful i know, but its still true)so what if it would lead an awful life and want to kill itself and your saving it the displeasure, doesnt that matter(i know, how would i know what kid of life it leads, but if it has clear deffects in the wound and its obvious it won't be happy in this world then save it the trouble) and if you beleive babys are going to heaven why even care if they die because heavens a much better place were the mother can be happy aswell!
WHY ARE YOU EVEN WORRIED ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S SINS ANYWAY! according to the bible even when you pee your a sinner because your infecting the sewage water that runs into the ocean and poisoning fish(maybe not just pretty much everyone is a sinner according to the bible maybe not that is a sin but everyone is a sinner)
Originally posted by telerionYet again you misrepresent my postion. I can only surmise that either you have very poor reading comprehension or are being purposefully obtuse. As a show of courtesy, I will assume the later.
It is a medical fact that most zygotes and many embryos do not reach such a stage due simply to natural causes.
Originally posted by lepomis
It is also a medical fact that some people do not reach age 33 due simply to natural causes.
Listen, if you can talk yourself into feeling fine about killing so many things... then have at it.
I will never agree that killing a developing baby on purpose is anything other than wrong.
When you are willing (capable?) of forming a thoughtful, pertinent response that advances the discussion, we can continue. Until then, I think it would be best to let others sound off a bit.
Edit: Originally posted by lepomis
I have no problem with the women deciding to save her life if carrying the baby to term would kill her... especially if both lives are in danger.
Wow! Your position changed dramatically all of a sudden. Have you given your opinion on this subject much thought?
Originally posted by knightistwoqueensSince I have admitted to being on "the fence" regarding this issue, I want to show you how bad that sounds.
...if it has clear deffects in the wound and its obvious it won't be happy in this world then save it the trouble...
You are exactly right, how would you know whether that child might have a chance at a happy and/or productive life? I know where you are coming from, I used to think the same way, but look at it this way. If you let the child live (be born), there's still a chance that it might have a happy and/or productive life, even if it's a 1% chance. What are the chances that the child will have a happy and/or productive life if aborted?
Also, as a sidenote, there are plenty of non-religious people who also oppose abortion, even if the majority of pro-life advocates are religious.
I guess, in the end, I still believe it's the woman's decision, but it isn't clear-cut, either way.
Originally posted by knightistwoqueensWhat does the bible have to do with it? or sin for that matter.
WHY ARE YOU EVEN WORRIED ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE'S SINS ANYWAY! according to the bible even when you pee your a sinner because your infecting the sewage water that runs into the ocean and poisoning fish(maybe not just pretty much everyone is a sinner according to the bible maybe not that is a sin but everyone is a sinner)
Originally posted by telerionnope... this has always been my position. A life is a life. One is not more important than another. If one has to die... then the women can choose.
Yet again you misrepresent my postion. I can only surmise that either you have very poor reading comprehension or are being purposefully obtuse. As a show of courtesy, I will assume the later.
When you are willing (capable?) of forming a thoughtful, pertinent response that advances the discussion, we can continue. Until then, I think it would be best ...[text shortened]... changed dramatically all of a sudden. Have you given your opinion on this subject much thought?