Why I'm becoming more pro-choice

Originally posted by Palynka
Ridiculous. So refresh me and inform me what the supposed human being in question did to forfeit its right to life, as defended by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

KN seems to be obsessed with the idea of assigning a mathematical value to everything and running the World based on this purely logical system, completely devoid of sentiment, emotion and conventional morality.

Of course, taken to its logical extreme, you get something like this

http://vhemt.org/

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
That is an excellent question! I hope you don't mind if I begin using it. In fact, a group of the guys I work with love debating issues, and the next time abortion comes up I'll throw that at pro-lifers.

I don't see that as being such a strong question.

You can be pro-life and still argue that the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the potential children.

The fertilized eggs don't have consciousnesses. The child does.

Originally posted by sh76
KN seems to be obsessed with the idea of assigning a mathematical value to everything and running the World based on this purely logical system, completely devoid of sentiment, emotion and conventional morality.

Of course, taken to its logical extreme, you get something like this

I'm even more obsessed than him, man! 😵

I think that by checking the logical coherence of one's moral choices is the best way for one to realize that we might be erroneously defending something we find unjust.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
A hypothetical for the pro-choice people:

To have an abotion you must wait 30 weeks (to think it over). After 30 weeks you can have the abortion which involves removal of the baby (to which you can say goodbye), and then you can watch it put to death, or not. The last part is up to you. Is the abortion at that point ok to you? Do you still rationalize it by callin it a "lump of cells"?

30 weeks to think it over? 😕

After 30 weeks, the brain is already developed and sensory mediators develop. If I had to pick one single moment, this would be the stage where the fetus goes from being a lump of cells to a human being.

There are earlier developmental stages, where the fetusus are clearly just lumps of cells. Why aren't you thinking about your those stages?

Originally posted by Palynka
30 weeks to think it over? 😕

After 30 weeks, the brain is already developed and sensory mediators develop. If I had to pick one single moment, this would be the stage where the fetus goes from being a lump of cells to a human being.

There are earlier developmental stages, where the fetusus are clearly just lumps of cells. Why aren't you thinking about your those stages?

Abortion supporters make an argument that goverment can't tell woman what to do with "their" bodies... Thus, they should have no problem with the hypothetical I proposed. On the other hand, if they are opposed to my hypothetical their arguments are moot. (The argument for abortions based soley on the fact that it is a "lump of cells" at one point is irrelevant. An embryo is more than a lump of cells,but if that was their only argument for abortions would they be fine with only doing abortions say prior to week 5?)

Originally posted by sh76
I don't see that as being such a strong question.

You can be pro-life and still argue that the rights of the child outweigh the rights of the potential children.

The fertilized eggs don't have consciousnesses. The child does.

What if you wait until the child has consciousness? You know, what till they go to sleep and then snuff them out without them even being aware of what is going on. Why is conscousness the deciding criterea for killing?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
An analogy for you which someone gave me once, i've posted it before but i'll do it again.

Your in a burning building and can save either

a) A five year old child

or

b) 1,000 ferilised eggs

Which would you do?

So lets say you have a cute 5 year old child in a burning building with blonde hair and blue eyes with a twinkle in their eye and, to top it all off, an IQ off the charts. Then in the adjacent building you have a child with down syndrome and is ugly, in fact, the smell a bit.

Who would you save?

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
[b]Abortion supporters make an argument that goverment can't tell woman what to do with "their" bodies...

Well the law does not even agree with this. If it did, there would be no cut off age of the infant that allows for termination. Instead, they arbitrarily pick certain criterea that allows them to terminate the life.

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
Abortion supporters make an argument that goverment can't tell woman what to do with "their" bodies... Thus, they should have no problem with the hypothetical I proposed. On the other hand, if they are opposed to my hypothetical their arguments are moot. (The argument for abortions based soley on the fact that it is a "lump of cells" at one point i ...[text shortened]... y argument for abortions would they be fine with only doing abortions say prior to week 5?)

So you're attacking your strawman of some hypothetical "abortion supporters", while refusing to address the abortion supporters in front of you?

What do you see when you look at a windmill?

Originally posted by Palynka
So you're attacking your strawman of some hypothetical "abortion supporters", while refusing to address the abortion supporters in front of you?

What do you see when you look at a windmill?

Im addressing the most commonly used reason for abortions, that it is a woman's choice. If you believe it's a woman's choice to do with her body whatever she wants then you should have no problem with abortions at 30 weeks. Again, no one would make someone wait that long, it's a hypothetical. Where is the strawman there?

Originally posted by whodey
Well the law does not even agree with this. If it did, there would be no cut off age of the infant that allows for termination. Instead, they arbitrarily pick certain criterea that allows them to terminate the life.

thus the point i was making in my hypothetical

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
Abortion supporters make an argument that goverment can't tell woman what to do with "their" bodies... Thus, they should have no problem with the hypothetical I proposed. On the other hand, if they are opposed to my hypothetical their arguments are moot. (The argument for abortions based soley on the fact that it is a "lump of cells" at one point i ...[text shortened]... y argument for abortions would they be fine with only doing abortions say prior to week 5?)

Aren't we all lumps of cells?

Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen
Im addressing the most commonly used reason for abortions, that it is a woman's choice. If you believe it's a woman's choice to do with her body whatever she wants then you should have no problem with abortions at 30 weeks. Again, no one would make someone wait that long, it's a hypothetical. Where is the strawman there?

I'm not making that argument, yet I'm an "abortion supporter". There are many like me.

So you want to address what I'm saying or what to do your monologue about what you want abortion supporters to say?

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm not making that argument, yet I'm an "abortion supporter". There are many like me.

So you want to address what I'm saying or what to do your monologue about what you want abortion supporters to say?

then what argument are you making?

Originally posted by generalissimo
then what argument are you making?

It concerns the stages of development of the fetus. In short, in earlier stages there is no functioning brain or nervous system so it's clearly not a human being.