Why I'm becoming more pro-choice

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
And in all that you dodged the question. Although the question is obviously hypothetical it is certainly a fair one to establish moral relevancy.

You are claiming the very moment an egg is fertilized it a bonafide human life and to terminate the pregnancy equates to murder. And some of us consider that clump of cells to be just that, a clump of ...[text shortened]... the needs of the few. Would you allow the child to burn to death so you can save 1000 "lives"?

To be honest, I would probably save the 5 year old child. In fact, if given a choice, between the life of the mother and the children in question, I would probably choose the mother. Choosing life and death issues such as these is irrelavent to the topic at hand unless you are arguing that those who are denied abortions will die from their ordeal so it is you who are dodging the question of the morality of the act of terminating the unborn based upon convienence or the unwillingness to undergo hardship.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Aren't we all lumps of cells?

Speak for yourself, mine are nice and smooth, thank you very much. 😠

Originally posted by whodey
........I would probably choose the mother. Choosing life and death issues such as these is irrelavent to the topic at hand unless you are arguing that those who are denied abortions will die from their ordeal

....probably? what a charmer! billions of women the world over feel affirmed and loved once more. whodey, hero of the fertile.!!!

so unless its life or death, your view is that abortion is immoral because it takes away life based on criteria of convenience and hardship.

well then do you consider the destruction of good food in the US and the EU as a mechanism to prop up food commodity prices an equally immoral act? millions of kids are starving and dying so is it immoral to destroy something that someone else can use?

my point is that if you observe a global society that is increasingly immoral in terms of the numbers of people who are allowed to die daily of starvation, at a time in earths history when there is more than enough food to feed the world, why would terminating a life before it was born create a wave of concern any deeper than the concern felt for those dying every day?

Originally posted by kmax87
....probably? what a charmer! billions of women the world over feel affirmed and loved once more. whodey, hero of the fertile.!!!

so unless its life or death, your view is that abortion is immoral because it takes away life based on criteria of convenience and hardship.

well then do you consider the destruction of good food in the US and the EU as a me ...[text shortened]... it was born create a wave of concern any deeper than the concern felt for those dying every day?

The issue at hand is justice. Justice for the unborn as well as those starving to death. I am just as outraged about those starving as I am those being terminated before they are born, however, that is not the topic at hand, is it?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
At some point during the brain development something happens which means we become self-aware - but quite what it is still remains a mystery.

That demonstrates my point perfectly. The conclusions drawn from the experiment as described are clearly biased and based on insufficient evidence. Unless there is more to the experiment, I remain unconvinced. There are a number of perfectly good alternative explanations for the results. In fact, there are strong reasons for believing that the conclusion is wrong. For example, my cat does not readily indicate that it recognizes itself in a mirror, but I am sure that it is self aware. In fact it once tried to jump through a mirror.

Originally posted by whodey
To be honest, I would probably save the 5 year old child. In fact, if given a choice, between the life of the mother and the children in question, I would probably choose the mother. Choosing life and death issues such as these is irrelavent to the topic at hand unless you are arguing that those who are denied abortions will die from their ordeal so it is y ...[text shortened]... e act of terminating the unborn based upon convienence or the unwillingness to undergo hardship.

They are not irrelevant at all. Saying that you would pick the child over 1000 embryos is equivalent to saying a child is worth at least 1000 times as much as an embryo.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That demonstrates my point perfectly. The conclusions drawn from the experiment as described are clearly biased and based on insufficient evidence. Unless there is more to the experiment, I remain unconvinced. There are a number of perfectly good alternative explanations for the results. In fact, there are strong reasons for believing that the conclusion ...[text shortened]... n a mirror, but I am sure that it is self aware. In fact it once tried to jump through a mirror.

Exactly, all this experiment demonstrates is that humans get the ability to recognize their image in a mirror at a certain age.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Exactly, all this experiment demonstrates is that humans get the ability to recognize their image in a mirror at a certain age.

For sure they recognise themselves in the mirror, but at what point do they think that the reflection is themselves?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
They are not irrelevant at all. Saying that you would pick the child over 1000 embryos is equivalent to saying a child is worth at least 1000 times as much as an embryo.

I didn't say that my decision would be the "right" one. I was only being honest in what my inclination would be. You know, the squeeky wheel gets the greese or out of sight and out of mind. It is how human beings are wired. For example, we care more for an infant we have already held in our arms and began to relate to rather than the one that has yet to be born and who seems aloof and distant and almost nonexistant. It is like todays society. those with influence have bigger voices than those who have nothing. They then get the most attention and help while the poor and mentally challenged get trampled under foot.

Originally posted by whodey
I didn't say that my decision would be the "right" one. I was only being honest in what my inclination would be. You know, the squeeky wheel gets the greese or out of sight and out of mind. It is how human beings are wired. For example, we care more for an infant we have already held in our arms and began to relate to rather than the one that has yet to b ...[text shortened]... t the most attention and help while the poor and mentally challenged get trampled under foot.

So you are saying saving the 1000 embryos is the morally right choice? What if there are only two embryos?

Originally posted by whodey
To be honest, I would probably save the 5 year old child. In fact, if given a choice, between the life of the mother and the children in question, I would probably choose the mother. Choosing life and death issues such as these is irrelavent to the topic at hand unless you are arguing that those who are denied abortions will die from their ordeal so it is y ...[text shortened]... e act of terminating the unborn based upon convienence or the unwillingness to undergo hardship.

You would choose the the child over a THOUSAND even younger lives? Why?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
They are not irrelevant at all. Saying that you would pick the child over 1000 embryos is equivalent to saying a child is worth at least 1000 times as much as an embryo.

Attempting to decide who you should save from death, if one had to make a choice, would be an agnoizing one, no matter your choice. However, with abortion on demand this is usually not the case. For those that are, I take no issue with it.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
You would choose the the child over a THOUSAND even younger lives? Why?

I attempted to explain but I don't seem to have gotten my point across, so let me put it another way. Value is subjective. In fact, nothing has value unless assigned value by someone, rather, it simply is what it is. So when deciding value, we must realize that we are deciding such value based upon what we assign value. If faced with the scenerio given, I would probably assign more value to the child simply because they are in distress. I can place myself in the position of the child because I can better relate to them. It would be akin to trying to decide whether or not to save a human being or an alien. I would probably save the human over the alien simply because I can relate to them more, thus, assigning more value to them. Of course both are living, but one is simply more palatable to save than the other. Is this right? Probably not, but I was being honest. After all, I am prone to error much like those lining up to have abortions.

Originally posted by whodey
I attempted to explain but I don't seem to have gotten my point across, so let me put it another way. Value is subjective. In fact, nothing has value unless assigned value by someone, rather, it simply is what it is. So when deciding value, we must realize that we are deciding such value based upon what we assign value. If faced with the scenerio given, I ...[text shortened]... was being honest. After all, I am prone to error much like those lining up to have abortions.

It's a tough question, but I respect you having the honesty to answer it directly.

BTW you don't mind if I store your post on subjective value to use against you on some other issue at a later date?

Originally posted by telerion
[BTW you don't mind if I store your post on subjective value to use against you on some other issue at a later date?[/b]

I long ago accepted the notion that anything you say or do on these forums can and will be used against you at a latter date.

Having said that, do you disagree? Of course, being a person of faith, I believe that our ultimate value is born from above, thus we have an innate sense of value for ourselves and each other that is independent of what we may or may not place value upon.