15 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayThe person from conception isn't a view it is a fact
So what, do we punish those without out much going for them?
The person from conception isn't a view it is a fact, you don't move
to being a person if there wasn't a conception. Todate the reasons I have seen here to justify abortion are:
1. It isn't a baby
2. Do it before the pain
3. It doesn't have much going on for it.
Powerful stuff, makes me wond ...[text shortened]... ies, it is done without pain, and the people killed have not much going on for them?
Kelly
Oh, really? What's your argument for that? Do you have anything to offer this discussion beyond speciesist propaganda and religious hogwash?
15 Feb 07
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI had stats that at least a third and possibly up to 60% of zygotes "die" naturally before birth. So there'd be a awful lot of funerals.
Why don't we bury all dead fetuses in graveyards with proper headstones? I mean, miscarriages happen and we don't even give the poor things a proper funeral.
EDIT: From last March 7- Theological Implications for Right to Lifers
In a discussion in Debates, Ivanhoe and Halitose take the position that human beings exist from conception (i.e. fertilization of the egg by sperm). According to this paper from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on page 5: "60% of fertilizations don't survive long enough to cause a missed menstrual period".http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/ethics/ethics092.pdf
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayYou all seem to be misunderstanding me. There is nothing different about the foetus before the birth or the baby after, except for the fact that before the birth the foetus is entirely dependent on the mother for its life, after the birth you could discard the mother and the baby can still survive.
"It's a potential human until it's born obviously."
Okay the few seconds before and after it is born, the 'life' before and after birth, what changes besides the location? Something within the 'life' develop right at birth, besides your blessing that it can now be called a human life? It must be very plain for all to see 'obviously'!
Kelly
That's what I mean by the obvious difference. The key is the relationship with the mother. Before birth the mother is everything. After, not so much.
15 Feb 07
I have no idea where I stand on this one, but that never stopped me from commenting before so why start now?
Is it a viable human being while your still laying there sweating like a pig? If she gets up to douche .. is it murder if one of those little thingys managed to reach it's goal?
Is it hours after sex?, days?, weeks? .. when EXACTLY is the cut off point? .. pun intended.
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloGerms do not with time grow up to human adults, so what you are saying is a sad, but a common tactic. Belittle to kill, shift what we are talking about to anything outside of what the subject really is, a human life at its earliest stages.
The point here is that life is not sufficient for moral consideration. Germs are alive, but that doesn't and shouldn't make you think twice about killing them with hand soap or mouthwash. Flowers are living things and that doesn't stop people from picking them. So life itself is not sufficient. Biological life isn't even a necessary condition, either ...[text shortened]... nstantiate some person's mentality into silicon technology or something along those lines).
Kelly
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYes, true many times that is very true; however, also true are those that know they were with child and something happens and that life within dies for whatever reason. What happens many times is a great loss is felt for the hope of that son or daughter that they thought was coming. Because there are not many funerals for these loses does not mean that some are not held for them either, for closer. Not everyone thinks of those lives as a germ, or a worthless nothing going for it blob, but instead acknowledge the child they thought was coming, either a boy or girl.
Why don't we bury all dead fetuses in graveyards with proper headstones? I mean, miscarriages happen and we don't even give the poor things a proper funeral.
Kelly
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou want to hide from the fact that what we are talking about will with time be a fully developed human being under even your conditions, and it isn't just a germ. So be it, very few times ever did I ever get the feeling you were not giving me honest well thought out reasons for your part in our disagreements, but this time with this argument I cannot help but think your reaching for anything to justify abortions.
The point here is that life is not sufficient for moral consideration. Germs are alive, but that doesn't and shouldn't make you think twice about killing them with hand soap or mouthwash. Flowers are living things and that doesn't stop people from picking them. So life itself is not sufficient. Biological life isn't even a necessary condition, either ...[text shortened]... nstantiate some person's mentality into silicon technology or something along those lines).
Kelly
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayI would guess few people think of life - whatever form it might come in: embryo, foetus, baby, child, adult - as worthless. Most of us respect this amazing thing called life that we can lead here on Earth.
Yes, true many times that is very true; however, also true are those that know they were with child and something happens and that life within dies for whatever reason. What happens many times is a great loss is felt for the hope of that son or daughter that they thought was coming. Because there are not many funerals for these loses does not mean that som ...[text shortened]... it blob, but instead acknowledge the child they thought was coming, either a boy or girl.
Kelly
I do, and I particularly love the life that I helped create in my two children.
But abortion is not about the worth of a life.
It's a play off of worth of two lives.
The ultimate moral dilemma I guess - an agonising one. But one which must favour that life which is proven, that life which is viable - the mother - over that which could, but might not be - the foetus.
It's a horrible choice, and one I'm thankful that myself and my wife never had to make, but it's a choice that many make, for whatever reason.
My moral position is placed firmly with the mother in any such decision.
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by amannion"...is nothing different about the foetus before the birth or the baby after, except for the fact that before the birth the foetus is entirely dependent on the mother for its life, after the birth you could discard the mother and the baby can still survive. "
You all seem to be misunderstanding me. There is nothing different about the foetus before the birth or the baby after, except for the fact that before the birth the foetus is entirely dependent on the mother for its life, after the birth you could discard the mother and the baby can still survive.
That's what I mean by the obvious difference. The key is the relationship with the mother. Before birth the mother is everything. After, not so much.
You know if you leave that new born on the table without mom it will die if it isn't taken care of by someone. You can remove the Baby from the mother early on and care for it well before the birth date without mom, the same thing will be true, that child will still need someone taking care of them. So if there isn't any difference between right before or after its birth, you have a distinction without a real difference, yet you justify abortions nonetheless.
Kelly
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloI have not given you a single 'religious' argument on this topic, unless you can quote me. I'd say your just getting personal, nothing more.
[b]The person from conception isn't a view it is a fact
Oh, really? What's your argument for that? Do you have anything to offer this discussion beyond speciesist propaganda and religious hogwash?[/b]
My argument for person from conception is no different than the ever changing views on why it is okay to abort. I pick a way to define the word that suits me and lay claim your wrong because.
Kelly
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course the baby can be taken care of - and needs to be - but it doesn't need to be the mother that does this (althogh obviously that's the ideal situation.)
"...is nothing different about the foetus before the birth or the baby after, except for the fact that before the birth the foetus is entirely dependent on the mother for its life, after the birth you could discard the mother and the baby can still survive. "
You know if you leave that new born on the table without mom it will die if it isn't taken care ...[text shortened]... have a distinction without a real difference, yet you justify abortions nonetheless.
Kelly
You're right about viability before birth too, but I guess it comes down to the moral dilemma I mentioned. If you've got to make a choice, then you have to figure out some way of justifying that choice.
Now, you'll probably say why make a choice? Why not adopt out the child? That could be a solution in some situations, but we sitting back in the comfort of our nice lives can't figure all of the factors that come into play in such a situation, can we?
15 Feb 07
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ, if you could read and assimilate information more carefully, you'd know that the germ example I raised was in demonstration of my claim that life itself is not sufficient for moral consideration. Human life isn't sufficient either because species membership is irrelevant as well. I'm well aware of the fact that arguments can be made for the idea that the young fetus has the potentiality for personhood, and I'm not ignoring them. They just don't demonstrate what you apparently think they demonstrate.
You want to hide from the fact that what we are talking about will with time be a fully developed human being under even your conditions, and it isn't just a germ. So be it, very few times ever did I ever get the feeling you were not giving me honest well thought out reasons for your part in our disagreements, but this time with this argument I cannot help but think your reaching for anything to justify abortions.
Kelly