Abortion...what should be the line?

Originally posted by no1marauder
They are; in the US at any rate.

Do you think that the killing doctors who will perform abortions in the future is morally permissable? After all, you would be saving the "lives" of the "babies" that would be otherwise "killed" which is generally considered a morally desirable act. And blowing up a few abortion clinics would be an even more . Slepian [doctor murdered by James Kopp] be put over the safety of unborn children?"

No1: "Do you think that the killing doctors who will perform abortions in the future is morally permissable?"

Of course not, silly.

No1: "And blowing up a few abortion clinics would be an even more effective means of preventing the great moral evil of "baby killing", wouldn't it? "

Marauder, you know my views. Don't be silly.

No1: ..... "They are; in the US at any rate."

How are these unborn children protected ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
No1: "Do you think that the killing doctors who will perform abortions in the future is morally permissable?"

Of course not, silly.

No1: "And blowing up a few abortion clinics would be an even more effective means of preventing the great moral evil of "baby killing", wouldn't it? "

Marauder, you know my views. Don't be silly.

No1: ..... "They are; in the US at any rate."

How are these unborn children protected ?

The same way anybody else is protected: by law.

No, I don't know why someone who thinks abortion is baby killing would think it was not morally permissable to prevent that baby killing.

During the Holocaust, was it morally permissable to kill a guard at Auschwitz? Would it have been morally permissable to kill Hitler? Are those questions "silly"?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
It is just disgusting and quite revealing to refer to a beginning life in its mother's womb as a "parasite". I remember certain people calling other certain people parasites. Their aim was to first dehumanise them, which they succesfully did in their propaganda and the next phase was to kill them which they also did.

If you refer to a beginning human life ...[text shortened]... hoose the tactic of dehumanising human life in order to be able to rationalise its killing.

well thats what is:
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: 'per-&-"sIt, 'pa-r&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]My objection obviously enough will be to deny part (ii) of your definition.

Right. I think the crux of our difference lies in how we qualify and define "capacity", since without any qualification, it would simply mean "the ability to do X".

To illustrate my point, let’s take a man who’s in a coma from which he’ll wake in 6 months time. D ...[text shortened]... s even latent capacity and it would therefore seem that he’d be a non-person. Your thoughts?[/b]

I think the crux of our difference lies in the fact that your definition recognizes what we might call latent possession, whereas mine does not. That is, under your definition a thing could be a person and yet nevertheless lack the actual possession of said capacities (and that would be the case if the thing lacked actual possession of said capacities but was in a state of spontaneously developing said capacities), whereas under my definition it could not.

Unlike you, I deny that sort of latent possession is good enough. I think there's a clear distinction between actual possession and latent possession as it concerns moral considerability. If we consider again the capacity to suffer, there's a significant and immediate difference between a thing that actually possesses the capacity to suffer and a thing that only latently possesses the capacity to suffer. The former can suffer whereas the latter cannot. Even if the former were not exercising this capacity, the point is that a capacity is such that it can be exercised. And even if we were to know with certainty that the latter will eventually come to actually possess this capacity, I don't see why that should matter: it's still now the case that it cannot suffer.

Concerning the examples about coma victims, your train of thought seems to be:

(1) Coma victims only latently (if at all) possess said capacities.
(2) But nevertheless some coma victims are persons.
(*) Therefore, latent possession must be good enough in at least some cases.

I would agree with (2) but explicitly deny (1). It is certainly possible that a coma victim actually possess said capacities even though they are not being exercised.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It would be fine to end the life of a human being if it is brain dead - whatever you choose to call the action. Whether or not it is still called a human being is another question altogether. It certainly isnt a person even by your definition.

Why would it not be fine to end the life of a human being if it is not brain dead?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If someone is already dead can they be killed? In places which adopt the Uniform Definition of Death Act (I believe all US states do), someone completely brain dead is dead.

EDIT: And the definition given was approved by the AMA back in 1980.

Is a fetus brain dead then during the period before it has developed brain activity?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Is a fetus brain dead then during the period before it has developed brain activity?

That's a meaningless question.

My point was addressed to this "question" of yours:

So would you kill a human being that was completely brain dead?

Originally posted by Starrman
Are you going to start with your notions that brain death is reversible?

Just answer the question: Would you kill a human being that was it in a 'brain dead' condition if the chances of the condition improving were very good?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Just answer the question: Would you kill a human being that was it in a 'brain dead' condition if the chances of the condition improving were very good?

The question is contradictory; there is no such thing as someone who is "brain dead" who has ANY chance of their condition improving by definition.

EDIT: That definition is (2) here: ""An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead."

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's a meaningless question.

For a person that lives in a world without meaning... yes.

Originally posted by dj2becker
For a person that lives in a world without meaning... yes.

🙄

Brain dead implies that you were at some point brain alive. A fetus that hasn't developed any part of the brain has never been brain alive, so it can't be brain dead. We don't say that a tree or a rock is brain dead, do we?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What a hypocritical, cowardly piece of crap you are. Go blow up an abortion clinic and stop all those baby killings, hero.

You are a liar, and a warped person.
You push an agenda that does kill; I've stuck to the terms you use when you justify those abortions. There is killing taking place daily, you support it, I have not once supported the killing of anyone at any stage of their lives, while you have in the past, and continue to do so now. You seem to want to paint me to be as warped as you are, but you have always been that way. I doubt you could stop even if you wanted too without the help of God in your life, I pity you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are a liar, and a warped person.

Of course.
He's a lawyer, by definition, a liar.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Just answer the question: Would you kill a human being that was it in a 'brain dead' condition if the chances of the condition improving were very good?

For the fiftieth time (so please, for the love of Christ take this on board), brain death is not reversible. If you are brain dead you do not have any chances of improving, good or otherwise.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Who says I wouldn't value a fetus even in the early stages? People can place value on all sorts of things. People even have cherished rock collections, you know. If I were with a woman I loved and wanted to start a family with her, I would certainly value any fetus that formed inside her. But if she decided at some point in the early stages of pregnan ...[text shortened]... aborting it would not be morally wrong.

You be honest, too, and quit distorting my views.

Actually, you have said on numerous occasions that just life itself is not sufficient for moral consideration; in addition you have also stated that even human life too isn’t sufficient either on its own. I’m only taking you at your word; I’m not distorting you, but simply accepting those things that you are saying are your points of view! You have written several posts on this matter and have made your arguments quite clear, if we are in the same time zone I’d say you should revisit all your posts on Feb 14, there you have without question made yourself clear.

Now if you want to say that what you value and what you think is moral are different things and are not connected, we have another difference of opinion. Values and morals are wrapped up in how we define right and wrong; you may value that which belongs to you, be it something like a rock collection, and if someone does something to it, it touches something you value. The fact that it belongs to you and they did something to it would touch upon morals. If you two discovered that the two of you were going to have a baby, you want to deny your roll in the life you helped create; fine you abdicate your roll as that life’s father until you get permission, that does not change you would be the father, only that you have abandoned your place in that life’s life until someone else says okay.

Her decisions are always going to be her decisions, as they affect you and your two’s children you do have stake in that. You want to justify abortions, because you do not give credit or value to life at those early stages as having any worth on its own, you want to deny your roll as father until you get permission from someone else, so I am not distorting your views, I’m telling you how those views are playing out in life, or in this case abortions.
Kelly