Whats the Harm...

Originally posted by sumydid
I get it and thanks for the message, I got snarky too. I type as fast as I think, and that can get me into trouble at times. And I'm not a good communicator, which leads to several edits before I can get something right.

As far as the pro-woman thing, my thought is--I think the value of a human fetus trumps the inconvience placed on a woman that results from her permiscuity. I don't mean to be hateful or blunt, but I'm being honest.

I know, it's a charged issue. I'm taking a break from this topic. Tonight I'll be pro-woman by taking my fiance out on a date. All the best.

Originally posted by bbarr
Yeah, I think you need some very good reasons late in a pregnancy.

Ok.

Lets for the sake of argument that in the third trimester a baby becomes (mentally) a
fully functioning adult.

And is spending it's time contemplating the meaning of the universe, and composing poetry,
and planning a general strike... (it's French)


So it's a fully fledged person with thoughts feelings memories and personality.
Which for simplicity I will refer to as "the baby" for this absurd example.


My position is still that it's legally ok for the woman carrying this baby to have an abortion
that kills this person.

The argument is this.

Nobody has the right to demand use of your body (or parts thereof).

So if (for example) you have kids, and one gets ill, and will die if they don't get a kidney transplant
and the only viable donor is you. There is no law (and should be no law) that compels you to donate
that kidney. (note that this is a separate issue from whether or not donating the kidney is the moral
thing to do, we are talking legality not morality)

Similarly, if the only treatment that could save them was a live blood transfusion (or whatever it's called)
where you link you and your child up and pass blood back and forth, where you would be stuck attached
to this machine with your kid for the duration of the treatment.
There is, and should be, no law that compels you to do this.


You have the right to decide how your body is used.
In fact most of the most serious crimes we have are where people violate that right.

Rape and murder being the obvious examples.


So there should be no law that compels a person to continue to act as life support for another person,
let alone have to carry that other person around inside them.

Any law that restricts abortion for any reason is a law that compels a person to act as life support for another
person and have to carry them around inside of them.

Thus I oppose any law that restricts abortion.


Now you might argue that abortion is a violation of the bodily rights of 'the baby'.
However I would argue that the right not to be forced to use your body as a life support machine is absolute.
And the right not to be killed is not absolute (legally, or in my view morally). There are a number of circumstances
where it's recognized as being ok to kill someone. (war, self defence, ect...)

There is no situation where someone can say, hey this person is dying, we are going to use your body to help
save them whether you like it or not.

You can make the dying person the president of the USA or royalty or anyone you like and you still can never use
someone else's body as a life support machine without their ongoing permission.

This doesn't change just because you make the 'dying person' a baby/foetus/embryo/zygote/fertilised egg.
And put it inside a woman's uterus.

The fact that taking away your body as a life support machine will kill them is just an unfortunate side effect
of the goal which is to return to you full and sole use of your body.




Now, from a moral standpoint, I might look at very late term abortions, where the abortion procedure is approximately
as dangerous and inconvenient as giving birth is (prior to that, abortion is significantly less dangerous than carrying the
pregnancy to term and giving birth) and the baby is able to survive outside the womb (i.e. we have passed the point at
which prematurely born babies generally survive without the invention of artificial wombs) then I can see a moral argument
for the optimum way forward for a woman who decides at this point that she doesn't want the baby/keep being pregnant would
be for the baby to be delivered at that point (by whichever means is most suitable/acceptable) and put up for adoption.

However while I might well advocate for this on moral grounds I wouldn't ever legally require it.



Of course, when we go back to reality, no new BORN baby has anything approaching that level of cognition.

And abortions this late are almost always due to a medical emergency, and are not 'by choice' as it were.

The overwhelming majority of abortions happen much earlier, when there is no question of the foetus/embryo/zygote
being a person.



EDIT: This is a debate where the pro-choice side uses this argument (probably better than I do)
Warning: The anti-choice side posts some unpleasant pictures part way through her talk.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/11/01/matt-dillahunty-vs-kristine-kruszelnicki-debate/

Also some other links relevant to my argument/this debate.

http://atheistelephant.com/2012/03/among-other-things-abby-johnson-didnt-pay-attention-in-biology-part-ii/

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/09/08/august-2012-molly-alethea-h-crocoduck-dundee/

Originally posted by sumydid
I will add by saying kd2acz's question is incorrectly dismissed. The respondents have gone far in admitting that abortion is, in fact, the taking of human life. Inasmuch, it cannot justifiably be equated with eating a vegetable or killing an insect. We all must agree; a human life is not the same as a plant or a bug. I argue that pro-abortion fans arbitr ...[text shortened]... proven or disproven as this is a matter of ones own moral fiber and personal, private thinking.

The respondents have gone far in admitting that abortion is, in fact, the taking of human life.

Where have I admitted that?

I do not accept or concede this point.
Others might, but I for one don't.

We all must agree; a human life is not the same as a plant or a bug.

Well that all rather depends on what you are going to call a human life.

Because if it's an embryo then No, I don't agree.

I argue that pro-abortion fans arbitrarily assign the moral value of a living human fetus with that of a plant or a bug,
in order to ease their conscience.

Then you are wrong because that has nothing to do with how or why I argue for this position.

My argument cannot be proven or disproven as this is a matter of ones own moral fiber and personal, private thinking.

Then your argument (actually it's an assertion not an argument) is meaningless, pointless, and utterly irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Turning up in a debate and saying "I suspect the motives of the people making the opposing arguments, which is not something I can confirm
or prove, but I am going to assert it anyway.... and thus I win" will get you precisely nowhere.




First off, For MY argument for allowing abortions (bodily rights) the question of the moral/legal status of the foetus is irrelevant.

My starting position is that a persons right to bodily autonomy is absolute and that it doesn't matter what legal 'rights' you try to
give the foetus because the mothers right to bodily autonomy will always trump any and all rights you give the foetus.


So then coming back and arguing that the foetus has all these rights/properties/ect doesn't do ANYTHING to address my argument.

Originally posted by sumydid
You have to remember, the people you are dealing with literally don't believe that a fetus is "a life." They think it is a lifeless mass, worth absolutely zero, pretty much up until the very moment it takes its first breath outside the womb. And even then, some pro-abortion zealots think it's still worthless for a certain amount of time. In my opinion, th ymore than it would be considered a "convenience" to kill a roach, or eat lettuce.

Kd2acz doesn't have an actual argument, remember?

Anyway you ought to desist from giving others advice in this area since you are clearly misinformed. Many that differ with kd2acz on this fully acknowledge that the fetus is a human life, or human being if you'd rather. I take that fact, per se, to be rather irrelevant to this discussion. Others will disagree with me on that, but that is because they read normative dimension into such terms as 'human being' whereas I see it as simply a descriptive issue regarding species membership.

Originally posted by googlefudge

The respondents have gone far in admitting that abortion is, in fact, the taking of human life.

Where have I admitted that?

I do not accept or concede this point.
Others might, but I for one don't.

We all must agree; a human life is not the same as a plant or a bug.

Well that all rather depends on what you are foetus has all these rights/properties/ect doesn't do ANYTHING to address my argument.

Neither argument can be proven. You're right, debate is pointless--as long as you hold the position that a living human organism has no value. I can declare your position "immoral" all I want; all you have to do is say I'm wrong.

The only thing left for one in my position to do is suspect that you assign more value to human life than you claim. Especially since you (or at least those that hold your position), declare God immoral for having a hand in the death of any human being. It's precisely because the pro-abortion Atheists argue that God is immoral for causing, or even allowing death, that tells me you place a very high premium on the value of human life.

Both bbarr and *you* just sat there and told me that a fetus both (a) has life, and (b) is biologically human. Bbarr argued it, and you emphasized it which to me implies you agree with it. Ergo, abortion ends a human life. So you have 2 situations. In the first, a woman ends the life of a human being living inside her womb. In the second, God kills (or in most cases allows the killing of) a human being. You think the first one is moral and the second one is immoral. Am I correct so far? Please correct me if I am wrong before I continue.

Originally posted by googlefudge
My position is still that it's legally ok for the woman carrying this baby to have an abortion that kills this person.

The argument is this.

Nobody has the right to demand use of your body (or parts thereof).

With all due respect, your opinion is twisted and borderline evil.

You just said even if an aborted human being is a fully conscious adult, the mother should be able to kill it in anyway... afterall, it's her body and the one living inside her has no right to make demands.

Hogwash. The baby living inside her womb is both (a) a human being the mother consciously created, and (b) is making no demands whatsoever. The mother created the baby and--assuming she never intended to do so--acted irresponsibly. Your position is, a woman can act irresponsibly but ultimately it's not her fault if she does.

However, I will say that your argument goes quite far in supporting some people's contention that likewise, God can do whatever He wants with the lives He created. Though there is a difference. God is infinitely more justified.

Originally posted by bbarr
Have you ever had a salad? Have you ever taken antibiotics? But those lives are innocent... So, yes, it's fine to take a life for convenience if the life taken does not belong to an entity that morally matters. If you want to establish that abortion for convenience is wrong, then you have to first establish that the life of a fetus morally matters. ...[text shortened]... as I demonstrated above. So, do you have an argument? Again, do you have an argument?

Wow dude, I don't know what to say. If you don't see that a fetus as a part of the human race morally matters without an arguement, I can't help you. Personally I don't think an argument needs to be made. So are you going to answer my questions?

Originally posted by bbarr
Tonight I'll be pro-woman by taking my fiance out on a date.

Let him be pro-woman and take you out!

Originally posted by sumydid
You have to remember .. [text shortened]...Anyway, since they don't believe a pre-birthed baby is "a life," your argument falls on deaf ears as soon as it is uttered. Convenience doesn't come into play in this (to them), anymore than it would be considered a "convenience" to kill a roach, or eat lettuce.

I think your right.

Originally posted by sumydid
With all due respect, your opinion is twisted and borderline evil.

You just said even if an aborted human being is a fully conscious adult, the mother should be able to kill it in anyway... afterall, it's her body and the one living inside her has no right to make demands.

Hogwash. The baby living inside her womb is both (a) a human being the mother c ...[text shortened]... Your position is, a woman can act irresponsibly but ultimately it's not her fault if she does.

Actually you are the twisted evil one and I have no respect for you whatsoever.

So please shove yours, you don't mean it anyway.


Your ignorance and Christian woman hating prudishness in demanding that sex only be
for making babies inside Christian marriage is on full display here.

Having an abortion IS (often) being responsible for the consequences.

And having sex (protected) is not a bad or irresponsible thing.

Babies place considerable demands on the mother and can kill her.
While the incidence of mothers dying due to pregnancy/childbirth related conditions has fallen
dramatically. The risk of carrying a pregnancy to term is much higher than the risk of an abortion.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
you didnt answer the question, is taking the morning after pill morally wrong?

Well... If I believe life to begin at conception... And the morning after pill ends conception, if conception did indeed take place... Then yes, I believe taking the morning after pill to be morally wrong.

Originally posted by kd2acz
Well... If I believe life to begin at conception... And the morning after pill ends conception, if conception did indeed take place... Then yes, I believe taking the morning after pill to be morally wrong.

Do you (by extension) think that it should thus be illegal?


And do you have an argument for your position that doesn't in any way require your religion to be true?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Actually you are the twisted evil one and I have no respect for you whatsoever.

So please shove yours, you don't mean it anyway.


Your ignorance and Christian woman hating prudishness in demanding that sex only be
for making babies inside Christian marriage is on full display here.

Having an abortion IS (often) being responsible for the conse ...[text shortened]... atically. The risk of carrying a pregnancy to term is much higher than the risk of an abortion.

Being permiscuous and killing another human being because of the inconvenience caused by it is immoral in my opinion.

But taking it a step further and saying you'd kill a fully-consious adult to protect a woman's right to be permiscuous and irresponsible, is not only immoral, it's borderline evil. I only use the word "borderline" because I at least give you the credit of just being misguided and absent a moral compass. I don't hold you responsible for these facts.

As for your hostile, abusive behavior, I expected as much. Calling someone who defends the life of a baby "abusive toward women" is a well-known, last-ditched, desperation effort to bring the discussion into a heated brawl instead of discussing the facts in a civilized manner.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Do you (by extension) think that it should thus be illegal?


And do you have an argument for your position that doesn't in any way require your religion to be true?

Yes I think the morning after pill should be illegal, because it terminates human life after conception as far as I understand how it works. My faith did not dictate my belief that life begins at conception, so my faith being true or not does not matter here, the belief is the same. Therefore my argument is it should be illegal because it terminates conceived life.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, you are confused. If we came across a non-human species with similar psychological capacities (consciousness, rationality, capacity for suffering, etc.), they would obviously have the same moral status as human beings. So it can't be that moral status is simply a function of being a human. The reasons why we would treat non-human persons and human perso ...[text shortened]... p in the human species.

You see? You don't have much of an account at all. Sad, really.

Your argument is boring. You use "sad" or whatever to try to add weight to your argument, like you've won something. It's a childish tactic, but all you have.

Futhermore, you're using imaginary beings for your argument? Truly, without being childish, that actually is sad.

But imagine a human being in a vegetative state: this person can no longer feel, think or even fuction, and is only a pulled-plug away from death. Is it okay to use this person as a sex toy? Can we charge people to come in and have their way with this person, with no regard for them as a human? By your logic, such a human being is no longer a person, because they no longer have a mind. Do you object to strangers having their way with a person in a vegetative state?

See buddy, my real example, smacks your fake one.