One on the 1st post on abortion and one on the 2nd.
I'll post my comments here, just for the heck of it. I don't like these arguments to go unchallenged. G-man, Gamelot, and/or anyone else are of course welcome to comment. I don't moderate my comboxes.
1)
G-man,
you can change your mind.
The woman can change her mind too as long as she doesn't commit murder to do so.
It's not like pregnancy lasts forever, you know. She doesn't have to get pregnant again if she doesn't want to.
He can survive as an autonomous individual. The same cannot be said of unborn fetuses.
You mean the man can survive if the things that keep him alive are not removed. Same could be said of babies in the womb.
Well don't you like to paint things in 3 coats of drama.
Dude, it's not ME arguing that it should be OK to murder babies.
The difference between a grown human and a fetus in terms of feelings and actually caring about life is approximately the same as the difference between a grown human and a stump of wood.
And you know this how?
That's not very scientific of you - how many unborn babies have you interviewed? Oh, you can't communicate w/ them? OK, just give the OK to kill them. We'll just give death the benefit of the doubt.
And all of a sudden to be a human being worthy of protection is by what you DO? You better hope you're never in a deep sleep and someone comes up to you w/ the same thinking processes. If you don't respond to the first few greetings, you may find yourself dead. Same thing.
testing still confirms that a fetus is unable to experience pain until the 20th week of pregnancy, after which point just 0.014% of abortions take place in America.
Wow, where did these testers learn to interview unborn babies?
Again, note how "being human" = "DOING something".
If you weren't so intent on portraying me as some inhuman bastard
It's not my fault you insist on murdering babies. You're acting like I'm blackmailing you to argue for abortion.
Neo's waking moment in the Matrix where he's discovered that his body was being used, against his will
Neo didn't have irresponsible sex and then regret the consequences.
Neo's situation was permanent barring his disconnection and flight. The inconvenience of pregnancy need only last 9 months.
no matter how 'irresponsible' and no matter how much you'd like people to pay for their irresponsibility.
What I'd like is for people to stop murdering babies and then justifying it w/ lame, pathetic arguments like yours.
Peace,
Rhology
2)
Gamelot,
Actually, legislating something IS a statement for or against the morality of an action. Tattoos are legal - the state has pronounced that it has no moral problem w/ tattooing. Prostitution is ILlegal - the state has pronounced that it has a moral problem w/ it.
Abortion is legal - the state doesn't care if you murder people, just under certain conditions.
And you ask a great question about WHEN the baby is of murdering age. What about 1 month after birth? 1 day after? 1 minute after? 1 minute before? 1 hour before? 1 day before? 1 week before? 1 month before? 2 months before?
Ask anyone who is pro-death and they'll give you some arbitrary answer based on whatever. Then take it back one minute before - suddenly the baby is not human anymore, 1 minute before? The willful idiocy can be amazing.
I remind you that the question is WHEN the baby is human. Most everyone agrees that murdering innocent humans is wrong, so when the baby is human is the best question one can ask in this debate.
9 comments:
>Neo didn't have irresponsible sex and then regret the consequences.
If you're going to take a moral stance, you can't limit it to irresponsible sex
>Neo's situation was permanent barring his
>disconnection and flight. The inconvenience of
>pregnancy need only last 9 months.
Nor can you limit it to 9 months of inconvenience. The moral thing to do is to bring up said child, even if adoption is the far lesser evil compared to abortion.
Yes, you are right. I suppose my argument is a bit minimalist, which is funny b/c it's already considered radical by a lot of people. Sigh.
What about rape? Surely that is truamatic enough without the victim having to endure 9 months of carrying the child of the man who raped her?
And just because people have sex...it's perfectly acceptable to have sex before marriage in this day and age. It's natural, and some religions don't consider it a sin. Contraception is not 100 percent effective, although of course, you people believe that contraception is a sin too, and is interfereing with an act of God. Can't win can ya?
However, if the whole abortion thing was personally apllied to me I don;t know which way I'd go. I suppose it would depend on the circumstances and the father.
I believe its up to the woman. Why should she be forced to bring a child into the world when it would be unwanted anyway in this overpopulated planet? Surely it isn't worth the ruination of a living person's life, so that a person who hasn't strictly begun to live can be born?
Rose,
Thanks for stopping by.
I think you've missed the central question, though - is the baby a human or not? If so, then murdering her is not permissible. If not, then this question is moot - nobody agonises over whether to remove an appendix or pull a tooth.
What about rape?
1) It's not the baby's fault. Why execute the baby?
2) It's not the woman's fault. Why put her thru great trauma by murdering her child? Make no mistake - abortion is a great trauma for the majority of women.
3) many pro-choicers would be quick to say "Don't fight violence w/ violence!" I don't know if you're among them, but this is very inconsistent.
it's perfectly acceptable to have sex before marriage in this day and age.
1) No it's not. God's commands have not changed.
2) This has nothing to do w/ whether we should allow babies to be murdered.
you people believe that contraception is a sin too, and is interfereing with an act of God. Can't win can ya?
1) "You people"? My opinion of you just went way down.
2) There's nothing wrong w/ barrier contraception (the pill contains abortifacient properties). I'm not Roman Catholic.
3) The way to win is to live life God's way. Ie, no premarital sex, no abortions. I've done that and I'm 'winning', you might say.
However, if the whole abortion thing was personally apllied to me I don;t know which way I'd go. I suppose it would depend on the circumstances and the father.
You mean, if you were going to be aborted, you don't know which way you'd go? I guarantee you'd be begging (but you wouldn't be able to communicate that well) not to be dismembered in the safest place possible for a tiny baby.
I believe its up to the woman.
You don't think the baby should have a say? None at all? half of those babies are female.
Why should she be forced to bring a child into the world when it would be unwanted anyway in this overpopulated planet?
1) I and many people would love to adopt.
2) The planet is not overpopulated, there is not a shortage of food. The problem w/ famines is improper distribution of food.
3) We force all people in society, on pain of legal action, not to do all sorts of things. Murder is against the law. Murdering a woman's baby should be against the law.
Surely it isn't worth the ruination of a living person's life, so that a person who hasn't strictly begun to live can be born?
that's just the thing - the baby has begun to live from the moment of conception.
So let's turn it around - how is it possibly acceptable to murder someone so that another person doesn't experience 9 months of inconvenience?
Further:
Maybe using the term 'you people' may have been slightly out of order. I admit that. I didn't know what else to say. In retrospect it wasn't the most mature thing I could have said and I apologise. I'm curious to know what your opinion of me was before I said that though.
I'll give you something. You certainly know how to construct a good argument. At least you haven't tried to tell me I'm going to burn in hell.
Belief is up to the person involved. You obviously have your reasons for belileving what you do, and I have mine. I don't believe that sex before marriage is a sin. Nowadays, marriage doesn't seem to often be about god and religion, it's more about money and binding legal contracts and divorce settlements a couple of years down the line. I also think that if I don't believe in a certain religious practise it can not be applied to me. I can never go to hell, because as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist, except on Earth.
What makes a human a human, which as I believe you said, is the central point of this argument? The soul, or the physical body which is no more than a lump of meat? At what point does an unborn baby become a human? I don't believe that a baby's soul enters the body at the moment of conception (nine months trapped in a bag full of water? You'd go mad!), but instead at around 5/6 months into pregnancy, when abortion is illegal anyway. That is what I think. It isn't murder, in the same way drowning a sack full of newborn puppies 'isn't murder'. You could say that contraception is also abortion in a way, couldn't you?
I admit that in some circumstances there is no moral reason for abortion, and it is still carried out. It's unfair but I don't lose sleep over it.
What if a woman would be under extreme mental stress and possibly at risk of suicide if she was forced to carry a child against her deepest wishes? What about a 12 year old child who is really mentally and physically incapable of birth and child rearing? What about a child who was known to be severely disabled? Should that child be allowed to be born, knowing that it would have very little quality of life and would die young?
Oh, and when I said, I wouldn't know what I'd do if the situation applied to me, I meant if I was to get pregnant. I can sit here and say all these things, but if I found out tomorrow I was pregnant, I don't know which direction I'd take.
Unfortunately, some people are very careful about precautions when having sex, but still manage to get pregnant. They have hardly been irresponsible, so what are they supposed to do?
Peace, mate.
Rose
Hi Rose,
When new commenters come by, I try to assume the best in them. They can either prove themselves or knock themselves down. The "you people" comment did the latter, but I appreciate the apology. It is accepted. :-)
You certainly know how to construct a good argument.
Gosh, thank you. That is quite a compliment. I appreciate that as well.
At least you haven't tried to tell me I'm going to burn in hell.
Not up front, not up front. :-D
Belief is up to the person involved.
Absolutely. But that does not mean that our beliefs are w/o consequences. For one thing, they can be true or untrue and therefore lead to implications in life.
I can never go to hell, because as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist, except on Earth.
But surely you recognise that beliefs do not necessarily change reality. If you believe w/ all your heart that walking across fiery coals won't hurt your feet, does that change the fact that it will do tissue damage to the soles of your feet?
If you believe you are invincible, does that mean you won't be crushed by the speeding oncoming 10-ton lorry in front of which you decided to stop and wait?
No, surely not.
Likewise, your belief that you can never go to hell does not actually change the fact that there is a God who holds out to you the offer of eternal life and who takes very seriously the offence of refusing such an offer.
I can never go to hell, because as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist, except on Earth.
Yes, I agree 100%.
I don't believe that a baby's soul enters the body at the moment of conception (nine months trapped in a bag full of water? You'd go mad!)
The moment of conception is the only non-arbitrary option.
And that's not to say that the baby's brain of conciousness is fully developed. However, that means nothing- the baby is a human.
but instead at around 5/6 months into pregnancy, when abortion is illegal anyway.
1) What makes you think that it's around 5/6 months? 50 quid says your judgment is at least mostly arbitrary.
2) Abortion is legal up to 10 seconds before birth in the US, sad to say.
It isn't murder, in the same way drowning a sack full of newborn puppies 'isn't murder'.
Well, that would be puppy murder.
This would be people murder.
Sadly, there are many in the US who would get more upset over the drowning of a sack of puppies than they do of the in vitro dismemberment of a healthy human baby. Amazing.
You could say that contraception is also abortion in a way, couldn't you?
Only if the contraceptive caused the fertilised egg (AKA, the baby) to be ejected from the uterus.
Why would preventing sperm from reaching the egg be abortion? Eggs and sperm aren't humans.
It's unfair but I don't lose sleep over it.
I would submit that's b/c your conscience is seared and insensitive b/c of your sin.
What if a woman would be under extreme mental stress and possibly at risk of suicide if she was forced to carry a child against her deepest wishes?
Then she should get help so as to prevent her from hurting herself or her baby.
What about a 12 year old child who is really mentally and physically incapable of birth and child rearing?
You mean if such a child became pregnant? Why wreck her life by aborting her baby? Why not bear the child and put him or her up for adoption if necessary?
What about a child who was known to be severely disabled? Should that child be allowed to be born, knowing that it would have very little quality of life and would die young?
1) There are many documented cases of babies who were thought by experts to be severely disabled and were born perfectly healthy w/o any disability. Why murder the baby when there's that chance?
2) This is the same thinking that the Nazis employed - they defined their Jewish and Gypsy and disabled victims out of humanity.
3) How do you have any idea about that child's quality of life? Can you ask them? Not if you kill them before they're born. Do you claim some sort of baby-telepathy?
4) Why not ask some mentally disabled people alive today, who are adults, if they'd rather live or die. If they answer, "Live," you have your answer. If they answer, "Die," then either get them mental help or start strangling them and see if they resist. If they resist, you'll know they were lying and you have your answer.
still manage to get pregnant. They have hardly been irresponsible, so what are they supposed to do?
They're supposed to bear the child to term and be loving parents to him or her.
Peace,
Rhology
Hypothetical question:
An egg and a sperm come together, the sperm fertililzes the egg and creates an embryo. Is this a human?
*
*
*
*
*
*
No. This embryo just happens to be a baby mouse, although at this point you can't really tell because it's just a ball of cells that has the potential to develop into anything.
A bunch of dividing cells is not a human. Sorry.
Rose,
A **HUMAN** egg and a **HUMAN** sperm come together. Is this embryo a human?
You say no. Why not?
And, care to answer any of my other questions above?
With absolute pleasure. You know, I'd love to share a bottle of wine with you sometime. Just imagine the conversation....
There are many documented cases of babies who were thought by experts to be severely disabled and were born perfectly healthy w/o any disability. Why murder the baby when there's that chance?
I'm talking about actual knowledge, like you have absolute knowledge that God exists.
This is the same thinking that the Nazis employed - they defined their Jewish and Gypsy and disabled victims out of humanity.
No comment. I do believe you're trying to insult me.
How do you have any idea about that child's quality of life? Can you ask them? Not if you kill them before they're born. Do you claim some sort of baby-telepathy?
Do you claim some sort of God telepathy?
Why not ask some mentally disabled people alive today, who are adults, if they'd rather live or die. If they answer, "Live," you have your answer. If they answer, "Die," then either get them mental help or start strangling them and see if they resist. If they resist, you'll know they were lying and you have your answer.
I think the proper question is 'Would you rather have never been born?'
Post a Comment