Abortion Unfiltered

carlybabe1

Zulu wrote: »

It's not really. The implication is that the person does actually view it as killing a human life, and thus struggles with the idea.

Christ, here we go. Carlybabe, why the aggression? You've gotten the two other threads locked, are you going for three in a row? Can you not converse with the adults with out the emotive outbursts?
PS:I think your caps lock is on. To turn it off, press the "Caps Lock" key on the left hand side of your key board.

Actually YOU got it locked, and you are not an adult, otherwise you wouldnt resort to childish actions in an attempt to score points,
As you have shown just how childish you are, i think its best to ignore you and converse with others on an equal intellectual level
Frankly Im sorry I didnt stick to my original guns and ignore you in the first place
Now.....wheres that ignore button...........
AAAHHHHHH much better

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

And that's why I'll defend it's choice!
Sure, it's only for 9 months. Eight if you consider she probably won't even notice the first.
It's not a whole lot to ask really.

You're not defending any choice. You're deciding the child has a right to exist based on its possibly growing to full term whilst ignoring the well being or choice of the host/mother. You're also then deciding that her mental health will be fine if she carries an unwanted child to term. Your choices don't affect a possible life, they affect a real life.

Whilst I respect people's choice not to abort and to carry a child to term (in the case where the child is unwanted) what I don't get is how the anti-choice side exists. If you have an issue with abortion, then fine, don't ever do it. Stick to your guns, if you believe it's killing a child then fine, don't avail of it.

But due to how anti-choice people act, abortion services in Ireland are non-existant and are constantly under threat in countries where it is legal. You do not have to avail of it but the choice should be there and it's not an easy decision for anyone.

And that decision is not difficult because they believe it to be a human or a cute little baby in a nappy in the womb, it's difficult due to the mental stigma that is applied to abortion and the economic cost of it (ie. having to travel to another country to avail of the service) again because of the anti-choice side.

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

Finally the crux of the matter. It isnt a full grown person,nor is it a consciousness as of yet, but it probably will be, noone can deny that, they can just choose not to hold it important yet though. This is where pro choice and pro life will never meet eye to eye.

True. As a matter of interest, can anyone prove a 5 min old baby has a fully developed consciousness?
Just wondering, I'm not a 78%+ biology student.

Clair Robinson wrote: »

Okay so your concerned about potential to become human. And your not responding to a majority of the things I'm putting out there.

Sorry Clair, what didn't I respond to - apologies to what I missed, post it again and I'll address it.
As for "potential" I never mentioned it. It's not my concern.

But look if you have a problem with collections of human cells dying then the only way you would approve people having babies is not through natural conception but through strict IVF only. Because otherwise naturally attempting to conceive would have women killing multiple collections of fertilized cells that are naturally aborted by the women.

Nah, that doesn't bother me. These fertilised eggs are done so outside the womb, and left at that will not become anything.

Also the dead skin off your nose has the potential to become human,

Eh? That's news to me. Dead skin can grow into people?? Sound a bit farcical. You'll have to excuse my scepticism - can you provide proof?

Potential to become a human person is BS. ...potential to become a human person DOES NOT MAKE IT a human person.

Possibly. I object to killing a human person.

=.= I'm out, I now know how non believers can be full blow anti abortionists that consider single cells to be human persons. Inability to understand or a willful ignorance of the science of biology.

I've an honours degree in Physics, so perhaps I'm not too hot with biology, but it's ignorant of you to suggest a "willful ignorance" on my behalf. Especially since no one has proved that the unborn child is anything other than an unborn child. And you can't prove that, because it is - no matter how you dress it up, a human.

carlybabe1

Zulu wrote: »

I've an honours degree in Physics, so perhaps I'm not too hot with biology, but it's ignorant of you to suggest a "willful ignorance" on my behalf. Especially since no one has proved that the unborn child is anything other than an unborn child. And you can't prove that, because it is - no matter how you dress it up, a human IMO.

there, fixed that for ye. And we have posted links, and explained to the best of our ability why its not a child up to 16 wks. It wouldn't matter what evidence we gave you, you would just ignore it. you can pick holes in anything that you decide is wrong/immoral
Just curious, but dont you have to do at least a year of biology when doing any kind of a science course??? You cant just go straight into physics in any college that I know

Zulu

carlybabe1 wrote: »

Actually YOU got it locked

Sure I did. :rolleyes:

and you are not an adult,

:rolleyes:

i think its best to ignore you and converse with others on an equal intellectual level

:rolleyes: Clearly you are more intelligent than me. Perhaps you could use the superior intelligence to make a point as opposed to a petty insult.

stakey wrote: »

if you believe it's killing a child then fine, don't avail of it.

Do you not see the madness of that statement?
You acknowledge that they believe it's killing a child, but you expect them to sit back and do nothing!?!

If you could prevent a child from being killed - you'd just sit back and do nothing about it? - Of course you wouldn't.

economic cost of it (ie. having to travel to another country to avail of the service) again because of the anti-choice side.

Now THAT is bullshit: a ticket to england can be bought for less than the cost of a round of drinks.

Zulu

I taught I was on your ignore list?

carlybabe1 wrote: »

there, fixed that for ye.

No it didn't. Please don't misquote me. It's rude.

And we have posted links, and explained to the best of our ability why its not a child up to 16 wks.

Opinions, agreed but no proof.

It wouldn't matter what evidence we gave you, you would just ignore it. you can pick holes in anything that you decide is wrong/immoral

Not at all, I just want definitive proof before I'd permit the death penalty (for being conceived).

Just curious,

You're not really curious, you are attempting to discredit me. At least be honest.

but dont you have to do at least a year of biology when doing any kind of a science course???

No, I didn't do Arts.

You cant just go straight into physics in any college that I know

You can in all the major universities in Ireland, I'm surprised you don't know that
...what with going to Trinity and all.

stakey

Zulu wrote: »

Do you not see the madness of that statement?
You acknowledge that they believe it's killing a child, but you expect them to sit back and do nothing!?!

If they really are that concerned about children, perhaps they should take some time to help the 11% of children living in poverty in Ireland today. Or perhaps they should look at helping children who are dying from lack of water, food, basic healthcare and wars all around the world.

Zule wrote: »

Now THAT is bullshit: a ticket to england can be bought for less than the cost of a round of drinks.

Yes, because everyone in Ireland enjoys the fruits of the great Celtic Tiger :rolleyes: and can afford a plane ticket to England, time off work to recover (it is a surgical action that needs recovery time) and possibly somewhere to stay in England too if there appointment is delayed for any reason.

zenith

Zulu, Carlybabe1: the ad hominem attacks and the random wanderings MUST now cease, or the thread will be locked and the banstick aired.

In brief: attack the others' points, not them. If you're personalising it, you're doing it wrong. AND STAY ON TOPIC, FFS.

Zulu

stakey wrote: »

If they really are that concerned about children, perhaps they should take some time to help the 11% of children living in poverty in Ireland today. Or perhaps they should look at helping children who are dying from lack of water, food, basic healthcare and wars all around the world.

I'm sure they do worry, but thats not the point of this debate.

Yes, because everyone in Ireland enjoys the fruits of the great Celtic Tiger :rolleyes:

In fairness, it's England, not Australia, the train to Cork is more expensive.

zenith wrote: »

Zulu, Carlybabe1: the ad hominem attacks and the random wanderings MUST now cease,

I apologies for any "ad hominem" attacks.

Virgil°

Zulu wrote: »

True. As a matter of interest, can anyone prove a 5 min old baby has a fully developed consciousness?
Just wondering, I'm not a 78%+ biology student.

Well not even a 78% biology student can prove such a thing. But it does have at the very least a partially developed brain. Which means there's a good chance it has a consciousness. Unlike Mr fetus at 8-10 weeks where there's no chance of it having consciousness due to the lack of a brain.


Well we've already decided i'm not allowed use the word person here so ill stick to it as before. What is it that makes a human person more important than the animals you have no problems with being killed? Putting aside the fact that you eat them afterwards.
I know i've asked this before and along the lines of this debate you seem to lose the point of why i introduced animals at all.
So ill go through the logic here step by step and correct me if i assume your position wrongly.

1.You don't like killing humans but don't mind the killing of animals.

2.You don't mind the killing of animals and do mind the killing of a person because you see a human person as being more important.

3.As you've stated before maybe not in this thread but one of the others that got locked you see us as more important because of our vastly superior intelligence.

4.Humans are not capable of such intelligence without that one special organ(Granted we don't know EXACTLY what the brain does in all cases but we do know what the other organs do and by process of elimination that leaves the brain as the one and only candidate for this consciousness and intelligence).

5. Ergo you don't like killing human people because they have brains and consciousness?

6. So if they don't have this consciousness say in the case of a brain dead person or in the case of a fetus that hasn't a developed brain wheres the problem in them dying?
PLease do try to reply to that as a whole....I know its lenghty but we seem to lose track of things as they get separated in different posts.

tallaght01

I accept that there are 2 sides to this argument.

But what I find difficult to accept is:

A) People arguing about who knows most aboout biology, as if this is the sentinel point

People saying things like "I don't know how the anti-abortion side can exist" and "If you don't like it, don't avail of it" etc.

The biology is a moot point. You could get the 100 top embryologists in the world and put them in a room. They still wouldn't reach a consensus about abortion. "Science" doesn't "tell" us anything about abortion, or about when life begins. That's a personal opinion.

For those of us who are against abortion, life begins in the womb. We can argue all day about when exactly it starts, and whether or not the morning after pill technically counts as abortion.

The point is that most of us regard there to be "life" by the time most abortions happen. Some say condoms kill a potential life, some don't. Who cares. I think it's reasonable to value life more as development progresses. This is why most people will grieve for longer, and with more severity, if their 6 week old baby dies, comapared to if they have a 10 week miscarriage.

I think that's where I would stand on the issue. I think life begins roundabout fertilisation/impantation. But having said that, I'm not against the morning after pill. I can't really feign overt outrage at the death of a couple of cells.

How far can you extend that logic? Who knows. People don't get abortions at a week of gestation.

But that all takes away from the not unreasonable standpoint that abortion is wrong, and it does involve killing a child. I'm not sure how people don't see where the anti-abortion side are coming from.

You take a forming baby, and you basically kill it. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me in thinking that's wrong. But surely people can see how that view will be taken by a section of the population?

That shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.

People have talked about parasites and using ovaries as incubators etc. That's all very well. But there are lots of other "parasites" in society who we don't kill. There's a lot of kids out there, for example, with severe cerebral palsy who are completely dependent on their parents. I wouldn't kill them. I also don't accept their parents' right to kill them because they don't want the child in their home anymore.

I just don't see why the parasitic nature of the developing child is of great importance to this debate. Neither do I see how the "place of residence" is the central issue.

Other have mentioned the fact that the fetus isn't fully developed. Babies aren't fully developed. Their brains are crap when they're born. People have dwelled on the brain a lot. It's development begins at about 5 weeks, and isn't complete until childhood.

Should we be allowed kill babies who are born very prematurely, because they're "not developed"?

I don't begrudge anyone their views. But some people seem to believe that being anti-abortion is some kind of looney fringe opinion. I think it's a perfectly reasonable opinion.

It's also an opinion that makes abortion hard to ignore. There were posts above saying we should mind our own business. But that's asking alot, when we believe that babies are being killed. I don't picket abortion offices or anything, and I never express my views professionally. But you can't realistically just ask us to mind our own business, when the issue of defenceless babies is at hand.

The other thing is to try and keep it civil. It's very easy to just close threads like this, withouth any proactive moderating. It's very tempting with a topic like this. Don't give people the opportunity to do that.

Keep the love levels up

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

Well not even a 78% biology student can prove such a thing. But it does have at the very least a partially developed brain. Which means there's a good chance it has a consciousness. Unlike Mr fetus at 8-10 weeks where there's no chance of it having consciousness due to the lack of a brain.

But are we sure that no foetus' haven't developed this at 8 week?
Is we can provide proof to this fact, I might find myself able to reconcile abortion up to a cut off point at 7 weeks. But I stress might here.

1.You don't like killing humans but don't mind the killing of animals.

Well, I'd like to think there is a point to killing the animal - like a food source for example. I wouldn't hunt, for example. However, it's correct enough for the purpose of this debate.

2.You don't mind the killing of animals and do mind the killing of a person because you see a human person as being more important.

Kinda, I just don't see a reason good enough to allow killing another person. I'm against the death penalty for example. I dunno if "important" is that accurate. Again though, accurate enough.

3.As you've stated before maybe not in this thread but one of the others that got locked you see us as more important because of our vastly superior intelligence.

Nah, that wasn't me. Perhaps that might be a cause of confusion. Intelligence isn't a measuring point for me, christ I know an amount or morons! :pac:

4.Humans are not capable of such intelligence without that one special organ(Granted we don't know EXACTLY what the brain does in all cases but we do know what the other organs do and by process of elimination that leaves the brain as the one and only candidate for this consciousness and intelligence).

I taught it was a combination of the brain, brain stem, and spinal cord? I remember seeing an interesting documentary on people without brains (they had a brain stem and spinal cord). Granted it didn't focus on their membership rates at Mensa, but...

5. Ergo you don't like killing human people because they have brains and consciousness?

Ok, the last two point are causing the brake down so. Brains and consciousness aren't something I was debating. However you are probably right on the consciousness level. Perhaps.

6. So if they don't have this consciousness say in the case of a brain dead person or in the case of a fetus that hasn't a developed brain wheres the problem in them dying?

No problem with them dieing really - we all do after all, just get uncomfortable with the killing. Particularly when we can adopt. Seems like someone dies because someone else isn't taking responsibility for their actions, or it isn't convenient.

PLease do try to reply to that as a whole....I know its lenghty but we seem to lose track of things as they get separated in different posts.

No worries buddy. Hope that sums it up. It's kinda rushed though as it's drinking time on a Friday!!! :pac:

Ultravid

Please can we all have manners? It is very unfair for those who wish to have a civil discussion and a few ruin it.

If you are annoyed, go for a walk, then come back and post.

Zulu

tallaght01 wrote: »

I accept that there are 2 sides to this argument...
Keep the love levels up

Great post Tallaght01 - thank you very much, I'm glad I read it before leaving.

+1

Great post.

Zulu

Ultravid wrote: »

Please can we all have manners? It is very unfair for those who wish to have a civil discussion and a few ruin it.

If you are annoyed, go for a walk, then come back and post.

I've apologised Ultravid; I think it's been resolved.

Ultravid

Anyway for me personally doesn't really matter for the people on the pro abortion side. I notice trends as societies become more civilized and advanced we tend to do things like legalize gay marriage, allow stem cell research, assisted euthanasia and allow abortion. All made with good consequentialist reasoning....

Yes isn't it great. We are going right back to how society was just before the establishment of the Christian religion. You had all the abortions, the sexual depravity... and all manner of perversions. I guess you think it is great that we are going back to the old times? Interestingly, all those 'positives' you've just listed, ultimately lead to the destruction and demise of the human race, but I do not want to open another can of worms, since each of those topics is a thread in itself and this one is complicated enough as it is, I just wanted to make that one point.

More civilised? I don't think so. More depraved? Yes.

stakey wrote: »

Don't be rediculous, we're discussing aborting at the earliest stages when the 'child' has no cognitive faculties or anything else that defines it as human (which you argue against).

No, but according to you the woman must bare the child of her rapist. How do you think this fits in with a womans mental health? How do you think the bonding between a mother and her rapists child is going to be?

But despite this you obviously have no issue forcing a 12 year old CHILD to give birth to another child.

You're not pro-choice, you're anti-choice. The 'child' is incapable of deciding it's own faith due to it not having any awareness of its own existance or any cognitive faculties what so ever.

You would prefer to give YOUR choice for an unborn 'child' with no cognitive faculties over the mother which you seem to prefer to use as an incubator for any form of life.

What defines the human life as human is the fact that it is a human life.

The child has no choice because it's just been aborted. Where is the choice in that?

Pro-abortion people make a lot of assumptions about rape victims, without studying the issue, and without talking to women who have been raped, had abortions, kept the child, or the kids conceived in rape and living today. Their testimonies are very interesting: one example:

Consider the following email, received by Abort73 on January 19, 2007:

I just wanted to say that I am so pleased to read your stance on abortion in the case of rape. My mother was a 14-year-old girl who was raped, and she tried to have an abortion. The only reason I am alive today is because the doctor miscalculated her due date and thought she was too far in the pregnancy to have the abortion, when in reality he was a month off (this actually happened twice). It pains me every time I hear even die hard pro-lifers say "except in the case of rape". I know it is traumatizing for a girl or woman that is raped to have to carry a child, but it is no more traumatizing than someone who gets shot during a violent attack and has to deal with those wounds. Counseling and therapy can help heal the trauma, but the trauma will be there whether she has the abortion or not, and the abortion could even make it worse. It has caused me so much anxiety over the years to think that many pro-lifers would have approved of my mother's abortion. By the way, she gave me up for adoption, and my adoptive parents were never able to have children. Thank you so much for this wonderful view against abortion even in the case of rape.



http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-D-5-rape.html

Again we seem to forget responsibility: have sexual intercourse, expect to become pregnant = new human life. Unless this is really about selfishness. I WANT MY SEX AND I WANT IT NOW AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE AND I'LL KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE IF IT DARES TO COME IN WHERE IT'S NOT WELCOME! At the heart of this desire for abortion is supreme selfishness, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that point.

(I used large, bold print as this point is perhaps my most important yet. Don't be offended by the large type, it's just this thread is getting so big, points get lost.)

stakey wrote: »

You're not defending any choice. You're deciding the child has a right to exist based on its possibly growing to full term whilst ignoring the well being or choice of the host/mother. You're also then deciding that her mental health will be fine if she carries an unwanted child to term.

If you have an issue with abortion, then fine, don't ever do it. Stick to your guns, if you believe it's killing a child then fine, don't avail of it.

...but the choice should be there and it's not an easy decision for anyone.

Try your logic re: abortion with rape:

If you don't like rape, don't rape anyone!

The mother decided to engage in reproductive activity! (Please don't mention rape, we have been over that a few pages back.) The fact that she is now pregnant is a natural outcome of that activity.

If it's just a bunch of cells, a parasite, pondscum, or cancer, why is the decision not easy?

stakey wrote: »

If they really are that concerned about children, ...perhaps they should look at helping children who are dying from lack of water, food, basic healthcare and wars all around the world.

How do you know I, or any other pro-lifer, doesn't give money to charities feeding hungry children?

Virgil° wrote: »

3.As you've stated before maybe not in this thread but one of the others that got locked you see us as more important because of our vastly superior intelligence.

4.Humans are not capable of such intelligence without that one special organ(Granted we don't know EXACTLY what the brain does in all cases but we do know what the other organs do and by process of elimination that leaves the brain as the one and only candidate for this consciousness and intelligence).

5. Ergo you don't like killing human people because they have brains and consciousness?

I am against abortion, not because we humans are more intelligent, nor because we are conscious nor because we have a brain. I am against abortion because it is the killing of an innocent, defenceless, human life.

Consciousness is not why I'm against abortion. I hold human life as inherently valuable, something which the pro-abortion folks (sorry I know you don't like that term but I can't use the term pro-choice) seem to lack. I guess the difference is whether or not we value human life.

bluewolf wrote: »

Must love argument from potential.
Well, since we want to give a fetus full human rights because it "may turn into a human some time", I guess I should get full rights of president of ireland since I have the potential to become it. Nevermind that I am not now, I have the potential to be.
And if potential is the same as what is... then... :rolleyes:

The fetus is a human life. Not a potential human life.

Zulu wrote: »

I've apologised Ultravid; I think it's been resolved.

Yes I see that now!

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

I am against abortion, not because we humans are more intelligent, nor because we are conscious nor because we have a brain. I am against abortion because it is the killing of an innocent, defenceless, human life.

Consciousness is not why I'm against abortion. I hold human life as inherently valuable, something which the pro-abortion folks (sorry I know you don't like that term but I can't use the term pro-choice) seem to lack. I guess the difference is whether or not we value human life.

The fetus is a human life. Not a potential human life.

Yes it is human life, i've not said otherwise, and please stop using emotive words like innocent.It does nothing to strengthen your cause.
Consciousness is why i am in favour of abortion to a certain stage, but its hard to determine when it forms in the fetus so a safe measurement is required.

You say you hold human life inherently valuable, but not what about human life that is valuable. Otherwise what you're saying is " human life is valuable because it is and thats that" which doesn't bode strongly for any good argument.
The fact that they're innocent and defenceless hasn't stopped you from killing animals to eat them has it? So thats not a reason either.

I know you're probably not there Zulu but ill reply to you anyway for when you're not drunk :P.

zulu wrote:

Well, I'd like to think there is a point to killing the animal - like a food source for example.

Thats fair enough, but i dare say you wouldn't be nearly as bothered about 100 animals dying for no reason as you would for 1 fetus being aborted for a reason. However ill rationalised you think that reason for aborting is.

zulu wrote:

Nah, that wasn't me. Perhaps that might be a cause of confusion. Intelligence isn't a measuring point for me, christ I know an amount or morons!

I know now it was Jakkass. Curses anyway >.<.
But still the amount of intelligence they have isn't very important, merely that they are human people with intelligence(whatever amount) granted to them by their consciousness and brains.That is what makes people important to me. Or unkillable, or whatever word you think best fits why i'm not allowed kill them.

zulu wrote:

I taught it was a combination of the brain, brain stem, and spinal cord?

Either way they develop at the same time, or later i think in the case of spinal cords.

zulu wrote:

No problem with them dieing really - we all do after all, just get uncomfortable with the killing. Particularly when we can adopt. Seems like someone dies because someone else isn't taking responsibility for their actions, or it isn't convenient.

Well i don't deny that there would be people aborting because of inconvenience and abusing this potential system. But that shouldn't mean we deny it to others who genuinely aren't capable of financially or emotionally supporting this child and are within lets say your guidelined time period of 7 weeks.

zulu wrote:

No worries buddy. Hope that sums it up. It's kinda rushed though as it's drinking time on a Friday!!!

Cheers for taking the time, enjoy yourself.

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

Well i don't deny that there would be people aborting because of inconvenience and abusing this potential system. But that shouldn't mean we deny it to others who genuinely aren't capable of financially or emotionally supporting this child and are within lets say your guidelined time period of 7 weeks.

Look at the USA as an example:

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI/Planned Parenthood).

These are pretty weak reasons to attempt to use to justify killing your child.

If a woman is emotionally or financially incapable of supporting a child, why is she engaging in sexual intercourse?

If you don't want to get wet, don't go out in the rain!

And because of the irresponsibility and wreaklessness of this woman, the unborn child must be killed? I think not. If she can't or won't support the kid, then there will be people and agencies who will.

eveie

ultravid i agree 100% with everything you have said about abortion, i have started threads on this dicussion before, but they were all locked.
i have also used the same sources as you in many of my threads.
i dont have time to read every post, but i see the rape argument being brought up time and time again.
rape accounts for less then one precent....infact .2% of all abortions, thats not to say that it is not an important argument, but you need to ask yourself............are justify abortion on the basis that only .2% of all abortions are due to rape
many women who have become pregnant through rape have kept thier child and through keeping their child found that they in someway bet the rapist. abortion weather it be through rape or just lack of contraception(common sense) IS the killing of an INNOCENT HUMAN life.
financial problems is a pathetic excuse for abortion, since when was a childs worth based on the financial security of a family. should all children in 3rd world countries be aborted??? just becuase of the circumstances thte child is born into does not mean its life is in any way less worthy then a child born into great wealth. every human has the right to experience life, if that means they experience poverty so be it, just because a child is born into wealth or seurity does not garentee it a smooth life without injustice.
we are so materlistic today, we want everything our own way but do not want the responsibility that comes hand in hand with it, if you engage in sex you may become pregnant.....be responsible
also women are their own worse enimies, we judge young girls who become pregnant, call them tramps and so on yet the majority of us are engaging in sex,i believe that tihis has some part to play in women choosing abortions ads they feel they will be judged.
abortion is NOT A RIGHT AND THERFORE SHOULD NEVER BE A CHOICE, your choice was when you had sex, after that you must take responsibility for your actions

Virgil°

eveie wrote: »

.......

"Oh no innocent human life!!!" You eat innocent life every day. What makes human innocent life so special?
God...it would be soooo much easier to debate this had you not come in here blasting away full force with points that have been covered and replied to 5 times over in this thread alone.
You do the rational side of pro-life no favours. Please read the thread before posting.

ultravid wrote:

These are pretty weak reasons to attempt to use to justify killing your child.

If a woman is emotionally or financially incapable of supporting a child, why is she engaging in sexual intercourse?

If you don't want to get wet, don't go out in the rain!

And because of the irresponsibility and wreaklessness of this woman, the unborn child must be killed? I think not. If she can't or won't support the kid, then there will be people and agencies who will.

I don't really agree with a woman aborting her "fetus" if shes fully capable of raising it by the way. But as long as it doesn't have a brain/consciousness i don't see the harm to be truthful.

Would you endorse the raising of a child by a mother and father of 17 who aren't emotionally mature enough or financially stable enough to give it any sort of a decent chance at a happy life?
Just because they didn't abstain?

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

"Oh no innocent human life!!!" You eat innocent life every day. What makes human innocent life so special?
God...it would be soooo much easier to debate this had you not come in here blasting away full force with points that have been covered and replied to 5 times over in this thread alone.
You do the rational side of pro-life no favours. Please read the thread before posting.

I don't really agree with a woman aborting her "fetus" if shes fully capable of raising it by the way. But as long as it doesn't have a brain/consciousness i don't see the harm to be truthful.

Would you endorse the raising of a child by a mother and father of 17 who aren't emotionally mature enough or financially stable enough to give it any sort of a decent chance at a happy life?
Just because they didn't abstain?

The life has been created, regardless of the circumstances or who his/her parents are, what age they are, their maturity etc... The child should not be killed. The child could be adopted or fostered. As an aside, were they emotionally mature enough to be engaging in sexual intercourse?


This is a general point for anyone to address:


If human life is equal to animal life, why are you not appalled at the slaughter of unborn babies when you are disgusted by the slaughter of animals, all things being equal?

I'm still waiting for my challenge point (post #272) to be picked up, but since it's Friday night, I'll understand that it will be left 'til Saturday lunchtime at the earliest.;)

Ultravid

bluewolf wrote: »

Could you please quote where anyone said human life was equal to animal life
thanks

I'm sorry I can't do that, that is why I said it was a general point I left for anyone to pick up on. But I did get the impression that some on this thread felt that human life was nothing special, so I therefore assumed that it must at least be on a par with the life of animals.

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

This is a general point for anyone to address:


If human life is equal to animal life, why are you not appalled at the slaughter of unborn babies when you are disgusted by the slaughter of animals, all things being equal?

I'm still waiting for my challenge point (post #272) to be picked up, but since it's Friday night, I'll understand that it will be left 'til Saturday lunchtime at the earliest.;)

Ill answer that 272 for you quite easily. I haven't impregnated anyone and im pro choice. So my reasoning for pro choice isn't because i want an effective contraception method.So not everyone who is prochoice falls into your bracket of responsibility.

ultravid wrote:

The life has been created, regardless of the circumstances or who his/her parents are, what age they are, their maturity etc... The child should not be killed. The child could be adopted or fostered. As an aside, were they emotionally mature enough to be engaging in sexual intercourse?

Who knows if they were or not, they were in the eyes of the law anyway. Yet you still think its a good idea for them to raise a child somehow. Besides its not like having sex takes a great deal of maturity. But raising a child does. So your point of "if you're responsible enough to have sex then you're responsible enough to raise a child" doesn't make sense.

ultravid wrote:

B]If human life is equal to animal life, why are you not appalled at the slaughter of unborn babies when you are disgusted by the slaughter of animals, all things being equal?[/B]

Human life isn't equal to animal life, that was NEVER my point.But you'd know that had you read ANY of my ****ing previous posts. Ive been through this so many goddamn times.But ill do it again cos im just that nice
.Animals and humans arent equal for one reason only. Were smarter than them because of our consciousness and intelligence. Qualities granted to us by our brains. Which a fetus at conception doesn't have. And wont do until 8-10 weeks.Ergo i don't care about it until such stage.

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

Human life isn't equal to animal life, that was NEVER my point.But you'd know that had you read ANY of my ...posts. Animals and humans arent equal for one reason only. Were smarter than them because of our consciousness and intelligence. Qualities granted to us by our brains. Which a fetus at conception doesn't have. And wont do until 8-10 weeks.Ergo i don't care about it until such stage.

You don't, but I do. Additionally, a severely mentally handicapped person may not actually be as smart as a monkey, does that lessen their right to life in your opinion?

Anyway, I've been saving these points 'til now:

Do you value the dignity of life when it does, in your view, become human?

If the embryo is life but not human, at what point does it become human?

If we don't know exactly when human life actually begins, shouldn't we err on the side of caution at least until science can refute the assertion that life does, in fact, begin at conception?

If we keep aborting, we are destroying the very resource that could solve those problems in the world which one might mention, global warming, food and fuel supplies etc… How much human ingenuity has been aborted? If we treated the environment that way, you would be outraged, and rightly so!

I say use the "don't know, don't shoot" argument.
Peter Kreeft's Quadrilemma(sp):

1) Abortion is murder and you know it is murder and do it
2) Abortion is murder and you don't know and you do it
3) Abortion is not murder and you know and you do it
4) Abortion is not murder and you don't know and you do it

The only one justifiable is the third, because the first would be murder, the second would be manslaughter, and the fourth would be criminal negligence. Like a rustling in the bushes. It could be a deer or it could be your fellow hunter.

Can you provide irrefutable proof that abortion is not murder? The key here is knowledge, not belief...

tallaght01

Well, the fetal brain usually starts to develop at 5 weeks.

I also think this talk of animals is (no pun intended) a red herring. We are more attached to humans because we ARE human, not because of the exclusivity of consciousness.

I don't know to what degree, say, a penguin has a consciousness. But they are not unconscious. I can be pretty certain of that :P Simliarly penguins are probably not aware of our consciousness levels, as we can't communicate. So, I think these comparisons become meaningless.

I know of many many children who, to be honest, are not much more developed mentally than some animals. I mean, severely severely disabled kids. But we don't go around terminating them. If we were basing these decisions on higher consciousness, these kids wouldn't have a hope.

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

You don't, but I do. Additionally, a severely mentally handicapped person may not actually be as smart as a monkey, does that lessen their right to life in your opinion?

I dont but you do. The difference is that i've actually EXPLAINED why i don't.
Your logic doesn't seem to extend past "Human life is special because it is".
Unless you're able to elaborate you don't have a leg to stand on.

And you cant quantify intelligence like that but no it doesn't lessen their right. Because they are a Human consciousness,memories, feeling etc.Theyve got what it takes to make them important in my eyes. And Huzzah for monkeys by the way, more rights to them IMO.

ultravid wrote:

Do you value the dignity of life when it does, in your view, become human?

If the embryo is life but not human, at what point does it become human?

If we don't know exactly when human life actually begins, shouldn't we err on the side of caution at least until science can refute the assertion that life does, in fact, begin at conception?

O FOR **** SAKE. I'm just not going to continue conversing with you if you cant keep track of what i've said.
Quote me where i said an embryo isn't human. I dare you!

ultravid wrote:

If we keep aborting, we are destroying the very resource that could solve those problems in the world which one might mention, global warming, food and fuel supplies etc… How much human ingenuity has been aborted? If we treated the environment that way, you would be outraged, and rightly so!

Equally by forcing unready couples to constantly give birth we could end up creating another Hitler.Or someone who could create a bomb that would destroy the planet.At the very least we are creating another mouth for the world to feed and clean up the environment after.
You cant use such WILD speculation for your points. Theres no shortage of people on the planet and no shortage of babies being given birth to by ready parents either.

ultravid wrote:

1) Abortion is murder and you know it is murder and do it
2) Abortion is murder and you don't know and you do it
3) Abortion is not murder and you know and you do it
4) Abortion is not murder and you don't know and you do it

Good for you. How about.....ummm abortion isnt murder at all because i don't acknowledge i've murdered anyone?

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't know to what degree, say, a penguin has a consciousness. But they are not unconscious. I can be pretty certain of that :P Simliarly penguins are probably not aware of our consciousness levels, as we can't communicate. So, I think these comparisons become meaningless.

I know of many many children who, to be honest, are not much more developed mentally than some animals. I mean, severely severely disabled kids. But we don't go around terminating them. If we were basing these decisions on higher consciousness, these kids wouldn't have a hope.

Yes but its human consciousness that i choose to value because its far superior to that of any other animal on the planet,and by that similar to mine. And i wouldn't terminate a severly mentally handicapped person......because they have connections, memories, human feelings etc.....
All things that only the human brain can grant and why we're superior to other animals.I suppose it is a good point though if their consciousness is comparable to a penguin though. I dunno how id stand in that case.

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

I dont but you do. The difference is that i've actually EXPLAINED why i don't.
Your logic doesn't seem to extend past "Human life is special because it is".
Unless you're able to elaborate you don't have a leg to stand on.

And you cant quantify intelligence like that but no it doesn't lessen their right. Because they are a Human consciousness,memories, feeling etc.Theyve got what it takes to make them important in my eyes. And Huzzah for monkeys by the way, more rights to them IMO.


O FOR **** SAKE. I'm just not going to continue conversing with you if you cant keep track of what i've said.
Quote me where i said an embryo isn't human. I dare you!


Equally by forcing unready couples to constantly give birth we could end up creating another Hitler.Or someone who could create a bomb that would destroy the planet.At the very least we are creating another mouth for the world to feed and clean up the environment after.
You cant use such WILD speculation for your points. Theres no shortage of people on the planet and no shortage of babies being given birth to by ready parents either.


Good for you. How about.....ummm abortion isnt murder at all because i don't acknowledge i've murdered anyone?

The points made in my last post weren't personal to you. I was just presenting them for consideration by the others.

I may not have explained myself as you suggested just now, but nor have you addressed Kreeft's arguments as above.

tallaght01

I take your point.

I don't agree with it. I don't think our valuation of other humans comes from their conscious levels. I don't love my family for that reason. I would still love any of them of they were severely brain damaged tot he extent that they had no memories, orhadn't the pathways to develop feelings other than those basic emotions that animals can show.
I'm pretty sure, deep down, we value human life because we ARE humans. I can see no evidence that we love those humans who are more highly developed than those who are less so.

I'd still like to know, out of curiousity, how you measure consciousness....both in terms of us and animals. How do we know that they just don't value things differently?

I just think it's fair that the pro-abortion side lay out the tiny details of their theories, if they're going to ask the anti-abortion side to argue the minutiae of when life starts etc.

Zombrex

Wonderful, another abortion thread :pac:

The central point about abortion, in my mind at least, comes down to why we considered a human existence to be valuable, and the question of whether or not, or when, a foetus has these properties.

As an atheist I have no time what so ever for an religious arguments that human life is valuable because God says so, or that it is valuable from the point of conception because that is when the soul enters the body (which isn't even in the Bible but something Christians largely came up with themselves).

To me the valuable property of human life is the human consciousness contained in the biological brain (at least as far as we understand that is where it is contained).

A foetus that has not reached the stage of developing a brain capable of generating this level of higher sentience, is not valuable in any tangible sense (the idea of the coming child may be emotionally valuable to an expecting parent, but then so too can a womb with no foetus at all). That includes the zygote and embryo. It is just a bunch of cells. Killing it is of little ethical consequence.

When a foetus has developed a brain that has started to show the functioning of the higher brain functions, things become trickier and I would take the position that it is better to air on the side of caution and restrict abortions to before this point.