Abortion is murder

Closing Doors

base2 wrote:

Whats the point?

I believe that a foeteus isn't a live person whilst others think it is. Who's to say who is right or wrong.

So you'd be willing to kill because there's a chance you might be right?

Tar.Aldarion

Macmorris wrote:

But wrong relative to what? To her having the baby and dying?

No,wrong to kill the baby.

Macmorris wrote:

Accepted? Are you saying that people have a problem with women who have an abortion when it saves their lives? Are you saying that if they had their way they'd prevent abortion even in those cases where the welfare of the mother is at stake? That they just 'accept' it because of some loophole in the law? I think there are very few people on the pro-life side who would take that view. In fact, I'd say you'd have a hard time finding someone who would rather see a woman die than have an abortion.

You keep saying 'are you saying' and then saying something that i did not say or mean at all .For instance going on about some loophole in the law,i mean wtf huh?.

Ok in answer to all of your questions in your post,no that is not what I am saying.People 'accept' it because of their conscience.It is wrong to kill but in this case it accepted becaue the mother would die.

Macmorris wrote:

You would let her decide what to do but you would at the same time tell her that abortion is wrong? Wouldn't you feel compelled by your conscience to advise her to do what is best for her health?

Er yes I would,if she was going to die then yes ofc i would say that.That does not mean the abortion is not wrong,some wrongs are committed no matter what.
I'll answer your queries better or i should say,fuller, tomorrow if i have time...this is always so much harder on the net due to misenterpretation,night.

the_syco

I'm pro-choice. I don't think abortion is always right, but I think it should be legal.

If you get preggers after rape, its your choice. Some may not want to be reminded of the event, but some fall in love with the baby.

As DNA tests get clearer, if you 100% know that the baby has a deffect that will only let the baby live for 2 weeks max, or be in pain for the rest of thier life, I think abortion may be a good choice.

The Corinthian

Karl Hungus wrote:

So, by that logic, the morning after pill is also murder, right? Because the moment the sperm breaks into the egg, that is life. I'd actually like to know where you stand on this.

That would be a logical conclusion.

base2

So where does life start? Anybody come up with the right answer yet?

Corinthian, whats the deal? Give me the benefit of your logic and education.

Zombrex

base2 wrote:

So where does life start? Anybody come up with the right answer yet?

You are asking the wrong questions.

The microscopic bateria living in your eyelash, on your hands, in your stomach are "life" Killing them is not wrong is it?

So the questions you should be asking are

- Why is it different to kill a human being than another life form, such as bateria or a wasp?

- What is it about a human being that makes that differnent?

- At what stage does a feotus possess the qualities that define it as different in the same way as discussed above?

Then you will be getting somewhere...

Mortmain

I'm going to put my head above the parapet here and say that I think the argument about human characteristics of the Foetus is a bit of a red Herring in the whole debate. I think not enough attention is given to the situational aspect. For example, to take a famous example from a well known court case re Conjoined Twins in which one of the twins had all of the organs needed to live a proper life and the other had none other than a brains and lungs and was in a persistant vegetative state.

The latter twin was basically living a parasitical lifestyle and was killing the former twin, whose body couldn't continue to support both bodies. The question came down to "Do we let both die?" or "Do we save the life of the twin who will live?" The decision reached was the latter - and rightly so in my opinion.

What of the situation where an armed gunman is about to shoot your children unless you shoot him first - who would say that you should let your child die?

Now what of the situation where the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother and foetus?

My point is that if, in some situations it is acceptable to kill another human being then, as all humans share the same common characteristics which make us human, defending abortion purely on the gounds that the foetus is a human being quickly becomes an untenable position.

Now, accepting the fact that it is not socially desireable to allow a human to be killed upon an arbitrary whim, it must be a case that the justification is made along situational lines, and not just because something may or may not have human charateristics.

Macmorris

Mortmain wrote:

My point is that if, in some situations it is acceptable to kill another human being then, as all humans share the same common characteristics which make us human, defending abortion purely on the gounds that the foetus is a human being quickly becomes an untenable position.

That's a point I argued in a previous post. The fact that nearly everyone accepts that abortion is justified in some extreme cases means that there is an inconsistency in the position taken by the pro-lifers. It might be valid to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable abortions but the human value of the foetus does not change in either case.

The Corinthian

base2 wrote:

So where does life start? Anybody come up with the right answer yet?

Life is really a secondary issue. Humanity and the rights we ascribe to it are more pertinent. Logically, post fertilization, we essentially have a separate human entity. Were we able to replace the natural womb with an artificial one, then it would still develop to maturity, without any further intervention.

Whether this should assign it any more or equal rights to an adult is another matter.

Wicknight wrote:

- Why is it different to kill a human being than another life form, such as bateria or a wasp?

That’s probably a bit outside the scope of this discussion.

- What is it about a human being that makes that differnent?

Ibid.

- At what stage does a feotus possess the qualities that define it as different in the same way as discussed above?

Could you explain what you mean?

Mortmain wrote:

I'm going to put my head above the parapet here and say that I think the argument about human characteristics of the Foetus is a bit of a red Herring in the whole debate. I think not enough attention is given to the situational aspect. For example, to take a famous example from a well known court case re Conjoined Twins in which one of the twins had all of the organs needed to live a proper life and the other had none other than a brains and lungs and was in a persistant vegetative state.

The latter twin was basically living a parasitical lifestyle and was killing the former twin, whose body couldn't continue to support both bodies. The question came down to "Do we let both die?" or "Do we save the life of the twin who will live?" The decision reached was the latter - and rightly so in my opinion.

You’ve actually already answered your own question. The former twin’s “body couldn't continue to support both bodies”. As such, as regrettable as it may be, inaction would result in two deaths, not one. Lesser of two evils.

Still, you’re not suggesting that because of this case that abortion would therefore be justified in all other cases? Perhaps we should prohibit the sale or use of cars on the basis that some car crashes have been known to happen?

My point is that if, in some situations it is acceptable to kill another human being then, as all humans share the same common characteristics which make us human, defending abortion purely on the gounds that the foetus is a human being quickly becomes an untenable position.

I suppose if sex then is acceptable in some cases, you would consider it acceptable in all cases, including rape, by the same logic?

Now, accepting the fact that it is not socially desireable to allow a human to be killed upon an arbitrary whim, it must be a case that the justification is made along situational lines, and not just because something may or may not have human charateristics.

Why do we have to accept that it is unacceptable to allow a human to be killed upon an arbitrary whim (or shallow pretext)? I don’t know if you can slip an axiom half-way through an argument, TBH.

Macmorris wrote:

That's a point I argued in a previous post. The fact that nearly everyone accepts that abortion is justified in some extreme cases means that there is an inconsistency in the position taken by the pro-lifers. It might be valid to distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable abortions but the human value of the foetus does not change in either case.

All moral or immoral acts are dependant on more than simply the act itself. Otherwise attempted murder would not be immoral while sacrificing yourself to save the life of another would be, for example.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s probably a bit outside the scope of this discussion.

Possibly, but if people themselves don't really understand why killing someone is morally wrong then it is hard to see how they can tackle the question of abortion.

The Corinthian wrote:

Could you explain what you mean?

Well it depends on the answer to the first and second question, what makes a human being differnt than a wasp or a cow (two animals, "life forms", that are killed all the time by humans). And if one can define that, then the next question is at what point does the feotus have that characteristic(s) that define a human over a wasp or cow or bateria.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Possibly, but if people themselves don't really understand why killing someone is morally wrong then it is hard to see how they can tackle the question of abortion.

True, but I do think it is probably acceptable to accept that the killing of a human being (as opposed to an animal or human organ) is homicide, in this discussion. At least then we can consider whether we are discussing a human being and, if so, if the homicide is 'murder' or morally unjustified.

Otherwise we can end up in a situation whereby we end up discussing first principles such as "does an abortion actually take place or are you all figments of my imagination?"

Well it depends on the answer to the first and second question, what makes a human being differnt than a wasp or a cow (two animals, "life forms", that are killed all the time by humans). And if one can define that, then the next question is at what point does the feotus have that characteristic(s) that define a human over a wasp or cow or bateria.

Ah, right I see.

stevenmu

fififi wrote:

but won;t do an actual abortion due to the states failure to legislate for X.( which has desregarded the will of the population)
Fi

Abortion is prohibited by the constitution, meaning the state has no ability to legalise it. It can only be legalised through a referendum and there has been at least one, and iirc two, in recent times (both in the 90's I think). The 'will of the population' was that abortion remain illegal. Because it's such a contentious issue there will likely be a referendum again in the next few years, and probably a few years after that and so on.

Having considered long and hard, the issue of abortion being right or wrong, I can conclusively say I've no idea . As The Corinthian has eloquently pointed out the debate really comes down to the point at which a sperm and egg becomes considered a human life, assuming we all accept that taking a human life is wrong (in general, I'll get to exceptions). The only hard fact here is that we don't have any definitive information either way. Not enough is understood about the 'human condition' to define what a human is, and what a human isn't. Without these definitions I don't think we ever can say if a foetus is just a blob of cells that means nothing, or if it's as valid a human as the rest of us. Some people have religious definitions to fall back, we all know the views of the catholic church for e.g., also others who've rejected a faith often seem to take completely the opposite view of everything, but neither of these would cut it for me. If there was another referendum tomorrow, I don't think I'd feel qualified to vote on the issue, altough I'd prefer to see it kept illegal in a 'better safe than sorry' kind of way, I wouldn't feel strongly enough about it to actually vote.

There are of course exceptions to the standard cases, as Mortmain points out, if someone is threatening to kill us, it's legally and morally (imho) acceptable to kill them first in self defense. I think that, even though in the case of abortion the baby would be completely innocent of any malice, survival is easily one of the strongest instincts we have, possibly stronger than the baby protection instincts at that stage, and can't really be legislated against. If a doctor decided an abortion is neccessary to save the mother, and the mother agreed, I wouldn't really object. Altough this would raise another grey area, how much of a threat must the mothers life be under for a doctor to agree to an abortion, 99% chance of death, 50%, 1% etc ?

AndyWarhol

Wicknight wrote:

Possibly, but if people themselves don't really understand why killing someone is morally wrong then it is hard to see how they can tackle the question of abortion.



Well it depends on the answer to the first and second question, what makes a human being differnt than a wasp or a cow (two animals, "life forms", that are killed all the time by humans). And if one can define that, then the next question is at what point does the feotus have that characteristic(s) that define a human over a wasp or cow or bateria.

Killing somebody is morally wrong. Nearly all religous believers say this. The law also says so and were there no law, those unfaithful believers and nihilists would cause anarchy in a world where there were no morals on which we, as human beings, base our lives. The law is a middle ground of moral belief (I'm open to argument on this), and also says that killing another human life is wrong.

Have we gotten to the stage where we are questioning the inherent morals within man that says killing another human being is wrong? Are you proposing that we should allow killing of human life based on the logical deduction of an individulal/group of individuals? Who's to say that their logical conclusion will be the right one?

To address your point that a child in the womb is no different from a wasp, a cow or a bacteria. Firstly, a foetus is human life its very self. From the moment of conception, 46 chromosones and 30,000 genes combine to determine your physical characheristics: sex, body type, skin colour, colour of hair, colour of eyes. If this is not human life, then what is? A foetus is a descriptive term for a particular stage of human life just like being an adolescent, adult, baby, child is. Secondly, a bacteria is no more alive than a sperm/e-coli virus/hospital bug is. If we classified such microscopic beings as conscious, soulful beings, then we could not walk across the room/type on our keyboards, indeed breath, for fear of killing one.

Abortion is the greatest destroyer of life in the modern world. Legalising abortion under the auspices of the 'woman's right to choose' sounds nice, but the reality would be to unleash a killing machine that would ravage thousands of children each year across this island. Are 50% of children not also females? Have they not also got the 'right to choose' whether to die or not? (a much greater choice that whether it's inconvenient to give birth).

50 million lives are removed from their mothers' wombs and left to die in agony in a bucket. To justify this, is to dehumanise a section of humanity. We look back in horror at the once acceptable social evils such as apartheid and slavery which were justifyed under the false pretense that such persons were not fully human. How can we confuse choice with the killing of our own children?

I am pro-life, anti-choice, anti-abortion, whatever I may be branded. Even if this means strapping a woman to a bed and forcing her to have the child. I would not condone killing even in the case of rape, child rape, likely disability etc., etc. Whilst all the above scenarios are tragic circumstances, to address these circumstances by the wrongful killing of a baby does not undue the wrong-doing in the first place. Ultimately what one is left with is a tragic circumstance plus the mother of a dead baby and the associated psychological trauma. Who's to deny this baby the chance to grow and be nurtured who may one day become a brain surgeon, bus driver, engineer, artist?

Dades

stevenmu wrote:

Having considered long and hard, the issue of abortion being right or wrong, I can conclusively say I've no idea

That's pretty much the conclusion I've reached as well.

stevenmu wrote:

I don't think I'd feel qualified to vote on the issue, altough I'd prefer to see it kept illegal in a 'better safe than sorry' kind of way, I wouldn't feel strongly enough about it to actually vote.

Just playing Devils Advocate, but if one is unsure as to whether the practice is right or not, would it not make sense to err on the pro-choice option? Just because we can't reach a conclusion shouldn't mean other people can't make their own decision?

Or not.

AndyWarhol

The Atheist wrote:

Just playing Devils Advocate, but if one is unsure as to whether the practice is right or not, would it not make sense to err on the pro-choice option? Just because we can't reach a conclusion shouldn't mean other people can't make their own decision?

Or not.

Not.

Just playing Devil's Advocate, if one is unsure as to whether the practice is right or not, would it not make sense to err on the pro-life option? Just because we can't reach a conclusion shouldn't mean other people can decide whether or not to kill a human life.

The Corinthian

AndyWarhol wrote:

Killing somebody is morally wrong. Nearly all religous believers say this. The law also says so and were there no law, those unfaithful believers and nihilists would cause anarchy in a world where there were no morals on which we, as human beings, base our lives. The law is a middle ground of moral belief (I'm open to argument on this), and also says that killing another human life is wrong.

Actually pretty much every religion will either condone or even reward homicide or suicide under certain circumstances, even Christianity. And that's just religion today, go back a few short centuries and you'll find homicide or suicide was far more acceptable under certain circumstances - "an eye for an eye, anyone?

Have we gotten to the stage where we are questioning the inherent morals within man that says killing another human being is wrong? Are you proposing that we should allow killing of human life based on the logical deduction of an individulal/group of individuals? Who's to say that their logical conclusion will be the right one?

Actually we repeatedly return to this question throughout history. It is when we stop asking ourselves such questions that I would begin to worry.

The Atheist wrote:

Just playing Devils Advocate, but if one is unsure as to whether the practice is right or not, would it not make sense to err on the pro-choice option? Just because we can't reach a conclusion shouldn't mean other people can't make their own decision?

The question is one committing unjustifiable homicide or not. Thus if we are unsure of it we actually would err on the pro-life side. After all if you have to demolish a building and are unsure whether it has been fully evacuated yet or not, would you err on the side of blowing it up anyway?

stevenmu

The Atheist wrote:

Just playing Devils Advocate, but if one is unsure as to whether the practice is right or not, would it not make sense to err on the pro-choice option? Just because we can't reach a conclusion shouldn't mean other people can't make their own decision?

Or not.

In most situations I'd agree with that line of thinking, but in this particular case the consequences of the pro-choice side being wrong greatly outweigh the consequences of the pro-life side being wrong. Potentially if the pro-choice side is ultimately shown to be wrong, many innocent babies will have been murdered but if the pro-life side is wrong, the worst that will have happened is that women will have undergone unnessecary pregnancies, and I'd guess if (very hypotheticaly) it was shown somehow that abortion is murder, most of those women would be glad they hadn't had abortions.

Given these consequences, I'd definitely prefer abortion to remain illegal. Altough like I said, I don't think I'm sure enough to actually vote this way, but if there was to be a referendum I'd certainly put some time into re-evaluating my position.

Snowball

Personally I think that choice is they way to go. I am not sure if I agree personally or disagree but what I do know is that people should have a choice.

The one thing I would be worried about, something that is going on in other countries, is the rights of the father. As men we have no legal weigh-in. Personally I think that under certain circumstances men should have a say.

Tar.Aldarion

Snowball wrote:

Personally I think that choice is they way to go. I am not sure if I agree personally or disagree but what I do know is that people should have a choice.

The thing is what if that choice is proven to be wrong like until very recent in our past tribes,women,black people,jews etc were all thought not to be equal.A lot of people still hold these beliefs today but it doesn't make it right.Remember that just because something is prevalent in society today that doesn't mean that it won't be abhorrent 20 years down the road.

In most situations I'd agree with that line of thinking, but in this particular case the consequences of the pro-choice side being wrong greatly outweigh the consequences of the pro-life side being wrong. Potentially if the pro-choice side is ultimately shown to be wrong, many innocent babies will have been murdered but if the pro-life side is wrong, the worst that will have happened is that women will have undergone unnessecary pregnancies, and I'd guess if (very hypotheticaly) it was shown somehow that abortion is murder, most of those women would be glad they hadn't had abortions.

Given these consequences, I'd definitely prefer abortion to remain illegal. Altough like I said, I don't think I'm sure enough to actually vote this way, but if there was to be a referendum I'd certainly put some time into re-evaluating my position.

I think that is a good stance for people that aren't sure.Think of the consequences of both sides and what would happen if either was right.If you don't know, as this poster doesn't, and i daresay most people are shaky on what they believe i think it is better to err on the side of pro life.

Snowball wrote:

The one thing I would be worried about, something that is going on in other countries, is the rights of the father. As men we have no legal weigh-in. Personally I think that under certain circumstances men should have a say.

Back in the day in greece you needed express permission of the father and if an abortion is to be carried out in an equal relationship, I think that should be the case today.

Zombrex

AndyWarhol wrote:

Killing somebody is morally wrong.

Why exactly?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Are you proposing that we should allow killing of human life based on the logical deduction of an individulal/group of individuals?

I am not proposing anything, I am asking people to quantify and justify their views in a slightly more logical manner than "it is wrong" ...

AndyWarhol wrote:

To address your point that a child in the womb is no different from a wasp, a cow or a bacteria.

Please read my posts properly ... :rolleyes:

AndyWarhol wrote:

From the moment of conception, 46 chromosones and 30,000 genes combine to determine your physical characheristics: sex, body type, skin colour, colour of hair, colour of eyes. If this is not human life, then what is?

True but then every single cell in your body contains the same information, yet it is not abortion when your hair falls out in the shower is it?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Secondly, a bacteria is no more alive than a sperm/e-coli virus/hospital bug is.

Actually I think you will find they are all very much "alive", by any medical or biological defintion of the term

AndyWarhol wrote:

If we classified such microscopic beings as conscious, soulful beings, then we could not walk across the room/type on our keyboards, indeed breath, for fear of killing one.

Finally, now we are getting some where ...

So, ignoring the soul for a minute, consciousness is a defining characteristic of humans that seperate us from other animals. And it is morally wrong to kill a conscious life form, but not wrong to kill one that is not?

So the question now becomes, not if the feotus is "alive", but if the feotus is conscious, and at what point does it become conscious. It would be pretty hard to argue that a single cell is conscious, it has no nerve system, no spinal cord, no higher brain functions, no brain.

A soul is a completely different matter, getting into religious beliefs. I am an athesist so I don't believe in the classical Christian soul, so there isn't much point in me arguing over the issue of does a feotus have a soul yet. I would point out that Christians used to believe that the soul did not enter the child under further down the development than conception, and that early term abortions were perfectly moral.

Snowball

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

The thing is what if that choice is proven to be wrong like until very recent in our past tribes,women,black people,jews etc were all thought not to be equal.A lot of people still hold these beliefs today but it doesn't make it right.Remember that just because something is prevalent in society today that doesn't mean that it won't be abhorrent 20 years down the road.

You’re comparing people’s opinions on woman’s rights, slavery, the persecution of Jew’s years ago to people’s opinions on abortion today? I’m not sure that they have any relevance.
We are talking about aborting an unborn child. There are lots of reasons for going ahead with it but one possible situation could be…
Girl gets pregnant; she is just finishing college or just started a career. If she goes ahead with the pregnancy she will have to leave work at least for a time. This will affect her career in a negative fashion. This girl wants to have a child but not at the moment. If she keeps the baby it will affect her quality of life for ever, that of her child. If she stays at home to rear the children it could tarnish the relationship between her and her child, her husband and possibly her friends and she gets bitter as everyone moves on in their lives and she is stuck at home. If she goes straight back to work and tries to get back into action her children suffer as they do not have the love an attention that a “stay at home parent can provide”.
If this girl aborts her baby she can have a child when she is ready. Maybe even in a financial position to stay at home and rear her children herself. Giving them the love, attention and time they want and disserve.
By no circumstances am I saying that this situation above is a valid reason for having an abortion but what I am saying is that maybe there is the possibility for a better quality of life due to being able to plan your future and not having one “mistake affect and/or tarnish the rest of your life.

Personally I will not be able know what my true opinion on the subject until I am put into that position.
What I do know is that years ago I had a scare and a girlfriend of mine at the time thought she was pregnant. At the time I was willing to make the sacrifices needed to raise a child but I am 100% sure that I was in no way ready for that and I am defiantly happy that she did not turn out to be pregnant. So was she at the time.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

Back in the day in greece you needed express permission of the father and if an abortion is to be carried out in an equal relationship, I think that should be the case today.

That I would agree with. Maybe clauses so that either a father or mother could be excluded of making a decision if the circumstances required it.
I think that men's rights are being stopped out too much surrounding this subject.
For example on the Late Late Show last week Pat Kenny had a panel on abortion and there was not a single man up there. Now that in its self annoys me but what I find even worse is that it was probably not even considered and if there had of been one there would have probably been murder. "I mean, what right does a man have over the body of women?"

Snowball

Wicknight wrote:

Why exactly?

Killing of people is both right and wrong. It's done all over the world on a regular basis and we only think it's wrong if we do not agree with the reasons why it was done. Hiprocracy is great

Wicknight wrote:

True but then every single cell in your body contains the same information, yet it is not abortion when your hair falls out in the shower is it?

I think that is the best way I have seen that said. Makes a good pro-abortion argument there in its self.

AndyWarhol wrote:

From the moment of conception, 46 chromosones and 30,000 genes combine to determine your physical characheristics: sex, body type, skin colour, colour of hair, colour of eyes. If this is not human life, then what is?

AndyWarhol wrote:

Secondly, a bacteria is no more alive than a sperm/e-coli virus/hospital bug is.

Your kinda contradicting yourself there m8.

AndyWarhol

Snowball wrote:

Your kinda contradicting yourself there m8.

In what way? Perhaps you misinterpreted the context of my argument.

The Corinthian

Snowball wrote:

You’re comparing people’s opinions on woman’s rights, slavery, the persecution of Jew’s years ago to people’s opinions on abortion today? I’m not sure that they have any relevance.

The relevance revolves around the general need to dehumanize someone or something so as to justify its abuse. Regardless of one's position on abortion, it does not require too much intellect to realize that it's easier to sell the idea of slavery, subjugation or genocide when the subject is not a target for empathy and may be considered a lesser beast.

By no circumstances am I saying that this situation above is a valid reason for having an abortion but what I am saying is that maybe there is the possibility for a better quality of life due to being able to plan your future and not having one “mistake affect and/or tarnish the rest of your life.

If that is not a valid reason for having an abortion why have you presented it as such? Certainly there is no disputing that in the case on many if not most unplanned pregnancies, the social and financial responsibility that follows adversely affects the quality of life of the mother. But is that alone a valid reason for an abortion? Not really, as if it were murder for profit would be equally justifiable, if our quality of life is the only determinant?

Personally I will not be able know what my true opinion on the subject until I am put into that position.

I don't think that's altogether true. We are, for the most part, rational intelligent creatures. We can form opinions based upon deduction without having to directly experience something, whether we stand by these opinions when it comes to the crunch is another matter, and totally independent of whether it is right or wrong.

I think that men's rights are being stopped out too much surrounding this subject.

Assuming that abortion is justifiable in the first place than it is obvious that the man would have some if not equal rights in this regard. It's his genetic code too, after all. But probably outside the scope of this thread.

The Corinthian

Snowball wrote:

Your kinda contradicting yourself there m8.

He's not, although he's technically wrong about virii being alive.

Dades

AndyWarhol wrote:

Just playing Devil's Advocate, if one is unsure as to whether the practice is right or not, would it not make sense to err on the pro-life option? Just because we can't reach a conclusion shouldn't mean other people can decide whether or not to kill a human life.

Can't you see? You've already reached a conclusion that a human is killed during an abortion, meaning that this scenario would never be relevant to you.

The Corinthian wrote:

The question is one committing unjustifiable homicide or not. Thus if we are unsure of it we actually would err on the pro-life side. After all if you have to demolish a building and are unsure whether it has been fully evacuated yet or not, would you err on the side of blowing it up anyway?

I wouldn't be up to me. I'm suggesting we leave it to the owner of the building to decide.

The point is that an undecided voter choosing a pro-choice stance doesn't necessarily mean termination of every pregnancy. It just puts a decision they can't make in the hands of those for whom it's relevant.

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

The thing is what if that choice is proven to be wrong like until very recent in our past tribes,women,black people,jews etc were all thought not to be equal.A lot of people still hold these beliefs today but it doesn't make it right.Remember that just because something is prevalent in society today that doesn't mean that it won't be abhorrent 20 years down the road.

Two points here. What you are saying works both ways. Very many things that were considered unacceptable in the past are now acceptable. In Ireland alone take Divorce and the availablility of contraception as examples.

Secondly the abortion debate will never be "resolved" by science. There's no use in waiting for a definitive answer to the "when is life, life" question. There just are too many criteria and too many agendas.

Snowball

The Corinthian wrote:

The relevance revolves around the general need to dehumanize someone or something so as to justify its abuse. Regardless of one's position on abortion, it does not require too much intellect to realize that it's easier to sell the idea of slavery, subjugation or genocide when the subject is not a target for empathy and may be considered a lesser beast.

Well said. I think I get what he was trying to get to.

The Corinthian wrote:

If that is not a valid reason for having an abortion why have you presented it as such? Certainly there is no disputing that in the case on many if not most unplanned pregnancies, the social and financial responsibility that follows adversely affects the quality of life of the mother. But is that alone a valid reason for an abortion? Not really, as if it were murder for profit would be equally justifiable, if our quality of life is the only determinant?

Not what I was getting at. I was speaking of quality of life. And the ability to raise your children the way you want. I am speaking of giving parents the chance to make choices that will ensure their lives are not crippled by an unplanned pregnancy, where if given a chance they would be willing to have children later and be in a better place financially and mentally.
If someone has a child, and due to that fact stays at home and lives off welfare their quality of life and the Childs environment and options may not be as good as if they grew up in a financially more stable situation.
Not sure how much sense I am making but basically what I am trying to say is that, children are a huge responsibility and in the same way we worry about bringing children into a safe, stable and nurturing environment we should take into account to the fact that some people’s quality of life (and there by default the child’s also) would be better if they took on this responsibility later in life instead of too early. Also the fact that they may not actually be mature enough to raise a child.

The Corinthian wrote:

Assuming that abortion is justifiable in the first place than it is obvious that the man would have some if not equal rights in this regard. It's his genetic code too, after all. But probably outside the scope of this thread.

I don't think it's outside the scope of the thread. But If you look at America where abortion is legal men have no rights. For a man to get a woman of not abort the baby and have it so he can raise him/her without the mother (assuming that she does not want the baby since she is trying to abort) he has to get her declared incapable of making her own decissions. Other wise he has no oppinoin and cant do anything legally.

Snowball

AndyWarhol wrote:

In what way? Perhaps you misinterpreted the context of my argument.

Ok, I'll explain what I mean

AndyWarhol wrote:

From the moment of conception, 46 chromosones and 30,000 genes combine to determine your physical characheristics: sex, body type, skin colour, colour of hair, colour of eyes. If this is not human life, then what is?

Here you are getting at the fact that an overy and spear combine to make a person and that "If this is not human life, then what is?" and yet below you say

AndyWarhol wrote:

Secondly, a bacteria is no more alive than a sperm/e-coli virus/hospital bug is.

(i high-lighted the word sperm) but yet here you are saying that sperm is not life. How then if life is contained in my gene markers how is my sperm not life??
Now, don’t get me wrong. Sperm is alive, as are many other things, but I don't for a second do I think that just because it is alive it is sentient or has a soul.

The Corinthian

Snowball wrote:

Not what I was getting at. I was speaking of quality of life. And the ability to raise your children the way you want. I am speaking of giving parents the chance to make choices that will ensure their lives are not crippled by an unplanned pregnancy, where if given a chance they would be willing to have children later and be in a better place financially and mentally.
If someone has a child, and due to that fact stays at home and lives off welfare their quality of life and the Childs environment and options may not be as good as if they grew up in a financially more stable situation.
Not sure how much sense I am making but basically what I am trying to say is that, children are a huge responsibility and in the same way we worry about bringing children into a safe, stable and nurturing environment we should take into account to the fact that some people’s quality of life (and there by default the child’s also) would be better if they took on this responsibility later in life instead of too early. Also the fact that they may not actually be mature enough to raise a child.

Then by the same logic we probably should euthanize the homeless. And the handicapped. And anyone else unable to enjoy a certain quality of life.

I don't think it's outside the scope of the thread. But If you look at America where abortion is legal men have no rights. For a man to get a woman of not abort the baby and have it so he can raise him/her without the mother (assuming that she does not want the baby since she is trying to abort) he has to get her declared incapable of making her own decissions. Other wise he has no oppinoin and cant do anything legally.

That's still quite outside the scope of a thread that's considering whether abortion is murder or not.

Snowball

The Corinthian wrote:

Then by the same logic we probably should euthanize the homeless. And the handicapped. And anyone else unable to enjoy a certain quality of life.

That’s not what I was getting at and you know it.
I was saying that quality of life is taken into account when considering where and with whom a child should be living with. Yet it does not seem to be a consideration if children born into families that do not want and cannot afford them. Is that right?
Given a 17yr old mother who gets pregnant. The father leaves her because he does not think he is ready or she does not want him involved because she does not want him (or what ever). She is left alone, no job (or not enough to pay for childcare and everything else) so she goes on welfare.
Give that girl another 10 years, and let her find someone she wants to have a family with. Give her the chance to have a carer or maybe her husband. Or even work from home. What is her life going to be like?
What I am saying is that although aborting a unborn child may be right or wrong. How right is it to force a unhappy life on a small teenager because of your beliefs. So her life suffers because of what you believe in (no one specific targeted there btw)