Abortion is murder
Online Saying that an abortion is the equivalent of murdering an actual person is very, very irrational. By the way, to Christians, the Bible actually says life begins at birth.
http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/abortion.php
But seriously, a fetus is not a person, especially very early - as Sam Harris pointed out, a blastocyst actually has fewer cells than are present in the brain of a fly. Why are christians only concerned with life when it is either a fetus or brain dead? Maybe they only like people of similar intelligence to them.
The trouble with born again Christians is they're even more annoying the second time around.
Offline This is all irrelevant. I don't have a "right" to live inside someone else off their energy and consumption against their will. Not more than I have a right to be in someone else's house without their consent. They can legitemately shoot me in self defense and kill me...a mother can legitemately have an abortion and kill the fetus. Even if we assume the fetus is a "person", the fetus has no more right to life than an intruder in your home.
I don't like Capitalism, because I believe in free markets.
I don't like Socialism, because I believe in cooperation over conflict.
I don't like the State, because I believe in justice, peace, and security.
--Contrarian Credo
Offline
Of course there's no requirement for a miracle. All life grows and changes and is reasonably fit into different categories as it does so. The reason this debate is so sticky is because the criteria determining the cutoff point is almost completely arbitrary.My feeling is that as long as the fetus is completely dependant on the mother for life, it should be viewed as an extension of her body and subject to her ultimate control. At the point that the fetus could live outside of her body, it becomes a viable human life and is subject to the rights and protections that adhere to that status.
A newborn is completely dependent on adults. Should we be allowed to abandon children (a common ancient practice)? Should we kill our elders when they become a burden? Come to think of it, I am completely dependent on grocery stores and restaurants... should the grocer be allowed to kill me?
Offline ...a mother can legitemately have an abortion and kill the fetus. Even if we assume the fetus is a "person", the fetus has no more right to life than an intruder in your home.
An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...
Offline An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...
How is this relevant?
I don't like Capitalism, because I believe in free markets.
I don't like Socialism, because I believe in cooperation over conflict.
I don't like the State, because I believe in justice, peace, and security.
--Contrarian Credo
Offline Zhwazi wrote:...a mother can legitemately have an abortion and kill the fetus. Even if we assume the fetus is a "person", the fetus has no more right to life than an intruder in your home.An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...
Neither does a fly or a rodent...
"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought
Offline nedbrek wrote:An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...
How is this relevant?
Because we take the intentions of the person involved into account when declaring a sentence?
Offline Neither does a fly or a rodent...
Those aren't people. We're allowed to kill animals...
Offline qbg wrote:
Neither does a fly or a rodent...Those aren't people. We're allowed to kill animals...
Are you suggesting people are not animals? Rather rash.
But seriously, I think abortion should be the choice of the mother, considering while the fetus is still inside the mothers body, it should be considered as her own property. I am not saying you are wrong, I just find it ridiculous that the religious right is trying to demonize abortion. If they were to make it a law that abortion was murder, they would very probably ban it all together.
I do not support abortion as a form of birth control, I view it as a last resort, and if it should be done, there should be a patient limit. I do support abortion in the fact that eventually aborted fetus's will be able to be used legally for embryonic stem cell research.
Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't. ~George Bernard Shaw
Offline Zhwazi wrote:nedbrek wrote:An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...
How is this relevant?Because we take the intentions of the person involved into account when declaring a sentence?
I don't care what the intentions are when I take defensive action. You could be trying save my soul for all I care, if you're hurting me to do it, I'm going to shoot at you. Intentions are irrelevant. The same applies to a fetus, if a fetus is a person.
I don't like Capitalism, because I believe in free markets.
I don't like Socialism, because I believe in cooperation over conflict.
I don't like the State, because I believe in justice, peace, and security.
--Contrarian Credo
Offline nedbrek wrote:An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...
How is this relevant?
Simple.
If choice is irrelevant, I could force you to come into my home (or somehow lure you), deem you an intruder and kill you.
Offline Zhwazi wrote:nedbrek wrote:An intruder is a grown person who makes a choice. The unborn have no choice in the matter...
How is this relevant?Simple.
If choice is irrelevant, I could force you to come into my home (or somehow lure you), deem you an intruder and kill you.
Kidnapping and murder is very different from armed self-defense.
I don't like Capitalism, because I believe in free markets.
I don't like Socialism, because I believe in cooperation over conflict.
I don't like the State, because I believe in justice, peace, and security.
--Contrarian Credo
Offline Kidnapping and murder is very different from armed self-defense.
But I don't see how abortion is self-defence.
I still hold to my analogy. Allow me to elaborate.
Kidnapping and murder would look more or less like so:
- I invite you to a tea party, knowing full well that there is a possiblity you will accept, and I will have to share my tea with you (and maybe some bisquits too)
- I accept my invitation, come to my house, and we drink some tea
- I deem you an intruder and a parasite
- I kill you.
Abortion looks like so:
- (let's say I'm a woman) I decide to have sex with a guy, knowing full well I might become pragnent and as a consequence I will have to share my body's resources with the fetus
- it just so hapens that I become pragnent.
- I deem the fetus a parasite and an intruder and I kill it.
The analogy is false on a few levels. For instance, if I suddenly decide to throw you out from my house, I can do so without killing you, which is not the case with a fetus.
Another thing is you have a choice when it comes to accepting my invitation, a fetus does not, which makes the whole situation more analogous to forcing you into my house and then killing you.
For the record, I'm not against abortion, I just think some arguments for it are rather bad, and I try to fight them when I have the chance.
Offline If I wasn't hurting you in your home and you invited me, then killing me would be murder on account of my respecting your ownership of the property when you killed me. Intruders do not respect your ownership of property when you kill them.
A fetus does hurt the mother, causes adverse effects, I'd say aborting a fetus would be self-defense. A fetus' inability to obey an order to leave while hurting the mother does not affect it's status as detrimental to the mother. Not more than my inability to leave your house for whatever reason makes me less harmful and disrespective of others' property rights as I pocket small valuable items and destroy larger items when it is to my entertainment to do so.
If you throw me out of the house when I was completely dependant upon you, you'd be killing me. If you have an abortion while a fetus is completely dependant upon you, you'd be killing it. In a sense. In another sense, it died of it's own natural lack of things it requires. You just ejected it.
I don't like Capitalism, because I believe in free markets.
I don't like Socialism, because I believe in cooperation over conflict.
I don't like the State, because I believe in justice, peace, and security.
--Contrarian Credo
Offline A fetus does hurt the mother, causes adverse effects, I'd say aborting a fetus would be self-defense. A fetus' inability to obey an order to leave while hurting the mother does not affect it's status as detrimental to the mother.
The inability to leave is only a part of the problem I'm seeing here.
My point is that the only people responsible for the existance of the fetus are it's parents, hence my analogy.
I don't see how you can call a fetus an intruder and a parasite, any more then you can call a person you have kidnapped an intruder and a parasite.
Are you asserting there is a "miracle" at birth that converts "a bunch of cells" in to a person? Or you just saying an unborn human has no rights?
Thanks!
We have to choose some point for "personhood." Birth is probably better than any.
The trouble with born again Christians is they're even more annoying the second time around.
My son was born 6 weeks early. So, he "became a person" before most others. So, your right to life is not a given, not even based on some logical formula. It is #define'd by the government. What is to stop the government from defining your life "unwanted" and having you killed?
Thanks!
On my original point, are you saying that a creature of the human species starts at conception, but "personhood" (a human being having rights) starts at birth?
Thanks!
I'd say something close to that - ability to think, being capable of suffering, etc has to count for something.
The trouble with born again Christians is they're even more annoying the second time around.
Sure, but human beeings have this ability before they are born.
Legally, Personhood is defined as starting at birth. Technically speaking, it's more like four to six months after birth that an infant starts to show the first signs of developing Personhood.
Of course, wishful thinking makes us sometimes like to think that it is well before then.
Know Thine Enemy: Fetal Personhood as Metaphorical Thinking
Fetal Personhood: Is an Acorn an Oak Tree?
Useful links for the informed and the uninformed.
But does the fact that the child is incapable of showing it's personhood mean that it is not a person?
I'd be careful saying things like this, because that comes dangerously close to the old joke about the scientist concluding that after cutting off a frog's 4'th leg, it becomes deaf.
We can scan brains, etc.
I love the question "Is an acorn an oak tree?" by the way.
The trouble with born again Christians is they're even more annoying the second time around.
Yes, the Constitution does not grant a right to life (besides the unspoken ninth). In fact, the Constitution states cases where life can be taken. The question becomes, "What is due process?"
The other question is, "Do you want to have to work for your right to life?" How many hoops must we jump through? Should we kill retarded people? Old people? The very sick?
Yes, and children have working brains before they are born.
Also what good are brain scans if 'personhood' and things associated with it aren't even clearly defined?
But is the acorn not the same species as an oak tree? Upon receving an acorn, would you throw it away, saying "I wanted an oak tree!"?
If I asked you to cut me some oak to use as lumber, and you brought me smashed up acorns I would naturally object.
The trouble with born again Christians is they're even more annoying the second time around.
If all I had was acorns, you'd just have to be patient, I'd get you the lumber, eventually
[quote=nedbrek
Are you asserting there is a "miracle" at birth that converts "a bunch of cells" in to a person? Or you just saying an unborn human has no rights?
Thanks!
Of course there's no requirement for a miracle. All life grows and changes and is reasonably fit into different categories as it does so. The reason this debate is so sticky is because the criteria determining the cutoff point is almost completely arbitrary.
My feeling is that as long as the fetus is completely dependant on the mother for life, it should be viewed as an extension of her body and subject to her ultimate control. At the point that the fetus could live outside of her body, it becomes a viable human life and is subject to the rights and protections that adhere to that status.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown