Abortion is murder

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Abortion is murder

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.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
SilkyShrew wrote:Zhwazi

SilkyShrew wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:

Well if I let you borrow something, I'm giving you absolute control over it, but you're still responsible to me for it. If you let someone borrow it and tell them they don't have to bring it back in decent shape or at all, then you're giving it to them as property.

Ok, now I'm completely confused as to where you were going with that, are you implying that we're borrowing fetuses?


No. I was describing ownership. Not ownership of anything in particular.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:If the fetus is

Zhwazi wrote:
If the fetus is a person, the fetus has all the obligations that come with being a person, including respecting others' property rights. If it's not a person, then whether it is human or not is completely irrelevant.

Humans have rights independent of their beliefs or actions. We don't torture people just because they have a different notion of property rights (hmm, we do, but, we shouldn't).

Zhwazi wrote:

Ah...because somebody else actually "owns" it and they just lend it to us to take care of...what's his name? God?

The government does. For a test, try to kill yourself some place a police officer can see you.. Or don't pay your taxes (the product of your own work).


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Humans have

nedbrek wrote:
Humans have rights independent of their beliefs or actions. We don't torture people just because they have a different notion of property rights (hmm, we do, but, we shouldn't).

If someone tries to kill you, and you have a gun, will you respect their right to life? No. Because they don't have it anymore. Actions can waive rights.

Zhwazi wrote:
The government does.

Oh shit, it's open-up-another-can-of-worms time...

How did the government aquire ownership of me?

Quote:
For a test, try to kill yourself some place a police officer can see you.

Not interested.

Quote:
Or don't pay your taxes (the product of your own work).

Already doing that.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:If someone

Zhwazi wrote:
If someone tries to kill you, and you have a gun, will you respect their right to life? No. Because they don't have it anymore. Actions can waive rights.

I prefer to think of it as my right to life allows me to protect myself, in spite of their right. But perhaps that is semantics.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:I object to

nedbrek wrote:
I object to the assertion that one human being can own another in modern society.

nedbrek wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:

Ah...because somebody else actually "owns" it and they just lend it to us to take care of...what's his name? God?

The government does.


You contradicted yourself. The government is a group of people. Can people own other people or does the government (a group of people) own you? You can't have both.

I feel like smacking you for that idiocy.


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Scythian wrote:Indeed, my

Scythian wrote:
Indeed, my wording was a bit incorrect. I just don't think people should replace the common contraceptives with abortion. Also thanks for the comment, who is to say you should limit abortion?

I agree. I've never heard a single argument for abortion being the only method of birth control.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: You

Zhwazi wrote:

You contradicted yourself. The government is a group of people. Can people own other people or does the government (a group of people) own you? You can't have both.

The government is an entity in itself (like a corporation). You don't make out a check to "Billy, down at the IRS office" you make it to "US Treasury Dept".

Of course, I was half joking in my statement, I guess I needed a lot more smiley's Smiling


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I don't see anything

I don't see anything unethical with using abortion as birth control, though I would consider it kind of stupid - going through surgery and spending that much money (plus likely having to deal with asshole proteters.) When birth control is cheaper and easier.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Zhwazi

nedbrek wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:

You contradicted yourself. The government is a group of people. Can people own other people or does the government (a group of people) own you? You can't have both.

The government is an entity in itself (like a corporation). You don't make out a check to "Billy, down at the IRS office" you make it to "US Treasury Dept".

Of course, I was half joking in my statement, I guess I needed a lot more smiley's Smiling


Okay, so some ficticious imaginary thing which we can never see or touch or feel or prove, which manifests through the actions of it's pretended agents and in no other way, owns us and gives us laws and stuff...and you call yourself an atheist?

Ownership is absolute irresponsible control. Having control requires consiousness. Governments are imaginary, they're not consious. Therefore, they can't own anything, unless they're a group of consious people, in which case people can own other people.

Please show me how the government came to aquire ownership of me against my will without my consent and not by theft (theft would destroy the government's legitemacy, destroying the concept of government as such and forcing the portrayal of government as a mafia).


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote:This is all

Zhwazi wrote:
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.

All so true! People don't seem to understand that the person whose body is being hijacked will of course have more say over how their body is used, and have every right to jettison any intruder as they see fit.


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:A newborn is

nedbrek wrote:
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?

Many adults abandon their newborns/children. It is called "giving them up for adoption".

So long as the elders are sentient beings who aren't inhabiting the BODIES of others, of course not. That's just silly. We toss them off onto someone else.

Your last question is just completely asinine. Grocers are making money off you. However, if you try to rob them, YES, they should be allowed to kill you. A fetus is an intruder when it is unwanted. It is stealing resources from the woman it is infecting.


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:Zhwazi

nedbrek wrote:
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...

Plenty of children are intruders as well. Not every intruder is grown. An intruder is just something or someone intruding where it is not wanted. "Intruder" simply means "someone/something not wanted/invited".


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:qbg

nedbrek wrote:
qbg wrote:
Neither does a fly or a rodent...

Those aren't people. We're allowed to kill animals...

eh? Human-beings are animals too. Sometimes we're allowed to kill human-beings/people, as well.

Then there is the fact that an embryo or fetus isn't a 'people'.


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:Abortion

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
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.

Oh wow, a pregnancy is punishment for a woman daring to have sex.

I'm the same way with bad arguments against abortion. I try to fight them when I have the chance. You just regurgitated one of the oldest and lamest arguments against. WOW.


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:The

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
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.

A kidnapped victim doesn't steal my bodily resources.

Pregnancy has a whole host of issues associated with it, from various heart conditions, chronic hypertension in pregnancy, gestational hypertension, gestational diabetes, iron-deficiency anemia in pregnancy, low amniotic fluid (oligohydramnios), placenta previa, placental abruption, preeclampsia, preterm labor and birth, amniotic fluid disorders, cervical disorders, chromosome disorders, ectopic pregnancy, hydrocephalus, uterine disorders, aortic dissection, and the list goes on and on!

Fetuses aren't magical creatures that reward our bodies with happy benefits. They are very much like parasites, so it is indeed an apt description. A kidnapped victim is just a kidnapped victim, who is thinking, feelings, has wants and desires, and most especially can just be dumped outside somewhere.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
hikikomori_girl wrote: Oh

hikikomori_girl wrote:

Oh wow, a pregnancy is punishment for a woman daring to have sex.

I'm the same way with bad arguments against abortion. I try to fight them when I have the chance. You just regurgitated one of the oldest and lamest arguments against. WOW.

I don't see where Ivan said "pregnancy is punishment"... As a man, I don't know what it's like first hand. When my wife was pregnant, it was uncomfortable for her. It limited what she could do at the time, but I don't think she felt punished.

The problem I see with many of these arguments is that no one mentions responsibility. Our actions have consequences. We may not like the consequences, or want to know about them, but they exist. Covering up the consequences should not be our first thought. Killing innocents to cover up the consequences should not be acceptable.


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:But she

Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
But she did chose to have sex, obviously.

Consenting to sex isn't consenting to pregnancy, however. It is consenting to orgasm.

Quote:
So what?
Every action has it's cosequences. The fact that you are unable to completely prevent Y happening as a consequence of you doing X, doesn't make you any less responsible for Y happening.

Would you also argue that smokers shouldn't be allowed cancer treatment since they give themselves the cancer? After all, it is a consequence of smoking. Should they not also accept their punishment?

Quote:
Again, please note that I am not arguing against abortion, I'm arguing against poor arguments for abortion.
One that I don't like is completely relieving yourself of all moral responsibility, simply because it's convinient, like you just did above.

Um... Morality is completely subjective. Morality is not black and white. Sex isn't a sin. Abortion isn't murder, nor is it wrong.

Quote:
Another that I don't like even more is demonizing the fetus, calling it an intruder or a parasite, even tough you are responsible for it's existance in the first place.

Whether or not a woman is responsible for the existence of the semen infection is not the point. The point is that she has every right to take care of something inhabiting her body as she sees fit. She has bodily rights. You cannot argue overriding someones bodily integrity just because you view their previous actions as immoral, nor just because you view the actions they plan to take as immoral, ESPECIALLY given the subjectivity of morality.

Quote:
Congratulations!
You have finally stated a valid argument for abortion.

That only works if the woman knows at the blastocyst stage. Pregnancy usually isn't detected until it reaches the embryo/fetus stage. Otherwise the "cluster of cells" argument doesn't work so well.

Quote:
Note however, that a fetus isn't a cluster a of cells all the time.
At one point it's a cluster of cells, at another it looks kinda sorta human like, at yet another it's body is fully formed, it's heart beats, and it's brain is fully functioning.
Treating it like a shapeless blob through the whole pragnancy is clearly wrong.

Well, if to the woman it is nothing more than a shapeless blob, I see nothing wrong with her treating it as such. My abortion was at 7 weeks, so it should have looked about like this

Quote:
Despite that I would never dream of taking away your right to have an abortion, I just want people to stop and think for a while about their actions, not just shrug off every potential problem.

Women who have to abort think about their actions very much. Pregnancy isn't fun. Even if the abortion ends it, the fact is we have to deal with the symptoms of the pregnancy until it is taken care of. It's not something that is easily dealt with, nor easily shrugged off. It'd be different if abortion were something easy to get, cheap and on demand like a side of fries at McDonald's; but it isn't. That's the problem with a lot of people who view it as taking an easy way out, or simply a "just shrugging off" of a problem. They don't understand that it isn't either of those things.

Quote:
Really if there is one thing I hate about abortion debates, it's how both sides try to make the issue entirely black and white.

Actually, I find the pro-choice side takes things in shades of gray. We just support choice. The choice to want or not want their pregnancy. The choice to view it as something treasured or something terrible. The choice to do with it what they will, be it abortion, adoption, or giving birth to parent.


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek wrote:You are

nedbrek wrote:
You are dismissing the emotional feelings of millions of women in a few words. These women knew they had something new and alive in them. Something now dead. They feel this deep down. This is not social pressure.

Dude, you are speaking for women. YOU DO NOT KNOW!

Statistics

Oh snap! They don't feel bad. They don't feel shame! They aren't sorry!

I've had two abortions. Sure, there was something new and alive in me. I didn't want it there. I was disgusted by it. I paid someone a lot of money to kill it. It's dead now. YAY! Pregnancy is AWFUL to me. Not everyone shares your view of pregnancy.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
hikikomori_girl wrote: Um...

hikikomori_girl wrote:

Um... Morality is completely subjective. Morality is not black and white.

What are the situations under which rape is permissible?


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
SilkyShrew wrote:This does

SilkyShrew wrote:
This does not apply to a fetus in a woman's belly.

Don't mean to nitpick, but it really makes me twitch when people say a fetus is in the belly. It brings about the, "OMG, she ate it!?" response in me. Shocked


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek

nedbrek wrote:
hikikomori_girl wrote:

Oh wow, a pregnancy is punishment for a woman daring to have sex.

I'm the same way with bad arguments against abortion. I try to fight them when I have the chance. You just regurgitated one of the oldest and lamest arguments against. WOW.

I don't see where Ivan said "pregnancy is punishment"... As a man, I don't know what it's like first hand. When my wife was pregnant, it was uncomfortable for her. It limited what she could do at the time, but I don't think she felt punished.

The problem I see with many of these arguments is that no one mentions responsibility. Our actions have consequences. We may not like the consequences, or want to know about them, but they exist. Covering up the consequences should not be our first thought. Killing innocents to cover up the consequences should not be acceptable.

To look at someone with an unwanted pregnancy and tell her that is her "consequence" is to use the pregnancy as a punishment. A woman who wants her pregnancy won't see it as a punishment. That should be easy to understand. However, it should also be easy to understand that an unwanted pregnancy IS indeed a punishment.

Abortion is taking responsibility. Killing an embryo/fetus isn't on the same level as killing a baby/child. There is no reason it should not be acceptable.


hikikomori_girl
hikikomori_girl's picture
Posts: 14
Joined: 2006-12-09
User is offlineOffline
nedbrek

nedbrek wrote:
hikikomori_girl wrote:

Um... Morality is completely subjective. Morality is not black and white.

What are the situations under which rape is permissible?

Rape-Play. It's a form of role-play.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
hikikomori_girl

hikikomori_girl wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
hikikomori_girl wrote:

Um... Morality is completely subjective. Morality is not black and white.

What are the situations under which rape is permissible?

Rape-Play. It's a form of role-play.

If it's role-play, then the actors have given permission, then it's not rape.

How about child pornography? (with actual children, not pictures)

My point is, there are some absolutes.


Zhwazi
Zhwazi's picture
Posts: 459
Joined: 2006-10-06
User is offlineOffline
Repost, 'cause Nedbrek seems

Repost, 'cause Nedbrek seems to have missed my post and I have little reason to believe he'll revisit page 2 and I'd like a reply.

nedbrek wrote:
Zhwazi wrote:

You contradicted yourself. The government is a group of people. Can people own other people or does the government (a group of people) own you? You can't have both.

The government is an entity in itself (like a corporation). You don't make out a check to "Billy, down at the IRS office" you make it to "US Treasury Dept".

Of course, I was half joking in my statement, I guess I needed a lot more smiley's Smiling


Okay, so some ficticious imaginary thing which we can never see or touch or feel or prove, which manifests through the actions of it's pretended agents and in no other way, owns us and gives us laws and stuff...and you call yourself an atheist?

Ownership is absolute irresponsible control. Having control requires consiousness. Governments are imaginary, they're not consious. Therefore, they can't own anything, unless they're a group of consious people, in which case people can own other people.

Please show me how the government came to aquire ownership of me against my will without my consent and not by theft (theft would destroy the government's legitemacy, destroying the concept of government as such and forcing the portrayal of government as a mafia).


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Scythian wrote:Indeed, my

Scythian wrote:
Indeed, my wording was a bit incorrect. I just don't think people should replace the common contraceptives with abortion. Also thanks for the comment, who is to say you should limit abortion?

By the way, I should mention that I appreciate that you can recognize that. Kudos for that.

MattShizzle wrote:
I don't see anything unethical with using abortion as birth control, though I would consider it kind of stupid - going through surgery and spending that much money (plus likely having to deal with asshole proteters.) When birth control is cheaper and easier.

As I've mentioned before, abortion is, technically, birth control. Birth Control being a method to prevent a birth from occurring.

hikikomori_girl wrote:
All so true! People don't seem to understand that the person whose body is being hijacked will of course have more say over how their body is used, and have every right to jettison any intruder as they see fit.

I think it is wise to actually put this issue into realistic perspectives rather than rely on emotive devices that make inaccurate statements about the issue. While I agree that abortion should be legal to anyone who wants one, I don't agree that a fetus hijacks one's body, or that it is necesarily an intruder. Both imply a forced entry of some sort and some malicious act, while a fetus develops as part of a natural process, no matter if we want it to or not. Hence, perhaps it is best ty describe it as is - a person has a right over their body, and as such should be allowed to determine what develops within it, if possible.

Quote:
Plenty of children are intruders as well. Not every intruder is grown. An intruder is just something or someone intruding where it is not wanted. "Intruder" simply means "someone/something not wanted/invited".

The word intruder implies an entry.

Quote:
Oh wow, a pregnancy is punishment for a woman daring to have sex.

I'm the same way with bad arguments against abortion. I try to fight them when I have the chance. You just regurgitated one of the oldest and lamest arguments against. WOW.

Pregnancy is not a punishment - it is a consequence. There is a difference.

Quote:
That only works if the woman knows at the blastocyst stage. Pregnancy usually isn't detected until it reaches the embryo/fetus stage. Otherwise the "cluster of cells" argument doesn't work so well.

As I mentioend before, technically, we are all "clusters of cells."

Quote:
Actually, I find the pro-choice side takes things in shades of gray. We just support choice. The choice to want or not want their pregnancy. The choice to view it as something treasured or something terrible. The choice to do with it what they will, be it abortion, adoption, or giving birth to parent.

Not entirely - I've seen aspects of even the pro-choice movement that has some flaws. It isn't necesarily that it is black/white - but that some people do mis-portray the facts. It does seem to happen more on the anti-choice side of the fence, though.

Quote:
Don't mean to nitpick, but it really makes me twitch when people say a fetus is in the belly. It brings about the, "OMG, she ate it!?" response in me.

LOL - there's some irony in that the other day I was talking to someone and it came up that some women sing the song, "Yummy, yummy, yummy, I've got love in my tummy ..." when they are pregnant, and I said the exact same thing that you did in response to that, lol.

Quote:
To look at someone with an unwanted pregnancy and tell her that is her "consequence" is to use the pregnancy as a punishment. A woman who wants her pregnancy won't see it as a punishment. That should be easy to understand. However, it should also be easy to understand that an unwanted pregnancy IS indeed a punishment.

No, it *is* a consequence (as in it is a natural result of something that has happened), but it is *not* a punishment (as in, nobody is inflicting it upon you due to some malicious act you have performed).

Quote:
Rape-Play. It's a form of role-play.

The problem with rape-play is that it is consentual, which makes it not really rape.


nedbrek
Theist
Posts: 195
Joined: 2006-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Zhwazi wrote: Ownership is

Zhwazi wrote:

Ownership is absolute irresponsible control. Having control requires consiousness. Governments are imaginary, they're not consious. Therefore, they can't own anything, unless they're a group of consious people, in which case people can own other people.

A moment of silence for my poor, dead joke Smiling

Obviously our notions of government, property, and most everything else are entirely different...


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I just skimmed through this

I just skimmed through this discussion and I'm really confused.

My confusion comes because I've been seeing the word "fetus" being attached to everything from a fertilized ovum to the offspring exiting the womb.

For those who believe that life begins at conception, the fertilized ovum is a person with constitutional rights that no one should interfere with. I've never like that idea because it's essentially forced pregnancy.

Webster's New World Medical dictionary has:

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

If there's another definition you prefer, I'd like to see it.

I'm just trying to clear up my confusion. If you don't want to help, feel free to skip my comment and continue.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


GuentherBacon
Rational VIP!
GuentherBacon's picture
Posts: 49
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
This was an excellent

This was an excellent article. Are there any you can link up that have a more scientific basis for life at birth?

Say unto thine own heart, "I am mine own redeemer."
The Book Of Satan IV:3, The Satanic Bible


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
SilkyShrew wrote: nedbrek

SilkyShrew wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
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?
I would think that calling it a "person" or not is simply a way to apply an arbitrary line and really doesn't relate in any way except that people want to call it a "person" in order to gain an emotive response to the issue.

What is "the issue"?

SilkyShrew wrote:

nedbrek wrote:
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?
Technically, there's never a point that it isn't human. But then, technically, cancers are human, and even ailing body parts that we amputate ... Something being human is obviously not a good determination of what should be kept or discarded in the species.


What is a good determination of what should be kept or discarded in the species? Is the fact that a fetus (or embryo) is dependant upon the mother a good determination? How so?

SilkyShrew wrote:
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
Sure, but human beeings have this ability before they are born.
Indeed, although the capacity in the fetus is not the same as that of the woman, and the overall value of each is likely to be different. As in, how many are affected if the woman is lost or suffers greatly as compared to if the fetus does?

You criticized nedbrek for his assumption that humans from the perspective of economics have infinite value. You also make an assumption which you do not elaborate on. Your underlying assumption here is that the number of people affected if the woman is lost or suffers is a viable way to determine whether or not a fetus should live. Is your standard to calculate "overall value" counting? Can you elaborate on this?
SilkyShrew wrote:
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
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?
The difference between all of those examples and a fetus is that the fetus is connected to and biologically dependant on an individual that may not desire to or be able to choose to care for it. Individuals caring for the retarded, old people, or the very sick usually have a choice and are not physically attatched to them.
Is it moral to leave a mentally ill person or old person to care for themselves, while they are incapable of caring for themselves, even though individuals caring for them have a choice to leave them and are not physically attached to them? What if there is no one else but you to take care of that person? (If the death of the mentally ill person or elderly person doesn't affect many people is it okay then to abandon her: is her "overall value" less than a mentally ill person whose death would affect more people?)

If you do not believe it is moral to abandon such a person, can you explain how the fact that the fetus is biologically dependant significant, and different from these other cases?
SilkyShrew wrote:
nedbrek wrote:
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!"?
Indeed, it seems silly, doesn't it? The acorn is still genetically an oak. However, the acorn does not have the same value as the tree. To be honest, I think that's a poor analogy as well, as we use humans and oak trees in very different manners. However, the question of value is still available in the comparison.
how do you evaluate value? (you, personally?)
SilkyShrew wrote:
Tiberian wrote:
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.
It doesn't have to be completely arbitrary. We can use some steps in critical thinking to at least come to some conclusions in regards to the issue in order to address it with some practicality.
Can you be specific about these steps? For example, do you draw a line in the duration of pregnancy, when the mother's life is not in danger, where abortion would be inhumane? Is abortion ever inhumane? When?

SilkyShrew wrote:
Ivan_Ivanov wrote:
But I don't see how abortion is self-defence.
Most abortions take place for reasons of self-defense in some sense or another. The defense is not the same as what you would take with an intruder in your house, but it is a form of defense in regards to some aspect of their lives, no matter if it is a defense of a financial situation, or defense against a medical condition.
Is abortion only okay if it is self-defense?

Does the defense against negative social stigma warrant abortion?

SilkyShrew wrote:
Quote:
Again, please note that I am not arguing against abortion, I'm arguing against poor arguments for abortion. One that I don't like is completely relieving yourself of all moral responsibility, simply because it's convinient, like you just did above.
I tend to think that it varies from person to person if such is moral or not. Is it really a moral/immoral action in getting an abortion? This can easily venture into a debate on ethics and philosophical ideas on morality. Hence, I try to keep arguments in the realm of what is practical. One person can see an abortion as something that is a moral stance, while others see it as an immoral one ...


You have not escaped morality and ethics by keeping arguments "in the realm of what is practical."

How is the practicality of a choice or action different from any other moral standard?


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
As you have introduced

As you have introduced practicality as a standard you also invite the following example: A healthy person has ten organs which match the blood type and size of ten ailing people who cannot find any other donors. Those ten ailing people affect the lives of more people than the healthy person; their overall value is greater. Should the healthy person give up her life since it is worth less?

I realize that it may seem like I'm skewing the topic of discussion here; my point is that you bring up this idea  of "practical" without fully explaining it. Practical is a loaded term and so I don't know what meaning you are taking when you discuss it within the context of abortion. Can you explain what you mean by practical further?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
The big difference in your

The big difference in your example you're talking about an actual person, not a fetus.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
hello wrote: What is "the

hello wrote:

What is "the issue"?

the issue of abortion. 


Quote:


What is a good determination of what should be kept or discarded in the species? Is the fact that a fetus (or embryo) is dependant upon the mother a good determination? How so?

Basing it on the value of what is involved, as in the woman being more valuable than the fetus and also on which is most demanding of an unwilling participant is a good way to make a determination. That does mean that the dependancy here is an issue.

Quote:

You criticized nedbrek for his assumption that humans from the perspective of economics have infinite value. You also make an assumption which you do not elaborate on. Your underlying assumption here is that the number of people affected if the woman is lost or suffers is a viable way to determine whether or not a fetus should live. Is your standard to calculate "overall value" counting? Can you elaborate on this?

The woman already has some detectable value, she interacts with people, and affects those areound her already. Indeed, the number of individuals that she affects is greater than that of the fetus. Add to this that the woman has a cognitive capacity for suffering, which also adds some value and then her value far outweighs that of the fetus in this perspective. So, no, there isn't an assumption here, there is something we can actually measure and see. 

Quote:
Is it moral to leave a mentally ill person or old person to care for themselves, while they are incapable of caring for themselves, even though individuals caring for them have a choice to leave them and are not physically attached to them? What if there is no one else but you to take care of that person? (If the death of the mentally ill person or elderly person doesn't affect many people is it okay then to abandon her: is her "overall value" less than a mentally ill person whose death would affect more people?)

Context is going to be everything for something like this. Did the individual choose to care for the elderly person or are they obligated to for a specific reason? Also, bear in mind that having the right to do something and if it is moral to do something may not always be the same thing. I may not have the right to grab a loaf of bread off the shelf of a grocery store and walk out - but I would say that the young man and woman that were shown in pictures looting food from stores after hurricane katrina that took the food to people who needed it were not making an immoral decision.

Also, counting who something affects also accounts for the cognitive capacity of the individual themselves. The elderly person's capacity for suffering is certainly a factor in making ethical decisions regarding their future. At the same tim, a fetus' neurological capacity for suffering is likely much, much smaller.

This reminds me of another ethical dilemma that came up in the news during Hurricane Katrina. There was an assisted care facility in which there were a certain number of individuals. After Katrina, the staff of the facility abandoned the elderly people who were there in order to go to another location. Later on the individuals were charged for crimes of neglect due to their decision to leave the elderly. So, the question was asked, did they have the "right" to leave? Was their actions "moral?" In that particular case, they had taken on the obligation of caring for those people and had agreed that it was their responsibility and their actions had led to the death of people in the facility. As such, they had neither the right to leave, nor were their actions moral. So the context of the situation is going to be a main factor in if it is moral or if they have a right to do something of that nature. 

Quote:
If you do not believe it is moral to abandon such a person, can you explain how the fact that the fetus is biologically dependant significant, and different from these other cases?

Because in the cases that you mentioned it is about individuals with the neurological capacity for suffering and also in the cases where it would be immoral, the individual would likely be obligated by some other means to care for the individual.

Quote:
how do you evaluate value? (you, personally?)

In the oak tree analogy I was valueing it based on the utility of the oak to the individuals that would use it. If I had, for example, a tree on my right and an acorn on my left and wanted to build a fire - then the tree is more valueable. If I wanted a tree for some other reason, the tree that was already there is more valuable. 

Quote:
Can you be specific about these steps? For example, do you draw a line in the duration of pregnancy, when the mother's life is not in danger, where abortion would be inhumane? Is abortion ever inhumane? When?

 I've already discussed how we can assess the situation to determine what we can look at in order to make these decisions. The value of the fetus is one, its dependancy on the woman, the capacity of suffering is another, as well as who is affected and their capacity of suffering and how they are affected.

I think that given that the capacity for suffering is greater in the woman and that the fetus *is* dependant on the woman against her will, then the most humane stance would be to keep it as her choice throughout the duration of the pregnancy. That doesn't mean that giving the option is pleasant or that suffering won't occur, as it becomes a situation in which neither option is really not inhumane. It becomes a lesser of two evils. I'm sure that if I sat here and considered it I could come up with many cases in which abortion is inhumane, but that doesn't mean that keeping the woman from an abortion is humane. In these situations it is a matterof taking the route of the least inhumane option.

I will say, though, that there is a point where I think more options should be available to women than what there is now. I am not opposed to people allowing for the early delivery of a fetus if a woman no longer wants to be pregnant. Said fetus could be put up for adoption, or the woman can be given other options in order to accomodate such a situation in a more rational manner than simply requiring her to either remain pregnant or kill the fetus. In a way, this is available to women who's lives are in danger already, which is generally the reason for late-term abortions anyway, but for the extremely rare situation in which the life of the woman is not in danger, I think this should be an option and could lead to an even less inhumane option for women to have. 

Quote:
Is abortion only okay if it is self-defense?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean - but abortion, technically, is nearly always in self-defense. In the event that it wasn't and the woman wanted an abortion for some other reason - then it should still be her choice, yes. Although, as I sit here and consider it, I am unable to come up with a scenario where it wouldn't be in either self-defense or in defense of the woman who is pregnant, so perhaps you can help with the conjuring of such a scenario so that I can make a better determination.

Quote:
Does the defense against negative social stigma warrant abortion?

 It is still self-defense. If the woman wants it for that reason, yes, she should be allowed to have it.

Quote:
ou have not escaped morality and ethics by keeping arguments "in the realm of what is practical."

How is the practicality of a choice or action different from any other moral standard?

 I come to my conclusions based on rationality and logic. I think this question, though, is too vague. Which other moral standards are you referring to? If someone, for example, is basing their stance on a book that simply gives them a rule, then I can say I have the advantage of using logic and reason to support my stance. Even in the event that someone takes their stance on emotional appeals on a different level, I can point to mine as taking a more rational approach (although in this particular debate there isn't a single argument that eliminates emotional appeals altogether with the possible exception of a nihilistic stance-my particular stance tends to distance me from it in a greater sense than others do, however).

 

Quote:
As you have introduced practicality as a standard you also invite the following example: A healthy person has ten organs which match the blood type and size of ten ailing people who cannot find any other donors. Those ten ailing people affect the lives of more people than the healthy person; their overall value is greater. Should the healthy person give up her life since it is worth less?

you're eliminating all the other factors that I introduced. If you were to include everything I mentioned, and not just the point on practicality, then obviously, requiring the individual to give up their life would be immoral. 

Quote:
I realize that it may seem like I'm skewing the topic of discussion here; my point is that you bring up this idea  of "practical" without fully explaining it. Practical is a loaded term and so I don't know what meaning you are taking when you discuss it within the context of abortion. Can you explain what you mean by practical further?

It probably would have been best for me to say logical or rational. Regardless, I don't think your examples counter the complete arguments that I gave. 

 


flame_head
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Abortion=Oppresion?  And

Abortion=Oppresion?

 And let me guess, making so that a woman has no choice isn't opression

 

a clump of cell is really a person, we've heard that before.

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


hello
Posts: 179
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
SilkyShrew wrote:

SilkyShrew wrote:


Context is going to be everything for something like this. Did the individual choose to care for the elderly person or are they obligated to for a specific reason? Also, bear in mind that having the right to do something and if it is moral to do something may not always be the same thing. I may not have the right to grab a loaf of bread off the shelf of a grocery store and walk out - but I would say that the young man and woman that were shown in pictures looting food from stores after hurricane katrina that took the food to people who needed it were not making an immoral decision.

My question here is, whether it is moral, not whether one has the right to leave the person.


SilkyShrew wrote:
Quote:
Does the defense against negative social stigma warrant abortion?

It is still self-defense. If the woman wants it for that reason, yes, she should be allowed to have it.

Can you discuss in this example what the right to abortion provides for as opposed to the morality of her decision?

SilkyShrew wrote:

Quote:
You have not escaped morality and ethics by keeping arguments "in the realm of what is practical."

How is the practicality of a choice or action different from any other moral standard?

I come to my conclusions based on rationality and logic. I think this question, though, is too vague. Which other moral standards are you referring to? If someone, for example, is basing their stance on a book that simply gives them a rule, then I can say I have the advantage of using logic and reason to support my stance.


Another moral standard is one that nedbrek brought up, that there might be something intrinsically unquantifiable about the value of a human's life, and this is why there are human rights which are granted to everyone blindly. Also, that one values their children's lives above their own does not contradict the idea of infinity as there are different infinities (there are more real numbers than there are integers even though both are infinite).


SilkyShrew wrote:


Quote:
As you have introduced practicality as a standard you also invite the following example: A healthy person has ten organs which match the blood type and size of ten ailing people who cannot find any other donors. Those ten ailing people affect the lives of more people than the healthy person; their overall value is greater. Should the healthy person give up her life since it is worth less?

you're eliminating all the other factors that I introduced. If you were to include everything I mentioned, and not just the point on practicality, then obviously, requiring the individual to give up their life would be immoral.



Can you explain all of the factors you use to determine value with this example?


Also when you are rational and logical in a value calculus do you eliminate potential value in calculating overall value? I don't know how one can rationally evaluate potential value; is this where practicality comes in?

SilkyShrew wrote:
Quote:
I realize that it may seem like I'm skewing the topic of discussion here; my point is that you bring up this idea of "practical" without fully explaining it. Practical is a loaded term and so I don't know what meaning you are taking when you discuss it within the context of abortion. Can you explain what you mean by practical further?

It probably would have been best for me to say logical or rational. Regardless, I don't think your examples counter the complete arguments that I gave.

 



I am sorry if it seems like I am trying to counter your arguments. I'm not, as I have not developed a position on abortion which I can defend myself. These are just the questions I had after reading your post.


SilkyShrew
Rational VIP!
SilkyShrew's picture
Posts: 147
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
flame_head

flame_head wrote:

 

1) Not everybody who supported slavery was free.

2) enslaving a being that is capeable of cognition, which is capeable of suffering, and which is a sentient being is not the same as aborting a fetus or blastocyst.

 

hello wrote:

My question here is, whether it is moral, not whether one has the right to leave the person.

Quote:

I differentiated between rights and morals in the earlier posts and then answered. Now, morality is based on individual ideals and I base my morality based on what I described earlier. From that, you should have the answer to your question without me having to repeat it, yet again. 


Quote:

Can you discuss in this example what the right to abortion provides for as opposed to the morality of her decision?

The right to an abortion affords her the right to choose for herself what happens to her own body. 

Quote:
Another moral standard is one that nedbrek brought up, that there might be something intrinsically unquantifiable about the value of a human's life, and this is why there are human rights which are granted to everyone blindly.

 There needs to be evidence to justify such a value before assuming it exists.

Quote:
Also, that one values their children's lives above their own does not contradict the idea of infinity as there are different infinities (there are more real numbers than there are integers even though both are infinite).

 Please elaborate on what you're trying to say here.


Quote:


Can you explain all of the factors you use to determine value with this example?

 I see no need to reiterate all the effort I have put into this thread already. As it is, this feels rather redundant. Simply my position on autonomous human beings should be enough to show why I would view such a thing as unethical. I shouldn't have to walk you through the same arguments over again.

Quote:
Also when you are rational and logical in a value calculus do you eliminate potential value in calculating overall value? I don't know how one can rationally evaluate potential value; is this where practicality comes in?

Some of your question seems unclear - you might want to clarify some aspects of it. Also, I haven't discussed "potential" value, I simply mentioned value as is. There isn't a way to know "potential" value of a fetus. 

Quote:

I am sorry if it seems like I am trying to counter your arguments. I'm not, as I have not developed a position on abortion which I can defend myself. These are just the questions I had after reading your post.

 I don't take offense at people challenging me on these things. I place my arguments out there for people to see, and I'm open to discussion on these topics. I've been developing my stance and arguments for years now and find that my current positions and arguments are not like most people I know. This leads me to arguing points that are completely novel as compared to what usually comes up in the discussion.

 Some of your post did seem unclear, so perhaps you should clarify some things so that this can continue.

 


raregem
Posts: 1
Joined: 2007-01-29
User is offlineOffline
I can't help but think some

I can't help but think some athiests here haven't overcome the "morals" their culture taught them which are similiar to the religious trainings of the believers.

To condescend women by seeing it as your place to dole out and limit her options to: be prepared to bear children or never have sex, while ignoring medical advances that give her more choices, that's not ethics, that's sexism.

No one made the choice to have the XX chromosomes. Being forced to go through with unncessary and unwanted side effects of biology even when progresses have made so one doesn't have to, is a denial of self determination, an appeal to someone else's morals, and is uncivilized.

Appeals to forced pregnancy, in any phrase: "Deal with the consequences, it's the natural way, don't play russian roulette..." Those phrases reflect sexist thoughts.


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
I offer what I think the

I offer what I think the clearest answer to the abortion issue, taken almost directly from the encyclical of Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae.

If we cannot agree that an embryo in a mother's womb is a person, we still have a clear moral obligation to reject abortion as murder. To propose an example, consider that we are driving a car. On the way, we hear a story on the radio that a crazed murder has placed boxes in the middle of the street, some filled with tied-up school children and some not. Inside the box, he may have hid a busload of school children, but we don't know. We look up and see a large cardboard box in the middle of the road. Do we swerve away? YES! To act in such a way as to possibly commit murder is as bad as to commit murder itself. If I decided that, because I don't know whether it's filled with people or not, I ram every cardboard box I see at 98 miles per hour, I would be guilty of murder.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
That's insane! We aren't

That's insane! We aren't saying some embryos are actual people and some aren't, we are saying none of them are. In actuality it would be more like if someone put dolls under cardboard boxes, and some people thought they were childeren, while others knew they weren't.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
You miss the point

You miss the point entirely. The point is not that some are children and some aren't. The point is that, assuming there is debate without a clear definition of when life begins, we must assume that a person is a person from conception onwards. Otherwise, we commit murder by intentionally killing something that could be one.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
YOU think personhood begins

YOU think personhood begins at conception. We don't.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: You miss

StMichael wrote:

You miss the point entirely. The point is not that some are children and some aren't. The point is that, assuming there is debate without a clear definition of when life begins, we must assume that a person is a person from conception onwards. Otherwise, we commit murder by intentionally killing something that could be one.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

Doesn't that logic imply that every menstruating female is a murderer? That egg could be a person (because we don't have a clear definition of the beginning of life, there's no reason we have to assume it starts at conception).

Guys who masturbate must be serial killers in your logic, also. 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: You miss

StMichael wrote:
You miss the point entirely. The point is not that some are children and some aren't. The point is that, assuming there is debate without a clear definition of when life begins, we must assume that a person is a person from conception onwards. Otherwise, we commit murder by intentionally killing something that could be one.

Commiting murder is strictly a legal concept. We can not commit murder unless what we do is illegal. Abortion is not presently illegal so no matter when life begins we are not commiting murder by performing an abortion. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
First, me believing

First, me believing personhood starts at conception has no influence on why you ought to believe it. The reason you ought to believe it is in the reason I gave. You still haven't addressed it.

Second, a menstrating female does not kill anyone directly if she is discharging unfertilized eggs. If she had concieved a child and then menstrated, she would also not be guilty of murder, any more than a woman is guilty of murder if she has a miscarriage. Involuntary actions are not moral actions. A man who masturbates is not a serial killer, because he does not kill a human being (under ordinary circumstances) when he masturbates. His emission of sperm does not kill a human being; no child was concieved. His crime falls under a different moral category.

 Third, murder is murder regardless of context. Further, if that is your definition, the Nazis never murdered a single person, neither did Mao, or Stalin. Every single action committed by a dictator with genocide in mind is entirely justified according to your logic. Which would also mean the dissolution of the state, as there are no rules on which to base the state. Recognize the absurdity in your statements before you make them.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: Third,

StMichael wrote:
Third, murder is murder regardless of context. Further, if that is your definition, the Nazis never murdered a single person, neither did Mao, or Stalin. Every single action committed by a dictator with genocide in mind is entirely justified according to your logic. Which would also mean the dissolution of the state, as there are no rules on which to base the state. Recognize the absurdity in your statements before you make them.

Well, you're wrong again, but at least you're consistent. Realize your absurdity before you call someone absurd. I expect better from a man who claims to have education.

When I say it is not murder I say nothing of whether or not it is justified. The term murder does not refer to whether a killing is 'right' or 'wrong'. Murder is the unlawful and intentional killing of another human being, so if it is lawful, it is not murder. If you sometimes listened non-defensively you might actually learn something, but judging by what I have witnessed thus far in our conversations, that is probably expecting far too much.

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
The fundamental law being

The fundamental law being broken is not the law of the state, but the natural and, ultimately, the eternal law. Without these, it leads to the absurd and horrendous consequences that I outlined earlier.

 I am not being defensive. Your comment belies that you, my friend, are very defensive about your views. Any comment critical of them must be from a person who is not "really" open-minded.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote:

StMichael wrote:
The fundamental law being broken is not the law of the state, but the natural and, ultimately, the eternal law. Without these, it leads to the absurd and horrendous consequences that I outlined earlier.

No, it does not lead to those consequences. Killing can be morally wrong and not be murder. Murder is strictly killing that is unlawful. If it is not against the law of the state, or international law, and intentional, it is not murder. It is as simple as that. Natural law says nothing about whether or not a killing is murder, only whether it is good or bad, right or wrong. If a man is sentenced to death by a jury of his peers for a crime he did not commit it is not murder. It is wrong, but it is not murder.

Quote:
I am not being defensive. Your comment belies that you, my friend, are very defensive about your views. Any comment critical of them must be from a person who is not "really" open-minded.

Its not a matter of my view. It is a matter of the definition of murder. Why you felt the need to scold me for making what you considered, wrongly, to be an absurd comment I have no idea, but when you do such things you can expect that I will be critical of your unwarranted and undeserved superior manner. So, from now on Mr. Open Minded 2007, don't act so patheticly innocent.

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
StMichael wrote: First, me

StMichael wrote:

First, me believing personhood starts at conception has no influence on why you ought to believe it. The reason you ought to believe it is in the reason I gave. You still haven't addressed it.

Second, a menstrating female does not kill anyone directly if she is discharging unfertilized eggs. If she had concieved a child and then menstrated, she would also not be guilty of murder, any more than a woman is guilty of murder if she has a miscarriage. Involuntary actions are not moral actions. A man who masturbates is not a serial killer, because he does not kill a human being (under ordinary circumstances) when he masturbates. His emission of sperm does not kill a human being; no child was concieved. His crime falls under a different moral category.

Third, murder is murder regardless of context. Further, if that is your definition, the Nazis never murdered a single person, neither did Mao, or Stalin. Every single action committed by a dictator with genocide in mind is entirely justified according to your logic. Which would also mean the dissolution of the state, as there are no rules on which to base the state. Recognize the absurdity in your statements before you make them.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

You're the one who threw in the word "could". An unfertilized egg and a sperm cell "could" be a human being. If you're logic sounds faulty when someone follows it to it's conclusion, don't balme thc conclusion.  

The problems with your school bus analogy is that it involves actual people that one is avoiding killing. I also don't know any homeless people living in cardboard boxes who sleep in the middle of the road. If you're going off the road nailing cardboard boxes in the hopes of crushing homeless people, you have problems.

Or doesn't your church talk about the motivations behind actions anymore? Wait, maybe they don't. Confession and absolution covers all, right?  

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


StMichael
Theist
StMichael's picture
Posts: 609
Joined: 2006-12-20
User is offlineOffline
Killing that is wrong is

Killing that is wrong is unlawful. It breaks the natural law, hence it is unlawful.(It also breaks the eternal law)

Also, again, this leads to the absurd consequences I outlined earlier. Nazis and Stalinists and Maoists and every dictator and genocidal maniac in history was acting perfectly lawfully in killing their citizens and did not commit murder. 

 I am not trying to act superior. I am maintaining that your position has absurd consequences.

 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Psalm 50(1):8. For behold thou hast loved truth: the uncertain and hidden things of thy wisdom thou hast made manifest to me.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Ok, I want to nominate

Ok, I want to nominate StMichael for the Most Irrational Person On The Site Award! (capitals intentional) Cursing Man

OK, the people killed by Nazis, dictators, etc were actual people, capable of thought and emotion not clusters of cells incapable of living on their own. Just because they are capable of developing into people so what? With cloning technology, we could very soon create a person from every cell in the body - by your logic every time you scratch your nose you are guilty of mass murder!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team