Abortion.

[Insidious Rex]

Just because I am made up of many cells and the baby is made up of one or two, I don't see anymore right to it.

see when your belief system tells you that two cells is the same as a fully grown human being then we are left with a chasm of disagreement that cant really be breached. Which is exactly WHY we should approach the problem of abortion from another angle where we BOTH would agree. Like lief says, if I think that a collection of cells isn’t the equivalent of a sentient self contained adult human then my point of view on the issue makes sense and he cant really argue against it.

And the baby is not part of the mother. It has an entirely distinct genetic code right from conception. The follicle will have mine.

so are you saying that if the mother (half the genes) and the father (the other half) both agree then the abortion is ok? After all, youd be covering all your genetic bases there.

It may be somewhere (for instance it is in your post) but it isn't in our founding documents. "Endowed by his creator with certain unalienable rights." Nothing about when they are endowed.

well it is my understanding that for the most part, on a strictly LEGAL level, human rights are allotted (arbitrarily enough) “at birth” for lack of a better time. That’s when the whole “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” clock starts ticking from what I understand. But again this comes down to when you think something becomes truly human.

I disagree with them, obviously. I disagree with all facism. Right is right, despite force. RightS are RightS despite force. I believe I have the right to live even if you kill me. I believe I have a right to speek even if I get imprisoned for it.

ok I agree with that. Remind me how this weaves into your argument that all abortion is wrong. are you saying you believed that when you were two cells? If you are saying you think a two celled creature has the right not to be aborted well on what are we basing that right? Is this a religious sentiment at heart? or are we talking from a strictly scientific point of view? And if so who decides whats important in deciding at what point human cells become a human “life” as we know it? and if your answer is YOU then why is it you think you have more of a right to tell people what to do with their bodies then other people? I mean is there really anyone on earth who should be arbitrarily making such a mandate? And that’s the problem. There will ALWAYS be that arbitrary designation no matter how hard we try to avoid it. Currently we KNOW a grown female human has rights, including rights to undergo medical procedures or not. What is confusing is how we handle rights for the developing fetus. So should we say whatever rights we designate to the developing fetus should trump the known and guaranteed rights of the grown woman? Does that really make sense?

Although I think you bring up a very interesting although somewhat different topic of exactly what are human rights and how do they come about?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

IR,
We are RATIONAL animals. The very separation of man from beast is that he has specifically human qualities and the ability to think and judge among actions.

and you being a man of science and logic know very well that on a global population level we tend to follow very definable patterns. and that thinking and judging does NOT lead to utopia or even perfectly civil behavior. we, like any other animal (rational or not), will follow predictable behavior patterns many of which often are "bad" choices if you really stop and think about it rationally (not using contraception or protection, driving while drunk, stealing, raping, murdering, etc.). So to say 6 billion people should just use their heads and never do things that could get them in trouble or cause harm to others is a touch disingenuous if you ask me and really leads us away from the direction where we need to be focusing.

Why plead animality when you must use reason to justify the behaviour?

just because we can understand our "animality" sure doesnt mean we can suddenly step outside it. we are prisoners within this mortal coil. and we will behave as we were progammed to. even if on reflection its impulsive or barbaric.

[inked]

Nothing ventured, nothing gained. To plead animality is to say that the rational component is incapable of functioning. I will not settle for that.
Nor will you, practically.

So if we contracept the water supply and require licences for reproduction and institute mandatory abortion for failures, do you have any problems with that? After all, if humans are merely animals, why shouldn't the standard hierarchal principles be applied? The alpha males will make the decisions and enforce them through brute strength?

Ever read ANIMAL FARM?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

So if we contracept the water supply and require licences for reproduction and institute mandatory abortion for failures, do you have any problems with that? After all, if humans are merely animals, why shouldn't the standard hierarchal principles be applied? The alpha males will make the decisions and enforce them through brute strength?

That would be as artificial of a life style as everyone suddenly doing the "right thing". We arent sea lions. We are humans. study how humans behave. and youll find that we behave just like... humans! we are already living exactly how we are expected to live. very social mostly monogomous creatures with complex interdependencies on each other involving both altruistic behavior and selfish behavior and, yes, well known to engage in risky or discpicable or pathetic or evil behavior at times. thats us! not this alpha male nonsense. yer looking at the wrong species.

[azalea]

IR, I noticed you used the term "grown woman." What are your (or anyone else's) views on teenagers having abortions? Should they
a) be allowed to have abortions no matter what
b) be allowed to have an abortion as long as one of her parents is notified
c) be allowed to have an abortion, but only with parental permission
d) not be allowed to have an abortion at all unless it is an extreme circumastance (incest, threat to life, that kind of thing)

and feel free to elaborate on your answer.

Thanks for answering my earlier question, BTW, Hasty Ent and Earniel!

IR (or anyone else who wants to answer), do you have an opinion about third trimester or partial-birth abortions? I mean either in normal OR extreme circumstances.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I think that teenagers should have the same right as grown women. Although I'm pro-life I'm against making abortion illegal as it will result in alot of back street abortions. It should be that person's own choice and no one else (bar the father I think) should be able to influence the choice. They can say what they think but I think it should be between the father and the mother.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

youd have to redifine your definition of convenience again here. you posted a ton on that first page and mentioned convenience but i didnt actually find where you defined it. maybe i missed it.

Second paragraph, here quoted:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Most abortions are done because of convenience, in my opinion. Many teenagers can't handle the social reprecussions of being a single mother. Many teenagers won't face the massive problems of raising a child, when they themselves are so young and ill-prepared. These are all matters of convenience, the killing of one person because the someone else doesn't want to deal with it. The abortion of the child of a raped woman also I'd call a matter of convenience.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

then who would i have to debate with. No i personally wouldnt kill you for most any reason. But then I personally wouldnt have an abortion either. thats my CHOICE.

So you should have the right to kill me, if you want to . You reserve that right for yourself.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But I cant make that choice for someone else. And neither can you. That needs to be up to them.

To avoid economical, emotional or social stress, should I be allowed to kill you? Or one of those drug addicts on the street; should they have the right to kill you?

Your answer to my question is basically: I wouldn't kill you for almost any reason. I should have the right to choose to, though.

That's what I'm getting anyway. Correct me if my impression is wrong.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well it is my understanding that for the most part, on a strictly LEGAL level, human rights are allotted (arbitrarily enough) “at birth” for lack of a better time. That’s when the whole “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” clock starts ticking from what I understand. But again this comes down to when you think something becomes truly human.

Going out on a limb for a moment, I expect that the reason rights legally are given "at birth" is because when those laws were made, technology was not so advanced as it is now. Abortion wasn't even an issue. Would that be a correct guess, or a mistake?

Definitely it comes down to when something becomes truly human. Science can be influential in that reasoning. I tend to agree with Valandil, that if there is doubt, it is wisest to be cautious. Else we could be responsible for mass murder on an astounding scale. To me, mass murder has a great meaning.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and if your answer is YOU then why is it you think you have more of a right to tell people what to do with their bodies then other people? I mean is there really anyone on earth who should be arbitrarily making such a mandate?

Certainly some people should be allowed to make this mandate. Government, primarily should have this right. I am registered for the draft. The government can order me to risk my life. The government views there as being a good reason for this, and if I refuse to heed their order, I'm in trouble. I doubt that you'll argue the draft is something that should be removed, because it involves the government telling us what to do with our bodies.

Whether or not the government should be able to dictate things to people like when they must trim their nails is up for grabs. But I think it's clear the government should have the right to order people to do things-even to risk their lives-when the life of another individual is involved.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And that’s the problem. There will ALWAYS be that arbitrary designation no matter how hard we try to avoid it. Currently we KNOW a grown female human has rights, including rights to undergo medical procedures or not. What is confusing is how we handle rights for the developing fetus. So should we say whatever rights we designate to the developing fetus should trump the known and guaranteed rights of the grown woman? Does that really make sense?

Are you saying that because the fetus doesn't have any rights, we shouldn't give it any rights? Or because right now the woman has rights that are greater then that of the fetus, we shouldn't give the fetus equal rights with the woman? Your argument doesn't make any sense to me, IR. If we followed your reasoning, the slaves never would have been given liberty. They didn't have rights, and their desired rights were infringing on the then rights of the slave owners, so the slaves shouldn't have been given rights. (Shakes head) The argument just doesn't make any sense.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

see when your belief system tells you that two cells is the same as a fully grown human being then we are left with a chasm of disagreement that cant really be breached. Which is exactly WHY we should approach the problem of abortion from another angle where we BOTH would agree. Like lief says, if I think that a collection of cells isn’t the equivalent of a sentient self contained adult human then my point of view on the issue makes sense and he cant really argue against it.

Yes, at that point the argument gets into scientific evidence. I couldn't argue with you on that on moral grounds, because everyone thinks it is moral to stem a termite invasion (including me). I'm simply insufficiently equipped to show a difference between a fetus and a human being, for I've done almost zero research. Mertucio sent a post a few pages back which contained links to some of the scientific evidence for the Christian stance, and which no one really responded to.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
The poor will always be with us, admittedly. But does that give us a good reason to kill them?



whos killing them? Im interested in helping them. Not make it worse for them.

I will admit that you make life better for some (many mothers and a very few fathers). However, you make the judgment that poverty makes life not worth living. Therefore you kill the children before they're even born. You judge that they'd be poor, therefore you have the right to kill them, because their lives wouldn't be worth living.

I don't see most of the poor in the world today arguing that they're so badly off that they should have been killed at birth, though. I think the poor of today (in general) prefer to be poor and alive then to be dead without ever knowing life. It's my belief only, perhaps, but it seems obvious from the number of poor that are still alive. Abortion does make them worse off.

I think HLGStrider argued appropriately earlier on, that if abortion is better for the child, then those poor that actually have children and raise them are the ones that are doing wrong. You justify yourself in killing as many poor people as you want (leaving the scientific point of view aside, as it is rather a separate issue). (EDIT: Not speaking of you personally, here)

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
No, just over the other persons within their bodies.


remember one mans person is another mans collection of cells. And no one as yet holds the ultimate scientific answer to that dilemma. So you are saying enforce YOUR beliefs on another person.

"The Ultimate Scientific Answer"? There's plenty of evidence out there. People should make their own decisions based upon it and the other forms of reasoning available to them as to whether they're going to support- life or choice. Whenever anyone votes on anything they're imposing their beliefs on other people. You're basically saying here, "since no one knows for sure, if anyone disagrees with me, shut-up now!" The argument is rather confusing.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

While I am saying let EACH person choose for themselves.

Ironically, people who are pro-choice ignore the fact that they're actually depriving uncounted thousands of choice. They're saying comfort for some is worth killing thousands, without giving those thousands the choice of choosing poverty and life over death.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by azalea

IR, I noticed you used the term "grown woman." What are your (or anyone else's) views on teenagers having abortions?

do you mean girls under the age of 18? Im torn on it really. I mean usually it’s the teenage girls that are the worst case scenarios when it comes to abortion. Pushed into having sex, not understanding enough about contraception, left high and dry by the guy that impregnated them. Facing having a kid when they are 13, 14, 15 and what it will do to the rest of their life. And many having to deal with parents that simply will not understand. Certainly they should be allowed to have abortions. But they really need someone 18 or older with them when they do it. but what if they have no one to turn to? What then? ive heard of horror stories where really young girls hid their pregnancy for months because at first they didn’t know what was going on and then they were scared of what their parents would do to them if they found out. So they would wear baggie clothes and avoid contact with anyone and actually go unnoticed for months and months until it was much too late. In some cases they abandon the child when its born. If you ask me an early abortion is better then that kind of fate.

I know if any teenage girl I knew came to me and asked me to help them get an abortion I would have a long serious talk with them but I would decide based on what I know about them as a person. And what I knew about their home situation and their life situation. And if I felt that any other alternative would be worse then I would help them.

IR (or anyone else who wants to answer), do you have an opinion about third trimester or partial-birth abortions? I mean either in normal OR extreme circumstances.

I think they are horrid but I view them only as a medical emergency procedure and not really a type of abortion per se. I would have had no problem with that bill banning them EXCEPT the stupid fundamentalists insisted that there not be ANY clause in there for “the health of the mother” so essentially if a birth was going to kill a woman she still couldn’t do anything about it. that’s ridiculous. It should ONLY be done when the pregnancy is a direct threat to the well being of the mother. It should never be done as simply an abortion for other more standard abortion reasons. By that deep into the third semester the fetus is way too far developed. And I cant imagine a reason good enough to get an abortion then other then the health of the mother.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So you should have the right to kill me, if you want to . You reserve that right for yourself.

you are born. It doesn’t apply to you. sorry.

To avoid economical, emotional or social stress, should I be allowed to kill you? Or one of those drug addicts on the street; should they have the right to kill you?

I am born too. Question doesn’t apply either. Sorry.

Your answer to my question is basically: I wouldn't kill you for almost any reason. I should have the right to choose to, though.

see above. Guess you should have asked me when you were 2 weeks old eh?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Going out on a limb for a moment, I expect that the reason rights legally are given "at birth" is because when those laws were made, technology was not so advanced as it is now. Abortion wasn't even an issue. Would that be a correct guess, or a mistake?

yer probably right in that they really knew nothing of prenatal life at that point. So birth seemed like a logical point as to when we became among the living. But even then they DID have abortions. The only problem was that you could actually be tried as a witch if it was determined you caused someones unborn child to die before birth (miscarriage) or to be still born. So back then (17th century actually) you could be burned at the stake for giving abortions. Hows that for a solution?

Definitely it comes down to when something becomes truly human. Science can be influential in that reasoning. I tend to agree with Valandil, that if there is doubt, it is wisest to be cautious.

but what does “cautious” mean? Seems to me that cautious in this case would mean actively keeping women from making any choice in regards to their own bodies. I don’t see that as cautious. I see cautious as INFORMING people hey we don’t have all the answers on this. If you choose to do something like this realize what you may be doing. If you choose to do something like this we urge you to seek some counseling first if it all possible. And THEN leaving it up to EACH individual.

Certainly some people should be allowed to make this mandate. Government, primarily should have this right.

and they have. Which is why we have rules about what can be done and when. Third trimester tending to be the point where it has been agreed that abortion should be considerably scaled back. I, however, reject the notion that the government can forbid all women to make choices about their own bodies as a rule. Which is what would happen if we were to ban it outright.

But I think it's clear the government should have the right to order people to do things-even to risk their lives-when the life of another individual is involved.

not when it’s a 3 week old zygote. That smacks of communist type totalitarianism to me. Maybe after that they can order all guns to be turned over to the government for confiscation. After all, the life of another individual is at stake when you own a gun.

Are you saying that because the fetus doesn't have any rights, we shouldn't give it any rights? Or because right now the woman has rights that are greater then that of the fetus, we shouldn't give the fetus equal rights with the woman?

what Im saying is are you willing to say a 3 week old zygote has the exact same rights as an adult human being? If so what do you base that on? If not then by definition the adult human should have the right to make decisions about her own body that over ride the lesser rights (if any) of the zygote.

If we followed your reasoning, the slaves never would have been given liberty. They didn't have rights, and their desired rights were infringing on the then rights of the slave owners, so the slaves shouldn't have been given rights.

come on now yer just being patently ridiculous lief. Last time I checked slaves are BIRTHED HUMANS (like you and I incidentally). So they SHOULD have had the SAME rights as any other human once they were born. Yer just not going to get me to fall into your apples and oranges argument.

[Insidious Rex]

I'm simply insufficiently equipped to show a difference between a fetus and a human being, for I've done almost zero research.

yes and even if you did research youd find that the scientific community itself does not have any one definitive answer on this. But that they do know some things that lead them to conclude that a human fetus in its earliest stages of development lack the necessary components that we identify as really truly human as far as brain development and such. And if its simply a really small somewhat baby shaped blob with no real consciousness or awareness or true higher order brain function then is it really human? It seems to me at best its becoming human. Or more accurately it has the potential to be human (although I hate the whole idea of arguing over whether a fetus is human or not and when it becomes human. Well of course its human. It’s a human fetus. Its just not a born human yet).

However, you make the judgment that poverty makes life not worth living. Therefore you kill the children before they're even born.

no lief. I don’t kill anyone. I just support the right for women to make their OWN choice. So far to date I haven’t performed one abortion. So this argument does not apply to me.

It's my belief only, perhaps, but it seems obvious from the number of poor that are still alive. Abortion does make them worse off.

I didn’t say just “poor”. You can be poor and quite happy. I said living abysmal lives because inevitably a certain percentage of kids whose mothers we forced to give birth are going to slip through the cracks and live horrendous lives and many will die young because of that. So I don’t see how you can make the argument that oh they are better off living lives of sheer torture and then dieing in an alley from a drug overdose or from a sexual disease or from being shot in the back or from being beat to death by a step parent. Which is worse? never having lived or living and suffering and dieing anyway?

I think HLGStrider argued appropriately earlier on, that if abortion is better for the child, then those poor that actually have children and raise them are the ones that are doing wrong.

no. you are making the ridiculous conclusion that I am arguing FOR abortion as a means of population control or something. When instead my only true argument for keeping abortion legal is that it should be the choice of the woman. It should be up to her to determine if she can truly handle the situation. And if she thinks that having a child would be an undertaking that wouldn’t result in a much worse situation for her and possibly a life of torture for the child.

(leaving the scientific point of view aside, as it is rather a separate issue).

but a rather fundamental one Id say. It all really comes down to what is going on scientifically within this developing fetus doesn’t it?

"The Ultimate Scientific Answer"? There's plenty of evidence out there. People should make their own decisions based upon it and the other forms of reasoning available to them as to whether they're going to support- life or choice. Whenever anyone votes on anything they're imposing their beliefs on other people. You're basically saying here, "since no one knows for sure, if anyone disagrees with me, shut-up now!" The argument is rather confusing.

Ironically, people who are pro-choice ignore the fact that they're actually depriving uncounted thousands of choice. They're saying comfort for some is worth killing thousands, without giving those thousands the choice of choosing poverty and life over death.

you are trying really hard to subtly shift the argument from abortion being a womens choice to abortion being a means of controlling poverty. That’s not at all where ive been arguing from so im not gonna take that bait lief. The only reason I mention children living horrible lives in the context of abortion is because that TOO should be a factor when a woman is CHOOSING whether to abort or not. I never once said we need to give lots of abortions so that we can wipe out poverty. That’s ridiculous. Only that there are fates worse then death in this imperfect world and because of this women should be allowed the CHOICE to do what they think is best with their own pregnancies. They shouldn’t be restricted from making a choice.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I think that teenagers should have the same right as grown women. Although I'm pro-life I'm against making abortion illegal as it will result in a lot of back street abortions.

But would it?

I admit there would be a rise in back street abortions (though IMO only slightly). Either way, the number of abortions would not stay the same--not everyone who would've gotten a legal abortion (back when they were legal) is now going to run to a doctor to get a back street abortion.
The number of abortions would definitely go down to some degree.

Hmm...Since I believe abortion is wrong anyway, why be so concerned about back street abortions? I can't stop women from doing it illegally- they are making a decision that is detrimental to themselves (since back-street abortions are more dangerous and unsafe). Wait a sec--I don't think I made any sense there. I believe I'm trying to say oh well if they get around the law, let them hurt themselves as a result.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I didn’t say just “poor”. You can be poor and quite happy. I said living abysmal lives because inevitably a certain percentage of kids whose mothers we forced to give birth are going to slip through the cracks and live horrendous lives and many will die young because of that. So I don’t see how you can make the argument that oh they are better off living lives of sheer torture and then dieing in an alley from a drug overdose or from a sexual disease or from being shot in the back or from being beat to death by a step parent. Which is worse? never having lived or living and suffering and dieing anyway?

To you no life is better than a bad life.

So you give no dignity to life in itself?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

To you no life is better than a bad life.

So you give no dignity to life in itself?

Im not sure what that means actually. is life a seperate entity from the body it occupies? and if so are you saying the body should be held as a kind of hostage to the sanctity of life? what are your thoughts on the right of a person to kill themself if they choose to?

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im not sure what that means actually. is life a seperate entity from the body it occupies? and if so are you saying the body should be held as a kind of hostage to the sanctity of life? what are your thoughts on the right of a person to kill themself if they choose to?

Life separate? It is separate but it involves the body.

Body held hostage? I think yes, I am saying that.

"Right to die"? They shouldn't be allowed to.



All this seems to be based on the idea that pain and suffering are "bad," and people have a "right" to be happy (or nonexistent).

I don't believe that pain and suffering is all bad, nor that we have a right to be happy.

[Insidious Rex]

well if we cant even make choices about our own lives then who exactly are we living our lives for?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Definitely it comes down to when something becomes truly human. Science can be influential in that reasoning. I tend to agree with Valandil, that if there is doubt, it is wisest to be cautious.



but what does “cautious” mean? Seems to me that cautious in this case would mean actively keeping women from making any choice in regards to their own bodies. I don’t see that as cautious. I see cautious as INFORMING people hey we don’t have all the answers on this. If you choose to do something like this realize what you may be doing. If you choose to do something like this we urge you to seek some counseling first if it all possible. And THEN leaving it up to EACH individual.

To me, whichever would stop more abortions is preferrable. Some women having to suffer because of this, and many children, is preferrable to committing mass murder. Once again, after this one must refer to the scientific debate: When does a human life start?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Certainly some people should be allowed to make this mandate. Government, primarily should have this right.



and they have. Which is why we have rules about what can be done and when. Third trimester tending to be the point where it has been agreed that abortion should be considerably scaled back. I, however, reject the notion that the government can forbid all women to make choices about their own bodies as a rule. Which is what would happen if we were to ban it outright.

Choices on one subject: abortion. Abortion is an issue on which the life of a human child hangs. The government makes decisions about our bodies in other vitally important issues. The life of a child certainly should be one of them, in my view. It certainly is important enough.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
I'm simply insufficiently equipped to show a difference between a fetus and a human being, for I've done almost zero research.



yes and even if you did research youd find that the scientific community itself does not have any one definitive answer on this. But that they do know some things that lead them to conclude that a human fetus in its earliest stages of development lack the necessary components that we identify as really truly human as far as brain development and such. And if its simply a really small somewhat baby shaped blob with no real consciousness or awareness or true higher order brain function then is it really human? It seems to me at best its becoming human. Or more accurately it has the potential to be human (although I hate the whole idea of arguing over whether a fetus is human or not and when it becomes human. Well of course its human. It’s a human fetus. Its just not a born human yet).

I have heard arguments on this before, which I mentioned in the last paragraph of my second post in this topic, I believe. Or one of the last paragraphs of my second post. I heard different information then you did, and believed it. Consistently I'm finding this debate shoved back toward science, which is fine, really. I wish I could go there.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
However, you make the judgment that poverty makes life not worth living. Therefore you kill the children before they're even born.



no lief. I don’t kill anyone. I just support the right for women to make their OWN choice. So far to date I haven’t performed one abortion. So this argument does not apply to me.

Yes, I apologize for my incorrect use of the word "you". That was a mistake.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
It's my belief only, perhaps, but it seems obvious from the number of poor that are still alive. Abortion does make them worse off.



I didn’t say just “poor”. You can be poor and quite happy. I said living abysmal lives because inevitably a certain percentage of kids whose mothers we forced to give birth are going to slip through the cracks and live horrendous lives and many will die young because of that. So I don’t see how you can make the argument that oh they are better off living lives of sheer torture and then dieing in an alley from a drug overdose or from a sexual disease or from being shot in the back or from being beat to death by a step parent. Which is worse? never having lived or living and suffering and dieing anyway?

We should be willing to spend more to take care of those children, if spending more is necessary. Improving sex-ed programs also might be beneficial, and taking away other incentives which might cause women to get into this situation in the first place. However, I do believe that letting these children live, even though a certain percentage will have terrible lives as you describe, is far better then murdering them all. There again, we get into science somewhat.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
(leaving the scientific point of view aside, as it is rather a separate issue).



but a rather fundamental one Id say. It all really comes down to what is going on scientifically within this developing fetus doesn’t it?

Yes. Reading your posts, I can see again and again how it comes back to this point. So I've been making a mistake in trying to steer the discussion away from that unfamiliar soil.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Ironically, people who are pro-choice ignore the fact that they're actually depriving uncounted thousands of choice. They're saying comfort for some is worth killing thousands, without giving those thousands the choice of choosing poverty and life over death.



you are trying really hard to subtly shift the argument from abortion being a womens choice to abortion being a means of controlling poverty. That’s not at all where ive been arguing from so im not gonna take that bait lief.

Well, I'm sorry if it's coming across that way. Earlier I did bring up again HLGStrider's post again, so perhaps that could be viewed in that way. In what I was saying here, I was remarking on the fact that Democrats always speak of abortion as "women's right to choose", when what it does is deny the children the right to choose whether they would rather live in poverty or die. I don't see how that's talking about using abortion as a means for controlling poverty. Simply mentioning some perceived irony, is how I view my words there .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The only reason I mention children living horrible lives in the context of abortion is because that TOO should be a factor when a woman is CHOOSING whether to abort or not.

And that makes sense, provided that the fetus doesn't qualify as a human being.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I never once said we need to give lots of abortions so that we can wipe out poverty. That’s ridiculous.

Yes, I realize you never said that. Poverty is frequently used as an argument in favor of abortion, though. The situation of mother and child is consistently brought up, and for good reason. When the mass murders stop, we will be posed with the situation of dealing with the picture left in its wake. You yourself said, "is it worth it for this life of torture and death to be perpetuated?" That isn't an exact quote, but it was the argument. The argument there seems to say that death is preferrable to life. Therefore, though you've never agreed with this view, it would seem in keeping with the logic to abort other children among the poorer class in order to lessen poverty. Poverty, STD, drugs, gang violence, after all, according to this abortion argument, are worse then death.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Only that there are fates worse then death in this imperfect world and because of this women should be allowed the CHOICE to do what they think is best with their own pregnancies. They shouldn’t be restricted from making a choice.

Hmm. To me, the issue of whether or not children are to be murdered shouldn't be left up to the potential mothers. That's because, to me, the issue is an issue of murder. That's extreme, and government intervention in the matter is extremely important for us to have.


You know Insidious, I think our debate is about finished. Almost everything comes down to the question: "When does the organism growing in the womb qualify as a human being?" This question isn't the main point to everyone, and then it's possible to take a high moral ground in arguing. That's impossible to do with you, Insidious. I said in my first posts that there was only one pro-choice stance that I could respect, and that was the one that said the fetus doesn't qualify as a human being. So ethics and morality are rescinded as a strong part of the equation. Hence most of what's left is scientific discussion. Continuously, the discussion revolves back to that point. Since I can't effectively argue on it, there's no point in sitting here shooting my mouth off .

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my last two posts, in detail, as you always do . I respect your stance on the subject, and your arguments seem to me in general (adding the "in general", in case there's something way back here that I find myself accidentally approving, which I don't wish to ) on this to be highly rational. Looking forward to more debates on other subjects .

I'll continue posting here some, probably, just whenever there's something I have to mention. But I think my debate with you at least Insidious, is pretty much closed.

Apologies if I sound pompous in this post.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I think that if the fetus doesn't qualify as a human being then it is almost as bad to 'kill' them. It takes away their chance to live and to be a human being. Surely that is almost if not as bad as killing a young child.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Almost everything comes down to the question: "When does the organism growing in the womb qualify as a human being?"

This is the centre of the abortion debate, whether people realize it or not.

I thought the debate hinged solely on that until I read Telcontar's post. Now I think not only would we need to determine when the sperm and the egg together (zygote IIRC) turns into a human being, but also if it is okay to end its chance to become a human being - even if we decide that for some of the time in the womb it is not a human being.

Does that make sense? I can clarify (or go back to lurking, which I will do after... I'm a wannabe lurker in this thread anyway. I blame you intelligent posters! )