Indisputable Abortion FACTS:

[Jack the Bodiless]

I think being killed or injured isn't quiet the same as getting a baby.

Actually, for a woman, getting pregnant IS rather similar to suffering a debilitating injury. It wrecks her health, she takes months to recover, and she may never be the same again.

But I was addressing the issue of blame. You apparently believe that people who consent to an activity with a risk of an undesirable outcome are consenting to that outcome. This implies that motorists are consenting to their injury or death.

I didn't say it applied to all of the women in which case the father left.
But it'll happen more to short-term-relations that the father left within 4 months after the conception than to long-term relations.

That's not factual, that's logical.

Besides that, that women who prefer short-term relations are sluts are your words.
All I said was that it's their choise, and they have to live with the concequences.

Again, why do you assume that a woman who consents to bear a man's child is consenting to a short-term relationship???

[Jack the Bodiless]

In the Netherlands a research was done to abortion, several years ago.
People were having their babies aborted because they has planned a vacation, because they just got a dog, because they would have to live on lower standards, because they couldn't affort the 2nd car.

Therefore it's reasonable to assume that these people didn't choose pregnancy.

But, unless you can show that they didn't use contraception or the morning-after pill, you still can't show that they are to blame. How many of these situations occurred due to contraceptive failure?

[Spiffor]

But, Jack, don't you know the morning-after pill ALWAYS works ? (hint: in my only experience with them, it didn't)

[The Templar]

I guess it's time to school you anti-choicers.

The abortion argument really divides into two stages:

(1) Is the fetus a human being?
(2) If it is, how does one balance any putative rights a featus might have with the right of the mother to control her own body and reproductive capacity? (This leaves the sub-issue of whether fetuses even have rights at all)

All questions of choice or trade-off occur at stage (2), but stage two questions only matter if we resolve the stage (1) question in the affirmative.

The fact is, anti-choicers cannot win the stage (2) argument. In fact, anyone who argues against the reproductive rights of women at stage (2) are simply anti-woman and should be banished to Saudi Arabia. But Zylka is making a stage (1) argument about the humanity of a fetus. Here is why Zylka is wrong.

Put simply, an acorn is not an oak. An acorn is a developmental stage of an oak without itself being an oak. Likewise, a fetus is a necessary developmental stage of a person without being a person. Here is the proof: instead of lancing an 11-month old fetus - surgically remove it intact. Now adopt it out to a nice family or put it in a foster home. If it survives outside the womb, then it is sufficiently developed to be considered a human. If it dies, then it was more acorn than oak.

Oh, one more thing for all you anti-choice social conservatives out there. Unless you are also anti-death penalty, you can shut the **** up on any "right to life". You obviously don't take seriously any so-called "right to life" if you are willing to execute people. This applies doubly to Catholics - since the Church has also called for the abolition of the death penalty.

[Q Classic]

This applies doubly to Catholics - since the Church has also called for the abolition of the death penalty.

the church believes in the sanctity of human life. death penalty and abortion are thus both wrong.
i'm confused as to what the thrust of that argument is.

in any case, abortion is murder; a fetus is as human as a child, a teenager, a comatose patient, a retarded individual, a crippled individual, or elderly adult (all annoying and irritating parasites which have great odds against survival by themselves). the debate is largely about whether to accord the status of being human on the fetus.

the crux of this is the difference between the two sides: one chooses to accord the status of being human on the fetus, the other does not. their reasons and their beliefs vary. it is precisely because of that difference that abortion at this time cannot be legislated.

[Jack the Bodiless]

in any case, abortion is murder; a fetus is as human as a child, a teenager, a comatose patient, a retarded individual, a crippled individual, or elderly adult (all annoying and irritating parasites which have great odds against survival by themselves). the debate is largely about whether to accord the status of being human on the fetus.

The issue is personhood. We simply do not agree that a fetus is comparable to many of those examples.

Children, teenagers, comatose patients, retarded individuals, crippled individuals, and elderly adults all have something that a young fetus clearly lacks. They all have personalities: even the comatose patient has a personality that's currently dormant, but nevertheless exists. The only type of adult comparable to a young fetus is a brain-dead comatose patient: and we don't support "rights" for those either, so at least we're being consistent.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

This applies doubly to Catholics - since the Church has also called for the abolition of the death penalty.

the church believes in the sanctity of human life. death penalty and abortion are thus both wrong.
i'm confused as to what the thrust of that argument is.

Tha is just a refusal to debate anyone who is inconsistent on this position.

in any case, abortion is murder; a fetus is as human as a child, a teenager, a comatose patient, a retarded individual, a crippled individual, or elderly adult (all annoying and irritating parasites which have great odds against survival by themselves). the debate is largely about whether to accord the status of being human on the fetus.

Wrong. Even of a fetus is fully human, abortion does not equate morally with murder (we'll skip the legal stuff and just think of murder for the moment as a morally impermissible killing). Suppose a fetus is a human (affirmative answer to the stage (1) argument - see my previous post). Then, the question of whether abortion is murder is a balancing act between the rights of women to control their bodies and reproductive capacity and any rights the fetus might have. But showing that a fetus has rights AND that these rights outweigh any rights of the mother is stage (2) (again, see previous post) of the abortion argument. The simple humanity of the fetus won't suffice. You must balance the competing rights claims. But that would be another thread - so lets stick solely with humanity of fetus arguments here in this thread.

the crux of this is the difference between the two sides: one chooses to accord the status of being human on the fetus, the other does not. their reasons and their beliefs vary. it is precisely because of that difference that abortion at this time cannot be legislated.

Again, I could concede that a fetus is human, and still argue that a woman's right to control her uterus supercedes any fetal rights. It is much the same as the right you might invoke to keep a gang of homeless people out of your house in winter - sure they may freeze, but dammit, you have a right not to let them into your house.

[Q Classic]

i won't make any bones about my position; i'm catholic, not a very good one, but i try. thus, it is a matter of faith for me that abortion is murder and the death penalty is wrong.

at the same time, i'm willing to accept that not everybody sees it that way, and thus it's up to whether the woman in question chooses to have one or not. now, if she's related to me close enough where she'll listen to my viewpoint, i'd argue strenuously against it on those very points.
on the other hand, if we're not that close, i'll keep quiet and let her find her own way.

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by CyberShy

one Rabbi argues that it is permissible because the baby has no soul until it draws its first breath.

I can't believe any jewish rabbi said that.
In the psalms King David says he was created and formed in his mother by God. And He was loved by God.

There is more in the Bible, but only that should be enough to claim that the Jewish faith believes that an unborn baby has a soul.

I'll need to see the passage, but I don't see how this contradicts what the Rabbi said. At most it suggests that his body was formed by god in his mother's womb, it does not suggest that god gave him a soul in his mothers womb. I believe part of the theological argument for the Rabbi was that god actually doesn't simply give people a soul, its the very act of a body taking its first breath that allows the soul to enter the body.

There are definately biblical passages that suggest a soul is conveyed through the act of breathing. "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvGene.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=2&division=div1

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
yavoon:

I said the line should be where it is, because nobody came up with a better one
And I guess thats what Spiffor meant too.

ata

umm I really don't think arguments of convenience work for abortion. u can say "leave the salt shaker where it is." cuz u dont care to find a better spot.

but for abortion? I think ur ship be sunk.

[Atahualpa]

yavoon:

pah convenience. Explain whats so bad about the way it is!
You always got to choose between choice or life, why favor one over the other?
3 months time for choice after that is for life. Now whats so bad about that?

And when someone suspects it is an easy thing for a woman to go for abortion I can only laugh. I guess this is maybe one of the most difficult descisions a woman has to face!
And just because a small percent of the women (ab)use the system for their joy does not justify to punish the much greater majority for whom abortion is a life-saver.

ata

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
yavoon:

pah convenience. Explain whats so bad about the way it is!
You always got to choose between choice or life, why favor one over the other?
3 months time for choice after that is for life. Now whats so bad about that?

And when someone suspects it is an easy thing for a woman to go for abortion I can only laugh. I guess this is maybe one of the most difficult descisions a woman has to face!
And just because a small percent of the women (ab)use the system for their joy does not justify to punish the much greater majority for whom abortion is a life-saver.

ata

abortion is a life saver. wow the diction of a giant.

u can certainly agree w/ the law. but u have to be able to support ur case out of more than convenience. u have to convince ppl that even if that weren't the law that would be the right way to go.

[Ramo]

Oh – so a human invalid with less intelligence than a cow (which is a burden to society) can not be killed. Yet cows are always killed to feed. Yet wait:

I'd like for you to point out a human invalid that has less intelligence than a cow (my definition of intelligence being the capacity to produce abstract thought - sentience).

Circumstance provided, taking care of an invalid for his/her entire life will cost society more than the benefits of the food provided by a single cow.

Sentient life has a huge amount of intrinsic value IMO. So his life is incomparably more valuable than the cow's.

Yet the cow is somehow intrinsically worth more on an intelligence level (the invalid can not even eat, communicate, or defecate according to proper situation).

The capacity to eat or defecate isn't related to the capacity to produce abstract thought. Every living invalid is sentient, while no cow is sentient.

Yet the cow is ok to kill, and the invalid is not.

Nope. And it's not ok to kill the cow under certain circumstances (i.e. the method of killing is needlessly cruel).

Whoops! Game over, you’ve defeated yourself.

Except you're putting words in my mouth again. You ought to try actually reading another person's arguments instead of making up strawmen.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The fact is, anti-choicers cannot win the stage (2) argument. In fact, anyone who argues against the reproductive rights of women at stage (2) are simply anti-woman and should be banished to Saudi Arabia.

Eh? Why can't a pro-life person not win at the stage 2 argument if the fetus is say 8 months along and declared to be a human being, and by C-section can be taken out of the woman on that instance?

This I don't understand.

Oh, and by calling your opponents 'anti-' something, you leave yourself open to the same treatment (ie, any pro-lifer would be definetly justified to refer to you as pro-death).

[Zylka]

LOL Ramo, so how exactly do you see an unresponsive invalid who does not know when to open its mouth for meals or go to the washroom as sentient? How does this being have "the capacity to produce abstract thought" when he/she does not even have "the capacity to stop sh*ting his/her pants"?

Furthermore, why does a fetus not have the capacity to produce abstract thought? What parametres set the ability for such mental construction? I'm really curious to hear these answers, is all.