An Intellectual Discussion About Killing Babies

[Ben Kenobi]

bipolarbear:

No prob. Just trying to sift things out.

While it may display may qualities of a human, it is not true human life.

That's an interesting perspective. What qualifies something as true human life?

If the unborn child is not human life, than what is it?

I personally only support abortion to the second trimester. Partial birth abortions are bull***. If you waited that long to have a baby, then just have it and put it up for adoption.

Okay. So at what point does the unborn child become, as you put it, true human life?

I am pro abortion, more b/c I don't like back alley with a hanger abortions, and I think that a woman has a right to her reproductive rights.

We've had people up here in Canada argue that abortions could be done safely without a physician. Even if abortion were made illegal, they would be done safely with the equipment available today.

Even Mary Calderone said this back in the fifties, that abortions, even illegal ones were safely done by qualified physicians.

So there is no basis in history, nor in the present day for back-alley butchers.

Secondly, you have the dubious claim, that just because people hurt themselves trying to kill someone else, means we ought to make it safer for them to do so. Back-alleys are a side-issue that deflects things from the central issue, what is the unborn?

Basically that a woman has the right to abort a fetus should she so choose to.

Why does she have this right? Has she always had this right?

Unborn children have not changed. If women were to gain this right, you are now arguing that something fundamental has changed in the status of the unborn child.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Well, this discussion really depends on whether or not you see the fetus as being human. I personally do not. Where you make that distinction between a bag of cells inside the mother and an independent human is partly a theological view.

Personally, I tend towards the view that if the fetus can not survive outside the womb it isn't a person yet, and as such can be aborted by the mother should she choose to.

Then explain to me how a fetus or it become a human if it does not start as a human.
When you start most animal, they too have to grow inside the mother. Also some plants have to be in a green house until they are ready to re-planted outside or they to will not survive.

One thing is for sure, a plant, or animal seed will not grow inside of a woman, but a human seed will.

[St Leo]

For the purposes of farming, tomatoes are vegetables.

For the purposes of reproduction, life begins at birth.

Edit: To elaborate, we should not use biological and colloquial meanings of words at the same time.

[monolith94]

Until we've created a society where abortion is not necessary, it by definition is. We have not reached that society yet, and I don't see it coming true in my life time. It isn't a pleasant solution, but sometimes it's the necessary one.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why does she have this right? Has she always had this right?

Unborn children have not changed. If women were to gain this right, you are now arguing that something fundamental has changed in the status of the unborn child.

Why has the unborn children a certain right? Did it always have this right?

[Ben Kenobi]

To elaborate, we should not use biological and colloquial meanings of words at the same time.

We're technical folks.

Why not use the biological, rather than colloquial terms?

Biologically, we do not differentiate between a pig embryo and a pig in terms of species. Why should we do so for humans?

[bipolarbear]

Okay. So at what point does the unborn child become, as you put it, true human life?

Basically around the third trimester, I think abortions shouldn't be allowed as to when life begins, that is a very tricky question, that I have yet to come up with an answer for, yet I still have an opinion.
I used ot go by sentiency, but then that would mena that a majority of the human race, especially those who live in the malls of Amerca, would be ripe for the kill.
I think once hte baby is out of the mother, its rights begin, but until then, it is still in development.

Why does she have this right? Has she always had this right?

Unborn children have not changed. If women were to gain this right, you are now arguing that something fundamental has changed in the status of the unborn child.

In my mind, they have always had this right, so women aren't gaining a right.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by bipolarbear

Yeha that is more of a matter of opinion, but I think thta that is where somebody's belief on the whole thing begins.

Regardless of wether or not you want to think of an unborn child as a human or a lump of flesh, I do not think any sane person can think of abortion as a desirable or 'un-noteworthy' procedure. It's nasty buisness, and is usually a very traumatic event . The semantics argument is mostly just created to ignore this fact.


What disturbs me the most are the people who talk about abortion as a method of birth control, like it's comparible to taking a morning after pill or something. I've never seen a woman say such a thing, however... which brings me to my personal stance on the subject. It's a woman's issue, so I'll respect a woman's opinion on it. Since they are the ones most directly involved, I'm sure that they won't take such reckless and sweeping views as most of the dumbies around here, atleast.


EDIT: Oh, and I'm a huge believer in personal responsibility. The need for abortions should not arise in the first place.

EDIT again: And I was serious about being anti-baby. We need less people. But abortion is nasty buisness.

[Ben Kenobi]

Until we've created a society where abortion is not necessary, it by definition is. We have not reached that society yet, and I don't see it coming true in my life time. It isn't a pleasant solution, but sometimes it's the necessary one.

Would you say that if you believed there were two people involved?

We don't live in a perfect world. That does not mean that we idly stand by while people get killed. Do we not see something fundamentally wrong with a society that believes killing its children is necessary?

Society did quite well without abortion on demand. Why would we fall apart to go back again?

[bipolarbear]

Until we've created a society where abortion is not necessary, it by definition is. We have not reached that society yet, and I don't see it coming true in my life time. It isn't a pleasant solution, but sometimes it's the necessary one.

I don't see it as completely necessary in our society, but I still see instances where it can be necessary. Of course ther is the less than 1% of rape and incest where I would definitely allow it, but then there is also the problem of overpopulated areas, like certain areas in Africa.
While it isn't necessary, I still think it should be legal. There are many things in our society that aren't necessary, but still lega. However none of them really have hte same biological, or emotional attachmet as abortion.

[bipolarbear]

What disturbs me the most are the people who talk about abortion as a method of birth control, like it's comparible to taking a morning after pill or something. I've never seen a woman say such a thing, however... which brings me to my personal stance on the subject. It's a woman's issue, so I'll respect a woman's opinion on it. Since they are the ones most directly involved, I'm sure that they won't take such reckless and sweeping views as most of the dumbies around here, atleast.

Well, yes Ludd, but in an overpopulated area, wouldn't abortion clinics help? The people I've "talked" to think of abortion and hte morning after pill as the same thing.

[Ben Kenobi]

that I have yet to come up with an answer for, yet I still have an opinion.

The best answer, from a scientific, and philosophical standpoint is conception.

At conception, a new individual forms from the sperm and egg of the mother. Your genetic code forms here, making you distinct from your parents.

Life then, can be seen as a continuum from conception onwards. Sure we grow and develop inside the womb, but we continue to develop outside the womb.

Are you not more capable than you were when you were younger? Yet are you not the same person you were earlier? Therefore, what counts is not your current capacities, but rather your innate capacity to grow and develop. This forms at conception.

I think once hte baby is out of the mother, its rights begin, but until then, it is still in development.

But then you are left supporting partial birth abortion.

[Ben Kenobi]

In my mind, they have always had this right, so women aren't gaining a right.

But you do see the connection between the status of the child? The two are intertwined.

[bipolarbear]

Are you not more capable than you were when you were younger? Yet are you not the same person you were earlier? Therefore, what counts is not your current capacities, but rather your innate capacity to grow and develop. This forms at conception.

That is very intersting Bne, I Haven't been pummelled with that argument so far. Very thought provoking, but it still doesn't change my stance. One piece of propaganda that I do liek, is the picture of the fetus's hand reaching out and touching the OB's hand while he was operating on a woman.

[monolith94]

"Society did quite well without abortion on demand. Why would we fall apart to go back again?"

You're quite welcome to build a time machine and travel back to the 19th century. The rest of us are happy with our society.

"I don't see it as completely necessary in our society, but I still see instances where it can be necessary. Of course ther is the less than 1% of rape and incest where I would definitely allow it"

I'd LOVE to see where you get these statistics.

"Therefore, what counts is not your current capacities, but rather your innate capacity to grow and develop. This forms at conception."

What matters is conscience, not the ability to grow and develop. Animals grow and develop - are you a vegetarian?