An Intellectual Discussion About Killing Babies

[Ben Kenobi]

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

It depends on how you see rights. If you believe that rights are intrinsic, then the unborn child has always had the right to life, just as any other person. To say that all men are created equal, and that they possess inalienable rights, also falls under this category. If you believe that rights are created by society, then they are not persons, and do not have this right.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by monolith94

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

He should be.

A christian can't eat a burger without sealing his fate to hell.

[bipolarbear]

But then you are left supporting partial birth abortion.

No, I still don't see it as life at that point, just that if the mother has waited that long, then her rights are kind of over, due to laziness or even extinuating circumstances.

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

Can you elaborate?

[loinburger]

bipolarbear: this thread was the most recent rehashing of the abortion debate here, AFAIK. There have been others, but I'm not sure if the search function is working properly, and anyway, they're usually more or less the same. They tend to peter out after one party or another gets bored with asserting their moral superiority, only to arise anew when somebody decides that they haven't been spouting enough empty rhetoric lately.

[bipolarbear]

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

My Catholic Propaganda Class(It's also called Moral Theology)

A christian can't eat a burger without sealing his fate to hell.

what aboout hot dogs? Are those even made of meat?

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I think that the semantics game is tiring and really just side-steps the issues completely. People can spend all their time arguing about what's human without adressing the actual issues of abortion at all.

Um... no, if the fetus is just a bag of cells within the mother, then what place does the government have telling her what to do with it? If it's a person, then yes, it would be murder.

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

Something that is human and can survive on its own (or in the case of some terminally ill patients/accident victims, etc., someone who once could survive on his own.)

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

Ah, you are fortunate enough not to know the megalomania of Ceausescu. He wanted to rule over more people so he banned abortion and contraception. Needless to say, some still tried to get abortions.

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.

The semantics issue basically is the basis for whether or not the government has an obligation to stop the proceedure.

[monolith94]

"To say that all men are created equal, and that they possess inalienable rights, also falls under this category."

I do not argue that all men are created equal. Rather I argue that a fetus is a man.

[bipolarbear]

bipolarbear: this thread was the most recent rehashing of the abortion debate here, AFAIK. There have been others, but I'm not sure if the search function is working properly, and anyway, they're usually more or less the same. They tend to peter out after one party or another gets bored with asserting their moral superiority, only to arise anew when somebody decides that they haven't been spouting enough empty rhetoric lately.

I find most deabtes on the topic are. That is where this one seems to be going, the was for our discussion of pornography. Oh well, I like talking about it w/ different people, even if it is somewhat the same.

[Ben Kenobi]

monolith:

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'm talking about pre-1973. I don't think we were barbarians in the 60's.

We can do without abortion. Abortion is not a necessary part of civilised society, but will rather allow the society to consume itself.

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

Sure. Give me a moment, and I'll dig up a few.

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

So people who are currently unconscious are no longer persons?

I agree with you that conscience is an important part of personhood, but not with the insistence that conscience must first manifest itself.

People can be persons without necessarily being conscious, but no one is a person without having the capacity to develop conscience. The two are different things.

[Ben Kenobi]

A christian can't eat a burger without sealing his fate to hell.

Fetuses are not animals?

I don't believe in giving animals equivalent rights to people, but even if you believe they should, you should also extend the same courtesy to unborn children.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
The semantics issue basically is the basis for whether or not the government has an obligation to stop the proceedure.

Well, you're right I suppose. When the government's concerned semantics and legal speak is all that matters.

That's why I like to ignore the role of government and just argue on the merits of the action itself.

[Ben Kenobi]

that if the mother has waited that long, then her rights are kind of over, due to laziness or even extinuating circumstances.

Interesting.

That comes back to my point on rights.

If you believe that a right can be lost due to extenuating circumstances, what would that say for a population that does not vote? Do they lose their right to liberty because they are lazy?

I think that we don't really believe in reproductive rights as the equivalent to liberty, because we treat the two differently, yet apply the same terminology to both.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi




Fetuses are not animals?

I don't believe in giving animals equivalent rights to people, but even if you believe they should, you should also extend the same courtesy to unborn children.

My comment wasn't neccisarily related to abortion, although vegetarianism and pro-life do complement each other nicely. Even ignoring this side of the issue, a burger has a whole lot of sin in it. Everything from rape to cannabalism, and it's all done by humans.

And by the way, if you consider fetuses human then they are, by definition, animals aswell.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gen. Ludd:

Well, for the topic of the thread, I have no beef with you

Even ignoring this side of the issue, a burger has a whole lot of sin in it. Everything from rape to cannabalism, and it's all done by humans.

I think it's funny. Many of the environmentalists here are starting to side with hunters as a more environmentally sound form way of obtaining meat. I coulda told them that quite some time ago.

There's nothing like shooting your own goose, and then plucking, skinning, and cleaning to make cacchiatori.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by St Leo
For the purposes of reproduction, life begins at birth.

Uh... life begins at birth no matter how you look at it. The embryo is quite obviously alive.

It's personhood that's disputed.