If abortion was to be made illegal ....

[PLATO]

The point is that any costs; economic, societal, etc., have no effect for those believing there is a human life on the line. After all there isn't a "letting them die" as actively going in an ending their life - which would be akin to murder to those who believe it is a life. There is no allowance of murder even if the costs in certain aspects may allow it (state sponsored murder is, of course, different).

I understand your point, and I don't necessarily disagree with it. However, there are those that believe that it is not a life at stake. While I believe that there is, I also understand that there are those that believe that there isn't. Who am I to try and impose my beliefs on them? I can certainly state my beliefs and hope that my wisdom will be acknowledged ( ). The current law allows everyone to conform to their belief. Those that are against abortion should not have one...those that are for abortion should weigh their circumstances.

The issue of "when does life begin" or when does "human life begin" (which is perhaps the more relevant question as we have no issue in "killing" other forms of life) is what is questioned by so many. I believe that human life begins at conception. Others don't. I choose to live in a society that I have to at least respect their right to believe different from me.

The questions though are more than economic and societal. I believe that the "etc..." from your quote is the relevant part. There is certainly more to it than those two issues. Moral consequences to us as a society and to the individual are two that comes to mind. There are most certainly even more than that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Who am I to try and impose my beliefs on them?

People aren't usually live and let live when it comes to issues of murder (or 'murder') .

[PLATO]

People aren't usually live and let live when it comes to issues of murder (or 'murder') .

Indeed. When they look at the legal definition of it in particular.

[Elok]

Plato, you do realize that your argument could be applied with equal validity to basically any issue, don't you? What you're essentially doing is waving away all arguments against the most liberal position with an open-ended appeal to tolerance that doesn't make sense in context. I'm all for tolerance in most things, but I don't think it should be taken to mean surrendering one's principles by default in the face of any opposition.

[Elok]

"I, personally, believe that legally adopting a bunch of orphans from third world countries, stuffing them to the gills with condoms full of heroin, and then faking one's death to dodge responsibility for them after getting them across the border and extracting the dope is grossly immoral and irresponsible. But there are others who disagree; carefully measuring the pros and cons, they think the personal financial benefits, combined with getting those tots out of that hellhole and into a civilized country at all, outweigh the risk that they will die at some point in the process (or after). Prominent ethicist Peter Singer backs them up on this, or will by next week when his latest controversy stops getting him attention. Who am I to say that my values are right and theirs wrong? Why should I impose my beliefs on them?"

[regexcellent]

You have to do a lot of absurd mental gymnastics for moral relativism to make sense.

[DinoDoc]

I'll take disingenuous strawmen for $500

Who is Sava?

[PLATO]

Plato, you do realize that your argument could be applied with equal validity to basically any issue, don't you? What you're essentially doing is waving away all arguments against the most liberal position with an open-ended appeal to tolerance that doesn't make sense in context. I'm all for tolerance in most things, but I don't think it should be taken to mean surrendering one's principles by default in the face of any opposition.

I can see why you would feel that way about what I said. I don't believe that I have compromised my beliefs by what I have said. Why I believe that this makes sense in context is because this is not a black and white answer. We have no way to quantify the costs of either position. This is far different from say an economic issue. I can say, "I know based upon my experience and education that 'X' will happen" and feel perfectly justified in that...or for gay marriage I can say, "I have seen no evidence that where this is practiced that there has been a measurable detriment to society" and feel justified in that based upon things I can perceive with my own eyes. I can't say either way on the cost of abortion. Unlived lives cannot be measured. The detriment or advantage of the life of a child not aborted cannot be predicted. It is an intractable issue...unlike so many others that your statement addresses.

It is a difficult position to take to be tolerant of those who do things that you don't believe in. In THIS CASE, however, I believe it is the only reasonable position to take...that is if I am true to my own values.

Does that make more sense?

[Elok]

No, not really. You can't quantify what a conventional murder victim might have done with his/her life, either; nor can you say what would have happened to money not stolen, women not raped, property not vandalized, or any other equivalent in any other crime. You can only give a rough gauge of potential--and such gauges, even for a more "concrete" example like a living person, are so tenuous as to be worthless. At any rate, I don't think we judge these things based on such an abstract model of cost vs. benefit--nor ought we. Even if I somehow know Bob is going to spend the rest of his life working McJobs and writing incoherent My Little Pony/Transformers erotic slash fiction--in short, that Bob will never create/experience genuine happiness for or with anyone--I still would not be justified in murdering Bob, nor in arguing that Bob's murder is less of a murder than that of a billionaire, war hero, philanthropist or human rights crusader.

Dang, that's a lot of dashes.

[Ben Kenobi]

I knew you would respond, but I hoped that you would take the thoughtful path.

How is opposition to abortion less 'thoughtful' than support of abortion. Makes no sense to me.

While the "truths" you know are solid in your mind

If the unborn child isn't the same child inside the womb, as outside of the womb how exactly does child support work?

, you have to recognize that others may have just as strongly held "truths" in theirs.

Well sure. Just because a belief is strongly held doesn't make it correct.

Personally, I am against abortion. I believe as you do that there are innocent lives at stake. I do not believe that pounding people over the head with my belief will change theirs anymore than they could change yours. In the absence of perfect knowledge (which we both believe is only present in one being, correct?)

I believe it can be empirically shown that the unborn child is a human person. Arguing that we should permit abortion because some people disagree isn't a great argument. People disagree that individuals have rights. Does that mean we should strip away the rights of individuals? No.

You must learn to respect the opinion of others.

I believe I have an obligation to protect the life of unborn children as best I can.

[PLATO]

No, not really. You can't quantify what a conventional murder victim might have done with his/her life, either; nor can you say what would have happened to money not stolen, women not raped, property not vandalized, or any other equivalent in any other crime. You can only give a rough gauge of potential--and such gauges, even for a more "concrete" example like a living person, are so tenuous as to be worthless. At any rate, I don't think we judge these things based on such an abstract model of cost vs. benefit--nor ought we. Even if I somehow know Bob is going to spend the rest of his life working McJobs and writing incoherent My Little Pony/Transformers erotic slash fiction--in short, that Bob will never create/experience genuine happiness for or with anyone--I still would not be justified in murdering Bob, nor in arguing that Bob's murder is less of a murder than that of a billionaire, war hero, philanthropist or human rights crusader.

Dang, that's a lot of dashes.

Yes...a lot of dashes.

Everyone ( okay almost everyone) agrees that "conventional" murder, stealing, rape, vandalism, and equivalent crimes are bad, detrimental to society, and criminal. (I match your dashes and raise you some commas!). Not everyone agrees that abortion is murder...in fact a significant number do not agree. Your argument is based on the premise that abortion is murder. You are making the same mistake that so many others do...you are not acknowledging that your belief is not universal. The fact that you and I both believe that makes it an interesting debate, no doubt. That however is not the issue. The issue is that we have a great divide between two different fundamental beliefs that both have significant amount of support. I believe I am right on this issue, but I don't believe that I have the right to force a very debatable mandate on society in general. For "conventional" murder, there is near universal agreement...and that is based on the value of human life. Yours and my belief are also based on the value of human life. I simply recognize that my definition of human life is not universal. Once I put this into the context of a free society, I am forced to leave that decision "to the people themselves". Let everyman let his conscience be his guide.

I hope that clarifies my position some. It seems rather obvious to me that those debating so strongly against abortion are not understanding the fundamental argument I am trying to make.

[PLATO]

How is opposition to abortion less 'thoughtful' than support of abortion. Makes no sense to me.

It isn't. If I implied that, I certainly didn't mean to

If the unborn child isn't the same child inside the womb, as outside of the womb how exactly does child support work?

I'm not sure I understand your question? "Child support"? In what context?

Well sure. Just because a belief is strongly held doesn't make it correct.

As I am sure you are aware, this works both ways.

I believe it can be empirically shown that the unborn child is a human person. Arguing that we should permit abortion because some people disagree isn't a great argument. People disagree that individuals have rights. Does that mean we should strip away the rights of individuals? No.

Empirically? Did you mean this definition "depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, especially as in medicine." ? I would submit that there are empirical truths that disagree with scientific method. However that part of your statement I personally agree with. The second part is not relevant and this is not the debate for me to explain that to you (although I believe that there is a high probability that you will post something else on that... )

I believe I have an obligation to protect the life of unborn children as best I can.

Bravo! I salute your feeling. However, you must realize that you cannot beat people into believing as you do. Sometimes you make valid points...and them waste them in endless posts of repetition. Sorry, but you do. I would like to see you show some respect for the right of people to believe differently than you. If you did, you might get further in getting people to think about what you say.

[DinoDoc]

What would the cost to society be if millions of unwanted children were let upon it?

What's the cost to society of not killing the disabled and infirm who only consume the resources of society and provide nothing in return?

[Elok]

What you're describing makes sense if you are describing the political difficulty of the situation. If you mean it to be morally normative, you're denying the possibility of any morally legitimate desire by a minority to prohibit an activity. So, for example, anyone who was against slavery in at a certain early point in American history would have been out of line for trying to impose his views, because most of the overall population, even if you count slaves' opinions, would have seen it as the natural order of things. Likewise anybody in certain societies who opposes/d, say, child brides, taking slaves in war, pederasty, human sacrifice, concubines, or FGM. In those societies, the substantial majority, including many of those we would consider victims, sees/saw the activity as perfectly normal.

XPost, replying to 116.

[PLATO]

What's the cost to society of not killing the disabled and infirm who only consume the resources of society and provide nothing in return?

This is not a relevant question as that has already been answered by the universally accepted definition of human life.

It is an easy transition for many to associate abortion with euthanasia, but not when you take it in the context of what the fundamental debate really is...the definition of when human life begins.

Try again, my friend.