Pro-Life Activist Gunned Down in Michigan

[rah]

I do believe a fetus eventually becomes a human, but when that actually occurs I can't prove and honestly, you guys can't either. It's all opinion. Felch you may not want to criminalize abortion but that seems to put you in the minority of those religiously inclined.
(And I do respect you for that) It's those mindless drones like BK that annoy me. There are quite a few of them out there. Those that protest outside of abortion clinics and use scare tactics and brutality on those that try to use the facilities. That strikes me as similar to other religions that have been poked at here.

And Lor, I do have strong beliefs here, but that's not good enough to force that opinion on those that have different beliefs. Abortion is a very personal thing. No one knows the absolute truths involved. I may be against abortion (except for the exceptions I've already stated) but I couldn't conceive of demanding what my life partner should do in that situation. Her decision, fully aware of all the consequences, has to be important. If not, than she is not my partner, but my property. I would advise, but the final decision would be hers. That's the part that I have a problem with your arguements. Fine, you can believe what you want, but others can believe differently and sometimes that must be respected.

[Jon Miller]

I don't see why you guys pretend that we don't have obvious scientific materialistic definitions for human which are independent of philosophies/beliefs/assumptions.

How is murder a personal thing?

How is not allowing someone to kill someone else making them property. Because we can define human independently, and it is wrong to kill humans, you aren't being reasoanble.

We can even use Kuci's argument (of consensus) which he didn't complete here.

We don't say that killing someone is a personal decision. If abortion is killing someone then it is obviously wrong and should be illegal.

In any reasonable argument based on materialistic arguments means that abortion during the 3rd trimester is immoral. In fact, about the only thinking on the subject that doesn't and is rational (I think) is ones similar to Che's.

Saying that it is personal, or that it is an opinion, or that no one understands what is going on, is the only irrational and unreasonable position that I have seen defended.

JM

[Straybow]

[Q=rah;5675481]I hope you never have a wife that get's raped. You might change your tune or end up divorced. Oh right, you don't believe in divorce either. And no, I'm not trying to be a wise ass, but your attitude that you know what's best for women who have been raped is so patronizing that it make me ill.[/Q] I've known two women who had been raped and carried to term. Neither regretted it; both gave the child up for adoption.

One was surprised to learn, after the rape and decision to carry the baby, that her adoptive mother had also been raped, carried the child, and gave the child up for adoption. She had been unable to have any more children and so adopted my friend as a baby.

I've also known women who had abortions and regretted it for the rest of their lives. One gets torn up every year around the day of the projected due date. She even named him and calls him her "first son."

I would not want to be married to a woman who would choose not to love the baby enough to carry him or her. To hate the baby and want it dead because the father is a rapist is plain wrong.

[rah]

IT's not murder if it's not a human being. It's only your opinion that it's murder.
Not everyone believes the same, and that is the decision that must be respected here.

And yes if you don't even consider the opinion of your life partner, you are treating them like mindless chattel.

[Straybow]

[Q=Dry;5675156]I see it more like a position of moral arrogance.
Pro-lifers, as I understand it, say this:
You, ordinary people, are too ignorant/stupid/immoral to make a decision for yourself or your children. Therefor, some superior entity (God, Government) has to tell you how things should be dealt. Herefore, we forbid you to even decide for yourself, or for your children, what is best or what is the least of two evils.

To deny that people could be reasonable, make decision of their own, with the help of professionals if needed or be educated on the subject, is similar to deny democracy or universal suffrage for the same reasons.

Being pro-life, for me, is more a middle-age position, paternalistic, morally arrogant. It says: people are not capable of taking care of themselves, we have to make the decision for them.[/Q] Only to the extent that any law against murder is some superior entity telling you how things should be.

The pro-choice position is exactly what it tells: pro choice. Even if you are anti-abortion, in a pro-choice society, it is entirely yours to decide for you and your future child.
In a pro-life society, you have not that choice. You are considered too ignorant/stupid/immoral to make a choice about the future of your child.

Pro-choice says you are too selfish to allow an innocent baby to live. In a pro-life society you are forbidden the exercise of your selfish, ignorant, immoral choice because it is murder.

The humanist position includes the idea that everyone is entitled to make decisions for himself, even moral decisions; there is no higher power (king, cleric, god) to decide for the individual.

No, that's the libertarian position. The humanist position is that humans get to make the rules for themselves rather than ancient religious texts or antiquated traditions. Pro-life is dependent on neither but happens to conform to Christianity and be supported by the majority of those who call themselves Christian.

[rah]

[Q=rah;5675481]I hope you never have a wife that get's raped. You might change your tune or end up divorced. Oh right, you don't believe in divorce either. And no, I'm not trying to be a wise ass, but your attitude that you know what's best for women who have been raped is so patronizing that it make me ill.[/Q] I've known two women who had been raped and carried to term. Neither regretted it; both gave the child up for adoption.

One was surprised to learn, after the rape and decision to carry the baby, that her adoptive mother had also been raped, carried the child, and gave the child up for adoption. She had been unable to have any more children and so adopted my friend as a baby.

I've also known women who had abortions and regretted it for the rest of their lives. One gets torn up every year around the day of the projected due date. She even named him and calls him her "first son."

I would not want to be married to a woman who would choose not to love the baby enough to carry him or her. To hate the baby and want it dead because the father is a rapist is plain wrong.

Geeze, that was pathetic. You base your entire arguement on the experience of two out of the millions of women that were raped.
I know one woman that woke up every day screaming because her pregnancy reminded her of her violation. She eventually got better after years of therapy and an abortion. Granted I don't know what would have happened if she had carried to term but I think it's really conceited on your part that you think you know what was best for her.

What if you wife woke up every day wanting to kill herself to attempt to erase the memory of her attack. And despite all you assurances she still didn't want to carry the child anymore. Even believing that the desire to rape could be genetic and she was fearful of raising someone prone to rape. Would you tell her that all her fears were totally unfounded and that she must carry the baby to term. Yes, that's treating her like property.

[Lorizael]

IT's not murder if it's not a human being. It's only your opinion that it's murder.
Not everyone believes the same, and that is the decision that must be respected here.

Why should the "decision" to not believe that a fetus is a human be respected? Why shouldn't we, instead, focus on answering the question of whether or not the organism is human?

If that question is answered scientifically (rather than left to the whims of ordinary, dumb people), then there can be a concrete answer with regards to abortion. Human = murder; not human = property you're free to destroy.

[loinburger]

Scientifically, an embryo/fetus is a distinct human organism. So is somebody who is brain dead and kept alive by a respirator etc. If you believe that an unthinking human organism is a Person, then abortion is wrong as is unplugging the brain dead guy. If you believe that an unthinking human organism is not a Person, then abortion is a-ok (at least until the third-ish trimester) as is unplugging the brain dead guy. If you use some other definition of personhood then the abortion may or may not be okay and unplugging the brain dead guy may or may not be okay. In other words, science isn't a whole lot of help here.

[rah]

Yeah, let me know when science has a definite answer here. And heck once there is, I reserve the right to change my opinion. But until then, my wife's opinion carries considerable weight.

[Straybow]

[Q=rah;5675992]IT's not murder if it's not a human being. It's only your opinion that it's murder.
Not everyone believes the same, and that is the decision that must be respected here.[/Q] My life partner does have the same values when it comes to these things. Will the foetus grow into something other than a human being? No. It just isn't mature yet, just as a newborn baby isn't mature yet but is fully human. It isn't a Schroedinger's baby, caught in a state of superposition that becomes human or not depending on whether you decide to let it live or kill it.

And no, I don't have to respect an opinion I consider logically inconsistent, factually erroneous, morally wrong, and willfully ignorant. Nor am I afraid to be cast as a "bad guy" for standing against it; I don't need the approval of pro-choicers. I'm not talking about some religious practice or philosophical abstraction here. This is human life.

Notice how it's always the moral that has to "respect" the immoral, reprobate, or degenerate in the name of "moderation" but the latter don't have to respect, in the name of moderation, those who hold to moral standards they've rejected? How about if this once, for the sake of innocent life, we do it the other way around?

[Jon Miller]

It is definitely the case that by all materialistic scientific mechanisms, humanness exists in the third trimester.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Scientifically, an embryo/fetus is a distinct human organism. So is somebody who is brain dead and kept alive by a respirator etc. If you believe that an unthinking human organism is a Person, then abortion is wrong as is unplugging the brain dead guy. If you believe that an unthinking human organism is not a Person, then abortion is a-ok (at least until the third-ish trimester) as is unplugging the brain dead guy. If you use some other definition of personhood then the abortion may or may not be okay and unplugging the brain dead guy may or may not be okay. In other words, science isn't a whole lot of help here.

How about someone in a coma?

And babies in the third trimester are viable.

JM

[rah]

You're lucky your life partner shares you values here so you will never have to make that difficult choice.

And you still keep babbling about respecting the immoral, blah blah blah, it's only your opinion that it's immoral. And no matter how many times you repeat it, it won't change.

And I don't care if you respect my opinion, (even though we really agree here) I just care that you can't force your's on me based on YOUR opinoin.

WHY is it so important for you to intrude into others personal life's based on an opinion.
Take care of your own house and leave others to theirs.

[rah]

How about someone in a coma?

And babies in the third trimester are viable.

JM

And as I've stated I don't believe in late term abortions, so there is no arguement here. It's the first trimester ones that are up for discussion (at least fore me) And to me the coma example is different because the person already was a human so it's different and I refuse to compare it.

[loinburger]

How about someone in a coma?

Unconsciousness (voluntary as in a normal wake-sleep cycle or involuntary as in e.g. under sedation) != brain dead. I'm opposed to killing people who are asleep.