Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Clint on Tue Dec 15, 2009 5:06 am

Assuming your ok with the lawful punishment dished out for Murder, (tell me if your not), surely you'd have to be in agreeance that the pregnant woman and the doctor that performed the abortion should be subjected to, at minimum, the minimum punishment for murder, yes?
avatar
Clint
Admin

Posts : 94
Join date : 2009-09-07
Location : Australia

View user profile http://www.truth-saves.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:06 am

Given that around 60% of abortions involve some degree of coercion, I would say the mother would most likely be charged with manslaughter. The abortionist would be charged with murder.

I'm opposed to capital and corporal punishment, BTW.

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Akuma9 on Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:11 am

Abortion: A topic as complex as quantum mechanics to a layman.
avatar
Akuma9

Posts : 14
Join date : 2009-10-15
Age : 38
Location : Albuquerque, NM, USA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:33 am

Akuma9 wrote:Abortion: A topic as complex as quantum mechanics to a layman.
Psychologically complex but morally simple.

Clint wrote:
How many abortions are performed on zygotes? Come on, guess.

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Clint on Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:32 am

I agree with Nulono, It is morally simple! When concerned with abortions, there's two entities we're dealing with and have to take into consideration.

1. A living person with experiences, with feelings, a family, hopes, dreams, and can feel pain and experience suffering.

2. The other is a clump of cells or a fetus that has no thought, no feelings, no consciousness and unable to feel pain or experience suffering.


- Yup it is, and should be, a simple moralistic choice!

The truth is, abortion rates do not differ substantially between countries where it’s legal and countries where it’s illegal. Women who seek abortions will continue to have them regardless. Have a read of this post.

"...an estimated 70,000 women die each year from the consequences of unsafe abortion. Many millions more women continue to suffer short- and long-term health consequences." This doesn't even include the ones that die from ectopic pregnancies. So while it's not necessary to be against contraception, like the catholic church, every anti-choicer has their portion of responsibility for this misery and suffering.

People need to put aside their own prejudices and look at it rationally!

--
To get to my main and final point.

...Instead of forcing young girls and women, that do have experiences, families, can feel pain and suffering, into unsafe 'backstreet' abortions that sends tens of thousands every year straight to their death bed.

...Instead of condemning young rape victims by forcing them to give birth to their rapists child.

...Instead of condemning a child that had been found to be mentally retarded and incapable of ever communicating or interacting with the outside world, into an entire life of misery and solitary confinement.

...Instead of telling in some cases a grown man, where their twin, or result of a chimera has been found growing inside of them like a tumor, to just endure it even though it could potentially mean death.

Instead of dealing with absurdities & unnecessary absolutes, that concerns itself more with the rights of a clump of cells or a fetus that has no thought, no feelings, no consciousness and unable to feel pain or experience suffering, over the rights of a living person that has every single one of these. Lets give them a choice! Make and keep abortion a legal choice!
avatar
Clint
Admin

Posts : 94
Join date : 2009-09-07
Location : Australia

View user profile http://www.truth-saves.com

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Wed Dec 30, 2009 11:36 am

Clint wrote:I agree with Nulono, It is morally simple! When concerned with abortions, there's two entities we're dealing with and have to take into consideration.
This is true.

1. A living person with experiences, with feelings, a family, hopes, dreams, and can feel pain and experience suffering.

2. The other is a clump of cells or a fetus that has no thought, no feelings, no consciousness and unable to feel pain or experience suffering.

- Yup it is, and should be, a simple moralistic choice!
A fetus is a living person. A fetus has a family. Late-term fetuses can feel pain (in fact, 3 times as much pain due to a newer nervous system. Gabby Gingras, on the other hand, was born 7 or 8 years ago and cannot feel pain.

As for hopes, dreams, and consciousness, this would equally disqualify infants, coma patients, the severely retarded, and those with Alzheimer's.
The truth is, abortion rates do not differ substantially between countries where it’s legal and countries where it’s illegal. Women who seek abortions will continue to have them regardless. Have a read of this post.

"...an estimated 70,000 women die each year from the consequences of unsafe abortion. Many millions more women continue to suffer short- and long-term health consequences." This doesn't even include the ones that die from ectopic pregnancies. So while it's not necessary to be against contraception, like the catholic church, every anti-choicer has their portion of responsibility for this misery and suffering.

People need to put aside their own prejudices and look at it rationally!

--
To get to my main and final point.

...Instead of forcing young girls and women, that do have experiences, families, can feel pain and suffering, into unsafe 'backstreet' abortions that sends tens of thousands every year straight to their death bed.
No woman is "forced" into an illegal abortion. A baby, however, is forced to be aborted. This argument begs the question of the rights of the unborn. If the unborn are human beings with the right to live, it is tantamount to saying we should legalize robbery to make it safer for the robber.

...Instead of condemning young rape victims by forcing them to give birth to their rapists child.
Rape is a terrible crime and rapists are not punished enough. One of the terrible things about the Bible is the punishing of future generations for the crimes of their ancestors. Why, then, should the baby get the death penalty?

...Instead of condemning a child that had been found to be mentally retarded and incapable of ever communicating or interacting with the outside world, into an entire life of misery and solitary confinement.
Again, begging the question. If I find a disabled toddler, is it okay to kill her?

...Instead of telling in some cases a grown man, where their twin, or result of a chimera has been found growing inside of them like a tumor, to just endure it even though it could potentially mean death.
The law already permits the taking of a life if said person is threatening your life.

[quote]Instead of dealing with absurdities & unnecessary absolutes, that concerns itself more with the rights of a clump of cells or a fetus that has no thought, no feelings, no consciousness and unable to feel pain or experience suffering, over the rights of a living person that has every single one of these.[quote]As I have demonstrated, none of these abilities are acceptable reasons for denying someone their basic human rights.

Lets give them a choice! Make and keep abortion a legal choice!
Should we also make slavery a legal choice? Or rape? Or arson?

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Dont_Vote_Palin on Wed Dec 30, 2009 3:16 pm

[quote="Nulono"]
Akuma9 wrote:Abortion: A topic as complex as quantum mechanics to a layman.
Psychologically complex but morally simple.

I believe it is morally simple. To me, it's obviously wrong to kill an unborn child. What's not simple, is when looking at the subject practically.

Like Clint posted, illegalizing abortion will only end up with more death and suffering. It will be about as effective as the War On Drugs. A pretty recent statistic showed that 8/10 women in New York City have an abortion. Do you think the effect of illegalizing all that will be positive?

When a woman is raped, I do not feel that it should ever be illegal for that woman to have an abortion. I just feel that one should get a pass.

Another example of a lapse in rationality is the lives these children would be living if not aborted. Obviously if the mother doesn't want the child, it's probably not going to be the ideal childhood for that particular child. The Foster system is already over maximum capacity, from what I can see anyways. A mother who is financially and mentally unprepared to raise a child should be allowed to have an abortion, more for the sake of child then the mother herself, imo.

I assume poverty, abuse, and suffering would rise for all parties in nearly every conceivable aspect if abortion was illegalized. Sure, a small percentage of these children could lead happy, accomplished, and productive lives, but most likely, they will be impoverished financially and emotionally. Plus, I do feel it should be a personal choice for the woman, despite the fact that it could be or technically is murder.

I would go as far as to subsidize abortion, in all honesty. I know that on the moral level, Pro-Choice advocates aren't going to win, so I just focus on the practical aspects of it, and that's a conclusion I'm in favor of. I think it would actually benefit society, but then again, I haven't done research on whether or not subsidized abortion has positive effects on society. I "assume" it would, though.

I can't sacrifice the practical benefits of the issue for the moral benefits. I'm personally not willing to make that trade.
avatar
Dont_Vote_Palin

Posts : 53
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 27
Location : Tampa, Florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:34 pm

It should be pointed out that, in 1972 only 39 women died from abortions and abortions were generally done by doctors.

And we need to help those in need.

But if the unborn are human beings, it is not acceptable to slaughter them by the thousands to make society better. Would you support killing toddlers for the same reason? Would you support legalizing rape to protect rapists.

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Dont_Vote_Palin on Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:45 pm

Nulono wrote:It should be pointed out that, in 1972 only 39 women died from abortions and abortions were generally done by doctors.

And we need to help those in need.

But if the unborn are human beings, it is not acceptable to slaughter them by the thousands to make society better. Would you support killing toddlers for the same reason? Would you support legalizing rape to protect rapists.

Keeping the murder of toddlers and rape illegal isn't extremely detrimental to society.... Also, in 1972, there weren't 832 women receiving abortions, out of every thousand on average. Those high numbers aren't limited to just New York either. It's the entire country.

Illegalizing abortion is too detrimental to society to implement as policy, and it would bring about much more harm then good. In that particular aspect, it's almost just as morally wrong as the abortion itself.
avatar
Dont_Vote_Palin

Posts : 53
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 27
Location : Tampa, Florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Thu Dec 31, 2009 3:59 pm

I fail to see how the government can be faulted for not protecting and helping those who behave violently against others. This is the very purpose of government: to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Dont_Vote_Palin on Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:11 pm

Nulono wrote:I fail to see how the government can be faulted for not protecting and helping those who behave violently against others. This is the very purpose of government: to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The government would get blamed because it made abortion, drugs, etc illegal. If doing so backfires and makes things worse, then it would rightfully bear the blame. Congress and Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, so they should have gotten the blame, for it failed. Government should also receive credit for something that is successful.

Also, I don't see abortion as an act of malice or violence.
avatar
Dont_Vote_Palin

Posts : 53
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 27
Location : Tampa, Florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:07 am

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:
Nulono wrote:I fail to see how the government can be faulted for not protecting and helping those who behave violently against others. This is the very purpose of government: to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The government would get blamed because it made abortion, drugs, etc illegal. If doing so backfires and makes things worse, then it would rightfully bear the blame. Congress and Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, so they should have gotten the blame, for it failed. Government should also receive credit for something that is successful.
Even if criminalizing drugs was successful, the government did wrong because they inhibited the liberty of the populus.

Also, I don't see abortion as an act of malice or violence.
violence
(n.) Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:I believe it is morally simple. To me, it's obviously wrong to kill an unborn child..

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:19 pm

George Carlin, "pro-choice" comedian wrote:And by the way, during this period of name-choosing, thanks to one more touch of left-wing magic, thousands of abortionists’ offices were slowly and mysteriously turning into family-planning clinics.

And on the subject of those places, I think the left really ought to do something about this needlessly emotional phrase back-alley abortions. ‘We don’t want to go back to the days of back-alley abortions.’ Please. It’s over-descriptive; how many abortions ever took place in back alleys? Or, okay, in places where the entrance was through a back alley?

Long before Roe v Wade, when I was a young man, every abortion I ever paid for took place in an ordinary doctor’s office, in a medical building. We came in through the front door and took the elevator. The three of us. Of course, as we were leaving, the elevator carried a lighter load.

Mary Anne Warren, "pro-choice" activist wrote:The fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it.

Mary Calderone, then director of Planned Parenthood (in the American Journal of Public Health (July 1960)) wrote:90% of all illegal abortions are done by physicians. Call them what you will, abortionists or anything else, they are still physicians, trained as such; and many are in good standing in their communities. Whatever trouble arises usually comes after self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8%, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist. Another corollary fact: physicians of impeccable standing are referring their patients for these illegal abortions to colleagues they know are willing to perform them.

Very Happy

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Dont_Vote_Palin on Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:43 pm

Nulono wrote:
Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:
Nulono wrote:I fail to see how the government can be faulted for not protecting and helping those who behave violently against others. This is the very purpose of government: to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The government would get blamed because it made abortion, drugs, etc illegal. If doing so backfires and makes things worse, then it would rightfully bear the blame. Congress and Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, so they should have gotten the blame, for it failed. Government should also receive credit for something that is successful.
Even if criminalizing drugs was successful, the government did wrong because they inhibited the liberty of the populus.

That's our shared opinion on the matter. Some people feel that drugs should be illegal for many reasons, but I personally think those people are idiots.

Also, I don't see abortion as an act of malice or violence.
violence
(n.) Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:I believe it is morally simple. To me, it's obviously wrong to kill an unborn child..
[/quote]

I got the implication that you meant violence in the form of malice, which is why I typed "violence or malice". If you want to go by textbook definition, then you are correct; however, I don't see abortion as an act of violence when using the term for what it's usually describing. For example, beating the shit out of somebody..
avatar
Dont_Vote_Palin

Posts : 53
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 27
Location : Tampa, Florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Dont_Vote_Palin on Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:59 pm

Nulono wrote:[quote="George Carlin.

Mary Anne Warren, "pro-choice" activist wrote:

[quote="Mary Calderone[/quote]

Very Happy[/quote]

I still disagree that there wouldn't be an excessive amount of dangerous abortions taking place, "back alley" style. Even back then 8% of women were getting abortions under dangerous circumstances. Even if that percentage remained that low when illegalized today, which I highly doubt, that's still a disparate number of women putting their lives at risk when it isn't necessary.

I assume this law would generate similar results to illegal drugs, alcohol, and prostitution. It will create a dangerous black market for the product or service, and crime will only go up, like every other time something was unnecessarily illegalized in the past. Buying drugs or a prostitute is very dangerous for both parties participating. The only reason Al Capone came into fame was because of the market created for him by the government making a stupid decision. It's likely similar effects will come with abortion laws.

This is why I stated, originally, that I am Pro-Choice for mostly practical reasons instead of moral reasons.
avatar
Dont_Vote_Palin

Posts : 53
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 27
Location : Tampa, Florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Dont_Vote_Palin on Fri Jan 01, 2010 2:13 pm

[quote]As for hopes, dreams, and consciousness, this would equally disqualify infants, coma patients, the severely retarded, and those with Alzheimer's.[quote]

I was reading through this forum and wanted to point something out with the debate between you and Clint.

I know he displayed a lapse in logical consistency when he stated that a reason to keep abortion illegal is because fetuses don't have hopes, dreams, or consciousness. Well, I think you might have done the same thing when pointing out the other parties that share those same traits.

For one, coma patients are often killed if the family allows it.

Secondly, dogs and trees don't have these emotions either. I assume you do not feel that the murder of dogs, mice, trees, or insects should receive the same punishment as killing an infant or someone with Alzheimer's. They don't have those emotions either, so shouldn't all those acts of "violence" receive an equal punishment?

I think a lot of this argument ends up becoming semantics. I don't know though... Just my thoughts, anyway.
avatar
Dont_Vote_Palin

Posts : 53
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 27
Location : Tampa, Florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:46 pm

[quote="Dont_Vote_Palin"][quote]As for hopes, dreams, and consciousness, this would equally disqualify infants, coma patients, the severely retarded, and those with Alzheimer's.


I was reading through this forum and wanted to point something out with the debate between you and Clint.

I know he displayed a lapse in logical consistency when he stated that a reason to keep abortion illegal is because fetuses don't have hopes, dreams, or consciousness. Well, I think you might have done the same thing when pointing out the other parties that share those same traits.

For one, coma patients are often killed if the family allows it.

Secondly, dogs and trees don't have these emotions either. I assume you do not feel that the murder of dogs, mice, trees, or insects should receive the same punishment as killing an infant or someone with Alzheimer's. They don't have those emotions either, so shouldn't all those acts of "violence" receive an equal punishment?

I think a lot of this argument ends up becoming semantics. I don't know though... Just my thoughts, anyway.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Mice and trees are not human beings. And your point with coma patients is valid, though I was talking about temporary comas, not brain-death.

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:51 pm

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:
Nulono wrote:
Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:
Nulono wrote:I fail to see how the government can be faulted for not protecting and helping those who behave violently against others. This is the very purpose of government: to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The government would get blamed because it made abortion, drugs, etc illegal. If doing so backfires and makes things worse, then it would rightfully bear the blame. Congress and Bush decided to go to war in Iraq, so they should have gotten the blame, for it failed. Government should also receive credit for something that is successful.
Even if criminalizing drugs was successful, the government did wrong because they inhibited the liberty of the populus.

That's our shared opinion on the matter. Some people feel that drugs should be illegal for many reasons, but I personally think those people are idiots.
Good.

Also, I don't see abortion as an act of malice or violence.
violence
(n.) Injury done to that which is entitled to respect, reverence, or observance; profanation; infringement; unjust force; outrage; assault.
Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:I believe it is morally simple. To me, it's obviously wrong to kill an unborn child..

I got the implication that you meant violence in the form of malice, which is why I typed "violence or malice". If you want to go by textbook definition, then you are correct; however, I don't see abortion as an act of violence when using the term for what it's usually describing. For example, beating the shit out of somebody..[/quote]You can be violent without malice.
Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:
Nulono wrote:[quote="George Carlin.

Mary Anne Warren, "pro-choice" activist wrote:

[quote="Mary Calderone

Very Happy[/quote]

I still disagree that there wouldn't be an excessive amount of dangerous abortions taking place, "back alley" style. Even back then 8% of women were getting abortions under dangerous circumstances. Even if that percentage remained that low when illegalized today, which I highly doubt, that's still a disparate number of women putting their lives at risk when it isn't necessary.

I assume this law would generate similar results to illegal drugs, alcohol, and prostitution. It will create a dangerous black market for the product or service, and crime will only go up, like every other time something was unnecessarily illegalized in the past. Buying drugs or a prostitute is very dangerous for both parties participating. The only reason Al Capone came into fame was because of the market created for him by the government making a stupid decision. It's likely similar effects will come with abortion laws.

This is why I stated, originally, that I am Pro-Choice for mostly practical reasons instead of moral reasons.[/quote]That's the point: they put theirselves in danger, while abortion is the killing of another person. You're basically saying “Because some people are killed attempting to murder others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so.”.

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Dont_Vote_Palin on Fri Jan 01, 2010 6:12 pm

[/quote]I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Mice and trees are not human beings. And your point with coma patients is valid, though I was talking about temporary comas, not brain-death.[/quote]

You were saying it's not okay to kill fetuses despite the fact they don't display many emotions that adult humans do. You're using the fact that infants and Alzheimer's sufferers also display those emotions, and that is a reason for which it's not okay to have an abortion. If you're using those standards, then you should be against the killing of dogs, trees, and insects as much as you are against humans. If not, then you are applying a double-standard, except for the fact that we're simply human.

I know you probably use other standards to give human life more value than animal and plant life, (I do) but for this particular standard, it seems inconsistent to me.
avatar
Dont_Vote_Palin

Posts : 53
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 27
Location : Tampa, Florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Dont_Vote_Palin on Fri Jan 01, 2010 6:21 pm

[/quote]That's the point: they put theirselves in danger, while abortion is the killing of another person. You're basically saying “Because some people are killed attempting to murder others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so.”.[/quote]

Yes I am, in this particular situation, for practical reasons that I've explained.

I suck at getting other people's threads to be colored as quotes. XP
avatar
Dont_Vote_Palin

Posts : 53
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 27
Location : Tampa, Florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Fri Jan 01, 2010 9:32 pm

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Mice and trees are not human beings. And your point with coma patients is valid, though I was talking about temporary comas, not brain-death.[/quote]

You were saying it's not okay to kill fetuses despite the fact they don't display many emotions that adult humans do. You're using the fact that infants and Alzheimer's sufferers also display those emotions, and that is a reason for which it's not okay to have an abortion. If you're using those standards, then you should be against the killing of dogs, trees, and insects as much as you are against humans. If not, then you are applying a double-standard, except for the fact that we're simply human.

I know you probably use other standards to give human life more value than animal and plant life, (I do) but for this particular standard, it seems inconsistent to me.[/quote]No, it's no double-standard.

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:
That's the point: they put theirselves in danger, while abortion is the killing of another person. You're basically saying “Because some people are killed attempting to murder others, the state should make it safe and legal for them to do so.”.[/quote]

Yes I am, in this particular situation, for practical reasons that I've explained.[/quote]Let me let you in on a secret: that all men created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. The job of government is not to make it easy for people to harm each other, but the opposite.

I suck at getting other people's threads to be colored as quotes. XP
The tag at the start has no "/".

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Niels on Sat Jan 02, 2010 8:42 am

I miss something in this discussion: The cost of keeping someone alive who can't take care of himself, and who should bear that cost. You may claim that it's societies duty to keep the comatose and the demented alive, but society can not bear the cost of growing a fetus into a human. The mother is the only one who can, and it should be up to her to refuse to sacrifice her life to someone she didn't chose for - never mind that that person is growing inside her own body.

I personally refuse to take care of any starving African, any comatose or any demented elder - unless the elder in question is my own mother. I grant every woman the right to make the same choices I do. If not-caring leads to death, then so be it.

The question isn't "should we kill fetuses and all others that we don't like". Nobody is suggesting such a thing. Instead, we should wonder what the cost is of keeping them alive, and whether we want to sacrifice our own freedom and happiness to those that can't take care of themselves.
avatar
Niels

Posts : 140
Join date : 2009-09-10
Age : 53
Location : Netherlands

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Dont_Vote_Palin on Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:16 am

No, it's no double-standard.

It sure seems like one to me. Maybe not a double standard, but there is some inconsistency. There isn't anything that lends intrinsic value to any life, so one would usually base value on other standards. It seemed to me like you demeaned some of those standards to an extent, and the only value left was the simple fact that a fetus is a human.

Let me let you in on a secret: that all men created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. The job of government is not to make it easy for people to harm each other, but the opposite.

Well, the pursuit of happiness and liberty is hindered for nearly all of society when giving a fetus its unalienable rights. That's where applying those ideas in a practical way fails, imo.

The tag at the start has no "/".
Thanks.
avatar
Dont_Vote_Palin

Posts : 53
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 27
Location : Tampa, Florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Dont_Vote_Palin on Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:25 am

Niels wrote:I miss something in this discussion: The cost of keeping someone alive who can't take care of himself, and who should bear that cost. You may claim that it's societies duty to keep the comatose and the demented alive, but society can not bear the cost of growing a fetus into a human. The mother is the only one who can, and it should be up to her to refuse to sacrifice her life to someone she didn't chose for - never mind that that person is growing inside her own body.

I agree Niels. Cost is another issue that plagues illegal abortion when applying the idea in practical terms. Plus, like your post mentioned, we have to keep in mind that the mother's body, life, and well-being is also at stake here.


Instead, we should wonder what the cost is of keeping them alive, and whether we want to sacrifice our own freedom and happiness to those that can't take care of themselves.

Again, I couldn't agree more. We would have to sacrifice too much of society to keep every fetus alive, up until he or she is 18 years old. It's a reason and sacrifice that I personally cannot suffice for morality.
avatar
Dont_Vote_Palin

Posts : 53
Join date : 2009-10-19
Age : 27
Location : Tampa, Florida

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Nulono on Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:53 pm

Dont_Vote_Palin wrote:
No, it's no double-standard.

It sure seems like one to me. Maybe not a double standard, but there is some inconsistency. There isn't anything that lends intrinsic value to any life, so one would usually base value on other standards. It seemed to me like you demeaned some of those standards to an extent, and the only value left was the simple fact that a fetus is a human.
I believe that, as humans, we have a responsibility to look over our fellow human beings, or, at least, to do no harm. No ifs, no ands, no buts. No exceptions. No "inconsistency".

Let me let you in on a secret: that all men created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men. The job of government is not to make it easy for people to harm each other, but the opposite.

Well, the pursuit of happiness and liberty is hindered for nearly all of society when giving a fetus its unalienable rights. That's where applying those ideas in a practical way fails, imo.
There's a reason they're in that order; each depends upon the previous one(s) and each supersedes the following one(s). I'm sure you'd oppose using slavery or rape to pursue happiness, right?

The tag at the start has no "/".
Thanks.
You're welcome. Thanks for telling me you needed help.

Niels wrote:I miss something in this discussion: The cost of keeping someone alive who can't take care of himself, and who should bear that cost. You may claim that it's societies duty to keep the comatose and the demented alive, but society can not bear the cost of growing a fetus into a human. The mother is the only one who can, and it should be up to her to refuse to sacrifice her life to someone she didn't chose for - never mind that that person is growing inside her own body.

I personally refuse to take care of any starving African, any comatose or any demented elder - unless the elder in question is my own mother. I grant every woman the right to make the same choices I do. If not-caring leads to death, then so be it.

The question isn't "should we kill fetuses and all others that we don't like". Nobody is suggesting such a thing. Instead, we should wonder what the cost is of keeping them alive, and whether we want to sacrifice our own freedom and happiness to those that can't take care of themselves.
Okay, here's a scenario: Mr. and Ms. Robinson of Arizona have a dozen and one children (all ages measured from birth):

Peter (age 13)
Cecilia (age 11)
Christopher (age 16)
Samantha (age 4)
Maria (2 months, but was born 3 months premature)
Robert (11 months)
Alberta (age 8)
Katherine (age 17)
Adam (age 6)
Phillip (age 10)
Christina (6 weeks)
Joseph (26 months)

and Stephen, who we won't discuss because he's 22 and living on his own.

Now, Mr. and Ms. Robinson are doing fine and are both employed at good-paying jobs and are supporting their family just fine. Then the recession hits and Mr. Robinson looses his job and Ms. Robinson gets a pay and benefit cut. After some hard thinking, they decide to behead Adam, poison Christina, burn Christopher, draw and quarter Alberta, and stab Peter. Nobody found out for whatever reason and they are now doing okay as a family with fewer mouths to feed.

Later, Ms. Robinson gets another cut and she's on the verge of loosing her job. They now decide to drive Maria out into the desert and leave her there, and they simply lock Robert in his room at every meal until he starves to death. Someone finds Maria's body (and learns of Robert's starvation and the 5 previous murders) and they are now on trial for murder and neglect. You are called for jury duty. How do you vote?

Nulono

Posts : 32
Join date : 2009-12-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Inaccuracy in the abortion topic

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum