Whoa there. How about you back up THAT far from proven idea right there first, then there might be some value in the rest of your post. You’re starting by assuming something that’s far from an a priori proposition.
Maybe I cannot ‘grasp’ the existance of some great all encompassing moral code that exists independant of human perception…or where such a code might reside…or how you happen to know what that code is when so many others seem to disagree. Do explain? I’m guessing " God did it", but I’m hoping for something more interesting
…if you’re aborting as a means of birth control, then with your abortion one of your tubes gets tied. Do it a second time, then the other gets tied.
Do you mean to leave out the part where the impregnating father gets one of his balls lopped off?
I would be interested in knowing what those of you who are “pro-life” have done to improve the lives of the children who are carried to full term by single mothers Also, how many of you donate blood on a regular basis? How many of you have signed your organ donor cards? How many of you are on a list of people willing to donate bone marrow when needed?
Comfortably Numb said:
quote:
They can not grasp the old fashioned, and indeed, correct idea that there is an absolute moral right and an absolute moral wrong.
There are many of us who bought into that idea in childhood and outgrew it as we began to understand the complex nature of moral issues. There are still adults who don’t see shades of gray but that is a reasonably good sign that they are lacking in emotional intelligence. Should the life of a zygote be deemed more valuable than the life of a mother of seven? If so, by whom?
Does the life of that zygote/embryo/fetus/baby cease to be as valuable when she is an adult?
Numb also said:
[quote}Unlike other surgeries where the premise is to promote good health, abortion ends a life and damages the mother emotionally and physically, permanently.[/quote]
Cite?
And this:
quote:
A zygote is a human in development.
So is a grown woman.
And this:
quote:
What all abortionists and pro-abortioners need to realize is that abortion stops a heartbeat.
So does the death of the mother.
You are sitting in judgment on other human beings. Is that immoral?
There are more Jean Val Jean situations among us than you might think.
That heartbeat is not worth my pain and suffering, and I have not one hesitation about ending an electrochemical function in a fetus with no capacity for sentience because it lacks the brain necessary to be conscious.
A heartbeat? A grasshopper has a heartbeat. A grasshopper is not sentient and neither is a fetus. I, however, am. I will not suffer over that.
Comfortably in this case your moraly and absolutely wrong. But I’m glad that you’re at least on the good moral absolute side.
This should be started in a new thread, but are no absolutes. If murder is wrong, what happens if the fetus causes the mother to die? Is that murder? Does the fetus go to hell?
On second thought, I’ll end this here and go start a new thread, lest I hyjack this yet again. We’re not hear to discuss the morality of abortion. I want to know if you are willing to move away from your moral absolute stance just a little in order to get less abortions.
Most of this statement is inflammatory if not outright wrong. If only Anti-Choice people could see that this is just their opinion.
Abortion is not murder. You have the right to kill someone that is holding you against your will if that is the only way to obtain your release. That is not considered murder.
Unwanted Pregnancy damages the mother emotionally and physically, permanently, even more so than abortion.
Abortion ends a life. This is true. The life of what? A “person”? That is opinion. A potential person? With cloning, virtually any body cell can someday be considered a potential person.
You continue to try to assign motives, intentions and actions to the unborn that they are not remotely capable of…does it make you feel better about your beliefs to think this way?
You forgot to mention racism, slavery, and killing puppies.
Does your reply work if we replace murder with pot and rape with gambling?
I think the easy answer to this attack is that laws are meant to up hold a certain amount of social structure. We try to restrict actions like rape, murder, and theft because of their disruption to order. Some places go too far and try to make laws against dancing and music. Then there are times when actions like drugs and gambling, maybe even prostitution provide a disruption only in that “they sicken or offend someone else not doing it.” I think mushrooms are disgusting, and likewise I’m disgusted by people that eat them. If I had my way they would be illegal. Yes, that’s stupid, but then, magic mushrooms are illegal, hmmmmmm.
Perhaps you could help me understand the disruption caused by abortion, other than your disgust with the thought of it. Other than the mother, who is connected to the fetus?
Does the father have the right to stop an abortion?
Pro-choicers help me out here. I had a thought about how murder is wrong not just because it ends a person’s life, but also because of the loss to those connected with the victim. Even the nastiest murderer has a mother that loves him and is hurt by the death penalty. In that case, death penalty is wrong, because of the hurt caused to his mother. I could be way out in left field here though. But it occured to me that at the time of conception, the only connection is between mother and fetus. If she choises to terminate she’s the only one affected. In that sence, a person could “choose to be raped or robbed” and thus those acts lose their affect. After birth, that baby begins to form connections to those around; father, siblings, relatives, etc. Infantcide thus hurts not the baby, but those around. In this sence, could anyone else other than the father pentition to keep the fetus?
Its that connection between mother and fetus that I think is important in the Peterson case. Killing a pregnant woman, or causing a woman to have an unintentional abortion should be considered as ‘mudering the fetus.’ You’ve ended the fetus’ life, but you’ve also caused suffering to the mother as a result of the loss.
Yes. JThunder’s post responded to the very specific notion that an abortion ban was impractical since abortions were still likely to occur. You seem to want to engage him in a completely different argument, which he may or may not be inclined to accommodate. But that still won’t make his point invalid.
Its that connection between mother and fetus that I think is important in the Peterson case. Killing a pregnant woman, or causing a woman to have an unintentional abortion should be considered as ‘mudering the fetus.’ You’ve ended the fetus’ life, but you’ve also caused suffering to the mother as a result of the loss.
Sorry about that double post, I think I hit refresh.
But I gave this a little more thought and considered the life of a dog. Or a cat. Or a criket. Or an ant.
Killing any of those is not murder. Vets put then to sleep all the time, no big deal. BUT if you killed MY dog I’d be pissed. Killing someone else’s dog is wrong both morally and legally. If you killed someone’s ant farm it would be equally wrong.
A fetus is not a dog, nor is there any equivalence to be made. My point is that there is a little more to murder than just the killer and his victim.
I have the right to put my dog to sleep should I choose to. But not if I had a kid or a wife. In that case the dog has a connection to more people that just me. I can’t say, “well its my dog my choice.”
In re-reading my responses, I concede that I overreacted to your statements. However, I was hoping for an intelligent discussion. Ridicule does not necessarily indicate intelligence.
Of course I don’t believe the unborn chooses it’s host. Please do not insult me or your intelligence with those kinds of responses. Yes, it is always the “host’s” choice to evict the “unwelcome guest.”
Your post did not speak of any particular shortcomings of my metaphor. Is it possible they are “shortcomings” simply because you disagree with them? I will gladly discuss any of these “shortcomings” that you wish to intelligently discuss. But please keep your ridicule to yourself.
As a general rule, yes those laws are wrong. Those laws are immoral.
Involuntary servitude can never be justified, even if it means that someone else will die.
No right can be inviolable. Stuff happens. Certain rights are unalienable.
Inviolable (df): Secure from violation, assault or trespass.
Unalienable (df): incapable of being repudiated
No one has the “right” to live forever or even live past the zygote stage. Most of us die long before our time. But no one has the moral right to repudiate the woman’s rights. Not the protesters, not the government, not even the fetus.
There is a difference between killing, and not keeping alive…allowing to die. If you wish to pass a law that says that no fetus can be purposefully (when possible) killed inside the womb, but must be allowed to die naturally outside the womb, then all rights and legal obligations are met. Then, only the people that would take away your rights will object.
Thank you for keeping this discussion intelligent. I commend you on your thought provoking questions.
Why do you chose to claim that pro life folks think that outlawing/regulating abortion “solves the problem”?
Do you feel the same way about similar societal issues? Do you accuse the people who crafted anti stalker legislation of naievely thinking that it would “solve the problem”? Do you accuse people who crafted insider trading legislation of thinking that “it solves the problem”? Do you accuse people who crafted hate crime legislation of naievely thinking it would “solve the problem” of racism?
All those problems still exist to some degree…in many instances they have created additional layers of problems. I guess we toss the laws then…right?
Motives and intentions, no. Purpose, no. Actions, yes. The fetus (inadvertantly) usurps your pursuit of happiness, your liberty and possibly your life. There is no motive or intention implied, I am stating a fact.
Again you ascribe beliefs to me that I do not have. Does it make you feel better to misconstrue my points?
