Nope. What is it to me if a pack of rednecks want to go and lynch people? It isnt my concern in the least.
You’re assuming an element that I did not specify and, as it happens, have noted on other abortion threads that I do not specify – “We just differ on where we see it being an independant human.” I don’t think we do, at all. Because I think we both assume that independent entity status comes at the moment the umbilical cord is cut – though that baby needs care from an adult for several years before it’s capable of fending for itself in any reasonable way, no matter the society.
However, “It isnt a right or wrong thing. It is simply a free to do with ones body as one wishes” is in my opinion in error. It is most emphatically a moral decision – regardless of whether you regard the tissue growing inside her as a human being or not, it has the potential to be one in the course of its natural development, whether or not it is one now. So she is definitely terminating a possible life which has already started its growth process in having an abortion. In her weighting of the pros and cons, she may decide that her own situation takes priority over the life of the potential child, to be sure. But she’s got to be aware, on some level, that if she doesn’t have an aboriton, she’s going to have a baby – and what the consequences of doing so might be.
It’s not my business to judge you, but you have a very restrictive definition of “moral” if you don’t see that decision of hers as a moral evaluation in some way. (I hope you realize that that discussion is not a disguised attempt to argue the anti-abortion stance, simply an insistence that what one does in one’s life always has moral consequences.)
Where I see the difference is that, for whatever reason, she is now in a situation where what either is, or has the potential to be, another human life, is dependent on her body for its survival for a limited span of time. Surely you would have no objection if I decide to go to the mall and spend some money? Would your decision change if the circumstances are that I was steadying a precariously-balanced ladder that you were at the top of at the time I decide to take off for the mall?
My stance is and always has been that the woman must make the moral decision whether or not to terminate the life that would have been a child if not terminated – and that it’s her decision, not one that she can be compelled by law to do.
Well, you aren’t Donne yet! 
My sentiments exactly. It seems that our only diffrence here is that I see it as an objective decision and you see it as a moral one. Isnt the world supposed to end now or something since we kind of agree about things in a peacefull way?
oh lord, I am afraid to ask what that means.
Bob Cos:
My first post on this thread was prior to the one you responded to. In that post, though I came down on the pro-choice side, I pursued the matter via (what seemed to me to be) the sort of logical analysis you are looking for; and I showed some sympathy for the pro-life side.
The post you have responded to was NOT addressed to the pro-life side in general, but rather to those who have the extreme views I discuss, AND: either have not considered the likely consequences, or, have considered those consequences and find them acceptable.
In the sentence you quoted about exempting one’s daughter, the “can not” has the sense of “it is not logically consistent to define something as so morally reprehensible that it deserves legal punishment by execution or lengthy imprisonment, and then ALSO to hold that members of one’s own family ought to be exempt therefrom.” That is not to say that such a position is not humanly understandable, only that it is not logically consistent.
Polycarp, let us both toll that bell until we’re good and Donne (or Donne and good)!
Wow…with all that fancy thinkin’ you was hitting us with I was sure you woudda heard of John Donne..
:rolleyes:
quoted from the link:
You cant expect me to take this seriously. Every man is NOT connected. The deaths of thousands dont affect anyone but the dead. Every man is on his own and has to survive on his own merits. The bell does not toll for me, it tolls for some poor sucker takeing the dirt nap. I wasnt hitting you with “fancy” thining, I was hitting you with free thinking. Thoughts free of subjective feeling and written with objective thinking.
Burner,
it might save time to know if you are coming from an Ayn Rand orientation. Are you?
I googled a few sites about what her beliefs are and who she is and that is definately NOT where I am comeing from. I am comeing from more of a Mr.Spock perspective. If you remove the moral value from things and just look at them from a logical and factual stand point then everything just falls into place. Nothing is inherently “right” or “wrong”. Thoes are just subjective value judements placed on things. What is good for one isnt good for all.
Excuse me? A premature baby on a ventilator is not yet alive?
lets take that to the other end, Is a comatose person on a respirator dead? In both instances, only the machine is keeping them “alive”. In essense, a ventilator is an extension of the womb and until that baby is free of that womb, it hasnt yet been born. In natures harshness, a premature baby has no chance of survival. An artificial method was made to substitue the womb to bring it to the point where it can survive. In future technologies, an artificial womb could very well a genetically enhanced cow or pig carrying human fetus to term, it can be a plastic or organic sac made to imitate the womb, it could be an cloned womb in a male human being, but for now a ventilator works. Sure, all the baby’s organs work, but birth is separating from all support and becoming an individual.
My bad, then. I apologize for any confusion or offense I created.
But what is the difference in the moral value to the premie’s life if requires sustenance from an incubater or a bottle? In neither case can it survive without someone making an effort to sustain it. If the mother doesn’t breast feed and only gives it formula- does it matter? If it’s kept in an incubator and mechanically fed formula (so it is entirely dependent on machine)- does it matter?
Does it matter if they are full term or not? There are a number of situations in which full term babies require help to survive for a little bit.
In the not too distant future, it will be able to “become alive” as you put it much earlier. The equipment used for late 3rd trimester births will continue to get better (as it has for the last many decades). This distinction seems to me artificial and based specifically on our current technology- which we know will change. Is this sufficient for a moral distinction?
PC
Is the comatose person permanently brain dead? If not, then, no, he/she is not dead. If mechanical ventilation is used until a person can either breath on his own or it’s determined beyond the shadow of a doubt that he never will then I don’t think there is a debate here over “dead” or “alive”.
Just because an individual must depend on assitance–either human or mecahnical-- to survive doesn’t make him “not alive”–it simply makes him unable to sustain himself left to his own devices–a marked difference. A quadraplegic would never be considered “not alive” even though he may require the assistance of either machine or humans for everything from nutrition to expelling waste products. He did not simply become “dead” upon the moment of paralysis.
(Incidentally, so far as the premature baby not being “born” until he or she is off of mechanical ventilation, there is a somewhat related idea with preemies. Your thought isn’t completely random but it is misguided. The medical thinking with preemies isn’t based on dependence on mechanical assistance but rather when the baby was actually due. The progress and develpoment of a premature baby is measured by both their actual physical removal from the womb and the date they were due. For example, a baby born three months prematurely in January would be considered “biologically” nine months old in October but his “adjusted” age would be six months. However, once the baby was removed from the womb, he was always considered “alive”.)
I agree 100%, Evilbeth.
I also believe, however, that you can not force a person to provide such assistance against their will. (generic you, comment not aimed at evilbeth alone, offer void in Australia 
)
So, for you, human life has no value. Okay, forgive me BURNER but I’m gonna bow out of this one here. There’s little point in debating whether an entity should be valued as a human with someone who believes that all human life is valueless. From his twisted worldview, I probably wouldn’t have been able to convince Ted Bundy he was wrong either.
Explain to my why human life should have value. Why is it worse to kill a man than it is to kill a sheep or a tree?
Alright, I’m out of here. I’ve valued the debate- it really has helped, but it sounds like we’ve moved to a different debate. Maybe burner should start a GD thread with the above question as the OP.
Thanks all,
PC
Scott Dickerson
Consequences of Making Abortion Illegal
How we feel and the positions we take about abortion flow from how much value we put in the unborn. If abortion were to become illegal many who put little or no value in the unborn would find the prospect of sending women and doctors to jail as very unjust. In a parallel situation the plantation owners of the Old South believed African Americans were not fully human (at least not as human as themselves) so they could not accept the loss of their way of life if they allowed their slaves to go free. The consequences seemed too great to them because they would not consider to true humanity of their slaves.
We should stop denying the humanity of the unborn and consider the fact that we never had to consider their value until we developed the technology to destroy them. We will be faced with more values to consider as technology will allow us to create artificial life and greatly extend the human life span. How will artificial life be treated and who will have access to the technology that allows people to live until 150? Should we improve the human race thru genetic manipulation? What genes will be good and what bad? Who decides? All questions that require us to find answers based on strong consistent values. Destroying human life when it is inconvenient is not the kind of values that will get us thru the technological changes to come.
The Murder of Abortion Doctors
Those extreme so called Pro-Life people, who support, incite or commit the murder of abortion doctors deserve all the punishment the law provides (expect the Death Penalty). I do, however, agree and support any non-violent means that gives a voice to the unborn and still shows respect for all individuals concerned.
Sauceman:
“…If abortion were to become illegal many who put little or no value in the unborn would find the prospect of sending women and doctors to jail as very unjust…”
Did you intend to write “very JUST”?
Or is your point that, BECAUSE it would seem unjust to send women and doctors to jail, people would prevent the injustice by acting to prevent the abortion?
Just asking for clarification.
I’m replying to Beagledave’s reply (back on p.2) to my reply to his…
I thought I was making myself reasonably clear. There’s the question of what constitutes personhood. There’s the question, should abortion be legal? IMO, these two things have nothing to do with each other.
My personal opinion is that a fetus is not yet a person, but that’s not my basis for wanting abortion to be legal.
IMO, abortion should be legal because the woman’s right to not have a child she does not want is paramount.
I see no point to debating the personhood of non-talking babies, brain damaged adults, etc. It’s irrelevant. IMO, they have a right to life; a fetus doesn’t. This is purely a matter of opinion.
Actually, a woman has a right to abort throughout the pregnancy. I favor some constraints on this right during the last trimester, but I can’t offer any real justification for this. If the choice were between (a) complete or near-complete outlawing of abortion and (b) complete legality of abortion throughout the pregnancy, I’d favor (b). As it happens, we do not have to choose between these extreams. We can draw an (entirely abitrary) line and have one set of rules for the 1st 2 trimesters, and another set for the 3rd.