No, we didn’t say that you’re flip-flopping by calling it a baby. We said that you’re flip-flopping by first calling it a mere pile of cells, THEN stating that it has structure (e.g. gills and an alleged tail – both of which are scientifically inaccurate.
Come on. You said that the fetus is so terribly unspecialized that a few leftover cells could produce a new pregnancy – thereby suggesting a simple technique for human cloning. If your claim is correct, then WHY is this technique absent from the scientific literature. Sure, there would be legal controversy, but that doesn’t explain the news media’s complete silence on this issue.
Therein lies the link to the abortion issue. If your claim were correct, one would expect to find some report about this in the scientific literature and the major news networks. Why the silence, then?
This may seem rather offensive, but if pro-lifers believe that the fetus is a living thing, then I’d like to see them treat it like one. Maybe all pro-life people should take a fetus to the zoo, buy it lunch, and drive it around in the car. Then let’s see if they still think it’s a living thing.
“Attention pro lifers: Abortion is a choice your mother should’ve made.” - not sure of person
Not sure if your remarks qualify as “offensive”…just silly. Hard to know where to start with such a comment…but do people in hospital beds recovering from surgery qualify as “living” under your criteria?
Likewise…I haven’t seen anyone buy a day old baby “lunch” or take it to the zoo…or drive it around town…yadda yadda yadda…
As for your quote…I think it speaks volumes about you. :rolleyes:
At this point I think we’ve proved that there are uninformed people on both sides of the issue. Hopefully some of them are better informed now.
For me, I reiterate what I said before, I would still be pro-choice if I thought that the fetus was a human. I don’t believe in a soul and I don’t think life has as much inherent value as most people seem to think. I do have a great respect and love for most people. When people create suffering with their life it causes me great sorrow and frustration. When someone who does not want a child chooses an abortion it seems to me to be a sad but not abhorrent thing. For me, though, it is more of a tragedy that two people who would most likely be great parents, and raise great children, choose not to concieve a child because they feel their culture is already too crowded.
A really wonderful thing is when a pair of these potentially wonderful parents choose to adopt a child who would otherwise have very little opportunity in life. If we could guarantee great parents for every potential aborted child, I would have more sympathy for the pro-life stance. OTOH, I still don’t think we should force a pregnant woman to go through the ordeals of pregnancy and childbirth.
What if you heard a woman say, “I want to have his baby.” ? I occasionally hear women say that about male sex symbols. To me, someone who believes that a fetus is not a person, denying a woman an abortion would be akin to requiring that the woman go through with her stated desire to have a child, regardless of how it was meant. In parallel, I’d love to require people who want babies, and who have the ability to be good parents, to actually do it. But how would you enforce it? How would you figure out who the good parents were ahead of time? And, they comply most of the time voluntarily.
It’s pretty easy to find a boatload of sites showing that a fetus is not a person, or that it is a person. I’ve asked pregnant women haw they felt about the personhood of their future child and gotten answers supporting both postions. I was surprised that pregnant women didn’t side more consistently with the fetus is a person side. Many pregnant women only say that they anticipate that the thing inside them is going to be born a healthy, wonderful, child in the future. Still, no definitive end to the debate. I may stop back in at a later time to discuss how I come to my stand on this issue. I gotta run right now, sorry. I hope some informed person on the pro-choice side will step in with some decent info.
Yeah, c’mon. If you’re going to criticize, at least be reasonable about it. Saying things like, “If you truly believed that the fetus is alive, why aren’t you buying it lunch?” can only hurt one’s standing in a civil debate.
If abortion was made illegal many women would probably resort to unsafe do-it-yourself abortions. Also, if a couple has an unwanted child because of abortion laws it may be mistreated by its parents later on in life.
Joking about someone’s opinion is different than joking about their religion. Saying that all jews should’ve been aborted is unfair, because it is based on religion and not personality. If I joke about someone being pro-life, it is because their opinion is silly and illogical to me. Joking about all jewish people is a different story.
As for my definition of “living”, maybe “living” is not the correct word. Many people act as if the fetus were a 3 month old child. If you can suggest that a fetus has feelings then how do we know that things such as vegetables have no feelings and don’t mind being eaten?
The Jewish religion is a belief system (to clarify my earlier post…I was referring to religious Jews, not necessarily “cultural” Jews) . People who are pro life, are pro life because of a belief system (as I would venture, pro choice folks are as well), NOT because of “personality”.
There are many people on this very message board who think that ANY theist position is silly and illogical…Why is not OK for those folks who think Judaism is “silly and illogical” to make the kind of statement that you did?
Nice backpedal from your original “living” definition :rolleyes:
. I haven’t seen anyone in this particular thread equate a fetus(or embryo/ or zygote) with a 3 month old child (anymore than I would equate a 3 month old child with a 30 year old man) …so I’m not sure of the “many people” you are referring to.
If you are serious about comparing a fetus with vegetables, I would kindly suggest some rudimentary biology and embryology textbook reading …
First of all, that only addresses the question of whether abortion should be illegal. It doesn’t mean that abortion is morally justified.
Second, the U.S. Dept of Vital Statistics ITSELF says that only 39 women died as a result of abortion complications in 1972 – the year before Roe v. Wade was enacted. Tragic, but hardly an earthshaking number.
Third, in 1960, former Planned Parenthood president Mary Calderone said that 90% of all illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians. There’s no reason to expect that would change if abortion were outlawed today – especially since there is an abundant number of physicians who are specifically trained to perform abortions.
Fourth, according to a survey of post-abortive women, 75% of women interviewed said that they would not have sought an abortion if it were illegal. 70% of them also said that the law played a major role in their moral perception of abortion.
And fifth, this whole argument assumes that the fetus is not a living human being – for if it were, that would be tantamount to legalizing murder in order to safeguard the killer’s safety. Conversely, if the fetus is not a living human being, then no such argument is even necessary! While the risk to the mother’s health is a grave concern, it should not be used to justify the killing of a human being.
Who said that abortion is justified if the fetus has no feelings? A newborn child has no feelings, and yet it is considered alive. Should we feel free to end their lives?
Okie dokie, everyone, I’m here to eat crow. Everything I’ve said has been denounced as false, and I admit my own research turned up nothing (meanwhile, I’ve put a hit out on that girl who did the paper…that’s what you get for listening to people in college).
So, the ball is in the pro-life court for me (as in, I’m still pro-choice, but its a shakey foundation). Let’s hear the rest of the spiel. I’m all ears.
There are many people on this very message board who think that ANY theist position is silly and illogical…Why is not OK for those folks who think Judaism is “silly and illogical” to make the kind of statement that you did?
Nice backpedal from your original “living” definition :rolleyes:
. I haven’t seen anyone in this particular thread equate a fetus(or embryo/ or zygote) with a 3 month old child (anymore than I would equate a 3 month old child with a 30 year old man) …so I’m not sure of the “many people” you are referring to.
1)Now that you put it that way, making a joke about the jewish religion is still a joke. Yes, the joke is in bad taste, but it is still a joke. For someone who said the joke was “not offensive, just silly” you sure do seem offended by it.
2)As far as equating a fetus with a 3 month old child, I wasn’t referring to anyone in this thread. Just pro-life people that I have met in the past.
My “silly” reference was to your statement (which I think you have since retracted?) that listed the ability to have lunch (among others) as criteria for something being “living”.
As far as your comment about aborting pro life people, your ORIGINAL reaction was that such a statement would be unfair to make about Jews (more than just a joke, in other words)…that it would be offensive. Surely, you can’t be surprised then, that people of a pro life persuasion might find such a statement offensive. As has been pointed out in other threads (see the thread started by Esprix about Christians, for example), just because something is stated as a “joke” or sarcastic wit, does not mean that it is not offensive.
For the record:Do “I” feel attacked and threatened and hurt=>no
Do I think it’s a dumb statement that doesn’t really belong in a debate about abortion (unless, perhaps you’re making it in the pit)=>yes
Fair enough…although if you’re debating people here in this thread…it helps to debate the points that people HERE have made, not the statements made by other people you have met in the past.
Get serious. That’s like saying “Against rape? Then don’t rape someone!”
Pro-lifers don’t object to abortion as a matter of personal preference – as though they were choosing chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla. They object to abortion because they believe it is WRONG – just as people who oppose rape do so because they believe it is wrong.
The whole “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one!” argument merely illustrates a lackluster understanding of the issues at hand. If anything, this slogan is a subtle example of circular reasoning. It implicitly ASSUMES that abortion is a morally neutral choice – and thus, it assumes the very viewpoint which pro-choicers attempt to promote.