It’s not an accidental death if you are forcing her to go through with the pregnancy. It’s murder, and of a sadistic and bigotry-driven variety. The moral equivalent of a war crime. And I DON’T CARE about the stupid fetuses. They aren’t worth a single woman’s inconvenience, much less her life.
It’s not murder. And it’s you not I that seemed to think that it mattered how common miscarriage was.
Der Trihs, to be fair, he’s still only 13. So go a little easy on the poor kid.
Cite for this? You keep saying this but according to Wiki:
She may have been anti-abortion, but was she anti-choice? There’s a big difference.
Look – you keep saying fetuses “WILL” be sentient. But, for the time being, they AREN’T. That’s a big difference. And if they aren’t sentient, then quite frankly, I don’t consider a fetus nearly as important as a woman’s right to have control over her own body.
You’re ignoring the basis of my opinion and substituting your own. It’s not some irrational or depraved indifference to babies that formed my stance - it’s a comparison of society with abortion rights versus one without abortion rights and the latter being worse, for the mundane reasons I’ve stated several times and which have nothing to do with delving into the murky issues of what defines “person” and what God’s will might be.
But I’m ignoring anything, and I believe I understand you quite clear.
Whether this is a person or or not, or when the fetus becomes a person during it’s gestation, if ever, (and would presumably enjoy all the rights and protections you and I do) are vitally important questions.
To say in so many words, “I don’t care if this is a child or not” is ethically appalling; for if it is ***not *** you’re simply making an argument for the abortion of ‘non living tissue mass.’
If it is, however, you’re not making a case for abortion as much for infanticide.
To say it doesn’t matter is indeed “depraved indifference” --------- unless-------the “alternatives”, as you’ve called them, are compelling enough to justify extinguishing the life of a child.
And that’s hardly the case.
Ah, but I don’t see those arguments as ignoring that question. The question, for most, I would think, has been answered. But because it has a different answer, or even an answer that is seen as important as compared to other things, it is reasonable to go onto those next questions.
Take me. I feel the “It’s my body” argument is a sound one. But that is not because I have ignored the question of whether it is a child or not; my own answer to that would be that it isn’t, under the definition that it is the young of a species but it is not yet born. I would certainly consider human life, however. But simply being a child, or a human, or a life, is not enough, in my eyes, to warrant such protection. So I then - having concluded that, and answered the question - move on to the question of whether then abortion is acceptable.
It isn’t a case, I would say of many, that they look at your question of “Is it a child/human life?” elect to ignore, or put it to one side for a moment, and skip onto “Can we abort it/what are the rights of a parent?” in an effort to try and avoid the point that might make the situation untenable. The question isn’t ignored, nor skipped. It is answered. That they, or me, may have a different standard by which we believe rights are held, means that the point isn’t ignored, it’s just not as all-ecompassing, all-affecting of an argument - or, alternatively, that while it fulfils your conditions for protection, it may not fulfil ours.
Put another way; if you had to have an appendectomy, you would be able to answer the question of whether your appendix has protective rights quite easily. You would then move on to whether you have the right over it to remove it from your body, and to kill it. That doesn’t mean that you’ve skipped over that first question, or ignored it. Your appendix simply does not fulfil those conditions in the same way that a fetus, or a fertilised egg, does for you. In the same way, that fetus or fetilised egg may well not fulfil the conditions for us, but that doesn’t mean the original question has been ignored or skipped.
Ah, but are they talking in terms of your definition of baby, or theirs? Do they have the same understanding of babies that you do?
There’s a very, very significant difference possible there. Essentially, when you say baby, you are saying “thing worthy of protection” (or at least, that is the definition which is important in this particular case). But is Bryan Ekers also saying the same thing? Is he saying " I don’t care whether this is worthy of protection - my rights are superior"? It’s possible, i’m afraid I don’t know him or his arguments well enough to say. But I doubt that that would be the majority pro-choice position.
Again, there is a difference between not answering at all and not thinking the question significant.
Take me. I believe that human life begins at conception, millions of other human lives dying to make that possible. But, for me, “human life” is not enough to warrant protection. For me, the factor on which protection depends is personhood. So for me, the question of whether it is human life is answered quite easily, but it doesn’t really help as to the overall argument. Because personhood is my metric, whether it is human life or not isn’t the general scheme of things a greatly important argument.
Now, by the same standards, by describing the types of argument I consider to be very important as “other” arguments, less important arguments, I could accuse you of skipping them, of ignoring what I consider to be the truly important arguments in such a situation. But you don’t; your point of view simply mean that what I may consider to be the tricky, important questions to answer aren’t the ones that you consider to be important. It would be foolish of me to demand of you, or think poorly of you, because you do not act according to my thoughts.
And this is the problem. Because, in my eyes, you do avoid the important questions. You don’t focus on the points that matter. But that’s not because you’re deliberately avoiding them; it’s not because you secretly realise that to engage with them would be to make your own position untenable; it’s not in order to make it more convenient for you, or to try and hide from a debate you think you might lose. It’s because you honestly believe that what I consider the important questions are not so important as others ones; others have primacy. On the other hand, it doesn’t seem as though you are willing to impart such reasonable, honest motives to those on the other side to you, which is the problem i’m trying to get at. You’re judging people by your standards, not simply as to what the answers to the arguments are, but what the *arguments *should be, and when they disagree you’re assuming the worst.
My point here was simply that I don’t believe that your definition of “that which is worthy of protection” is simply “life”, otherwise you would attempt to protect all life to a similar extent, with humanity simply being one example of that. Your definition, I would wager, is probably more specific.
No, you haven’t. I would like abortions to be legal, safe, and rare. Why? Because of the mother. Abortions are not happy fun time. If we go back and compare it to a situation where we don’t have concerns about personhood, and compare it to an appendectomy, it’s still a major operation. It’s still going to do damage, it’s still something that could, relatively easily in many cases, be avoided. I would like abortions to be rare in the same sense that I would like any major operations to be rare; I haven’t opened the door to the possibility that this is a human life (though I do think that, it just isn’t opened because of this argument).
This argument doesn’t necessarily open that door at all.
Ah, then some unnatural things are good.
You seem to have missed my other question, though. Why is that period of sapience all-important? Why is it so important that a vast exception must be made in its case, treating that which is not sapient as though it is?
And you’re free to explore them to your heart’s content, but regardless of what rights if any we extend to the fetus, the woman has an obvious inarguable claim to them as well, and given the choice between respecting the rights of a woman versus that of a fetus, the evidence (not opinion, not speculation, but actual empirical evidence) is that society is less hurt if it sides with the woman.
Well, your appallification aside, my argument is that this is a decision better left to the individual than to the state. I’ve seen a lot of emotional claims but no compelling reason why it should be the other way around. I have speculated on the conditions that might make me change my mind, though, and emotion still plays little or no role.
Actually, one of my reasons for opposing a ban is that infanticide will increase as a result.
While that child is gestating inside an unwilling host, they’re compelling enough.
Of course your idea that outlawing abortion will make them go away, is supported by the fact that drugs are illegal and we prosecute the druggies relentlessly. That is why we have no drug problems in America and you can not get them anywhere. It also will have a similar effect in that we will enforce the laws against the poor.
Prohibition does not work in America.
Suppose your spouse or girlfriend got pregnant, would you still be as callous toward your child? Also I DO CARE about the fetus.
Even if 99,999999999% of fetuses are miscarriged it still doesn’t give us an excuse to murder babies unless saying that since 100% of human beings will eventually die murder is okay.
We have eliminated much of the “root causes”: comprehensive sex education, effective birth control, equality of women, end of abuse, and so on. Certainly there are so many ways to avoid pregnancy nowadays it’s absurd to have an abortion unless your life is threatened.
Also I consider future human beings to be as deserving of the right to live as current human beings because you’re basically cheating by saying “Oh if we abort them they won’t be sapient”.
Because sapience is living and thinking, being aware of your consciousness and anyone who can potentially be sapient deserve to be given the right to be so.
Drug use rates have gone down since the 1980s and BTW I favour marijuana legalisation though not other drugs (like cocaine or LSD).
That’s great, now try showing something other than indifference about the woman.
Why? What makes sapience so different? In one of the other threads at the moment, your one on whether homosexuality is a sin, you have claimed that some forms of thinking, some thoughts, even, are unacceptable. That homosexuals can be unsinful if they essentially deny an aspect of their consciousness. So for you it would seem that consciousness, living, and thinking, are not all in and of themselves inherently good. And your argument requires greater goodness still than that; you need to say *why *sapience is so vastly more important than many other points.
Your answer here doesn’t answer the question, at least to my eyes. It’s not saying why sapience is so important, why even future-potential-sapience is so important, but just giving a definition of what you consider it to be.
You can get illegal drugs any time you want them. If drug use has gone down it is not because of their being illegal. It is not because we have wasted billions of dollars on enforcement. I would like to see more money invested in rehab.
Considering that I don’t want children, of course. Nor would I regard a fetus that I ( and she of course ) want to get rid of as a “child”. And the fact that you care so much about the fetus is a mark against you, not for you.
It’s not murder. And as has been repeatedly pointed out you are being wildly inconsistent; why does that matter, and not the fact that is the long run we all die? Like pro-lifers always do, your are picking and choosing when your so called principles apply, since your real motivation is to find an excuse to ban abortion; not to keep to your supposed principles.
Gabage. We have rotten sex education, birth control is often difficult to get many places, and birth control fails on occasion. Nor have we ended abuse :rolleyes:, nor are women treated equally everywhere at all times.
Nonsense. That’s a simple fact, not “cheating”. Am I “cheating” when I treat the cells of my body as expendable because I have no intention of ever having a clone made from them? Potential isn’t this huge deal you are making it out as.
"Every Sperm is Sacred, Every Sperm is Good"
I remember reading in another abortion topic once a good analogy, so credit goes to whoever wrote this. Correct me if I made a mistake.
Consider these premises:
Premise 1: We do not destroy historic buildings.
Premise 2: After a certain period of time, a building will become a historic building.
Curtis states that no fetus may be killed, as it will eventually become sentient human life.
By applying Curtis’ logic, no buildings may be destroyed, as they will all eventually become historic buildings.
In other words, value is being assessed by potential, which essentially gives the same value to a sperm as a human being. Where is the line drawn?
Curtis, that wasn’t what Anthony was speaking of. The issues confronting women were very different from what they were now. She certainly wasn’t talking about sex ed, for example, nor birth control, but social issues, as they were back then.
Sapience is thinking and being able to make independent decisions not based on instinct.
Than why has drug use gone down? Please explain.
Suppose you change your mind and wanted children in the future. Your wife wants to have the baby also. Would you want your wife to be careful so the baby will not be miscarriged? Or for an another example, what if your mother had decided to abort you?
Because as I’ve said sapience is important as I believe every human being deserves the right to be sapient and be able to think and be conscious.
Every kid from Fifth Grade up in my school knows about birth control and sex; birth control is not difficult to get in the vast majority of places even in Podunk, Alabama; birth control such as pills works the vast majority of the time and if it failed than maybe you shouldn’t have had sex. Abuse has been widely reported and while not eradicated has been greatly more known about and dealt with than before.
As I’ve said the moment of life is at conception which is why I support most forms of birth control.
The line is drawn at conception. Also we destroy plenty of old and “Historic” buildings.
Social conditions for women have improved since Anthony’s time.
But you were using her as an example of feminism and anti-choice, IIRC. You can’t have it both ways.
Well back than conditions were far worse so a woman may have had more excuse to get an abortion if for example her family was starving.
But that’s still a definition, not a reason. Why are these factors so important that we must make the vast exception?
Your responses here are sort of like asking why charity is important, and getting the response that charity is giving to other people. That’s not why charity is important, that’s what charity is, what it involves. Charity is important because it’s good to try and help other people, and to alleviate suffering.
Likewise, I understand what you’re saying when you tell me what sapience is, but that’s not the question i’m asking. I’d like to know what about those things that it is, what about that definition, means that it is an important thing.
Then I would never have existed. Most people who could theoretically have existed never will. Most sperm and eggs just die, and most possible combinations of sperm and eggs will never occur.
Gabage. You want to oppress women; to force them to bear children against their will; to humiliate and torment them. This has nothing to do with your supposed respect for sapience; you certainly have no respect for hers.
And candy and puppies rain from the sky on a regular basis. Your view of such things is wildly overoptimistic. And again you demonstrate how you want to use unwanted children as a club to beat women with. You pretend that abuse has vanished; then you call for abuse to be mandated by law.
Conception is a purely arbitrary point to call “the beginning of life”. Life began billions of years ago, not at conception.
Mostly by overriding the desires of people with your attitude towards women.