Yipee!!! Hey, I have to cherish the little victories since I’m losing the war. I do realize that this only puts some sort of human value on those with a history, who have proved themselves. It can’t by default be applied to the unborn, who may or may not make valuable contributions. (thought I’d say that so you didn’t have to)
That’s almost two in a row! So unwanted doesn’t always mean no value?
It’s not each individual abortion. It’s the horrifyingly huge numbers done each year.
Well Priceguy, since all of humanity was once a little parasite and many people were at one time unwanted, it kind of takes the sting out of that statement. I’m not trying to force all those women to have unwanted children, only to work toward a better solution in the majority of these situations. I’m not able to not grieve these babies anymore than I can not grieve any life that is hurt or destroyed. It doesn’t seem like a choice to me, but I guess it is.
So the best answer you have to “what’s a rational reason to be prolife?” is “you’ll value human life too when you’re in an emotionally very distressing situation where your ability to reason will be at least partly suspended”? And that’s, like, your best shot?
No it doesn’t. I have a hard time seeing how an unwanted zygote/embryo/fetus could be shown to have value based on this, though.
Well, that kind of takes the power out of that argument. Each individual woman does not cause pain to you, and I have a really hard time believing that your pain would be significantly different if there were 500, 5000, 50000 or 500000 abortions each year.
Don’t get me wrong: I don’t want or like abortions. I’m not actively in favour of abortions. I don’t picket women’s clinics demanding that women abort. An abortion is a sign something went wrong. Abortions are nobody’s first choice. But having your life changed forever because you happen to be a woman and had sex at the wrong time, when we have the ability to fix the situation, is not a better solution as far as I can see.
It’s not a choice per se. I didn’t choose to be an atheist; I just evaluated the facts and came up with atheism. If you can reevaluate your grief and find where it’s coming from, you may be able to change your stance on that. And since you don’t want abortion criminalized, that would be a better solution for everyone, especially you.
My point here would be unwanted doesn’t always stay unwanted and even if it did, but a child was born in spite of that, the child can and does go on to create pleasure and have worth. Putting no value on unplanned human life seems to be operating under an assumption that there is NEVER a good outcome for an unwanted pregnancy. Because there is no way to measure it, it becomes a rational choice to destroy all of them.
Well believe it. It’s true. I hate abortion, the whole concept of it. But I have never indicated that I am so hard-core that I don’t have sympathy for the woman. I do, very much. I believe there are situations that make it the only choicel
Abortion is a sign that something went wrong, I agree. But this many abortions is a sign that although abortion is not the first choice, it is the second. Failed birth-control methods, rape and incest are NOT why there are so many abortions. It is that ever-growing attitude of only caring about your own pain and pleasure. Nobody really mentions it much, but I know men who are grieving to this day over a child lost to abortion, an abortion they were against. I understand why when two people don’t agree on this that the woman has to be able to choose, but her choice has caused pain. Birth control is the best and most effective it’s ever been, but not utilizing it, which is the first choice, is not as important because of the option of abortion, the second choice. There should be a moral obligation to never destroy life when it could have been avoided by prevention. There’s not.
I don’t want to re-evaluate and somehow manage to diminish my grief. That’s like saying I need to suck it up and stop caring that so many children are starving, rather than trying to help. I think our tendency, because we don’t see how we can help, is to shrug and find a way not to feel. Then we can be just like all the other people who contribute to the problems, by not caring; instead of those who try to find solutions. Ugh…This last paragraph sounds better if you hum We Are The World, while you read it. :o
okay, maybe more basically… I should say this: I think we agree that killing an adult is wrong.
I don’t think any action can be justified that cannot be justified 6 months later.
Given the potential of a conceived zygote to eventually reach that stage, isn’t it wrong to not let nature take it’s course? I’m trying to think of positive occaisions where mankind has interrupted nature, without much success.
You’re really close to what I’m thinking here. The kid could turn out to be a saint or an asshole, and there’s no way of knowing.
I’m afraid I don’t. Are you telling me you go out of your way to find out about every single abortion in the world, just so you can feel pain for the fetus? Are you telling me that you’d feel exactly ten times as much pain if there were 5000 abortions instead of 500?
I disagree. The fetus dies, and then it’s over. No more pain.
Why?
Not really. Take gay marriage, for example. I know from past experience that we both are in favour of gay marriage. Now, gay marriage bothers a lot of people. In the past, homosexuality bothered even more. I still don’t think that gay marriage shuld be forbidden or homosexuals prevented from living in the relationships they want, because it is a better solution, in the long run, that the anti-gay crowd learns to accept homosexuality. In the same way, it is a better solution that you learn not to grieve fetuses.
The starving children are different, because the best solution is not that you stop caring, but that the children stop starving.
No, there’s not. I don’t think we have any guarantees here, that I know of. The most loved, desired child in the world can and does become the asshole too. Not that personality type has any bearing on the decision to abort. My point is I disagree with that huge generalization of yours that assumes unwanted is by default valueless. It’s not really a valid argument for you or I to use. There’s no way to assess it, so it can’t be your point by default. I’m pretty sure I brought it up, my mistake. Let’s abort it.
You should. No I don’t track individual abortions. Math is not my strong suite, so I pretty much go with small, moderate and large numbers of abortions. You know Priceguy, it’s not like I go out of my way to find out things that will make me sad. Some things I actually try not to know. Things that I can’t possibly impact in any way, I try to find out as little as possible about. Something like abortion which is being so over-utilized is hard to ignore. I’m entitled to have an opinion on it and to try and impact it.
You can claim that, but you can’t really prove that. No way to measure it, so let’s just assume it’s true by default?? Abortion is a surgery, sometimes there’s complications. Sometimes mom regrets the loss of the child. Sometimes she never is able to have another child. Sometimes the pregnancy is further along and it hurts the baby before it dies. It is NOT a neutral act!!! Abortion should be considered as the seventh option, not the second. [ul]Choice one is to have sex or abstain.
Choice two is to carefully use contraceptives.
Choice three, if choice two fails in some way, is to determine where the woman is in her cycle. It’s not foolproof, but it is a logical way to assess possible risk. Knowing this if you’re sexually active is a part of being responsible.
Choice four is the morning after pill. If choice two and three put you at a higher risk, this would be the next responsible step to take.
Choice five would be, you find you are pregnant and you assess whether or not you want and can support a baby.
Choice six is deciding whether or not you can carry a baby to term and give it up for adoption.
Choice seven, abortion is for when the other six choices have failed to provide a solution. It means that with the other six choices that you had, this was the only one you decided to utilize. The only reasonable excuse for coming to choice seven is being unaware of birth control failure, rape and incest. Only a very small percentage of women should ever even get to choice seven.[/ul]
It’s part of being responsible. If you don’t want life. Don’t create it. Hell Priceguy, you shouldn’t even fill your plate up with food, if you only want a few bites. You shouldn’t kill a deer and leave it on the side of the road, just for sport. The deers dead, it’s over kind of quick and it just feels a flash of horrendous pain, but then nothing. The point is, it is unnecessary and a waste.
Bothered is a lot different than harmed, but okay, I agree that anti-gays should just get over it. For abortion though, the optimal solution would not be to learn not to grieve, it would be to limit abortion to a necessity rather than a convenience. Not by limiting abortion, but by modifying behavior.
I’m for the death penalty when the crime is serious enough; but this is only done if the adult has already gone down the wrong path - if he deserves it. In many cases the pregnancy is an “inconvenience” caused by the mother’s choice to have sex. The fetus has done nothing wrong. Its existence is the fault of the man and woman’s choice to copulate.
These circumstances you speak of? How can the same reasoning be applied to the conception? I still stand on the idea that time should not affect how we make our choices. If I wait six months, a year, whatever, and my action is clearly either right or wrong, the ambiguity of the moment’s action should disappear. And of course I’m only talking about actions that are made by one individual.
I certainly enjoy a logical debate, but there comes a point when it just gets stupid–kinda like when someone asks a ridiculous question such as, “Why is the killing of a human automatically wrong?” Stupid questions beget stupid answers.
I haven’t attacked anything but the ludicrousness of the question.
Nobody’s waving a gun around. Are you delusional?
There are some things in life that aren’t matters of opinion. Human life carries with it the utmost of value, and it is one of those issues that is a simple fact of life.
Not at all. The answer to the question “what’s a rational reason to be prolife?” is simple: the most rational reason to be pro-life is that human life is the most valuable asset any of us have. If we do not have life, then we have nothing else.
Aww…So you came to contribute stupid answers. I see. :rolleyes:
You’re right. You made no real attempt to answer Priceguy’s question. If he seriously sees it as a valid question, wouldn’t it be better to at least attempt to answer it rationally.
You’re not. Then what was this:
Are you delusional? Or just forgetful?
Why? Have you not picked up on the fact that many don’t agree than a fetus qualifies as **human life ** yet. Including the Supreme Court? This is indeed a matter of opinion, until you can prove otherwise.
No, the fetus has done nothing wrong and doesn’t “deserve” to die, whatever that means. I don’t see what that has to do with anything, nor why you bring the death penalty into this discussion.
Well, your action in six months or a year is not “clearly either right or wrong”, so the ambiguity doesn’t disappear.
Nope. Do you have any evidence or is this an unfounded assertion?
Go on. Show me something.
IWLN, I am going to get around to responding to you, but while the others are throwing softballs, you’re throwing hardballs. That’s why it takes a while in my present condition. Take it as a compliment.
Not really, but I certainly don’t mind descending to the level of the ridiculous to point out the absurdity of the questions. In this case, that’s about all there was left to offer.
Do you really expect that irrational questions deserve rational answers? Asking absurd questions in the hopes that it will cause the opposing debator much dismay in attempting to rationally answer it is a weak debate tactic. Rather, I’d just prefer to point out the irrationality with more irrationality. It’s much easier and garners much wailing and gnashing of teeth–kinda like what you’re doing now.
I suggested that Priceguy might think differently about whether human life was important if it was HIS life in jeopardy. I illustrated that with a description of a gun pointed at his head. You accused me of “waving guns around”, to which I replied that nobody was waving guns around. It was simply a figure of speech.
I can prove that human life begins at conception. Can anyone prove that human life begins at any other time?
Yes, I have evidence, and it’s called common sense. If a human being does not have life, then he is devoid of everything else. Why does this concept even need an explanation?
I’m not sure you can be shown anything if your precept is that human life doesn’t automatically carry value with it.
Absolutely. An irrational question is one that you see no relevance in. That doesn’t mean there isn’t. Only that you can’t see it. It’s better to explore it and see if you’re missing something than immediately write it off as stupid.
You’re arguing about the argument? You think that all questions about human life and it’s value are simply to cause dismay? Well you wouldn’t think that if the questions didn’t bother you, emotionally. Because you feel emotional about these questions doesn’t mean they’re a diversionary tactic. It just means you’re unable to view this topic rationally. The only wailing and gnashing of teeth I’ve seen is from you, in your emotional assertions about human life. Similar to mine, earlier in the thread. Your emotions about this are wasted when you’re trying to make a point with someone who doesn’t understand why it would be an emotional topic. And common sense as an answer is a lame response. It’s your perception and apparently not as common as you would like to believe. The whole point of this argument is the value placed on human life in the earliest stages. If there were agreement on that, there wouldn’t be an argument. Finding it offensive that others don’t see your point, does nothing to prove your point. Btw, emotionally I do feel the same as you do, but after trying very hard to construct a valid argument out of it, realized there isn’t one.
So yours was an illustration and mine was an accusation? Cute. Since we’re both relatively sure that you don’t have a weapon in your hand, perhaps mine was an illustration too. I was trying to point out that emotional responses don’t win arguments or even make a particular point for you. A gun at Priceguy’s head would provoke a reaction that a scalpel just doesn’t get from a fetus.
Okay, prove it. First you will have to define human life and go from there. Try and be specific. Something that will be a baby someday, doesn’t quite do it. It’s your job to prove that something that might be a viable human one day deserves the same considerations as a viable human. Nobody needs to prove to you that life begins at any other time. It’s not their assertions that need to be validated. Prove it doesn’t start at any other time, if you’d like. Don’t forget that a huge percentage of conceptions don’t attach to the uterine wall. So human life is continuously starting itself and ending all within that first week.
I’ll cheerfully admit that if a human being without life is without everything. What you need to explain is what this has to do with the discussion at hand.
You’re shifting the burden of proof. Your precept is that human life does automatically have value. This is a positive statement and thus one requiring proof. I’m saying I cannot see this value or whence it springs. If you cannot show me, then it would appear to me that it doesn’t exist.
Exactly. As I said, you believe I would think differently if I were in an emotionally very distressing situation where my ability to reason will be at least partly suspended. I fail to see how that is an argument in favour of your view. “I think A when I’m rational, B when I’m irrational” is an argument in favour of A, not B.
I do realize that this only puts some sort of human value on those with a history, who have proved themselves. It can’t by default be applied to the unborn, who may or may not make valuable contributions. (thought I’d say that so you didn’t have to)