Is abortion moral?

[trust]

I am about to spend a weekend trapped with a group of pro-choice individuals. I am pro-life.

To me it is black and white. Life begins when the sperm connects with the egg. Period. Any termination of that life is immoral.

Can anyone help me with intellectual arguments other than "You're full of ..it!" so I can attempt to change the minds of these people.

Thanks for any help you can give me.

[NetxMan]

All you can do is state the facts. I am like you I think it is pretty black and white.

They argue for the right of the women, I ask what about the rights of the children?

[steve_in_mich]

I wouldn't necessarily try to convince these folks of your position, but rather ask them to explain their position and try to have an honest discussion about their points.

If they can't discuss beyond "it's a woman's body and she can do whatever she wants" there's absolutely no point in the discussion.

[JD3]

I will say this: One of the reasons we make no ground on this issue is becasue of the way ecach side talks to the other. It get emotional and people call each other names. The talking points, I think, are these:

1) Where does life begin. I think there is disagreement. If you really want to convince them, I'd seek proof. There was a nice essay I read once comparing the idea of the fetus not being human to the idea that slave owners had that slaves weren't human. It was interesting and well toughtout. I'd have to look for it.

2) You biggest challenege will be to even get them to listen to you or you to listen to them. I suspect both sides have made up their minds. You'd have to plan for that -- specifically. I might challeneg the whole notion that naything is decided and that we must work a few things out. But no matter what you do it will be difficult.

3) Watch your language and emotion. These are find to have, but if preceived as closed mindedness, even to the closed mind, it will hinder your ability to reach anyone. The word murder carries connotations that close the mind of the person you are trying to convince. It may be true (unless you think there are ever justifiable reasons to take a life), but it will not convince anyone on the other side, especially if they don't accept that it is life yet.


I wish you well. It is a tough assignment you've given yourself.

[shikaki]

Morality seems to be that ambiguous stick that people use when they want their opinions to count for more than they probably should. Morality is something, like religion that has no clear right or wrong and is very personal in nature. What my morals are, concern only me, unless how I feel about something causes me to carry out something illegal. The dictionary definition or morals:

n.
1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3. morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.
Why must people look to change the minds of someone else? In order to intellectually discuss this point some facts need to be addressed.

1.) When does life begin?
2.) Who determines that, the bible or science and medicine?
3.) Does a woman have a personal/moral/legal right to make decisions about her body and her life?
4.) Is there ever a situation that would be considered politically correct to terminate a pregnancy?
5.) If there is a unintentional termination, should the woman be morally persecuted?

Also, outside of your own morals, what exactly would be your reason for convincing another human to think as you do?

Just wondering...

[KWJams]

<<-Story Here-->> (http://www.psychologytoday.com/htdocs/prod/PTOArticle/pto-20031024-000002.asp)

I would be interested in what they thought about this -->


Genes Influence Gender Identity
By Colin Allen -- Publication Date: Oct 24, 2003

Summary: Hormones are not the only influence in sexual development.

Sexual identity may be hard-wired into the brain. Before a developing embryo begins to generate its own hormones, genes are already playing an important role in organizing the brain along gender lines. Researchers from University of California at Los Angeles studying mice embryos have identified 54 genes in which activity levels vary according to gender.

Author Eric Vilain, an assistant professor of genetics at UCLA, compared the activity levels of genes in male and female brains in 10-day-old embryonic mice--days before they developed sex organs. He found 18 genes that were more strongly active in male embryonic brains, and 36 that were revved up in females.

The finding suggests that genes play an important role in the early development of sexual identity, and probably have much to do with shaping gender in the mammalian brain. "This refutes the notion that hormones are the sole influence in gender identity," says Vilain.

At this early stage of research, scientists do not know how large a role genetics plays in making the brain male or female. Hormones and environmental factors are certainly a vital part of development.

Now that Vilain knows which genes to focus on, he plans to study each to investigate how individual genes influence the brain's development.

The findings may also someday develop into a test for assigning gender to children born with ambiguous genitalia. Also, it may potentially explain why transgendered people have normal hormonal levels, yet feel they are in the wrong body.

The study was published in October in Molecular Brain Research.



Can sexual identity exist without life? :thinking:

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by shikaki
1.) When does life begin?
2.) Who determines that, the bible or science and medicine?
3.) Does a woman have a personal/moral/legal right to make decisions about her body and her life?
4.) Is there ever a situation that would be considered politically correct to terminate a pregnancy?
5.) If there is a unintentional termination, should the woman be morally persecuted?

Also, outside of your own morals, what exactly would be your reason for convincing another human to think as you do?

Just wondering... Some excellent points there.

Abortion is the antithesis of a black and white issue.
It reaches the very core of the human condition and is one of the most emotionally charged issues that can ever be discussed.
Religion and politics don't even come close.

I'm pro choice and nothing will ever change my mind on this issue.
I've seen too many people go through a personal hell when presented with this issue. It's the hardest decision people are ever likely to make and the emotional consequences don't diminish with time.
I only hope it's a decision I never have to make.

Here's just a couple of examples from people I've known...

When I was 19, a friend was held captive by a jealous ex boyfriend who broke into her home. For three days, he beat and raped her.
Her parents raised the alarm when she was late home for the Christmas holidays and the police broke into her flat and found her.
She suffered a complete nervous breakdown.
A few weeks later, her doctor found that she was pregnant and recommended an immediate abortion as she was unfit, both mentally and physically to proceed with the pregnancy.

There is nothing on this earth that would have prevented this girl from killing herself if she had been forced to continue with the pregnancy.
I can see no moral reason for forcing a rape victim to give birth to her attackers child. Worse still, consider the emotional impact on the child should they ever discover how they came to be.

Another friend of mine, a strict Roman Catholic, was happily married with three children when she found out she was pregnant again.
The birth of her third child had encountered serious complications and she was advised that if she continued with this latest pregnancy, neither her nor the child would survive.
She sought a second and a third medical opinion. The prognosis was the same.
Her parish priest, whilst sympathetic, could not condone an abortion.
For the sake of her husband and children, my friend had an abortion. She has never felt able to go into her church since.

Granted, these are both extreme examples, but they are both valid examples and (to my mind) justify why abortion needs to be available. In both of these examples, the life of the woman was in jeopardy.
Which takes precedence?
The life that is, or the life that could be?

Abortion is as old as mankind and not without risk.
Surely it is preferrable that it is carried out in a relatively safe, legally endorsed environment?

Pro lifers need to learn compassion for the women making this decision and walk a mile in their shoes.

[KWJams]

Most people would even add incest to that list,,,,,,,,,,but the reason why most people are opposed to abortion is because it's use as a nonchalant alternative of birth control for people with promiscuous lifestyles.

[booboohead]

Originally posted by trust
I am about to spend a weekend trapped with a group of pro-choice individuals. I am pro-life.

To me it is black and white. Life begins when the sperm connects with the egg. Period. Any termination of that life is immoral.

Can anyone help me with intellectual arguments other than "You're full of ..it!" so I can attempt to change the minds of these people.

Thanks for any help you can give me.

The debate over this topic tends to focus on the question of 'when does life begin'. But is that where people start? or wind up. Many people, I suspect, change their minds about this question based on their life experiences.

The decision (whether to have an abortion) is, of course, extremely difficult. And once made, people will tend to adopt certain arguments that support whatever decision they've made (life begins at 0 or 3 months or X).

Debating these arguments therefore is futile, as you've found. Because the positions people have are NOT usually based on the arguments. Rather, the positions came first, and the arguments second.

I suspect most make this very emotional decision in the midst of a torrent of feelings, thoughts and fears and hopes and who knows what else (I'm a guy - I don't have a clue).

And so I think it would help if you discussed this topic in a more practical and personal context. In other words... who should make the decision about whether to terminate a life; how that person or persons can best make that decision; and what the ramifications should be.

I and most of my friends are pro-life AND pro-choice. We value the life of the unborn child and the mother. We accept that life begins at conception, and that termination of that life is a moral question.

The crux of the issue for us is not when life begins. It is 'who' decides what to do (the mother, father, judge, jury, committee, the law, etc).

Pro-choicer's feel the woman should. You may feel 'the law' should. You might have more luck discussing that, rather then when life begins.

You might also try to first identify what you agree on. You may find there is alot more there than you think.

I think you'll also find that, as others have mentioned, the discussion of 'who decides' and how they decide, is not as 'black and white' a question as 'when life begins'. In my view, I believe the woman should have the right to make that choice up to a certain point (maybe 4 mo). And then the law should stipulate that the unborn child should have some rights as well. Whether the woman has an abortion or doesn't is between her and God. The best we can do is support her and have compassion for her in any decision that she makes. It is a more difficult decision than most of us have ever had to make in our own lives. We should not presume to be better at it.

[Agnostic]

Sorry cant help you there. All the best anyway.:D

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by booboohead
Whether the woman has an abortion or doesn't is between her and God. The best we can do is support her and have compassion for her in any decision that she makes. It is a more difficult decision than most of us have ever had to make in our own lives. We should not presume to be better at it. Well said!
An excellent, thought provoking post.

Compassion is the key.
In the U.K., you need the approval of two doctors and extensive counselling, to have an abortion on the National Health. It is quite difficult to get two doctors to approve.

Therefore, many woman have to go privately and pay for the proceedure.

To my mind, anything is better that the back-street abortionists that used to exist.

The lobbyists are never going to stop abortion, so I feel it's preferable that it's carried out professionally and with counselling.
It's still the case that many women change their minds after counselling.
When you are shown compassion, you become more open to what is possible rather than having a sense of the inevitable.

[NetxMan]

feel it's preferable that it's carried out professionally ......

Can you carry the Murder of an Innocent child out professionally?


Yes, as an earlier poster posted it is between "you and god", but that isn't a "get out of jail free" card. That doesn't mean we can do what we want and let god decide in the end. We should still strive to do what is right.

And, I am sorry, I don't understand how people can stand up for "women's rights" but they some how leave out the children. What happened to the right of the child to live?

Does ones selfish act of abortion out way ones right to life? Do you not agree that the right to life, especially that of an innocent child is the most basic right we have?

How many actual women that were raped get pregnant? or for that matter get abortions? I can, if you like, show you studies that show that the number is so minuet that it shouldn't even be factor in legalizing abortion.

Abortion is the most extreme, permanent and devastatingly violent solution, for the unborn child, to a clearly temporary situation - i.e. the location and dependence of that unborn child. Dependence also continues into early childhood and this "being dependent" argument would easily justify infanticide.


Let me also explain some of my more personal thoughts on the subject.

I have 4 children, 2 of them came in a part of my life that I didn't think I could handle children, and for a very brief moment I thought maybe abortion would be the quick fix for the problem. But I knew my morals and beliefs, and my mothers horrific story about her first abortion haunting her to this day, wouldn't allow me to do that.

When I hold them, run outside with them, help them blow their first birthday candle out, I almost cry, and have cried for ever even thinking of being so selfish. When I am holding my 3 month old and she laughs and giggles at me, I feel like the scum of the earth thinking that I could play God, and take something that isn't mine.

Second,

Let me explain why I think life begins pretty early. Like maybe contraception?

Having four children, my wife has been pregnant four times. Each an every time, she could tell within a few days that she was pregnant. Within 1 week she is already getting sick. I know this doesn't happen with every women, but I also know that my children are all normal, meaning each pregnancy was normal.

Just using logic, this would tell me that she starts reacting this way because something abnormal is happening to hear body. If it weren't abnormal, then it would be normal? Thus, an organism is growing or changing, or forming, or evolving in her body. I think the following definition explains life.

Life----

A.The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
B.The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.

Dictionary.com

[lawman]

I appreciate the sincerity and level-headedness with which posters here are approaching this topic. Here's my take:

A fetus is not a child. It is certainly not an independent human being, and accordingly aborting it does not constitute "murder."

What it is, is an organism (or more properly, a potential organism) growing within a woman's body, and completely dependent on that body for its continued existence. In a sense, it could even be called a parasite. The body often feels free to self-abort it (quite frequently, in fact, during the first hours and days of embryonic development after conception), and we attach no moral opprobrium to miscarriage.

At a certain point (around 24 weeks, given current medical technology) a fetus becomes viable as an organism that can exist on its own outside the womb. To my mind, that is the relevant transition point at which human life begins, in a legally meaningful sense, and is invested with rights.

For those of you who have actually read the Roe v. Wade decision, you'll find this is exactly the logic the court applies.

Of course, as the court notes, even after viability there may be conflicts between the rights of the fetus and the rights of the woman which the law may need to balance. To me, when such balancing is necessary, all else being equal, the needs of the mother (a human already among us) carry greater weight than the rights of the fetus (whose quality of life is entirely potential and theoretical).

As for the idea that instances of rape, incest, or threats to the life or health of the mother are statistically insignificant, I submit that they're certainly more common than the straw-man opposite of "promiscuous" people who use abortion as a "nonchalant" alternative to contraception.

Abortion has existed throughout human history. It's a medical response to a medical condition. It's also a major life choice, of course, and one hardly anyone takes lightly. To suggest that the law can or should supersede this choice and force a woman to carry a child to term against her will, because it's "black and white," is simplistic; to suppose that such a law would ever actually make abortion go away (rather than just creating a risky and expensive black market) is foolish.

This analysis doesn't resolve all the thorny ethical issues surrounding pregnancy, of course. What about a woman who does plan on carrying a pregnancy to term, but also insists on using alcohol, tobacco, and/or recreational drugs during the crucial early months (pre-viability)? How much freedom can or should the law reasonably restrict? There's no easy answer there... but that's a separate discussion.

[NetxMan]

Originally posted by lawman


What it is, is an organism (or more properly, a potential organism) growing within a woman's body, and completely dependent on that body for its continued existence. In a sense, it could even be called a parasite. The body often feels free to self-abort it (quite frequently, in fact, during the first hours and days of embryonic development after conception), and we attach no moral opprobrium to miscarriage.



Yes, we don't have a moral opprobrium to miscarriage, just like I wouldn't if an old man had a heart attack and died right in front of me. Why? Because I have no control of this. I do however have control over the murder of a life.

I submit that they're certainly more common than the straw-man opposite of "promiscuous" people who use abortion as a "nonchalant" alternative to contraception.

Please. So you are saying over ~1,500,000 (1997 number of abortions) were raped, yet only ~175,000 (1997 number of reported rapes) reported their rape? I find that a little hard to believe.

I knew 15 girls in my high school class alone who got abortions, and all of them, were no rape cases. Now, yes I also do realize that there were the ones I knew about, but come on Lawman.

To suggest that the law can or should supersede this choice and force a woman to carry a child to term against her will, because it's "black and white," is simplistic; to suppose that such a law would ever actually make abortion go away (rather than just creating a risky and expensive black market) is foolish.


This is a "simplistic" and irresponsible statement. If the Government used the ideology "we can't stop them completely, so we should not try at all" then they could just legalize everything.

[lawman]

Originally posted by NetxMan
Yes, we don't have a moral opprobrium to miscarriage, just like I wouldn't if an old man had a heart attack and died right in front of me. Why? Because I have no control of this. I do however have control over the murder of a life.
If you call it "murder," you're presupposing your conclusion. That's circular reasoning.

Do you oppose suicide? That's dependent on human action rather than nature, too, but by what logic would you claim the right to "control" it?

Please. So you are saying over ~1,500,000 (1997 number of abortions) were raped, yet only ~175,000 (1997 number of reported rapes) reported their rape?
No, of course not. How on earth could you get that from what I wrote?

This is a "simplistic" and irresponsible statement. If the Government used the ideology "we can't stop them completely, so we should not try at all" then they could just legalize everything.
Not "everything," of course... but there's certainly a strong argument for legalizing (and regulating) things that ultimately represent the actions of consenting adults and don't impact unwilling victims. I'd include, for example, gay sex (which the USSC finally agreed with; better late than never) and gay marriage (see separate thread), prostitution, gambling, suicide, euthanasia, and most recreational drugs. I'm basically a libertarian about most social/behavioral issues.

(Notice how many of these "crimes" involve sex, BTW? It's distressing how puritanical our society still is in so may ways...)

[Captain America]

Perhaps this will help.

It is true that the Bible contains no verses prohibiting voluntary abortion. That, in and of itself, shows that it is a sin. The only references to abortion in the Bible are to coerced abortion as a punishment for nonbelievers, sinners and those who fail to recognize God’s chosen people. In Second Kings, we learn that Menahem, leader of the Israelites, smote all the people who refused to follow him “and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up” (2 Kings 15:16). Later, in Hosea, we learn that because the land of Samaria rejected God, “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up” (Hosea 13:16). Hosea decided to carry out God’s vengeance on the people by killing the unborn babies carried by the heathen women. He promised to “slay even the beloved fruit of their womb” (Hosea 9:16).

Since killing their unborn children is one of the many punishments the followers of God have inflicted on nonbelievers, it is obviously not an act any True Christians may undertake for themselves by choice. Furthermore, humans have no business performing abortions because that is God’s role. After all, it was God who killed all the unborn children on the planet (other than those of Noah’s immediate family) when He drowned everyone with the Great Flood (Genesis 7:23). And it was God who inflicted abortion on all the pregnant women when he rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah, killing everyone who lived therein (Genesis 19:24-25). And it was God who killed the unborn babies during the countless plagues and pestilence he inflicted on the planet throughout history. Abortion is obviously an act God reserves for punishing those groups of people who rub him the wrong way. It is not an act to be performed at human whim.

Finally, friends, there is absolutely no reason to opt for abortion when God allows us, and in some instances, orders us, to rid ourselves of troublesome children after they’re born. Wasn’t it God who said, “Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones” (Psalms 137:9)? Why insist on prenatal killing when the post-natal killing options are so widespread? The Bible authorizes us to kill just about any child who becomes burdensome. According to Deuteronomy, if a child is unruly and disobedient, we not only have the option of killing him, but it is mandatory that he be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). The same is true for a child who speaks to us with foul language (Exodus 21:17). Or a child who hits us (Exodus 21:15).

The bottom line is that only coerced abortion is allowed in the Bible, not abortion on demand. And God, in his infinite compassion, provided us with the means of eliminating troublesome children once they are born and we know for sure they are unwanted. So tell your skeptical acquaintances to put away the coat hangers, once and for all, and let the child be born, but have stones and the Proverbial rod handy, just in case.



Visit Landover Baptist at:
Unsaved NOT welcomed! (www.landoverbaptist.com)

[lawman]

Skillfully done, Cap. For the first two paragraphs there I honestly thought you were being sincere (and was about to ask, with equal sincerity, "why should we as Americans care what strictures the Bible may place on 'True Christians'?")... but your devious reductio-ad-absurdum became clear before the end. Very effective. In a generous mood, I might even call it Swiftian.

[PatriotChick]

I'm definitely pro-life.

[Captain America]

Thank you lawman. I enjoy making people laugh and smile:lol: :)

It is a labor of love.:angel:

[Captain America]

I am pro-choice. I believe that when a woman decides to have sex and gets pregnant, she has made her choice. There are zillions of ways to prevent pregnancy and if a woman chooses to to ignore them, that's her choice. Same for the man.

Abortion as a form of birth control or because pregnancy is "inconvient" is totally unacceptable. Women that abort simply because of the inconvenience or timing, ought to aborted themselves. IMHO:mad:

[booboohead]

CA, thanks for the chuckle. i get my grins when i see irony. and your statement "women who have abortions should be aborted themselves"... is ironic coming from you, because of your tag line - "be excellent to each other. party on.". seems like a mixture of intolerance and tolerance.

[Captain America]

Be excellent to babies that have not been born yet too. They have no voice to say "PLEASE!!! I WANT TO LIVE."

So I take it upon myself to speak for them from time to time.

Peace

[booboohead]

Thats a good point. If they could speak, I suspect they would say just that, loud and clear. Its an interesting way of looking at this.

I'd like to think that their feelings about their mom though would not be 'If she aborts me, then kill her.' I'd rather hope they'd say 'She doesn't fully understand what she is doing. Love her. Have compassion for her.'.

For those of us who believe in God and Jesus, we know that unborn child, while they don't have a life, they do have an afterlife. Revenge, IMO, is an emotional response, not a spiritual one. Love is both.

[Captain America]

I can respect that.

I am not a religious person but I do ascribe to love, compassion, charity and all the things that some people have to have religion to do.

Unfortunantly, I do have a line a person can cross with me that will make me completely disconcern myself with them. Crackheads, neo-con rednecks, and flighty little harlots who kill their unborn children for selfish reasons get no consideration from me.:mad:

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by Captain America
Crackheads, neo-con rednecks, and flighty little harlots who kill their unborn children for selfish reasons get no consideration from me.:mad: Seconded to a degree.

My personal slant on the whole abortion issue is...
I'm resolutely pro-choice.
Because of complications with my older brother's birth, I'm told that termination was put to my parents as an option when they found out I was on my way. The basis was purely medical grounds. My mum said no way, but I know my dad was scared of losing his wife in child birth.
I don't know how much he considered it as an option, but I don't blame him if he did.

[Captain America]

I can see the valid use of abortion practice. And I would prefer that my wife, mother or sister had a safe, sterilized, professional hospital to attend if they were in a position that abortion was required as a matter of self preservation.

However, when some flighty, twenty year old, Friday night *****, finds herself staring at her little packet of birth control pills in a daze, with a look of utter confusion, only to realize that she is PREGNANT, and the first thought on her mind is, "Damn! The last thing I need is to have to come up with 500.00 bucks for this damn abortion! That's a WHOLE MONTH'S rent!"; then I submit that society and it's value upon life is in the sh itter.

It's a baby damn it! What if your mom aborted YOU? (Rhetorical question, not directed to anyone particular.)


The unborn babies are crying, "Please mama don't. I can love you. You can love me. We can belong to each other. Please mama, don't.":( :( :(

[Cedars]

Morality is something, like religion that has no clear right or wrong and is very personal in nature. What my morals are, concern only me, unless how I feel about something causes me to carry out something illegal.
Moral relativity is an illogical argument. To say that morality is determined differently for each individual is ridiculous. According to this theory, killing a person (already born) in the U.S. is immoral because it is illegal, while killing a person in another country that does not forbid certain killings is moral. Laws do not form morality (morality generally forms laws, though this is not always the case). Killing is immoral, no matter what the cause. That being said, I have to say that in cases of rape and other tragedies, I feel deeply for those involved. Morality is not always easy. To be honest, if I were in a tragic situation, I would hope that I would do the moral thing; but one never knows until one is in that situation. I would certainly never give someone a hard time who did have an abortion. As far as legalizing abortion, I am caught between a rock and a hard place. While I believe abortions are immoral, I also believe it would be terrible for our police and court system to have to prove these types of cases--I'd also hate to see those poor women persecuted when they have already made one of the hardest decisions of their lives.

[booboohead]

Originally posted by Cedars
Moral relativity is an illogical argument. To say that morality is determined differently for each individual is ridiculous. According to this theory, killing a person (already born) in the U.S. is immoral because it is illegal, while killing a person in another country that does not forbid certain killings is moral. Laws do not form morality (morality generally forms laws, though this is not always the case). Killing is immoral, no matter what the cause.You're correct that the existance of a law does not make behavior 'moral' or 'immoral'. And I agree that the definition of the word 'moral' presumes some collective 'group' opinion that something is 'right' or 'wrong'... and is not just an individual opinion.

However, it is true that different cultures or groups may, quite logically, have different morals. Some groups may believe killing in self defense is moral. Others may feel that any killing, even in self defense, is immoral. Some believe in slavery, others not. Some that homosexual behavior is natural, others not.

Also, as people and cultures change, so do their morals (slavery is one example). So while 'individual moral relativity' may not make sense... 'moral relativity' within and among groups does.

And don't ask me how many people it takes to make a group ;)

[shikaki]

Captain: On this issue you seem to be a strange bird. ;)
Lawman: A true wordsmith. I'm held enchanted and enthralled by your use of the language. Remind me to call you if I ever need a lawyer. :)
Booboohead: Very well put if I say so myself!!

[Captain America]

Yes, I realize that lobbying for the life of an unborn child in this day and age makes me a strange bird.

But, in my humble opinion, it is better than lobbying for the right to kill these innocent babies (to be.) What in the world drives people to be that way is beyond me.

At the end of the day, we all know abortion is wrong, no matter what we say about it or which side we take.

2 + 2 = 4 and killing unborn babies is wrong. Period.

case closed.:whack:

[cpwill]

second that.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by trust
To me it is black and white. Life begins when the sperm connects with the egg. Period. Any termination of that life is immoral.
Do you hold memorial services for the gazillions of skin cells you lose every day? :rolleyes:

[Captain America]

Do you hold memorial services for the gazillions of skin cells you lose every day?

That's pretty weak. Funny, but weak:rolleyes:

[shikaki]

I don't think that there is pro choice person alive that would prefer abortion to birth. The basic argument for pro choice is that it should be the woman's preference. Only she understands the complete picture. Contrary to popular believe most women that have abortions are very distraught about the decision making process. It is not done on a whim or without undue emotional trauma. To allow a woman to make a choice is simply stating 2 things:
1.) I don’t know the extenuating circumstances that brought you to this decision.
2.) This decision doesn’t affect me, so why should I make a decision for you. After all, I’m not going to raise this child, be responsible for this child or have anything directly to do with this child.
People really should not oversimplify this issue unless they themselves are going to be part of the solution. I know, but the argument continues with; but it is against God’s law to kill. This argument to me has to cover a lot of areas then. Let’s use the following list to help clarify:
1.) Anyone involved with war, is a sinner.
2.) Anyone that kills another, police officers, government officials, etc, is a sinner.
3.) Anyone that drinks too much or smokes, is a sinner, after all they are killing themselves.
My point being with these examples is that there is some unclearness about what is considered right and wrong. To me you can’t sit on the fence, either killing is wrong or it isn’t and if there are certain situations that make it acceptable then the exception should apply across the board.

An interesting question, if it was scientifically possible to determine at conception that a person would grow up to be an Adolf Hitler, would the pro lifers stay steadfast with their position?

[cpwill]

look, if abortion is a legitimate option, then it stands to reason that there will be some women who get one that should not have, and some women that dont who should have.

but where are these women? i can show you multiple women who have gotten abortions and later decided that was the wrong decision. i challenge you to show me the opposite side of this legitimate choice: bring me the mother of the two year old who now says that she should have killed it. show me the pro-abortion activist who is an activist because she made a mistake and raised a child when she thinks she should have had an abortion. the lady from Roe V. Wade is now an anti-abortion activist; i challenge you to find her counterpart.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Captain America
That's pretty weak. Funny, but weak:rolleyes:
Due to the recent advances in cloning, even skin cells can grow out to be a seperate individual with a right to live you know so I wouldn't call my point weak. What can be called weak is the point that a fertilized egg cell is human life with a right (although they make it sound like an obligation) to live. This point is absurd. Scientifically alone it is pathetically ridiculous, and otherwise too.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by cpwill
look, if abortion is a legitimate option, then it stands to reason that there will be some women who get one that should not have, and some women that dont who should have.

but where are these women? i can show you multiple women who have gotten abortions and later decided that was the wrong decision. i challenge you to show me the opposite side of this legitimate choice: bring me the mother of the two year old who now says that she should have killed it. show me the pro-abortion activist who is an activist because she made a mistake and raised a child when she thinks she should have had an abortion. the lady from Roe V. Wade is now an anti-abortion activist; i challenge you to find her counterpart.
Enough women with handicapped children would probably wish they had chosen for it if they knew in advance. And hey, where do you think a large part of the kids who are given or taken away for adoption come from? From people who after all things considered would have better chosen or afterwards wanted to have chosen for abortion.

[cpwill]

please show me the woman who now says she should have had an abortion.

[gopman]

"Enough women with handicapped children would probably wish they had chosen for it if they knew in advance."

I don't think many women with handicapped children wish they were dead. They're probably glad they didn't know it would be handicapped so they didn't do something they'd live to regret.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
I don't think many women with handicapped children wish they were dead. They're probably glad they didn't know it would be handicapped so they didn't do something they'd live to regret.
Would you chose to keep your child if it turned out in advance it would be a Down syndrome baby, knowing full well this will shatter all your dreams you had about children, will overthrow your entire life, and will give you a child that needs constant special attention, will be an outcast in society, and have a life expectancy of around 40 years, during which it will be frequently plagued by disease which implies you also ruin his life?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by cpwill
please show me the woman who now says she should have had an abortion.
They don't run around bragging you know. Shows of little sensitivity to say to a child I wish you were aborted. They do exist.

[gopman]

The answer to your question is yes. I would not place any less value on its life and I especially wouldn't kill it because it has a disease. I also don't think we should kill people who are paralyzed in car accidents, or suffer brain damage, etc.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by shikaki
I don't think that there is pro choice person alive that would prefer abortion to birth. The basic argument for pro choice is that it should be the woman's preference. Only she understands the complete picture. Contrary to popular believe most women that have abortions are very distraught about the decision making process. It is not done on a whim or without undue emotional trauma. To allow a woman to make a choice is simply stating 2 things:
1.) I don’t know the extenuating circumstances that brought you to this decision.
2.) This decision doesn’t affect me, so why should I make a decision for you. After all, I’m not going to raise this child, be responsible for this child or have anything directly to do with this child. :clap:

[gopman]

"it should be the woman's preference"

No one's preference should have an effect on anyone else's life.

[shikaki]

Debate my entire post, not just one line. That is weak and certainly not keeping in context. Thanks Blueangel!!

[gopman]

I think that innocent life should be destroyed for no reason.

[shikaki]

Originally posted by gopman
I think that innocent life should be destroyed for no reason.

Listen, I have several responses to this:

1.) Sticks and Stones will break my bones, but your one liner will get you no where.
2.) I'm rubber your glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
3.) A one liner in the hand is worth a whole page of dialogue in the bush.

:banghead:

[gopman]

I've stated my full reasons in many previous posts, both legal and moral.

[cpwill]

are you denying, then, that innocent life shouldn't be destroyed?;)

basically, as i see it; there are two key points that pro-abortionists would have to make before they have a real argument.
1. at what point does it become "life" and what makes the difference.
2. where are the mothers who now say they should have had abortions.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by cpwill
basically, as i see it; there are two key points that pro-abortionists would have to make before they have a real argument.
1. at what point does it become "life" and what makes the difference.
2. where are the mothers who now say they should have had abortions.
1. When it can live. As in live independantly outside the womb, not parasitic on the mother.
2. They exist and they even devote topics (http://forums.adoption.com/t79636.html) to them.

[gopman]

" When it can live. As in live independantly outside the womb, not parasitic on the mother."

Aren't parasites alive? We can't live outside of earth, does that mean that we aren't really alive?

[Simon666]

That wasn't the point meant, bacteria live too. What cpwill meant with the point where it becomes "life" was probably the point where it becomes human life that people have no right to terminate except for very, very good reasons.

[gopman]

You can't arbitrarily pick certain human characteristics that make us human. They all do. And one characteristic is that we start small and develop.

[Simon666]

Animals too. Without biological background you probably wouldn't be able to discern a 6 week old human embryo from that of a pig. Would be embarassing for you if I would let you decide on the basis of pictures who gets to live.

[gopman]

So what? Just because I can't tell doesn't mean it's not true.

[Simon666]

It means you decide on emotional/religious reasons with little scientific justification.

[Goofy Dick]

I see your point Simon but what a drab world it would be with a bunnch of Mr. Spock's walking around with no heart or emotion.

That does not compute.

[gopman]

Because I can't recognize a visible difference between two cells? That doesn't mean that at all. Fetuses meet the biological requirements of life and they have unique human DNA. That makes them humans in my eyes.

[Goofy Dick]

Be careful. They may close this thread too:eek:

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
Because I can't recognize a visible difference between two cells? That doesn't mean that at all. Fetuses meet the biological requirements of life and they have unique human DNA. That makes them humans in my eyes.
What about human pig embryos (http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s196491.htm)? :D They require the biological requirements of life and they have unique human DNA. That makes them human in your eyes? :D

I think I'll be touching a sensitive point here, you'll probably be outraged about this kind of research because it raises questions on the validity of your (religious) dogmas like the church had issues with Copernicus. But I'm having fun, I can't wait to see what spin you'll give to this. :D

[gopman]

"It was an aneuploid cell, which means it was totally incapable of creating a human being."

There's no spin involved here, that's not a human cell. Fetuses are made of human cells. The fact that I couldn't tell the difference has no effect on the situation whatsoever. I'm not outraged at all, I'm just disappointed that scientists are wasting their time making useless cells when they could be researching medicine.

[Simon666]

O, so it is the possibility for a cell to become a human that ensures it cannot be allowed to die? How many eggcells of your girlfriend have you allowed to die unfertilized you monster? They are alive too, and can grow out to become a human being. :D

I'm poking fun, your viewpoints are unscientific and religiously biased.

[gopman]

Alone they don't meet the requirements of life. They have to grow and reproduce themselves. Fetuses grow, and can reproduce by themselves, they just aren't fully developed yet. People aren't full developed until about 25. Does that mean that 24 year olds can be aborted? That's all scientific fact. I haven't mentioned souls at all in my argument, because I know it would be fruitless.

The pig man just isn't human, and provides no strength to your argument.

I believe your arguments are unscientific and anti-religiously biased.

[Simon666]

They are anti-religiously biased. Unscientific I wouldn't say. Unscientific is "Fetuses grow, and can reproduce by themselves".

[gopman]

"Fetuses grow"

So how do they become recognizable humans?

"can reproduce by themselves"

They can, just not yet. Saying they don't meet that requirement for life is like saying that 10 year olds aren't alive.

[Vic]

a fetus cant breath by its self, it cant really think, cause it hasnt learned anythin yet. There for i dont really consider a fetus as a living human.

The learning process is what counts the most to me, and that begins after birth.

i am, like you say in america, "pro-choice".

i think the mother should have a choice about wanting to give birth to a child or not, especially when they have been raped or their life is in danger because of the baby.

on the other hand i think abortion should only be legal in the first months, abortion in the latest month should only be granted if the mothers life is in danger.

Now some people answer to me "what if you self were aborted instead of born"

all i can say to that is: well i haven´t and if i had been aborted, i couldn´t care less, cause i wouldn´t really exist as a person with character and knowledge, i wouldn´t even know what "care" would mean.

[cpwill]

Originally posted by Vic
a fetus cant breath by its self, it cant really think, cause it hasnt learned anythin yet. There for i dont really consider a fetus as a living human.

by this definition neither is anyone in a coma or on life-support.
nice to know that it was okay when my great-grandfather died because he really wasn't human anyway.

<<abortion in the latest month should only be granted if the mothers life is in danger.>>

politically i would be willing to agree to compromise on this, but morally i have to ask why we would trade the possibility of the loss of innocent life for the assurance of the loss of innocent life.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
So how do they become recognizable humans?

They can, just not yet. Saying they don't meet that requirement for life is like saying that 10 year olds aren't alive.
The unscientific part is that they can't grow by themselves, they need to be parasitic on the mother via a lifeline. Nor can they reproduce by themselves, and I didn't say that was a requirement for life. You were the one that seemed to insinuate this so it is nice to see you think your own definitions are flawed.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by cpwill
by this definition neither is anyone in a coma or on life-support.
nice to know that it was okay when my great-grandfather died because he really wasn't human anyway.
A person in coma has already met the conditions of human life and can theoretically at any moment wake up and meet the required conditions again. People on life support too, although not wake up at any moment.
Originally posted by cpwill
abortion in the latest month should only be granted if the mothers life is in danger.
Plus if it is in case of severe disformation of the baby so it would die anyway shortly after, in case of incest, or when the mother's health, not necessarily life, is in danger.
Originally posted by cpwill
politically i would be willing to agree to compromise on this, but morally i have to ask why we would trade the possibility of the loss of innocent life for the assurance of the loss of innocent life.
I find this is very despicable moral. You are willing to take the chance of killing an intelligent human being for something that has less intelligence and feelings than a pig, while you have no problem killing a pig. You're just attaching so much emotional value to a baby based on little scientific arguments you're willing to sacrifice a fully developed human being. If it were you giving birth or if it were your girlfriend whose life was at risk, you would think otherwise, or at least I hope otherwise I don't want to know people like you. i don't know how any person could live with himself after he asked his girlfriend to die for his baby.

[Captain America]

Ahhh... yet again.

One side cannot follow through debate without resorting to personal insults when backed into the corner.

Let's see.... from which side was the insult hurled?

I don't want to know people like you. : Pro abortion

I find this is very despicable moral. You are willing to take the chance of killing an intelligent human being for something that has less intelligence and feelings than a pig, while you have no problem killing a pig. : pro-abortion

How many eggcells of your girlfriend have you allowed to die unfertilized you monster? pro-abortion

We all know which side initiated the volley of personal insults on the other abortion thread that was closed down. I am starting to see a pattern here.:eek:

Up2Date.... are you taking wagers on how much longer this thread will evolve before you have to close it down too?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Captain America
One side cannot follow through debate without resorting to personal insults when backed into the corner.

Let's see.... from which side was the insult hurled?
Oh really, backed into the corner? :rolleyes: It seems you resort to a round of selective quoting as arguments failed.
Originally posted by Captain America
I don't want to know people like you. : Pro abortion
Full quote: If it were you giving birth or if it were your girlfriend whose life was at risk, you would think otherwise, or at least I hope otherwise I don't want to know people like you. That is my opinion, I don't think or at least hope that anyone with a sense of reason left would chose his girlfriend to die or would chose to die so the baby could live on the basis of a religious doctrine or whatever other reason. I really mean this, this is not an insult.
Originally posted by Captain America
I find this is very despicable moral. You are willing to take the chance of killing an intelligent human being for something that has less intelligence and feelings than a pig, while you have no problem killing a pig. : pro-abortion
Fact is: pigs have been established to be intelligent by scientists, some even believe they are smarter than chimpansees. If you are willing to offer your wifes life or your own life for a creature that has less intelligence, less emotion, less awareness of its own life than a pig, for overly emotional or religious reasons, your morals are quite low.
Originally posted by Captain America
How many eggcells of your girlfriend have you allowed to die unfertilized you monster? pro-abortion
Was a joke to what I believed was an error in reasoning. Not an insult. You selectively quoted again and forgot the :D.

Calling in the moderators for help will not do your religious/emotional, hardly based on reason arguments, any good.

[Captain America]

Whoa Simon...

This is the good Cap'n your talking too here. Religious? Are you smokin' dust?:thinking: ;) :p You know better than that. You're just trying to be funny, right? Hahaha! You got me!!

I just debate on the side of the babies, partly because I believe that way, and partly because they are unable to make their own plea for life. For some reason, I feel obligated.

I was just pointing out how the pro-abortionists get around to personally offending the other person they are debating when the topic becomes heated. I am trying to corelate the demeanor between the two types of personalities.

Those with no qualms with abortion on demand vs. those who lobby to save the unborn. I was trying to point out the bitterness and subliminal anger that erupts in the form of personal insults from the pro-destroy side of the fence. And how that personality trait somehow ties in with the desire to defend abortion on demand. It has to be more than coincidental. This hints of some inner struggle. Some inner hate. I think that if we could address what is inside of a person that would lead them to promote convenience abortions, and deal with those issues, we would have a much better chance of saving the babies.

We have to go to the root of the problem.

[Simon666]

The religious thing was more generally intended, towards people like cpwill and gopman. There is some subliminal anger indeed because I really feel someone like cpwill would want full grown, conscient people to die for his viewpoints. I can't possibly understand that and I have really negative feelings about this.

[Captain America]

I have felt similar feelings in conversing with CPwill too. But I remember he is very young. Patience on both of our parts has been reciprocal. But I think he is a good young man with a good heart though. I hardly agree with him usually but no big deal. I think that he is smarter than I was, when I was his age perhaps. His thoughts and viewpoints are just now formulating. They will evolve and change like the leaves on the trees yet. I think he'll turn out just fine. Remember when we were that age? We weren't much different.

Now where did I put my cane?:lol: :lol:

[Simon666]

I'm sure he intends it quite well with all people and he really believes what he does is right, but Hitler intended it quite well for his people too and believed what he did with the Jews was right for his people. The road to hell is paved with good intentions is the saying that is most applicable. And I don't think after 18 people change much of opinion. They're opinions only become more expressed I believe.

[CyNix]

Two points:

Does anyone know exactly when "it" changes from a jelly like cellular blob, to a human? If you do not know without a hint of a doubt, why risk killing a human?

What defines human life? The fetus is not part of the mother, it has its own DNA, blood, and brain. Unlike a cancer, it does not share the same DNA or the same blood and life of the host. And given enough time, the fetus is fully capable of making more humans. A child at birth is completely dependent on its mother, but we do not call it a "parasite". Why risk killing a human?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by CyNix
What defines human life?
What can you and I do that most animals can't? We can think independently, feel pain, and have a conscience, determine what is right or wrong. Those are the most important criteria I use.

And I give you the question back: why risk killing a human when the mother most certainly is? Some here expect her to die for their religious/emotional beliefs. Do you?

[CyNix]

What defines human life?
A fetus can think, or feel like any other human. Before birth, and even after, these thoughts are limited in comparison to those of an adult. But I would not consider the mentally retarded to be any less human than myself. Albert Eienstien, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and any other great men were all helpless cellular blobs, or "parasites" in their mothers wombs. It would be unfortunate is these men where aborted. Rare is the case where the mothers own life would be endangered due to the fetus inside of her. These cases are dwarfed by the great number of cases where the mother will not, or cannot care for the child after birth. I do not understand why the mother would rather abort the child, than to put it up for adoption. Abortion is not a matter of religion or emotion. It is a matter of morality, a matter of what is right and what is not. Why risk killing a human?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by CyNix
But I would not consider the mentally retarded to be any less human than myself.
Well I think they are, not that they can be killed for that or anything.
Originally posted by CyNix
Albert Eienstien, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and any other great men were all helpless cellular blobs, or "parasites" in their mothers wombs. It would be unfortunate is these men where aborted. Rare is the case where the mothers own life would be endangered due to the fetus inside of her. These cases are dwarfed by the great number of cases where the mother will not, or cannot care for the child after birth. I do not understand why the mother would rather abort the child, than to put it up for adoption. Abortion is not a matter of religion or emotion. It is a matter of morality, a matter of what is right and what is not. Why risk killing a human?
Hitler, Saddam, Stalin and many other evil men were all helpless cellular blobs, or "parasites" in their mothers wombs. It would be very fortunate if these men were aborted. And I don't believe that growing a child for nine months and going through painful labour and all physical problems accompanied with pregnancy only to give the baby away is a solution or much more fun or moral for the mother.

[Captain America]

So... have you been watching the Scott Pederson trial? The defense is raising the arguement raising the possibility that the baby was born full term and later killed/died. The prosecution is argueing that "Corey" was never born at all, rather was expelled after a certain amount of decomposition took place. Attempting to place a name, face and human value on this unfortunant baby.

So, what was it? A baby or a fetus? If it was not yet born, was it a fetus? A "non-person" as the pro-abortion camp would like to regard it? Or was it "Corey", a living unborn baby and a supplimental murder charge?

If it was an "unborn fetus", can Scott be charged with murder? Women do that every day? I mean, it can't be either/or, can it? It has to be one way or the other doesn't it?

It's a tricky area.

[Simon666]

The woman didn't chose to abort it so this indicates she planned of letting this become a human being, and thus I feel I believe it should be double homicide. But that is just a technicality.

[Captain America]

So, let me see if I got that right. If a woman WANTS it, it is an unborn baby and if she don't, it is just fetal tissue.

Am I correct?

Thanks for clearing that up for me. That's the point I was driving at. rolleyes:

[Simon666]

If a woman wants it, it is clearly going to become a human being, if she doesn't want it, it is clearly just going to remain a cell culture with less intellectual capacities and less capabilities than a pig that will be terminated.

[Captain America]

Well...if that helps them sleep at night.

If a woman wants it, it is clearly going to become a human being, if she doesn't want it, it is clearly just going to remain a cell culture with less intellectual capacities and less capabilities than a pig that will be terminated.

Of all the unwanted babies given up for adoption, I think they would disagree with you. Even being unwanted, they still developed into human beings.

[Simon666]

They would probably never realize it if they were terminated. Of those given up for adoption, ofcourse they wouldn't want to be aborted. But I already noted that that is as absurd as not having wanted their parents to have had sex or their mother not to have used anticonceptiva. They would never have been aware either.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by booboohead
However, it is true that different cultures or groups may, quite logically, have different morals. Some groups may believe killing in self defense is moral. Others may feel that any killing, even in self defense, is immoral. Some believe in slavery, others not. Some that homosexual behavior is natural, others not.

Also, as people and cultures change, so do their morals (slavery is one example). So while 'individual moral relativity' may not make sense... 'moral relativity' within and among groups does.

And don't ask me how many people it takes to make a group ;)

A fellow by the name of Dr. Robert Noggle says it best:

What moral relativism adds is the claim that every society's (or every individual's) moral beliefs ARE TRUE. Everyone agrees that moral beliefs differ. What moral relativism says is that all of these differing moral beliefs ARE TRUE....

[T]he mere fact of disagreement or diversity of opinion about something does not prove that everyone's opinion is correct...

Just because I am unable or unwilling to tell someone that their moral beliefs are false, that does not mean that everyone's moral beliefs are true....

The fact that we should tolerate differences of opinion, that we respect people's rights to have their own opinions, does not mean that every opinion is true....

The trouble with moral relativism, though, is that not all of our moral beliefs are like this. Consider the following.

Lisa believes: "It is wrong to steal."

Bart believes: "It is OK to steal."

Now, suppose that Bart steals from Lisa. Has Bart done anything wrong? Well, from Lisa's point of view, yes he has. But from Bart's point of view, he has not. Now if relativism is true, then both Lisa and Bart are correct. (Remember that relativism is more than just the claim that Lisa and Bart both BELIEVE their beliefs; it is the claim that both of them have CORRECT beliefs.) How can that be? It would seem that Bart's action was both wrong and right at the same time! That is a contradiction. Contradictory statements can NEVER be true at the same time. But moral relativism seems to imply that contradictory moral statements are true at the same time. This means that there is something wrong with moral relativism....

If moral relativism is true, then there is no set of rules or standards that govern interpersonal relations, since each person has her own set of rules or standards. So if moral relativism is true, then there are no moral rules that apply to everyone. There are only rules that apply to each person's own actions. In effect, this means that there is no morality at all. Morality is normally thought of as a set of rules that governs how we should interact with each other. But if moral relativism is true, then there is no one set of rules that governs how we should interact with each other; instead, there different rules for each person....

[I]f moral relativism is true, then no one is ever wrong about what is moral or immoral. If everyone's opinion (or everyone's culture) is correct, then if I or my culture thinks that it is OK to set babies on fire for entertainment, then when I do that, I am not acting immorally. Now, pay very close attention to what I say: If moral relativism is true, then if Joe believes that setting babies on fire is morally OK, then his belief is automatically correct. It is not just that he believes that setting babies on fire is moral, but it really is moral for him to do this. If you believe in moral relativism, then you must believe that Joe acts morally when he does this. (Remember that relativism means not only that he is moral in his own eyes, but that he really does act morally.)

This is a general point about moral relativism. If you believe in moral relativism, you must also believe that the nazis acted morally when they committed genocide (not just that they thought they were doing the right thing, but that they really were doing the right thing)....

In fact, if moral relativism is true, then a person can never make a mistake about what is moral or immoral, since it is only her own beliefs that determine what is moral or immoral. If moral relativism is true, then Hitler's moral beliefs are not mistaken. (The same applies to the moral beliefs of Pol Pot, the slave-holders in the American ante-bellum south, and any other really bad person you can think of.)

This problem can hit home in a very direct way. If moral relativism is true, and if someone does something you do not like but that they think is morally OK, then you cannot really claim that a person has done anything wrong or unfair or immoral. For example, if moral relativism is true, then if your prof thinks that it is OK to give you an F because s/he doesn't like your shoes, then there is nothing unfair or immoral about his or her doing that. You may not like it, but that is all you can say about it. So long as your prof thinks that it is morally right to give you an F because s/he doesn't like your shoes, then, according to moral relativism, it really is right for your prof to do this. If you try to tell him or her that s/he is acting wrongly, all s/he has to do is to say "I believe that I am acting morally, and according to moral relativism I am automatically correct." If moral relativism is true, then if someone does something bad to you (like give you an F for no reason), then you cannot protest that she has done something wrong. (Remember, moral relativism means that each person's moral beliefs really are correct.) When push comes to shove, most of us think that there are things that people should and should not do, regardless of their opinions about the matter. When someone does something bad to you, most of us think that it makes sense to protest that it is wrong for them to do whatever they are doing.

[cpwill]

<<What can you and I do that most animals can't? We can think independently, feel pain, and have a conscience, determine what is right or wrong. Those are the most important criteria I use.>>

so you wouldn't mind killing a 2 week old infant, then? they can't think and don't have a conscionce etc.

[CyNix]

Originally posted by Simon666
And I don't believe that growing a child for nine months and going through painful labour and all physical problems accompanied with pregnancy only to give the baby away is a solution or much more fun or moral for the mother.

Is morality based on what is "fun"? Or what is easy? What is right is often not "fun". What is right is often difficult. Just because a child may be a temporary inconvenience, it would be wrong to kill it. The child may have been unintentinally created, but the solution is not to kill the only innocent person in the whole incident.

[booboohead]

Originally posted by Cedars
The trouble with moral relativism, though, is that not all of our moral beliefs are like this. Consider the following.

Lisa believes: "It is wrong to steal."

Bart believes: "It is OK to steal."

Now, suppose that Bart steals from Lisa. Has Bart done anything wrong? Well, from Lisa's point of view, yes he has. But from Bart's point of view, he has not. Now if relativism is true, then both Lisa and Bart are correct.

...That is a contradiction. Contradictory statements can NEVER be true at the same time.
So, you think that both can not be correct, right?

Where you miss the point, is when you assume that one or the other must be 'right' or 'more right'. Or that one or the other must be 'wrong' or 'more wrong'.

I don't know if Hitler thought genocide was moral, or whether he was just insane with power. If we assume he thought he was acting morally, then it would certainly be true that he was acting morally in the context of himself. Morality is a judgement of the group. In group of 1, each person decides what is 'moral'. In a group of 10, the majority likely decides. In a society, the majority again decides, though likely there are sub groups with their own unique 'moral judgements'.

Morality is a judgement, not a principle.

The trap you, and others, fall in to is that you try to relate 'morality' to 'absolute right and wrong'. When in fact, 'morality' has nothing to do with absolute right and wrong.

The answer to your quandry of 'is lisa right or is bart right or both right or both wrong' is 'YES, all of the above and none of the above'.

'Right and wrong' are relative, just like morality. Is it right to kill someone? no. in self defense? yes. with a chain saw? no. with a gun? yes. 'Right and wrong', in OUR world (humans) is context-driven. Just like morality.

Moralists want everything to fit into neat categories of 'right and wrong'. Someone's 'morality' is either 'right' or 'wrong'; 'correct' or 'incorrect'.

They believe there is some absolute 'right', and 'they know what that is'.

Your argument that relative morality is contradictory is exactly the point. Judgements made based on different perspectives and knowledge and reason will in fact be different.

Only God has perfect knowledge. The rest of us are prone to make judgements based on limited information and knowledge and awareness. As a result, we'll come up with different conclusions and 'moral's for the same 'acts'. How else to explain that morals change over time.

Is one of us 'right' and the other 'wrong'? Were slave holders 'wrong', and now we have it 'right'? Or will our children later presume that no, we are 'wrong' too? We have no way of knowing which is right and which is wrong. All we can do is make laws that govern society in a way that the majority think is 'more right' (without knowing one way or the other), and hope for the best.

Those who wish to assign their morals as 'more right', rather than just saying 'that is whats right for me'... risk closing their minds to new information which may in fact change their views down the road.

When slavery was 'moral', open minded people who did not rely on the sanctity of morality, questioned it.

What moral certainties do we have today that will later become 'immoral' in the eyes of the majority?

Your morality and mine are just that. Yours and mine. If we happen to be in the majority, we're 'moral', if not 'immoral'.

Its got nothing to do with the concept of 'correctness'.

If I think its hot and you think its cold... who's right?

[JD3]

Heady stuff to be sure. (By the way, Haven't read anything by you in a while Booboo head. Glad to read you again.)

But I think the word needed here is ethics. We argee on certain behaviors. Usually there are reasons for this. Stealing usually, except maybe in Lisa's case, leads to problems. People want their stuff back. So we agree that stealing shouldn't take place and we set up consequences if you do.

And good people do do bad things, or at least they do unethical things. They break the rules and then must accept the consequences if caught whether they want to or not.

If there is any validity to good and bad, it has to be in the intent. If I intend to harm and hurt another person, then I would have to see that as bad. Perhaps that is were evil lies. Some intentions are so vile that they look to hurt people on a major scale -- both in quanity and quality.

Breaking rules is just being unethical becasue we as a society established those rules for a reason and even if you didn't personnally sign on, your acceptence of those rules are mandatory all the same.

At least I thin so.;)

[Simon666]

Originally posted by cpwill
so you wouldn't mind killing a 2 week old infant, then? they can't think and don't have a conscionce etc.
I didn't say all those that do not meet these criteria can be killed. A 2 week infant is already living independent outside the womb, would grow up to meet the criteria mentioned and has people looking after it who care, killing it would be heart breaking. While a fetus that meats none of the criteria, and is still unable to live independant outside the womb, can be killed if the parents want to.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by CyNix
Is morality based on what is "fun"? Or what is easy? What is right is often not "fun". What is right is often difficult. Just because a child may be a temporary inconvenience, it would be wrong to kill it. The child may have been unintentinally created, but the solution is not to kill the only innocent person in the whole incident.
The fun part was ironical, pregnancy is a heavy thing to go through, abortion not if performed early. And once again, a fetus still unable to live independant outside the womb is to me not a child nor a person and can thus be killed.

[Captain America]

There is plenty of biblical justification for killing your children AFTER they are born, if somebody wants to go religious on us here.

It's cruel, inhumane, and downright dastardly, but it's biblical.:angel:

[CyNix]

So, when does the fetus become a person, a human? A fetus may be removed from the womb before the natural birth, and still live. That point at which it may be removed is quickly moving closer to the point of conception due to advances in modern technology. How is a person able to define at which point that fetus becomes human?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by CyNix
So, when does the fetus become a person, a human? A fetus may be removed from the womb before the natural birth, and still live. That point at which it may be removed is quickly moving closer to the point of conception due to advances in modern technology. How is a person able to define at which point that fetus becomes human?
You can't define, I don't know at what point that happens, probably at around 12 months or something. I just feel that at the point where it becomes possible to live outside the womb is a turning point at which you've had already enough time to chose on whether or not to keep it and you have to draw a line somewhere. I chose to draw the line there.

[CyNix]

First, a child is usually in the womb for about nine months.
Second, the point at which the child may safely exit the womb is governed by human technology. If their is no defining point, why would a person be willing to take the risk of being wrong? Why risk killing a human?

[Simon666]

I already said there is no defining point, but that doesn't mean you can't tell where it isn't. And it is not yet at 9 months.

[CyNix]

?

[Simon666]

At what point does a child become an adult? Some cultures 12, 16, 18 ,21. Can you say where a child becomes an adult? No. Can you say when it is not an adult? Yes, before age 6 it 100% sure isn't.

[booboohead]

Good point. I'm 45 and figure I just became an adult about 2 months ago when I got married.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by booboohead
Good point. I'm 45 and figure I just became an adult about 2 months ago when I got married.
LOL :D

[Cedars]

booboohead, are you sure that it is I who is missing the point? Let me reiterate two earlier points. (1) "If moral relativism is true, then there is no set of rules or standards that govern interpersonal relations, since each person has her own set of rules or standards. So if moral relativism is true, then there are no moral rules that apply to everyone. There are only rules that apply to each person's own actions. In effect, this means that there is no morality at all. Morality is normally thought of as a set of rules that governs how we should interact with each other. But if moral relativism is true, then there is no one set of rules that governs how we should interact with each other; instead, there [are] different rules for each person."

(2) "[I]f moral relativism is true, then no one is ever wrong about what is moral or immoral. If everyone's opinion (or everyone's culture) is correct, then if I or my culture thinks that it is OK to set babies on fire for entertainment, then when I do that, I am not acting immorally. Now, pay very close attention to what I say: If moral relativism is true, then if Joe believes that setting babies on fire is morally OK, then his belief is automatically correct. It is not just that he believes that setting babies on fire is moral, but it really is moral for him to do this. If you believe in moral relativism, then you must believe that Joe acts morally when he does this. (Remember that relativism means not only that he is moral in his own eyes, but that he really does act morally.)"

Do you agree with these two statements?

[Cedars]

The whole argument about when life begins boils down to this: If you believe that abortion is immoral, life begins at conception. If you believe that abortion is ok, then you believe that life begins at whatever point you want to believe that life begins.

[CyNix]

So, that which is right, and that which is not, all depends on what I will it to be?

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Cedars
The whole argument about when life begins boils down to this: If you believe that abortion is immoral, life begins at conception. If you believe that abortion is ok, then you believe that life begins at whatever point you want to believe that life begins.
I could in principle perfectly get along with people who believe life begins at conception but I seriously detest them when they want to shove their belief down to other people's throats through the law, and even worse when those beliefs are religiously based. I hate theocracies and anything that smells like it. If you don't want to have an abortion, fine, don't do it. But stop with criminalizing people who do want one.

[CyNix]

What is right is not based of religion. Most nations (if not all) have laws against crimes. Not because God said so, but to uphold the rights, liberty, and freedoms of the citizens of that land. Abortion works the same way. Some of us feel that many (unborn) peoples right to life is being violated. This is not a trivial issue. It is a matter of life and death for millions.

Where did the theocracy come in?

[Simon666]

I sense that the major or underlying argument of all anti-abortion people on this board is that it is against God. With Captain America as exception. And abortion is not as clear as murder on whether it is moral or not so your argument in my opinion doesn't apply for abortion.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by Simon666
I could in principle perfectly get along with people who believe life begins at conception but I seriously detest them when they want to shove their belief down to other people's throats through the law, and even worse when those beliefs are religiously based. I hate theocracies and anything that smells like it. If you don't want to have an abortion, fine, don't do it. But stop with criminalizing people who do want one.
I personally believe that life begins at conception. However, I also think that government should stay out of abortion for the simple reason that I think that our police force's time would be better served fighting crime rather than persecuting people's morally convenient ideas. It would be very hard for our police to go around chasing women "believed" to have had abortions and in some cases prove whether those pregnancies were terminated naturally or unnaturally. God is the ultimate judge, not us. That being said, I also feel for the women who have had abortions, as it would not have been an easy decision for many of them.

[JLwH211]

Originally posted by Simon666
What can you and I do that most animals can't? We can think independently, feel pain, and have a conscience, determine what is right or wrong. Those are the most important criteria I use.


Originally posted by cpwill
so you wouldn't mind killing a 2 week old infant, then? they can't think and don't have a conscionce etc.

I think part of what cpwill was saying was that a two week old infant does not meet all of your "criteria" Simon. The only one of your "criteria" that a two week infant meets is feeling pain. A fetus also feels pain.

Originally posted by Simon666
I didn't say all those that do not meet these criteria can be killed. A 2 week infant is already living independent outside the womb, would grow up to meet the criteria mentioned and has people looking after it who care, killing it would be heart breaking. While a fetus that meats none of the criteria, and is still unable to live independant outside the womb, can be killed if the parents want to.

Using your logic, if given the chance, a fetus would also grow up to meet all of your criteria. And again, a fetus can feel pain, so therefore, meets part of your "criteria" for being a human.

Originally posted by Simon666

If it were you giving birth or if it were your girlfriend whose life was at risk, you would think otherwise, or at least I hope otherwise I don't want to know people like you. i don't know how any person could live with himself after he asked his girlfriend to die for his baby.

I would hope that if it ever came down to my husband choosing between me and our unborn child in the delivery room that he would choose our child. I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that my child had to die so that I could live. I would choose our baby's life.

[Cedars]

Originally posted by CyNix
What is right is not based of religion. Most nations (if not all) have laws against crimes. Not because God said so, but to uphold the rights, liberty, and freedoms of the citizens of that land. Abortion works the same way. Some of us feel that many (unborn) peoples right to life is being violated. This is not a trivial issue. It is a matter of life and death for millions.

Where did the theocracy come in?
You make a good point with respect to upholding the rights, liberty, and freedoms of the citizens of the land, even without belief in God. Theocracy comes in as a belief in what is right and what is wrong. Without belief in God, there is no ultimate belief in right or wrong except what is dictated by the law of the land (that is, if something is legal, it is right; and if something is illegal, it is wrong). If you believe in God, you believe in morality. If you do not believe in God, you believe that right and wrong is relative to the individual or the society. That being said, one can believe that morality, then, is according to one's religious beliefs. There are many truths in many religions. But if God exists and all the religions have differing teachings in which some are in direct contradiction to another, then the assumption is that only one religion can be true (if any). I am Catholic; I believe that Catholicism is the true religion. I also understand that Muslims believe their religion is the true religion, and the same also goes for all the other religions. We must all learn to live together and be tolerant of others--that does not mean that we have to accept others' beliefs, just that we must understand they do have their OWN beliefs, just as we may have ours. There should never be any coercion of religious beliefs on anyone. After all, even God is allowing us the opportunity to choose how we live our lives.

[Simon666]

I can perfectly live with Cedars' view.
Originally posted by JLwH211
I think part of what cpwill was saying was that a two week old infant does not meet all of your "criteria" Simon. The only one of your "criteria" that a two week infant meets is feeling pain. A fetus also feels pain.

Using your logic, if given the chance, a fetus would also grow up to meet all of your criteria. And again, a fetus can feel pain, so therefore, meets part of your "criteria" for being a human.

I would hope that if it ever came down to my husband choosing between me and our unborn child in the delivery room that he would choose our child. I wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing that my child had to die so that I could live. I would choose our baby's life.
I already said that at no point I said that everything that doesn't meet the criteria I make for myself can be killed. It is a set of criteria for what can't be killed. Important difference, don't twist my words.

And a fetus only meets one criterium, that of pain, and only after a certain number of weeks. I don't know how much, I would have to look into it. Outlawing abortions in that stage is to me completely absurd to start from, but if people have problems with abortions after they can feel pain, I can have some understanding for that. Besides, animals like fish also feel pain so using just this one criterium to say I'm already incorrect has not really been thaught over.

Further, what you do and your husband do with your child is fine by me, and if you want to commit suicide for that - because that is what it comes down to, and isn't that forbidden by your God too -that is your business. Personally, I think you're insane, but I hope your sane enough not to expect the law to force other people to follow this as well when they don't want to. I would choose for the life of the wife, there can always be another baby plus it isn't even human anyway, only has the potential.

[Animal]

Face reality.

[gopman]

There's a point where ethics comes into play as well. If Hitler thought it was fine to kill the Jews, then we should let him?

[JLwH211]

Originally posted by Simon666

Further, what you do and your husband do with your child is fine by me, and if you want to commit suicide for that - because that is what it comes down to, and isn't that forbidden by your God too -that is your business. Personally, I think you're insane, but I hope your sane enough not to expect the law to force other people to follow this as well when they don't want to. I would choose for the life of the wife, there can always be another baby plus it isn't even human anyway, only has the potential.

Now, don't go twisting my words. I never said or implied that I wanted or think the gov't should force people do that as well. That is my view. You want to say that I'm insane for doing that for a child, I say you're insane for wanting to kill an innocent child for something it had no part of.

"it isn't even human anyway" What? Then what is it? We may feel that we are are pregnant with miniature elephants on occasion, but that is definitely a human baby. It may not be a fully formed baby, but it is most definitely human.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by JLwH211
Now, don't go twisting my words. I never said or implied that I wanted or think the gov't should force people do that as well. That is my view. You want to say that I'm insane for doing that for a child, I say you're insane for wanting to kill an innocent child for something it had no part of.

"it isn't even human anyway" What? Then what is it? We may feel that we are are pregnant with miniature elephants on occasion, but that is definitely a human baby. It may not be a fully formed baby, but it is most definitely human.
I didn't twist your words. As you didn't say nor imply that I didn't know and just said I hoped you wouldn't. And ofcourse it is human and not elephant. From a vicious killer they say he's an animal, do you wonder what animal? No, because you know as well as I do that is because the killer doesn't have or isn't believed to have the qualities of a human being. I say a fetus unable to live outside the womb yet isn't human either: only able to feel pain, but unable to think independantly or have a conscience. It is most definitely not human.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Animal
Face reality.
Why don't you go fight for the ethical treatment of pigs? They can feel pain too and are far smarter. Free animals! :rolleyes:

[Animal]

Originally posted by Simon666
Why don't you go fight for the ethical treatment of pigs?
Pigs are not human...they're dinner.

They can feel pain too and are far smarter. Free animals! :rolleyes:

Smarter than what?

[Simon666]

Placentas are served for dinner too. Fetusses are lower lifeforms on the IQ scale compared to pigs. And you know as well as I do I meant far smarter than fetusses.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Simon666
Placentas are served for dinner too. Fetusses are lower lifeforms on the IQ scale compared to pigs.

So what your saying is that people with higher IQ's are a higher life form than people with average or lower IQ's? Do you also have an issue with skin color?


And you know as well as I do I meant far smarter than fetusses.

Prove it.
;)

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Animal
So what your saying is that people with higher IQ's are a higher life form than people with average or lower IQ's? Do you also have an issue with skin color?
Lifeforms with higher IQ's are worth more than those with lower yes. Killing an ape, dolphin or pig is in my eyes more cruel than killing a dog or a cat, which is in turn more cruel than killing a fish, and so on. Fetusses unable to live outside the womb are in intelligence ranking below killing an ape or pig. And concerning skin color, are you saying that black people are less intelligent?
Originally posted by Animal
Prove it.;)
Scientists have determined pigs are probably smarter than apes. You can look that up if you want to.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Simon666
Lifeforms with higher IQ's are worth more than those with lower yes. Killing an ape, dolphin or pig is in my eyes more cruel than killing a dog or a cat, which is in turn more cruel than killing a fish, and so on. Fetusses unable to live outside the womb are in intelligence ranking below killing an ape or pig.

Thank-you for your honesty. Most people I run into with your views on humans/animals are reluctant to answer direct questions. Why? I don't know.

And concerning skin color, are you saying that black people are less intelligent?

Not at all. I don't believe race has any bearing on intelligence. I simply asked the question about skin color because I typically I find that white males with above average intelligence that look at life through a worldview similar to yours (what I gather yours is, I could be wrong) seem to think that the darker the skin, the less intelligent the animal (Human). You didn't answer the question, but then again, your under no obligation to.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Animal
Not at all. I don't believe race has any bearing on intelligence. I simply asked the question about skin color because I typically I find that white males with above average intelligence that look at life through a worldview similar to yours (what I gather yours is, I could be wrong) seem to think that the darker the skin, the less intelligent the animal (Human). You didn't answer the question, but then again, your under no obligation to.
If you want an answer, considered over the entire planet, black people and asian people are less intelligent than white people. This is because of economic inequality. Intelligence is directly correlated with good food as well as good living conditions. If black and asian people live the same standard of life as white people as is more or less true in the USA, they are as smart. I think studies indicate this, but one has to be careful about such studies as the conclusions and setup can be political.

[JLwH211]

Originally posted by Simon666
IFrom a vicious killer they say he's an animal, do you wonder what animal? No, because you know as well as I do that is because the killer doesn't have or isn't believed to have the qualities of a human being.

Just because a vicious killer acts like an animal doesn't mean he/she is an animal.

Originally posted by Simon666
I say a fetus unable to live outside the womb yet isn't human either: only able to feel pain, but unable to think independantly or have a conscience. It is most definitely not human.

Neither does a newborn. And please... no more of this "it has the potential to grow" stuff. A fetus has the same potential. If given the chance, they too will grow up to have those qualities.

Mother's health directly endangered by the fetus? I'd say it's her choice whether to abort. An rape/incest victim? As much as I'd like to see the baby put up for adoption, there are too many unknown health risks to the baby, so again, her choice. But abortion is not used for mainly those reasons. It is used as a form of birth control. The number of women having two and three or more abortions is climbing. This is ridiculous. People need to take responsibilites for their actions or take extra precautions.

[gopman]

There's no potential about it. It IS a human, in an undeveloped form.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by JLwH211
Just because a vicious killer acts like an animal doesn't mean he/she is an animal.
I thought that was also what I implied. :rolleyes:
Originally posted by JLwH211
Neither does a newborn. And please... no more of this "it has the potential to grow" stuff. A fetus has the same potential. If given the chance, they too will grow up to have those qualities.

Mother's health directly endangered by the fetus? I'd say it's her choice whether to abort. An rape/incest victim? As much as I'd like to see the baby put up for adoption, there are too many unknown health risks to the baby, so again, her choice. But abortion is not used for mainly those reasons. It is used as a form of birth control. The number of women having two and three or more abortions is climbing. This is ridiculous. People need to take responsibilites for their actions or take extra precautions.
Ofcourse a fetus has the potential, but it is not independant yet and thus the person whose body it is dependant on has the right to decide what happens to it. A newborn is independant of the mother's body and can be raised by the mother or an adoption mother on just about any person.

I agree with your viewpoints on mother's choice when her life is in danger or in case of rape/incest, and it may even surprise you I agree that it should not be used as anti-conception, but I hardly feel that outlawing it will solve anything rather than make things a lot worse.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by gopman
There's no potential about it. It IS a human, in an undeveloped form.
I also said that, it is human in nature. It is not in its abilities.

[cpwill]

heck,neither is a newborn.

[Simon666]

Is killing a cat or a dog allright?

[Captain America]

Depends on whether they are in season or not. Deer season starts tomorrow. If it's brown...IT's DOWN.

If nature hadn't intended for man to kill animals, they wouldn't have been made out of MEAT!:lol:

[Simon666]

Originally posted by Captain America
Depends on whether they are in season or not. Deer season starts tomorrow. If it's brown...IT's DOWN. If nature hadn't intended for man to kill animals, they wouldn't have been made out of MEAT!:lol:
Do you eat cats or dogs?

[Animal]

Originally posted by Simon666
Do you eat cats or dogs?

Koreans, Tai, Vietnamese, along with several other Asian countries do. Is that wrong?

[Simon666]

Let's just say, what if you killed your pet for no reason at all, would that be allright?

[CyNix]

Simon...
If you killed you unborn child because you considered it to be "inconvenient", would that be "allright"?

[Simon666]

No, but it is not something I equate to murder as some here and it is not something I would outlaw.

[cpwill]

and what, do you believe, i the distinction between an unborn and a newborn? what makes that difference in the hour of birth?

[DRMIZER]

Originally posted by trust
I am about to spend a weekend trapped with a group of pro-choice individuals. I am pro-life.

To me it is black and white. Life begins when the sperm connects with the egg. Period. Any termination of that life is immoral.

Can anyone help me with intellectual arguments other than "You're full of ..it!" so I can attempt to change the minds of these people.

Thanks for any help you can give me. Terminating life is murder. But. . . . . . . . . . . . .it is NOT BLACK AND WHITE as so many believe.

There are things in life referenced as "situational ethics". For example, is it right to lie? "Thou shalt not bear false witness". It is one of the commandments, the same as thou shalt not kill, no difference in their priority. The simple answer is NO we are commanded not to lie.

However, lets look at it another way. If a man with a knife was chasing your mother down the street to do harm to her and she ducked into an alley without him seeing her, if he asked you which way your mother went, would you tell him the truth? I would hope not. In exchange for one commandment, you broke another. However, the commandment you kept was greater than the one you broke.

I believe the same is true in almost any situation in life where life and limb are at stake. If a woman was in her 3rd tri-mester and to deliver the baby would cause the potential death of the woman or place her life in jeapordy, what would you do? If it was your wife?

Likewise, if a woman was in a car accident, pregnant and almost to term but the accident left her in a coma with a terminal prognosis but to take the baby would destroy the life of the mother. Yet, to delay the birth would destroy the baby. What would you do?

It isn't black and white unless these kinds of issues are complicated for you. In both these instances, if I was deciding, death would have to occur. . . . . .once for the mother and once for the fetus.

Your turn. . .anybody. . . . .prolifers. . . . . .

[Simon666]

Originally posted by cpwill
and what, do you believe, i the distinction between an unborn and a newborn? what makes that difference in the hour of birth?
I already said I oppose terminating the life after it can live independant after the womb. There has already been enough choice so we must assume the mother has taken the responsability of giving this life a chance to become human, and if she still changes her mind, then she is robbing some adoption parent of the right to give it a chance. This is not the case when it is still dependant of the mother in the womb.

[america]

Originally posted by Simon666
I already said I oppose terminating the life after it can live independant after the womb. There has already been enough choice so we must assume the mother has taken the responsability of giving this life a chance to become human, and if she still changes her mind, then she is robbing some adoption parent of the right to give it a chance. This is not the case when it is still dependant of the mother in the womb.

so if no one wants the child?
or if the child is retarded?
or if shows signs as it ages that it will not survive in this big world?

there are plenty of kids in foster homes now.

[america]

Originally posted by DRMIZER
Terminating life is murder. But. . . . . . . . . . . . .it is NOT BLACK AND WHITE as so many believe.

There are things in life referenced as "situational ethics". For example, is it right to lie? "Thou shalt not bear false witness". It is one of the commandments, the same as thou shalt not kill, no difference in their priority. The simple answer is NO we are commanded not to lie.

However, lets look at it another way. If a man with a knife was chasing your mother down the street to do harm to her and she ducked into an alley without him seeing her, if he asked you which way your mother went, would you tell him the truth? I would hope not. In exchange for one commandment, you broke another. However, the commandment you kept was greater than the one you broke.

I believe the same is true in almost any situation in life where life and limb are at stake. If a woman was in her 3rd tri-mester and to deliver the baby would cause the potential death of the woman or place her life in jeapordy, what would you do? If it was your wife?

Likewise, if a woman was in a car accident, pregnant and almost to term but the accident left her in a coma with a terminal prognosis but to take the baby would destroy the life of the mother. Yet, to delay the birth would destroy the baby. What would you do?

It isn't black and white unless these kinds of issues are complicated for you. In both these instances, if I was deciding, death would have to occur. . . . . .once for the mother and once for the fetus.

Your turn. . .anybody. . . . .prolifers. . . . . .


However, lets look at it another way. If a man with a knife was chasing your mother down the street to do harm to her and she ducked into an alley without him seeing her, if he asked you which way your mother went, would you tell him the truth? I would hope not. In exchange for one commandment, you broke another. However, the commandment you kept was greater than the one you broke.
:thinking:

[Simon666]

Originally posted by america
so if no one wants the child? or if the child is retarded? or if shows signs as it ages that it will not survive in this big world?

there are plenty of kids in foster homes now.
Actually, termination of life in that case would not be that bad rationally, only emotionally it would make people feel very, very bad. But that is another discussion than abortion, and the overwhelming majority of people would be against this, so it would never ever pass. Abortion would or should.

[Simon666]

Originally posted by america
However, lets look at it another way. If a man with a knife was chasing your mother down the street to do harm to her and she ducked into an alley without him seeing her, if he asked you which way your mother went, would you tell him the truth? I would hope not. In exchange for one commandment, you broke another. However, the commandment you kept was greater than the one you broke.
:thinking:
Does anybody here also have trouble finding any equivalence or relevance? :confused::rolleyes: