View Single Post
Old 2008-12-13, 01:50   Link #670
TinyRedLeaf
. . .
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Singapore
Age: 39
This thread needs a time-out summary

Preamble
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4F0ur View Post
uh i read the first 5pages and last 5pages..
i dont wanna read the whole thing.. too many pages
so yes..maybe its a repeat. and im sorry for that
but i think alot of the people would come to this thread and read the last view comments and post their thoughts just like me lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irenicus View Post
Oh look at that big long argument over there... You know, that's why Vexx said to read the thread before. I know it's a big, long scary thread, but when people come in and give their pretty little two cents on abortion, they always end up repeating what was already said before, which was already argued against.
===============

What qualifies as a human being?
(1) Define "human" before arguing
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Discussion and debate is easier when there are certain common assumptions (axioms). In this case, even the basic foundations don't coincide. There's unlikely to be any progress in debating abortion until the definition of "human" is agreed upon. "Abortion is murder" assumes the application of humanity to a fetus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
If your AXIOM is that "human" is defined from the point of conception (sperm and egg say hi), then everything else follows.

Now, I dispute the axiom as given simply because it could/must be applied to ANY clump of cells at some point because we'll be able to create organs and later entire people from DNA samples. Currently, we're able in the lab to herd cells into taking on assignments as specific organs. Are those "human"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by harmonious View Post
Abortion and the Question of the Person
Quote:
The historical answer
What is a person? The customary definition, one accepted by many pro-abortionists, at least among libertarians, is that a person ("man," "human being," call it what you will) is an animal with the capacity of reason and choice (with reason and choice being mutually implicit). This character of reason and choice sets us aside from the merely animal and is the foundation for all our intellectual and ethical activity.
(2) Embryos are not human
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
As for my own view, I personally do not see an embryo as being human. It has the potential to become a human, but an embryo is no more a human than is an egg a chicken. In my mind, if this is a wanted child - that is, if people care to ensure that this child is given a good life and raised to become a solid, successful person - then we should care for its development. If it is an unwanted child, I don't see anything wrong with aborting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanas View Post
I've got to say, that I don't consider killing intelligent animals (pigs, dolphins, etc.) for food purposes murder. In some cases I don't like it, but I don't consider it the same as murdering a human being. As you stated, there are certainly some humans that are very unintelligent, to the point of being less than a pet.

This being said, you could easily say the same of children who are < 1 year old, or perhaps < 2 years old depending on which animal and which child. Are you also ok with parents choosing to kill their young children after they leave the womb? If you are ok with this in theory (it's done in a manner that's not painful, the child isn't wanted, etc.) then I would agree to your overall point in the context of your beliefs.
(3) There is no "potential", only an "actual" human
Quote:
Originally Posted by harmonious View Post
Abortion and the Question of the Person
Quote:
Actual and potential: degree and kind
The potential for reason and choice is first of all a matter of kind: either we have it or we do not. Its actualization is a matter of degree: we all actualize our potential to different degrees and none of us do so totally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by james0246 View Post
A fetus is in the tenuous position of being a potential individual, without actually being an individual. Since a fetus cannot actually be considered an individual (though it has the potential to becomes an individual), it consequently does not have any personal rights except what society chooses to assign it... Consequently, the potential rights of the fetus do not stack up to the full rights of an individual human, and due to this inequality, abortion is justifiable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by harmonious View Post
There is no potential about it, it is an individual.
(4) So, is a stem cell sample "human"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
Some of the 'against' arguments here are about to be entrapped by another existential crisis when all it takes is a skin sample or stem cell to create a human being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vexx View Post
.... successful use of adult stem cells has already been tested and proves quite promising in cloning parts. Example: A woman in Europe just received an entire trachea and windpipe via surgery courtesy of growing one using her own DNA/stem cells. Not too far much of a stretch to grow an entire body...what would we call that?
================

Pity the unwanted children
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ledgem View Post
I'm also still not satisfied with how "pro-lifers" leave it off as that a life was saved as long as the baby is born. For all of the concern regarding what happens to the baby when it's in the womb, there seems to be a surprising amount of apathy regarding what happens once the baby is actually brought into the world. By the definition of whether a heart is beating or not, a life was saved, but in terms of development and fulfillment, was a life really saved or was it simply set on the path of destruction?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reckoner View Post
One reason abortion should be allowed is because unwanted babies are unproductive for society. You either get many children (Not going to generalize the whole group and say all...) whose lives are pretty much in the dregs of society, or you get mothers who get stuck raising a kid that pretty much puts an end to any opportunity in life that she may have wanted to pursue.

How I really like to describe these children that pro-life people want to defend so badly is that life begins at conception and ends at birth. Keep them alive, but once they are born we stop caring about them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue skies View Post
The child could grow up in a nice, loving home, become a contributing member of society and live happily ever after. Or it could grow up miserable, unloved, being shuffled from foster home to foster home and just having a crappy life in general. Nothing in life is guaranteed. I feel far worse for those children than I do for all the world's aborted fetuses, which never suffered.

You don't get pregnant by yourself, therefore you can't just place the blame on one person. I'm all for the "don't do it unless you're prepared to deal with the consequences" attitude, but people are going to have sex whether they're prepared for a child or not. It'll never stop, and accidents happen. For people who don't want to bring a child that they aren't prepared to care for into an already overpopulated world, abortion should always be an option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klashikari View Post
A woman that cannot have more than $100 per month would CERTAINLY have issues to raise a child properly, thus it is NOT what you can consider a "future".
A woman that has learned that her baby have a striking chance he will get mucoviscidosis has the right to prevent her baby to live a sorrowful and awful life. And yet, you can call that a future?

If there is no future for the child (as determined already), Aborting such baby would NOT be "end the future of the fetus".
===============

Abortion a necessary evil?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaden View Post
While I personally think it's OK to abort, I can respect the view that it's killing, and immoral.

But the morality of the abortion itself is not as much of an issue as the aftershock that might come if a wrong descision is made. That's why I think the parents and doctors should be free to abort/not abort without being hindered by any laws. Abortion is a very situational thing and people must be allowed to adapt and improvise.

Controlling the situation comes before any "rights" of fetuses that aren't even a part of society yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SaintessHeart View Post
There is actually nothing wrong with abortion, because every life, in a pragmatic sense, has a price tag, based on the liabilities and abilities you have. If a person is perceived to give their holders more problems than benefits, it would be considered a liability and thus be terminated.

I know that the above statement sounds immoral, even I reel in disgust at typing it. But it is part of something called social Darwinism and found in practically everywhere, and thus is part of an inescapable destiny everyone has to go through growing up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blue skies View Post
You people who argue that abortion = murder puzzle me. It's not the same thing as going out and ruthlessly murdering a homeless man (which was the example given). What should the woman do instead? Be forced to endure the pregnancy, give birth to a child she never wanted to begin with, then give it up for adoption when there's absolutely no guarantee the child won't lead a miserable life or end up in foster care? Sorry, but I feel far, far worse for the children who grow up unloved and unwanted in horrible families than I do for aborted fetuses.

I guess I've always been a little confused as to why this is even a political issue. It's no one's business but the woman who is pregnant. If it's not your body, you shouldn't be the one to decide what to do with it. Simple.
===============

Don't punish children for parents' mistake
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona View Post
The problem in my eyes is to understand "why it happened". In most cases, i guess, that's because the two persons were careless. It annoys me because:

- I don't understand how a person could be as stupid as not protect herself correctly. I also don't understand why some boys take the risk to do it without a condom if their girlfriends don't take the pills.

I don't like when I hear that a boy wanted (or forced) to have sex with his girlfriend and that he wanted to do it without protections and such. In this case, the boy is clearly a loser who needs to be kicked in the balls. But if the girl had the choice and accepted, then she is not better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anh_Minh View Post
Why should we care why "it happened"? Sure, it'd be better if we never needed it. We do have all those nifty birth control stuff. But how does the "why" matter to the decision whether one should allow abortions or not? In trauma centers, do you think they should pause and ask how an accident happened, and maybe send away the dumbasses who were careless at the wheel?
===============

Abstinence is the best solution
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyuusai View Post
I wouldn't say that sex should only be used for procreation, though. My argument, instead, is that it should only be engaged in when prepared for that potential result. Sex is incredibly important to both mental health and physical health (and, as a person of faith, I would say spiritual health, as well), but since it isn't directly a life-or-death matter, we can be expected to conduct our sexuality in a responsible context. If a couple with a healthy relationship doesn't want to have kids (whether yet or ever) but wants to have lots and lots of sex... good for them! So long as they're prepared for the possibility. After all, contraceptives are not perfect, and even if there were never any debate on the ethics of abortion, it's not a procedure without serious risk, the woman could change her mind, et cetera, so forth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Narona View Post
And in general, sorry but when you have sex, you ACCEPT the risk. That's what I blame, people see sex as something funny and good and just want to do it without thinking about the consequences.

Last edited by TinyRedLeaf; 2008-12-22 at 14:00. Reason: to correct a glaring spelling mistake.
TinyRedLeaf is offline