raven_gaurd0 Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 Not all laws invalid, but laws similar to the inconsistent ones should be treated with due suspicion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 All new bills should be treated with scrutiny and "due suspicion." Where exactly are you going with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raven_gaurd0 Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'm saying, related laws like clauses that allow for abortions should be taken under consideration again until the United States government can get consistencies in their laws, or else those laws don't deserve to be treated with respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Lord Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 There is no denying that a cell is a form of life. The question that comes into play here is whether or not that life is significant enough to continue living. Several pro-abortion arguments have been used, one of which concerns population control. Yes, abortion is beneficial to the economy (less mouths to feed) and control of global population, however, you must ask yourself whether or not this is ethical. One analogy that comes into play here is that Adolf Hitler led to the genocide of Jews and homosexuals (which was VERY beneficial to the global population, more room), yet many people despise any talk of the Nazi regime and his actions. Abortionists must also take into consideration the fact that the mother's decision to abort the life of the cells/fetus infringes upon the right of the [soon-to-be-born] human child to decide whether or not he/she wants to live. I see no major difference from the Religious Right denying gay rights and a woman choosing to kill the life of the fetus/pile of cells. (Let's not be politically-correct here. "Terminating a life" is the same as killing something, but in a nicer and more positive fashion.) Now, I am an atheist with many liberal views, but I have not seen one good argument for abortion. I have a very open mind, so feel free to offer a valid argument that abortion is an inalienable human right. SWAG Mayn U wanna be like me but U can't be me cuz U ain't got ma swagga on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 There is no denying that a cell is a form of life. The question that comes into play here is whether or not that life is significant enough to continue living. Several pro-abortion arguments have been used, one of which concerns population control. Yes, abortion is beneficial to the economy (less mouths to feed) and control of global population, however, you must ask yourself whether or not this is ethical. One analogy that comes into play here is that Adolf Hitler led to the genocide of Jews and homosexuals (which was VERY beneficial to the global population, more room), yet many people despise any talk of the Nazi regime and his actions. Abortionists must also take into consideration the fact that the mother's decision to abort the life of the cells/fetus infringes upon the right of the [soon-to-be-born] human child to decide whether or not he/she wants to live. I see no major difference from the Religious Right denying gay rights and a woman choosing to kill the life of the fetus/pile of cells. (Let's not be politically-correct here. "Terminating a life" is the same as killing something, but in a nicer and more positive fashion.) Now, I am an atheist with many liberal views, but I have not seen one good argument for abortion. I have a very open mind, so feel free to offer a valid argument that abortion is an inalienable human right. Out of curiosity, what do you think should be the legal cut off for abortion(without medical or other exeption)? very nice post btw Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I'm saying, related laws like clauses that allow for abortions should be taken under consideration again until the United States government can get consistencies in their laws, or else those laws don't deserve to be treated with respect. And, by your logic, we ought to treat anti-abortion laws no better. Remember, these so-called 'inconsistencies' exist on both sides of the debate. the mother's decision to abort the life of the cells/fetus infringes upon the right of the [soon-to-be-born] human child to decide whether or not he/she wants to live Judith Thompson's famous violinist thought experiment responds directly to your argument: Judith Thompson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm. Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong. However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. The thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: right to life and right to what is needed to sustain life. The fetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the fetus has a right to life (which Thompson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort. Source: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raven_gaurd0 Posted February 3, 2009 Author Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yes, but I don't seen any inconsistencies regarding 'anti'-abortion clauses. And as for the violinist analogy (metaphor?) the violinist itself has had a chance to live, therefore making his/her life more fulfilled than an aborted fetus, and, you (being analogous to the pregnant mother) being 'kidnapped' implies that you had no choice or say in what happened to you. When you get pregnant, 'lest it be rape, you had a choice about what happened. It was by your fault that you were 'hooked up to the violinist', therefore it is morally justified to force you to stick out the 9 months 'hooked up to the violinist.' Good analogy though, but erroneous in capturing the essence of a fetus and a mother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 Yes, but I don't seen any inconsistencies regarding 'anti'-abortion clauses. There are many: the right to privacy, the right to control your own body, etc. the violinist itself has had a chance to live, therefore making his/her life more fulfilled than an aborted fetus This can go both ways. The violinist, having lived such a full life, has much more to lose than the fetus. being 'kidnapped' implies that you had no choice or say in what happened to you. The thought experiment attempts to show that abortion is morally permissible in at least some cases, e.g. rape. However, it can be extended for other cases as well. Say the woman fell asleep aware of the risk of being kidnapped. Naturally, she dismissed it as unlikely, especially because her house was well protected (metal bars on the windows and a secure lock on the door). Even so, if she was to get kidnapped, it certainly wouldn't have been "her fault." Thomson discussed this in more detail: And we should also notice that it is not at all plain that this argument really does go even as far as it purports to. For there are cases and cases, and the details make a difference. If the room is stuffy, and I therefore open a window to air it, and a burglar climbs in, it would be absurd to say, "Ah, now he can stay, she's given him a right to the use of her house--for she is partially responsible for his presence there, having voluntarily done what enabled him to get in, in full knowledge that there are such things as burglars, and that burglars burgle.'' It would be still more absurd to say this if I had had bars installed outside my windows, precisely to prevent burglars from getting in, and a burglar got in only because of a defect in the bars. It remains equally absurd if we imagine it is not a burglar who climbs in, but an innocent person who blunders or falls in. Again, suppose it were like this: people-seeds drift about in the air like pollen, and if you open your windows, one may drift in and take root in your carpets or upholstery. You don't want children, so you fix up your windows with fine mesh screens, the very best you can buy. As can happen, however, and on very, very rare occasions does happen, one of the screens is defective, and a seed drifts in and takes root. Does the person-plant who now develops have a right to the use of your house? Surely not--despite the fact that you voluntarily opened your windows, you knowingly kept carpets and upholstered furniture, and you knew that screens were sometimes defective. Someone may argue that you are responsible for its rooting, that it does have a right to your house, because after all you could have lived out your life with bare floors and furniture, or with sealed windows and doors. But this won't do--for by the same token anyone can avoid a pregnancy due to rape by having a hysterectomy, or anyway by never leaving home without a (reliable!) army. Source: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil ... homson.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 just to point out for the sake of it, morning after pills prevent a lot of problems with failed birth control. Secondly, we can make horribly stretched examples but the fact is reality is different from any theoretical model. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parcedon Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 abortion is murder plain and simple it doesnt matter if its letting girls off without reprecussions. the important thing is the baby is human at conception and having an abortion is murder now matter when or how its is done :evil: and now seein how that idiot obama is passing [cabbage] like this our country is goin down the [bleep]ing tubes not even regarding the economic crisis which the world brought down on its self. "Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment"Livin in Alaska, the best dang place ever People in OT eat glass when they are bored... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 abortion is murder plain and simple it doesnt matter if its letting girls off without reprecussions. the important thing is the baby is human at conception and having an abortion is murder now matter when or how its is done :evil: and now seein how that idiot obama is passing [cabbage] like this our country is goin down the [bleep] tubes not even regarding the economic crisis which the world brought down on its self. Let me say this as a pro life person that tries to be moderate in these debates, your the reason pro life people get a bad reputation. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parcedon Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 you know what im not trying to be moderate and i do not care how many people i piss off. i have an extremely strong opion on the killing of children whether there born or still in the parent and im going to say so. "Hope is the first step on the road to dissapointment"Livin in Alaska, the best dang place ever People in OT eat glass when they are bored... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 you know what im not trying to be moderate and i do not care how many people i piss off. i have an extremely strong opion on the killing of children whether there born or still in the parent and im going to say so. theres a difference between having a strong opinion and making yourself look very foolish. Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 I don't understand why the term "kill" is being used so loosely. The word means to cause the death of. So technically speaking, conceiving a child is always going to be 'killing' - you caused them to be born and experience life - which is never permanent, so it results in death. Why isn't that 'killing' but an abortion is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Secondly, we can make horribly stretched examples but the fact is reality is different from any theoretical model. As stretched as these thought experiments may seem, they are surprisingly analogous with reality. These examples illustrate the morality of abortion in a manner that is simpler to understand. Why isn't that murder but an abortion is? Homicide (murder, killing, etc) is the act of killing another person. Simply rearing a child does not make you immediately responsible for their inevitable death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Why isn't that murder but an abortion is? Homicide (murder, killing, etc) is the act of killing another person. Simply rearing a child does not make you responsible for their inevitable death. You're right there because murder is usually used in a more harsh sense whereas killing is anything that causes the death of - I'll edit it with the word kill instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Murder and killing both mean the same thing: unlawful homicide with malice afterthought. Say you plant a tree, build a house, or create a painting that is (inevitably) destroyed centuries later, by an asteroid hitting the Earth. Does this make you, now dead, responsible for destroying it? No, of course not. This is absurd, Zierro. Even if we concede that us creating something does indeed equal us destroying it, there is still a clear difference between justified and unjustified destruction, i.e. "murder" vs. "justified homicide." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 By definition, killing means to cause the death of. Murder is a bit different. They are synonyms but so is "assassinate" and I think it's obvious that it doesn't always mean the same thing as "kill". (I assassinated a fly by whacking it with a newspaper. Doesn't make much sense, huh?) This is absurd, Zierro. Even if we concede that us creating something does indeed equal us destroying it, there is still a clear difference between justified and unjustified destruction, i.e. "murder" vs. "justified homicide." Thanks for reminding me what this whole thread is about (whether FOCA is immoral or not). But I already know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Yes, but, in this respect, it is most often used as a synonym of murder [EDIT]. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=kill kill (cause to die; put to death, usually intentionally or knowingly) "This man killed several people when he tried to rob a bank"; "The farmer killed a pig for the holidays" Thanks for reminding me what this whole thread is about. But I already know that. Stop trying to evade the point. Knowing that your child will eventually die does not mean that you are the one to end his/her life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zierro Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Yes, but, in this respect, it is most often used as a synonym of murder. Well I just think it's a stretch to say that causing the death of a person (who hasn't even been born yet) is equal to causing the death of a newborn. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. And if there wasn't then masturbating would count as genocide. Stop trying to evade the point. Knowing that your child will eventually die does not mean that you will be the one to end his/her life. You have caused a death that wouldn't have occurred if you did not have the child. Any way you want to slice the cake, it is causing a death. And lol that you actually think I hold the position that parents are killers. My point is that if you want to get into technicalities and label the action of killing an unborn as something of the same degree of killing a newborn, then it's really not that hard to play along and be equally ridiculous (my example with parents). :-w So far you've only been telling me that it's wrong to say that conceiving a child is killing. That is my whole point! My question was asking why it's okay to say that abortion should be considered killing. By it's semantic definition it may be, but to hold it against the differing party in a debate just doesn't make sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venomai Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 My point is that if you want to get into technicalities and label an action as killing (abortion), then it's really not that hard (my example with parents). Your arguments are absolutely absurd and, if anything, are counterproductive to the defense of abortion... Parcedon is not arguing technicalities, or using "killing" too loosely (you, on the other hand, are). Parcedon claims that human life begins at conception and thus, by definition, active termination is murder (i.e. "unlawful killing of another human with intent to do so"). Parcedon is suggesting that abortion is murder regardless of how many days, weeks or months the human life has been developing for. (He may, however, be using "human being" too loosely.) Which brings me to my next question: Parcedon, what is your stance on pregnancy due to rape? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 wow, half a page of posts and I have nothing to say. I have a better one for parcedon, what is your opinion on the morality of aborting a fetus conceived from rape that is diagnosed with a severe illness that will lead it to be in constant pain its entire life? Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim_Jokes Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Why is the fetus aborted due to rape, it's not the (potential) childs fault his daddy has an urge to control. I'm on the fence on the whole thing, really. I mean, if I want a kid, and the woman just says "Screw you. It's my body." I'll be pissed, sure. But I'd also agree with her. We have no right to tell people what to do with their bodies. That means men and women. (No gonna go ranting about circumcision here) And believe it or not, women won't randomly go "Hey, I feel like an abortion." If it were legal and accepted in the world. If a lot of people knew what abortion entailed, their views on the subject may change. Be they religious or not. Proud founder of the Myriad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmcannibalism Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Why is the fetus aborted due to rape, it's not the (potential) childs fault his daddy has an urge to control. Because for the 9 months of the pregnancy it would be a constant reminder, Im not saying people should abort the baby just because it resulted from a rape but they do deserve sympathy and it would be wrong to force them to carry the child. (this coming from a pro life person) Orthodoxy is unconciousnessthe only ones who should kill are those who are prepared to be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raven_gaurd0 Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 Killing and murder are not very different at all, one of which merely carries the rule that one party is unable to defend themselves against the other force. At least, that's the connotation I have. Moving on. I nominate Jesus as the Pro-life Speaker of the Minority in the House, and would like to make a motion that we call each other 'Comrades'. So, Comrade Venomai, do you believe that the woman discussed in the analogy above would be more willing to live in a 'bare' room with all windows closed (not necessarily a horrible existence, may I remind you, as many people choose to be celibate, myself included.) than to allow this spore to land and root, if the rooting thereof would mean a potential 18.75 years of 'pain and suffering' in which she would have to tend for this spore? Certainly, then, she would, if there were any doubt that her defenses would fail, if ever so minute. She took the risks, she failed, and now she must pay the price. Do we recompense those in Vegas or Monte Carlo who lose their money, despite the odds being in their favor at the Blackjack table? Certainly not. Why let these 'gamblers', ie, those who have sex underage with no intention of having a child, get off that easily as well? Edit: Post 300! SEND IN THE PERSIANS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now