Sex Selective Abortion

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Katatori-kun:
Here we have Blablahb trying to claim that in China, an officially atheist country

China is not an atheist country. Atheist countries can't exist by definition. You can only have secular and non-secular countries.

If you're going to dedicated an entire post to try and insult and talk down to me for supposedly being wrong about something, at least don't get anything wrong yourself.

Kendarik:

Volf:

Kendarik:
You either believe in choice or not. If you believe its a woman's right to choose then you don't get to tell them that their reasons aren't good enough.

except in the long run in can result in male to female ratios like that of China

That is a direct result of the "one child" rule when combined with the tradition of male children being the retirement plan for parents. It is a unique situation caused by governments getting into people's reproductive rights.

There is no reason to believe that in general more people would prefer boys over girls.

It's also an example where people didn't think ahead and let sexist practices create a problem for the future society. If anything, what is happening in China should serve as a warning to other societies that choose to have abortions based on the gender of the fetus.

Granted I don't think that the West has much to worry about.

Blablahb:

Katatori-kun:
Here we have Blablahb trying to claim that in China, an officially atheist country

China is not an atheist country. Atheist countries can't exist by definition. You can only have secular and non-secular countries.

If you're going to dedicated an entire post to try and insult and talk down to me for supposedly being wrong about something, at least don't get anything wrong yourself.

You still have offered absolutely nothing that even resembles a cite. I'm just not buying it. I know that there are cultural doctrines, but I'm asking where the connection to the "religion" of a country so secular that it banned most modern religions is.

(Oh, and ftr Katatori: that warning was bullshit)

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
SNIP

Again, you don't seem to grasp the idea of human development. A tumour is not a person in the same way an embyro or fetus is. I'm not even going to bother explaining as the concept is fairly simple.

xedi:
Is there still an inconsistency?

Ultimately, I don't think it matters to the unborn. If they had a voice they would say, "let me live." Very few reasons actually morally justify abortion.

F4LL3N:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
SNIP

Again, you don't seem to grasp the idea of human development. A tumour is not a person in the same way an embyro or fetus is. I'm not even going to bother explaining as the concept is fairly simple.

And you have not explained what it is that makes a zygote/embryo human while a tumour does not.

I'm not arguing my own position here. I'm using your logic, backed up with statements that you made on the issue.

You have made it abundantly clear that you don't just consider zygotes, embryos and foetuses to be potentially human. That is something even us pro-choicers can recognise. You have argued again and again that zygotes, embryos and foetuses are actually human, and therefore should not be terminated according to the same human rights that we have.

This is where we differ, and this is where your logic makes no sense, as I proved in my previous statements. If we view one set of self-replicating human cells as human, under the definition that they are living things with human DNA, then we should do so with all similar replicating cell clusters that fulfil the same criteria. Whether a zygote has the potential to become a person where the tumour does not is irrelevant: you have stated time and again that zygotes, embryos and foetuses are not potential humans, but actual humans. Therefore, going by your logic we must assume that there is something about the nature of a self-replicating collection of human cells that is enough to define it as human.

This is your logic that I am using here. You are the one who defined 'humanity' as being replicating cellular material being composed of human DNA. After all, "all living things must belong to a species".

I am going to ask you this question, and hopefully this time you will actually answer the issue rather than skirting round it again: what it is it that differentiates a zygote and a tumour enough that one can be called human and the other not? Do not use the cop out 'the potential to grow into a proper person' because that is not the issue: pro-choicers make the argument that zygotes can potentially become human, whereas you are arguing that they already are, all potentiality ignored. What is it, therefore, that makes a zygote in and of itself human whereas a tumour is just a replicating bunch of cells?

Shaoken:
Being pro-choice, I would have to argue for this to be made legal. Personally, I would be againt it, but unless it's my child I have no right to tell someone what to do about it.

That seems like a good way to think about it: I may not like your choice, but I much prefer a world where the choice is still yours. And while I would certainly pass heavy judgement on anyone who did this, I would not want it made illegally as that would be more than a bit hypocritical

F4LL3N:

Ultimately, I don't think it matters to the unborn. If they had a voice they would say, "let me live." Very few reasons actually morally justify abortion.

I doubt it because they neither have developed speech centers (at least not early in development)/later have not acquired speech to even think linguistically "let me live" nor do I find it plausible that they even have a concept of life.

Blablahb:

F4LL3N:
I know this. However, in some situations you're saying the unborn doesn't have rights or it does but they're not as important as the mothers rights. Then in the next situation, they all of a sudden do have rights and it's immoral to do. That's contradictory.

No it's not. In the case of a normal abortion, the reason are heavily weighing interests such as the pregnancy as a whole being unwanted, serious problems with the mother, or with the fetus.

In sex-selective abortion, the reason is a religious dogma that preaches women's inferiority, much like the whole anti-abortion movement.

Come to think of it, isn't that ironic? First religion gives us freaks who oppose abortion because they think all women are inferior, and then, it gives us idiots who want their wife to get an abortion because don't want to have daughters since they think all women are inferior.

It's clear that your whole belief system is flawed beyond comprehension. It doesn't matter what your belief on women's rights are, when you get an abortion, you refuse the 'fetus' the very right of living. If you're okay with abortion, you acknowledge the fetus doesn't have any rights.

Then you turn around and say, "sex selection is wrong", as if you even give one fuck about the unborn. You're an extremist anti-religion feminist. Don't deny it. If males were the ones getting aborted more often, you wouldn't give a flying fuck. Your morals are down and up and down and right.

Make up your mind. You either believe the unborn have unalienable rights, or you don't. It's a fairly simple concept. You can't refuse them all rights then change your view on matters you interpret as religious dogma. Life doesn't work that way. If you can't... well I was going to say I will no longer take you seriously, but I don't know if I ever did. I acknowledged your point of view, but I will discontinue to do so, as right now you're showing me you haven't put a lot of thought into your argument.

I bet a week ago you were like "abortion is okay no matter what, it's the women's body, it's her choice..." But now you've remembered about sex selection, and you're all, "FETUSES DESERVE RIGHTS!" No, just don't bother.

Pro-Choice = no rights for the unborn. You can be anti-abortion but still Pro-Choice, but no matter what, you're saying the fetus doesn't have unalienable rights to life. If women aren't inferior (you want to bring it up, not me), and I am assuming you're a women, then prove it. Show a bit of backbone. You've not once acknowledged the fetus has rights, until now when a topic comes up that equals more aborted girls than boys. All of a sudden it's not the women's choice? Bullshit.

In my other thread, I stated a part of my Pro-Life stance was protecting unborn girls (and therefore feminist)... People basically laughed at me. Now you want to act like sex selection is some sort of evil sin. Un-fucking-believable. Get over yourself. You support the slaughter of hundreds of millions of unborn babies in the name of anti-religion and extreme feminism... No matter what you say I am on a higher moral ground than you will ever be. Hitler's on a higher moral ground than you, no offense...

xedi:

F4LL3N:

Ultimately, I don't think it matters to the unborn. If they had a voice they would say, "let me live." Very few reasons actually morally justify abortion.

I doubt it because they neither have developed speech centers (at least not early in development)/later have not acquired speech to even think linguistically "let me live" nor do I find it plausible that they even have a concept of life.

It's really easy to make choices for those who have no voice; would you agree?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
SNIP

I don't care who's logic you're using. If you understand anything about reproduction or human development you would know why a tumour and a 'fetus' are not comparable. Quite frankly, I didn't read your post. I just woke up, I'm tired and I'm annoyed.

The sperm is the male reproductive cell, when it fuses with the female reproductive cell, a new unique specimen begins to develop. It is the same species as the mating male and female. At the very early stages it's still technically a clump of cells (but still human)... It doesn't take all that long to begin to take shape.

A tumour? It's a fucking lump filled with puss or tissue or what the fuck ever else. Reproduction cells ARE NOT involved. Why is that so hard to understand. Tumours also do not have unique DNA.

A zygote has unique DNA. Therefore, it is human and it is unique from it's mother. A tumour is NOT a seperate human with seperate DNA. The anti-abortion movement has basically all the scientific facts backing it up. The most respected and well known court in the world failed to get simple science correct, despite the fact it was well known at the time when new life began. The only reason abortion was allowed in the US was because the fetus wasn't recognized as a unique human, which is 100% incorrect. You should really thank stupidity that you even have the right to do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81NrWq3p5Ag

It goes without saying that ALL humans should be considered persons.

F4LL3N:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
SNIP

I don't care who's logic you're using. If you understand anything about reproduction or human development you would know why a tumour and a 'fetus' are not comparable. Quite frankly, I didn't read your post. I just woke up, I'm tired and I'm annoyed.

The sperm is the male reproductive cell, when it fuses with the female reproductive cell, a new unique specimen begins to develop. It is the same species as the mating male and female. At the very early stages it's still technically a clump of cells (but still human)... It doesn't take all that long to begin to take shape.

A tumour? It's a fucking lump filled with puss or tissue or what the fuck ever else. Reproduction cells ARE NOT involved. Why is that so hard to understand. Tumours also do not have unique DNA.

A zygote has unique DNA. Therefore, it is human and it is unique from it's mother. A tumour is NOT a seperate human with seperate DNA. The anti-abortion movement has basically all the scientific facts backing it up. The most respected and well known court in the world failed to get simple science correct, despite the fact it was well known at the time when new life began. The only reason abortion was allowed in the US was because the fetus wasn't recognized as a unique human, which is 100% incorrect. You should really thank stupidity that you even have the right to do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81NrWq3p5Ag

It goes without saying that ALL humans should be considered persons.

Imagine a human body, completely normal in every regard that is a human body- only that it's brain doesn't function. The brain's there alight, it just doesn't work so the body doesn't have a mind. Is this human body a person or not?

F4LL3N:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
SNIP

I don't care who's logic you're using. If you understand anything about reproduction or human development you would know why a tumour and a 'fetus' are not comparable.

I know exactly why a tumour and a foetus are not comparable. What I don't understand, however, is how your logic allows for the distinction.

Quite frankly, I didn't read your post. I just woke up, I'm tired and I'm annoyed.

The sperm is the male reproductive cell, when it fuses with the female reproductive cell, a new unique specimen begins to develop. It is the same species as the mating male and female. At the very early stages it's still technically a clump of cells (but still human)... It doesn't take all that long to begin to take shape.

Once again, you've completely skirted around the issue, despite me asking you not to do so. Perhaps next time, you should read my post?

Once again, I will ask you the question: What is it that makes a zygote, in and of itself, definable as a human being, and not simply a cluster of cells with the potential to become a human being?

A tumour? It's a fucking lump filled with puss or tissue or what the fuck ever else.

What do you think an embryo is for the first two months of development? A bundle of smiles and love? If you want to describe what an embryo/foetus looks like for the first few months of development, a 'fucking lump' would be a perfectly adequate way to describe it.

Reproduction cells ARE NOT involved. Why is that so hard to understand.

What about in testicular or ovarian cancer?

Tumours also do not have unique DNA.

Oh really? Looks to me like the scientists researching cancer have discovered a way to identify tumours by their unique genetic material. I suppose you have the evidence necessary to prove them wrong?

A zygote has unique DNA. Therefore, it is human and it is unique from it's mother.

Ever heard of Parthenogenesis? It occurs in the wild, and scientists have been able to get it to work on human embryos in the lab. If a zygote is created with only the DNA of its mother (ie, a clone), does that mean it no longer fits your definition of human?

A tumour is NOT a seperate human with seperate DNA.

It is a separate living thing, with as I pointed out above, its own genetic abberations. You yourself said that no living thing can not belong to a species. Will you admit that you were therefore wrong in saying such a thing?

The anti-abortion movement has basically all the scientific facts backing it up. The most respected and well known court in the world failed to get simple science correct, despite the fact it was well known at the time when new life began. The only reason abortion was allowed in the US was because the fetus wasn't recognized as a unique human, which is 100% incorrect. You should really thank stupidity that you even have the right to do it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81NrWq3p5Ag

It goes without saying that ALL humans should be considered persons.

Saying that all humans should be considered persons is a non-sequiter. That's like saying all females should be considered women. You're using the same terms. The issue isn't that all humans should be considered persons. The issue is whether zygotes should be considered human in the first place, something you seem intent on believing despite the huge gaps in logic required to sustain such a belief.

mrdude2010:
It's the same sort of thing as aborting babies with genetic defects, I guess. I mean, it's pathetic and lazy on the part of the parents, but it's still just a clump of non-sentient nerves

uuuuuh no, I'm sorry, I really am, but I personally could NOT handle a baby with a severe genetic disorder (notice I said severe, I'm not heartless) and for two reasons, 1) if they can never take care of themselves, or they never really have any notion of what's going on around them, why would you want them to live anyway? That would be a horrifying existence. ( I was almost stuck on life support, -like the forever kind, but still concious- after a bad accident, I told my mom that if I was on it for longer than a month to pull the plug, its not a life, its an existence... barely) and 2) that is a LOT of financial, and emotional strain on the people who have to raise this person especially if they have to CONTINUE looking after them far into their adult hood..... I spent a lot of time in a place that my grandmother worked, which was (essentially) a daycare for mentally and physically challenged adults, and some of them were so bad that they could never live on their own, some of them will never feed themselves, or go to the bathroom on their own... I used to go home everyday I was there in tears because of how bad I felt that they would never experience some of the most wonderful or even simple things, like going on a roller coaster, or even being able to have children of their own, because most of them can't be trusted with scissors never mind children..... I always used to think that maybe they would have been better off you know?

Now this is different than wanting to get rid of a baby cause its a girl or something, this is actually WAY worse, as this child (hopefully) has nothing wrong with them and will eventually become a productive member of society... one would hope at any rate....

Anyway, I'm really sorry for singling you out and kind of going on a rant, but this is something I just feel really strongly about... >.>

F4LL3N:
In my other thread, I stated a part of my Pro-Life stance was protecting unborn girls (and therefore feminist)... People basically laughed at me. Now you want to act like sex selection is some sort of evil sin. Un-fucking-believable. Get over yourself. You support the slaughter of hundreds of millions of unborn babies in the name of anti-religion and extreme feminism... No matter what you say I am on a higher moral ground than you will ever be. Hitler's on a higher moral ground than you, no offense...

Then you turn around and say, "sex selection is wrong", as if you even give one fuck about the unborn.

Why are you operating under the assumption that any criticism of any kind of abortion must rely on "the rights of the unborn", or any particular concern for their well-being? That might be how those who are miffed at selectively aborting those who will be disabled or deaf or have a serious genetic disease justify their views, but I can easily see policy arguments that don't rely on asserting that fetuses have rights.

It is conceivable that the overall effect on society of sex selective abortion might be so pernicious, in some circumstances, that a ban could be justified based on demographics alone. I don't think that's true, but I also don't think the argument relies on "rights of the unborn". It ignores any assertion that there are such rights.

Stagnant:
(Oh, and ftr Katatori: that warning was bullshit)

Looking at it, it was transparently a personal attack. Mods are doing their jobs.

Katatori-kun:
So look at why potential parents are aborting to select for child sex. This doesn't happen because people in China or India are all horrible misogynists who just hate anyone with a vagina and can't stand to raise a vagina of their own. It happens because there are cultural institutions in rural China and India where marriage customs and family arrangement customs make daughters a financial liability and sons a financial asset. Change those institutions, and you eliminate the force that's driving the abortions.

And how do you propose to change those institutions? Outlaw dower, which legally is just a particular kind of gift? Or do you think that people will just stop if a properly recondite sociological argument is presented to them en masse?

Nickolai77:
Imagine a human body, completely normal in every regard that is a human body- only that it's brain doesn't function. The brain's there alight, it just doesn't work so the body doesn't have a mind. Is this human body a person or not?

Yes. Do you want to know what pisses me off? When people think they have the right to classify certain individuals as non-human or non-persons.

Everyone apart of our race, i.e. Homo sapiens, are human. All humans are people.

Unless you're God, don't fucking try to classify someone as something they are not. It's a pretty simple concept that very few people here seem to understand.

P.s. This isn't directed at you. You simply asked me a question, so I am answering it in laymans terms. I'm trying to explain it in the most simplistic way.

You have no right. If you've honestly still got the nerve to say you do, at least admit your moral values are in line with Adolf Hitlers. Everyone here would do well to read this post and understand what I am saying. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO REFUSE ANYONE PERSONHOOD OR HUMANITY.

What I'm doing isn't refusing women a right to their own body. I'm saying, unborn babies are human; they are people. They deserve to live as much as you or I.

You have nine months of cramps and cravings for chocolate (excluding complications.) After that, you can adopt it out to a loving family. When you choose to abort, you choose to destroy a life all for nine months of inconvienence.

If you consider anything I've said in this post to be delusional, then you need professional help.

F4LL3N:
If you consider anything I've said in this post to be delusional, then you need professional help.

I think elevating one's opinions to the level of "only a god can disagree" is a fair bit delusional, and I don't need professional help. At least not for that reason.

F4LL3N:
Everyone apart of our race, i.e. Homo sapiens, are human. All humans are people.

But what makes us people? What definable characteristic do we posses that gives us the right to live?

F4LL3N:
What I'm doing isn't refusing women a right to their own body. I'm saying, unborn babies are human; they are people. They deserve to live as much as you or I.

Who says we deserve to live?

F4LL3N:
You have nine months of cramps and cravings for chocolate (excluding complications.) After that, you can adopt it out to a loving family. When you choose to abort, you choose to destroy a life all for nine months of inconvienence.

Would you be willing to carry that pregnancy to term?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
...
Once again, I will ask you the question: What is it that makes a zygote, in and of itself, definable as a human being, and not simply a cluster of cells with the potential to become a human being?

I answered that very question. Crikey! When a male reproduction cell fuses with a female reproduction cell a new life is formed. It's a new life. It's human. I even said at the earlier stages it is still a clump of cells. It is both a clump of cells, AND a human. Do I have to make a documentary for you to understand this concept?

What do you think an embryo is for the first two months of development? A bundle of smiles and love? If you want to describe what an embryo/foetus looks like for the first few months of development, a 'fucking lump' would be a perfectly adequate way to describe it.

Again. Read what I am saying. When reproduction cells fuse with one another a new life begins to develop. I don't care what your opinion on the matter is. What I am saying is fact.

What about in testicular or ovarian cancer?

Again. Read what I am saying. The fusion of reproductive cells. It's not a difficult concept. Besides, cancer cells are rogue cells. They aren't meant to be there.

Oh really? Looks to me like the scientists researching cancer have discovered a way to identify tumours by their unique genetic material. I suppose you have the evidence necessary to prove them wrong?

Congratulations. I was one of the 6.7 billion other people who didn't know DNA rearranges itself in a tumour. Now I know.

It is a separate living thing, with as I pointed out above, its own genetic abberations. You yourself said that no living thing can not belong to a species. Will you admit that you were therefore wrong in saying such a thing?

I was wrong about the DNA, although, not really. Tumours aren't natural. They fuck with the body. Now that I know DNA rearranges itself in a tumour, it's not that far fetched of an idea. The whole concept of this, is that they are rogue cells. They no longer follow the needs of the body. It makes perfect sense that DNA would get fucked up in the process, because the process shouldn't be occurring in the first place.

Besides, you misinterpretted me saying "no living thing can not belong to a species." An eyeball isn't a seperate species. It's apart of the anatomy of a species, despite it living.

Saying that all humans should be considered persons is a non-sequiter. That's like saying all females should be considered women. You're using the same terms. The issue isn't that all humans should be considered persons. The issue is whether zygotes should be considered human in the first place, something you seem intent on believing despite the huge gaps in logic required to sustain such a belief.

That's the same logic that brought about the slavery of blacks, the oppression of women and gays... Just to name a few well known ones. Do you honestly believe not all humans should be considered persons? The only time they lose personhood in my book is if they commit a horrible crime and no longer deserve the title.

Seanchaidh:

Why are you operating under the assumption that any criticism of any kind of abortion must rely on "the rights of the unborn", or any particular concern for their well-being? That might be how those who are miffed at selectively aborting those who will be disabled or deaf or have a serious genetic disease justify their views, but I can easily see policy arguments that don't rely on asserting that fetuses have rights.

It is conceivable that the overall effect on society of sex selective abortion might be so pernicious, in some circumstances, that a ban could be justified based on demographics alone. I don't think that's true, but I also don't think the argument relies on "rights of the unborn". It ignores any assertion that there are such rights.

Any form of abortion has negative effects on society. You get to the point where this happens. People start deciding who does and doesn't deserve rights and personhood.

Do I have to list all the evil people in the world who shared this very same opinion? Now it's the majority opinion. How isn't society fucked when the evil beliefs of the most evil people to have ever existed are now considered normal.

Seanchaidh:

F4LL3N:
If you consider anything I've said in this post to be delusional, then you need professional help.

I think elevating one's opinions to the level of "only a god can disagree" is a fair bit delusional, and I don't need professional help. At least not for that reason.

So, do you agree with Hitler? Not everyone deserves humanity and personhood?

PercyBoleyn:

But what makes us people? What definable characteristic do we posses that gives us the right to live?

The very fact that choosing which humans are and aren't good enough for personhood is immoral. Look at history. There doesn't need to be definable characteristics. Being human is the only characteristic you need.

Who says we deserve to live?

The day one innocent person deserves to die is the day society has lost all sense of humanity.

Would you be willing to carry that pregnancy to term?

Some women would like to think I'm not qualified to answer that. However, yes. Even if it was from rape.

F4LL3N:
Do I have to list all the evil people in the world who shared this very same opinion?

...

Seriously, you're going for that?

Are you also going to list all the evil people in the world that wore clothes, or breathed in and out?

Just because someone you (or the world) has decided is evil does a thing, does not make that particular thing evil.

If you've decided something is evil, it doesn't matter how many evil people do or do not support that thing. Likewise, if you've decided something is good.

F4LL3N:
So, do you agree with Hitler?

Yeah, I think modernist art is kind of bad, generally. Most specifically, fauvism just looks stupid to me.

Not everyone deserves humanity and personhood?

Not everything, yes. Obviously there is a line that must be drawn somewhere, if there is to be humanity and personality at all.

F4LL3N:
Some women would like to think I'm not qualified to answer that. However, yes. Even if it was from rape.

I think people are a fair bit more noble when they can be sure that the situation is, and will ever remain, hypothetical.

thaluikhain:

F4LL3N:
Do I have to list all the evil people in the world who shared this very same opinion?

...

Seriously, you're going for that?

Are you also going to list all the evil people in the world that wore clothes, or breathed in and out?

Just because someone you (or the world) has decided is evil does a thing, does not make that particular thing evil.

If you've decided something is evil, it doesn't matter how many evil people do or do not support that thing. Likewise, if you've decided something is good.

I don't claim to be a history buff, or have too much knowledge of Hitler's personality.

But didn't he dehumanize the Jews/minorities in order to justify killing them so he could live in some sort of Utopia? Didn't white people dehumanize blacks to justify their slavery in order to have free labor? Aren't you dehumanizing unborn babies to justify aborting them in the name of women's rights?

Do you honestly not see the comparison?

Although I agree, morality is formed from opinions. Hitler probably didn't consider himself all that evil.

F4LL3N: I think you're setting up a bit of a false dichotomy here. Getting an abortion doesn't make a woman "just as bad as Hitler".

The reason that abortions are permitted and randomly murdering people isn't, is because murder is cutting somebody's life short, whereas abortion prevents life from starting in the first place - just like wearing a condom, or pulling out, or just abstaining from sex in the first place.

*If* you count the moment of conception to be the moment when a fully-privileged human life has popped into existence, then I can see your objection to abortion, but I still don't agree with it. At that stage of life, the foetus is less self-aware and able to feel pain than a gnat or mosquito, and I'm sure that if a mosquito landed on the back of your neck right now you wouldn't hesitate to swat it, right?

F4LL3N:
But didn't he dehumanize the Jews/minorities in order to justify killing them so he could live in some sort of Utopia? Didn't white people dehumanize blacks to justify their slavery in order to have free labor? Aren't you dehumanizing unborn babies to justify aborting them in the name of women's rights?

Do you honestly not see the comparison?

Firstly, that isn't what you said. You said it was evil because lots of evil people did it.

Secondly, the comparison only holds true if you believe that unborn fetuses are people. If you don't, then it carries no weight.

F4LL3N:
Although I agree, morality is formed from opinions. Hitler probably didn't consider himself all that evil.

And if he'd someone managed to take and hold the world, probably neither would we.

Seanchaidh:
Not everything, yes. Obviously there is a line that must be drawn somewhere, if there is to be humanity and personality at all.

And the majority should decide where that line is to be drawn? Clearly that idea works better on paper than it does in the real world.

F4LL3N:
Some women would like to think I'm not qualified to answer that. However, yes. Even if it was from rape.

I think people are a fair bit more noble when they can be sure that the situation is hypothetical.

Sure. If I was born a women, I wouldn't have the exact same thoughts as I do now... In fact, I could be out their protesting women's reproductive rights. But the fact is, I'm not a women. I'm simply a 20 year old Australian male who thinks the unborn deserve equal rights.

It's actually quite ironic, we're all fighting for equal rights. The only difference is, I'm actually fighting for life. You's are fighting because 9 times out of 10 you don't want to be inconvinienced.

Batou667:
F4LL3N: I think you're setting up a bit of a false dichotomy here. Getting an abortion doesn't make a woman "just as bad as Hitler".

The reason that abortions are permitted and randomly murdering people isn't, is because murder is cutting somebody's life short, whereas abortion prevents life from starting in the first place - just like wearing a condom, or pulling out, or just abstaining from sex in the first place.

*If* you count the moment of conception to be the moment when a fully-privileged human life has popped into existence, then I can see your objection to abortion, but I still don't agree with it. At that stage of life, the foetus is less self-aware and able to feel pain than a gnat or mosquito, and I'm sure that if a mosquito landed on the back of your neck right now you wouldn't hesitate to swat it, right?

I don't necessarily think that women who get abortions are as bad as Hitler. The idea of society allowing abortion is something comparable to Hitler. It's dehumanizing something in order to remove them from the picture so you have a 'better life'. Abortion in the case of mother's physical health is something I'm okay with, because it is necessary.

I do believe life begins at the moment of conception, as it is a biologic fact that is when development starts.

thaluikhain:

F4LL3N:
But didn't he dehumanize the Jews/minorities in order to justify killing them so he could live in some sort of Utopia? Didn't white people dehumanize blacks to justify their slavery in order to have free labor? Aren't you dehumanizing unborn babies to justify aborting them in the name of women's rights?

Do you honestly not see the comparison?

Firstly, that isn't what you said. You said it was evil because lots of evil people did it.

Secondly, the comparison only holds true if you believe that unborn fetuses are people. If you don't, then it carries no weight.

Hence why I mentioned the fact they are being dehumanized. You wouldn't know you're dehumanizing them, as dehumanizing them removes any doubt they are human. It's a cycle where you won't realize they are human until you actually acknowledge they are human.

And as I've already said, it's not our place to decide who is or isn't a person. So it should be a basic rule that all humans are persons.

F4LL3N:
Although I agree, morality is formed from opinions. Hitler probably didn't consider himself all that evil.

And if he'd someone managed to take and hold the world, probably neither would we.

You messed that up. I'll interpret that as "if he did manage to take the world, we wouldn't consider him evil!"

Exactly. If people don't stand up for unborn people, no one will know it's evil. If people didn't stand up to racism or sexism, we wouldn't know that it is wrong. It's called society improving/evolving itself. Unfortunately, legalized abortion happened. Which in my opinion, is society devolving into a barbaric state where life isn't so important. Luckily science will remove the need for abortions... Could it be to late though? Dun dun dunnnn...

Stagnant:
(Oh, and ftr Katatori: that warning was bullshit)

Thank you for your vote of confidence. Personally I think calling someone "Gingrichian" is no more rude or disrespectful than flagrantly lying to the whole forum (and thereby insulting our intelligence) or lying about the "religion" of 1.3 billion people...

But it doesn't really matter. One of the mods appears to have had a thing against me ever since I began taking an out-spoken position against anti-theist bullying of religious people. I'm not too worried. Probably one day I will be banned, and then my daytime productivity will skyrocket soon after.

F4LL3N:

thaluikhain:

F4LL3N:
But didn't he dehumanize the Jews/minorities in order to justify killing them so he could live in some sort of Utopia? Didn't white people dehumanize blacks to justify their slavery in order to have free labor? Aren't you dehumanizing unborn babies to justify aborting them in the name of women's rights?

Do you honestly not see the comparison?

Firstly, that isn't what you said. You said it was evil because lots of evil people did it.

Secondly, the comparison only holds true if you believe that unborn fetuses are people. If you don't, then it carries no weight.

Hence why I mentioned the fact they are being dehumanized. You wouldn't know you're dehumanizing them, as dehumanizing them removes any doubt they are human. It's a cycle where you won't realize they are human until you actually acknowledge they are human.

And as I've already said, it's not our place to decide who is or isn't a person. So it should be a basic rule that all humans are persons.

F4LL3N:
Although I agree, morality is formed from opinions. Hitler probably didn't consider himself all that evil.

And if he'd someone managed to take and hold the world, probably neither would we.

You messed that up. I'll interpret that as "if he did manage to take the world, we wouldn't consider him evil!"

Exactly. If people don't stand up for unborn people, no one will know it's evil. If people didn't stand up to racism or sexism, we wouldn't know that it is wrong. It's called society improving/evolving itself. Unfortunately, legalized abortion happened. Which in my opinion, is society devolving into a barbaric state where life isn't so important. Luckily science will remove the need for abortions... Could it be to late though? Dun dun dunnnn...

Fair enough, but you could just as easily say it's the other way around, that people wouldn't recognise it's right for the mother to choose unless society tells them it is.

thaluikhain:

Fair enough, but you could just as easily say it's the other way around, that people wouldn't recognise it's right for the mother to choose unless society tells them it is.

True. There's no doubt it's a matter of perspective. That doesn't mean you should just sit back and watch something you don't believe in happen. We'd still be in the Dark Ages if that happened.

F4LL3N:

Seanchaidh:
Not everything, yes. Obviously there is a line that must be drawn somewhere, if there is to be humanity and personality at all.

And the majority should decide where that line is to be drawn? Clearly that idea works better on paper than it does in the real world.

Agreed. We had to have courts set it right with Roe v. Wade. I suppose, though, that other places have managed to make a fair distinction without such intervention.

F4LL3N:
Some women would like to think I'm not qualified to answer that. However, yes. Even if it was from rape.

I think people are a fair bit more noble when they can be sure that the situation is hypothetical.

Sure. If I was born a women, I wouldn't have the exact same thoughts as I do now... In fact, I could be out their protesting women's reproductive rights. But the fact is, I'm not a women. I'm simply a 20 year old Australian male who thinks the unborn deserve equal rights.

It's actually quite possible you'd feel the same way were you a woman. It is, however, less likely. Also less likely is that you would feel the same way without any religious baggage influencing your surrounding culture.

It's actually quite ironic, we're all fighting for equal rights. The only difference is, I'm actually fighting for life. You's are fighting because 9 times out of 10 you don't want to be inconvinienced.

Yeah, I don't brake for squirrels either, and I don't consider a pre-conscious clump of cells worth any inconvenience (or pain, etc.) to a grown woman. Should one want to have a child, obviously it's a different matter. If a pregnant woman wants to be so giving of herself, that's her prerogative. Not yours. Not mine. Certainly not the state's.

An "unborn child" has no more right to a woman's uterus than a squatter has to a foreclosed house.

F4LL3N:

Nickolai77:
Imagine a human body, completely normal in every regard that is a human body- only that it's brain doesn't function. The brain's there alight, it just doesn't work so the body doesn't have a mind. Is this human body a person or not?

Yes. Do you want to know what pisses me off? When people think they have the right to classify certain individuals as non-human or non-persons.

So, if you transplanted a functioning brain out of a human body and into a jar- would that be a person or not?

My answer to the above question would be yes, because a functioning brain defines personhood which is why the brain in the jar would be a person. To me, a person is very basically someone with concious thoughts and can sense emotions. I wouldn't regard a "living" human cadaver, incapable of thought or feeling, as a person unless it's had a functioning mind.

Wow, that's a tough one. Ultimately I don't feel that the government should be able to disallow an abortion for such a reason, simply because it could set a precedent for restricting women's rights on the matter. However I still don't think that it's a particularly good reason for having an abortion either.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked