#98QBKiller Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Do fetuses have social security numbers? Is everyone's birthday the day they were conceived? Do we have funerals for fetuses after miscarriages?People insist there's not gray area but clearly there is, which is why this topic is so touchy. There's no clear answer. And why, in my opinion, this poll is useless. Off to find a thread about politics ... I agree. I can't vote in this poll because there isn't a clear-cut answer....although I'm not in a hurry to find a thread on politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pick6 Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Fair enough. Personally, I think if an embryo can't live without some sort of life support outside of the womb, it isn't a human.It's not something I concern myself with too much though. I know how my wife and I would act in any give situation regarding an unborn child and that's all I'm really worried about. I just don't see how this thread won't break down into a pro/anti abortion thread though. Which only leads back to politics of course. Politics has much greater things to concern itself with than the stance regarding an unborn child. This is how I view it. If you separate the embryo from the mother then it can't live, so it is not yet human. I for one would never want the women I was with to get an abortion, but I don't believe I have the right to tell another American what they can or cannot do. I am pro-life personally, but pro-choice in society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 Do fetuses have social security numbers? Is everyone's birthday the day they were conceived? Do we have funerals for fetuses after miscarriages?People insist there's not gray area but clearly there is, which is why this topic is so touchy. There's no clear answer. And why, in my opinion, this poll is useless. Off to find a thread about politics ... So illegal aliens or those not registered at birth are not human? A birthday is just that(the date of birth),you can get the conception date rather easily if there is not intervention in the established cycle. Some do have funerals,but is the absence somehow proof of not being human or never existing? It is only as grey as you want to make it. .... the rape issue is a concern(and certainly has many bad consequences)...yet we do not allow the victim to kill the rapist after the fact and a fetus created by rape is innocent of any wrongdoing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 On a completely different philosophical level, I look around every day at what people do and what they tolerate and wonder how many are really human at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 .... the rape issue is a concern(and certainly has many bad consequences)...yet we do not allow the victim to kill the rapist after the fact and a fetus created by rape is innocent of any wrongdoing Your compassion for the fetus is understandable. Your entire lack of compassion for the victim is, in my opinion, a lie (or at least an exaggeration) for this board, and not a true belief. Don't give me a bs straw man. Explain, specifically, either a) why they aren't going through anything too bad, or why it's okay to force them to endure it when they are also innocent of any wrongdoing. You are defending a practice that is exceedingly likely to have long term, if not permanent, severe effects on a persons mental health and well-being. So don't half-ass it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I’ve come to see that every single argument in favor of unlimited abortion simply skips over the decisive question: is an unborn child a human being or not? You can’t say killing a human being is a private matter. You can’t say a woman has “a right to choose” whether to kill a human being. You can’t say it’s okay to kill a human being because he was the product of rape or incest. You can’t argue that protecting the life of a human being unfairly extends government power — the government already has, and must have, that power. And you surely can’t say we must kill masses of innocent humans for the greater good of society. That’s more than hitlerian. It’s satanic. An unborn child is a human being, and it is not a human being at the same time. Confusing? Not really. We simply need better definitions. Your argument is based on playing with definitions. You try to place a term "human being" on an unborn child, then you pick and choose what other concepts associated with the broad notion of a "human being" you wish that unborn child to have. This is a backwards, logically flawed approach. You're deciding "what" based on "what we call it". You are supposed to decide "what" first, then decide what to call it. Yes there is some overlap between an "unborn child human being", a "child human being," and "adult human being," and so on... but let us not pretend that same rules should apply to all things that we can call a "human being". An unborn child situation is a highly complex moral, philosophical, medical, etc, matter. We obviously cannot treat an unborn child the same way we treat a born child, an adult, etc. So the proper question is "what is the right way of handing this" and not "what label can we slap on the unborn child to make our argument". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 Your compassion for the fetus is understandable. Your entire lack of compassion for the victim is, in my opinion, a lie (or at least an exaggeration) for this board, and not a true belief. Don't give me a bs straw man. Explain, specifically, either a) why they aren't going through anything too bad, or why it's okay to force them to endure it when they are also innocent of any wrongdoing. You are defending a practice that is exceedingly likely to have long term, if not permanent, severe effects on a persons mental health and well-being. So don't half-ass it. Compassion changes nothing of their situation,no more than allowing them retribution or jailing the ****s. There is certainly many things they will endure,but ignoring the fate of a innocent fetus should not be society's default position. Allowing exceptions by a judge is a reasonable position,but with the advances in the morning after pill ect,there are really not that many cases(in a already TINY percentage) of abortions from rape the judicial exception would take care of those prevented or unwilling to report a rape...and is not too high a burden for the sanctioning of the taking of innocent life. alexy....we do not need better definitions,we need more humanity and responsible behaviour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 It is only as grey as you want to make it. Indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bliz Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Compassion changes nothing of their situation,no more than allowing them retribution or jailing the ****s.There is certainly many things they will endure,but ignoring the fate of a innocent fetus should not be society's default position. Allowing exceptions by a judge is a reasonable position,but with the advances in the morning after pill ect,there are really not that many cases(in a already TINY percentage) of abortions from rape the judicial exception would take care of those prevented or unwilling to report a rape...and is not too high a burden for the sanctioning of the taking of innocent life. alexy....we do not need better definitions,we need more humanity and responsible behaviour So you would support it then, provided His Honor determines there was, in fact, a rape. Well that's a start. So then, I guess babies born of rape are not human? Like Alexey said, better definitions (or, preferably, no definitions at all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 alexy....we do not need better definitions,we need more humanity and responsible behaviour Why do we have issues with humanity and responsible behavior? I'd say lack of better definitions, better arguments, and better discussions. What else, lack of religion? That cannot be it - religion had its time and it cheerfully allowed, encouraged, or even performed all kinds of ghastly acts. I think there is generally a lot of agreement among the people on abortion. It is not good and it should not take place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I’ve come to see that every single argument in favor of unlimited abortion simply skips over the decisive question: is an unborn child a human being or not? You can’t say killing a human being is a private matter. You can’t say a woman has “a right to choose” whether to kill a human being. You can’t say it’s okay to kill a human being because he was the product of rape or incest. You can’t argue that protecting the life of a human being unfairly extends government power — the government already has, and must have, that power. And you surely can’t say we must kill masses of innocent humans for the greater good of society. That’s more than hitlerian. It’s satanic.You can see pro-choicers stumble over this problem of logic when feminists, say, complain that people are aborting far more girls than boys or when gays worry that the discovery of a “gay gene” may lead to a “gay holocaust” by abortion. It ain’t a holocaust if you’re not killing people. And if unborn children aren’t human, why shouldn’t parents kill them off until they get the one they want? I still believe it’s possible for a person of good will to make the argument that a fetus is not fully human for some small period of its development. Thomas Aquinas did — and the man was a saint. But more and more, that point of view is coming to seem to me pre-scientific. In any case, if that’s the argument pro-choicers want to have, let’s have that argument, and no other — because no other matters. And if we as a free people decide that unborn children are children indeed, there is no moral alternative: we must not only end abortion but put our full efforts into supporting humane and broadly available methods of welcoming the unwanted. http://pajamasmedia.com/andrewklavan/2011/07/11/on-liberty-and-abortion/?singlepage=true sorry,need a distraction from politics First, how is this not politics? Second, what you are not recognizing is that its not that pro-choicers "stumble" over this question, its that they often admit that the answer to the question is one of faith and/or a personal reflection. Truthfully, the current law is designed to protect fetuses that would be able to live if they were born that day, essentially. That is the best the law has done to answer your question as to whether a fetus is a human being or not. However, the law is also saying that before a fetus can live on its own, you have to come to some personal definition of what "life" is. Is life anything that will one day be able to live on its own? Is "life" when something starts to live on its own. The law is that this decision is personal and the government should not make this decision for individuals. You have apparently answered the question with the former, or close to it: life is when something begins to exist that will one day be able to exist on its own, i.e. at conception. I happen to agree with you, personally. However, if you can't see that that is really a personal opinion that we have come to, and that we can never really define life any more specifically, then you are not grasping the argument. The other side can logically and rationally come to the opposite decision: that life begins when a fetus begins to exist on its own, or could. The difference between you and me on this topic, apparently, is that I am willing to recognize that my opinion is not really provable, and that the other opinion is not really provable. So, like a lot of pro-choicers, while a loathe abortion, I do not feel the law should compel a person how to define life in this context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 You have apparently answered the question with the former, or close to it: life is when something begins to exist that will one day be able to exist on its own, i.e. at conception. I happen to agree with you, personally. However, if you can't see that that is really a personal opinion that we have come to, and that we can never really define life any more specifically, then you are not grasping the argument. The other side can logically and rationally come to the opposite decision: that life begins when a fetus begins to exist on its own, or could. Let's say that somebody invents a pregnancy device that can grow a newly concieved human being to term. A mother gives up her ebryo for adoption. A charity organization or the government could keep this being alive by paying for usage of this device. Is it moral to pay for growing a cluster of cells into a human being while there are thousands of already born children who are dying each day of hunger and easily treatable diseases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Very well said Tulane. I'll add that while I personally am pro-life, I am pro-choice when it comes to everyone else. It's their decision, not mine, and government shouldn't be involved in the decision either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 So I have seen the upper bounds of number of abortions in the U.S. at a million a year from previous threads on this. From OP, one would think it horrible that people have casually ended a life and to some extent I agree, but how many people here have voted for politicians in favor of crop supports raising the cost of food all over the world.. How many support pharmaceutical companies rights to maintain patents while millions die. Here in the U.S. there is access to HIV and AIDS drugs. In Africa, less than half who need them get them. I think there is a valid arguement to when personhood begins. I'm not sure. I think everyone agrees these Africans with HIV are fully human people, and we can't muster up half the sympathy for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 . Is it moral to pay for growing a cluster of cells into a human being while there are thousands of already born children who are dying each day of hunger and easily treatable diseases? Are there many in the US? We also provide aid all over the world.....while allowing killing our own seems inconsistent.....unless you don't consider them human Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 I am sympathetic to the pro-life reasoning of the OP. What bother me is the inconsistency of so many pro-lifers. A lot of people in the pro-life camp want to protect unborn children, but oppose programs that benefit the same children once they are born. How many pro-lifers oppose WIC, Headstart, foodstamps, welfare, medicaid, education funding, etc? If we do not want women to have abortions, then let us create a world where women have no reason to fear bringing children into it. Furthermore, a lot of pro-lifers do not seem concerned about the taking of life in other ways. How many pro-lifers are also pro-war? How many pro-lifers support the death penalty? If we are going to have a pro-life ethics, then let it be a consistent-life ethics too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 again, off your rocker, please if there is an administrator of your nuthouse watching take away this guys keyboard. Take a week off, but you can still use your keyboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 15, 2011 Author Share Posted July 15, 2011 I am sympathetic to the pro-life reasoning of the OP. What bother me is the inconsistency of so many pro-lifers. A lot of people in the pro-life camp want to protect unborn children, but oppose programs that benefit the same children once they are born. How many pro-lifers oppose WIC, Headstart, foodstamps, welfare, medicaid, education funding, etc? If we do not want women to have abortions, then let us create a world where women have no reason to fear bringing children into it. Furthermore, a lot of pro-lifers do not seem concerned about the taking of life in other ways. How many pro-lifers are also pro-war? How many pro-lifers support the death penalty? If we are going to have a pro-life ethics, then let it be a consistent-life ethics too. Do they really oppose helping the needy?(benefit is quite a bit different than allowing to live at all,or meeting basic needs) That is certainly not the case with the ones I know,in fact most give generously of time and money I'm certainly open to taking life....some wars need fighting and some people need killing the question here is does the unborn child ....we make the ending of their lives a personal decision,whereas war and death penalty are tightly restricted (even including O&W's adventures) speaking of consistency, some from those opposed to killing could spread some of that concern for others towards the unborn(which seems exempt to many) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Are there many in the US?We also provide aid all over the world.....while allowing killing our own seems inconsistent.....unless you don't consider them human How do you feel about us murdering for food other sentient beings, animals that feel pain, have many of our emotions, as well as the same intense fear of death? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 16, 2011 Author Share Posted July 16, 2011 How do you feel about us murdering for food other sentient beings, animals that feel pain, have many of our emotions, as well as the same intense fear of death? Slaughtering is a bit of work,but tasty rewards. They eating fetuses now?....times must be tough. add interesting you consider killing animals murder,but not unborn humans....kinda flies in the face of the standard definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 There are too many unwanted children as-is in this country. They'll grow up to take the life of one of someone elses' loved ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 16, 2011 Author Share Posted July 16, 2011 There are too many unwanted children as-is in this country. They'll grow up to take the life of one of someone elses' loved ones. Shoulda killed em off when it was legal....too late now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 Shoulda killed em off when it was legal....too late now We need more abortions in this country, not less. Spend I dunno, 30 seconds or so with anyone in law enforcement anywhere in this country. See what they think. There are some real pieces of **** out there, every single one of them born into a family that didn't want them or shouldn't have had them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted July 16, 2011 Author Share Posted July 16, 2011 We need more abortions in this country, not less. Spend I dunno, 30 seconds or so with anyone in law enforcement anywhere in this country. See what they think.There are some real pieces of **** out there, every single one of them born into a family that didn't want them or shouldn't have had them. I'm familiar....my question is why stop when they take a breath? If killing those we are not sure how they will turn out is OK,why not take out the real turds after they are born? put a bounty on em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 We need more abortions in this country, not less. Spend I dunno, 30 seconds or so with anyone in law enforcement anywhere in this country. See what they think.There are some real pieces of **** out there, every single one of them born into a family that didn't want them or shouldn't have had them. There is a reason that the crime rate went down after abortions were legalized. Don't believe that? The states who legalized abortion before Roe v. Wade saw their crime rates decrease sooner than those that had to wait for Roe v. Wade. Very interesting. Life should be cherished. However, those who wish life to be forced won't cherish them after they are "human". After they are born into a one parent home, doomed to a life of crime, they'll just be another problem in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.