Abortion Right Or Wrong

[Bulldog_916]

I think you have good points from a philosophical perspective. But religious philosophy should play no part in public policy. That's why we have a separation of church and state. Obama and myself disagree on this point because of his faith based promises. Abortion being demonized in our society has come from people injecting their religious beliefs into an argument about public policy, even if the public doesnt believe what they do as a whole. Reasonable people would say that human life begins at conception because scientifically it does. Religion attaches consciousness to those cells even if there is no brain for the soul to go to. All of a sudden, birth control looks evil. Condoms look evil. This is why I think church and state should be separate. I dont believe that consciousness begins at conception. That is a question of science as well because if the brain is not present there is nothing for signals to control the body with. There is nothing to realize the self with. I think that until the brain is formed fully (even while not being fully DEVELOPED), abortion should be an option if the mother wants to consider it. Religion and public policy should be APART. It gets in the way of rational thought because faith isnt a rational emotion with which to consider public law.

[judgeposer]

I think you have good points from a philosophical perspective. But religious philosophy should play no part in public policy. That's why we have a separation of church and state. Obama and myself disagree on this point because of his faith based promises. Abortion being demonized in our society has come from people injecting their religious beliefs into an argument about public policy, even if the public doesnt believe what they do as a whole. Reasonable people would say that human life begins at conception because scientifically it does. Religion attaches consciousness to those cells even if there is no brain for the soul to go to. All of a sudden, birth control looks evil. Condoms look evil. This is why I think church and state should be separate. I dont believe that consciousness begins at conception. That is a question of science as well because if the brain is not present there is nothing for signals to control the body with. There is nothing to realize the self with. I think that until the brain is formed fully (even while not being fully DEVELOPED), abortion should be an option if the mother wants to consider it. Religion and public policy should be APART. It gets in the way of rational thought because faith isnt a rational emotion with which to consider public law.

Indeed, we have the separation of Church and State in this country, but we do not have any similar separation between faith and politics.

Also, I would agree that religious beliefs, sometimes when injected into debates, like the abortion one, confuses matters. Interestingly enough, in the last two instances where that's been done with national prominence has been by the second and third most prominent Democrats, who profess to defend abortion rights despite their religious beliefs.

As a curious matter, Christianity says nothing about consciousness at conception--certainly not Catholicism. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Religion attaches consciousness to those cells," though perhaps you mean non-Christian religions.

Anti-abortion proponents dot the political, religious, and philosophical spectrum. You don't have to be religious to be against abortion; that's because the position that human life begins at conception and that that life should be legally protected, while debatable, is a matter of reason, not faith.

Sen. Biden and Speaker Pelosi might to well to figure that out.

[melanko]

Abortion is the Woman's choice. Period.

[jezter6]

I dont remember this thread being a debate on abortion.

And a woman's period is her choice - I don't want one.

[Bulldog_916]

I think you have good points from a philosophical perspective. But religious philosophy should play no part in public policy. That's why we have a separation of church and state. Obama and myself disagree on this point because of his faith based promises. Abortion being demonized in our society has come from people injecting their religious beliefs into an argument about public policy, even if the public doesnt believe what they do as a whole. Reasonable people would say that human life begins at conception because scientifically it does. Religion attaches consciousness to those cells even if there is no brain for the soul to go to. All of a sudden, birth control looks evil. Condoms look evil. This is why I think church and state should be separate. I dont believe that consciousness begins at conception. That is a question of science as well because if the brain is not present there is nothing for signals to control the body with. There is nothing to realize the self with. I think that until the brain is formed fully (even while not being fully DEVELOPED), abortion should be an option if the mother wants to consider it. Religion and public policy should be APART. It gets in the way of rational thought because faith isnt a rational emotion with which to consider public law.

Indeed, we have the separation of Church and State in this country, but we do not have any similar separation between faith and politics.

Also, I would agree that religious beliefs, sometimes when injected into debates, like the abortion one, confuses matters. Interestingly enough, in the last two instances where that's been done with national prominence has been by the second and third most prominent Democrats, who profess to defend abortion rights despite their religious beliefs.

As a curious matter, Christianity says nothing about consciousness at conception--certainly not Catholicism. So, I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Religion attaches consciousness to those cells," though perhaps you mean non-Christian religions.

Anti-abortion proponents dot the political, religious, and philosophical spectrum. You don't have to be religious to be against abortion; that's because the position that human life begins at conception and that that life should be legally protected, while debatable, is a matter of reason, not faith.

Sen. Biden and Speaker Pelosi might to well to figure that out.

Every argument I have seen that involves religion and abortion from a Christian perspective always seems to revolve around there being a child (not a group of cells) in a woman's womb. With a child, there is assumed consciousness. So they give the group of cells a name like it is already a baby. It plays with people's emotions. If it's just a group of cells without form, it's still human life, but you cant really say you are taking the life of a person if you choose to take those cells out of the woman. So then it could be okay for a reasonable person to choose to terminate a pregnancy at that point. But if someone comes in and says, "Look, its a baby named Erin in your womb, if you take her out, you are murdering a living person," then you have all this emotional attachment to the group of cells where you wouldnt have before. I'm not saying it's okay to abort all of the time. But if that's what the woman wants to do before the third trimester, who am I to tell her what to do with her own body?

We got on this debate because Sarah Palin supports disallowing abortion and outlawing it in all circumstances including rape and incest. I dont like that policy because it doesnt protect women or give them the right to choose what they want to do if they are raped or abused by members of their own family. If it was your daughter or your wife who got raped and she became pregnant from the rape would you (or she) want the reminder of that rape around until the day you die? I dont know many people who would. If Sarah Palin is voted in with John McCain, women are repealing one of the fundamental rights they have, to be able to defend and protect their own lives.

[judgeposer]

Every argument I have seen that involves religion and abortion from a Christian perspective always seems to revolve around there being a child (not a group of cells) in a woman's womb. With a child, there is assumed consciousness. So they give the group of cells a name like it is already a baby. It plays with people's emotions. If it's just a group of cells without form, it's still human life, but you cant really say you are taking the life of a person if you choose to take those cells out of the woman. So then it could be okay for a reasonable person to choose to terminate a pregnancy at that point. But if someone comes in and says, "Look, its a baby named Erin in your womb, if you take her out, you are murdering a living person," then you have all this emotional attachment to the group of cells where you wouldnt have before. I'm not saying it's okay to abort all of the time. But if that's what the woman wants to do before the third trimester, who am I to tell her what to do with her own body?

We got on this debate because Sarah Palin supports disallowing abortion and outlawing it in all circumstances including rape and incest. I dont like that policy because it doesnt protect women or give them the right to choose what they want to do if they are raped or abused by members of their own family. If it was your daughter or your wife who got raped and she became pregnant from the rape would you (or she) want the reminder of that rape around until the day you die? I dont know many people who would. If Sarah Palin is voted in with John McCain, women are repealing one of the fundamental rights they have, to be able to defend and protect their own lives.

Thanks for reminding us why we're having this discussion--serious. I would only add that I see the discussion now more about the merits of the arguments raised in the abortion debate than a debate on abortion itself. In any event, I think it's entirely appropriate considering much of the news and the parties' platforms speak about this issue. It no doubt occupies a prominent measure for most voters in any national election, such as the coming one. The fault line between the parties on this issue could not be any sharper.

Perhaps every argument you have seen offered by Christians does personalize the debate beyond rational discourse. As a Christian who is now having this discussion with you (and whoever posts a reply on this thread) have not, I don't believe, assumed "consciousness," or contributed to the error that you speak of. Really, if I ever heard or were faced with such arguments, I would have to correct my coreligionists that we cannot (nor do we have to) assume consciousness. While we can most easily maintain that in a pregnant woman's womb lives a separate and distinct human life, it certainly does not share the same qualities we already-born individuals would call "conscious." In a well developed argument against abortion, moreover, consciousness cannot determine membership into the class of beings we refer to as human persons because some already born human persons lack that same property--consciousness--yet, we still regard them as completely human, with a life worthy of defending.

I tried to preempt this line of discussion about a Christian argument against abortion because it does not capture the diversity of those who argue against abortion. As I said, the argument is not a religious one. Among the anti-abortion proponents belong non-Christians, atheists and agnostics--Nat Hentoff, is, for instance, perhaps one of the most prominent figures rallying against abortion who's a self-described atheist.

Now, as far as the merits of your argument defending abortion choice, I remain confused about which premise you're attacking. Let's forumlate the argument against abortion as follows (this form also assumes nothing about the supposed "consciousness" of the yet born human):

P.1 - It is morally impermissible to take an innocent human life.
P.2 - Abortion takes an innocent human life.
P.3 - Abortion is morally impermissible.

Most refutations of this argumet usually target the second premise - which you do to some extent when you dispute the "consciousness" of the yet born human. A more novel refutation, and perhaps a more reasonable one, seeks to attack the argument's first premise - since if one already acknowledges the presence of human life at conception, escaping the second premise seems unaviodable.

The last bit you offered, "But if that's what the woman wants to do before the third trimester, who am I to tell her what to do with her own body" cannot be sustained really because we, through our public policy, or through more definite legal mechanisms, tell people how they can behave. We do this all of the time, though perhaps not in all areas of behavior. What distinguishes abortion choice as a behavior from any other illegal or otherwise morally impermissible behavior?

[jezter6]

If it was your daughter or your wife who got raped and she became pregnant from the rape would you (or she) want the reminder of that rape around until the day you die?


If this is about the mother having to live with the reminder - that's a sad price to pay, to be sure. But to abort a baby that may be perfectly healthy just to save the 'feelings' of the mother is ludicrous (to me at least). You're saying the right to live is based in entirety on how happy someone is to have you around?

There are OTHER options. Sure, it's 9 months to pay of what is not a "fun" time - but I would rather see a child born and not aborted for "just the feelings" of mommy.

Of all the abortion arguments - I give this one near the bottom of any merit. If the baby is grossly deformed and would not live a full life, or is otherwise unhealthy enough to sustain life on it's own after birth - maybe MAYBE I could see that being a possibility - but for convenience and feelings? *barf*

Y'all are getting way too PC on me where everyone has to look at everyone else's "feelings" before acting.

[Bulldog_916]

Every argument I have seen that involves religion and abortion from a Christian perspective always seems to revolve around there being a child (not a group of cells) in a woman's womb. With a child, there is assumed consciousness. So they give the group of cells a name like it is already a baby. It plays with people's emotions. If it's just a group of cells without form, it's still human life, but you cant really say you are taking the life of a person if you choose to take those cells out of the woman. So then it could be okay for a reasonable person to choose to terminate a pregnancy at that point. But if someone comes in and says, "Look, its a baby named Erin in your womb, if you take her out, you are murdering a living person," then you have all this emotional attachment to the group of cells where you wouldnt have before. I'm not saying it's okay to abort all of the time. But if that's what the woman wants to do before the third trimester, who am I to tell her what to do with her own body?

We got on this debate because Sarah Palin supports disallowing abortion and outlawing it in all circumstances including rape and incest. I dont like that policy because it doesnt protect women or give them the right to choose what they want to do if they are raped or abused by members of their own family. If it was your daughter or your wife who got raped and she became pregnant from the rape would you (or she) want the reminder of that rape around until the day you die? I dont know many people who would. If Sarah Palin is voted in with John McCain, women are repealing one of the fundamental rights they have, to be able to defend and protect their own lives.

Thanks for reminding us why we're having this discussion--serious. I would only add that I see the discussion now more about the merits of the arguments raised in the abortion debate than a debate on abortion itself. In any event, I think it's entirely appropriate considering much of the news and the parties' platforms speak about this issue. It no doubt occupies a prominent measure for most voters in any national election, such as the coming one. The fault line between the parties on this issue could not be any sharper.

Perhaps every argument you have seen offered by Christians does personalize the debate beyond rational discourse. As a Christian who is now having this discussion with you (and whoever posts a reply on this thread) have not, I don't believe, assumed "consciousness," or contributed to the error that you speak of. Really, if I ever heard or were faced with such arguments, I would have to correct my coreligionists that we cannot (nor do we have to) assume consciousness. While we can most easily maintain that in a pregnant woman's womb lives a separate and distinct human life, it certainly does not share the same qualities we already-born individuals would call "conscious." In a well developed argument against abortion, moreover, consciousness cannot determine membership into the class of beings we refer to as human persons because some already born human persons lack that same property--consciousness--yet, we still regard them as completely human, with a life worthy of defending.

I tried to preempt this line of discussion about a Christian argument against abortion because it does not capture the diversity of those who argue against abortion. As I said, the argument is not a religious one. Among the anti-abortion proponents belong non-Christians, atheists and agnostics--Nat Hentoff, is, for instance, perhaps one of the most prominent figures rallying against abortion who's a self-described atheist.

Now, as far as the merits of your argument defending abortion choice, I remain confused about which premise you're attacking. Let's forumlate the argument against abortion as follows (this form also assumes nothing about the supposed "consciousness" of the yet born human):

P.1 - It is morally impermissible to take an innocent human life.
P.2 - Abortion takes an innocent human life.
P.3 - Abortion is morally impermissible.

Most refutations of this argumet usually target the second premise - which you do to some extent when you dispute the "consciousness" of the yet born human. A more novel refutation, and perhaps a more reasonable one, seeks to attack the argument's first premise - since if one already acknowledges the presence of human life at conception, escaping the second premise seems unaviodable.

The last bit you offered, "But if that's what the woman wants to do before the third trimester, who am I to tell her what to do with her own body" cannot be sustained really because we, through our public policy, or through more definite legal mechanisms, tell people how they can behave. We do this all of the time, though perhaps not in all areas of behavior. What distinguishes abortion choice as a behavior from any other illegal or otherwise morally impermissible behavior?

You have a very well structured argument here. I give you great praise.

I'm not saying that you have agreed with every point of the will of the pro-life community. On the consciousness bit, I have an experience I would like to share. About 4 years ago, during a discussion on the stem cell issue I was watching on C-SPAN, I noticed something I had never seen before. This was regarding a decision to slash federal funding for stem cell research completely unless the research was performed with the same cell lines that had been used for several generations. During the discussion, the Republican side (95% pro-life and making up 60% of the legislature at the time) brought out a class of children. I dont remember if their parents were members of a church or not. They brought with them drawings they made. The drawings were of children like themselves. But next to the drawing of the child was a drawing of the egg with the cells inside of it. They had every child come up to the side of the congressional hall and present their drawing, with a description of the fictitious child's name and their family story. I felt literally sick to my stomach. The children were exploited to make a point to score a victory politcally.

Something very similar to that happened during my high schooling. A pro-life group stormed the main campus of our high school leaving fliers and signs which had graphic photos on them of abortions being performed. They stayed several minutes before campus police escorted them out. Another group did the very same thing in several elementary schools in the area. You dont do that on an elementary or high-school campus. I dont care how righteous your ends, the means do not justify warping a kid's mind with graphic images like that.

My point is that abortion, while it isnt the finest of solutions, when done with the full consent of the mother should be allowed until the third trimester (a good compromise in my opinion). Most times, extensive counseling goes on with the doctor performing the operation to make sure this isnt a lame attempt at just dumping a pregnancy. There are many many safeguards in place to protect the mother.

Jez: Having a reminder like that with you 24/7 of a horrible incident in your life would hinder your ability to be a good mother to the child. It's not just the mother's feelings you're protecting. The child would likely suffer as well. You dont just forget that it ever happened because you have the child there. Plus if the kid came up to you and asked you who daddy was, how would you answer that? "Your father was a terrible man who impregnated me against my will and now I have you every day my bundle of joy"? Then you have to consider how the father will be in the child's life. All those memories never ever fade. At least aborting the pregnancy you give her a chance to do it right as opposed to attaching a literal ball and chain to her entire life. It would be like mental torture to me.

Put yourself in that situation. Consider this, you go to prison and get raped and savaged by a guy. When you get out of jail, the court says that in order to keep you honest, this guy has to live with you 24/7. They dont know about the fact he raped you. You insist and insist that he shouldnt live with you. But in the end, the court has decided. And now, every day, when you get up and see him, you are reminded of the fact that he raped you. Every time you have an intimate experience, you are reminded of that time. Would you want that? Would you want that reminder hanging over your head until you die?

[judgeposer]

You have a very well structured argument here. I give you great praise.

I'm not saying that you have agreed with every point of the will of the pro-life community. On the consciousness bit, I have an experience I would like to share. About 4 years ago, during a discussion on the stem cell issue I was watching on C-SPAN, I noticed something I had never seen before. This was regarding a decision to slash federal funding for stem cell research completely unless the research was performed with the same cell lines that had been used for several generations. During the discussion, the Republican side (95% pro-life and making up 60% of the legislature at the time) brought out a class of children. I dont remember if their parents were members of a church or not. They brought with them drawings they made. The drawings were of children like themselves. But next to the drawing of the child was a drawing of the egg with the cells inside of it. They had every child come up to the side of the congressional hall and present their drawing, with a description of the fictitious child's name and their family story. I felt literally sick to my stomach. The children were exploited to make a point to score a victory politcally.

Something very similar to that happened during my high schooling. A pro-life group stormed the main campus of our high school leaving fliers and signs which had graphic photos on them of abortions being performed. They stayed several minutes before campus police escorted them out. Another group did the very same thing in several elementary schools in the area. You dont do that on an elementary or high-school campus. I dont care how righteous your ends, the means do not justify warping a kid's mind with graphic images like that.

My point is that abortion, while it isnt the finest of solutions, when done with the full consent of the mother should be allowed until the third trimester (a good compromise in my opinion). Most times, extensive counseling goes on with the doctor performing the operation to make sure this isnt a lame attempt at just dumping a pregnancy. There are many many safeguards in place to protect the mother.

Jez: Having a reminder like that with you 24/7 of a horrible incident in your life would hinder your ability to be a good mother to the child. It's not just the mother's feelings you're protecting. The child would likely suffer as well. You dont just forget that it ever happened because you have the child there. Plus if the kid came up to you and asked you who daddy was, how would you answer that? "Your father was a terrible man who impregnated me against my will and now I have you every day my bundle of joy"? Then you have to consider how the father will be in the child's life. All those memories never ever fade. At least aborting the pregnancy you give her a chance to do it right as opposed to attaching a literal ball and chain to her entire life. It would be like mental torture to me.

Put yourself in that situation. Consider this, you go to prison and get raped and savaged by a guy. When you get out of jail, the court says that in order to keep you honest, this guy has to live with you 24/7. They dont know about the fact he raped you. You insist and insist that he shouldnt live with you. But in the end, the court has decided. And now, every day, when you get up and see him, you are reminded of the fact that he raped you. Every time you have an intimate experience, you are reminded of that time. Would you want that? Would you want that reminder hanging over your head until you die?

Thanks.

I would only counter that you've appealed to emotion, you've personalized the debate. Which, aside from something you've claimed to disdain yourself when anti-abortion advocates attribute consciousness, or add names to yet born humans, in doing so yourself you commit the fallacy of appealing to emotion. You seem to be attempting to appeal to my, and/or others' emotional reaction rather than arguing using logic. While I don't want to discount your experiences, because, after all, it seems a reasonable way to come to a conclusion oftentimes, we cannot, for the sake of reasoned discussion, base our conclusions on emotional reactions. Using an analogy, say to reason analogously, (such as when someone says in one situation we behave one way, so in a factually similar scenario we should behave similarly) is one thing, but to ask whether someone would respond in the way they advocate or argue involves something aside from reason, it involves emotion. The questioner seeks to show inconsistency or hypocrisy, which, though insightful, does nothing to undue the other's argument. Most simply put, blowing out my candle doesn't make yours any brighter. I wish I could claim that, but I read it someplace else (perhaps even on this board).

[Canon]

this is a string off of the mccain thread.

personally i believe it to be wrong in any case except when the mothers life is in danger. as far as rape and incest go, although wrong should not be reason enough to kill off a "group of cells". alot of people tend to forget about the 3rd choice, adoption.

[Bulldog_916]

Logically, we should never have to go to such an exercise. But if you think about it, it is a common practice in the animal kingdom. Male chimpanzees will kill baby chimpanzees if the mother got pregnant from another male when she is one of his harem. Females do the same thing at times. It's a naturally logical exercise in the realm of the animals. Humans are animals. We are really no different than most primates except that our brains are more highly evolved. Lions eat their young. We look at it as a barbaric thing to do but to them, it's logical. That lion cub isnt a member of the new dominant male's gene pool. He eliminates that member to strengthen his own chances at keeping his chain going. Using logic, an imbalanced man who rapes a woman (rape being another of the barbaric but natural occurances in the natural world) should not have his gene pool passed on. In the wild, his genes would be either A. eliminated by the female herself after the birthing process is complete, or B. eliminated by the male who includes that female as one of his family or group. Logic is a pretty cold tool to use in a debate like this because it favors even more radical means to justify the ends when applied to an animal similar to ourselves. I think terminating a pregnancy in a case of rape is perfectly logical and reasonable given the circumstance. The offspring is not being given a full chance at success because the emotion of the mother may make raising that child much more difficult. Any difficulty in nature is usually settled by the death of the animal with the difficulty (same reason a wolf doesnt survive with a broken leg). In most cases in the animal kingdom, the offspring would be abandoned to slowly starve to death or be killed by another animal if it were not killed by the mother herself.

None of that above is based on emotion. Pure scientific observation. Look it all up. Edited September 10, 2008 by Bulldog_916

[r1v3th3ad]

only time I dont believe in abortion is those kids that use it as birth control....where the clinic actually knows them because rather than being safe and using the pill or condoms, they just say "o, the doc. will fix me up with the good ol' vacuum, hurrah!"
thats where I don't like it.

and I FUCKING hate those people who stand around with the signs with pics of aborted fetuses....threw a big gulp(from 7-11) at one...it was 7am and I just had breakfast, was about to lose it to, the pricks deserved it.

[ColibriDon]

only time I dont believe in abortion is those kids that use it as birth control....where the clinic actually knows them because rather than being safe and using the pill or condoms, they just say "o, the doc. will fix me up with the good ol' vacuum, hurrah!"
thats where I don't like it.

and I FUCKING hate those people who stand around with the signs with pics of aborted fetuses....threw a big gulp(from 7-11) at one...it was 7am and I just had breakfast, was about to lose it to, the pricks deserved it.

Agree 100%. I saw a group of those people standing outside a planned parenthood office and had to fight really hard to not run them over. I think it's the woman's choice and that's all it should be.

[Stuie]

If it was your daughter or your wife who got raped and she became pregnant from the rape would you (or she) want the reminder of that rape around until the day you die?


If this is about the mother having to live with the reminder - that's a sad price to pay, to be sure. But to abort a baby that may be perfectly healthy just to save the 'feelings' of the mother is ludicrous (to me at least). You're saying the right to live is based in entirety on how happy someone is to have you around?

There are OTHER options. Sure, it's 9 months to pay of what is not a "fun" time - but I would rather see a child born and not aborted for "just the feelings" of mommy.

Of all the abortion arguments - I give this one near the bottom of any merit. If the baby is grossly deformed and would not live a full life, or is otherwise unhealthy enough to sustain life on it's own after birth - maybe MAYBE I could see that being a possibility - but for convenience and feelings? *barf*

Y'all are getting way too PC on me where everyone has to look at everyone else's "feelings" before acting.

personally i believe it to be wrong in any case except when the mothers life is in danger. as far as rape and incest go, although wrong should not be reason enough to kill off a "group of cells". alot of people tend to forget about the 3rd choice, adoption.

I completely agree with Jez and Canon, this has always been my stance. Life should be allowed to flourish beyond our selfish desires.

I have always wondered why people say it's a woman's right, when she is only half the equation.

[jezter6]

She is but 1/3 the equation.

There is no reason that the father should have absolute 0 right to fight for the life (or abortion - I'm willing to play devli's advocate) of their child.

While the child doesn't really get a vote in the situation, there are 3 parties affected directly with such an issue. So mommy's 'reign' over life and death needs to come to an end and have a better way to figure this out.

Men get screwed over on both sides of this coin.

Woman wants abortion, Man wants baby. Result - Abortion (Man Hosed)
Woman wants baby, Man wants abortion. Result - Man pays lots of money in child support (Man Hosed)

Anyone who is pro-child support enforcement for dead beats should also be pro-daddy gets a choice somewhere in the matter.

[Stuie]

Your right thanks for the correction Jez.

[Johnny_D]

this is a string off of the mccain thread.

personally i believe it to be wrong in any case except when the mothers life is in danger. as far as rape and incest go, although wrong should not be reason enough to kill off a "group of cells". alot of people tend to forget about the 3rd choice, adoption.

Incest? who the hell would want to adopt a kid with three arms?!

Rape - Great. 18 years later kid turns up on doorstep reminding mother, again, all about that delightfull time.

What a woman does with her own body is her own -ing business.

JD

[Canon]

this is a string off of the mccain thread.

personally i believe it to be wrong in any case except when the mothers life is in danger. as far as rape and incest go, although wrong should not be reason enough to kill off a "group of cells". alot of people tend to forget about the 3rd choice, adoption.

Incest? who the hell would want to adopt a kid with three arms?!

Rape - Great. 18 years later kid turns up on doorstep reminding mother, again, all about that delightfull time.

What a woman does with her own body is her own -ing business.

JD

JD id like you to ask people with a disability if they deserve to live or not. tell me what they say.
as far as rape goes, theres closed door adoptions, the kid cant find the parent and vise versa.

and your right what a women (or person) does with their own body is their business but if your going to kill someone that is inside of you because you dont like it thats not right. the child is not her own body.

[Johnny_D]

Oh I geddit. Your having a laugh right?

Abortion's left right & Centre because your too stupid to take precautions is wrong, I agree. Steralise the idiots.

However dragging some kid into the world no one wants is allmost as bad. It's quiet potential that the kid is going to end up hated, ignored, pushed to one side and resented in quite an unpleasant, if not illegal, way*.

and i never mentioned someone disabled. I was being funny so don't try the ol' emotional craopla with Johnny!

JD - often funny, often misquoted.

ps - No such thing as 'closed door adoptions'. If might sound fancy, but it's not a reality. If not legal methods of tracing there are 100's of underhand methods.

[Stuie]

Actually JD there is a way in Dallas, Texas It's called the Baby Moses Law. Any woman can leave a newborn at a fire station at any time with no questions asked and it will become a ward of the state. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/ Sucks but living beats dying in my book.

[Johnny_D]

Actually JD there is a way in Dallas, Texas It's called the Baby Moses Law. Any woman can leave a newborn at a fire station at any time with no questions asked and it will become a ward of the state. http://www.babymosesdallas.org/ Sucks but living beats dying in my book.

Thanks Stuie. Ironically it's worth noting that doing something like this makes tracing allmost impossible by the sheer nature of the fact that it would be almost impossible TO trace.

Especially as the child would be unlikely to start considering a trace for at least a decade. And probably wouldn't be able to mount a serious trace for 2 decades.

Anything done through official or formal channels will leave a paper trail of some description. This can always be sniffed out and traced much easier than something as Clinically clean as depositing a parcel outside of fire/police station.

JD

[judgeposer]

Thanks for separating this from the other thread - Mods, I guess that's you?

In an earlier post I offered this argument:

P.1 - It is morally impermissible to take an innocent human life.
P.2 - Abortion takes an innocent human life.
C.1 - Abortion is morally impermissible.

Here's another, more sophisticated formulation:

P.1 - The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community.
P.2 - It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.
C.1 - Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

If an argument's premises are true, and its conclusion follows, then the argument is valid. If the premises of a valid argument are true, then the argument is sound. I believe these are two valid and sound arguments that show that abortion is morally wrong, or is, as the second argument concludes, at least prima facie morally wrong.

[Johnny_D]

Thanks for separating this from the other thread - Mods, I guess that's you?

In an earlier post I offered this argument:

P.1 - It is morally impermissible to take an innocent human life.
P.2 - Abortion takes an innocent human life.
C.1 - Abortion is morally impermissible.

Here's another, more sophisticated formulation:

P.1 - The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community.
P.2 - It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that community.
C.1 - Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.

If an argument's premises are true, and its conclusion follows, then the argument is valid. If the premises of a valid argument are true, then the argument is sound. I believe these are two valid and sound arguments that show that abortion is morally wrong, or is, as the second argument concludes, at least prima facie morally wrong.

Are we arguing from a religious Point of View or a social POV?

Also - what the hell is prima facie?
And what was that last sentence mean?

[jezter6]

Are we arguing from a religious Point of View or a social POV?

I think the point he's making is as a part of the social convention as it applies to general morality, not necessarily invoking religious influence into the debate.

It's more of a human nature thing.

[judgeposer]

Are we arguing from a religious Point of View or a social POV?

I think the point he's making is as a part of the social convention as it applies to general morality, not necessarily invoking religious influence into the debate.

It's more of a human nature thing.

Social...I guess.

Simply, I supposed that we were trying to determine whether abortion was "Right or Wrong," as asked by our thread's title; I supposed further that we were asking whether abortion was morally "Right or Wrong." That was my argument as to why abortion is morally wrong. It has no connection to religion.

But I'm not sure about "a human nature thing" too since I'm not sure how that applies here, to what I argued.