Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(February 3, 2016 at 12:53 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I honestly can't answer that last question without referring back to my religious beliefs that human life has inherent value and dignity regardless of whether it is fully self aware, mentally handicapped, or otherwise too young for full awareness.
I believe this is true for all non human life as well, but perhaps to varying degrees. Nonetheless I think it is more wrong for a human to kill another human than it is for a human to kill a fish, for example, because we're going against natural law by killing our own species. Then again, natural law is also a religious concept so I don't know how else to explain it without turning back to my beliefs, since a that point it becomes a matter or moral objectivity.
We do it precisely this way. By discussion.
I have no idea what natural law is, but if that is all it's about it sounds good to me. Also, not only the fact that it's our own species, but the fact that it can think - which sets it apart from other species, as far as I know.
I think going on the principle that only life that suffers, when talking about fetuses, matters, is good. Otherwise it honestly doesn't make sense, beyond the fact that that early human life, despite the fact that it can't feel pain, has potential to develop the ability of feeling pain and thinking, but then the same could be said about a simple sperm. Know what I mean?
That doesn't mean people who can't feel pain, or are mentally handicaped shouldn't have a higher regard. Those people are already developed, they are not mere fetuses. I think it's important to make that distinction.
(February 3, 2016 at 1:15 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The right to life trumps the right to not be pregnant for 9 months, imho.
I'm curious. Does the right to life of say, a toddler in kidney failure, trump your right to not be forced to have the toddler's blood pumped through your kidney's to keep it alive?!?
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
(February 3, 2016 at 12:46 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: Ok, I agree with that. But we're still talking about it's potential to become something more here, if you wish.
(Emphasis mine.)
That may very well be true, but then humans that can experience pain take precedence over human fetuses that can't. Would you agree with that or not and why?
I don't think so. I think it depends on which "rights" are taken away. If a woman allows the fetus to live, her right to not be pregnant for 9 months will be violated. But if she does not allow the fetus to live, its right to life will be violated. The right to life trumps the right to not be pregnant for 9 months, imho. Adoption should always be an option for her and I think we need better programs to help women through this difficult process.
I don't know, I kind of agree with you actually.
But there's the problem of rape. What if a woman gets pregnant and it can't possibly be her fault, since she was raped? Presumably, if she had sex of her own accord she knew what the risks were at the time, but if she's forced to have sex and ends up pregnant because of it, I don't think it would be ethical to put her through those nine months.
(February 3, 2016 at 1:24 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:
(February 3, 2016 at 1:15 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: The right to life trumps the right to not be pregnant for 9 months, imho.
I'm curious. Does the right to life of say, a toddler in kidney failure, trump your right to not be forced to have the toddler's blood pumped through your kidney's to keep it alive?!?
That's another side of it. If the pregnancy proves to be too risky for the woman I think it should be terminated.
(February 3, 2016 at 1:27 am)Excited Penguin Wrote:
(February 3, 2016 at 1:24 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: I'm curious. Does the right to life of say, a toddler in kidney failure, trump your right to not be forced to have the toddler's blood pumped through your kidney's to keep it alive?!?
That's another side of it. If the pregnancy proves to be too risky for the woman I think it should be terminated.
Oh, that question isn't about risk. It's about rights. Especially the right to self-determination. The religious go on and on about free will, but want to restrict it/eliminate it any- and everywhere that the expression of said free will contradicts their beliefs.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
February 3, 2016 at 1:36 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2016 at 1:38 am by Excited Penguin.)
(February 3, 2016 at 1:32 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:
(February 3, 2016 at 1:27 am)Excited Penguin Wrote: That's another side of it. If the pregnancy proves to be too risky for the woman I think it should be terminated.
Oh, that question isn't about risk. It's about rights. Especially the right to self-determination. The religious go on and on about free will, but want to restrict it/eliminate it any- and everywhere that the expression of said free will contradicts their beliefs.
I actually don't think a woman's right to self-determination trumps the fetus' right to live. If she had sex of her own accord prior to getting pregnant, she presumably knew it might happen.
Cl raised some good points and it made me think - I also had qualms about abortion prior to this.
I still think for rape cases and when the pregnancy proves to be too risky it should be terminated, if the pregnant woman wishes so. But otherwise - I'm beginning to think not so much.
Sorry I can't keep posting anymore for tonight... it's late and I have to go to bed. Thanks for the discussion, though. Probably one of the most diplomatic discussions about abortion I have ever had with anyone. Thanks for being respectful, guys!
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
(February 3, 2016 at 1:39 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sorry I can't keep posting anymore for tonight... it's late and I have to go to bed. Thanks for the discussion, though. Probably one of the most diplomatic discussions about abortion I have ever had with anyone. Thanks for being respectful, guys!
(February 3, 2016 at 1:39 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sorry I can't keep posting anymore for tonight... it's late and I have to go to bed. Thanks for the discussion, though. Probably one of the most diplomatic discussions about abortion I have ever had with anyone. Thanks for being respectful, guys!
Ok, but when you get back, I'd really like to see your response from GBD here, if you don't mind:
(February 3, 2016 at 1:21 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:
(February 3, 2016 at 12:39 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If you are comprised of human DNA, you are a biological human being, whether you have the ability to feel pain or not, imho.
That argument could logically be used in opposition to the treatment/removal/killing of cancerous growths. Tumors are comprised entirely of cells coded by purely human DNA...
If simply being comprised of human DNA makes you a biological human being, why no funerals after hair-cuts, nail parings or amputations? These are all things comprised of human DNA. After all, we can (hypothetically) make clones from those material since they carry complete DNA.
By that logic, as Sam Harris points out in "Letter to a Christian Nation," (and I'm paraphrasing) every time you scratch your nose you're guilty of mass murder.
February 3, 2016 at 2:01 am (This post was last modified: February 3, 2016 at 2:02 am by Excited Penguin.)
(February 3, 2016 at 1:50 am)The_Empress Wrote:
(February 3, 2016 at 1:39 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Sorry I can't keep posting anymore for tonight... it's late and I have to go to bed. Thanks for the discussion, though. Probably one of the most diplomatic discussions about abortion I have ever had with anyone. Thanks for being respectful, guys!
Ok, but when you get back, I'd really like to see your response from GBD here, if you don't mind:
(February 3, 2016 at 1:21 am)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: That argument could logically be used in opposition to the treatment/removal/killing of cancerous growths. Tumors are comprised entirely of cells coded by purely human DNA...
If simply being comprised of human DNA makes you a biological human being, why no funerals after hair-cuts, nail parings or amputations? These are all things comprised of human DNA. After all, we can (hypothetically) make clones from those material since they carry complete DNA.
By that logic, as Sam Harris points out in "Letter to a Christian Nation," (and I'm paraphrasing) every time you scratch your nose you're guilty of mass murder.
Empress, is this quote from this thread? If not, that looks to me like you're calling someone out. I am asking so that I don't respond to it and so run foul of that rule.
