(February 20, 2020 at 9:59 am)Agnostico Wrote:

(February 20, 2020 at 9:42 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: What you're proposing is the equivalent of promoting indentured servitude, because some people want outright slavery and some don't.

Indentured servitude...

Outright slavery...

Wha else would you call it ?

(February 20, 2020 at 9:35 pm)SUNGULA Wrote:

(February 20, 2020 at 9:59 am)Agnostico Wrote: Indentured servitude...

Outright slavery...

Wha else would you call it ?

Based on his smilies, I think he'd call it 'panicky masturbation.'  Which is clever, but not really the point.

Boru

Here are my thoughts about abortion, though I haven't read the whole thread.
Whether abortion should be legal is not a question, if you ask me. There is little evidence that anti-abortion laws decrease abortion rates, and there is a lot of evidence they lead to illegal abortion, which is much more dangerous for women than a legal abortion is.
Now, whether it's moral, I'd argue that it is. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a fetus can be considered a human being. Then it's a human being which can't survive except by utilizing the organs of another human being. Should any human being have a right to the organs of another non-consenting human being, even if his life depends on that? I think the answer is no. Should you be forced to give one of your kidneys if that's the only way somebody can survive? It would be nice of you if you did, but refusing to do that isn't the same as murdering somebody.

(February 23, 2020 at 4:59 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Then it's a human being which can't survive except by utilizing the organs of another human being.

At what age can a child survive without the help of other human beings? The carer needs his own organs to survive, and the child needs the carer. Therefore, the carer's organs are necessary for the child's survival, long after it is born.

Put into the forest without assistance, no child could survive. Put into the world without the whole network of society, very few adults could survive. 

A fetus is dependent on others, but so is every adult.

It is in fact not the case that you will die in the absence of my affection or patronage. Nor, for that matter, is your continued existence predicate on criminalizing my refusal to support you.

This places the two people involved in an abortion in a very different sort of relationship than you and I, or you and I and all the rest of humanity. However, since we're talking about the rest of humanity, we often find it morally acceptable to kill other adults. If the relationship between a fetus and a mother and all of humanity to itself were the same, which it isn't, that would only add further support to the contention that abortion either was or could be moral and most definitely should remain legal.

Take castle doctrine. You can shoot an adult human being, dead, in your house (or your car, probably your clothes next). He's only there to avail himself of some of that sweet, sweet co-dependence - just like a fetus. If you didn't want intruders, you shouldn't have bought a house. What kind of monster does it take to kill him?

(February 23, 2020 at 7:43 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(February 23, 2020 at 4:59 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Then it's a human being which can't survive except by utilizing the organs of another human being.

At what age can a child survive without the help of other human beings? The carer needs his own organs to survive, and the child needs the carer. Therefore, the carer's organs are necessary for the child's survival, long after it is born.

 Put into the forest without assistance, no child could survive.  Put into the world without the whole network of society, very few adults could survive. 

A fetus is dependent on others, but so is every adult.

[bold mine]

Mowgli and Lord Greystoke might disagree.

Boru

As fun as fiction can be, the human animal is tough as nails in reality too. One human being, alone, even a child...is still an apex predator. We can muddy the water by referring to infants and children so small that they still require their parents to feed them..but this is no different than a wolf's pups.

The importance of society and civilization for our survival has long been overblown..by society and civilization. It's more the case that we couldn't live -like we do- without the two. Cold comfort, given the state of how we're living today, and our uncertain ability to continue living like this no matter what - and that's just for the vanishing fraction that do "live like we do".

(February 23, 2020 at 4:59 am)FlatAssembler Wrote: Now, whether it's moral, I'd argue that it is. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a fetus can be considered a human being. Then it's a human being which can't survive except by utilizing the organs of another human being. Should any human being have a right to the organs of another non-consenting human being, even if his life depends on that? I think the answer is no. Should you be forced to give one of your kidneys if that's the only way somebody can survive? It would be nice of you if you did, but refusing to do that isn't the same as murdering somebody.

Hi, just to let u know first i lean towards allowing abortion in the 1st trimester and cases of rape, incest, health risk, etc.

I tend to agree with @Belacqua about that moral argument. 
Also a fetus is viable from about 20 weeks so you argument doesn't really include viable fetuses 

We all know that sex can lead to pregnancy or worse, STDs. 
The male condom and female condom is the only contraception that protects against both. But there is an array of birth control options.

Combined pill
Progestogen pill
Diaphram
Contraceptive ring
Contraceptive injection
Contraceptive patch
Contraceptive implant
Intrauterine system
Intrauterine device
Cervical cap
Sponge
Spermicides

There traditional methods

Fertility awareness of menstrual cycle
Pull out messy method

And if all else fails, in case of “emergency”
Morning after pill


Given the range of contraceptive options would you agree that having unprotected sex was irresponsible in the first place? Is promiscuous sex without protection immoral given the sharp increase in STDs in the past 20 years? 

Wouldn't it be reasonable for them to take responsibility for their decision and deliver the child for adoption? Or at the least have an early abortion? In truth not many abortions take place into the 2nd and 3rd trimesters anyway and i don't see why someone would wait that long to make a decision 

There isn't enough emphasis on safe sex anymore like in the 80s and 90s and there really should be. If abortion was illegal all together it would make people think twice. Add a safe sex campaign revealing the STD epidemic which is in the west and hardly no one will be sleeping around unprotected anymore, far less unwanted pregnancies, less single mothers, less strain on the welfare, less STDs

This is my moral argument.

An immoral act is one that is done consciously and causes harm or affects well being.
At 8 weeks a fetus can feel pain. So if you deliberately cause pain upon a living organism is that immoral? Yes, even causing pain to an animal is immoral. 
So even if u only consider it to be a human once its born it is still causing pain to an unborn child. The well being of the fetus is also being disrupted.

So the woman was irresponsible to begin with, it's not the childs fault yet its the child that gets painfully dismembered and pulled out of the vagina piece by piece. U know this "my body my choice" can be countered by "your choice your responsibility". Its for that reason that my sympathy for the parents is low compared to my sympathy for the unborn child

Just my opinion anyway

Again another pile of assumptions betraying a lack of experience.
Again the lack of empathy or understanding and instead a heap of judgmental ignorance of what would actually be happening.
You clearly lack experience with women or the situations you feel entitled to dispense verdicts over.
Life has a way of riding roughshod over any idealised notions you might hypothesize, you might find that out someday.

Quote:An immoral act is one that is done consciously and causes harm or affects well being.

Not always.  Radiation treatments and chemotherapy are done consciously and cause harm and affect well-being.  In fact, they cause so much harm that a certain percentage of patients give up on the treatment and let the cancer take its course. Is using these methods to treat cancer patients an immoral act?

Things aren't as black and white as you seem to think.

Boru