(May 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 3:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: I abhor all abortions....exceptions are not needed to justify my position. I know that some abortion are unavoidable secondary effects in the treatment of medical conditions(like ectopic pregnancies). However I am unconvinced a baby has to be killed or that option has to be the first chosen in late term abortions as was done in Ms Kellogs case. Dilate the woman further, let the baby be born alive. If it dies, well that is a sad fact of nature. To kill it on the basis it is not likely to survive is abhorrent.

This is why talking to people who only know how to deal in absolutes is pointless.

Isn't it true, Heywood, that no matter what anyone else here states, you will steadfastly stick to your guns thus ensuring there is absolutely no point in further discussion?

I doubt very much that someone here could convince me that a zygote or embryo is not a human being....that would be like trying to convince me the earth doesn't revolve around the sun. Some facts are only disputed by the incredulous ones.

Now could someone convince me that humanity is better off because we allow abortions....that it is a net good for humanity? Maybe but I suppose a case could be made that humanity is better off that the Native Americans were slaughtered.

Could someone make the case that there is nothing immoral about killing another human being for matters of convenience(as in the case of the vast majority of abortions)...I doubt that too.

Last, I am pretty sure the pro-abortion folks are just as steadfast in their convictions as I am.

(May 27, 2014 at 3:35 pm)Heywood Wrote: Last, I am pretty sure the pro-abortion folks are just as steadfast in their convictions as I am.

Yes, but the difference is that the pro-choice side doesn't have to lie to support their position like you do.

Nor do they have to manipulatively warp the conversation by referring to their opponents by an emotionally charged euphemism that demonstrably- as you have been told- does not reflect their actual position.

Is there any depth you won't sink to to avoid ever having to learn a thing?

(May 27, 2014 at 3:35 pm)Heywood Wrote: Now could someone convince me that humanity is better off because we allow abortions....that it is a net good for humanity?

Why don't you start by describing how we're worse off for allowing abortions.

(May 27, 2014 at 3:43 pm)Cato Wrote: Why don't you start by describing how we're worse off for allowing abortions.

Taking bets on how quickly we get to "killing human beings is wrong!" despite the fact that he still hasn't resolved the problem of the many, many non-living things that also fit his definition of a human being...

(May 27, 2014 at 3:21 pm)Cato Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 3:03 pm)Heywood Wrote: If it dies, well that is a sad fact of nature. To kill it on the basis it is not likely to survive is abhorrent.

The concept of not viable is really kicking your ass.

If I accepted viability as a standard of when it is okay to kill a human being and when it is not, then I would be forced to conclude that it is okay to kill a 1 month old since it cannot survive on its own.

I try to be consistent in my positions. I used to be pro-capital punishment but then changed my position on that because it didn't jive with my view that human beings should not be allowed to choose to kill other human beings.

(May 27, 2014 at 3:46 pm)Heywood Wrote: If I accepted viability as a standard of when it is okay to kill a human being and when it is not, then I would be forced to conclude that it is okay to kill a 1 month old since it cannot survive on its own.

Viability isn't about what would happen to an organism if it just does nothing at all ever, genius.

(May 27, 2014 at 3:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 3:43 pm)Cato Wrote: Why don't you start by describing how we're worse off for allowing abortions.

Taking bets on how quickly we get to "killing human beings is wrong!" despite the fact that he still hasn't resolved the problem of the many, many non-living things that also fit his definition of a human being...

Or once again comparing it to the killing of Native Americans . . .

(May 27, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 3:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Taking bets on how quickly we get to "killing human beings is wrong!" despite the fact that he still hasn't resolved the problem of the many, many non-living things that also fit his definition of a human being...

Or once again comparing it to the killing of Native Americans . . .

I'm like ninety nine percent sure that he started out that argument talking about the nazis. Seriously, I can't be the only one out there thinking that he's just pulling a Godwin and then switching words around to avoid getting called on it, right?

(May 27, 2014 at 3:43 pm)Cato Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 3:35 pm)Heywood Wrote: Now could someone convince me that humanity is better off because we allow abortions....that it is a net good for humanity?

Why don't you start by describing how we're worse off for allowing abortions.

Suppose Hitler killed all the Jews and doing so, stopped a chain of events in which a future Jew destroys the world. Does the fact that in the end we might be better off that Hitler killed all the jews make his actions moral?

What if a fetus that was aborted would have grown up, invented a practical fusion process and saved mankind from a runaway greenhouse effect? Does that make abortion immoral?

The morality of an act isn't determined by future results. There is no need for me to make an argument that we would be better off if abortion were illegal.

Abortion is the killing of a human being by another human being. I think I am safe by saying such things are immoral.

---

(May 27, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Beccs Wrote:

(May 27, 2014 at 3:45 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Taking bets on how quickly we get to "killing human beings is wrong!" despite the fact that he still hasn't resolved the problem of the many, many non-living things that also fit his definition of a human being...

Or once again comparing it to the killing of Native Americans . . .

I like to use Native Americans as an example because there seems to be the perception that good always conquers evils(like the case of the NAZIs loosing). This isn't always the case. Sometimes evil prevails(as in the case of the pro-abortion movement).

You are all debating the wrong subject, really.
I think that the abortion debate is about whether a woman is able to buy the services of a doctor.
The only "value" I see in this debate is not the value of life, nor the value of choice, only the value of the fetus in relation to the doctor(service provider), that is money. Here, a fetus, and her carrier is nothing more than a source of money.
The pro-life people don't understand this, neither do the pro-choice people.
For me, abortion is not a moral choice. Its a choice of whether you can actually bear the responsibility of bringing a child into the world. Most women who have had abortions did the following: they paid a small price(in cash) to avoid further expanses(on a baby). So its nothing more than perhaps pure cold logic, and a means of disposing of a liability(economic or social) for them. There is no choice involved, but only...say calculation. How can there be any morals here to be discussed?

Similarly, discussing the life of a fetus is really moot. Yes, fetuses are technically alive. Though I'd say that pro-life activists are not tackling the root of the problem, as much as tackling the outcome.
The root problem is irresponsiblility. The root problem is stupidity. The root problem is out-of wedlock relationships, with outcomes that women cannot handle.
In my opinion, they should rename themselves pro-responsibility. Since this is a problem regarding society, we should look at fetuses in terms of where and how they stand in this. They are potential contributors to the human resource that fuels society. Given that, when does a fetus become a part of that society?