Quote:

Quote:I believe the bottom line is that for "moral" laws we cannot find hard evidence, proof or compelling reasons.

I disagree. I can find compelling reasons for why one should not smoke, for example.

Fuck. My English must be quite shitty, indeed.
What I was trying to say is that to establish a MORAL code, one should first accept a moral "dogma" to built on.
Smoking is a simpler PRACTICAL issue I think.

Quote:The new born baby is not being an unwanted parasite in anyone's body.

This term is really wrong.A fetus is not a parasite. It is a person-to-be in my opinion.

Jason,

Have you considered the "violinist" argument? Here is a link: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil1...homson.htm

If you think that you should compel a woman to allow her body to be used as an incubator for another person, then you are essentially seeing her as a means to an end and not an end in herself.

If you do not accept that as a matter of general principle one person can use another person's body without that person's consent, then show how pregnancy is different.

(June 1, 2014 at 9:57 am)Jason_ab Wrote: 1) Does anyone here underastands that killing animals is ALSO moraly debateable?
2) My personal opinion is that at this specific topic is very difficult to get to a morally safe conclusion.
We can try to come up with a specific point in the life of a baby-to-be that we will grand it with human rights. Since that is not scientifically possible (because the factor that determines personhood is purely subjective) all we can do is let everyone decide at their own?
Maybe I believe that a baby-to-be is a human being on the 1st day. My friend believes it is at the 21 weeks, and someone else believes that a day before birth a baby is not a human person. So? Should she terminate the pregnancy one day before birth? Should she do such a thing two days before death? How about three?
If the 21week is our mark, what about 11 o'clock of the last day of the 20th week? Should a pregnant woman do an exam to see if there is brain function at the baby-to-be and if not, it's ok to abort?
And of course, how on earth is it different than killing animals?
Furthermore... if we decide that "superior mental development" is what seperates people from non-people, then I should point out that a one year old dog is quite "mentally superior" to an infant that is one day old... so where does this lead us?

That's a nice slippery slope argument, but you're forgetting about viability outside the womb.

(May 31, 2014 at 5:47 pm)alpha male Wrote: I noted some time ago that I have no objective in this matter. It's been settled law in the U.S. for decades.

So why are you on this thread at all?

Quote:Plus, I can say the same to you, as you seem to think that abortion after 21 weeks is murder or akin to it.

Actually, my position is "restricted to the issues of the health of the mother after 21 weeks" and I'm much more confident than you in my assessment that our moral obligations toward other beings is based on whether or not those other beings are self-aware.

Quote:Are people who eat meat accomplices to murder because animals think?

Eating animals is unfortunately part of the natural order and arguably required. It's a less than perfect world. I draw the line at gratuitous cruelty, such as tossing kittens over a cliff for fun. You keep dodging that question, by the way.

Is tossing kittens off a cliff for fun something that's OK to do since kittens don't have human DNA?

Let's say we encounter an unlikely planet called Pandora and find an equally unlikely alien race of giant catlike humanoids. Can we just bomb them and take their stuff because we can and they're not human?

You don't like Star Trek, how about the movie A.I.? If we create self-aware androids, can we continue to treat them as disposable property or what?

Quote:Interesting...her own body. A fetus has a body prior to 21 weeks.

Your point?

Quote:If pain is the dividing line, then it's moral to kill anyone, as long as it's done painlessly.

Are you really this stupid or are you being dishonest hoping no one will catch you in this straw man distortion?

I said, "no brain, no pain", not "no pain, no brain". A thing that is not self-aware will not experience pain. But a thing that doesn't experience pain might still be self-aware. This is pretty basic logic but that's obviously beyond you.

Quote:And while I think your star wars bit is silly...

Star Trek you moron.

(June 1, 2014 at 12:51 pm)Counterapologistblog Wrote: Jason,

Have you considered the "violinist" argument? Here is a link: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil1...homson.htm

If you think that you should compel a woman to allow her body to be used as an incubator for another person, then you are essentially seeing her as a means to an end and not an end in herself.

If you do not accept that as a matter of general principle one person can use another person's body without that person's consent, then show how pregnancy is different.

What a great great great article. Agree at some parts, disagree at others. But yet, a great article that made me think and do some research for Judith Jarvis Thomson.

We have to accept the fact that some "problems" are unsolvable.

Abortion is a very complex subject that does not allow an overall "solution". All we can do is think and explore both sides of the coin.
My main proposition was better education and more alternatives.
Noone however can force a mother to cary a baby in her WOMB (got it right this time) without being a fascist.

But I have every right to believe that couples who have unprotected sex because it feels better and get pregnant are morons. Big ones.
And I have every right to believe that abortions are not cool and should not substitute condoms.

Jason, I don't care if you see a foetus as a person or a human being or anything. Does this foetuses right to life, trump the womans bodily rights? Answer that please

(June 1, 2014 at 11:45 am)Jason_ab Wrote: ... simply does NOT apply in this particular subject because proving something like fetus pain is impossible

Wrong. Maybe you refuse to accept scientific evidence, but it can be proven.

(June 1, 2014 at 1:16 pm)Jason_ab Wrote:

(June 1, 2014 at 12:51 pm)Counterapologistblog Wrote: Jason,

Have you considered the "violinist" argument? Here is a link: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil1...homson.htm

If you think that you should compel a woman to allow her body to be used as an incubator for another person, then you are essentially seeing her as a means to an end and not an end in herself.

If you do not accept that as a matter of general principle one person can use another person's body without that person's consent, then show how pregnancy is different.

What a great great great article. Agree at some parts, disagree at others. But yet, a great article that made me think and do some research for Judith Jarvis Thomson.

We have to accept the fact that some "problems" are unsolvable.

Abortion is a very complex subject that does not allow an overall "solution". All we can do is think and explore both sides of the coin.
My main proposition was better education and more alternatives.
Noone however can force a mother to cary a baby in her WOMB (got it right this time) without being a fascist.

But I have every right to believe that couples who have unprotected sex because it feels better and get pregnant are morons. Big ones.
And I have every right to believe that abortions are not cool and should not substitute condoms.

You'd be hard pressed to find couples who have unprotected sex and use abortion as birth control as the anti-abortion crowd strawman dictates.

And anti-abortion rhetoric rings hollow. These are the same people trying to get the morning after pill banned, and spending time and effort to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, the only source of The Pill for many young or low income couples.

You say you want more alternatives, yet the "Pro Life" crowd are working night and day to keep responsible birth control away from the couples and age ranges who need it most.

(May 31, 2014 at 9:03 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: And did he ever equate animal thought to human thought? I think not. You are misrepresenting what he said.

For this purpose, yes, he equated them: Actually, infants do "think" as do animals. The thoughts may be simple (I'm tired, I'm hungry, I'm wet, etc.) but they are "thoughts".

He dodges the question of whether people who eat meat are therefore accessories to murder.

---

(June 1, 2014 at 8:36 am)Losty Wrote: Yea that would make sense except for one thing.
Human Being- a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development(thinking), power of articulate speech, and upright stance.

Notice how DNA is not included as a distinguishing factor?

What part of "within humans" didn't you understand?

(June 1, 2014 at 6:25 pm)Losty Wrote:

(June 1, 2014 at 11:45 am)Jason_ab Wrote: ... simply does NOT apply in this particular subject because proving something like fetus pain is impossible

Wrong. Maybe you refuse to accept scientific evidence, but it can be proven.

Dude, stop being sarcastic. OF COURSE I accept scientific evidence when there is some. But... how could fetus "pain" be measured? Is there something I don't know about this subject? Please give me a link or something.

(June 2, 2014 at 3:53 am)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: You'd be hard pressed to find couples who have unprotected sex and use abortion as birth control as the anti-abortion crowd strawman dictates.

And anti-abortion rhetoric rings hollow. These are the same people trying to get the morning after pill banned, and spending time and effort to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, the only source of The Pill for many young or low income couples.

You say you want more alternatives, yet the "Pro Life" crowd are working night and day to keep responsible birth control away from the couples and age ranges who need it most.

1)Have you noticed that "pro-abortion" rhetoric seems to consider most of the abortions to be made from rape victims or mothers whose life is in danger if proceeding with the pregnancy? Don't know about the US, but here in Greece the majority of abortions are NOT about rape victims or about mothers or babys-to-be with serious health problems. They are simply the result of not programmed and unwanted pregnancies.

2)I really cannot change my point of view on a subject because others who have similar but not quite identical point of view seem to be... let's say... mentally and intellectually disoriented.

3)About the alternatives thing. Last year I have paid about 200.000 euro in taxes and VAT. I would LOVE to pay even more taxes so that young and unmarried girls who happen to get pregnant had their babies and received money from the state for 15-20 years. I believe it's a good cause.
Other solutions could be free condoms in schools or classes about sexual education.
Adoptions could be made easier, there could be a lot of tv ads that promote the use of condoms... any one not even too bright legistlator could come up with hundreds more ideas. I believe that this is where we should put our money and our time.
We could discuss for ages in order to come up with the time line that seperates abortion from murder, but my belief is that it is best to think in more constructive ways.

Lastly I would like to say that if an abortion is to be made there is no reason to wait till the 20th week since nowdays pregnancy tests can be accurate a lot sooner.