So i've been going back and forth with Aristophrenium's Mathew on the subject of abortion.

I'll copy it here, but it's a long read. You were warned.

Here's the link to the entire text:

http://aristophrenium.com/adam/how-to-re...-rhetoric/

I wrote:



Ouch.

I have a few things to add.

1. Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I support the woman's right to choose what she wishes to do with the unborn child, but I don't condone abortions. Just because it's not something I wouldn't choose from my point of view doesn't mean it should be illegal for someone else to do so based on their circumstances.

As a loose example to clarify my point, I am pro-free speech, but I don't condone using that speech to promote hate.

2. At what point is this a human rights issue? Conception - If so, are morning after contraceptive pills forms of abortion?

Sometime in the term - If so, when?

3. "No Bill of Rights should protect people from natural events, like breathing, eating, or being pregnant. You’re getting ridiculous. "

Would that same Bill of Rights be able to prohibit you from protecting yourself in a potentially harmful situation (medically, socially, economically)?

4. If this is primarily a human rights issue and abortion patrons are actively violating rights, what should the penalties be?

This dialogue paints this as a black and white issue, and it is far from that. I contend that it is more gray area than either side is willing to admit.



He wrote:

Mathew Wrote:Thanks for some of your thoughts, Tavarish. Here's a few questions for you to ponder in light of your points:

"I support the woman's right to choose what she wishes to do with the unborn child, but I don't condone abortions … I am pro-free speech, but I don't condone using that speech to promote hate."

I"m a little confused: you personally won't kill an innocent human being but you're ok with others killing innocent human beings, just as much as you won't invoke hate speech but are ok with others invoking hate speech?

"Are morning after contraceptive pills forms of abortion?"

Do morning-after pills induce, intentionally, the expulsion of a conceived human being? If so, I believe you have answered the question already.

"Would that same Bill of Rights be able to prohibit you from protecting yourself in a potentially harmful situation (medically, socially, economically)?"

You have a right to self-defence, and to use fatal force if necessary. But tell me, do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers? As to maternal health, the goal of such a termination is to save the life of the mother, not end the life of the unborn. Socially and economically - there's help in those areas that does not require the termination of the unborn.

"If this is primarily a human rights issue and abortion patrons are actively violating rights, what should the penalties be?"

Do you believe people who kill innocent human beings ought to go unpunished? What penalties does society usually dish out in such circumstances?

"This dialogue paints this as a black and white issue, and it is far from that. I contend that it is more gray area than either side is willing to admit."

Emotion aside, the question 'Is the unborn an innocent human being?' leads to a pretty black and white answer from which everything else flows. What's your answer?

I came back with:

And I offer up a few answers to your questions.

"I"m a little confused: you personally won't kill an innocent human being but you're ok with others killing innocent human beings, just as much as you won't invoke hate speech but are ok with others invoking hate speech?"

I asked you at what point does it become a human rights issue. At what point is it another person?

Personally, I've seen many circumstances in which people have considered aborting unborn children, and it's not a black and white issue, but I digress.

As I don't consider abortion equal to murder, your question is a bit irrelevant. As for the analogy, I don't agree with the speech one may say, but I recognize the person's right to say it.

"Do morning-after pills induce, intentionally, the expulsion of a conceived human being? If so, I believe you have answered the question already."

No, they don't.

"You have a right to self-defence, and to use fatal force if necessary. But tell me, do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers?"

What does intention have to do with anything? Would you waive your right to defend your state of well-being in any other situation other than self-defense?

" As to maternal health, the goal of such a termination is to save the life of the mother, not end the life of the unborn."

The goal of such a termination is to remove the fetus, the reasons for doing so vary greatly.

"Socially and economically - there's help in those areas that does not require the termination of the unborn."

Not necessarily. There are many avenues in which an unwanted pregnancy is simply social suicide. I understand the options available, as I've worked in an inner city medical clinic for a few years, and they are far from perfect or ultimately beneficial for the child.

It may be cold, but it isn't the best thing (to either party) to bring a child into the world when you can't fathomably support it.

"Do you believe people who kill innocent human beings ought to go unpunished? What penalties does society usually dish out in such circumstances?"

Again, equating abortion to murder, which isn't necessarily the case.

Emotion aside, the question 'Is the unborn an innocent human being?' leads to a pretty black and white answer from which everything else flows. What's your answer?

Not necessarily. Moving into the third trimester it can closely resemble a child, but in the beginning weeks of the pregnancy, it's barely distinguishable as anything resembling a baby. This is the main issue, and it's taken a little while to get here.

Personally, I don't consider an unborn baby to have human rights, because it cannot function on its own without its mother, in any facet of life. It necessarily depends on the mother for all of its vital life functions. Only when the child is born does it break the physical bond with the mother and become its own, independent entity capable of sustaining itself. Although babies can be dependent on the mother for years after birth, they don't necessarily need the mother to be present - any older person will suffice. During the pregnancy, the child is a developing part of the mother, thus she has the right to do what she wants with her body.

Here's a question:

1. At what point in the pregnancy does the fetus develop human rights?
2. If your understanding of the issue is based on societal interpretation, then why would it be unreasonable to see that abortion would be more socially acceptable in another society and not necessarily equal to murder?
3. Why call it "empty rhetoric" when you fail to address the main underlying issue - the fact that you disagree with others on necessarily calling abortion murder?


He rebutted with:

Mathew Wrote:Based on your closing comments, I surmise you hold these two views (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or re-state in clearer terms):

1. Resemblances are important. If the unborn doesn't look like a child, it ain't a child, therefore feel free to kill it
2. The unborn has no rights because it is dependent on it's mother for survival, therefore kill it if you want to

And both of these amount to a singular viewpoint of: undeveloped and / or non-viable human beings can be killed with impunity.

#1 - You say "it's taken a little while to get here." By that I think you mean that the size / development of the unborn is the real issue. I do wonder how. If we ask, at any stage of its development (be it a blastocyst, zygote or foetus, for instance), what type of being the unborn is, is it not a human being? This is "the main issue", surely? We have infants, toddlers, children, pre-pubescents, adolescents, adults and the elderly - all of which are human beings at a particular stage of development. Ontologically the human beingness of each has not altered. So if we hold that it is generally wrong to kill innocent human beings (I'm making the assumption that you agree with this - let me know if not), what does it matter at what stage of development they are at? A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong.

#2 - You say "I don't consider an unborn baby to have human rights, because it cannot function on its own without its mother". You also think there's something special about the physical bond between the mother and the unborn as well. Neither the argument from viability nor the physical bond carry much weight, in my opinion. Here's why:

a) there are instances throughout life where people become non-viable in the sense that you use it. Infants, newly born, are non-viable - they still require constant care by a 3rd party. True, the care does not necessarily need to be of the mother's (as you point out), but we do not assign value to a human being by virtue of who does or does not care for it. We assign value to a human being because they are human beings, not because they are self-sufficient adults. Further, adults may become non-viable except without the intervention of certain medicines and / or medical equipment. Again, their value as human beings is no less because of their ongoing dependency on something / someone else.

b) "During the pregnancy, the child is a developing part of the mother, thus she has the right to do what she wants with her body." Yet, biologically, the unborn is separate from its mother's body. If it's own blood system were to come into contact with it's mother's, it's mother's immune system would attempt to attack it as a foreign body - which it is (in other words, while it is in it's mother's body it is not a part of it's mother's body. It is a completely separate, uniquely genetic human being and has been since conception).

Let me also just briefly (promise!) respond to the three questions you posed at the end of your comment, too.

1. At the point where a human being begins to exist: conception.
2. That's not my position.
3. This actually isn't my post (hence, not my title) and the context is the discussion of Ms Nina's Funnell's comments to a commenter on her own article. This post's title therefore fits neatly in with the dialog made between Adrian and Nina.

And finally my answer to his text:

Here's a concise rebuttal to your arguments:

"1. Resemblances are important. If the unborn doesn't look like a child, it ain't a child, therefore feel free to kill it."

Not at all. I made the point that late in the pregnancy, the unborn fetus can have distinct child-like traits, but in itself is not a separate entity until it is removed from its mother, which I clarified in the next paragraph. I contend that it isn't a child until it is born, but I really don't want to get into a futile exercise in semantics or empty rhetoric.

Looking like a baby adds to this already multifaceted issue, as humans have a need to necessarily impose emotions onto a being that may not have them. All it does is make the issue more complex - that's the point I was trying to illustrate in reponse to your question "Is the unborn an innocent human being".

Simple answer - no, but it sure can resemble one.

"2. The unborn has no rights because it is dependent on it's mother for survival, therefore kill it if you want to"

The unborn has no rights because is it wholly dependent on its mother for every single vital components of its physical development. The unborn is literally a part of the woman, affecting her chemical balances and general state of health, among many other things.

It's not a clear cut case of "kill it if you want to". The fetus has the potential to grow into a fully developed child, and that should not be ignored. Again, the point here is to weigh the options on a very thorough level and make a decision based on the pros and cons of the possible pregnancy. Not all abortion stories are the same, and there is a LOT of emotion involved, I've experienced this on a few occasions, but I digress.

"Ontologically the human beingness of each has not altered. "

And which one of those that you mentioned is nothing more than a sperm and an egg combined? According to your assertion further in the text, as soon as a man deposits sperm into an ovulating woman, there are three people in the room, which is a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

But on a less personal note, we come to another crossroads:

What constitutes a human being?

"A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong."

I disagree.

"there are instances throughout life where people become non-viable in the sense that you use it. Infants, newly born, are non-viable - they still require constant care by a 3rd party."

I won't argue with you on the somewhat improper usage of non-viability - as it is commonly referred in medicine as describing the condition of an unborn entity, but I will take issue with your assertion that constant care equals the relationship of a pregnant woman and her unborn fetus.

The fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for its development, stemming from physical to instinctive. After the child is born, it breaks the bond and starts a new life, independent of the mother as its own entity, not requiring nourishment and oxygen through the confines of the womb, but through its fully functioning respiratory system. The child's body is responsible for its own development. In this respect, it is very much viable (which, by definition, means "capable of living outside the uterus").

Of course it needs help to form complex constructs and a healthy personality, not to mention food, water and shelter, but none of that has any effect on the child's ability to live in favorable conditions. A human is responsible for his/her own development physiologically, and is not symbiotic/parasitic. An unborn "child" is, and is therefore, not human in my honest opinion.

"Further, adults may become non-viable except without the intervention of certain medicines and / or medical equipment. Again, their value as human beings is no less because of their ongoing dependency on something / someone else."

Actually, that's not a good analogy, as people die all the time from family members discontinuing their life support for the sole purpose that they were too much of a burden on the family with no end in sight. If someone becomes braindead, with hope waning and reality setting in, the rights of that person are put into the hands of the family and close relatives, as that person cannot speak for his or herself. If the family chooses to end the life of a braindead relative for any reason, should they be charged with murder as a result?

I understand your point was to point out that these individuals are human, and I agree with you there, but you also made the point quite clearly in my favor that ending innocent life isn't always murder - there are huge gray areas, just as I have illustrated thus far.

" It is a completely separate, uniquely genetic human being and has been since conception)."

You're getting a bit ahead of yourself. Yes, the fetus has unique characteristics, but what it represents is the potential to become human, something that is realized when it is born. The fetus is a human in the same way that an acorn is an oak tree, a seed is a flower, and an egg is a chicken. It doesn't follow that just because an entity has unique genetic traits, it doesn't somehow wholly depend on its mother for survival and no one else. This isn't a village raising a child, this is one woman necessarily developing this fetus as a very literal extension of her body - and it is solely her responsibility to bear this - she can't ask anyone for help, unlike the case with children after birth.

"1. At the point where a human being begins to exist: conception."

This actually reminds me of the Monty Python song "Every Sperm is Sacred". Good tune, that.

What makes an egg and sperm mating together necessarily a human being?






Yes, it's a huge wall of text, but I think it's worth the read. I'm sure he'll come back with a few more points, but I honestly think that his rhetoric will get old quick.

If you can get through this, I commend you.

I am largely on the same page as you are, however I feel that abortion should be a measure of last resort. If a women gets pregnant and finds out too late I am not in favour of an abortion "just because it doesn't fit her schedule right now". If there is some medical ground, or a social/economic condition that would prevent a would be child from having a decent upbringing, then yes, I agree an abortion is a valid alternative. But not as a extreme delayed contraceptive.

So in short, am I Pro-choice? Yes, but not wholesale.

And I disagree with you both three Here's something "new(?)" for you (and your post was long... geh...):

Tavarish Wrote:1. Pro-choice is not the same as pro-abortion. I support the woman's right to choose what she wishes to do with the unborn child, but I don't condone abortions. Just because it's not something I wouldn't choose from my point of view doesn't mean it should be illegal for someone else to do so based on their circumstances.

There is a dissonance here. You say "i don't condone abortions"... and the very next sentence you disagree with yourself. If you do in fact consider an abortion to be 'morally wrong' (or the like), and you allow it to continue: that is condoning it.

Quote:2. At what point is this a human rights issue? Conception - If so, are morning after contraceptive pills forms of abortion? Sometime in the term - If so, when?

If we were to call the beginning of anything as the point of manifestation... then we would be doing so in ignorance of what came before it... else it could manifest in the first place?

Quote:3. "No Bill of Rights should protect people from natural events, like breathing, eating, or being pregnant. You’re getting ridiculous. "

Would that same Bill of Rights be able to prohibit you from protecting yourself in a potentially harmful situation (medically, socially, economically)?

I see no reason that a bill of rights shouldn't allow people to be protected from such events. One could indeed declare all events natural, even ones that include gods or spirits of sorts. Matthew was being ridiculous for believing otherwise.

And at your statement: a bill of rights should not be designed with the the purpose of declaring what is not right, but what is. However... should that assume the behavior not specified in the bill is not right?

Quote:4. If this is primarily a human rights issue and abortion patrons are actively violating rights, what should the penalties be?

This dialogue paints this as a black and white issue, and it is far from that. I contend that it is more gray area than either side is willing to admit.

And I disagree that it is an issue at all. It is an action one does to their own body... are we to disallow people to get haircuts and pierce their body now? And yes, i think of abortion similarly to a haircut to fix a bad hairdo... and care about it as much

Further... why indeed should one getting an abortion care that it be a person/child/human/alive or that it has the potential to be one of those? That sounds almost as if they are willing to allow a parasitic growth in their body to ruin their life simply because it is another person, or might eventually become a person... and that just sounds stupid. I could outline every bit of stupid that not aborting when one wants not to strain their body by having the child... but I think that statement speaks for itself.

Shall I respond to the moron theist too, or just leave it to you?

Moron theist Wrote:You have a right to self-defence, and to use fatal force if necessary. But tell me, do zygotes, blastocysts and foetuses set out to harm their mothers? As to maternal health, the goal of such a termination is to save the life of the mother, not end the life of the unborn. Socially and economically - there's help in those areas that does not require the termination of the unborn.

...



Idiot... does a working airplane propeller set out to harm someone who sticks their hand into the shimmer? Of course not. Does this mean you should not avoid sticking your hand in it? YOU MORON! I feel like saying the same thing to much of what he says, actually... and i really don't see any 'good points'.

I disagree with his assumption (and apparently your own) that humans cannot be ('justly') killed with 'impunity'. Wether "fully developed", "under-developed", or what have you... if I were pregnant I should think of the parasitic growth as not unlike the angry man with the pointed stick who is trying to stab me.

Do I get a commendation from you for having gotten through your fucking huge post?

It's MY body and I will decide what happens to MY body.

And what of those males who RUN like the dickens when confronted with imminent fatherhood??

A bunch of cells is not murder otherwise EVERYONE can be accused of murder simply by bathing every day. (The amount of bacteria on your skin??)

In the end there are far too many variables in each case so I really feel that it should be up to the individual female as to whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy. I do feel that the first 10 weeks is crucial. Anything after that is getting tricky

For that matter, since Murder is defined as "the unlawful killing of another person," It seems that abortion is almost by definition not murder, at least not here, since (completely ignoring the point of the personhood of the fetus, since for this point, it's irrelevant) in most countries, abortion tends to be legal.

(May 12, 2010 at 4:54 am)Saerules Wrote: There is a dissonance here. You say "i don't condone abortions"... and the very next sentence you disagree with yourself. If you do in fact consider an abortion to be 'morally wrong' (or the like), and you allow it to continue: that is condoning it.

I actually clarified that later on.

If I think hate speech is morally wrong, but condone and support free speech, am I condoning hate speech?

It doesn't logically follow that you necessarily condone a product (abortion) when you support its cause (the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body).

(May 12, 2010 at 4:54 am)Saerules Wrote: And at your statement: a bill of rights should not be designed with the the purpose of declaring what is not right, but what is. However... should that assume the behavior not specified in the bill is not right?

A Bill of rights specifies what a person is free to do, not what is necessarily right. You make the choices guided by society and personal perception. There are many relatively immoral and frowned upon acts that you can do that aren't illegal and protected under the Bill of Rights. My point here was criminalization (prohibition) of such a thing is more of an issue than the morality of it.

(May 12, 2010 at 4:54 am)Saerules Wrote: And I disagree that it is an issue at all. It is an action one does to their own body... are we to disallow people to get haircuts and pierce their body now? And yes, i think of abortion similarly to a haircut to fix a bad hairdo... and care about it as much

I'd say a haircut is cutting it a little thin, but the pro-lifers don't see it that way in the least. They believe it is a human being being murdered in cold blood.

(May 12, 2010 at 4:54 am)Saerules Wrote: Further... why indeed should one getting an abortion care that it be a person/child/human/alive or that it has the potential to be one of those? That sounds almost as if they are willing to allow a parasitic growth in their body to ruin their life simply because it is another person, or might eventually become a person... and that just sounds stupid. I could outline every bit of stupid that not aborting when one wants not to strain their body by having the child... but I think that statement speaks for itself.

Women will proceed to get abortions - that won't change. Criminalizing it doesn't help. Pro-lifers don't seem to understand that.

(May 12, 2010 at 4:54 am)Saerules Wrote: Do I get a commendation from you for having gotten through your fucking huge post?

Yup. Here's a fucking cookie.

---

(May 12, 2010 at 4:32 am)leo-rcc Wrote: I am largely on the same page as you are, however I feel that abortion should be a measure of last resort. If a women gets pregnant and finds out too late I am not in favour of an abortion "just because it doesn't fit her schedule right now". If there is some medical ground, or a social/economic condition that would prevent a would be child from having a decent upbringing, then yes, I agree an abortion is a valid alternative. But not as a extreme delayed contraceptive.

So in short, am I Pro-choice? Yes, but not wholesale.

I agree. The fact that it can potentially be another person should weigh heavily on the decision, and people must take responsibility for his/her actions. I think it's a valid alternative, but something I don't think I would do in my own experience. The same way that I don't smoke weed, but I have no problem allowing others to after weighing the pros and cons of the situation.

I'm pro-choice, but I'd advise against abortion unless absolutely necessary.

---

Here's some more:

Mathew Wrote:I said that a human being is created at the point of conception.

You said: This actually reminds me of the Monty Python song "Every Sperm is Sacred". Good tune, that.

Except, of course, that a sperm is not a human being, nor even a potential human being (if there can be such a thing). So I hardly see the relevance of this response, even if it was solely to be tongue-in-cheek.

Some interesting things you say are:
1. a foetus "represents … the potential to become human, something that is realized when it is born."
2. all humans are "nothing more than a sperm and an egg combined"
3. "The fetus is wholly dependent on the mother for its development, stemming from physical to instinctive"
4. "The [born] child's body is responsible for its own development."
5. "A human is responsible for his/her own development physiologically, and is not symbiotic/parasitic. An unborn "child" is, and is therefore, not human in my honest opinion."
6. "I understand your point was to point out that these individuals are human, and I agree with you there, but you also made the point quite clearly in my favor that ending innocent life isn't always murder"

Let me address each of these in turn.

#1. If the foetus only represents a potential human, tell me, what is it? If it has been alive from point of conception, it must be a being of some sort, as only beings grow. Tell me what sort of being it is.

#2. Genetically, the sperm and the egg cease to exist when one joins the other - they form a new genetic being, with its own genetic code that is distinct from both its father and mother. Duane touched on this also with his comment above.

#3 & #4 I'll take together. While in the womb, the unborn derives its nourishment from its mother, not the manner in which it develops. As I allude to in my previous point, the unborn has its own genetic code which is what is responsible for the manner in which it develops.

#5. Did you just call the unborn a parasite? Again, if the unborn is not a human being, please explain to me what type of being it is.

#6. I believe my turn of phrase is "innocent human being", which I take to be something much more specific than your paraphrase of "innocent life". And for the record, it has been you who has been equating what I'm saying that abortion is murder. Generally speaking, yes, I believe the killing of innocent human beings is morally wrong - there are exceptions, but none that extend themselves to elective abortions which is the topic at hand.

In parting, I was hoping you could clarify your response here, as you don't make yourself overly clear to what you disagreed to:
me: A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong
you: I disagree.

Also, you seem to think that pulling the plug on a brain dead family member is analogous to abortion. I don't believe it is: in the former, you allow a life come to it's natural end; in the latter, you crush and dismember a life that, all things being equal, was far from the end of its natural life span. Both are human beings. One scenario permits life to succumb. The other scenario orchestrates a violent death. And there's a world of difference between them.

And my rebuttal:


One more time 'round the carousel.

"#1. If the foetus only represents a potential human, tell me, what is it? If it has been alive from point of conception, it must be a being of some sort, as only beings grow. Tell me what sort of being it is."

It is a developing fetus. That's what kind of being it is, in the same way an egg is not a chicken.

They don't grow on their own, they require the nourishment their mother's body provides them. They are non-viable and unable to sustain life outside of the womb.

"#2. Genetically, the sperm and the egg cease to exist when one joins the other - they form a new genetic being, with its own genetic code that is distinct from both its father and mother. Duane touched on this also with his comment above."

I don't understand. I was making the point that the point of conception (sperm and egg combining) doesn't a human make, you said it was a genetically different entity, and I agreed with you, but it was irrelevant to the point. Just because it's genetically different doesn't mean the mother's role is downplayed as a host.

"#3 & #4 I'll take together. While in the womb, the unborn derives its nourishment from its mother, not the manner in which it develops. As I allude to in my previous point, the unborn has its own genetic code which is what is responsible for the manner in which it develops."

So you're arguing that the mother isn't responsible for the child's development? Are you being serious?

"#5. Did you just call the unborn a parasite? Again, if the unborn is not a human being, please explain to me what type of being it is."

The relationship of fetus and woman resembles a parasitic organism - "Drawing upon another organism for sustenance", or it "obtains nourishment from the host without benefiting or killing the host"

I already explained to you what type of being it is - a fetus. A fetus with the potential to become a human, but is a fetus nonetheless until it is born.

"#6. I believe my turn of phrase is "innocent human being", which I take to be something much more specific than your paraphrase of "innocent life". And for the record, it has been you who has been equating what I'm saying that abortion is murder. Generally speaking, yes, I believe the killing of innocent human beings is morally wrong - there are exceptions, but none that extend themselves to elective abortions which is the topic at hand."

So your position is abortion is morally wrong because you believe the unborn to be an innocent human being. What exactly do you call the killing of an innocent human being?

I don't agree that it's murder - and the law agrees with me, as it, by definition is the "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being", and abortion doesn't fulfill these requirements.

You still didn't answer my question - "What constitutes a human being?"

"In parting, I was hoping you could clarify your response here, as you don't make yourself overly clear to what you disagreed to:
me: A human blastocyst is still a human being and killing innocent human beings is wrong
you: I disagree."

I disagree that blastocysts are human beings.

"Also, you seem to think that pulling the plug on a brain dead family member is analogous to abortion."

No, I used it as an example that the taking of innocent life isn't a black and white issue.

Your assertion that "adults may become non-viable except without the intervention of certain medicines and / or medical equipment" tries to make a parallel between unborn fetuses and dying people - which isn't the case, as someone who has lost the ability to take care of him/herself isn't the same as something that doesn't yet have it.

"I don't believe it is: in the former, you allow a life come to it's natural end"

And who's saying it's natural? Many patients have made recoveries from persistent vegetative states in the past, who is to say that pulling the plug would be the natural way of going about it? I digress - yet again.


"in the latter, you crush and dismember a life that, all things being equal, was far from the end of its natural life span."

I like the imagery of "crush and dismember". Sounds tough. I'll ask you this. When you take a shower and kill bacteria, do you have a memorial service? Should you be charged with murder for eliminating verifiably innocent lifeforms?

You're not understanding the point.

" Both are human beings. One scenario permits life to succumb. The other scenario orchestrates a violent death. And there's a world of difference between them."

One is a human being that has lost its ability to take care of itself. The other is a developing fetus that has the potential to become and human and is absolutely dependent on the mother alone for that development.

There is a world of difference between them.

(May 12, 2010 at 9:20 am)tavarish Wrote:

(May 12, 2010 at 4:32 am)leo-rcc Wrote: So in short, am I Pro-choice? Yes, but not wholesale.

I agree. The fact that it can potentially be another person should weigh heavily on the decision, and people must take responsibility for his/her actions.

I'm pro-choice, but I'd advise against abortion unless absolutely necessary.

So we are not largely on the same age but completely on the same page. Cool.

Tavarish Wrote:I actually clarified that later on.

If I think hate speech is morally wrong, but condone and support free speech, am I condoning hate speech?

It doesn't logically follow that you necessarily condone a product (abortion) when you support its cause (the right of a woman to do what she wants with her body).

I'm using "condone" with the understanding that it is "accept and allow things that you consider 'wrong' to continue". By that definition, it is necessarily condoning.

Quote:A Bill of rights specifies what a person is free to do, not what is necessarily right. You make the choices guided by society and personal perception. There are many relatively immoral and frowned upon acts that you can do that aren't illegal and protected under the Bill of Rights. My point here was criminalization (prohibition) of such a thing is more of an issue than the morality of it.

Well of course ^_^ I was used 'right' to mean 'lawful'... how embarrassing

Quote:I'd say a haircut is cutting it a little thin, but the pro-lifers don't see it that way in the least. They believe it is a human being being murdered in cold blood.

I don't thin it's cutting it thin at all... if I let the parasite grow for almost a year, it will be a hungrier, noisier, uglier, messier parasite. Then after a good number of years, it might begin to be less parasitic, until it possibly becomes a thing off of which a parasite might feed. If I let my hair grow for almost a year, it might be able to bend into a different hairdo than the one I wear currently... and will also probably be prettier. A few minute long haircut can ruin all of those years of wonderful growing in a few snips! If anything... it is the haircut that should be considered worse than abortion... not the other way around

Quote:Women will proceed to get abortions - that won't change. Criminalizing it doesn't help. Pro-lifers don't seem to understand that.

I don't disagree... if criminalizing things stopped 'crimes': whence crimes?


*Saerules nibbles on the cookie, thanking Tavarish*

(May 12, 2010 at 11:04 am)Saerules Wrote: I'm using "condone" with the understanding that it is "accept and allow things that you consider 'wrong' to continue". By that definition, it is necessarily condoning.

Condone: to regard or treat (something bad or blameworthy) as acceptable, forgivable, or harmless

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/condone

I don't think it's acceptable, but I also don't think that my perception of acceptable acts have to prohibit others from doing such a thing. necessarily making something illegal and demonizing it won't make the problem go away, but making it an option will allow people to make more informed decisions instead of hasty ones.

Bottom line: I don't like abortion. I wouldn't choose it for my partner, nor would I likely support it in most circumstances.

However, I don't think it's the government's job to say what a woman can and can't do with her own body. That's all.

(May 12, 2010 at 11:04 am)Saerules Wrote: I don't thin it's cutting it thin at all... if I let the parasite grow for almost a year, it will be a hungrier, noisier, uglier, messier parasite. Then after a good number of years, it might begin to be less parasitic, until it possibly becomes a thing off of which a parasite might feed. If I let my hair grow for almost a year, it might be able to bend into a different hairdo than the one I wear currently... and will also probably be prettier. A few minute long haircut can ruin all of those years of wonderful growing in a few snips! If anything... it is the haircut that should be considered worse than abortion... not the other way around

I'm guessing you don't have any kids then.

New Oxford American Dictionary Wrote:condone |kənˈdōn|
verb [ trans. ]
accept and allow (behavior that is considered morally wrong or offensive) to continue

Battle of the Dictionaries! Don't leave your weapons for your foes to wield! If necessary: use four!

Quote:I don't think it's acceptable, but I also don't think that my perception of acceptable acts have to prohibit others from doing such a thing. necessarily making something illegal and demonizing it won't make the problem go away, but making it an option will allow people to make more informed decisions instead of hasty ones

I do not see a reason it would not be acceptable Luckily you respect the decisions of others ^_^

Quote:Bottom line: I don't like abortion. I wouldn't choose it for my partner, nor would I likely support it in most circumstances.

Why don't you like abortion? Is this an active dislike of it, or a lack of opinion, or? <--- is interested.

Quote:However, I don't think it's the government's job to say what a woman can and can't do with her own body. That's all.

But what would become of half the governments in the world?! They would... like... be crushed beneath the heel of empowered woman! They must subjugate them to have any sense of order or control over their country!

Quote:I'm guessing you don't have any kids then.

This is true. I also do not intend to have any ^_^ In fact... the only thing that would drive me to 'have a kid' is if I found one abandoned, or was desperately asked by someone to take their kid off of them. Neither of which are likely, and my enjoyment of having one reflects that ^_^

Of course... my complaints would largely be solved with a maidservant... and aside from those reasons I stated I would largely enjoy children