Abortion is morally wrong

[pocaracas]

I simply presented an argument and thus far I have not seen any adequate defeaters for this argument.

My bolding.

Truly, the greatest blind person is the one who refuses to see.

[Minimalist]

He's saying that people who abort gay babies shouldn't be allowed to be parents.

He's telling other people what to do.

Arthur isn't.

Arthur gets the grief.

Are you guys blind?

Come on, Frods, get your head out of your ass.

Artie is insisting that any woman who finds herself pregnant must have the baby whether she wants it or not. Wake up, man.

[Arthur123]

Sperm and oocytes are products of gametogenesis and each only have 23 chromosomes and are not informationally complete to produce a human being that has biological continuity.

[Mr Greene]

Mr. Green, is that from Esquilax? Im sorry but I am confused if he wrote that responses or you.
It has been argued in many ethical circles that killing animals is immoral but as you say not to the same extent as killing as human being. I believe you have it right there. As for reaping from visibility any voice that disagrees with me? How am I doing that? I simply presented an argument and thus far I have not seen any adequate defeaters for this argument.

The Esquilax quote is my signature. There are certain posters who will put anyone who disagrees with them on ignore I find the practice, self-deluding.
If as you claim everything is genetics then presumably immorality is proportional to genetic overlap with humans hence the 99% regarding chimps, it would also follow that it is 40% immoral to kill a banana.

[Angrboda]

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live' birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physician and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs.

In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth, or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few courts have squarely so held. In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

— Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, excerpt from Section IX (S. Ct. 1973). (link)

[Anomalocaris]

Mr. Green, is that from Esquilax? Im sorry but I am confused if he wrote that responses or you.
It has been argued in many ethical circles that killing animals is immoral but as you say not to the same extent as killing as human being. I believe you have it right there. As for reaping from visibility any voice that disagrees with me? How am I doing that? I simply presented an argument and thus far I have not seen any adequate defeaters for this argument.

The Esquilax quote is my signature. There are certain posters who will put anyone who disagrees with them on ignore I find the practice, self-deluding.
If as you claim everything is genetics then presumably immorality is proportional to genetic overlap with humans hence the 99% regarding chimps, it would also follow that it is 40% immoral to kill a banana.

It would 100% Immoral to remove a burst appendix because the genetic overlap between an appendix and its host is 100%.

[Esquilax]

Now I understand your case much better Esquilax, however, I would say that being alive is a mode of a thing not some added on property. Inherent in certain sentences is categorical truths. For example, when we say bob dies it is inherent in that statement is that Bob is not alive. When I say killing a fetus is wrong, Implied in that statement is that it is alive. Life is a necessary property in regards to the statement killing a fetus is wrong rather than a contingent property.

Kindest regards,

Alright, so where did you demonstrate that a fetus is alive, sufficient to say that killing one is immoral? It doesn't even have a brain at the time. It doesn't matter what you care to call your application of life in this question, my point is that it represents a gap you haven't yet even attempted to bridge in your argument.

A fetus is a bundle of cells for the point in its development where the majority of abortions take place; one could quite easily argue that it isn't alive in any significant sense. That's why I say that railroading this issue into talking about genetics is irrelevant to the actual argument.

Bad Wolf, when someone states a proposition, unless there is a defeater (undercutting or otherwise) it can be said that the proposition is true.

No, no, no, no, no!

Look up the burden of proof. Those who make positive claims are required to demonstrate those claims (demonstrate, not merely assert) that they are true before they can be taken as true. It's not up to us to debunk every random claim you feel like making before you let go of them, that's ass backwards. I could make plenty of claims that you can't rebut, that doesn't make them true by default. All you've done so far is make an assertion, and then continue to make that assertion and pretend that the counter arguments we've made don't exist. It's actually really frustrating.

[Arthur123]

What I was showing is that there is a one-to-one correspondence between a fetus and an adult human and what makes us human is our genetics, biological continuity, and categorization of Homo sapien .

[Anomalocaris]

Define "alive".

---

What I was showing is that there is a one-to-one correspondence between a fetus and an adult human and what makes us human is our genetics, biological continuity, and categorization of Homo sapien .

So? One to one correspondence does not mean one and the same even if the correspondence exists.

But it does not exist.

Vast array of adult human features are absent in fetus. In various stages of development, the fetus lacks bones, digestive system, circulatory system, nervous system, respiratory system.

Great deal of fetus features are in turn absent from the adult human. In various stages of development, the fetus has gill slits, and tails.

You simply dismiss any correspondence that doesn't exist if it's admission doesn't suit you end?

[Bad Wolf]

Bad Wolf, when someone states a proposition, unless there is a defeater (undercutting or otherwise) it can be said that the proposition is true.

Retard.

I would follow up this insult with an explanation of why you are so very wrong, but I see Esquilax has already done it, fancy that!