Some more right wing talking points:
I came back with:
"You stated in your first comment that you personally would never have an abortion. What is it then that you personally find abhorrent with getting one yourself. Basically, why wouldn't you have one yourself?"
First, I'm a guy. I can't physically have one. I wouldn't want it for my partner as a means of terminating a pregnancy because there are more viable options in my opinion. Though I don't acknowledge it as another human being until it's born, it still has the potential to become one, and that should be taken into account. Abortion, in my opinion should be an option for last resort only.
"From the arguments you presented, I conclude that you don't consider the unborn to have a "right" to life until it has been born. Right?"
I don't consider the unborn to have human rights until it becomes its own entity, slight difference.
"This being your view then you must be willing to state that laws against foetal homicide are unjust. Whether it be at one month or 8 months, if the unborn is terminated outside of the mothers consent and by a doctor then the law should reflect that it not a being with rights that is terminated."
I don't understand what you're getting at. Do I think it's OK for someone to willfully terminate a pregnancy without the consent of the mother? Of course not.
The potential for the unborn to live should be weighed, but in relation to the mother's physical and mental well being, not necessarily a premeditated act of murder. It doesn't make it any less malicious in the least however.
"Say, for example, the ex of a woman who does not want to pay child support for the next 18 years, decides to punch the woman in the stomach which results in the loss of the baby. At best a charge of assault on the mother is something you would agree with and (if you are consistent) campaign for. Certainly a charge of murder or manslaughter is not applicable."
Why wouldn't fetal homicide be applicable? Lots of states already have provisions for this in place and allow abortions to occur. There is a difference between having an abortion in a medical facility with a mother that consents to the act and a guy punching a pregnant woman in the stomach because he doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions. If you can't see the monumental difference, I don't know what else I can tell you.
"How can you determine definitely no when your argument is "may not have" and "it sure can resemble one" but definitely isn't."
'May not have' is a general statement in which humans impose emotions onto things, such as inaminate objects, animals, and other living things. I wasn't talking about specifically a fetus. In the actual case of the fetus having emotions, I would argue that there is no evidence to suggest that they have the adequate brain development to have any experiences of emotion. They barely have sensory perception in the womb.
"If a demolition expert is about to demolish a building and there is a chance that maybe there is someone still inside, should they still go ahead and blow it up on a maybe there isn't anyone inside?"
I don't understand what you're trying to assert. You're trying to argue that because someone in demolition can't 100% guarantee that someone isn't inside the building, demolition should be illegal. Does that make any sense?
Seeing if someone is inside the building is demonstrable, much like the criteria I assigned the unborn fetus, which is completely removed from a separate, human entity.
"Have you watched the video link that Mathew posted a while back?
http://aristophrenium.com/mathew/abortion-image...
I think you should be able to stomach watching this video (or something equivalent) before making a stand on the pro-abortion front. If you come back from watching this video still in support of abortion then you will get no more argument from me."
You'll have to do a bit better than to show me a bunch of aborted fetuses next to quarters being poked by tweezers. Scare tactics don't work, nor should they to anyone that has weighed the options in this issue. Putting Martin Luther King in front of it was a nice touch, but it reeked of poorly put together propaganda with a sprinkling of proselytization. It didn't show anything I didn't already understand or see firsthand.
Adam Wrote:Thanks for your input tavarish. Can you clear up a couple of things for me with regard to your position?
You stated in your first comment that you personally would never have an abortion. What is it then that you personally find abhorrent with getting one yourself. Basically, why wouldn't you have one yourself?
From the arguments you presented, I conclude that you don't consider the unborn to have a "right" to life until it has been born. Right? This being your view then you must be willing to state that laws against foetal homicide are unjust. Whether it be at one month or 8 months, if the unborn is terminated outside of the mothers consent and by a doctor then the law should reflect that it not a being with rights that is terminated. Say, for example, the ex of a woman who does not want to pay child support for the next 18 years, decides to punch the woman in the stomach which results in the loss of the baby. At best a charge of assault on the mother is something you would agree with and (if you are consistent) campaign for. Certainly a charge of murder or manslaughter is not applicable.
You said "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 response to your question "Is the unborn an innocent human being".
Simple answer - no, but it sure can resemble one."
How can you determine definitely no when your argument is "may not have" and "it sure can resemble one" but definitely isn't. If a demolition expert is about to demolish a building and there is a chance that maybe there is someone still inside, should they still go ahead and blow it up on a maybe there isn't anyone inside?
Have you watched the video link that Mathew posted a while back?
http://aristophrenium.com/mathew/abortion-image...
I think you should be able to stomach watching this video (or something equivalent) before making a stand on the pro-abortion front. If you come back from watching this video still in support of abortion then you will get no more argument from me.
I came back with:
"You stated in your first comment that you personally would never have an abortion. What is it then that you personally find abhorrent with getting one yourself. Basically, why wouldn't you have one yourself?"
First, I'm a guy. I can't physically have one. I wouldn't want it for my partner as a means of terminating a pregnancy because there are more viable options in my opinion. Though I don't acknowledge it as another human being until it's born, it still has the potential to become one, and that should be taken into account. Abortion, in my opinion should be an option for last resort only.
"From the arguments you presented, I conclude that you don't consider the unborn to have a "right" to life until it has been born. Right?"
I don't consider the unborn to have human rights until it becomes its own entity, slight difference.
"This being your view then you must be willing to state that laws against foetal homicide are unjust. Whether it be at one month or 8 months, if the unborn is terminated outside of the mothers consent and by a doctor then the law should reflect that it not a being with rights that is terminated."
I don't understand what you're getting at. Do I think it's OK for someone to willfully terminate a pregnancy without the consent of the mother? Of course not.
The potential for the unborn to live should be weighed, but in relation to the mother's physical and mental well being, not necessarily a premeditated act of murder. It doesn't make it any less malicious in the least however.
"Say, for example, the ex of a woman who does not want to pay child support for the next 18 years, decides to punch the woman in the stomach which results in the loss of the baby. At best a charge of assault on the mother is something you would agree with and (if you are consistent) campaign for. Certainly a charge of murder or manslaughter is not applicable."
Why wouldn't fetal homicide be applicable? Lots of states already have provisions for this in place and allow abortions to occur. There is a difference between having an abortion in a medical facility with a mother that consents to the act and a guy punching a pregnant woman in the stomach because he doesn't want to take responsibility for his actions. If you can't see the monumental difference, I don't know what else I can tell you.
"How can you determine definitely no when your argument is "may not have" and "it sure can resemble one" but definitely isn't."
'May not have' is a general statement in which humans impose emotions onto things, such as inaminate objects, animals, and other living things. I wasn't talking about specifically a fetus. In the actual case of the fetus having emotions, I would argue that there is no evidence to suggest that they have the adequate brain development to have any experiences of emotion. They barely have sensory perception in the womb.
"If a demolition expert is about to demolish a building and there is a chance that maybe there is someone still inside, should they still go ahead and blow it up on a maybe there isn't anyone inside?"
I don't understand what you're trying to assert. You're trying to argue that because someone in demolition can't 100% guarantee that someone isn't inside the building, demolition should be illegal. Does that make any sense?
Seeing if someone is inside the building is demonstrable, much like the criteria I assigned the unborn fetus, which is completely removed from a separate, human entity.
"Have you watched the video link that Mathew posted a while back?
http://aristophrenium.com/mathew/abortion-image...
I think you should be able to stomach watching this video (or something equivalent) before making a stand on the pro-abortion front. If you come back from watching this video still in support of abortion then you will get no more argument from me."
You'll have to do a bit better than to show me a bunch of aborted fetuses next to quarters being poked by tweezers. Scare tactics don't work, nor should they to anyone that has weighed the options in this issue. Putting Martin Luther King in front of it was a nice touch, but it reeked of poorly put together propaganda with a sprinkling of proselytization. It didn't show anything I didn't already understand or see firsthand.
