Why I Am Pro-Life

[pineapplebunnybounce]

fr0d0, i asked you what value do you assign to an embryo? because you seem rather liquid with this thing. one moment it's a human life so it deserves special consideration (if this isn't what you said, sorry i misunderstood, and please rephrase your position), another moment you condone its sacrifice if it could reduce suffering, so what is it? what value do you assign an embryo?

[orogenicman]

Lets try and move on then pineapple. Man I thought we'd done that posts ago!

It's a unique human, it's blueprint sealed at conception. It is no different in it's life than any other human life... you and me. If it's ethically wrong to take post birth human life, what makes it ethically neutral pre birth?

What makes us value human life seems to be your question, which I think surpasses the scope of this discussion. That much we already accept. It might be egotistical. Biologically rooted as part of our special drive to procreate. Whatever the reason, humans concur that human life is important. We have laws to reflect that. Do you want to expand the discussion to include sentient humans? Why not? What are your reasons to suppose taking any human life isn't an ethical question?

---

The fact remains that the majority of those who call themselves pro-life, aren't. They are anti-womens' rights.

Go talk to someone making that point then OM.

I am.

[Polaris]

What a good thing that there are no Republican women against abortion.

I'm amazed that there are any Republican women at all, never mind anti-choice women.

Just goes to show you that you can always find collaborators no matter what group you target for oppression.

Same way that genital mutilation is carried out by the women in African nations with large Moslem populations.

[Anomalocaris]

Could you answer again why you think sentient human life deserves ethical consideration when non sentient human life doesn't, this time avoiding the sentience angle.

Because it is sentience that enables the human life to become displeased at the prospect of being terminated?

If a human life is not displeased with what you would do to it, has no capacity to suffer while it is being done to it, and would not regret once it is done to it, you would in principle not be wrong on its account to do that to it.

[fr0d0]

fr0d0, i asked you what value do you assign to an embryo? because you seem rather liquid with this thing. one moment it's a human life so it deserves special consideration (if this isn't what you said, sorry i misunderstood, and please rephrase your position), another moment you condone its sacrifice if it could reduce suffering, so what is it? what value do you assign an embryo?

eggs are tasty :p

Everything from conception onwards is human life.

Sacrifice is an ethical question. I didn't say I think every ethical question had to have the same answer. In some cases I think it's justified to take life.

[catfish]

fr0d0, i asked you what value do you assign to an embryo? because you seem rather liquid with this thing. one moment it's a human life so it deserves special consideration (if this isn't what you said, sorry i misunderstood, and please rephrase your position), another moment you condone its sacrifice if it could reduce suffering, so what is it? what value do you assign an embryo?

eggs are tasty :p

Everything from conception onwards is human life.

Sacrifice is an ethical question. I didn't say I think every ethical question had to have the same answer. In some cases I think it's justified to take life.

What if they could harvest stem cells through "safe" donations like the umbilical cord?.

[Minimalist]

The fact that places with instituted sex education have the least teen and unwanted pregnancies should speak volumes.

But it doesn`t, the reason being that social conservatives do not have an interest in improving living conditions for women.

Bingo, TGAC.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

fr0d0, i asked you what value do you assign to an embryo? because you seem rather liquid with this thing. one moment it's a human life so it deserves special consideration (if this isn't what you said, sorry i misunderstood, and please rephrase your position), another moment you condone its sacrifice if it could reduce suffering, so what is it? what value do you assign an embryo?

eggs are tasty :p

Everything from conception onwards is human life.

Sacrifice is an ethical question. I didn't say I think every ethical question had to have the same answer. In some cases I think it's justified to take life.

You did not answer the question. What value do you assign to an embryo? Is it equal to that of a baby? Of an adult? Of its mother?

[Creed of Heresy]

And for that matter why is the "ethics of preventing a life" actually in question, here? What ethics are you striving for? Frodo, you keep saying "I am talking about the ethics of preventing a human life," but you haven't really drawn any kind of line on where you stand, here, so I don't know what to exactly address...nor does anyone else, apparently, so it's not just me. You're speaking gibberish and wondering why nobody's getting it. Rational disconnection; it's a problem on your end, so let's see if we can get you to fix it, so we can get this topic back on track. Because I was under the impression that we were discussing what an abortion entails as far as its repercussions in the immediate, but for some reason, it's becoming this thing where we're going into intellectual paralysis. So, Frodo, to try to clear this up, please answer these questions if at all you can:

1: Define the beginnings of where you consider a life prevented; does it start at the third trimester, second, first, embryonic stage, does it start at ovulation, ejaculation?

2: Define the ethics themselves; is it bad to prevent a human life in all accounts no matter what? Even if letting that life begin ends up terminating another life that has more connection to others, or even if that life will not be one that is healthy or long-lived, or even if that life will only live for a few hours and then pass, thus bringing great emotional suffering to the parents?

3: Finally, what justifications do you have for proving what is ethical/unethical in this consideration? What is the ultimate basis for stating what is ethical, and unethical, in this context? Is this something backed by empirical data, a philosophical standpoint, or a matter of personal feeling?

I have no intention of mocking you for any of your answers, I just want to get this discussion actually going somewhere.

[DeistPaladin]

The Five Principles of Deism (established by the “Father of Deism”, Herbert of Cherbury)

16th century philosopher.

At that time, deists also didn't deny the divinity of Christ (or were smart enough not to while anyone else they didn't trust with their lives were in earshot).

It's evolved since. It's a philosophy, not a religion, and as such there is no holy scripture or inerrant prophets who's words shall be regarded as gospel truth for all time.

Most modern deists reject the idea of an afterlife or, at most, "hope" one exists. Even Thomas Paine, who wrote the definitive book on deism if there can be one, only expressed hope in that regard.