Abortion is love

[Kingpin]

Even if it could kill that woman to carry.

Thus rendering the equality of all lives argument invalid.

Gee, it sounds like something males in power might make up to keep women in their place..... naaah

If the equality of all lives is given inherently or from an outside source then this doesn't invalidate the "all lives equal" argument.  If all persons have essential and intrinsic worth despite the values WE place on ourselves and others, then it still stands that all are equal.

[Losty]

---

It looks like you are saying that innocent lives are more valuable than those lives of people who are not innocent. Sure...you can call it justice if you want to, but it makes no sense to say you're justified in taking a person's life if that person's life is equal to yours in value. Innocent or not, if you justify killing a person then you don't value their life as much as whomever you are protecting them from.

Personally, I don't think it would be morally wrong to kill someone under duress, but I don't think I could do it.

---

I don't think so. If that was the case, I would be all for the death penalty, but I am not.

And yet you say a person is justified to kill someone in self defense...unless the "person" killing you is a fetus in which case it's no longer justified. I just don't see how you can say all life is equal if you think you can justify taking someone's life but not "someone" else's. It seems like a contradiction to me. Either all lives are equal or you can be justified in taking someone's life in certain circumstances. You cannot be justified in taking someone else's life unless their life has less value than yours. If their life has the same value as everyone else's then why can't all killing be justified?

[rexbeccarox]

Thus rendering the equality of all lives argument invalid.

Gee, it sounds like something males in power might make up to keep women in their place..... naaah

If the equality of all lives is given inherently or from an outside source then this doesn't invalidate the "all lives equal" argument.  If all persons have essential and intrinsic worth despite the values WE place on ourselves and others, then it still stands that all are equal.

Holy crap, the hoops you have to jump through to justify woo...

I just don't get how it's worth it to have to break your brain to explain something you can't even give quality evidence for, let alone proof.

[Losty]

Thus rendering the equality of all lives argument invalid.

Gee, it sounds like something males in power might make up to keep women in their place..... naaah

If the equality of all lives is given inherently or from an outside source then this doesn't invalidate the "all lives equal" argument.  If all persons have essential and intrinsic worth despite the values WE place on ourselves and others, then it still stands that all are equal.

If all lives were "given" the same value by some outside source, then it stands to reason that that source would give all lives the same amount of potential for survival....

[Kingpin]

If the equality of all lives is given inherently or from an outside source then this doesn't invalidate the "all lives equal" argument.  If all persons have essential and intrinsic worth despite the values WE place on ourselves and others, then it still stands that all are equal.

If all lives were "given" the same value by some outside source, then it stands to reason that that source would give all lives the same amount of potential for survival....

He did, but that's a theological discussion.  

[Whateverist]

Yes, I definitely agree with taking care of our environment as also being a moral obligation.

Now I just seem to be picking on you but this is one of my most cherished axes and when a chance comes up to grind it .. I can't resist. The environment, the one that supports every living thing ourselves included, will certainly thrive or suffer based on our decisions. So the our choices are our choices but the environment isn't just our environment.

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't think so. If that was the case, I would be all for the death penalty, but I am not.

And yet you say a person is justified to kill someone in self defense...unless the "person" killing you is a fetus in which case it's no longer justified. I just don't see how you can say all life is equal if you think you can justify taking someone's life but not "someone" else's. It seems like a contradiction to me. Either all lives are equal or you can be justified in taking someone's life in certain circumstances. You cannot be justified in taking someone else's life unless their life has less value than yours. If their life has the same value as everyone else's then why can't all killing be justified?

(JFTR, the reason I don't think it's justified in that case is because the fetus is not an instigator, but rather, he/she is another innocent bi standard.)  

Yes, I believe you can be justified in taking someone's life in certain circumstances, but not because their life is worth less than yours. Since it isn't. So yes, killing can be justifiable, but not for the reason that one life is worth more than the other. But rather, because you have the right to defend your own life (or someone else's) against an instigator. Because you have the right to life, if someone else is deliberately trying to take that away, you have the right to do whatever is necessary (but only what is necessary) to stop them. 

Perhaps it is your belief that the reason it's justified to kill someone who is trying to kill you, is because their life is worth less. But that is not my reason.

[Losty]

If all lives were "given" the same value by some outside source, then it stands to reason that that source would give all lives the same amount of potential for survival....

He did, but that's a theological discussion.  

I have 3 children from 4 pregnancies. If I got pregnant again my fetus would have a significantly less amount of potential for survival than my first two pregnancies, and somewhat less than my fourth pregnancy. That's just considering the biological implications because I know you will spout on about free will if I start talking about how the potential was effected by my exhusband.

If god believes all lives to be equal then it makes no sense for him to allow pregnancy in a woman whose body cannot support a pregnancy. If he allows such a pregnancy then it seems that he doesn't value the life of the woman or the fetus as much as he does other lives. I mean...god is supposed to know you and love you before he creates you in your mothers womb, but if he really loved you'd he'd have found a safer womb to stick you in right?

[Catholic_Lady]

Yes, I definitely agree with taking care of our environment as also being a moral obligation.

Now I just seem to be picking on you but this is one of my most cherished axes and when a chance comes up to grind it .. I can't resist.  The environment, the one that supports every living thing ourselves included, will certainly thrive or suffer based on our decisions.  So the our choices are our choices but the environment isn't just our environment.

Yes, I agree lol. I should have written "the" and wasn't thinking about it.

[Longhorn]

Thus rendering the equality of all lives argument invalid.

Gee, it sounds like something males in power might make up to keep women in their place..... naaah

If the equality of all lives is given inherently or from an outside source then this doesn't invalidate the "all lives equal" argument.  If all persons have essential and intrinsic worth despite the values WE place on ourselves and others, then it still stands that all are equal.

But the argument that all lives are equal is used to justify endangering a person's life needlessly, like in the case of the baby having a microscopic chance of survival and the mother a high chance of dying.

Besides, your god lets fetuses die. I don't think he cares much about the value of life.