[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=13620.msg138893#msg138893 date=1135290856]
How to be a good Democrat

7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand.
[/quote]

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13620.msg138905#msg138905 date=1135296199]
How to be a good Republican
7. You have to be against abortion but support capital punishment.
[/quote]
While I happen to be on the side of the argument titled "How to be a good Republican," I'd like to discuss it!

When you are having an abortion, a person, an individual, a living being who hasn't yet had a chance to make any mark on the world is being put to death.  That person has done nothing, save be conceived, for which he or she is going to be put to death.  How can this be a consequence?  We are told that actions come with consequences; consequences aren't made themselves.

When it comes to capital punishment, we are putting to death an individual that at least one group of twelve people, although death-penalty sentences are usually appealed all the way up the jurisdiction chain, believe beyond all reasonable doubt that this person has committed an act so vile that he deserves death.  Some might ask, who are those twelve people to decide whether he or she should be put to death?  The death penalty is often not imposed by the jury, though; it is imposed by statute, a statute which was made by elected officials.  The society, then, is what determines what is acceptable and what is not, what is illegal and what is not, and what the consequences should be should you behave unacceptably.  The person being sentenced, being a part of that society, is cognizant of the action he or she took and that it violates that society's standards.  He or she knowingly violated them, and therefore consciously and implicitly accepted the due penalty for them.

I cannot say that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape, simply because it was not the girl's choice to have sex.  But it is known that when you have sex, no matter what you do to provide contraception, there's even a minute chance that you will become pregnant.  Why should someone who has done no action be punished for the action of someone else?

I second above post.

Kill a prospective humanitiarian & let live Hitler?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg138963#msg138963 date=1135312218]
I second above post.

Kill a prospective humanitiarian & let live Hitler?
[/quote]
It's not even that.  We can't base it on what-ifs, because it could possibly be Hitler too.  :P  The unborn child, though, hasn't done anything to deserve death.  Hitler, based on society's standards, did.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg138968#msg138968 date=1135316134]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg138963#msg138963 date=1135312218]
I second above post.

Kill a prospective humanitiarian & let live Hitler?
[/quote]
It's not even that.  We can't base it on what-ifs, because it could possibly be Hitler too.  :P  The unborn child, though, hasn't done anything to deserve death.  Hitler, based on society's standards, did.
[/quote]yeah, I guess based on merit alone even it makes sense to keep the kid & execute the murderer

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg138968#msg138968 date=1135316134]
It's not even that.  We can't base it on what-ifs, because it could possibly be Hitler too.  :P
[/quote]Let's look solely at statistics.  There are some 6 billion people in the world.  About 8.75 million of them in prison.  I'd estimate maybe 100,000 people (and even that may be generous) are truly good people whose existences actually serve to better humanity.  Everyone else just lives out their lives in mediocrity.  So, based on this, it's 80 times more likely that someone will grow up to be in prison (and be a bad person by societal standards) than a good person.  Let's look at the percentages:

0.00166% of the population is "good".
0.14583% of the population is "bad".
99.85251% of the population is useless.

Thus, speaking purely in terms of statistics and reason, all children should be aborted because of the chances that they'll be anything but good.

Seems like jibberish to me. You don't know who is good, and who is bad, moreover who is useless. Everyone trys to make their own way in the world, some leave prints, some leave nothing. And some just arent lucky. For example Tsunami victims?

And everyone should be given a chance, wether they turn bad or good. Its just now a days people have such twisted views on life, they can't all tell whats good or bad. Some thing bad is good you know what I am getting at?

"no one sees a good thing when they see one"

The fact that picking sides is totally unnecessary, democrats and Republicans are children playing the name game 24/7. They just try to show up one another; "he picks black, she picks white, you say on, I say off." Abortion isn't something people should get scrupulous about. While yes, it is a moral dilemma; it isn't anyone but the one's involved business. It's a person’s choice, we live in America and what we are treated with is choice, and abortion will remain choice. These people that are religiously involved over the subject get blind sighted with faith, on the other hand, those who are for it get headstrong and arrogant. You see on television, and movies, and in the paper on how people riot over the subject. People always have to be so narrow-minded; it's been going on for centuries. Pitchforks and Torches, now its picket signs and gossip. One woman wants to abort a child because she never intended on having one, it wouldn’t be fair to give birth to him/her since she couldn’t support the both of them and they'd be struggling all their lives. Yet unfortunately, people have to stuff their noses into others business, and then what only involved a woman and her doctor; now involves half a thousand people, cursing, and shouting. Abortion is nothing like capital punishment.

Now for the subject of Capital Punishment, our Justice system is greatly flawed, and its integrity is only as good on the inside as the people working on the outside. Not very promising if you ask me. Criminals get away because they have the money for bail and lawyers. Rapists, drug lords, and serial killers: All guilty. They spend 5 years in prison, and get out 2 years early on "good behavior" Then a man, or even a boy. In the wrong place, at the wrong time, finds himself in the middle of a horrible misconception, then winds up on death row. This happens much more than one may think, and that’s neither fair to the family, nor to the public. We're all unsafe out here, and it's possible for it to happen to any one of us. Capital Punishment is neither right, nor wrong. It's impossible to justify ones self on the subject, you'll always end up contradicting yourself. Just as Abortion, it's unfair to the child in some opinions, it's murder in others, but its also murder for the mother, a little piece of her dies. While death isn't right, we return to the re-occurring factor; that it's still a choice.

How can life be a choice?

Also, I accept that people put on death row a while ago could be innocent, not all, not even most, but some.  However, today, I believe that 99.99% of people put on death row are guilty.  There is so much evidence against these people now it is literally beyond a reasonable doubt that this person committed said act.

Life is choice, people who chose to take life, obviously suffer the punishment. But a child inside of a girl is her choice, its her life she sacrificed for it, its her choice to accept its birth or not. There are rules to choice, but anyone can do anything. Thats all im saying.

What about the man's role in this?
Does he have now say?

It takes 2 to make a baby

[quote author=Ishbar link=topic=13630.msg139027#msg139027 date=1135361424]
Abortion isn't something people should get scrupulous about. While yes, it is a moral dilemma; it isn't anyone but the one's involved business. It's a person’s choice, we live in America and what we are treated with is choice, and abortion will remain choice.
[/quote]

So what you're saying, basically, is that murder should be OK because it's the person's choice who committed murder?

What about the unborn child?  Shouldn't that child have the opportunity to make a choice?

You didn't even address my point.  Society has set acceptable standards of behavior.  We have also made clear what the punishment will be for violating those standards.  When someone commits a crime that calls for capital punishment, he or she is doing something he or she knows can result in the death penalty.  If the person is unable to grasp that, they frequently don't get the death penalty.  He or she is actively making a decision to engage in an activity where a potential consequence is one's own death.

An unborn child has no means by which to make this choice.  Furthermore, the unborn child has not violated society's standards or done anything at all to deserve death.  Having an abortion is a selfish act, and it's costing someone his or her life.  It's acceptable to some people, though, evidently because that person simply can't speak for himself or herself.

[quote author=Ishbar link=topic=13630.msg139031#msg139031 date=1135362108]
Life is choice, people who chose to take life, obviously suffer the punishment. But a child inside of a girl is her choice, its her life she sacrificed for it, its her choice to accept its birth or not. There are rules to choice, but anyone can do anything. Thats all im saying.
[/quote]
Really?  When is the last time the population decided to champion Mersault in The Stranger?  People generally don't like such existentialist ways of life.

[quote author=Ishbar link=topic=13630.msg139027#msg139027 date=1135361424]While death isn't right, we return to the re-occurring factor; that it's still a choice
[/quote]
The point I'm trying to make (that you've completely missed) is that in crimes that come to capital punishment, the person being put to death has made a decision resulting his or her own death.  An unborn child has not made such a choice.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139075#msg139075 date=1135377965]
An unborn child has no means by which to make this choice.  Furthermore, the unborn child has not violated society's standards or done anything at all to deserve death.  Having an abortion is a selfish act, and it's costing someone his or her life.  It's acceptable to some people, though, evidently because that person simply can't speak for himself or herself.
[/quote]

An unborn child has done nothing to deserve death and nothing to deserve life. An unborn child is uncapable of making the choice of life or death. If you are OK with picking a flower, you should be OK with abortion.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139092#msg139092 date=1135392004]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139075#msg139075 date=1135377965]
An unborn child has no means by which to make this choice.  Furthermore, the unborn child has not violated society's standards or done anything at all to deserve death.  Having an abortion is a selfish act, and it's costing someone his or her life.  It's acceptable to some people, though, evidently because that person simply can't speak for himself or herself.
[/quote]

An unborn child has done nothing to deserve death and nothing to deserve life. An unborn child is uncapable of making the choice of life or death. If you are OK with picking a flower, you should be OK with abortion.
[/quote]

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13628.msg139076#msg139076 date=1135378065]
[quote author=Lord[nK] link=topic=13628.msg138999#msg138999 date=1135351241]
It's not an infant.  It's a fetus.  Don't confuse the two.
[/quote]
Regardless, it's still a different stage in the development of a human.  A being with the capacity for choice, sentience, love, hate, fear, nobility.
[/quote]

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13628.msg139076#msg139076 date=1135378065]
[quote author=Lord[nK] link=topic=13628.msg138999#msg138999 date=1135351241]
It's not an infant.  It's a fetus.  Don't confuse the two.
[/quote]
Regardless, it's still a different stage in the development of a human.  A being with the capacity for choice, sentience, love, hate, fear, nobility.
[/quote]

That is incorrect. It is something that might one day turn into a being with the capacity for <insert>. So is human DNA (see cloning). So is any animal (see evolution). So is a pile of shit (see circle of life).

Screw the what ifs, you should be allowed to wait and find out how the kid turns out. If it is not to your liking, you should  be allowed to abort child up until the age of ten.

I think the whole problem with this argument is that you have to define when a person becomes alive.  If they're human (with all the religious connotations) from the moment of conception, then abortion is wrong.  If they aren't alive till the 3rd trimester, then it's ok. 

I don't think anybody (here or otherwise) has any clear idea, so it's all just speculation.  Different people believe different things about this issue, but there's no hard evidence.  So at the moment, this is an unanswerable question. 

You have to drill down to the core of this argument to see that it's not really possible to prove it.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139126#msg139126 date=1135428062]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13628.msg139076#msg139076 date=1135378065]
[quote author=Lord[nK] link=topic=13628.msg138999#msg138999 date=1135351241]
It's not an infant.  It's a fetus.  Don't confuse the two.
[/quote]
Regardless, it's still a different stage in the development of a human.  A being with the capacity for choice, sentience, love, hate, fear, nobility.
[/quote]

That is incorrect. It is something that might one day turn into a being with the capacity for <insert>. So is human DNA (see cloning). So is any animal (see evolution). So is a pile of shit (see circle of life).
[/quote]

No, it is absolutely correct.  An embryo, or fetus, if allowed to progress naturally, will absolutely (with few exceptions) turn into an infant, which will later turn into a child, then an adolescent, then an adult.  All of these are stages of being for humans.

DNA, on its own without stimulation or human intervention, will not.

Any animal, on its own during the course if its lifetime, will not.

A pile of shit is not even alive, and there are a lot of other things it can become over the course of its....  existence.

An embryo/fetus either lives or dies in its mother's womb.  Simply because it is dependent on another creature for survival doesn't mean it's not alive.  We have all kinds of symbiotic bacteria in our bodies that we dub alive.  There are ticks that live on birds that wouldn't be alive save for the fact that they eat dead feather pieces.  Those ticks are dependent on those birds to survive, and yet we call them "alive."  If the embryo/fetus lives, it 100% of the time turns into an infant human being.  It is simply another stage of human development.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139126#msg139126 date=1135428062]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13628.msg139076#msg139076 date=1135378065]
[quote author=Lord[nK] link=topic=13628.msg138999#msg138999 date=1135351241]
It's not an infant.  It's a fetus.  Don't confuse the two.
[/quote]
Regardless, it's still a different stage in the development of a human.  A being with the capacity for choice, sentience, love, hate, fear, nobility.
[/quote]

That is incorrect. It is something that might one day turn into a being with the capacity for <insert>. So is human DNA (see cloning). So is any animal (see evolution). So is a pile of shit (see circle of life).
[/quote]
Human DNA creates people through aritificial means.
Evolution creates different things, possibly people, through hundreds of thousands of years, possibly millions.
Pile of shit is just nutrition, it is gives energy for grow, it isnt the growth itself.
A fetus is immediate

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139149#msg139149 date=1135450561]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139126#msg139126 date=1135428062]
That is incorrect. It is something that might one day turn into a being with the capacity for <insert>. So is human DNA (see cloning). So is any animal (see evolution). So is a pile of shit (see circle of life).
[/quote]

No, it is absolutely correct.  An embryo, or fetus, if allowed to progress naturally, will absolutely (with few exceptions) turn into an infant, which will later turn into a child, then an adolescent, then an adult.  All of these are stages of being for humans.

DNA, on its own without stimulation or human intervention, will not.

Any animal, on its own during the course if its lifetime, will not.

A pile of shit is not even alive, and there are a lot of other things it can become over the course of its....  existence.

An embryo/fetus either lives or dies in its mother's womb.  Simply because it is dependent on another creature for survival doesn't mean it's not alive.  We have all kinds of symbiotic bacteria in our bodies that we dub alive.  There are ticks that live on birds that wouldn't be alive save for the fact that they eat dead feather pieces.  Those ticks are dependent on those birds to survive, and yet we call them "alive."  If the embryo/fetus lives, it 100% of the time turns into an infant human being.  It is simply another stage of human development.
[/quote]

A fetus without stimulation or human intervention (i.e. mother eating, mother supplying nurturing) will not develop into a human being. Many animals have some of the capabilities you listed. Yet we kill them for our use. Yes, many things live in symbiosis and are alive. We still gladly kill ticks. Being alive is not unique. A fetus has the potential to turn into something else. So does a lot of other things. You are looking at things at too small a scale. Why would it matter if it is going to turn into something else today or in a million years? You take some action - it will change the future. The immediate future as well as the far distant future.

You seem to assign special weight to "naturally". But all "naturally" says is "the way things usually happen" which is "the way things have been happening before" which is "let's not change things". One might also say that a fetus will naturally not develop into an adult human after being removed from the mother's womb. Or that a fetus will naturally be aborted unless the mother eats.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139193#msg139193 date=1135489597]
Or that a fetus will naturally be aborted unless the mother eats.
[/quote]
Fine, then, Adron.  Let's have the mother stop eating and drinking (because that's not unnatural "intervention") if she wants the baby to be aborted.  Chances are IMO that she'll abort herself, too.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139193#msg139193 date=1135489597]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139149#msg139149 date=1135450561]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139126#msg139126 date=1135428062]
That is incorrect. It is something that might one day turn into a being with the capacity for <insert>. So is human DNA (see cloning). So is any animal (see evolution). So is a pile of shit (see circle of life).
[/quote]

No, it is absolutely correct.  An embryo, or fetus, if allowed to progress naturally, will absolutely (with few exceptions) turn into an infant, which will later turn into a child, then an adolescent, then an adult.  All of these are stages of being for humans.

DNA, on its own without stimulation or human intervention, will not.

Any animal, on its own during the course if its lifetime, will not.

A pile of shit is not even alive, and there are a lot of other things it can become over the course of its....  existence.

An embryo/fetus either lives or dies in its mother's womb.  Simply because it is dependent on another creature for survival doesn't mean it's not alive.  We have all kinds of symbiotic bacteria in our bodies that we dub alive.  There are ticks that live on birds that wouldn't be alive save for the fact that they eat dead feather pieces.  Those ticks are dependent on those birds to survive, and yet we call them "alive."  If the embryo/fetus lives, it 100% of the time turns into an infant human being.  It is simply another stage of human development.
[/quote]

A fetus without stimulation or human intervention (i.e. mother eating, mother supplying nurturing) will not develop into a human being. Many animals have some of the capabilities you listed. Yet we kill them for our use. Yes, many things live in symbiosis and are alive. We still gladly kill ticks. Being alive is not unique. A fetus has the potential to turn into something else. So does a lot of other things. You are looking at things at too small a scale. Why would it matter if it is going to turn into something else today or in a million years? You take some action - it will change the future. The immediate future as well as the far distant future.

You seem to assign special weight to "naturally". But all "naturally" says is "the way things usually happen" which is "the way things have been happening before" which is "let's not change things". One might also say that a fetus will naturally not develop into an adult human after being removed from the mother's womb. Or that a fetus will naturally be aborted unless the mother eats.
[/quote]

[sentience]

because we are the top of the food chain, there are some inherent responsibilities: mainly, a given not to be savage and butcher possible sentient life (humans), and also because of the moral boundaries. Just because it isn't truly alive yet does not mean it is not one of us

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139200#msg139200 date=1135495788]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139193#msg139193 date=1135489597]
Or that a fetus will naturally be aborted unless the mother eats.
[/quote]
Fine, then, Adron.  Let's have the mother stop eating and drinking (because that's not unnatural "intervention") if she wants the baby to be aborted.  Chances are IMO that she'll abort herself, too.
[/quote]

If that is okay, then what is wrong with the mother taking some pills to abort the fetus? It is hard to see the difference.

You're all one sided in your opinions, which dont make you wise one bit.

[quote]When you are having an abortion, a person, an individual, a living being who hasn't yet had a chance to make any mark on the world is being put to death.  That person has done nothing, save be conceived, for which he or she is going to be put to death.  How can this be a consequence?  We are told that actions come with consequences; consequences aren't made themselves.[/quote]

Definitely one sided here, its their choice, its their baby. Not only that but you have to look at it from the males point of view too. Sure its his sperm, but its her body, and if she wants to keep the child, and cant support it, and basically uses the child for money problems and other shit( I know people who do this ) then its totally unfair. In other words she fucks you around, but then you shouldn't of fucked her to begin with, but mistakes happen.

I am all for it because stupid shit like that happens all the time. Also if a girl did that too me, I'd punch her in the stomach and make it look like an accident. I simply don't care.

Normally children are suppose to occur with married couples who can support and raise the damn child. Instead of a dumb teens who do not understand life that well yet, and becoming a terrible examples.

Having children is a choice, and if you arent ready for it, it shouldn't be considered murder because it can't even think, eat, live basically without you yet.

Think of it this way is it fair that some guy who had a stroke, became a veggie because he didn't have oxygen in his brain in time? This person gets a few months or years then they say, "we're going to let you starv to death because you cost us money and cant think or do anything". Babies are exactly that until a certain age. Imagine thats 10x worse with a dumb baby in the stomach still developing limbs, and brain cells.

If this isn't murder, but abortion is, you need to get some things straighten out...

Also, I believe in that even if it was me in the stomach.

[quote author=WoOdTroll link=topic=13630.msg139248#msg139248 date=1135545390]
You're all one sided in your opinions, which dont make you wise one bit.

[quote]When you are having an abortion, a person, an individual, a living being who hasn't yet had a chance to make any mark on the world is being put to death.  That person has done nothing, save be conceived, for which he or she is going to be put to death.  How can this be a consequence?  We are told that actions come with consequences; consequences aren't made themselves.[/quote]

Definitely one sided here, its their choice, its their baby. Not only that but you have to look at it from the males point of view too. Sure its his sperm, but its her body, and if she wants to keep the child, and cant support it, and basically uses the child for money problems and other shit( I know people who do this ) then its totally unfair. In other words she fucks you around, but then you shouldn't of fucked her to begin with, but mistakes happen.

I am all for it because stupid shit like that happens all the time. Also if a girl did that too me, I'd punch her in the stomach and make it look like an accident. I simply don't care.

Normally children are suppose to occur with married couples who can support and raise the damn child. Instead of a dumb teens who do not understand life that well yet, and becoming a terrible examples.

Having children is a choice, and if you arent ready for it, it shouldn't be considered murder because it can't even think, eat, live basically without you yet.

Think of it this way is it fair that some guy who had a stroke, became a veggie because he didn't have oxygen in his brain in time? This person gets a few months or years then they say, "we're going to let you starv to death because you cost us money and cant think or do anything". Babies are exactly that until a certain age. Imagine thats 10x worse with a dumb baby in the stomach still developing limbs, and brain cells.

If this isn't murder, but abortion is, you need to get some things straighten out...
[/quote]

I'm still unclear as to what side you are on.  Clarify for me, because you seem to be hopping back and forth.

I'd like to note that 'back in the day' girls were married w/kids @ age 13

I dont have a side, it depends on the situation. If me, and a women were planning on getting married, and happened to have a child before the marriage for instance, I wouldn't ask for an abortion. But if I was a teen, and fucked some girl, and the condom blew, then I would.

[quote author=WoOdTroll link=topic=13630.msg139248#msg139248 date=1135545390]
Sure its his sperm, but its her body, and if she wants to keep the child, and cant support it, and basically uses the child for money problems and other shit( I know people who do this ) then its totally unfair. In other words she fucks you around, but then you shouldn't of fucked her to begin with, but mistakes happen.
[/quote]
What about the baby's body?

[quote author=WoOdTroll link=topic=13630.msg139248#msg139248 date=1135545390]
Normally children are suppose to occur with married couples who can support and raise the damn child. Instead of a dumb teens who do not understand life that well yet, and becoming a terrible examples.

Having children is a choice, and if you arent ready for it, it shouldn't be considered murder because it can't even think, eat, live basically without you yet.
[/quote]
Yes, having children is a choice.  And if you're not ready for it, you shouldn't be fucking the next guy who comes in the door.  Why should an unborn child who cannot even speak for himself or herself be punished because you wanted to get laid?

What about the baby's body?

How many times have you punished millions everytime you want to jerk off? He/she is simply not lucky, and thats that. Its like a kid losing his leg from stepping on a mine. Why should he lose his leg because of a war that happened 60 years ago?

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139292#msg139292 date=1135560099]
Yes, having children is a choice.  And if you're not ready for it, you shouldn't be fucking the next guy who comes in the door.  Why should an unborn child who cannot even speak for himself or herself be punished because you wanted to get laid?
[/quote]

An abortion is not punishment. It is merely nonexistence. And coincidentally, that is the same the unborn child would have received, had you not wanted to get laid.

"When you put a quarter into a coke machine & a coke comes out is the coke yours or the machines?"

I have NO idea where I heard/read that, but I thought it was funny & applies here

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139292#msg139292 date=1135560099]
Yes, having children is a choice.  And if you're not ready for it, you shouldn't be fucking the next guy who comes in the door.  Why should an unborn child who cannot even speak for himself or herself be punished because you wanted to get laid?
[/quote]

Unfortunately, people have sex without the intention of having a baby, even people in long-term relationships! Many people take precautions to reduce the risk of pregnancy, but sometimes pills fail and condoms break. But that is an entirely different argument. We are talking about a soon-to-be mother and her yet unbord child, not what act was use to achieve that and whether or not that is morally correct.

What happens if the mother is unable to support her child? Do we let it suffer by going through the foster care system? If the foster care system was this great system, then I would have problems with abortion. But it isn't. Until the system can be fixed, then abortion is probably in the best interest of the soon-to-be mother and the unborn child.

Plus, we're already overcrowded as is. Anything to limit population growth is probably a good thing.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139308#msg139308 date=1135569266]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139292#msg139292 date=1135560099]
Yes, having children is a choice.  And if you're not ready for it, you shouldn't be fucking the next guy who comes in the door.  Why should an unborn child who cannot even speak for himself or herself be punished because you wanted to get laid?
[/quote]

Unfortunately, people have sex without the intention of having a baby, even people in long-term relationships! Many people take precautions to reduce the risk of pregnancy, but sometimes pills fail and condoms break. But that is an entirely different argument. We are talking about a soon-to-be mother and her yet unbord child, not what act was use to achieve that and whether or not that is morally correct.

What happens if the mother is unable to support her child? Do we let it suffer by going through the foster care system? If the foster care system was this great system, then I would have problems with abortion. But it isn't. Until the system can be fixed, then abortion is probably in the best interest of the soon-to-be mother and the unborn child.

Plus, we're already overcrowded as is. Anything to limit population growth is probably a good thing.
[/quote]What about criminals?  You could make that SAME arguement for them
The system is flawed so just kill them.
It stops population growth too

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg139313#msg139313 date=1135571157]
What about criminals?  You could make that SAME arguement for them
The system is flawed so just kill them.
It stops population growth too
[/quote]

There is a difference between a human and a fetus. And changing the subject is a bad debate technique.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139328#msg139328 date=1135576692]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg139313#msg139313 date=1135571157]
What about criminals?  You could make that SAME arguement for them
The system is flawed so just kill them.
It stops population growth too
[/quote]

There is a difference between a human and a fetus. And changing the subject is a bad debate technique.
[/quote]Please look at the topic/subject of this thread & then maybe reword your previous post to say something along the lines of "hmm, good point CrAz3D, killing people that deserve to die is even better than killing a soon-to-be someone that has done nothing to deserve death".

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg139334#msg139334 date=1135577496]
Please look at the topic/subject of this thread & then maybe reword your previous post to say something along the lines of "hmm, good point CrAz3D, killing people that deserve to die is even better than killing a soon-to-be someone that has done nothing to deserve death".
[/quote]

Killing people that deserve to die is great. Now, who deserves to die? Not those on the death row. :P

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg139334#msg139334 date=1135577496]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139328#msg139328 date=1135576692]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg139313#msg139313 date=1135571157]
What about criminals?  You could make that SAME arguement for them
The system is flawed so just kill them.
It stops population growth too
[/quote]

There is a difference between a human and a fetus. And changing the subject is a bad debate technique.
[/quote]Please look at the topic/subject of this thread & then maybe reword your previous post to say something along the lines of "hmm, good point CrAz3D, killing people that deserve to die is even better than killing a soon-to-be someone that has done nothing to deserve death".
[/quote]

I was focusing on abortion, but I'll respond given the topic.

No you can't use the same argument, because a fetus is not a human. Economically, it is too expensive to put every criminal to death given the current system.

What happens when a teenager is forced to have a child because of anti-abortion laws? Well she's more likely to end up on "welfare" which many of you do not support. Why not save some money and be proactive, instead of creating a potential problem which you will have to pay for out of your pocket?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139337#msg139337 date=1135578279]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg139334#msg139334 date=1135577496]
Please look at the topic/subject of this thread & then maybe reword your previous post to say something along the lines of "hmm, good point CrAz3D, killing people that deserve to die is even better than killing a soon-to-be someone that has done nothing to deserve death".
[/quote]

Killing people that deserve to die is great. Now, who deserves to die? Not those on the death row. :P
[/quote]

It is ok to end something that is completely innocent & good but not ok to end something that has done so much harm to the world?
I just don't see how that works, please, explain this simply to me.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg139342#msg139342 date=1135578502]
It is ok to end something that is completely innocent & good but not ok to end something that has done so much harm to the world?
I just don't see how that works, please, explain this simply to me.
[/quote]

OK.

A fetus is right at the beginning. There is no monetary investment in it (schooling etc) and mostly not a big emotional investment (and the one there is, those with the emotional investment, the parents, are the ones making the call). Plus, the egg was quite likely never intended, by the man and woman involved, to become anything other than ejected as part of a menstruation. Effectively there is no loss compared to the state of egg never being fertilized.

Someone on death row may be completely worthless and impossible to rehabilitate. If that is the case, go ahead and kill. On the other hand, if this is someone who acted in anger, out of his/her normal self, or someone who has used the time in prison to change, then there is a profit to the world to be had from releasing this person. There are also likely more emotional bonds to this person from other people - parents, relatives, children, etc, and so the emotional hurt is going to be bigger.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139308#msg139308 date=1135569266]
We are talking about a soon-to-be mother and her yet unbord child, not what act was use to achieve that and whether or not that is morally correct.
[/quote]
I never made a position about whether having sex is morally correct.
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139328#msg139328 date=1135576692]
And changing the subject is a bad debate technique.
[/quote]
So I suggest that you don't assume that because I'm pro-life I'm trying to condemn sex or anyone that has it.  Sex is good times.  All I'm saying is that if you're going to have it, you 1.) had better know that there is always a risk of pregnancy (the damn condom box says it), and 2.) you'd better be prepared to live with the consequences.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139328#msg139328 date=1135576692]
There is a difference between a human and a fetus. [/quote]
I still don't believe you've adequately responded to my argument about the fetus being a stage in the progression of human life.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139203#msg139203 date=1135502608]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139200#msg139200 date=1135495788]
Fine, then, Adron.  Let's have the mother stop eating and drinking (because that's not unnatural "intervention") if she wants the baby to be aborted.  Chances are IMO that she'll abort herself, too.
[/quote]

If that is okay, then what is wrong with the mother taking some pills to abort the fetus? It is hard to see the difference.
[/quote]
CrAz3d was correct: my point was being made satirically.  I don't think it's okay for the mother to stop eating or drinking, and what I'm saying is that in order to do so, it would put the mother's life at considerable risk as well.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139358#msg139358 date=1135587238]
I never made a position about whether having sex is morally correct.
[/quote]

No, but you did say "you shouldn't be fucking the next guy who comes in the door." Is that not a moral judgment?

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139358#msg139358 date=1135587238]
So I suggest that you don't assume that because I'm pro-life I'm trying to condemn sex or anyone that has it.  Sex is good times.  All I'm saying is that if you're going to have it, you 1.) had better know that there is always a risk of pregnancy (the damn condom box says it), and 2.) you'd better be prepared to live with the consequences.
[/quote]

I didn't assume. You made a judgment on people who fuck "the next guy who comes in the door." While I agree with your comment, it has no place in this discussion because women, one-night-stand or otherwise, accidentally become pregnant.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139358#msg139358 date=1135587238]
I still don't believe you've adequately responded to my argument about the fetus being a stage in the progression of human life.
[/quote]

Adron addressed this adequately.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139358#msg139358 date=1135587238]
CrAz3d was correct: my point was being made satirically.  I don't think it's okay for the mother to stop eating or drinking, and what I'm saying is that in order to do so, it would put the mother's life at considerable risk as well.
[/quote]

Having a baby could put the mother's life at considerable risk as well. Having an abortion could put the mother's life at risk too.

Life is a risk.
</profound moment of the day>
Boy that sounded quite spiffy in my head, with the pause & accents I made, WHOOEY. ;)

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139362#msg139362 date=1135589661]
No, but you did say "you shouldn't be fucking the next guy who comes in the door." Is that not a moral judgment?
[/quote]
No, it's not a moral judgment.  It's a matter of fact.  If you don't want to have a kid, if you absolutely do not want to have a kid, you shouldn't be having sex.  That the only guaranteed 100% way to avoid it.  That's not a moral judgment, it's not a matter of opinion, it's 100% unbiased fact.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139362#msg139362 date=1135589661]
Adron addressed this adequately.
[/quote]
Adron never responded to my counterargument about aborting the mother too.  Unless human life apparently is not valuable to you guys, in which case we simply have a difference of opinion.  Although I still stand by my position that everyone conceived deserves the opportunity to live.

More food for thought:

The 4th amendment guarantees citizens equal protection under the law.  However, abortion skews that in favor of the mother.  She has the right to abort her legal parenthood rights and responsibilities through abortion up until such time as legal in whichever state she resides.  The father however, only has the right to terminal legal parenthood rights and responsibilities up until the time of conception.  After that, even, the mother can decide FOR HIM whether he will be a father, and have those rights and responsibilities.  She can make this decision for many more months after he can.

Where is his legal right to abort parenthood up until the same point in pregnancy as the mother?

If she elects (right to choose) to not abort, she then dumps a responsibility on the father who has no right to choose at the same point in time.  Where is the 4th amendment?

Note:  Neither side of this argument has been chosen by me as my own opinion.  You may not assign either side to me until I state on which side I stand.  This is posted as a political/intellectual debate, not something to invoke mud-slinging by those who cannot otherwise resist.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139407#msg139407 date=1135625657]
No, it's not a moral judgment.  It's a matter of fact.  If you don't want to have a kid, if you absolutely do not want to have a kid, you shouldn't be having sex.  That the only guaranteed 100% way to avoid it.  That's not a moral judgment, it's not a matter of opinion, it's 100% unbiased fact.
[/quote]

Yes but you only mention a subset of girls who fuck "the next guy who comes in the door." You didn't say "If you don't want to have children, don't have sex." There is a difference.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139407#msg139407 date=1135625657]
Adron never responded to my counterargument about aborting the mother too.  Unless human life apparently is not valuable to you guys, in which case we simply have a difference of opinion.  Although I still stand by my position that everyone conceived deserves the opportunity to live.
[/quote]

Human life is valuable, but fetus are not humans.

Just imagine the day such anti-abortion laws are enacted. Then we may just see some soon-to-be teenage mother attempt suicide because they have no other option. Then come tell me you value human life because you sponsored some anti-abortion law.

I want to see a response to my "welfare" correlation, seeing as many of you don't support those kind of programs.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139419#msg139419 date=1135633111]
Human life is valuable, but fetus are not humans.
[/quote]I have to wonder exactly what reasonable basis you have for assuming that human life is valuable.

[quote author=TehUser link=topic=13630.msg139421#msg139421 date=1135634222]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139419#msg139419 date=1135633111]
Human life is valuable, but fetus are not humans.
[/quote]I have to wonder exactly what reasonable basis you have for assuming that human life is valuable.
[/quote]

It's priceless therefore it's valuable.

[quote author=Networks link=topic=13630.msg139423#msg139423 date=1135634686]
[quote author=TehUser link=topic=13630.msg139421#msg139421 date=1135634222]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139419#msg139419 date=1135633111]
Human life is valuable, but fetus are not humans.
[/quote]I have to wonder exactly what reasonable basis you have for assuming that human life is valuable.
[/quote]

It's priceless therefore it's valuable.
[/quote]Slaves were assigned a rpice, maybe they aren't human...

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139407#msg139407 date=1135625657]
[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139362#msg139362 date=1135589661]
Adron addressed this adequately.
[/quote]
Adron never responded to my counterargument about aborting the mother too.  Unless human life apparently is not valuable to you guys, in which case we simply have a difference of opinion.  Although I still stand by my position that everyone conceived deserves the opportunity to live.
[/quote]

Oh, OK. A human fetus is more sensitive to malnourishment or unhealthy substances than an adult. It is not at all impossible to have a miscarriage caused by the mother doing things that do not cause her own death.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139419#msg139419 date=1135633111]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139407#msg139407 date=1135625657]
No, it's not a moral judgment.  It's a matter of fact.  If you don't want to have a kid, if you absolutely do not want to have a kid, you shouldn't be having sex.  That the only guaranteed 100% way to avoid it.  That's not a moral judgment, it's not a matter of opinion, it's 100% unbiased fact.
[/quote]

Yes but you only mention a subset of girls who fuck "the next guy who comes in the door." You didn't say "If you don't want to have children, don't have sex." There is a difference.
[/quote]
Now you're just grasping for straws, and you know it.  The point holds true for people in a monogomous relationship as much as it does for the girl who fucks the next guy who comes through the door.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139419#msg139419 date=1135633111]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139407#msg139407 date=1135625657]
Adron never responded to my counterargument about aborting the mother too.  Unless human life apparently is not valuable to you guys, in which case we simply have a difference of opinion.  Although I still stand by my position that everyone conceived deserves the opportunity to live.
[/quote]

Human life is valuable, but fetus are not humans.
[/quote]
Your argument is circular.  Feti are not humans, because human life is valuable, but feti are not valuable because they are not humans.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139419#msg139419 date=1135633111]
Just imagine the day such anti-abortion laws are enacted. Then we may just see some soon-to-be teenage mother attempt suicide because they have no other option. Then come tell me you value human life because you sponsored some anti-abortion law.
[/quote]
I'm sorry she feels that way.  She shouldn't have had sex.  Or she could drop the kid off over at the fire station, no questions asked.  Or she could give the child up for adoption.  She needs to face the fact, though, that she had sex and a potential consequence of it came back to bite her in the butt.

For this reply, I will use the words kill, killed and killing as generic terms used to describe all types of one or more humans causing the death of one or more other humans.

I was taught, as I'm sure most of you were, that some forms of killing are justifiable and other types aren't.  I accepted this because I didn't have the motivation or skills to think for myself.  As I grow older and learn more about humans and their interaction with each other, I slowly began to discover that that teaching was wrong for me.  I'll use examples pertinent to the topic.

A pregnant woman has her pregnancy terminated due to health reasons.
A pregnant woman has her pregnancy terminated because she was raped.
A pregnant woman has her pregnancy terminated because she didn't want to have a child.

The end result is the same.  A child goes unborn and a potential mother has lost that child.  Lay 3 dead fetus in front of me and ask me which were/was killed justifiably.  Without knowing the circumstances of their death, I would have to say either all of them were justified or none of them were.  In each one of those scenarios, the killer thought that it was justifiable.

A man is killed because he commited a crime.
A man is killed because he had sexual intercourse with another man's wife.
A man is killed because he was a member of an opposing warring faction.

In all 3 of these scenarios, a man is punished with death.  A man is dead, his loved ones are deprived of his presence and the killer thought that their action was justified.  I cannot say that any or all of these killings are wrong.  Morals, ethics and law are very localized ideas and I was taught the ones that are specific to my part of society.  Other people in different parts of society and the world have their own ideas of justifiable killing and I cannot say that they are wrong.

For me, the most logical stance is that all abortions and executions are justifiable.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139471#msg139471 date=1135677547]
Now you're just grasping for straws, and you know it.  The point holds true for people in a monogomous relationship as much as it does for the girl who fucks the next guy who comes through the door.
[/quote]

No I'm not. You're actively selected a subset of women. You're not saying all women, you're commenting on a subset of women. People in monogomous relationships don't "fuck the next person who comes through the door."

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139471#msg139471 date=1135677547]
Your argument is circular.  Feti are not humans, because human life is valuable, but feti are not valuable because they are not humans.
[/quote]

No it is not. You asked me if human life is valuable. I respond in the affirmative--"human life is valuable"--but that does not imply fetus are valuable, because to me and others "fetus are not human." There is no circularity, but that last part is highly debatable (as iago pointed out, and Adron has been arguing). I stated it as a matter of fact.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139419#msg139419 date=1135633111]
I'm sorry she feels that way.  She shouldn't have had sex.  Or she could drop the kid off over at the fire station, no questions asked.  Or she could give the child up for adoption.  She needs to face the fact, though, that she had sex and a potential consequence of it came back to bite her in the butt.
[/quote]

Shouldn't, wouldn't, couldn't...shit happens. And if she does happen to be in one of those oh-so-generous states, then yes that may be an option. And maybe she could give the child up for adoption; but the girl, brought up through the adoption system, knows how horrible a life that was. Why would she do that? It is almost like a never-ending circle (provided each baby is a girl). She has faced the facts, and because she has no choice, her last choice is then to take her life and subsequently her fetus'.

[quote author=Thing [vL] link=topic=13630.msg139487#msg139487 date=1135702409]
For me, the most logical stance is that all abortions and executions are justifiable.
[/quote]

Could you define justifiable? That *you* could agree with them, that *someone* could agree with them, or something else?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139496#msg139496 date=1135705313]
[quote author=Thing [vL] link=topic=13630.msg139487#msg139487 date=1135702409]
For me, the most logical stance is that all abortions and executions are justifiable.
[/quote]

Could you define justifiable? That *you* could agree with them, that *someone* could agree with them, or something else?


[/quote]Probably that the majority of society would agree w/

When you have a child you need to know its going to be in good hands, not left at some station or whatever. All you're focusing on is that if you're going to have a child wether you want it or not you must keep it, otherwise you're a killer? Bogus, how many times have girls taking pills, and how many fuck-ups have happen? Its natural for people not to want children for 15minutes of fun. And yes in marriages 15 minutes keeps them two happy. Does that mean they must have children if a baby occurs? No. Its choice.

In the end though its her choice to take the risk, and her choice to abort. You need to know when to stop arguing over things that are natural. Its natural not to want a baby, and abort it. How far are you going to take this argument? "Is the first cell that developes in a baby intelligent? That cell shouldn't die for nothing!". Cry me a river, and build me a bridge over it. And if maybe you still havent learnt anything after, jump off it.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg139497#msg139497 date=1135705505]
Probably that the majority of society would agree w/
[/quote]

The majority of *your* society, of *some* society or something else? Burning witches was accepted practise in *some* society. Cannibalism too.

The USofA I do believe.
Probably not Europe, they're freakin weirdos over there, trying to steal the internet away from us & all, heh

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139490#msg139490 date=1135703340]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139471#msg139471 date=1135677547]
Now you're just grasping for straws, and you know it.  The point holds true for people in a monogomous relationship as much as it does for the girl who fucks the next guy who comes through the door.
[/quote]

No I'm not. You're actively selected a subset of women. You're not saying all women, you're commenting on a subset of women. People in monogomous relationships don't "fuck the next person who comes through the door."
[/quote]
Sure she does... if the next guy to come through the door is her partner.  :P  And you're still holding too literally to my words: the point was, if she can't handle the kid, she shouldn't be having too much fun.

[quote author=dxoigmn link=topic=13630.msg139419#msg139419 date=1135633111]
Shouldn't, wouldn't, couldn't...shit happens. And if she does happen to be in one of those oh-so-generous states, then yes that may be an option. And maybe she could give the child up for adoption; but the girl, brought up through the adoption system, knows how horrible a life that was. Why would she do that? It is almost like a never-ending circle (provided each baby is a girl). She has faced the facts, and because she has no choice, her last choice is then to take her life and subsequently her fetus'.
[/quote]
The point is that it isn't her choice to take another's life.  It is that person's.  By aborting the baby, she is making that choice for her child.  As Grok has pointed out, it gives her unequal rights.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139519#msg139519 date=1135716099]
The point is that it isn't her choice to take another's life
[/quote]

And that is, of course, your opinion. One that many people, and as the law stands, apparently the majority of the people do not agree with.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139519#msg139519 date=1135716099]
The point is that it isn't her choice to take another's life
[/quote]
thats an iffy way to word it.
cancels out possibility/justification of execution.
Thats why i dont like pro-life/choice stickers

pro-life means NO death
pro-choice means kill whoever you chose

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139519#msg139519 date=1135716099]
The point is that it isn't her choice to take another's life.  It is that person's.  By aborting the baby, she is making that choice for her child.  As Grok has pointed out, it gives her unequal rights.
[/quote]

As Grok has pointed out, the father should be able to take the life of the fetus as well. Makes sense. Well, either that, or void fathership.

And the baby is not capable of making choices. So someone else has to do it. Actually someone else will do it until the age of 18 in most places.

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg139528#msg139528 date=1135718447]

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139519#msg139519 date=1135716099]
The point is that it isn't her choice to take another's life
[/quote]
thats an iffy way to word it.
cancels out possibility/justification of execution.
Thats why i dont like pro-life/choice stickers

pro-life means NO death
pro-choice means kill whoever you chose
[/quote]

You're right; that isn't the way I intended to word it.

Rather, I was attempting to express the idea I articulated in my first post: abortion is the consequence of no action on the part of the person who is being aborted.  Because that person has done nothing to deserve death, what right does anyone have to give death to that person?

OTOH, a person convicted and sentenced to death has done something knowingly violating society's standards, and also done so knowing that death is a potential punishment for committing such an act.  Following through in that act is implicit acceptance of a death penalty.

The criminal accepts death when he or she commits a crime that has a death penalty associated to it.  The unborn child never seeks death on his or her own (except in miscarriage cases, in which it's still iffy whether the child is seeking death).

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139496#msg139496 date=1135705313]
[quote author=Thing [vL] link=topic=13630.msg139487#msg139487 date=1135702409]
For me, the most logical stance is that all abortions and executions are justifiable.
[/quote]

Could you define justifiable? That *you* could agree with them, that *someone* could agree with them, or something else?


[/quote]

I'm saying it's OK with me.  Kill them all.

[quote author=Thing [vL] link=topic=13630.msg139546#msg139546 date=1135723744]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139496#msg139496 date=1135705313]
[quote author=Thing [vL] link=topic=13630.msg139487#msg139487 date=1135702409]
For me, the most logical stance is that all abortions and executions are justifiable.
[/quote]

Could you define justifiable? That *you* could agree with them, that *someone* could agree with them, or something else?
[/quote]

I'm saying it's OK with me.  Kill them all.
[/quote]
You would.  Look at that little gnome woman.  No wonder you're mad at the world.  :P

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139545#msg139545 date=1135723237]
Rather, I was attempting to express the idea I articulated in my first post: abortion is the consequence of no action on the part of the person who is being aborted.  Because that person has done nothing to deserve death, what right does anyone have to give death to that person?
[/quote]

Some ways of seeing it:

1. That is not a person! It's a bunch of cells, like a wart, and it is getting removed.

2. There is an intended way of things, and in that way, no person is being created. Abortion is setting things right as had there never been someone there. No loss of life if the life would not have been created without the man/woman deciding on abortion.

Same applies for uh...killing criminaly peoples

[quote author=WoOdTroll link=topic=13630.msg139583#msg139583 date=1135740283]
Adron said it all. Its not a person. Therefore its not a crime.

Lock this thread.
[/quote]
It is a soon-to-be person.

Anyway I've heard that you cant have an abortion if you wait too long. So its not going to be anywhere near person like by that time.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139567#msg139567 date=1135735808]
2. There is an intended way of things, and in that way, no person is being created. Abortion is setting things right as had there never been someone there. No loss of life if the life would not have been created without the man/woman deciding on abortion.
[/quote]

Okay, so for a girl who got raped, by your logic, if she carries the child to term and he or she grows up to, say, 18 -- it's still right to kill them?  Because, by your logic, that life would not have been created because (presumably) neither wanted the girl to get pregnant as a result of the rape.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139599#msg139599 date=1135742174]
Okay, so for a girl who got raped, by your logic, if she carries the child to term and he or she grows up to, say, 18 -- it's still right to kill them?  Because, by your logic, that life would not have been created because (presumably) neither wanted the girl to get pregnant as a result of the rape.
[/quote]

Philosophically, yes. Though you would have to undo all those effects on the world as well.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139601#msg139601 date=1135742338]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139599#msg139599 date=1135742174]
Okay, so for a girl who got raped, by your logic, if she carries the child to term and he or she grows up to, say, 18 -- it's still right to kill them?  Because, by your logic, that life would not have been created because (presumably) neither wanted the girl to get pregnant as a result of the rape.
[/quote]

Philosophically, yes. Though you would have to undo all those effects on the world as well.
[/quote]

OK.  So then I hope that the rest of the people here can see my problem with this position.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139602#msg139602 date=1135742505]
OK.  So then I hope that the rest of the people here can see my problem with this position.
[/quote]

It's not really the position I am arguing, I am more for the wart one, but it is a philosophically good position I would say.

You all know my opinion. I'm not going to post it here though, because its just flamebait.

[quote author=Joe link=topic=13630.msg139605#msg139605 date=1135743583]
You all know my opinion. I'm not going to post it here though, because its just flamebait.
[/quote]Then why post?

Killing an 17 year old would be killing a fully functiong born human, no?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=topic=13630.msg139612#msg139612 date=1135753265]
[quote author=Joe link=topic=13630.msg139605#msg139605 date=1135743583]
You all know my opinion. I'm not going to post it here though, because its just flamebait.
[/quote]Then why post?

Killing an 17 year old would be killing a fully functiong born human, no?
[/quote]
One would think, but by Adron's logic it's okay as long as that 17-y/o was not intended to be born, because the parents didn't intend to conceive.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139619#msg139619 date=1135760551]
One would think, but by Adron's logic it's okay as long as that 17-y/o was not intended to be born, because the parents didn't intend to conceive.
[/quote]

Indeed. Picture multiple timelines - which one do we want to be on? If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power, save all those jews from their deaths, but preventing the state of Israel and a lot of people there from being created...

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139621#msg139621 date=1135763479]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139619#msg139619 date=1135760551]
One would think, but by Adron's logic it's okay as long as that 17-y/o was not intended to be born, because the parents didn't intend to conceive.
[/quote]

Indeed. Picture multiple timelines - which one do we want to be on? If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he came to power, save all those jews from their deaths, but preventing the state of Israel and a lot of people there from being created...
[/quote]

So then, by extension of your logic, you're a hypocrite unless you kill yourself to prevent you from skewing the timeline any further.  By your logic, since nothing ever intended the human race to be borne (at least, I'm operating under your evolutionist assumptions -- if you believe in a creator, then this is not the case), because there is no conscious or necessary thought to the development of species through evolution; it is simply a random process.

I used to be opposed to abortion, but I'm not anymore. The simple reason is this: it's none of my business.

I think there are good arguments for and against abortion. I also think that there is no clear consensus, and no obvious possibility for compromise. For that reason, I don't think it's the government's place to get involved - other than to set appropriate limits based on what we understand about foetal development.

Whether or not to have an abortion should be a personal choice, and I oppose any legislation that restricts that choice unnecessarily.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg139624#msg139624 date=1135782753]
So then, by extension of your logic, you're a hypocrite unless you kill yourself to prevent you from skewing the timeline any further.  By your logic, since nothing ever intended the human race to be borne (at least, I'm operating under your evolutionist assumptions -- if you believe in a creator, then this is not the case), because there is no conscious or necessary thought to the development of species through evolution; it is simply a random process.
[/quote]

I am absolutely not a hypocrite. Skewing the timeline is not necessarily bad. It just has consequences. Just as having or not having an abortion has consequences.

Now for your hypocrite test, MyndFyre: By using a contraceptive when having sex with a girl at the right time, you effectively prevent a human from being born. The normal, uninterrupted outcome of sex at that time is the creation of a human being. One particular egg and one particular sperm who would otherwise naturally have become a rational, reasonable, thinking being are instead destroyed, murdered. You must be against all forms of contraceptives.

I don't know if this has been linked yet, so here it is (again):

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/03/execution.dna.ap/index.html

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13630.msg140265#msg140265 date=1136312280]
I don't know if this has been linked yet, so here it is (again):

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/01/03/execution.dna.ap/index.html
[/quote]

Hard to believe that guy could rape anyone.  He looks like a nerd.  You'd think he wouldn't know how.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg139643#msg139643 date=1135796672]
Now for your hypocrite test, MyndFyre: By using a contraceptive when having sex with a girl at the right time, you effectively prevent a human from being born. The normal, uninterrupted outcome of sex at that time is the creation of a human being. [/quote]
Except that I am preventing two pieces of organic tissue that can not develop into anything independently from merging.  You are killing something that will independently develop into a rational being.

We know that abortion is not a natural process (the natural process is called "miscarriage").  No other animals abort their young; some might eat others' young, and perhaps the Maddox argument simply follows this chain of logic (against abortion, but for killing babies).

Once you have conception, you have a being that will develop and grow on its own; it simply needs to rent space in the mother's body for a while.  We're talking about taking the life of that being -- which was actually the result of the mother's choice -- simply for the convenience of the mother.

So, my argument against abortion falls entirely under the realm of expectant mothers who have consensual sex, protected or not, whose life (note I said "life," not "livelihood" -- we have a right to life and to pursue happiness) is not threatened by the pregnancy.  I believe that this is the overwhelming majority of cases.

I would also just like to say that if a young, teenage girl gets pregnant when having protected sex or on the pill, she should sue the condom or drug manufacturer for the cost of providing for the child.  That would be an interesting trial -- I mean, with all the warning labels and common knowledge that these treatments aren't risk-free.  You'd think someone would have done that and won by now, and you know it would be a high-profile case.  *shrug*

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg140308#msg140308 date=1136330654]
Except that I am preventing two pieces of organic tissue that can not develop into anything independently from merging.  You are killing something that will independently develop into a rational being.
[/quote]

That is incorrect. It will not independently develop into a rational being. It requires the mother to provide all of the building materials. Take it, put it in a box, and see if it independently develops into a rational being?

Under favorable circumstances, yes, it might develop into a rational being. Human bodies have evolved to offer such favorable circumstances. They have also evolved to offer favorable circumstances for two particular living cells, ensuring that egg and sperm will meet and develop into a rational being. Unless there is a condom...


[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg140308#msg140308 date=1136330654]We know that abortion is not a natural process (the natural process is called "miscarriage").  No other animals abort their young; some might eat others' young, and perhaps the Maddox argument simply follows this chain of logic (against abortion, but for killing babies).
[/quote]

Some animals naturally eat their own young. Miscarriage vs abortion is a difference of intents only. You speak about "natural"... I am not sure what kind of "natural" you are talking about - is it a claim of pregnancy never naturally spontaneously aborting (incorrect, see miscarriage!) or a claim of mother never naturally not wanting a baby (incorrect, or we wouldn't see abortions!). Perhaps the most common sequence of events? Uncommon is bad?


[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg140308#msg140308 date=1136330654]Once you have conception, you have a being that will develop and grow on its own; it simply needs to rent space in the mother's body for a while.  We're talking about taking the life of that being -- which was actually the result of the mother's choice -- simply for the convenience of the mother.
[/quote]

And as above, this is wrong. You do not have a being that will develop and grow on its own. Require a specific environment, specific treatment, specific nurturing, and any cell that you could clone a new being is equally worth preserving.

And the reasoning for why this is is an entirely different matter to discuss. All that is certain is that the abortion is for the better, where "better" could mean that the fetus has a defect that would cause unlimited suffering. Saying that it happens only for the convenience of the mother is incorrect.

And then finally, the phrases "taking the life of that being", "a being that will develop and grow on its own", could be applied to a lot of other things. Mosquitos? Bacteria? Flower seeds? Pretty phrases though.

Adding to what Adron said, the mother's body aborts a signficant number of pregnancies on their own, and we shrug these off as natural miscarriages.  Nobody calls them murder, but the mother's body is responsible.  She did not choose the miscarriage, but was responsible for it.  So under our laws, miscarriages should be manslaughter.  Is that what you want?

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13630.msg140482#msg140482 date=1136396242]
Adding to what Adron said, the mother's body aborts a signficant number of pregnancies on their own, and we shrug these off as natural miscarriages.  Nobody calls them murder, but the mother's body is responsible.  She did not choose the miscarriage, but was responsible for it.  So under our laws, miscarriages should be manslaughter.  Is that what you want?
[/quote]Maybe involuntary manslaughter.
Isn't that possible now even?  i.e. you hit your pregnant wife & she miscarries & you get charged?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg140454#msg140454 date=1136382292]
And the reasoning for why this is is an entirely different matter to discuss. All that is certain is that the abortion is for the better, where "better" could mean that the fetus has a defect that would cause unlimited suffering. Saying that it happens only for the convenience of the mother is incorrect.
[/quote]
So should we kill off children who are born with mental defects?  What about if we determine a child is autistic around the age of 40 months (the typical time of determining this)?  What about mental retardation discovered at 60 months?  Clearly, you believe we should slaughter these people for their own good and for the good of society, and so we have a difference of opinion.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13630.msg140482#msg140482 date=1136396242]
Adding to what Adron said, the mother's body aborts a signficant number of pregnancies on their own, and we shrug these off as natural miscarriages.  Nobody calls them murder, but the mother's body is responsible.  She did not choose the miscarriage, but was responsible for it.  So under our laws, miscarriages should be manslaughter.  Is that what you want?
[/quote]
The mother's body was responsible for it; the mother was not. 

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg140454#msg140454 date=1136382292]
That is incorrect. It will not independently develop into a rational being. It requires the mother to provide all of the building materials. Take it, put it in a box, and see if it independently develops into a rational being?
[/quote]
Well, I don't think that this experiment is one we would condone as ethical.  However, despite this, there is some evidence that even children raised completely in the wild can survive and be rational.  Putting a child in a box would be an unnatural exercise; rational action is seen throughout animals and is the foundation for the operant conditioning method of learning.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg140454#msg140454 date=1136382292]
Miscarriage vs abortion is a difference of intents only.
[/quote]
Preciesly correct.  Miscarriage vs. abortion is similar to the difference between someone having a heart attack and being shot in the head -- the former is done without intent to kill a person, while the latter is done with the intent to do so.  We don't like heart attacks, but they're a fact of life, and we try to prevent them; we don't like people being shot in the head, and there is a punishment that goes along with doing that.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg140454#msg140454 date=1136382292]
You speak about "natural"... I am not sure what kind of "natural" you are talking about - is it a claim of pregnancy never naturally spontaneously aborting (incorrect, see miscarriage!) or a claim of mother never naturally not wanting a baby (incorrect, or we wouldn't see abortions!). Perhaps the most common sequence of events? Uncommon is bad?
[/quote]
Maybe you need to re-read what I said.  I said natural abortions are not abortions, they're miscarriages.  But let me clarify my intent further for you.

In animals, we never see a pregnant animal abort its own child.  There may be instances where the pregnant animal is killed, thus killing the unborn child animal as well.  There may also be miscarriages.  However, the mother animal does not go to a clinic three months after being impregnated to find a doctor and decide that she does not want to have her child.  That is the distinction I make between a "natural" phenomenon -- miscarriages -- and an unnatural abortion.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg140454#msg140454 date=1136382292]
And the reasoning for why this is is an entirely different matter to discuss. All that is certain is that the abortion is for the better, where "better" could mean that the fetus has a defect that would cause unlimited suffering. Saying that it happens only for the convenience of the mother is incorrect.
[/quote]
So you're saying it's more convenient for the child, too?  I think that this statement is incorrect.  And, furthermore, it should be up to the child to decide.  And that's why government must enact a law against abortion: because the child cannot speak for himself or herself, it is the government's responsibility to protect the child until he or she can.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg140532#msg140532 date=1136422558]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=13630.msg140454#msg140454 date=1136382292]
That is incorrect. It will not independently develop into a rational being. It requires the mother to provide all of the building materials. Take it, put it in a box, and see if it independently develops into a rational being?
[/quote]
Well, I don't think that this experiment is one we would condone as ethical.  However, despite this, there is some evidence that even children raised completely in the wild can survive and be rational.  Putting a child in a box would be an unnatural exercise; rational action is seen throughout animals and is the foundation for the operant conditioning method of learning.
[/quote]


I think he was referring to a foetus, rather than a child.

[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg140532#msg140532 date=1136422558]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=13630.msg140482#msg140482 date=1136396242]
Adding to what Adron said, the mother's body aborts a signficant number of pregnancies on their own, and we shrug these off as natural miscarriages.  Nobody calls them murder, but the mother's body is responsible.  She did not choose the miscarriage, but was responsible for it.  So under our laws, miscarriages should be manslaughter.  Is that what you want?
[/quote]
The mother's body was responsible for it; the mother was not. 
[/quote]

Since involuntary manslaughter does not require that a thought process be invoked in order for someone's death to result in an indictment, I don't see the difference here.  People are occasionally charged with involuntary manslaughter for failure to act in such a way that a life may be saved.

[quote author=Grok link=topic=13630.msg140623#msg140623 date=1136480236]
[quote author=MyndFyre link=topic=13630.msg140532#msg140532 date=1136422558]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=13630.msg140482#msg140482 date=1136396242]
Adding to what Adron said, the mother's body aborts a signficant number of pregnancies on their own, and we shrug these off as natural miscarriages.  Nobody calls them murder, but the mother's body is responsible.  She did not choose the miscarriage, but was responsible for it.  So under our laws, miscarriages should be manslaughter.  Is that what you want?
[/quote]
The mother's body was responsible for it; the mother was not. 
[/quote]

Since involuntary manslaughter does not require that a thought process be invoked in order for someone's death to result in an indictment, I don't see the difference here.  People are occasionally charged with involuntary manslaughter for failure to act in such a way that a life may be saved.
[/quote]
I suggest you read the definition of involuntary manslaughter -- it includes recklessness or criminal negligence.  That's why a drunk driver who kills someone can be branded "reckless" and charged with involuntary or voluntary manslaughter, where a woman who has a miscarriage cannot.

Not eating to a point that it aborts the child would be criminal negligence (this was suggested earlier as a means by which an unwanting parent can abort the child "naturally"):
[quote]While the specifics of negligence may vary from one jurisdiction to another, it is generally defined as failure to exercise a reasonable level of precaution given the circumstances and so may include both acts and omissions.[/quote]

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=13630.msg140570#msg140570 date=1136437453]
I think he was referring to a foetus, rather than a child.
[/quote]

Yes, this was indeed what I was referring to. The foetus, which stuck in a condom and thrown away has no more chance of turning into a rational being than the sperm merging with the egg had. A fetus actually has less ability to move around independently than the poor sperm.

And no, I did not indicate anything about autistic children in my post. I said that if no abortion would cause unlimited suffering, and abortion would spare that suffering, then surely abortion would be the better option. Unlimited suffering is a lot of suffering.

Pregnant wild animals do not go to a doctor to abort their children when it would be for the better. Neither do they go to the doctor to be treated for diseases or have surgery to fix injuries. If unnatural is that bad, I guess we should just forbid medicine ;)