real life wrote:Hi Wolf,
I am amazed that you cannot see the disgusting nature of your argument.
1. If a child coming into the world 'may' not be expected or even particularly wanted, isn't it better to end his chance at life? NO
That question doesn't exactly have such a clear cut answer, which is why I'm very wary of replying to these posts. Everyone here makes it out to be such a black and white topic, but it isn't. Very few topics are black and white and this one definitely isn't one of them.
In a Christian world where there is a God and there is an afterlife, surely in the end it doesn't really matter because God will sort things out? (Frankly, I've never actually liked that viewpoint but it is something I wanted to bring up in order to figure out what your viewpoint on it is).
As I stated before, environment is a key player in shaping one's destiny. If the environment is heavily biased towards leading that person down a path of sin or hardship, isn't a bit cruel to condemn them to that life?
Of course, the situation of preventing them from being condemned to a sinful life is based on an ideal situation in which we can determine the outcome of certain environmental factors. Seeing as we cannot do that, then my argument is defunct.
I'm surprised you didn't use that argument. It is equally as valid as all the others and adds even more power to your argument. For clearly, preventing someone from being born on the basis of something they might or might not do based on unclear and vague assumptions is even worse than doing so on clear, logical and perfectly valid assumptions.
The rest I cannot argue against. Frankly, I merely wanted to see what your opinion was without asking you, of course. Spontaneous declarations of your opinions in response to outrageous comments are far more honest and trustworthy than those that are made in response to deliberately asked questions.
However, I'm getting the faintest suspicion that you are treating abortion like a black and white subject (pro-choicers also). This is not a black and white subject, no matter what pro-life or pro-choice supporters would like to believe.
Making something illegal will not stop it from happening. In fact, making abortion illegal will endanger the life of the mother as well. If you do not care for her life, then your argument for caring for the life of that which has not been born yet has no validity.
May I remind you that the British only made Abortion legal when it became clear that its illegal status was forcing women to take unconventional, unhygenic and unsafe measures to abort a baby and thus endangering their lives? After all, though there is punishment for he who harms a mother and kills an unborn child in the process, as stated in the Bible, the punishment for killing the mother herself is even worse.
Yes, it is true, what the points I made can be thought of as disgusting. Furthermore, the points I made are based on the assumption that the human body is nothing more than a bunch of chemicals, a biological machine if you will and that emotions, feelings, morales, personalities are nothing more than survivical mechanisms to ensure that we do not go berserk and hinder our own chances of survival.
Frankly, I find that viewpoint rather frightening, intimidating and depressing. However, there is no evidence to suggest it is false. It is a terrible viewpoint, which as you so rightly suggested, can be used to commit even acts which are even more atrocious (which actually register as atrocious on my scale of things that I am horrified at, if you believe it or not).
You think you're frightened?
I've personally seen the products of the use of embryonic stem cells. Granted, they came from mice, but it didn't stop me from realising that the abortion argument is not as clear cut as you would think.
ES cells, the cells that would have gone on to make an entire thinking mouse with feelings and emotions and maybe even a mouse morale code, were stripped out from a blastocyst and used to make hybrid mice.
ES cells from two blastocysts, from two potential mice were combined to create one.
I ask you, what happened to the second potential mouse? Did it die? Is it still alive? It certainly lives on in the new hybrid mouse, but is that the same mouse it would have been if man had not interfered?
And it happens naturally too.
If two fertilised eggs are human beings and potential humans beings, then what happens when those two eggs fuse naturally? Does the new human being that is produced get two souls? Is it two humans in one body? Or was one potential human being's soul sacrificed for the other? Is the soul of one trapped in the body of the other?
There are still so many questions.
And what if you do abortions early enough that you can retrieve the ES cells? You can most certainly reverse the damage you've done, by putting the ES cells in an empty blastocyst and reimplanting it back in a willing mother.
It all boggles the mind. I wish pro-life people and pro-choice people would just think about these questions.
On the one hand, yes, I do share some of your views, more importantly the view that, "It is a shame that those who are aborted will never know the joys of living their lives on this Earth". On the other hand, I realise that the mothers must have a choice for their mental health could be in jeopardy or even that of the child that would have been aborted.
I'm sorry for rambling, but the very nature of abortion makes me think about both arguments and all possible arguments. It goes beyond the very notions of Murder or Choice or morality. It goes beyond black and white.
The argument is about the very nature of our bodies and what we are, not on a morale scale, but on a physical, psychological, philosophical and yes, even a spiritual level.
It may seem that I'm having a nervous break down right now, what with my very post's incoherence, but I assure you I am not. Hm, maybe I am. No, I assure you I am not.
Wow, this is awkward... how do I end this post? Urgh... maybe I should leave at this before I really do end up with a nervous breakdown.
