When Does Life Begin?

Bartikus wrote:

Who believes having an abortion as opposed to avoiding an unplanned pregnancy is the moral high ground?

Very few.

The belief that the mother not the state is the legal high ground. As much as you wish it were true, the legal high ground is not based on the moral high ground, nor should it.

Bartikus wrote:

Whose moral position thinks abortion is better? Nobody I know. Whose making that plea?

If you are speaking in general terms, you're question could only hope to get back mixed answers. People's circumstances are different. Im absolutely positive that in many cases, abortion might not be the best choice, but that's not for you nor me to decide. the only person fit to make that decision is the woman.

Bartikus wrote:

The only reason it would'nt is because the unborn cannot fight back and because no one will fight in their stead. Currently not even the law.

If fighting in it's stead includes what happens after birth, the pro-life camp lowers the bar once again.

The interests of the woman, trump that of the unborn.

Bartikus wrote:

We won't know if the numbers are reduced until then will we....?How do you know they won't here in the U.S?

The burden of proof lies with the pro-life camp. Prove that the numbers will represent a significant change, prove an improvement, prove that other negitive numbers such as the number of abandoned children can be delt with.

Your place to prove.

Bartikus wrote:

What do you consider substantial regarding the unborn?(if your not sure if they are even human beings) How much is substantial when treated and viewed like common garbage, a clump of cells, a ball of skin and tissue, like a tapeworm...etc.

Fortunate for us men we don't have the burden of making what you seem to think i an easy choice for these sadistic individuals who have no respect for life.

However, science is almost there. Soon, you'll be able to go to the clinic and save all those precious embryos. You can bring them to birth. you can name them, and you can take care of them after too.

Don't talk about objectifying, you're not qualified.

Bartikus wrote:

You want to reduce abortions?

Begin by calling it what it is........a human being. Wanted or not...planned or unplanned .............a human life it remains. That's a great place to start.

Typical pro-life retroactive crap. The great place to start is being proactive with sex education and helping out those already in need of homes.

Addressing abortion comes somewhere later down the line, after you've proven yourself elsewhere.

T
K
O

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Whether religion is or is not a superstition has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Au contraire, religion being shown as superstition amplifies the absurdity of claiming a human being is a fertilized egg because a ghost told you.
Au dweebaire. What if the fertilized egg is, in fact, a human being?

A position I have held even through my younger atheist days.

Nothing told me. It's just obvious.
Shirley if it's that obvious you'll have no trouble presenting the obvious empirically.

Go ahead now........
Shirley's not here. She had to go to work early.

I'll ask Carole when she wakes up.

But we'll probably answer by saying it's intuitive. That's probably why we offer words of comfort when a woman miscarries. Intuitive.

And we would no doubt mention the fact that we have never heard of a fertilized human egg, left to its natural course, developing into anything else.

Modern technological interventions notwithstanding, of course.

Your intuition, as obvious as it might appear to you, cannot pass the muster of objective empiricism, however your intuition can pass muster as superstition/religion.

In the matter of assessing a human fertilized egg versus a fully-fledged human being: since you eschewed objective empiricism and relied on intuition in your younger atheist days, I question your belief that you were an atheist.

BTW should I take it that you have no qualms about in vitro fertilized human eggs being feed to your goldfish?

0 Replies

An interesting aside:

Subhash Mukhopadhyay became the first physician in India, and the second in the world to perform IVF.

Facing social ostracism, bureaucratic negligence, reprimand and insult instead of recognition from the Marxist West Bengal government and refusal of the Government of India to allow him to attend international conferences, Mukhopadhyay committed suicide in 1981.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_vitro_fertilization

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Chumly wrote:
neologist wrote:
Whether religion is or is not a superstition has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Au contraire, religion being shown as superstition amplifies the absurdity of claiming a human being is a fertilized egg because a ghost told you.
Au dweebaire. What if the fertilized egg is, in fact, a human being?

A position I have held even through my younger atheist days.

Nothing told me. It's just obvious.
Shirley if it's that obvious you'll have no trouble presenting the obvious empirically.

Go ahead now........
Shirley's not here. She had to go to work early.

I'll ask Carole when she wakes up.

But we'll probably answer by saying it's intuitive. That's probably why we offer words of comfort when a woman miscarries. Intuitive.

And we would no doubt mention the fact that we have never heard of a fertilized human egg, left to its natural course, developing into anything else.

Modern technological interventions notwithstanding, of course.
Your intuition, as obvious as it might appear to you, cannot pass the muster of objective empiricism, however your intuition can pass muster as superstition/religion.

In the matter of assessing a human fertilized egg versus a fully-fledged human being: since you eschewed objective empiricism and relied on intuition in your younger atheist days, I question your belief that you were an atheist.

Did you just say the belief that a fertilized human egg will develop into a human is superstition?

Chumly wrote:

BTW should I take it that you have no qualms about in vitro fertilized human eggs being feed to your goldfish?

Is there such a thing as a double or triple non sequitur?

I enjoy your posts, Chumly. They represent a dimension of reality seldom seen.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

RL - As far as your line of questioning goes for JPB, why does the his moral opinion hinge on his belief of what the unborn is?

T
K
O

The whole abortion question is over what the unborn is.

If the unborn is a living human being , then it should be illegal to kill it.

If the unborn is just a clump of cells, like a wart, there is nobody on the pro-life side who would consider it immoral to dispose of it.

So why would someone who supports legal abortion consider it to be immoral?

Is it immoral to pop a zit, or remove a mole?

JPB's stated position was support for legal abortion , but a personal position that having one was immoral.

Do you consider those to be contradictory? I do.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
RL - As far as your line of questioning goes for JPB, why does the his moral opinion hinge on his belief of what the unborn is?

T
K
O

The whole abortion question is over what the unborn is.

first, "The abortion question" suggests that there is only one question invlvoed, and secondly, no the question of "what the unborn is" is not what the issue hinges on.

real life wrote:

If the unborn is a living human being , then it should be illegal to kill it.

Problems for legal forms of death such as war, police action, capitol punishment by these terms.

before you remind me of the difference between a criminal found guilty by a jury of their peers and a embryo, allow me to remind you that the guilty part is what makes your statement true, the choice of death over any other punish ment is an acknoledgement that a state's intrest can provide a justification for death.

real life wrote:

If the unborn is just a clump of cells, like a wart, there is nobody on the pro-life side who would consider it immoral to dispose of it.

So why would someone who supports legal abortion consider it to be immoral?

They might concider it immoral for any number of reasons. They hold suspect the woman's abilities to reaise a child.

Legality is not built on morality.

real life wrote:

Is it immoral to pop a zit, or remove a mole?

It is if it's not your zit or mole, and whoever's zit or mole it is doesnt want you to.

real life wrote:

JPB's stated position was support for legal abortion , but a personal position that having one was immoral.

So what?

real life wrote:

Do you consider those to be contradictory? I do.

I don't.

I find many things immoral. Does it meant that it is the place of law to step in. My veiws of morality are no greater than anyone else's.

I don't find most popular music to be very morally positive, does it mean that a law should be written? Ethically speaking, the music holds no threat to societal order, and I am in no way forced to listen to it.

If I had kids, and some 17 year old pop starlet was singing songs with a sexual undertone, I may find it immoral. This doesn't mean I write my congressman or congresswoman to complain, it means I open up a private dialogue with my child.

Returning to abortion.

You may see abortion, and find it morally wrong for the individual to have an abortion. Their actions for better or worse are theirs, and as much as you might hate it, you'll always be unqualified to make the choice for them.

T
K
O

0 Replies

real life wrote:

So why would someone who supports legal abortion consider it to be immoral?

Sorry to cherry-pick but there's a big issue right there. Do you think that things you find immoral should be illegal? I think you probably do, even if you deny it, and of course it all stems from your (probably wrong) assumption that there is an objective basis of morality, and your (almost certainly wrong) assumption that you have a way of knowing what that basis is, and what it wants.

0 Replies

The last two posts by Diest and EorI hit it right on the pin head. I'd like to see them respond to those very points.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

The last two posts by Diest and EorI hit it right on the pin head. I'd like to see them respond to those very points.

I would like to see you respond as to what, exactly, is right on the pin head.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

real life wrote:

So why would someone who supports legal abortion consider it to be immoral?

Sorry to cherry-pick but there's a big issue right there. Do you think that things you find immoral should be illegal? I think you probably do, even if you deny it, and of course it all stems from your (probably wrong) assumption that there is an objective basis of morality, and your (almost certainly wrong) assumption that you have a way of knowing what that basis is, and what it wants.

I've been waiting for someone to ask that very question.

No is the answer.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
RL - As far as your line of questioning goes for JPB, why does the his moral opinion hinge on his belief of what the unborn is?

T
K
O

The whole abortion question is over what the unborn is.

If the unborn is a living human being , then it should be illegal to kill it.

If the unborn is just a clump of cells, like a wart, there is nobody on the pro-life side who would consider it immoral to dispose of it.

So why would someone who supports legal abortion consider it to be immoral?

Is it immoral to pop a zit, or remove a mole?

JPB's stated position was support for legal abortion , but a personal position that having one was immoral.

Do you consider those to be contradictory? I do.

No, rl, the whole abortion question is NOT over what the unborn is. The whole abortion question is the attempt to balance conflicting moralities and the interests of the State. TKO's line in the sand explains it well.

In general, moral decisions are between the choice-maker, their conscience, and whatever power exists to judge those choices. You and I do not have that power. I consider a large number of things that I witness every day to be immoral including most of what is on television and much of what is posted on the internet. That doesn't mean I think any of it should be illegal. I strongly oppose the intervention of the government into moral decisions made by individuals unless those decisions impact society as a whole. The greater impact on society as a whole in making abortions illegal is putting poor women in the position of risking their lives to have a procedure that they will have regardless or, (even worse if you are right and the numbers of abortions are reduced) filling the planet with additional large numbers of unwanted, unloved, and uncared for "persons".

I fully appreciate the care and consideration that was given to the issue by the Justices. This was a compassionate evaluation on all sides of the debate.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
RL - As far as your line of questioning goes for JPB, why does the his moral opinion hinge on his belief of what the unborn is?

T
K
O

The whole abortion question is over what the unborn is.

If the unborn is a living human being , then it should be illegal to kill it.

If the unborn is just a clump of cells, like a wart, there is nobody on the pro-life side who would consider it immoral to dispose of it.

So why would someone who supports legal abortion consider it to be immoral?

Is it immoral to pop a zit, or remove a mole?

JPB's stated position was support for legal abortion , but a personal position that having one was immoral.

Do you consider those to be contradictory? I do.

No, rl, the whole abortion question is NOT over what the unborn is. The whole abortion question is the attempt to balance conflicting moralities and the interests of the State. TKO's line in the sand explains it well.

In general, moral decisions are between the choice-maker, their conscience, and whatever power exists to judge those choices. You and I do not have that power. I consider a large number of things that I witness every day to be immoral including most of what is on television and much of what is posted on the internet. That doesn't mean I think any of it should be illegal. I strongly oppose the intervention of the government into moral decisions made by individuals unless those decisions impact society as a whole. The greater impact on society as a whole in making abortions illegal is putting poor women in the position of risking their lives to have a procedure that they will have regardless or, (even worse if you are right and the numbers of abortions are reduced) filling the planet with additional large numbers of unwanted, unloved, and uncared for "persons".

I fully appreciate the care and consideration that was given to the issue by the Justices. This was a compassionate evaluation on all sides of the debate.

Then perhaps you will be so kind as to answer what I have asked you several times:

If the unborn is not a living human being, then why do YOU consider abortion to be immoral ?

0 Replies

Where did you see me say that it isn't? I believe I stated that I think the woman is the mother of a potential viable being. I don't consider it plucking a zit in the least. That's why I appreciate the moral dilemma, but see the greater societal impact on legislation that dis-proportionally impacts the poor and has the explicit intent of forcing women to carry to term those potential beings that are very likely to fall though the cracks of society.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
RL - As far as your line of questioning goes for JPB, why does the his moral opinion hinge on his belief of what the unborn is?

T
K
O

The whole abortion question is over what the unborn is.

no the question of "what the unborn is" is not what the issue hinges on.

According to the justices in Roe v Wade, if the personhood of the unborn is established, then the case for legal abortion 'collapses'.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

real life wrote:
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
RL - As far as your line of questioning goes for JPB, why does the his moral opinion hinge on his belief of what the unborn is?

T
K
O

The whole abortion question is over what the unborn is.

If the unborn is a living human being , then it should be illegal to kill it.

If the unborn is just a clump of cells, like a wart, there is nobody on the pro-life side who would consider it immoral to dispose of it.

So why would someone who supports legal abortion consider it to be immoral?

Is it immoral to pop a zit, or remove a mole?

JPB's stated position was support for legal abortion , but a personal position that having one was immoral.

Do you consider those to be contradictory? I do.

No, rl, the whole abortion question is NOT over what the unborn is. The whole abortion question is the attempt to balance conflicting moralities and the interests of the State. TKO's line in the sand explains it well.

In general, moral decisions are between the choice-maker, their conscience, and whatever power exists to judge those choices. You and I do not have that power. I consider a large number of things that I witness every day to be immoral including most of what is on television and much of what is posted on the internet. That doesn't mean I think any of it should be illegal. I strongly oppose the intervention of the government into moral decisions made by individuals unless those decisions impact society as a whole. The greater impact on society as a whole in making abortions illegal is putting poor women in the position of risking their lives to have a procedure that they will have regardless or, (even worse if you are right and the numbers of abortions are reduced) filling the planet with additional large numbers of unwanted, unloved, and uncared for "persons".

I fully appreciate the care and consideration that was given to the issue by the Justices. This was a compassionate evaluation on all sides of the debate.

Then perhaps you will be so kind as to answer what I have asked you several times:

If the unborn is not a living human being, then why do YOU consider abortion to be immoral ?

Where did you see me say that it isn't? I believe I stated that I think the woman is the mother of a potential viable being.

A 'potential viable being' is not the same as a 'living human being' is it?

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

real life wrote:
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
RL - As far as your line of questioning goes for JPB, why does the his moral opinion hinge on his belief of what the unborn is?

T
K
O

The whole abortion question is over what the unborn is.

If the unborn is a living human being , then it should be illegal to kill it.

If the unborn is just a clump of cells, like a wart, there is nobody on the pro-life side who would consider it immoral to dispose of it.

So why would someone who supports legal abortion consider it to be immoral?

Is it immoral to pop a zit, or remove a mole?

JPB's stated position was support for legal abortion , but a personal position that having one was immoral.

Do you consider those to be contradictory? I do.

No, rl, the whole abortion question is NOT over what the unborn is. The whole abortion question is the attempt to balance conflicting moralities and the interests of the State. TKO's line in the sand explains it well.

In general, moral decisions are between the choice-maker, their conscience, and whatever power exists to judge those choices. You and I do not have that power. I consider a large number of things that I witness every day to be immoral including most of what is on television and much of what is posted on the internet. That doesn't mean I think any of it should be illegal. I strongly oppose the intervention of the government into moral decisions made by individuals unless those decisions impact society as a whole. The greater impact on society as a whole in making abortions illegal is putting poor women in the position of risking their lives to have a procedure that they will have regardless or, (even worse if you are right and the numbers of abortions are reduced) filling the planet with additional large numbers of unwanted, unloved, and uncared for "persons".

I fully appreciate the care and consideration that was given to the issue by the Justices. This was a compassionate evaluation on all sides of the debate.

Then perhaps you will be so kind as to answer what I have asked you several times:

If the unborn is not a living human being, then why do YOU consider abortion to be immoral ?

Where did you see me say that it isn't? I believe I stated that I think the woman is the mother of a potential viable being.

A 'potential viable being' is not the same as a 'living human being' is it?

I have no conflict with the thesis presented in R v W for defining when the potential viable life becomes a human being. I don't consider it a 'living' human being until it is born.

If the unborn is not a 'living' human being until birth, do you support legal partial birth abortions up to the point of full birth?

0 Replies

Quote:

morality means a code of conduct held to be authoritative in matters of right and wrong, whether by society, philosophy, religion, or individual conscience. wiki source

real life wrote:

If the unborn is not a living human being, then why do YOU consider abortion to be immoral ?

Anything that prescribes to my sense of right and wrong as it applies to me is between me and my conscience, my maker (if there is such a thing beyond my parents), my philosophical outlook, and my society.

The role of laws in legislating morals in a non-religious platform (sharia in Islam or halakah in Judaism, for example) must balance societal (not individual) moral positions along with whatever constraints are put on its legal system. Much of common law comes originally from Aristotle's natural law and his position that societal ethics are best formulated from the position of the center. Laws formulated from an extreme position cannot be sustained (TKO's line in the sand, if you will).

Abortion violates my personal sense of right and wrong. It's a line I can not personally cross and live with my conscience. On the other hand, I have no right to impose my conservative morality on society, particularly when there are greater moral consequences to society as a whole than me forcing others to comply with my extreme sense of morality.

I believe it is immoral to kill any being not raised for that purpose (I eat meat). You, yourself disagree with me on the moral ramifications of capital punishment and wars of invasion. In some respects my moral position is even more conservative than yours. I personally can never see myself participating in what I consider to be an immoral act. But I can't have my way in all things. I have to balance that society has greater needs than cowtowing to my moral posture. You are comfortable where the line has been drawn in the sand as it relates to capital punishment whereas I would have it abolished. Society feels that there is a greater good to putting some criminals to death than not. It also feels that the balance of a woman's right to choose whether or not to carry an unborn child to term with the greater ramifications to society as a whole ends after the first trimester. Certainly there are those at both extremes, but the law is only sustainable at the center.

rl -- I don't ever expect you to come off the position you hold any more than I will ever come to accept capital punishment (I don't see the conflicting moralities). Neither of us (or anyone else, for that matter) can expect to impose our individual moralities on society when those positions come from an extreme.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If the unborn is not a 'living' human being until birth, do you support legal partial birth abortions up to the point of full birth?

Ah-- you must have grabbed that before I deleted it and I think I answered your question in my response above. Of course I don't support partial birth abortions -- that's an extreme position.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

The role of laws in legislating morals in a non-religious platform (sharia in Islam or halakah in Judaism, for example)

Correction -- sharia and halakah are examples of religious legal systems and are counter-examples rather than examples of non-religious platforms.

0 Replies

JPB wrote:

real life wrote:
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
JPB wrote:
real life wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
RL - As far as your line of questioning goes for JPB, why does the his moral opinion hinge on his belief of what the unborn is?

T
K
O

The whole abortion question is over what the unborn is.

If the unborn is a living human being , then it should be illegal to kill it.

If the unborn is just a clump of cells, like a wart, there is nobody on the pro-life side who would consider it immoral to dispose of it.

So why would someone who supports legal abortion consider it to be immoral?

Is it immoral to pop a zit, or remove a mole?

JPB's stated position was support for legal abortion , but a personal position that having one was immoral.

Do you consider those to be contradictory? I do.

No, rl, the whole abortion question is NOT over what the unborn is. The whole abortion question is the attempt to balance conflicting moralities and the interests of the State. TKO's line in the sand explains it well.

In general, moral decisions are between the choice-maker, their conscience, and whatever power exists to judge those choices. You and I do not have that power. I consider a large number of things that I witness every day to be immoral including most of what is on television and much of what is posted on the internet. That doesn't mean I think any of it should be illegal. I strongly oppose the intervention of the government into moral decisions made by individuals unless those decisions impact society as a whole. The greater impact on society as a whole in making abortions illegal is putting poor women in the position of risking their lives to have a procedure that they will have regardless or, (even worse if you are right and the numbers of abortions are reduced) filling the planet with additional large numbers of unwanted, unloved, and uncared for "persons".

I fully appreciate the care and consideration that was given to the issue by the Justices. This was a compassionate evaluation on all sides of the debate.

Then perhaps you will be so kind as to answer what I have asked you several times:

If the unborn is not a living human being, then why do YOU consider abortion to be immoral ?

Where did you see me say that it isn't? I believe I stated that I think the woman is the mother of a potential viable being.

A 'potential viable being' is not the same as a 'living human being' is it?

I have no conflict with the thesis presented in R v W for defining when the potential viable life becomes a human being. I don't consider it a 'living' human being until it is born.

If the unborn is not a 'living' human being until birth, do you support legal partial birth abortions up to the point of full birth?
........... Of course I don't support partial birth abortions -- that's an extreme position.

I am glad to hear that you don't support partial birth abortions, although it seems to conflict with your earlier statement that the unborn is not a living human being until it is born.

Perhaps you meant 'until the birth process begins'.

I'm not really sure what you meant.

-----------------------------------------

But since there are at least some circumstances under which you do NOT support legal abortion, EXACTLY when do you think it should be legal/illegal?

You mentioned the 'first trimester'.

Should abortion be illegal after that?

If not, then exactly when?

0 Replies

When Does Life Begin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know