Abortion

[Aegnor]

Awwz, Thank you! You sound like a nice person as well!

Thanks! I really hope I am hehe.

[salvadevinemasse]

Awwz, Thank you! You sound like a nice person as well!

Thanks! I really hope I am hehe.

I think so!

[got tonkaed]

Anyways, my point here is not "what has a right to live" (though I think it's ridiculous that you're comparing a human child to cattle raised to be slaughtered), but rather, what our basic human psychological design tells us - and certainly, it tells us that the murder of other human beings is a no-no. It's hard-wired into us.

On the larger issue, I think Mother Teresa said it best:

"It is a poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you please."

To be fair im not exactly claiming that a cattle has more of a right than a born human child. Im just not counting the rights of something that is not as of yet born. I do make that distinction and given my lack of a framework of beliefs that include any inherent essence to an unborn human being, i dont think its that absurd.

Likewise i think its ridculous that hundreds of thousands of iraqis have died so that we can get cheaper gasoline. We are all wretched in regards to certain vices, we just argue against different ones i feel.

[OnlyAmbrose]

Im just not counting the rights of something that is not as of yet born

One thing I've always wondered is: where does the assumption that a child who has not yet left the womb possesses less of a right to live as anyone else come from?

In reading On Killing, I think I've found the answer. It's a book about the effects of killing and the human ability to kill, mostly taking observations from warfare and psychological studies.

Firstly, I'd like to know what makes an unborn infant less human. What is it about being outside of the womb which makes one more human? Is the trip down the birth canal somehow an experience necessary to humanity? Clearly not, or else C-section babies wouldn't be human. So what's the defining moment of humanity?

Some say it's when the umbilical cord, because that marks the point at which the baby is no longer dependent on its mother. But does this make sense? The baby has just as much of a mind of its own before the umbilical cord is cut as it does after. Is the ability to take care of oneself a mark of humanity? Certainly not, because a baby is equally dependent on the mother after the umbilical cord is cut as before it is.

So can you really define a moment that a child becomes human? Not really.

But why is this?

Isn't it clear that it's because the child is just as human before it is born as it is after? It has human DNA, DNA which is distinct from anyone else's in the world, including but not limited to the mother in whose care said baby rests.

So where does this idea come from? This idea that it's ok to kill a baby BEFORE it exits the mother, but it's infanticide to do so AFTER?

Simple psychology. It's far more acceptable to the human psyche to kill something which it cannot see. If there is a vision barrier, it becomes easy to trick one's own instincts into believing that what one is killing is not human, even if the genes clearly indicate that it is.

This is backed up by countless studies. It's comparable to the mental trauma of the man who pushes a button to launch a tomahawk missile and that of a Marine who shoots a bad guy in the face. The latter is going to suffer from some sort of mental trauma. The former is not.

Much the same, it's much more psychologically, and thus socially, acceptable to take a pill or whatever which will wash away an unwanted fetus (a fetus which possesses the full capability and genes to look very much like you and me) than it is to kill a newborn.

As always, I'm doing my best to stay secular in these debates, because I know that debating with atheists on religious grounds is fruitless. So please do me the courtesy of not calling me a Bible-beater or any other such nonsense.

And for the record, that's a gross oversimplification of the causes of the war in Iraq, but that's another thread I suppose.

[muy_thaiguy]

Im just not counting the rights of something that is not as of yet born

One thing I've always wondered is: where does the assumption that a child who has not yet left the womb possesses less of a right to live as anyone else come from?

In reading On Killing, I think I've found the answer. It's a book about the effects of killing and the human ability to kill, mostly taking observations from warfare and psychological studies.

Firstly, I'd like to know what makes an unborn infant less human. What is it about being outside of the womb which makes one less human? Is the trip down the birth canal somehow an experience necessary to humanity? Clearly not, or else C-section babies wouldn't be human. So what's the defining moment of humanity?

Some say it's when the umbilical cord, because that marks the point at which the baby is no longer dependent on its mother. But does this make sense? The baby has just as much of a mind of its own before the umbilical cord is cut as it does after. Is the ability to take care of oneself a mark of humanity? Certainly not, because a baby is equally dependent on the mother after the umbilical cord is cut as before it is.

So can you really define a moment that a child becomes human? Not really.

But why is this?

Isn't it clear that it's because the child is just as human before it is born as it is after? It has human DNA, DNA which is distinct from anyone else's in the world, including but not limited to the mother in whose care said baby rests.

So where does this idea come from? This idea that it's ok to kill a baby BEFORE it exits the mother, but it's infanticide to do so AFTER?

Simple psychology. It's far more acceptable to the human psyche to kill something which it cannot see. If there is a vision barrier, it becomes easy to trick one's own instincts into believing that what one is killing is not human, even if the genes clearly indicate that it is.

This is backed up by countless studies. It's comparable to the mental trauma of the man who pushes a button to launch a tomahawk missile and that of a Marine who shoots a bad guy in the face. The latter is going to suffer from some sort of mental trauma. The former is not.

Much the same, it's much more psychologically, and thus socially, acceptable to take a pill or whatever which will wash away an unwanted fetus (a fetus which possesses the full capability and genes to look very much like you and me) than it is to kill a newborn.

As always, I'm doing my best to stay secular in these debates, because I know that debating with atheists on religious grounds is fruitless. So please do me the courtesy of not calling me a Bible-beater or any other such nonsense.

And for the record, that's a gross oversimplification of the causes of the war in Iraq, but that's another thread I suppose.

One word, wow.

[got tonkaed]

One thing I've always wondered is: where does the assumption that a child who has not yet left the womb possesses less of a right to live as anyone else come from?

well to be fair i think it was probably started in some set of grey areas for instance...should a mother be put in potentially mortal danger so that an unborn baby can live? At least that is where some philosophical questions related to abortion probably exist, because there are (although perhaps rare) instances where value of life is taken into account.


I think its important to realize the difference (and i think its a very real one) between the potential capacity for livelyhood and the actual cognition of something that is already a living sentient being. This is not unprecedented in our society. We do live in a culture that is very consumer oriented, and there is a very large resource drain as a result. Unless technology is improved, our descendants may have potential difficulties as a result of us making choices that are merely concerned with the living as opposed to those who will or could live.

Now i dont think this is all that difficult of an idea to accept by in large. For better or worse, we prefer what is now to what can be. Now and i apologize for the first time in this post (because there will be other ones) for bringing religion into the debate. Because frankly it is a justifiable reason for holding that there must be a greater value attributed to potential life in that perspective. Outside of some kind of essential charcteristic such as the soul, the debate between potential of life and the life we are already living should not be that difficult to rationally analyze, especially considering the greater societal behaviors we already frequently display.

In reading On Killing, I think I've found the answer. It's a book about the effects of killing and the human ability to kill, mostly taking observations from warfare and psychological studies.

(A lot of the ideas which you propose about psychological studies and killing i have come across and agree with)

Firstly, I'd like to know what makes an unborn infant less human. What is it about being outside of the womb which makes one less human? Is the trip down the birth canal somehow an experience necessary to humanity? Clearly not, or else C-section babies wouldn't be human. So what's the defining moment of humanity?

Again for me it is the notion of something greater than feeling pain. Frankly its the idea that something can have some greater quality of life, which is dependent on being able to concieve of such a world around you. Yes we dont kill infants because we are capable of concieveing them of having these things, and because there really is a socially normative line of demarcation between outside of the womb and inside of the womb. Philosophically speaking, if im supposed to hold my position of choice, im not supposed to be against infantcide. Now forgive me for being philosophically inconsistent, but my socialization has made it very difficult for me to accept the notion of killing a baby.

Simply put there does seem to be a real social differnce between being out of the womb and being in it. It appears to be a socially constructed line, from teh periods when we really knew less scientifically about the entire birth process. Neither one of us determined this, but these are the rules that are played by in the society in which we both live.

However i think a deeper issue in our disagreement is you are talking about aborting a potential child....i see the issue as really as aborting a homo sapien. For me there is more to humanity than simply being born human. Romantic or pathetic i leave to you to decide (and i wont really be hurt if you think its pathetic...i do at times as well) For me humanity is in 2 parts....1) the ability to self actualize, to dream, to cognitize and come up with some sense of future and goals for it and 2) to develop some kind of empathy bond with other self actualized humans in an effort to better the human condition. Simply being born human does not necesarily equate to humanity if this is expanded on far enough.

Some say it's when the umbilical cord, because that marks the point at which the baby is no longer dependent on its mother. But does this make sense? The baby has just as much of a mind of its own before the umbilical cord is cut as it does after. Is the ability to take care of oneself a mark of humanity? Certainly not, because a baby is equally dependent on the mother after the umbilical cord is cut as before it is.

So can you really define a moment that a child becomes human? Not really.

(also to be fair...if i cannot by my logic define when a child becomes human, then the conception defintion does not equate humanity either, simply because something was there now that was not there then, does not necesitate humanity, nor does the coding of such a person, since the person does not exist yet, it certainly could die during the entire childbirth process)

You may have picked up by now that i dont really think of humanity as being achieved even at the birth, rather its a life long process. However i am much more attached to the notion that we give the attention to the children already born. Yes they need to be protected i dont disagree with this. But it for me is a different philosophical issue to protect a live baby than one who has the potential to be alive.

And to be fair....i really wouldnt mind if there were no abortion later on in the pregnancy as seemingly the more that the baby can cognitize the more it has a right to its own life. Simply the desire to avoid pain isnt significant though, because (although you dislike compairing animals to humans) even low level thinking animals can do such things, everything tries to avoid negative stimulus. Again i dont think theres a single pro choicer who wants more babies aborted or babies aborted later in the pregnancy.

Isn't it clear that it's because the child is just as human before it is born as it is after? It has human DNA, DNA which is distinct from anyone else's in the world, including but not limited to the mother in whose care said baby rests.

I feel that by now we both understand that we have different positions about this, and that for me philosophically having DNA really does not = to a right to life. This could certainly be extrapolated to many instances where human beings who are already alive should not be oppressed because they share a commonality with the rest of the humankind and you could also stretch it to animals again, because they can cognitize, which to me is a more human trait, than simply having human genetics, because plenty of people with human genetics do some pretty inhumane things.

So where does this idea come from? This idea that it's ok to kill a baby BEFORE it exits the mother, but it's infanticide to do so AFTER?

Simple psychology. It's far more acceptable to the human psyche to kill something which it cannot see. If there is a vision barrier, it becomes easy to trick one's own instincts into believing that what one is killing is not human, even if the genes clearly indicate that it is.

I dont really disagree with the psychology here/ but i would attribute it more to societal norms. Lets face it, infanticide has been commited by human beings for millenium. Even socieities which we appreciated, developed belief sets which revolved around babies being able to be killed who were marginalized in society. So genetically speaking...there clearly isnt anything which predisposes us to not like infanticide. However in this social system, we have decided its not a good practice, and i have no real problem with this.

Much the same, it's much more psychologically, and thus socially, acceptable to take a pill or whatever which will wash away an unwanted fetus (a fetus which possesses the full capability and genes to look very much like you and me) than it is to kill a newborn.

Again its not that i really disagree with you here, but the problem with your (And perhaps also my line of thinking) is that when we plaster such black and white definitions of as complex of a decision as it is to abort a child, which in the majority of cases one would hope it is, there will always be caveats and exceptions which cause black and white definitions to be overly problematic.

As always, I'm doing my best to stay secular in these debates, because I know that debating with atheists on religious grounds is fruitless. So please do me the courtesy of not calling me a Bible-beater or any other such nonsense.

My apologies if i have strayed across the line too frequently on religious grounds. However, although i know there are cases when such is not true, it is seemingly contigent that there must be some value on life that is placed outside of simply being human that often takes up a religious nature. If one removed any notion of a life other than this one, especially considering many of the behaviors of consumption that are already socially acceptable, these children which do not yet exist, would not have any pecking rights....which seemingly in my estimation, a pro life movement often gives to something unborn over something that is already alive.

And for the record, that's a gross oversimplification of the causes of the war in Iraq, but that's another thread I suppose.

Yes it was an oversimplification, however, in any such thread these oversimplifications are going to be the standard not the exception, neither one of us would have the time to develop every single one of our ideas fully. Hopefully you understood the intent of the idea....frankly although the abortion number is astonishgly high and i wish that there were far fewer, there are just as many lives tragically losted as a result of oppressive policies and systems of power which endemically lead a large group of the worlds population to live a very low standard of living compared to our own. I would discuss this in another thread...or by pm if you would prefer.

[OnlyAmbrose]

I think its important to realize the difference (and i think its a very real one) between the potential capacity for livelyhood and the actual cognition of something that is already a living sentient being.

A fetus isn't just a potential human, it is a human. Quite genetically identical to you and me.

Now and i apologize for the first time in this post (because there will be other ones) for bringing religion into the debate. Because frankly it is a justifiable reason for holding that there must be a greater value attributed to potential life in that perspective. Outside of some kind of essential charcteristic such as the soul, the debate between potential of life and the life we are already living should not be that difficult to rationally analyze, especially considering the greater societal behaviors we already frequently display.

I'm doing my best to keep souls out of this, because it's not a point we can mutually agree on.

What I'm talking about is killing a human. Not a potential human - a human. We're evolutionarily hard-wired to be unable to kill other humans. Abortion, like pushing a button which will launch a missile and kill someone far away, is a loophole in the system.

But it's against our nature nonetheless. A fetus is very much a human.

Philosophically speaking, if im supposed to hold my position of choice, im not supposed to be against infantcide. Now forgive me for being philosophically inconsistent, but my socialization has made it very difficult for me to accept the notion of killing a baby.

Precisely, and that's where i see hypocrisy in the pro-choice argument.

You hold that a woman should have the choice to make her life a helluvalot easier... but you place a deadline. Birth. And why do you place that deadline? Because it's easier for you to stomach.

It just seems like a horrible double-standard.

Simply put there does seem to be a real social differnce between being out of the womb and being in it.

Not entirely sure what you mean, but my point is that it has today become socially acceptable to abort before having given birth. It's as if the woman's stomach is a curtain behind which infanticide may take place where nobody is watching. Once that woman has given birth, however, that curtain can no longer exist, and society calls it murder.

However i think a deeper issue in our disagreement is you are talking about aborting a potential child....i see the issue as really as aborting a homo sapien.

Aborting a homo sapien (which you have just agreed is what an unborn child is) is homocide by the very definition of the word.

For me there is more to humanity than simply being born human. Romantic or pathetic i leave to you to decide (and i wont really be hurt if you think its pathetic...i do at times as well) For me humanity is in 2 parts....1) the ability to self actualize, to dream, to cognitize and come up with some sense of future and goals for it and 2) to develop some kind of empathy bond with other self actualized humans in an effort to better the human condition. Simply being born human does not necesarily equate to humanity if this is expanded on far enough.

You're bringing emotion into the debate, and feelings. What you believe philosophically and what actually happens are two different things.

If I can't bring souls in to the debate, you can't bring in humanism. Let's stay in the realm of psychology and biology, shall we?

You may have picked up by now that i dont really think of humanity as being achieved even at the birth, rather its a life long process.

A newborn has not had a life process. Why is it wrong to kill one of them?

[Cronus]

wow, this poll totally leaves out 1/6th of the world's population (China), which is both anti-Choice and anti-Life, because the state determines whether or not you can keep a child and is therefore not a choice for the mother at all.

[jay_a2j]

Enjoying the debate OA and GT.


Let me leave you with a phrase I coined... "A Mother's right to choose, doesn't trump a child's right to live"


carry on.....

[got tonkaed]

A fetus isn't just a potential human, it is a human. Quite genetically identical to you and me.

I feel we are belaboring this part of the discussion at this point. There really is not a tremendous amount of variation in quite a bit of the species on the planet. I do not really equate genetic makeup as a potential human to humanity. I feel this is a contention that we disagree on. I will grant you, that your position does allow you to be more consistent. However i do not agree with that position, for a variety of other reasons, so therefore i am compelled to come up with a slightly different position, which possibly is at times less consistent. I suppose it is the bed that i have laid for myself.

I'm doing my best to keep souls out of this, because it's not a point we can mutually agree on.

What I'm talking about is killing a human. Not a potential human - a human. We're evolutionarily hard-wired to be unable to kill other humans. Abortion, like pushing a button which will launch a missile and kill someone far away, is a loophole in the system.

But it's against our nature nonetheless. A fetus is very much a human.

You must realize that we disagree about the potentialness of the human as much as we disagree about the nature of the soul...at least for the purposes of this thread.

Now we could have quite a difference of opinion on the nature of human nature. You from much of your discussion seem to place more of an influence on genetics, where i place it on social circumstance, and other aspects of socialization. For instance...if i wasnt born in a country that had a free expression for religion, i quite possibly would have very different views as a result of the religion that was dominant in my area.

Im not convinced there is very much if anything in our "nature" which is not overcome or reshaped by socialization.

Precisely, and that's where i see hypocrisy in the pro-choice argument.

You hold that a woman should have the choice to make her life a helluvalot easier... but you place a deadline. Birth. And why do you place that deadline? Because it's easier for you to stomach.

It just seems like a horrible double-standard.

Well i will admit to you that there is the potential for something of a double standard. However painting the rosy picture i feel it provides more leeway for critical analysis of a lot of different things, whereas i feel your picture paints too much stagnation into something that is a dynamic fluid issue. Yes it is easier to stomach if a child is aborted before it could feel pain. Having any entity not feel pain is a better outcome for my money than having something feel pain. I am not worried about living in a vaccum of logical consistencies if the alternative does not logically and intutitvely suit me. There are certainly inconsistencies both in the pro-life argument, and in everyones views about everything after a whilie if one searches hard enough. Inconsistency seems to just show that there are difficult factors to discern in a variety of different situations.

Simply put there does seem to be a real social differnce between being out of the womb and being in it.

(what this means is that society as a whole percieves it to be different...or at least the social value currently ranking in charge does, even if a statstically significant number of society may think different

Not entirely sure what you mean, but my point is that it has today become socially acceptable to abort before having given birth. It's as if the woman's stomach is a curtain behind which infanticide may take place where nobody is watching. Once that woman has given birth, however, that curtain can no longer exist, and society calls it murder.

I dont really disagree with what you said. But i think this is the curtain behind which everything in the pro-life argument resides. The claim against pro-choice here is that society has all of the sudden made it acceptable to abort babies, and this is true to an extent...just because its legal doesnt reallly always make it accepted in certain social circumstances. However all of our beliefs are eventually social constructs, since we are social creatures. The same arguments you make, and the values and opinions behind them are socially constructed. Society is not "wrong" by a more objective standard here, though under your subjective criteria you could argue it is.

Aborting a homo sapien (which you have just agreed is what an unborn child is) is homocide by the very definition of the word.

eh you perhaps have caught me in my word choice here. But socially we do not see abortion as homicide so perhaps langauge lets us down here.

You're bringing emotion into the debate, and feelings. What you believe philosophically and what actually happens are two different things.

If I can't bring souls in to the debate, you can't bring in humanism. Let's stay in the realm of psychology and biology, shall we?

Well part of the difficulty for me will be that biology isnt a great ground for me to stand on, i dont have much of a defense for choice on that ground. However i see it as a more complex issue than simple biology, i see it as a social issue more than a psychological issue. And my frame of reference currently includes some aspect of humanism. I am in some respects emotional in some of my arguments, though i try to remain civil. I think to some degree the discussion that i make will be my discussion, and i invite you to continue discussing in whatever way you feel most appropriate, but for me to discuss things in somewhat of a biological vaccum, i will not be able to continue much longer.

A newborn has not had a life process. Why is it wrong to kill one of them

In short it is wrong because society says that it is so.

[High Guard]

I'm Pro-choice, in my opinion women should have a right to control their own body, plus 20 cells are just 20 cells.

[jay_a2j]

I'm Pro-choice, in my opinion women should have a right to control their own body, plus 20 cells are just 20 cells.

Its not "her own body" first of all, secondly I guess suicide is a-ok if your book (its the person doing what they want with their body) yet if a person attempts suicide and fails what happens to them?


I'm just so sick of the "It's her body" argument..... its an easy response to the sick practice of abortion. It justifies killing. It's absurd.



Oh, I respect your opinion....and this was mine.

[daddy1gringo]

Come on, VT, you're too smart for this. Luke 3:23: "...being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, son of..." and there follows the genaology. Joseph acknowledged him as his son, adopted him if you will, so any hereditary rights applied.

If he was indeed the Son of God, the lineage does not apply. Lineage is through blood, not by association.

If Jesus is the Son of God, he is not the Son of Joseph and by extension not a descendant of David. If Jesus is the Son of Joseph, then he has a mortal father and thus is not divine, but fulfills the prophecy.


You can't have it both ways here. Either he's a descendant or he isn't.

Example: Robin was more-or-less adopted by Batman. This does not make him a descendant of any of Bruce Wayne's ancestors.

Vt,Vt, you're not making sense. IF Jesus is the son of God, God can pass down the mantle of kingship any way he wants.

I was going to bring this up in the last post, but didn't, partly for the sake of length, but partly because it deals with what Jesus says in the bible, and you don't consider that authoritative, but you brought up the "IF Jesus is the son of God"

Once (Matthew 22:42ff) when the religious authorities were challenging Jesus, he said "let me ask you a question, the Messiah (Christos), whose Son is he?" They answered, "The son of David." He said to them, "then how does David, in the Spirit, call him 'Lord' saying: (Psalm 110: 1) 'The Lord said to my Lord, "sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool."' If David then calls him Lord, how is he his son?"

Jesus is the Messiah because he is the son of God. There had to be an inheritance of the kingly authority through David but that is most certainly satisfied by his being legally Joseph's son. In some ancient cultures, a natural son could be disinherited if the father chose, but an adopted son could not, because the father had chosen him. The inheritance of authority is the issue. To use your example, the fact that Robin doesn't become a biological descendant is irrelevant. If Bruce puts it in his will, Robin inherits ownwership and control of Wayne Enterprises.

That's not an explanation. "He's the descendant of David because God made it so" is a deflection. Show me the scripture that says God changed the rules for His son, and then I'll buy into it.

God didn't have to change anything. You're the one who insists that it has to be by blood. I dealt with that issue in the rest of the post.

What you're basically saying is that the fact that Joseph "adopted" Jesus as his son makes him the next in line for the throne. Where, in scripture, did Joseph officially adopt or name Jesus as his son?

The bible doesn't record Joseph going to city hall and filing adoption papers. But there are repeated times when the bystanders where Jesus taught or performed a miracle said "isn't this the carpenter's son?" Or look at the genaological quote I gave "being the son, as was supposed, of Joseph..."

Also, when Joseph found out that Mary was pregnant, he naturally assumed she had fooled around on him and was going to divorce her (the "betrothal" in that culture, unlike our engagements, required an official act to end it) When God told him what the real deal was, he took her as his wife. That means accepting the child as his.

Want more? You probably know the account (Luke 2:41-52) where Jesus at age 12 stayed behind in Jerusalem and "his parents" as the Bible refers to them, went back and found him talking with the elders in the temple. Mary says, "Your father and I have sought you anxiously."

We've had some good debates, vt, but you're really barking up a naked tree on this one.

Edit: Btw, I just noticed how you put words in my mouth and reduced my thourough explanation of the circumstances concerning passing down kingly and messianic authority, to "Deus ex machina", and I edited accordingly. Only my opening statement sounded a little like that.

Straw Man Maneuver: If you can't refute your opponent's argument, change it to something easily refutable that sounds like it and proceed to prove how strong you are by knocking down the straw man.

And yes, I am a little mad, but I'll get over it.

[vtmarik]

*shrugs* Ok.

See? That wasn't so hard. If you'd posted those to begin with, we wouldn't have had this little issue.

[daddy1gringo]

*shrugs* Ok.

See? That wasn't so hard. If you'd posted those to begin with, we wouldn't have had this little issue.

Didn't think I needed to; thought it was obvious.

[vtmarik]

*shrugs* Ok.

See? That wasn't so hard. If you'd posted those to begin with, we wouldn't have had this little issue.

Didn't think I needed to; thought it was obvious.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't know the scripture by heart.

[daddy1gringo]

*shrugs* Ok.

See? That wasn't so hard. If you'd posted those to begin with, we wouldn't have had this little issue.

Didn't think I needed to; thought it was obvious.

I'm not a Christian, so I don't know the scripture by heart.

Right, my mistake

[salvadevinemasse]

wow, this poll totally leaves out 1/6th of the world's population (China), which is both anti-Choice and anti-Life, because the state determines whether or not you can keep a child and is therefore not a choice for the mother at all.

Dont you have to have a permit to have more then 2 kids in china? I heard something like that not to long ago.. And if its a daughter what do they do to the girl? They mostly want males I know that much from what I've seen on documentary's.

[muy_thaiguy]

wow, this poll totally leaves out 1/6th of the world's population (China), which is both anti-Choice and anti-Life, because the state determines whether or not you can keep a child and is therefore not a choice for the mother at all.

Dont you have to have a permit to have more then 2 kids in china? I heard something like that not to long ago.. And if its a daughter what do they do to the girl? They mostly want males I know that much from what I've seen on documentary's.

From what I have heard, (though not positive on this) they throw the girls off of a wall or kill them in someway. Oh and by the way, I am pro-life.

[salvadevinemasse]

"We've had some good debates, vt, but you're really barking up a naked tree on this one."

Hmmm...I really like this image now stuck in my head.. Although I can't see my b/f barking at naked trees! lmao. at first I thought you were telling him he was climbing up trees naked but thats my own perverted image I guess..


Jay-
Did someone get you really miffed? That was kinda mean of you to talk to High Guard in that manner.. You should apologize to him for that mild attempt to un-nerve him. How dare you tell him by picking a womans right to choose hes condoning suicide. You don't know this person's history, How do you know if someone they love hasn't attempted or done suicide.. That could be a sore subject. Honestly I would smack you upside the head had you EVER talked to me in that manner. That was a bold attempt to bully someone to believe the way you do and that was honestly screwed up! You Obviously don't respect his opinion and that makes bunny sad, very sad.. Look what you did Jay, You made Bunny Cry!!

Salva

[salvadevinemasse]

wow, this poll totally leaves out 1/6th of the world's population (China), which is both anti-Choice and anti-Life, because the state determines whether or not you can keep a child and is therefore not a choice for the mother at all.

Dont you have to have a permit to have more then 2 kids in china? I heard something like that not to long ago.. And if its a daughter what do they do to the girl? They mostly want males I know that much from what I've seen on documentary's.

From what I have heard, (though not positive on this) they throw the girls off of a wall or kill them in someway. Oh and by the way, I am pro-life.

They dont just put them in a home for girls? *sad faced* So if I was born in china I'd die just because i'm a girl... Thats really F*cked up!!!

[muy_thaiguy]

wow, this poll totally leaves out 1/6th of the world's population (China), which is both anti-Choice and anti-Life, because the state determines whether or not you can keep a child and is therefore not a choice for the mother at all.

Dont you have to have a permit to have more then 2 kids in china? I heard something like that not to long ago.. And if its a daughter what do they do to the girl? They mostly want males I know that much from what I've seen on documentary's.

From what I have heard, (though not positive on this) they throw the girls off of a wall or kill them in someway. Oh and by the way, I am pro-life.

They dont just put them in a home for girls? *sad faced* So if I was born in china I'd die just because i'm a girl... Thats really F*cked up!!!

Not positive on it, it is just what I heard, so I could be wrong.

[salvadevinemasse]

wow, this poll totally leaves out 1/6th of the world's population (China), which is both anti-Choice and anti-Life, because the state determines whether or not you can keep a child and is therefore not a choice for the mother at all.

Dont you have to have a permit to have more then 2 kids in china? I heard something like that not to long ago.. And if its a daughter what do they do to the girl? They mostly want males I know that much from what I've seen on documentary's.

From what I have heard, (though not positive on this) they throw the girls off of a wall or kill them in someway. Oh and by the way, I am pro-life.

They dont just put them in a home for girls? *sad faced* So if I was born in china I'd die just because i'm a girl... Thats really F*cked up!!!

Not positive on it, it is just what I heard, so I could be wrong.

I know...still F*cked up!

[OnlyAmbrose]

@ GT:

I think this post will adress all of your points, so I will go without quoting you as I have been, so bear with me and read through it.

Let me rephrase myself in this manner-

We both agree that to have laws on this matter, there must be a point at which we can draw the line.

Legally, drawing that line based on philosophy is just as ridiculous as drawing it based on religion.

So let's ponder once again how we can define humanity - based not on philosophy or religion, but on reason.

There is no fundamental difference between a newborn's cognitive capabilities and that of a child in the womb 8.5 months into pregnancy. Yet it is acceptable to kill one and not the other.

I've already gotten into why it is acceptable - because psychologically, it's easier on our consciences. But does that make the matter any different? Is aborting said infant any different from killing a baby right as it exits the womb?

Quite bluntly, no. They are essentially the same thing.

And where do you draw the line between "potential human" and "human"?

You can't!

There is no set time when we can just pinpoint when something becomes part of the species. I am 17 years old. I'm developing. I'm not yet full-grown. Does that mean I'm still just a potential human? What about my 9 year old sister? Her level of cognition is probably still in Kohlberg's pre-conventional or conventional stage, while mine is well into the post-conventional. Does that make me more human than her?

No! It would be just as wrong to kill my 9 year old sister as it would be to kill me, right?

So we CAN'T measure humanity based on cognitive ability! Nor can we measure it based on development!

The only COMPLETELY objective and secular startpoint that we can make is quite simple: when the sperm meets the egg. When a complete human cell is created with all the potential to look and think like everyone else here.

And to wrap this post up, I will address one of the more intriguing things you said.

A newborn has not had a life process. Why is it wrong to kill one of them?

In short it is wrong because society says that it is so.

Using society as a moral compass isn't something I intend to do anytime soon. That's a poor reason to be pro-choice, and here's why:

Ask yourself why it's socially acceptable. We've already answered that - because it's a hidden murder which is easier on the human psyche. Does that make it less wrong? Certainly not.

That's why society thinks it's ok. Because they can stomach it. That's a horrible reason to be in favor of legalized abortion.

[spurgistan]

First off, way not to be batshit insane, Ambrose. No, seriously, that post was smart and made sense. Abortion always seems to make people hate each other with a fiery (nay, fervent) passion. Props.

However, (and this is more or less me shooting from the hip completely independent of this thread) while an embryo is developing, at many stages it cannot develop or even remain alive outside of the womb. I find it hard to postulate that at this point the embryo is an independently alive being, like you at 17 years old or (even) your sister. I would find it a lot easier to say that the embryo is more a part of the woman's body than an independently alive human. This may be a minority opinion or even (I doubt, but the possibility exists) scientifically verboten, but it seems to me (besides the fact that this is a women's rights issue in my mind, something we as men should have little to no say in) that if an embryo could not conceivably continue to live without the benefit of the mother, then the mother should have the option to terminate what is more or less a part of her body.