This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- then lets broaden the spectrum then. What is it about life in general that you feel is important to preserve. What do you think makes it morally wrong to kill a person, a chicken, a fish or a dog? Where are your boundaries drawn- is it ok to kill a plant or a bacteria, even though they are alive, and if so, what makes them different from the forms of life you feel are not ok to kill?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##ElhonnaDS##DELIM##
Post by
rageahol
is the same reason i have no problem breaking an egg
I'm not 100% sure, but according to wikipedia most commercially farmed eggs are unfertilized. So your analogy here isn't very apt, unfortunately.
And also, Like Elhonna said, you're going to have to define where to draw the line with respect to killing things, otherwise you're going to have some seriously unattainable goals.
Post by
Ksero
Sorry for taking so long, I was making dinner.
Ok- then lets broaden the spectrum then. What is it about life in general that you feel is important to preserve. Life.itself, for the survival of the species.What do you think makes it morally wrong to kill a person, a chicken, a fish or a dog? its morally wrong to kill anything without reason, however with the right reason, a chicken (ex. has bird flu, will kill more chickens) dog(ex. it has attacked an injured a person or pet, is a danger to others) human( there are a lot more examples for humans, but they all really boil down to if they are going to cause serious harm to someone or something else, ex. War-criminals) then they may be killed. Where are your boundaries drawn- is it ok to kill a plant or a bacteria, even though they are alive, I draw the line at animals, although i don't kill plants or bacteria without reason either and if so, what makes them different from the forms of life you feel are not ok to kill? probably because i don't have the capacity to empathize with them
Post by
Ksero
is the same reason i have no problem breaking an egg
I'm not 100% sure, but according to wikipedia most commercially farmed eggs are unfertilized. So your analogy here isn't very apt, unfortunately.
And also, Like Elhonna said, you're going to have to define where to draw the line with respect to killing things, otherwise you're going to have some seriously unattainable goals.
I was referring to fertilized eggs, should have made that more clear. i thought it was inferred because unfertilized eggs dont hatch.
Post by
rageahol
Life.itself, for the survival of the species.
Overpopulation of one species can lead to the end of another. Of course, the inverse is also true, so it's a non-point, but something to think about.
its morally wrong to kill anything without reason, however with the right reason, a chicken (ex. has bird flu, will kill more chickens) dog(ex. it has attacked an injured a person or pet, is a danger to others) human( there are a lot more examples for humans, but they all really boil down to if they are going to cause serious harm to someone or something else, ex. War-criminals) then they may be killed.
War criminals are a bad example to illustrate your point; If you can kill them, and they're already war criminals (i.e. they've already committed the crimes, rather than simply planned to commit them) it's retribution, not prevention of loss of life, since not many war criminals are able to commit more war crimes after they have been defeated. Now, you could argue that this retribution will dissuade others from doing the same, but there are far too many historic examples that show this not to be the case. Of course, there are special cases, but generally this holds true.
Assuming the only time killing is allowed is when it will preserve the life of another creature, people's intentions must be known in advance. Because this is impossible for the vast majority of cases (either they explicitly make it known, or conclusive evidence exists that they intend to destroy the life of another creature), killing any creature, for all practical purposes, cannot be justified.
I draw the line at animals, although i don't kill plants or bacteria without reason either probably because i don't have the capacity to empathize with them
Fair enough. I might have gone for a different definition, but for now we'll leave it at that.
I was referring to fertilized eggs, should have made that more clear. i thought it was inferred because unfertilized eggs dont hatch.
But why would you crack it?
It could either be fertilized but not capable of developing life, because of refrigeration or otherwise, in which case it doesn't count as life.
or it could be an egg which is both fertilized and on its way to develop life, for example in an incubator.
In the first case, cracking the egg would be fine, since you haven't ended a life.
In the second case, cracking the egg would have prematurely ended the bird's life, in which case it is not OK and a bad analogy for abortion.
Post by
Ksero
im done
Post by
Squishalot
I was referring to fertilized eggs, should have made that more clear. i thought it was inferred because unfertilized eggs dont hatch.
What is your view on
Balut
as a food? According to your definitions of 'life', depending on precisely where it was in the incubation cycle, it may or may not have survived once broken out of its shell.
Post by
Ksero
im done
Post by
1108744
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
... so you waited almost two months to say that? Why didn't you just let the thread stay dead? It would have accomplished the same thing.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
So there's a thing with Wendy Davis filibustering an abortion prohibition law in Texas.
Honestly, despite being pretty Liberal about things like Gay Marriage, Gender Identity, Universal Healthcare, and so on, I really can't say I intensely disagree with banning abortion after 20 weeks.
This is a fetus at 20 weeks.
I have nothing against early abortion of embryos in cases of rape, but there's no reason anyone should be getting an abortion after 20 weeks. It's a baby at that point.
Post by
Gone
See this is the problem with dividing people's complex opinions up into liberal/democrat or conservative/republican, people feel the need to justify it when they have an opinion that isn't towing the party line. You don't have to justify it when you go against a particular abortion law, any more than I, as a conservative, should have to justify the fact that I support gay marriage.
Anyway I already gave my opinion on this in the news articles thread, filibusters are an exploitation of a stupid technicality. The one bit of good that may have come out of this is that the law might finally be reexamined and changed to prevent filibusters.
As many of you know, I'm pretty anti abortion in cases other than rape or when the mother's life is in danger.
Post by
Skreeran
Of course, of course. I don't personally identify as a liberal/democrat. When asked, I tell people that my political alignment is "nonpartisan," because I don't particularly like either political party.
Still, even though most of my political leaning tend toward liberalism, I wouldn't want people to assume that I have the same stance on abortion.
Post by
civgw
I have nothing against early abortion of embryos in cases of rape, but there's no reason anyone should be getting an abortion after 20 weeks. It's a baby at that point.
The earliest I could find an example of a fetus surviving was 21 weeks and that was an extremely unusual case. At 22 weeks if the fetus survived then it would almost certainly have major disabilities.
Most places use 24 weeks because that balances the likelihood of surviving with quality of life that that could be expected.
Just because a fetus looks like it does at 20 weeks does not necessarily mean it is viable out of the womb.
Post by
Skreeran
Doesn't matter to me if it's viable. Matters to me if it's far enough developed to resemble (physically and cognitively) a neonate.
Post by
civgw
Viability matters to me, because until you get to the age that a fetus can survive outside the womb, the mother should have the final say as to whether to have an abortion or not.
After that age, my view is that there should be a medical reason, physical or mental, to justify an abortion.
Most abortions are carried out before this contentious period.
Post by
1108744
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
This topic has been debated ad nauseum, and in the end it comes down to one thing, which is what stage people consider a fetus a person at. For those who believe life starts at conception, abortion will never be acceptable, for those who don't believe a fetus is a person, anti abortion laws deprive them of a fundamental right.
This debate will never change, and we will never reach a point where everybody is on the same page. All we can do is ride it out until technology develops to the point where we can recreate the conditions of the womb, and prevent birth defects, then it will maybe become a non issue.
it has died and the body has not expelled it because, yes, getting an already dead foetus removed from the body is still classed as an abortion.Medical classifications aside, you realize that this is not an abortion for the purpose of debate right? The most anti abortion person on the planet wouldn't have a problem with a dead fetus being removed from the mother.
And because I know someone will ask. Would I ever have an abortion? YES YES YES YES YES.You sound way to enthusiastic here. This kind of reads like "ALRIGHT, ABORTION TIME, WOOOO!"
Post by
1108744
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
