| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/06/2009 01:09:53 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
What if no doctor was involved? How long? Or is this to be a crime without penalty - in which case why make it a crime?
Since the police usually investigate untimely deaths, and since an abortion is an induced miscarriage, wouldn't you expect them usually to investigate miscarriages?
|
I'm sorry, I truly don't know about the law and how it'll work, so I cannot get into specifics. I only hope the innocent won't be kill or imprisoned.
If a mother induces an abortion on herself is that a crime? Is it a crime for a mother to drown her newborn because she has postpartum depression?
Originally posted by Matthew:
However, I suspect you wouldn't grieve a few skin cells being scraped from your body and killed. The critical difference seems to me to be that one group of cells has the potential to become a fully grown human and the other does not.
On this assumption, your thinking places heavy emphasis on the potential of the cells - though it ignores the potential of gametes. All this indicates to me that your distinction is also substantially born out of pragmatism rather than some higher morality. |
I thought it was pretty simple, but let me try it a gain without the operators (those math/programming signs)
Human Sperm is not a Human.
Human Egg is not a Human.
Human skin cell is not a Human.
A bugger picked from your nose and consumed or thrown away is not a Human.
Clipping your toenails isn't killing a human.
Human Sperm combined with a Human Egg is a Human.
Just because the (Sperm+Egg) isn't a fully grown doesn't mean we can kill it without regard. If we can start killing humans without a full potential there isn't much to stop the killing off other humans without full potential. (I'll refrain from listing to stay away from Godwin's Law.) |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 01:21:59 PM · #202 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If a mother induces an abortion on herself is that a crime? Is it a crime for a mother to drown her newborn because she has postpartum depression?
|
Two different issues. The second definitely leads to prosecution. Whether the mother goes to jail or not depends on the courts and how they deal with individuals with psychological problems at the time the crime was committed. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 01:29:51 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
The logic is the same if you're straight or gay. How about this one, if you believe being gay is genetic, wouldn't it scare you if anyone can perform a test on their unborn and test for the gay gene? Then abort if their unborn was gay.
Sorry, you can't be gay if you're aborted. |
What if you discovered that the child your wife was carrying definitely had tha gay gene? |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 01:38:35 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Just because the (Sperm+Egg) isn't a fully grown doesn't mean we can kill it without regard. |
Just because someone makes a choice doesn't mean it's done without regard.
Your insistence of that being the case is rude and ignorant.
You know nothing of how or why those decisions are made, so stop with the personal attacks on people who don't happen to share your viewpoint. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 02:28:20 PM · #205 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Just because the (Sperm+Egg) isn't a fully grown doesn't mean we can kill it without regard. |
Just because someone makes a choice doesn't mean it's done without regard. |
My problem is that someone can make the choice in the first place.
While the child is in their mother's womb, it's okay to kill them.
Something magical occurs when they're born and they become human.
If someone kills them after they're born, it's a crime. I don't believe in magic, so what's the difference?
|
|
|
|
08/06/2009 02:34:47 PM · #206 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by Nullix:
The logic is the same if you're straight or gay. How about this one, if you believe being gay is genetic, wouldn't it scare you if anyone can perform a test on their unborn and test for the gay gene? Then abort if their unborn was gay. |
Oh we can already test for stuff like that. If you believe that being a woman is genetic, wouldn't it scare you if anyone can perform a test on their unborn child and test for a 'missing' Y chromosome? Then abort if their unborn was female?
Gotta have baby-dudes to carry on the legacy, you know! And dowries are such a pain to collect! |
This happens in certain cultures all the time. If the technology is available, somebody will use it. |
That's my point. Why would Nullix present this 'gay' example when we already have perfectly good, ongoing examples of parents killing their genetically-determined daughters, some even waiting until after delivery when they first find out the child's sex? My guess is that it was just an emotional ploy meant to gain my favor by pandering to my own niche issues.
Otherwise, the answer should be obvious. I support a woman's right to choose, yet the idea that someone would abort a child for being a girl horrifies just me as much as the idea that they would abort a child for being gay. Unless Nullix seriously thinks that I don't care for the welfare of double-X'ers, he's making a non-argument, as the situation he describes ALREADY EXISTS and has not dampened my support for the right to choose.
Nice try though! |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 02:35:31 PM · #207 |
| viability is the benchmark, Nullix. These are not arbitrary decisions, but reasoned markers and lines that must be drawn in order to balance the rights of a woman with the rights of an unborn person. That you find it distasteful or immoral to draw those lines is of course your own personal opinion to hold, but your view doesn't allow any rights of the woman to be considered, and that is problematic and in my opinion, wrong. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 03:02:31 PM · #208 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I support a woman's right to choose, yet the idea that someone would abort a child for being a girl horrifies just me as much as the idea that they would abort a child for being gay. |
If it horrifies you, why would you support it?
"It horrifies me that someone can own slaves, but I support their choice to have them.
It horrifies me that someone can (insert something horrific), but I support the choice.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2009 03:20:24 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Mousie:
I support a woman's right to choose, yet the idea that someone would abort a child for being a girl horrifies just me as much as the idea that they would abort a child for being gay. |
If it horrifies you, why would you support it?
"It horrifies me that someone can own slaves, but I support their choice to have them.
It horrifies me that someone can (insert something horrific), but I support the choice. |
Because not all abortions are simply parents deciding they don't want a girl or a homo for a kid once they're already pregnant and have had a genetic test done?
I did not say that I was horrified by abortion. I said I was horrified by two particular rationales for the use of the technique of abortion.
Are you being purposefully obtuse?
Edit: Also, do you care to explain why aborting gays for being gay should matter more to me than the ongoing abortion of girls for being girls, and why that would influence me? Or was it just an appeal to emotion?
Message edited by author 2009-08-06 15:23:50. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 04:02:42 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I did not say that I was horrified by abortion. I said I was horrified by two particular rationales for the use of the technique of abortion. |
Oh, I see it as bad no matter what the rational is. I don't understand how it can be rationalized.
Originally posted by Mousie:
Also, do you care to explain why aborting gays for being gay should matter more to me than the ongoing abortion of girls for being girls, and why that would influence me? Or was it just an appeal to emotion? |
It was an appeal to your emotion. There's no difference between the rationals. Abortion is abortion (Bad is bad).
|
|
|
|
08/06/2009 04:08:58 PM · #211 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Mousie:
I support a woman's right to choose, yet the idea that someone would abort a child for being a girl horrifies just me as much as the idea that they would abort a child for being gay. |
If it horrifies you, why would you support it?
"It horrifies me that someone can own slaves, but I support their choice to have them.
It horrifies me that someone can (insert something horrific), but I support the choice. |
I think better analogies would be;
"It horrifies me that someone would abuse the welfare system, but I support the reasons the system is in place."
"It horrifies me that someone would abuse prescription drugs, but I support the choice to make them available." |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 04:15:38 PM · #212 |
| You've talked about the instances where the woman doesn't want the child and aborts. What about the woman who wants the child but is told you have two choices, abort or die. What then? What if it was your wife? Would you insist she carry that child and then die? |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 04:43:53 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
It was an appeal to your emotion. There's no difference between the rationals. Abortion is abortion (Bad is bad). |
Thank you for being honest.
I'd posit that those sorts of appeals don't work very well with people trying hard to base their morality on reason and not emotion. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 04:44:32 PM · #214 |
| kelli, like my post, I suspect yours will be ignored because it is logical and reasonable and probes those areas of Nullix's argument which are, IMNSHO, sorely lacking. He doesn't consider such difficult dilemma's like life and death of the mother or an unborn child who has no chance of survival or meaningful life in the most basic sense. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 04:46:03 PM · #215 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I support a woman's right to choose, yet the idea that someone would abort a child for being a girl horrifies just me as much as the idea that they would abort a child for being gay. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
If it horrifies you, why would you support it?
"It horrifies me that someone can own slaves, but I support their choice to have them.
It horrifies me that someone can (insert something horrific), but I support the choice. |
Why does it have to be something horrific?
Why can't it be a dilemma, and a heartbreaking choice?
Just because you don't agree doesn't make it wrong and the sooner you understand that, the better.
The bottom line is that it's not your choice to make, so get over it.....you cannot tell someone else what to feel and how to live.
THAT'S wrong!
Mousie supports the right of the individual to make their own choice regardless of his personal views.
As do I, and most of the rest of the people in this thread.
That doesn't mean we support butchering people, and I'm fairly certain that I'm not the only one who's really tired of your allusions to that.
It's the right of the individual to make their own choices as it pertains to their lives, health, and whatever else is to them important enough to have to make a tough decision in life. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 04:49:42 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by frisca:
kelli, like my post, I suspect yours will be ignored because it is logical and reasonable and probes those areas of Nullix's argument which are, IMNSHO, sorely lacking. He doesn't consider such difficult dilemma's like life and death of the mother or an unborn child who has no chance of survival or meaningful life in the most basic sense. |
I'm still waiting for the reply to my query as to what he'd do if he knew his wife was carringing a child with the gay gene.
He ignores questions in response to his own posits even though he basically presents the case himself. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 05:19:57 PM · #217 |
Originally posted by frisca:
kelli, like my post, I suspect yours will be ignored because it is logical and reasonable and probes those areas of Nullix's argument which are, IMNSHO, sorely lacking. He doesn't consider such difficult dilemma's like life and death of the mother or an unborn child who has no chance of survival or meaningful life in the most basic sense. |
You're right, the life and death of the mother is something to consider and I don't have an answer to that.
BTW, there's a certain poster that I am ignoring who has a non-canon camera and is short for Jebediah who is a little too emotional and belligerent for me. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 06:17:48 PM · #218 |
Has this "gay gene" been identified? I find no proof that it has. Mr. Mouse, if it has been identified and you had yourself checked for it and found you did not have the "gay gene", what then?
Message edited by frisca - correction of confusion about another user's gender.. |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 07:51:13 PM · #219 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Has this "gay gene" been identified? I find no proof that it has. Mr./Mrs. Mouse, if it has been identified and you had yourself checked for it and found you did not have the "gay gene", what then? |
Well, the gay gene theme was started by Nullix, its his hypothetical. I make no claims as to the likelihood of its existence, and tried to point to a known genetic marker we could discuss instead.
In any case, I'll answer your question despite your insinuation that I am something less than completely male (too bad I saw the post before you 'corrected' it, frisca... I highly doubt it was confusion that led to his inclusion of a completely unnecessary double-honorific, an ambiguity easily corrected with a single click on my profile name):
I bet I'd still like dudes. Because, you know, they're attractive. And have weens.
What do YOU think would happen?
P.S. Wasn't this thread about abortion? Do arguments addressed to me need mention gay issues? I don't think so. I thought I'd tried pointing THAT out too! |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 08:56:39 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You keep on mentioning a "potential human viability." I don't understand how something magical happens and the thing in the woman's womb turns into a human. When/how does that happen? |
Simple answer. I don't know. Nor does anyone else. You can take it on faith that it occurs the moment sperm and ovum meet, or you can believe it occurs at birth. Or at some fuzzy point in between.
Since there is no clear evidence, and what that point is, is debatable, perhaps we ought to allow people to act according to their own thinking, the same way we allow people to follow different religions. If one religion is correct, all the others must be wrong, would you favor allowing the legislature to determine which religion is the true faith and outlawing all other? Or should we allow people to act according to their own beliefs on that one? |
|
|
|
08/06/2009 10:16:06 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by frisca:
kelli, like my post, I suspect yours will be ignored because it is logical and reasonable and probes those areas of Nullix's argument which are, IMNSHO, sorely lacking. He doesn't consider such difficult dilemma's like life and death of the mother or an unborn child who has no chance of survival or meaningful life in the most basic sense. |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You're right, the life and death of the mother is something to consider and I don't have an answer to that.
BTW, there's a certain poster that I am ignoring who has a non-canon camera and is short for Jebediah who is a little too emotional and belligerent for me. |
Yeah.....I get belligerent when people put vile words and thoughts out there and attribute them to me, effectively call me a soulless butcher, and can't even get my name right.
Where on earth did you ever get the idea my name is Jebediah?
It's also pretty convenient that you won't answer any of the questions that you've been asked by others than I that entail some degree of difficulty and/or genuine compassion for others.
|
|
|
|
08/06/2009 10:21:51 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
You keep on mentioning a "potential human viability." I don't understand how something magical happens and the thing in the woman's womb turns into a human. When/how does that happen? |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Simple answer. I don't know. Nor does anyone else. You can take it on faith that it occurs the moment sperm and ovum meet, or you can believe it occurs at birth. Or at some fuzzy point in between.
Since there is no clear evidence, and what that point is, is debatable, perhaps we ought to allow people to act according to their own thinking, the same way we allow people to follow different religions. If one religion is correct, all the others must be wrong, would you favor allowing the legislature to determine which religion is the true faith and outlawing all other? Or should we allow people to act according to their own beliefs on that one? |
Don't hold your breath for an answer here, either.....
Personally, I always thought that our founding fathers came here to establish a new republic for freedom *FROM* religion, not freedom *OF* religion. Somewhere along the line, that got lost.
I reserve the right to worship as I see fit without anyone else telling me how to live because of their beliefs.
I do believe that's guaranteed in the Constitution. Which means I have to respect that someone else is entitled to their beliefs without my intervention as well.
Of course, I'm not the one claiming someone else's beliefs are bad and that they have no regard for human life.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2009 06:34:36 PM · #223 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by Matthew:
What if no doctor was involved? How long? Or is this to be a crime without penalty - in which case why make it a crime?
Since the police usually investigate untimely deaths, and since an abortion is an induced miscarriage, wouldn't you expect them usually to investigate miscarriages?
|
I'm sorry, I truly don't know about the law and how it'll work, so I cannot get into specifics. I only hope the innocent won't be kill or imprisoned. |
You don't want to go into "specifics" because you don't want to acknowledge that behind your arch-moral, holier-than-thou, proposal there are some pretty repulsive practical consequences.
Originally posted by Nullix:
I thought it was pretty simple, but let me try it a gain without the operators (those math/programming signs) |
I understood. But you seem to be missing my point.
My point is that in the first stages a zygote is a few cells with more in common with a skin scrape than a whole human (apart from potential). I might look at what it is, rather than what it could be.
If you place so much emphasis on potential, then why not look back before the point of conception? I believe that religious leaders of various persuasions and at various times have taken a dim view of onanism and contraception for this kind of reasoning.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2009 10:53:09 AM · #224 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
My point is that in the first stages a zygote is a few cells with more in common with a skin scrape than a whole human (apart from potential). I might look at what it is, rather than what it could be. |
So if we're all just skin scrapes, why do we have laws against killing other skin scrapes? What's the point?
I all comes down to when you beleive life begins. I won't requote my research from specialists stating that the zygote is a living human.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2009 01:35:10 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
I all comes down to when you beleive life begins. I won't requote my research from specialists stating that the zygote is a living human. |
No, it all comes down to those of you who think they can tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their body.
That's grievous and wrong. |
|
