Abortion

[Coyote]

Every cell in her body has her DNA. Any cell that does not have her DNA is not a part of her body.

Would you support laws that would let her continue to exercise control over her body but would disallow any procedures that would harm the body of someone else.

So if she wanted to alter the hormones in her body and the changes caused her to have a miscarriage that would be ok? (provided that this did not result in stopping the baby from having any brainwaves)

I'm not sure what you mean...

But if she wanted to have the limbs of some other person (even though it is inside of her) cut from it's torso and removed from in her then that would not be ok?

Again...I am not sure what you mean. Is that other person using her body against her will?

Would the same rules apply to me? I love peanut oil. In fact, I would love to rub it all over my body (it keeps my skin soft) . Is it OK for me to then go hang around with some people who have a deathly peanut allergy?

I don't think it's quite the same thing...is someone taking control of your body and using it against your will?

 

[Coyote]

What if the following situation occured: A person was dying of end stage kidney failure. You have two healthy kidneys and are a perfect match, and can afford to give one. If you don't, the person will die. Can you be forced to do this?

 

[palerider]

Put yourself in his shoes for a minute. You might have the resolve to withstand having bamboo splinters driven up under your fingernails and still not give in, but would you be able to sit an watch a loved one undergo the same fate (with no chance of reprieve unless you talk)? It does seem as though that is a more effective means of obtaining information through torture - the incentive is higher.

And Mare is not fabricating an argument. Mare has offered you a hypothetical situation that is 100% as plausible as the hypothetical situation you offered (the one about needing to get information out of suspects that would make or break a nuclear crisis).

If you and mare want to support the torture of the family members of terrorists, then go ahead and support it. I, however don't.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

From a solely scientific point of view one might look for a unique moment when there is more than just the physical life of the body...

I was under the impression that science thought that physical life is all that motivated humans. Are you postulating a soul or spirit?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yes, but not unconditionally.

Wouldn't this definition take away George Bush's right to life?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you and mare want to support the torture of the family members of terrorists, then go ahead and support it. I, however don't.

Good one, Pale, I love the subtle twist. I remember once when I argued against killing for pleasure and I was called a "terrorist" despite the fact that I was the only person in the discussion who owned no weapons and was calling for an end to the killing. You would have fit right into that discussion. You have outdone yourself here, you are beyond the pale (so to speak).

 

[palerider]

This is exactly why I don't want to reduce the abortion issue down to black and white, it's too complex and has too many ramifications to be made into an absolute yes or no situation. Go to the torture thread and respond to my questions to you there because they bear on this subject as well. They also bear on your attitude and ability to discuss this subject.

The abortion issue is black and white. If a woman isn't terminating a pregnancy because her life or long term health is in danger, she is killing her child for reasons that can amount to no more than convenience. Life is simple if you are honest mare.

You have now been caught in a lie mare and your credibility will suffer for it.

You said:

"I think abortion is murder. Just like I think that torture is murder. Keep trying though, we all appreciate your poorly-spelled but ghastly descriptions."

So your position is that you believe abortion is murder but you support a womans right to murder her child for whatever reason she may fabricate. I might support the use of torture under a very narrow range of situations but torture doesn't mean murder. Abortion does.

About the bolded section above: we were discussing torture, not torturing a specific group--and that group is not my enemy as you claim, sorry. As you note it would be necessary to change torture tactics depending on whom you wished to hurt. My position is that we should not do it under any circumstance because it dehumanizes us and has little historical usefulness.

Torture dehumanizes us so you don't support it but murdering our unborn children, which you do support does not dehumanize us? Explain that bit of logic.

 

[DrWho]

Rape, consentual sex where a condom failed or, yes - "inconvenience". It's her body, no one has the right to control decisions regarding it except for her. On the part of rape though - the majority of rapes go unreported.

Sorry about the confusion. I will post it again and try to make it more clear.

Every cell in her body has her DNA. Any cell that does not have her DNA is not a part of her body.

Would you support laws that would let her continue to exercise control over her body but would disallow any procedures that would harm the body of someone else.

So if she wanted to alter the hormones in her body and the changes caused her to have a miscarriage that would be ok? (provided that this did not result in stopping the baby from having any brainwaves). I am exploring the line between what is her body and what is not. The hormones are clearly her body but the result of the miscarriage is a dead baby.

But if she wanted to have the limbs of some other person (even though it is inside of her) cut from it's torso and removed from in her then that would not be ok? (the other person I am referring to is the baby inside of her) In this case she is not manipulating her own body via her hormones. She is directly impacting the body of another person.

Would the same rules apply to me? I love peanut oil. In fact, I would love to rub it all over my body (it keeps my skin soft) . Is it OK for me to then go hang around with some people who have a deathly peanut allergy? Am I not only taking action on my own body? So what if it effects another person. It's my body.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The abortion issue is black and white. If a woman isn't terminating a pregnancy because her life or long term health is in danger, she is killing her child for reasons that can amount to no more than convenience. Life is simple if you are honest mare.

You have now been caught in a lie mare and your credibility will suffer for it.

You said:

"I think abortion is murder. Just like I think that torture is murder. Keep trying though, we all appreciate your poorly-spelled but ghastly descriptions."

So your position is that you believe abortion is murder but you support a womans right to murder her child for whatever reason she may fabricate. I might support the use of torture under a very narrow range of situations but torture doesn't mean murder. Abortion does.

Go to the Torture thread, I respond to this nonsense there.

Torture dehumanizes us so you don't support it but murdering our unborn children, which you do support does not dehumanize us? Explain that bit of logic.

Of course it does, what I'm saying is that men don't have the right to take women's freedom away from them. Men have been dehumanizing everybody with war and torture for all of human history and you are campaigning to continue those activities while hypocritically trying to force women to do what you say, not what you do. That's hypocrisy. You want to play god and decide whose life is valuable and whose is expendable, you want to keep your freedom to kill as you see the need, but you wish to restrict the right to kill of others if they don't kill in a way that you approve of. Hypocrisy, Pale, sheer hypocrisy--you're good at it though.

 

[DrWho]

I was under the impression that science thought that physical life is all that motivated humans. Are you postulating a soul or spirit?

I personally believe that there is more than just the physical life and that it begins at ensoulment.

But I was aiming at the point at which the "blob of undifferentiated cells" becomes a person. For those who do not accept my idea of a soul there must be a point scientifically at which this happens. And they must support their position with some logic.

Brainwaves. Why?
Shaped like a person. Why?
Sentience. Why?
Emotion. Why?
Pain. Why?
Birth. Why?
DNA. Why?

In my opinion each of these fails to permit us to claim 100% that something is a person and not some other animal. Though the best of the lot is DNA - which of course would define personhood at conception, unless you are a downs child.

 

[palerider]

Of course it does, what I'm saying is that men don't have the right to take women's freedom away from them.

Killing one's children for reasons that amount to no more than convenience is not freedom mare. Tell me, aside from the most defenseless and helpless, who else do you support killing for convenience?

 

[Chip]

Originally Posted by Chip
A unique individual human being begins to live at the moment of conception, as every heart knows and as substantiated by DNA and life science.

It's simply not a matter for rational conjecture.

Thus it is wrong to deprive that person of that person's inherent right to life for any reason, be it the inconvenience of another ... or the guiltiness of the so deprived.

The difference between anti-abortion and true pro-life is that the former deprives selected people on the life-time continuum of their one and only life based on criteria that is not theirs to judge but where judgment belongs solely to God ... and the latter makes no judgment, resigning in sadness to kill only in immediate self-defense of their's or another's very life.

You have got to be a very young man.

Irrelevant ... and meaningless.

I've noticed in just a very short time here that, when it comes to realities you apparently have a difficult time accepting, that you react by posting some form of attempted character assassination of the messenger.

That's not very mature ... and thus your statement "you have got to be a very young man" once again smacks of projection.

Please dispense with the ad hominems, try to post with integrity, and stick to the topic.

Thank you.

 

[ArmChair General]

Why should I give more moral consideration to a single cell than to an adult human being?

 

[palerider]

Why should I give more moral consideration to a single cell than to an adult human being?

First off, no one aborts a single cell. It has gone way beyond a single cell before it even arrives at the mother's uterus.

Secondly, do you give more consideration to an adult than you do to an infant? Is the infant less deserving of the protection of the law? The only difference between an adult and an infant is a level of maturity and the only difference between you today, and you on the day you were concieved is a level of maturity. You are exactly the same individual today as you were at any point in your life since you were concieved. You are more mature but not a different creature.

If you give less moral consideration to immature humans than you do to mature humans, then you are an ageist.

 

[DrWho]

Why should I give more moral consideration to a single cell than to an adult human being?

If the single cell is not a human being then you would not. But if the single cell is a human being then you should.