quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:

Very well, I am able to respect how you feel. I understand that you feel an embryo to be a baby. I respect your religion and your right to defend what you claim to be life.

This being said there is little need for further debate. You are set in your way to “protect” what will be, and I and others seem to disagree with your “morals.” What can more come of this? You can convince me no more than I can convince you.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by behind stingy cactus:

I have some questions (perhaps towards the anti-abortionists, or whoever wants to address them)

What will you do about the abortions that are done illegally? How will you stop them?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by behind stingy cactus:

How do you plan to prevent women from ever aborting? What are the plans going on to that effect, in whatever country you happen to live?[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally written by behind stingy cactus:

Fine if you want to forbid something, but shouldn't you be trying to eradicate the reason that is making these women abort? Why are they doing it?[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:

Once again, you constantly compare a conscious, breathing, creature that feels fear and pain to an embryo that has no brain. Making the same point several times in several ways doesn't make it any different. It's still inaccurate.

You don't seem to understand the difference between what is and what will be. An embryo is not yet “alive”; it is in the process of becoming alive. It has never had a brain or consciousness. I don't like the idea of abortions after the first trimester unless medically necessary. You try to make it sound like we are supporting baby killing, and this is not the case. The anti-choice people like to use words like “baby”, call it what it is, an “embryo.”

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:



And, er, a society cannot simultaneously "longer value individual human worth" and also "worship at the feet of the idol Self".

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me ask you a question. Are you against slavery? Do you believe that the issue of slavery is a moral position? Are laws legislating that particular moral position appropriate? What you've said is that it's appropriate to legislate certain moral issues and that you'd be in favor of that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would not support laws banning slavery if I believed those laws would not significantly reduce the amount of slavery going on, and would make the treatment of existing slaves worse due to the necessity for secrecy and the fact that owning a well-treated slave would be punished just as badly as owning an ill-treated one.

It's much like the calls to ban child labour in developing countries. Nobody thinks it's actively good for children to be working 80-hour weeks, but banning child labour won't put a significant dent in the amount of child labour going along; instead, the "in for a penny, in for a pound" mentality will kick in, and children will just be made to work in even worse conditions.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW in your example I would not be forcing the woman to act morally. If she were acting morally, she wouldn't be going to the back alley abortionist.

But maybe I missed your point. Maybe you meant that by making abortions illegal it will in fact make things worse, so I sould be satisfied with the status quo.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did say "attempting to force". My implication was that such an attempt was doomed to fail and would likely make things worse.

A central tenet of most ethical systems is that regardless of how good your intentions are, if the results of something you want to do are likely to be disastrous then you shouldn't do it. Look at the criteria for a just war, for example; one criterion is that there must be a reasonable prospect for victory.

Frankly, you might well do less overall harm by scaring women away from having abortions through bombing abortion clinics than if you actually succeeded in making abortion illegal.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If abortion is illegal far fewer women will have abortions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, this is a point of disagreement.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets say that one day we developed the technology to grow humans in vats. Would that mean that embryos were human all of a sudden? That a foetus needs a special environment in which to live does not mean they are not a person. A person might have an accident and require the special environment of life support in a hospital in order to survive. Does that mean they aren't people anymore?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say that we developed the technology to grow an entire, fully-grown human being from any one of your cells: a cell from the lining of your stomach, a cell from a hair follicle, any cell at all. This isn't completely unfeasible in principle. Now, would this mean that every cell in your body is now a separate person?

I think this shows that attempts to define personhood in terms of potential future development are something of a dead end.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in the case of rape (where there is no choice), the fact that the mother was brutally assaulted does not give her the right to then go and harm an innocent third party (i.e. the child).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why not? We accept this right in other areas of the law. Stolen property, for example, is confiscated and returned to its original owner, even if its current owner is completely innocent of any wrongdoing and relies on the stolen property for survival. In the case of pregnancy arising from rape, a woman's reproductive tract has been criminally misappropriated; the fact that an innocent party is now making use of it does not mean that its original owner has any less claim to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We weren't using it as a standard for pesonhood, just individuality. It is an organism that has different DNA than any part of it's mother's body. Therefore it is an unique organism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unless, of course, the conceptus is a part of the mother's body, as some who support legal abortion argue. They have a fair point, too; its blood supply is continuous with its mother's, for example. And as I established in my previous post, unique DNA isn't enough for it to be considered separate from its mother's body.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:


Creator, Overwhelming, The majority of what you are saying is not scientifically grounded. You speak of your own “morals.” Who determines what is right and wrong to do with one's own body?.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:



Abortion is not equivalent to murder. An unconscious blob of cells feels no fear or pain.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:


This is more a matter of controlling others than preserving life.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by andrew miller:

quote:

---

Originally written by Overwhelming:

Abortion, rampant in America today, is the tragic consequence of a society that no longer values individual human worth, that worships at the feet of the idol Self, and that replaces the Word of God with social relativism. One-third of the children conceived in America this year will be murdered before they are born. And yet this brutal, widespread slaughter can be stopped if those of us who value human life and/or who worship God become informed, committed, and involved.

---

Quit frothing at the mouth. The rate of abortions in the US is about 22 per 1,000 live births, hardly one-third of all children conceived. Where are you getting this?

I don't worship your version of God, and I don't like your version of God. The majority of the rest of the world doesn't worship your version of God either. It seems as though your basis for making such determinations is incredibly limited. You can threaten me with the consequences for of what will happen in the hereafter, but you know what? I'm comfortable with that risk. Do you know why? Because I'm a good person, and I don't judge people on the basis of religious hearsay - I weigh individuals by their acts, and I put it in the perspective of my own choices. That you think you know what's right and seek to enforce your morals on others is the worst kind of hubris. Nevermind that you probably only selectively follow what you preach - come talk to me about the righteousness of your faith when you only ever have sex for the sake of procreation, not merely for pleasure.

Is your nation much better than mine? From what I've gathered, Portugal has the second highest rate of teen pregnancies in the EU. I'm sure all of them were planned.

What this is really about is that you would take away people's choice of religion. Thank God I have the freedom in my country to escape the tyranny of religious authoritarianism such as yours. I pray to God that my country will remain that way forever.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Khoth:

Firstly, my opinion on abortion:
Up to the brain starting to form, go ahead. Push it in and abort it again, if you want (thanks to Jeff for that suggestion)
After that, I'd be inclined to give the foetus the benefit of the doubt, and only do it if the mother's life is in danger.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Khoth:


Overwhelming's:
The first two articles, I thought "interesting, but what has it got to do with abortion, except that it's dragged in?"

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Khoth:


The third, I kind of agreed with the first bit about morals, but I think they're just wrong about the second (relevant) bit.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Khoth:


Ash Lael's:
I skimmed the first one, but it didn't really answer my views well.
The second, I didn't really manage to find an argument in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

[quote]Surely, acting morally is about what you, personally, can in fact do (including what you can in fact do to change the behaviour of others) rather than about what you want others to do. And therefore, isn't it fair to say that you have to take responsibility for all the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your own actions, including those that resulted from the enactment of a law you supported? To put it briefly, it may not always be moral to attempt to force others to act morally.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:


I am of the opinion that it is not good policy to make a law banning something just because one disapproves of it. One should make a law banning something because that law will have a positive effect in the world. As I said before in this topic, the argument goes that it is a choice between an aborted fetus and a live woman or an aborted fetus and a dead woman.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

[b]

You can't live without food or water either. If you give those to an infant child (albeit special food for a newborn, perhaps), it can survive fairly decently.

A fetus, on the other hand, probably wouldn't make it.[QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

[QB]

quote:

---

There are plenty of alternatives to choose from if you are really interested in choice, some of which are actually financed liberally by the government.

---

I am aware of exactly one: adoption. If finishing the entire pregnancy would be as devastating to the woman's life as having the child and raising it (i.e., we're talking about a fourteen-year-old who really ought to be in school and a nine month break would set her back rather far in the educational world), then this is hardly an equivalent substitute.[/b]

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

[QUOTE]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't live in a test tube either. Being able to live without support does not define you as an individual. Having your own DNA would probably be a better measure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting you should bring this up. In a funny piece of synchronicity, that creation/evolution article you linked to on the other thread mentions that due to a process of rapid mutation, the B lymphocytes of the immune system have significantly different DNA sequences from the rest of the body's cells (and from each other). I assume this doesn't mean you're about to start campaigning to give B lymphocytes the right to vote.

In fact, the "same DNA" standard is even curlier than that; by the time you reach adulthood, virtually all the cells in your body will have accumulated mutations and DNA damage sufficient to make each of them subtly different from every other. Obviously, your cells aren't all separate people, so unique DNA alone won't wash as a standard for individual personhood.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by ef:

The author states,
Creator, if you successfully prohibit abortion, the only outcome will be this: your girlfriends and wives won't tell you when they get pregnant as long as they haven't decided themselves, if they want the child or not. They will handle the issue silently.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:

The author states,

Quote: “Does the dentist become part of the woman's body when he sticks his hand in her mouth to do her teeth?”

These are ridiculous statements. A fetus is dependent on its mother for life. It could not sustain life on its own until the third trimester. To compare it to a dentist with his hands in one's mouth is hardly accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:


Quote: “an unborn child can have a penis and women don't have penises. That is proof that there is a separate individual human being involved”

To claim a penis as a sign of individuality is equally amusing. Last time I heard a one-month fetus doesn't yet have a penis. That is not a brain or a sign of consciousness anyways.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:


Creator, that entire article is one man's personal ranting. He offers no information on the development of the fetus. He speaks about the killing of abortion doctors, and makes claims that “pro-lifers” had nothing to do with it, who else would do that?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Dolphin:

If you were going to make anti-choice claims it would help to provide credible references that offer science rather than opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by DreamGuy:

Linearity is just plain bad.

---