Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok, so one thing I don't get is why many people see it as so unethical to kill a fetus while they have no regret or remorse for killing animals. Why should a human fetus be treated any differently than a cow or a pig? I could understand the pro life argument if they believed all life was sacred. However, most pro lifer's I know are meat eaters -- big meat eaters, like where meat is the main dish of most every meal.
Saying the human fetus has more intelligence than an animal doesn't work for me. I believe a cow has more sense of pain that an undeveloped fetus does.
Saying the human fetus would have more potential in life doesn't work either. You could then take that argument further and say not having kids at all is depriving your possibly potential kids of a future.
Saying they ate meat in the bible just doesn't work either. They "gods people" killed babies too.
Ok, so one thing I don't get is why many people see it as so unethical to kill a fetus while they have no regret or remorse for killing animals. Why should a human fetus be treated any differently than a cow or a pig? I could understand the pro life argument if they believed all life was sacred. However, most pro lifer's I know are meat eaters -- big meat eaters, like where meat is the main dish of most every meal.
Saying the human fetus has more intelligence than an animal doesn't work for me. I believe a cow has more sense of pain that an undeveloped fetus does.
Saying the human fetus would have more potential in life doesn't work either. You could then take that argument further and say not having kids at all is depriving your possibly potential kids of a future.
Saying they ate meat in the bible just doesn't work either. They "gods people" killed babies too.
We have no common ground for dialogue because you don't seem to recognize any difference between animals and human beings.
I wonder how consistent your philosophy really is, though. Let me ask you something. If it is ok to end the life of a fetus, is it ok to end the life of a child, say up to two years old. If not, what's the difference?
If it is ok to end the life of a two year old, is it ok to end the life of someone older? If not, why not?
If it is ok to end the life of someone older, is it ok for someone to end your life? If not, why not?
We have no common ground for dialogue because you don't seem to recognize any difference between animals and human beings.
I wonder how consistent your philosophy really is, though. Let me ask you something. If it is ok to end the life of a fetus, is it ok to end the life of a child, say up to two years old. If not, what's the difference?
If it is ok to end the life of a two year old, is it ok to end the life of someone older? If not, why not?
If it is ok to end the life of someone older, is it ok for someone to end your life? If not, why not?
Well said. There is no common ground in many debates because few can, or will, agree on definitions and basic concepts. A fetus has potential whereas an animal can only be what it is. A cow, depending on breed, sex, will be what it is genetically programmed to be. When a fetus is destroyed, there is no way to tell what potential in a human being has been taken as well. Now some will argue that perhaps if Hitler's mother had aborted him, then the world would have been better for it. Perhaps true enough but there is no way to know that. If Jonas Salk's mother had aborted him, we might still be suffering the threat of polio.
But the point remains, and you made it, there is no common ground. The same would be true with atheists. They cannot accept any definition of proof of God. Their minds are made up and there would be no satisfying them. It is a fool's errand to try and converse about some topics.
"Saying the human fetus would have more potential in life doesn't work either. You could then take that argument further and say not having kids at all is depriving your possibly potential kids of a future."
The thing is that after the point of conception/fertilization, a new human life already exists, whereas when it comes to correctly using many forms of contraception while having sex, a new life is not created in the first place.
That said, I'll "bite" on this question and ask a similar question--isn't it hypocritical to support having human infants be legally considered persons while opposing giving legal personhood to non-human animals with equal or greater intelligence to human infants? And Yes, this is a serious question.
You know what is hypocritical? Prolifers who are against abortion but who also want to cut public assistance programs.
I lean politically anti-abortion and I strongly support public assistance programs. However, I think that some anti-abortion people who want to cut public assistance programs argue that it should not be the government's responsibility to maintain (large-scale) public assistance programs.
Being pro life and pro bomb-third-world military is far more perplexing.
Only if there is not a legitimate reason to bomb these countries and/or if civilians are purposely targeted in these bombings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
