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.
I can fault you for your argument, people who argue "when" it is ok to kill the child are just lying to themselves to make themselves feel better. It is a human life at conception, biologically this is a fact, so arguing over when it is ok to kill it is just a semantical argument.
But again, as I pointed out in the post you appear to have simply ignored, when we are in the philosophical discourse of ethics, morality and rights then it is not merely biological definitions of "Human life" and "starting" that we need to rely on.
Saying that biologically a new life starts at conception is on par with informing me water is wet. I would still be sitting there waiting to hear what your point is. Waiting to hear the basis for affording moral or ethical concern to a fetus at the stages when the VAST majority (over 90%) of abortions by choice actually occur.
And that has nothing to do with semantics. It has everything to do with identifying what it is that we actually mediate moral and ethical concern on..... and then noticing that the fetus in question does not have the things identified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
Human DNA + heartbeat = human. It's illegal to murder a human.
The entire abortion discussion is no more complicated than this.
Except yes it is. You have not, for example, establish WHY moral and ethical concern should be mediated based on heart beat. You have merely declared it to be so. Argument by assertion is not an argument at all.
Plenty of things in our world have heart beats, yet we kill them at will. Why is this suddenly and magically different?
But again, as I pointed out in the post you appear to have simply ignored, when we are in the philosophical discourse of ethics, morality and rights then it is not merely biological definitions of "Human life" and "starting" that we need to rely on.
Saying that biologically a new life starts at conception is on par with informing me water is wet. I would still be sitting there waiting to hear what your point is. Waiting to hear the basis for affording moral or ethical concern to a fetus at the stages when the VAST majority (over 90%) of abortions by choice actually occur.
And that has nothing to do with semantics. It has everything to do with identifying what it is that we actually mediate moral and ethical concern on..... and then noticing that the fetus in question does not have the things identified.
Except yes it is. You have not, for example, establish WHY moral and ethical concern should be mediated based on heart beat. You have merely declared it to be so. Argument by assertion is not an argument at all.
Plenty of things in our world have heart beats, yet we kill them at will. Why is this suddenly and magically different?
I've eaten several hearts that were once beating, along with the gizzards.
I've eaten several hearts that were once beating, along with the gizzards.
Exactly So clearly when people are claiming to be worried about heart beats......... there is actually more to it than that whether they have acknowledged it or not.
Again, you are valuing life because you view that life as lesser, sub human, less than human due to its current state. Like the other poster, you place varying values on life, no different than others in history who place varying levels on life based on numerous rationalized processes.
Using your logical base and applying it, I could make the argument that this man:
Is "lesser" and not as important as a fully developed human because he is not completely developed as a normal human is.
You argue semantics and place values on life.
It's not human, it's not alive.
A fetus is not a live organism. This defition of life is used universally for all organisms and not just humans. There are 7 criteria that must be met, a fetus does not meet two of them until the point of viability.
And your example, still meets all of the criteria for a living organism, and that definition does not allow for value judgements like lesser or greater.
The only one assigning those judgements is you, when you say a woman's life is not as valuable as a fetuses. And this is exactly what you say when you force someone to risk their life for something else.
Your argument is not logically valid. You are simply just claiming it so.
In the case of the pregnant woman, the life of the child is dependent on the woman. The womans action to abort is a direct action to kill the child.
In your example, the child is of its own responsibility. The mothers actions at that point are not the direct cause of harm to that child (ie the failing organ is).
Your argument is invalid because you are not applying proper relevant evaluation.
Go ahead, put it in PQ format and you will see the logic error. Your argument is invalid. /shrug
If that is true, than a late term abortion is even less of a problem than early term. If a fetus is aborted via inducing birth before it can maintain homeostasis, than it is that fetuses responsibility as you call it via its undeveloped organs and not the mothers indirect action of simply changing its location.
And no an abortion is a direct action to end her status of being pregnant. The termination of the fetus is secondary to that.
So, by not letting a woman out right kill their child, I am treating the life of the woman as lesser?
That isn't logical at all. In fact, it is down right silly.
I guess I can now understand how some men felt when they were told by others that they could not beat their wives. It just seemed alien that they could not, after all, it was their woman and they could do whatever the hell they wanted with their woman!
People have strange minds.
You know someone has lost when their only counter is your silly/strange.
You see, the child has a right to life. Your woman has no right to deprive that child of life. That child has its liberty, and your woman has no right to infringe on that liberty. She must respect that "right to life" if she respects liberty. You see, just as we realized that a man could not own another man, so did we realize that a woman can not own her child and so that child has every right to life that she does.
You have no argument, your argument is invalid. You are arguing a immature argument, one that refuses to accept that it has a failed premise, but stamps its feet because it WANT's to be right and darn it... it is going to be right and it doesn't care who tells it otherwise.
I am familiar with this process, I have seen many a teenager go through this failure to accept the hole in their logic.
/shrug
Nonsense. Everything you have stated is precipitated on the notion that a fetus is alive, something you have not and cannot prov, yet you state over and over again as if it is a fact.
You cannot arbitrarily decide a fetus is alive. It defies logic, reason, and every existing definition of alive. Therefore you are stating that the existence of a fetus outweighs the life of a woman. You are the only one making a value judgement of the worth of someone's life, and you way he life of a woman as less than that of a fetus.
I am not seeing why. At least not in any meaninful sense. I could also say "Heart Bypass is just plain wrong" in that I would prefer no one ever had to have one, and they never had to happen. But I do not think there is anything wrong with it in and of itself per se.
I would say the same about abortion. I would prefer no one needed to have one, and they never happened. But not because I think there is anything wrong with them per se, in and of themselves.
The VAST majority of chosen abortions (over 90%) happen in or before the 12th week of gestation. I genuinely see no issue with such abortions. Let alone to the level of them being "just plain wrong".
Human DNA + heartbeat = human. It's illegal to murder a human.
The entire abortion discussion is no more complicated than this.
Anyone who attempts to complicate it beyond this is trying to justify the murder of a human. In civilization, a priori we don't justify the murders of innocent humans.
This axiom can said to be a cornerstone of our civilization, and a core philosophical foundation of the strict law that prohibits murder.
Women have control of their bodies, and control of their choice, when they make the decision to either have or not have sex. That's where this control begins and ends.
Instances of rape are a moral complication that would need to be discussed. However, by far most abortions aren't due to rape and so other prohibition on abortion would reduce abortions to a minimum.
This might also reduce casual sex rates, thus reduce the spread of STD's, thus increase family commitment and cohesion, thus improve child outcomes, thus reduce crime, and thus increase overall life satisfaction for the average person.
They can grow human hearts, that beat, in Petri dishes. Are they people?
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.
So clearly when people are claiming to be worried about heart beats......... there is actually more to it than that whether they have acknowledged it or not.
