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.
Exactly! Leave all the false morality garbage out of it people. It's not about morals, it's about money. I don't want to pay more in taxes because some people don't understand the concept of birth-control.
Bingo
Folks that are in such support of it should fund and take those folks and their kids in themselves.
"The nervous system develops from embryonic tissue called the ectoderm. The first sign of the developing nervous system is the neural plate that can be seen at about the 16th day of development. "
And...what was your goal in posting that? Was it to show some sort of a point? If so...what's your point?
Quote:
I think that sounded better in your head than how it actually came across in this electronic form of communication, because I don't know what you're talking about.
My statement you responded to was this: once a fetus can experience pain...their death can still assist the fetus. Once its born, death causes fewer advantages to it and more harm to society. Once it develops something like self-awareness, the prospect of euthanasia without its consent causes more harm to it still...and so, that dehumanization is often not an inaccurate way of depicting things.
There's nothing wrong with that statement.
Think about the nature of development. Early into the pregnancy, there are zero disadvantages to the ending of the life of the fetus. That's because the fetus won't be able to experience pain.
Eventually the fetus will pass the point of being able to experience pain, and with that will form the first definite negative to ending its existence.
The next major step won't come until birth. After birth there are less advantages to ending the life of the baby, and more negatives. There are less advantages and more negatives in the sense that after birth the baby will definitely be able to experience pain, unlike a fetus, which only might. Furthermore, the unpleasant process of child birthing has already been completed, so death would not avoid that. Furthermore, people will immediately start to develop emotional bonds to the baby, so ending its life would cause additional harm at that point. Furthermore, we could give the baby up for adoption rather than end its life...although I still think we should legalize the euthanasia of infants who are born with certain forms of terrible diseases for the same reason people might end the life of fetuses. This would be done by medical experts. My only question is, what sorts of conditions should this be legal for, and how long after birth?
After that, the longer the baby is around, the more resources and time is spent into raising it, and the more relationships it develops, and severing those relationships and wasting those invested resources adds an additional layer of harm.
The next step comes with something akin to self-awareness. If an organism can understand death and fear it, the prospect of it being killed when it gets sick would result in it experiencing frequent fear if that is legal...and that's another major disadvantage to ending something's life.
The next step comes when an organism understands what death is...compounding any fear the organisms has of being euthanized without its consent (or with it) if euthanasia for certain diseases is legal.
The next step involves having a more firm understanding of death...when we can really say the child would have some way of deciding, somewhat intelligently, whether or not they'd be best off alive or not. At this point, parents deciding to euthanize their child being legal would be nearly totally harmful, in most circumstances, because the child would already be able to make that decision...and legalizing the euthanasia of people without their consent at this point would lead to society collapsing into chaos, because it would tell people that anyone can have their free will taken away.
Quote:
Again, I think this sounded better in your head --- all babies go to Heaven? It isn't a bad idea to think one might be alive spiritually if that life also included influence over those actually living. To think the dead have power. Could be, they do. Kind of sort of like the movie "Flatliners" --- interesting concept.
You responded to this comment of mine:
The difference between the military killing things and abortion is when the military does it, it causes harm. If you were aborted, on the other hand, you'd still be here...more or less...or at least the consciousness that is the most important part of you. It would merely exist in other people. You would still exist...just not trivial, unique, genetic traits. The fact that someone would still be thinking of themselves as "Me" though, means you'd still have everything you want out of life, even if you were aborted.
I was not thinking of Heaven when I said that. I don't think Heaven's existence is possible. I am an atheist who believes in no traditional afterlife. I can imagine no alternative besides our memories all fading after we die.
What I meant was that after we die, our consciousness still exists within other people. That's provable, regardless of what religious view is true. I call myself "me." So do you. Our sentience, in that sense, continues on after our deaths in other people...just without our trivial genetic traits.
Now...for adults, losing those genetic traits is not trivial at all. We've built up relationships and lives and plans around them.
For a fetus they're trivial though, because no relationships have been built up around them. That's why, in fetuses, those unique genetic traits are trivial. They don't matter because the relationships and plans that make them noteworthy don't exist yet.
The Supreme Court has announced it will hear a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade in the first abortion case taken by the court since Amy Coney Barrett joined the court last year.
It is time to overturn this decision, which will for those who do not know, would not make abortion illegal. It would return the authority for the matter to the state legislatures, each which would be responsible for passing its own law to govern abortion policy in their respective state.
Get your seatbelts on. Here we go....
No, it be the government sticking their collective, religious noses where it doesn’t belong!
I would think BOTH parties would want less control over people and their bodies, if we keep giving the government more and more power soon you won’t be to fart in your own house on Thursday past 2pm.
It’s truly sad that some of you can’t get that though your heads!
Okay, lets push your beliefs to their logical, philosophical conclusions.
What is 'wrong' about being anti-abortion?
Thats a philosophical question. Let's see if you can answer without any Red Herrings.
We've been over that about 40,000 times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacInTx
All of the posters on this thread should be thankful their mothers weren't pro-choice.
No they shouldn't. They'd still exist if they were aborted...just teleported into different bodies with different genetic traits...in the sense that there would still be sentient people in existence.
They wouldn't have known whether those traits would be better or worse for them, so there'd have been no disadvantage to a painless abortion.
Is what a woman does with their 2 week old, our business?
Well, in that circumstance we're talking about an organism that's definitely capable of experiencing pain...so that's one definite negative of ending its life...unless there's some painless way to ensure death.
Furthermore, at that point, the life form has already done all the harm to the parent that doesn't want a child that it's able to do. The parent can simply give it up for adoption if the parent doesn't want the baby.
However...I definitely think we should legalize euthanasia of infants with certain forms of genetic disorders or diseases. I'm just not sure what yet...or how long this should be legal. It would definitely be done by medical professionals though. We can't have un-guided regular parents doing that on their own. They might cause unnecessary suffering or mess up somehow.
What position am I trying to advance --- education? It is a woman's right to know ... Just because at 12-16 weeks an unborn offspring can not breathe on its own, outside the mother's womb, doesn't mean the unborn offspring, isn't a human species. I can verify my claim, can you verify yours, outside that of your own head? Come at me with reason and logic, that is my best playing field.
Saying a life form is an "animal" does not necessarily imply that it's not a member of the human species. Humans are, in some contexts, animals. In other contexts they are not animals.
Here's is one definition of "animal:" Any of numerous multicellular eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Metazoa (or Animalia) that ingest food rather than manufacturing it themselves and are usually able to move about during at ...
However, there are also words like "animalistic" that imply lacking traits like self-awareness, an understanding of death, or a firm knowledge of reality.
Humans are, oftentimes, described as not being animals...in some accurate contexts, by people who still view them as animals in the sense of how they are scientifically categorized. Saying an organism is "nonhuman" can work the exact same way. For example, I think it'd be pretty reasonable to say a recently fertilized egg is nonhuman...not in the scientific context, but in more practical sorts of contexts responsible for providing a more accurate worldview.
A recently fertilized egg has none of the traits of humans that we value the lives of humans for. It doesn't even have any of the traits that we value animal lives for. The only traits it has are the traits of organisms that we universally don't care at all about the lives of...such as microbes.
Fetuses are beyond that stage, I'd say, because of their potential to experience pain and other emotions...but they're still very animalistic. They have more in common with animals than humans, in all relevant ways.
That's not saying that animal welfare is unimportant...just that there are additional reasons to be protect of human life. For example, if we legalized the euthanasia of humans without their consent society would panic and collapse into chaos. Animals don't understand reality enough to even know whether or not they want to exist. They only know that they dislike suffering.
Quote:
If you didn't want government managing your lives, you should have done more to stop them from doing it.
^ that's my other position. I will keep repeating it, hopefully in doing so it will begin to sink in who the tyrants are here.
Incorrect. I can want the government to not manage people's lives in some, rational ways, but not want the government to manage people's lives in irrational ways.
Fetal homicide has already been codified as the murder of a human by another human. That already legally classifies a fetus as a defenseless human.
And there have been decades of historical precedent that say that such laws coexist with legalized abortion just fine...as they should.
This is partly just a common sense issue. We need some forms of abortion because they are capable of assisting the fetus. Forced abortions through assault or otherwise pose an additional crime against the parent and in doing so can reduce the quality of the would-be child's life through removing it from a life that had been planned out well.
And there have been decades of historical precedent that say that such laws coexist with legalized abortion just fine...as they should.
Why should they? Both fetal homicide and abortion are the intentional killing of a human by another human. As it stands, since women can legally kill their fetuses, it's unconstitutional for anyone else to be prosecuted for doing the same. Equal Protection Clause. Either anyone can kill a fetus, or no one can. Can't have it both ways.
Well, you appear to be one of the most hubristic people on this website.
Damn strait, and I deserve ever ego boost I give myself
__________________________________________________ ____________
The below comment is a response to this statement of mine:
In never suggested that animals don't mourn their dead. Some animals don't though. That's why I'm calling them animals.
Quote:
What then were you suggesting in your following statement? It is this type of 'said' and 'denied' that questions credibility.
Both animals and fetuses are lacking the knowledge of death humans have. They lack the ability to fear death, due to that lack of knowledge. Many animals, like fetuses, will also have no ability to mourn the dead, especially if they're not social organisms.
__________________________________________________ _________________________________
That statement, in bold that I made, says nothing about all animals not mourning their dead. I specifically used the word "many."
Quote:
Whose ethics? Are you saying we would be most accurate if we followed your ethics? Do you have some 'divine moral compass' that elevates your ethics above all others? You do realize not everyone has the same moral belief or the same ethics. Of course everyone believes theirs to be right. You believe abortion ends the life of an animal. Others, myself included believe it ends the life of a human. I guess one thing we all agree on.....it ends a life. Doesn't sound too ethical to me.
I'm saying that this is an issue we are capable of discussing, using our reasoning ability, to determine what proper ethics are.
My statements have involved arguments about why I'm correct. This paragraph involves no argument about why you're correct. Therefore, with that paragraph, you're not trying to argue ethics. We should avoid that. It doesn't solve any problems.
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.
