Abortion: Legal or Illegal

Equality 7-2521 wrote: stonebeard wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you? I have said before that I find the concept of a natural right to be kind of a weird thing. I do not believe in a creator or an afterlife or anything like that, so I can't say anything is imbued with a right at the outset of its existence. If humans did not exist, the entire concept of a "right" would not exist. There would only be the natural order. No one would be there to think about morality.  What I am willing to say is that it's probably a good idea to minimize pain in the world. Most animals, or at least those with nervous systems (citation needed) can feel pain, and in the grand scheme of things I don't see why we should say animal pain is less worthy of limiting than human pain. Of course I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat. Maybe one day I'll make the switch. I suppose I would describe myself as a person with a highly tuned sense of morality who cannot find a reason to accept that there is an absolute standard of morality. I've read Kant and still I cannot find a ground to decry someone else for coming to a different conclusion about a moral action. It's not that I don't personally think they'd be wrong, it's that given the subjective nature of each person's assessment of the situation granted no ultimate authority, creator, or providence, all I can really do is disagree. I understand why religion can be important. Being certain about these kind of things can be very healthy for a society, even if ultimately they are mistaken. Just seems like you might give the same considerations to an almost human than you would to a dog even ignoring a rights viewpoint.

Pretty true, which is why I've been harping on about not aborting after the point in which a fetus feels pain. I'm not sure if there's a scientific consensus about that, or if it has a specific trimester, or whatever. I just don't think all stages of life should be given equal consideration. I can't imagine a cluster of cells and think, "What a beautiful human life just beginning!" It just doesn't resonate with me like that. Apparently it does with a lot of people.

Equality 7-2521 wrote: You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you?

I have said before that I find the concept of a natural right to be kind of a weird thing. I do not believe in a creator or an afterlife or anything like that, so I can't say anything is imbued with a right at the outset of its existence. If humans did not exist, the entire concept of a "right" would not exist. There would only be the natural order. No one would be there to think about morality.  What I am willing to say is that it's probably a good idea to minimize pain in the world. Most animals, or at least those with nervous systems (citation needed) can feel pain, and in the grand scheme of things I don't see why we should say animal pain is less worthy of limiting than human pain. Of course I'm a hypocrite because I eat meat. Maybe one day I'll make the switch.

I suppose I would describe myself as a person with a highly tuned sense of morality who cannot find a reason to accept that there is an absolute standard of morality. I've read Kant and still I cannot find a ground to decry someone else for coming to a different conclusion about a moral action. It's not that I don't personally think they'd be wrong, it's that given the subjective nature of each person's assessment of the situation granted no ultimate authority, creator, or providence, all I can really do is disagree.

I understand why religion can be important. Being certain about these kind of things can be very healthy for a society, even if ultimately they are mistaken.

Jim Garten wrote:

Saperlipopette! wrote: Ehm there's a whole world of politicians and politics outside the US, you know.

Lies! But yea, I don't know anything about them, because I am your typical myopic American.

Saperlipopette! wrote: Deathrabbit wrote: Both leftist and right-wingers seem to be hypocritical on value of life issues. Hippies wanna hug the trees, but killing fetuses is fine. Human life is immutably sacred if you're a right-winger, unless you're an inmate on death row or a Muslim. I want my cake and eat it too. Its good to know that there's more options in life than belonging to hippie idiot left or christian idiot right then. Atleast in the part of the world where I live it is.

Tru dat. The problem is the media, and every politician except for Ron Paul seems to be unaware of a middle ground.

Deathrabbit wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: stonebeard wrote: TheMasterMofo wrote: stonebeard wrote: TheMasterMofo wrote: My whole problem with it is that it seems illogical that you can kill people at a certain early age and it's fine, but it's illegal to do it when they're born. I'm just going to say it: a fetus is not a person and does not deserve all  the rights we afford to born people. As I've said before, ideally I'd most prefer to draw the line at the threshold of pain, or as best we can approximate that, before abortion becomes tricky. But merely being conceived does not mean anything to me. Based on what logic? A human man and a human woman have human sex. The human sperm connects with a human egg and grows inside of the human woman's human womb. After nine months a human baby pops out of the human woman's vag' and grows into a human adult. At what point does the "fetus" magically cease to be human? Just because a collection of cells has  the genetic data of two homo sapiens does not mean I have to treat its existence with the same respect as a fully born person. You may disagree, and that's your prerogative. The point is never that it ceases to be of that species, but that it only acquires the rights we normally afford to regular, born, people after a certain threshold. I do not believe that threshold is conception. Luckily for me I'm consistent. You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you? Both leftist and right-wingers seem to be hypocritical on value of life issues. Hippies wanna hug the trees, but killing fetuses is fine. Human life is immutably sacred if you're a right-winger, unless you're an inmate on death row or a Muslim. I want my cake and eat it too.

stonebeard wrote: TheMasterMofo wrote: stonebeard wrote: TheMasterMofo wrote: My whole problem with it is that it seems illogical that you can kill people at a certain early age and it's fine, but it's illegal to do it when they're born. I'm just going to say it: a fetus is not a person and does not deserve all  the rights we afford to born people. As I've said before, ideally I'd most prefer to draw the line at the threshold of pain, or as best we can approximate that, before abortion becomes tricky. But merely being conceived does not mean anything to me. Based on what logic? A human man and a human woman have human sex. The human sperm connects with a human egg and grows inside of the human woman's human womb. After nine months a human baby pops out of the human woman's vag' and grows into a human adult. At what point does the "fetus" magically cease to be human? Just because a collection of cells has  the genetic data of two homo sapiens does not mean I have to treat its existence with the same respect as a fully born person. You may disagree, and that's your prerogative. The point is never that it ceases to be of that species, but that it only acquires the rights we normally afford to regular, born, people after a certain threshold. I do not believe that threshold is conception.

You are willing to give rights to animals and the environment though aren't you?

The T wrote: Sean Trane wrote: totally legal     if you don't want to abort, fine....   but who's anyone (and I mean ANYONE, beit some religious zealot or the concerned male genitor) to tell a woman what to do with her body???             Again, I might actually support the government not interfering in people's lives even on this issue, but why do people always think that those against abortion are always religious people?

Epignosis wrote: catfood03 wrote: Well, I was thinking murder charges actually What? A man impregnates a woman.  She alone decides to have an abortion. The man is charged with murder? Huh?

No, he isn't charged with murder. Abortion is (usually) the decision of the woman.