Abortion: Legal or Illegal

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.

Oh I also forgot to point out that abortion most definitely fails the Categorical Imperative, making it's illegality a perfect duty, for those of you who are interested in such.

Edited by Deathrabbit - November 04 2011 at 19:22

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Nobody cares about Kant.

The one thing everyone else in this thread can agree on.

Slartibartfast wrote: Deathrabbit wrote: There certain people I don't think qualify as beautiful human life. Does that mean it's okay to kill them? "Ugly folks go take some cyanide and diiiiie, die die die die!"

wouldn't that wipe-out as much as 82% of all PA members ?

Atavachron wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Deathrabbit wrote: There certain people I don't think qualify as beautiful human life. Does that mean it's okay to kill them? "Ugly folks go take some cyanide and diiiiie, die die die die!" wouldn't that wipe-out as much as 82% of all PA members ?

"A-ren-nen-nen-ah-ren-nen-nen
A-ren-nen-nen-uh-rennda
A-ren-nen-nen-ah-ren-nen-nen
A-rennda-rennda-rahhh"

E-Dub wrote: I hesitate stepping foot into a thread like this because it just becomes all buzzes and pops with all of the different facts and viewpoints bouncing around; however, I feel there's something a bit out of whack when people will chain themselves to a tree to protect it, but won't defend an unborn child with the same passion and vigor. E

Eric, not to reduce human life to simply a part of the environment, although in many ways, that is all we are, but trees = good for the earth and the continued existence of all species.  humans (at least in the numbers we have now) = bad for the earth and a threat to the continued existence of all species. 

Number 2.  I have never and will never chain myself to a tree.  I have allergies. 

The T wrote: Henry Plainview wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: Nobody cares about Kant. The one thing everyone else in this thread can agree on.

What is the meaning of life? 

Alitare wrote: What is the meaning of life?

Well, my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it. 

Epignosis wrote: Hober Mallow wrote: Epignosis wrote: Hober Mallow wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: Epignosis wrote: The Doctor wrote: TheMasterMofo wrote: The Doctor wrote: So, since everyone is so concerned about fetuses, how about ensuring that EVERY child has proper medical care, proper food, clothing and housing?  Oh, but you don't want to pay for that in the form of taxes, do you Rob?  Or are children only important while they're in the womb? That would be pretty nice, too. I  bet a lot of people would rather pay for that in taxes than pay for some lazy fool to sit around playing XBoX his entire life. Seems a bit diffusional from the issue of abortion, though. It is exactly the issue.  If you only fight to limit abortion, but do not also want to help children that have already been born, then in my view your position becomes one not of protecting children, but simply one of control over women.  You can't preach against abortion and welfare, government funded healthcare for children, school lunches, and so on without being a hypocrite.  Then I would say your interest is not in protecting children, but rather in controlling women.  Is it not enough that our family believes in adopting and fostering children as we are able? Or are we heartless b*****ds who want to control a woman's body?  Four members of my family are alive because their mothers' chose to let them be ADOPTED rather than killed off. Erm, you don't know me well enough to know this Rob, but I was also adopted.  I was one of the lucky ones though, who had grandparents who wanted to adopt me and give me a loving home.  How many children are that lucky?  Really? How many children are going hungry?  How many are ill without adequate healthcare?  How many are homeless?  How many are abused by foster parents (note, I am in no way saying anything about your fostering, but many are not so lucky to get decent people caring for them)?  And you want to increase their numbers by limiting abortion?  My heart breaks for children too, Rob, but not the ones who were aborted, but the ones who are alive and suffering. You're right.  Children are suffering.  Let's kill them. The embryo isn't suffering and even if it is all the more reason to abort it. after their born they suffer. what you said barely made sense. The implication presented was that if someone is suffering (or will possibly suffer), then someone else should be able to snuff them.  I disagree with that idea. Do you? Yes, but it isn't about the embryo/fetus anymore it is about the woman carrying the child. You are taking the rights away from a woman and giving them to a fetus that has no emotion, feeling, or any say in society whatsoever.  Don't distract from the question. The woman has (or had) 1) A right not to have sex 2) A right to use birth control 3) A right to give the child to willing parents 4) Keep the child A comatose person inflicts burdens upon others, yet has no emotion, feeling, or any say in society whatsoever.  Should they be killed? If a woman suffers during or after an abortion, should she be killed too? What a cruel world!

What if the birth control fails? One thing i don't think has been mentioned, what if the pregenency endangers the woman physically? And i have said this before but if a woman is raped, she should have to go through an incredibly painful experience? answer me this.