Abortions illegal in the USA?

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by LHC

abortion doesn't kill human life

After you twist your views and distort them so that it offers an easy way out of a problem and ignore the fact it kills.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by G_frog

Let's do a thought experiment.

What if i get a fully concious human brain hooked up to a completely artifical support system, with inputs and outputs provided via electronic means. Is it morally wrong to turn off the support system? If yes, clearly there is something fundamental to humanity and the morality of killing in that entity.

Now, suppose I reverse the example and take a fully functional human body without a brain, with the neccesary control functions that the brain provides supplied by another entirely artificial system. The head can even be filled with neurons hooked up in a random configuration if you like. Is there a moral objection to killing this organism? if not, then there cannot be anything fundamental to the morality of killing in the entity.

Finally, suppose I take the human genome data and give it to a computer, along with data on the initial configuration of human germ cells, the relevant raw materials, a molecular chemistry kit, and a program telling it to use all this to create embryos, which will then be artificially incubated until "birth". If I do nothing, the computer will pump out an endless line of clones. Is there a moral objection to deactivating the computer? If not, then there can be no moral objection to preventing births. If the DNA was that of Einstein, and it was the case that einstein's fantastic abilities resulted from his genes, would this create an objection? Should I be allowed to leave the machine running without prospective adoptive parents?

In any of these cases should the proposed action be illegal if it is regarded as wrong?

I hope you all see my point.

best post yet

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by G_frog

Let's do a thought experiment.

What if i get a fully concious human brain hooked up to a completely artifical support system, with inputs and outputs provided via electronic means. Is it morally wrong to turn off the support system? If yes, clearly there is something fundamental to humanity and the morality of killing in that entity.

Now, suppose I reverse the example and take a fully functional human body without a brain, with the neccesary control functions that the brain provides supplied by another entirely artificial system. The head can even be filled with neurons hooked up in a random configuration if you like. Is there a moral objection to killing this organism? if not, then there cannot be anything fundamental to the morality of killing in the entity.

Finally, suppose I take the human genome data and give it to a computer, along with data on the initial configuration of human germ cells, the relevant raw materials, a molecular chemistry kit, and a program telling it to use all this to create embryos, which will then be artificially incubated until "birth". If I do nothing, the computer will pump out an endless line of clones. Is there a moral objection to deactivating the computer? If not, then there can be no moral objection to preventing births. If the DNA was that of Einstein, and it was the case that einstein's fantastic abilities resulted from his genes, would this create an objection? Should I be allowed to leave the machine running without prospective adoptive parents?

In any of these cases should the proposed action be illegal if it is regarded as wrong?

I hope you all see my point.

i'd prefer the german to the uncomfortable 'thought-experiment' translation, but other than that the strong argument here forces me to take on a very different angle.

On part 1, shutting it off certainly would be a moral wrong, as it would clearly be murder, and the process of hooking a human brain to an electronic setup would be a virulent abomination to God.

In part 2, killing the body would, again, be murder. Missing a part of your body does not make you any less a person; would it be okay to kill a person who had no hand? Of course not. It's also NOT okay to kill a person missing his body, and it's also not okay to kill a person missing his brain.

Anyway, hooking a body up like this would be an abomination to God anyway.

On 3, your mechanical setup is, surprise, an abomination to God and should be destroyed at the first possible oppurtunity. the children produced prior to the destruction should be raised properly and baptized quickly. They seem to me to be much like children of incest: borne out of an abomination to God, they must be kept under watchful eye to prevent them from falling under the spell of Satan.

[Bunga]

Acropolis, are you serious?

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

After you twist your views and distort them so that it offers an easy way out of a problem and ignore the fact it kills.

Copnstantly repeating the phrase 'murder' and 'killer' does not make it so. Killing a foetus in the first trimester is not murder, because it is not a person, it fits no legal criteria of being a person, and as I said in my first post, I defy you to come up with a non-religious argument stating that it IS a person.

Being a potential person is irrelevant under the law, and has been stated many times, sperm is also a potential person, just earlier along the chain of events.

There is no twisting of views, no distortion. The foetus cannot survive on its own, even with all the life-support machines in the world. It cannot function in any manner, it is, much like an arm, an extension of the woman's body. In the third trimester of course, this changes, which is why I can see there being a valid argument for banning late abortions... its also why late abortions ARE illegal in most western states except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger.

After an early stage abortion, nothing is dead that was once alive. Thus, there is no murder. If you disagree, feel free to argue my point, but repeating an inflammatory assertion endlessly is not an argument.

If you have a religious argument against abortion, well... power to you. I cannot fault that. But if you are conceited enought to believe that your personal religious convictions should be applied to all of secular society, then the problem is not with the law, it is with you.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by acropolis

In part 2, killing the body would, again, be murder. Missing a part of your body does not make you any less a person; would it be okay to kill a person who had no hand? Of course not. It's also NOT okay to kill a person missing his body, and it's also not okay to kill a person missing his brain.

Then murder is committed every day in every city in the western world. Once Brain activity *Fully* ceases, then the body is considered dead and life support is removed. Thats pretty much standard in North America and Europe. Problems arise of course when brain activity is seriously impaired or limited,then there is a decision regarding the family and such. But if there is no brain activity at all, then game over.

On 3, your mechanical setup is, surprise, an abomination to God and should be destroyed at the first possible oppurtunity. the children produced prior to the destruction should be raised properly and baptized quickly. They seem to me to be much like children of incest: borne out of an abomination to God, they must be kept under watchful eye to prevent them from falling under the spell of Satan.

Irrelevant, irelevant, irrelevant. Religious arguments are in the realm of personal belief and conviction, and have nothing to do with the law in a secular state. I could create a religion in which abortion IS legal, and my example would have the same strength as yours.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

If you have a religious argument against abortion, well... power to you. I cannot fault that. But if you are conceited enought to believe that your personal religious convictions should be applied to all of secular society, then the problem is not with the law, it is with you.

But surely they will view it as an act of altruism; is it wrong for an individual to work for a greater good, regardless of society? Was, to use an example, Schindler an evil, conceited man because of his actions with Jews?

The law is an attempt to codify a moral position, and if there can be no leverage against it, no matter the moral opinion of the populace, then surely the law is evil.

[JonnyBGood]

I think (hope) acropolis was taking the piss.



I didn't know genetics and biology were included in your areas of expertise verm

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

But surely they will view it as an act of altruism; is it wrong for an individual to work for a greater good, regardless of society? Was, to use an example, Schindler an evil, conceited man because of his actions with Jews?

The law is an attempt to codify a moral position, and if there can be no leverage against it, no matter the moral opinion of the populace, then surely the law is evil.

Now THAT (unlike most of this thread) is an interesting point.

No, of course it is not all right for individuals to work against the majority based on personal beliefs. But you have to be VERY careful with this parabole. Yes, Shindler was an amazing man, who did what he though was right against a society who disagreed.

So was the Hamas member who blew himself up in an Israeli disco.

How exactly do you divide the two? Both did what they thought was for the best. History tells us one is a hero and the other a villain, but if self-motive is all we look at, what is the difference?

In general, I have NO problem with people acting as their concience dictates, even if that opposes the norm. However, when you add religion, you get a problem. Religion tends to tell people what is right and wrong, rather than letting their own morality decide. Religion codifies right and wrong, and then tries to enforce it, based not on logic and principle, but on the supposed work of a supposed creator thousands of years ago in a different time and place.

If one wants to make a argument against my stance on abortion, then by all means, feel free. I love a good debate. But if your argument is simply what an ancient, edited, altered and out-of-context book told you to think, then it serves no purpose.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

I didn't know genetics and biology were included in your areas of expertise verm

I`m branching out.

[JonnyBGood]

Just on one point though. Is the fetus unable to survive due to the fact it is what it is, or is it unable to survive due to the limitations of medical technology? For example, during the Dark Ages I severely doubt any fetus born or extracted prematurely would survive (or substantially fewer at the very least). If it's only able to survive because of the advancement of our medical expertise would that mean that in the future when technology has advanced even further, earlier trimester abortions would be immoral/illegal as the fetus could (at that time) be saved?

[Phang]

Yes.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

If one wants to make a argument against my stance on abortion, then by all means, feel free. I love a good debate. But if your argument is simply what an ancient, edited, altered and out-of-context book told you to think, then it serves no purpose.

Why does it have to be a religious issue?

Countries, and other similar bodies which can set fields of learning uninhibited, can equally control the minds of the populace. Not all conflicts with ambiguous moralities on either side are religious in nature; indeed, many more are political, such as in the cold war. Would any (nondisillusioned) Russian or American believe that their side was just the same as the other, from a military point of view [we are of course here ignoring Stalin's campaign of terror, but that was a side issue in this conflict at best]?

Morality is a tricky area; there are no absolutes, no axiomic statements. We cannot know what kind of social conditioning is driving us, we can only see it in others.

[G_frog]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Acropolis, are you serious?

I think it's pretty clear he isn't, since he is not mad, mad, mad.

Phang, you're too kind. thanks

[queball]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

Oh please, like your parents are going to say out right you where planned 100%, but instead an accident. In other words, just like I don't know what was really going throught their hormone filled minds neither do you, but I am willing to bet I have the better chance of being right.

Is "planned 100%" different from "planned"? My brain has been created in such a way that I can respond to stimuli and make decisions; does this mean that when I make a decision it is just biology? I really don't get your argument here. Two people fall in love and are passionate towards each other and because they make long-term choices rather than short-term choices, their pregnancy is not planned (in a way you can understand)? Though at the same time, people are wholly responsible for this passion. Perhaps passion is something natural or beyond our comprehension (from God, I guess) that shouldn't be interfered with because no-one rational would have children, but I struggle to see how you can make any sense of the words "choice" or "responsibilty" with this sort of mindset.

[Phang]

Mark

His point was that most 'Pro-Lifers' tend to be religiously motivated in their beliefs - its a fetus becuase Jesus says it is, and this is a hard idea to get around for debate purposes - ie, most pro-lifers simply dont see how anyone could see the fetus as not a human because they havent been exposed to the debate objectively when first impressions were formed - and in this arena, first impressions are almost without fail the only opinions present.

Giles

I just discovered why the abomination of a word which is 'fluffles' was invented.

*fluffles*

[Intrepid00]

Actually, my belief is that its not a cow, nor does it stand a chance in being a cow.

[Phang]

shut the **** up with the cow thing, now if not sooner

Censor evasion is bad.

NOW for your punishment.

FETCH THE LARGE TROUSERS AND FIVE FRESH WHIPPETS

[Intrepid00]

m000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000!!!!!! !!!!!!!!11111111111111

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Bunga

Acropolis, are you serious?

I don't generally post my own opinions. What I posted in this instance are the actual arguments made by the prolifers when contradictions in their arguments are noted.

Originally Posted by Vermillion

There is no twisting of views, no distortion. The foetus cannot survive on its own, even with all the life-support machines in the world. It cannot function in any manner, it is, much like an arm, an extension of the woman's body. In the third trimester of course, this changes, which is why I can see there being a valid argument for banning late abortions... its also why late abortions ARE illegal in most western states except in cases where the life of the mother is in danger.
.

But this goes back to Jonny. If whether or not the fetus can survive outside the womb is the important factor, then 'life' depends on technology. That's hogwash.

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Irrelevant, irelevant, irrelevant. Religious arguments are in the realm of personal belief and conviction, and have nothing to do with the law in a secular state. I could create a religion in which abortion IS legal, and my example would have the same strength as yours.

Your religion would be wrong of course. Moral values are either right or wrong. In this case, abortion is simply wrong. A strong majority will stand with me in my refutation of your religion.


Anyway, Jesus never said anything about abortion, and neither did the bible in general so don't try the tired 'ancient scrolls' crap.

[Bunga]

There are no absolutes when dealing with morality and ethics. The only one which even comes close is Kant's I think... "Act so that the maxim of your action promotes universal good" is how I last saw it phrased.

But moral values are not either right or wrong. They are either internally consistent or not internally consistent, thats it.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by acropolis

Your religion would be wrong of course. Moral values are either right or wrong. In this case, abortion is simply wrong.

So now you are not only the arbiter of Morality, but the arbiter of the correctness of religion? You must be very busy.

A strong majority will stand with me in my refutation of your religion.

Its funny you should say that, because a strong majority would stand against your interpretation of the morality of abortion. So if majority makes some kind of diffeence, as you seem to be asserting, then I assume you will change your views?

[Aryn]

i can't believe you're so pro-life because a FEW adopted kids became famous.
have you ever been to an orphanage? do you KNOW anyone who's been adopted and asked them how their life is like knowing their parents didn't want them.

and no strings attached? sure until the kid comes looking for you to ask why you gave them up.

if you seriously can't believe that babies can be planned then i suggest you go visit your local hospital, or ask any mother. yes some will say 'well... not exactly' but there are alot who say 'yes, and we p lan on having 3 more'


oh and giles wins

[MrL_JaKiri]

acrop, you haven't really made clear where your opinion ends and being devil's advocate begins. Currently, everyone probably thinks you're mad.

[acropolis]

I was pretty much devil's advocate everywhere.

I do think the rape argument is crap, I think the incest argument is crap too.

I think women should be able to have them if they want to. But out of pragmatism I don't mind them making third tremester ones illegal. Third tremester ones cause more problems than they solve (not the fault of the people getting them), and there are tons of laws that have a much more detrimental effect on a much greater number of people.

But I think the "abomination to God" argument is important. As geneticists move closer and closer to being able to adjust human DNA to end genetic diseases etc, I'm seeing the "abomination to God" argument put up more and more by the people who are against it.

[Nusselt]

So if you think a foetus is alive/sentient/human/1 of 6 billion and its mother falls down some stairs and the pregnancy miscarries should we charge her with manslaughter?

I dont have a problem with abortion, personally im pro womens choice, its fairly arbitary to my mind anyway when you describe something as alive. Is an embryo that is frozen for future use 'human'? and if it is then shouldnt it be carried to term even if its original mother dies, ie say she and her partner froze it to take cancer treatment, she dies but if it is human (it has human DNA) should it be carried to term by another woman?

sorry if this has been posted before im in a rush so im reading it all up later this evening


Incidently i hate children. Really i do.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by acropolis

But I think the "abomination to God" argument is important. As geneticists move closer and closer to being able to adjust human DNA to end genetic diseases etc, I'm seeing the "abomination to God" argument put up more and more by the people who are against it.

God bless secular states.

[Marilyn Manson]

I don't particularly favour it, but banning it would be foolish.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

God bless secular states.

The USA lollololololol

God bless secular societies more like it.

[Proteus]

There are two options:
1) A foetus is alive
2) A foetus is not alive

Both options have arguments for and against and both have believers.

If the foetus is alive, killing it is murder and not killing it causes suffering to the mother.

If the foetus is not alive, terminating it is okay and not terminating it causes suffering to the mother.

Banning abortion will cause suffering to the mother.

Allowing abortion may be okay, but may be legalising murder.

Is the certainty of suffering acceptable if it avoids the risk of murder?

You decide!

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

The USA lollololololol

God bless secular societies more like it.

I only meant it as a piece of low irony.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I only meant it as a piece of low irony.

I know honey bunsch.

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Proteus

There are two options:
1) A foetus is alive
2) A foetus is not alive

I can't really see an argument that states that a fetus is not alive.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I know honey bunsch.

Then all is well.

Break open the whisky!

[queball]

Originally Posted by Proteus

If the foetus is alive, killing it is murder and not killing it causes suffering to the mother.

Well, the foetus is alive, and killing it isn't murder, so your premise is wrong. Or you're simply defining murder and are making a value judgement expressed in the form of a real argument.

[Bunga]

[quote=Proteus]There are two options:
1) A foetus is alive
2) A foetus is not alive
QUOTE]

How about:

1) A foetus is alive.

A foetus is alive. So are skin cells. The question is not about wether they are alive or not, it isabout wether they are sentient or not.

[Vermillion]

[quote=Bunga]

Originally Posted by Proteus

There are two options:
A foetus is alive. So are skin cells. The question is not about wether they are alive or not, it isabout wether they are sentient or not.

Badgers are sentient.

The question is, is it human.

The answer is, according to any secular definition, No.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

How about:

1) A foetus is alive.

A foetus is alive. So are skin cells. The question is not about wether they are alive or not, it isabout wether they are sentient or not.

Whatever. Replace "alive" with "a living human being" then, if you like.

Anyway, I'm bored of this now.

Anyone who murders an unborn child will go to hell. Don't like it? Take it up with God. I'm sure he'll be very impressed with your arguments.

[Intrepid00]

I gave up on this thread, no one's mind will be changed and its getting repeative.

[Bunga]

I would take it up with God, but I can't find him.

[Proteus]

Originally Posted by Bunga

I would take it up with God, but I can't find him.

He's everywhere, so it shouldn't be too hard.

[Aryn]

Originally Posted by Proteus

Anyone who murders an unborn child will go to hell. Don't like it? Take it up with God. I'm sure he'll be very impressed with your arguments.

well.. i don't believe in god or hell
but i'm sure that wherever i end up will be just as lovely as this place :P
(though i just plan on nipping it all in the bud by using birth control)

[Bunga]

No he isn't.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Damn, ill for 1 week and you lot have a huge political/morality row. bastards. I feel bad getting involved now, it's just watching Liberals versus right wingers is so boring.

The issue is very simple.

Sex is fun, sometimes women get pregnant, it isn't always convenient to have children, ergo women have abortions. Nothing wrong with that.

Yawn

Thanks for that insightful comment Karl. NOW BACK TO YOUR CELLAR.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

I gave up on this thread, no one's mind will be changed and its getting repeative.

As I recall, you were the one challenged to come up with a non-religious argument of any kind to support your viewpoint, and though I may have missed it, I never saw one... Of course, may have been mistaken...

[acropolis]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Badgers are sentient.

The question is, is it human.

The answer is, according to any secular definition, No.

The secularites have no definition.

[Dilly_D]

Originally Posted by Intrepid00

I gave up on this thread, no one's mind will be changed and its getting repeative.

if you can give people a good enough reason the change their opinions, they usually will. Obviously you're not doing a good enough job.

[Vermillion]

Originally Posted by acropolis

"secularites"

Only you could make non-religious people sound like a villainous race on Star Trek.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Vermillion

Badgers are sentient.

Are mushrooms?

[Intrepid00]

Originally Posted by Dilly_D

if you can give people a good enough reason the change their opinions, they usually will. Obviously you're not doing a good enough job.

If you kill yourself in the name of Allah you will go to heaven and have sex with 10 virgins everyday. Is that good enough?