First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
Does Scientific Life Necessarily Coincide With Moral Life?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/24/09

Yei wrote:


Any abortion done for the wrong reasons is immoral, IMO. Like if a couple is was irresponsible. But in the cases of rape or incest, I think abortion at any time should be an option for the mother. It's not about whether life is a right or not, it's doing what seems to be the best for everyone. If a child is the result of a father raping his daughter, I think it would be cruel for both the mother and child not to give the option of abortion. The child will probably have defects and not the most pleasant life, and imagine how the mother would feel. An abortion in that case is the moral thing to do, IMO, life isn't always a gift for everyone.

And I would assume most abortions are not decided upon 32 weeks into the pregnancy. Don't most people get them as soon as possible when they know they are pregnant? Abortions that are performed sooner aren't the same as killing an already born human for the same reasons I said before.


Your stance on the issue is called ‘gradualism,’ and it’s actually the most common American attitude. Polls show that Americans are against banning all abortions. They’re also against allowing them under any circumstance. I have a tendency to agree with you. Still, I’m not convinced that we should legalize early term abortions on that logic.

Also, I’ve always hated it when people justify abortion by saying that it’s for the child’s sake. Peter Singer, a famous animal rights activist, recently created a massive stir amongst the public when he defended certain forms of infanticide. He felt that it was cruel to let a newborn baby with Down ’s syndrome to live. That’s essentially the same thing we’re arguing here with that ‘it’d be cruel not to kill the child.’


But, I do agree. A zygote does not have the same moral standing as a born human or a thirty-two-week old fetus. Can we both say that a thirty-two-week old fetus is just as valuable as a new born, and both are more valuable than an embryo? Now, the question comes, should the government base decisions off of religious sentiment like this?
Posted 4/24/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


mystic17 wrote:

not sure really =T


Ah, fair enough. What's yer heart say?


i still have mixed feelings about this situation, so i don't know
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 4/25/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


leviathan343 wrote:

Morality is not necessarily ethics, and "religious" morality is mostly rooted in cultural relationships and norms rather than reason. So the government shouldn't consider religious concepts, especially since religious morality will discriminate against those with other beliefs considering the issue. In all honesty, that should be left up to the market.


How interesting, because it is my opinion that Roe v. Wade and the typical defense for abortion, that a fetus is not human, are both based upon the Judeo-Christian postulate that the soul (which is defined as ‘the source of thought,’ by a Catholic encyclopedia and ‘cognitive abilities,’ by the secular writer “Paul Davies,” in his “God and the New Physics,”) is what gives a human value. I think that this religious concept wormed its way into our culture and I think that's where we get the idea that fetuses aren't human.

Juts like the KKK uses their religious beliefs to say blacks aren't human, the rest of us are using a Christian concept to say that a fully developed fetus is not human. The word in the NW translated to 'soul,' is the Greek 'psyche,' and I don't htink I need to explain how that's relevant. Now, this isn't a fact. It's a theory. Correlation does not denote causation.


The choice of abortion should be left up to the market.

I'm not quite certain of the implications, but human beings have no more intrinsic value than the next animal or microorganism. It's quite typical of an Abrahamic religion.
1696 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Brisbane, Australia
Offline
Posted 4/25/09
Life begins at conception because
at that point, all conditions are clear, the baby has a great percentage chance of being born

its like printing out your assignment, things can go wrong handing it in, but conditions are all set

















5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/25/09

Daniel9878 wrote:

Life begins at conception because
at that point, all conditions are clear, the baby has a great percentage chance of being born


Everyone knows that a zygote is alive, at least everyone who knows what a zygote is. The question is, is the life of a clump of non-sentient cells as valuable as the life of a fully-functioning human?
Scientist Moderator
digs 
52086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:


Daniel9878 wrote:

Life begins at conception because
at that point, all conditions are clear, the baby has a great percentage chance of being born


Everyone knows that a zygote is alive, at least everyone who knows what a zygote is. The question is, is the life of a clump of non-sentient cells as valuable as the life of a fully-functioning human?


But id you think about it, the zygote is a fully functioning human in the sense that in it's current status it is doing everything it needs to do to advance. Of course I understand the argument on whether or not the zygote is an individual yet. I personally believe that at conception a new life has been formed and should be protected, so all forms of abortion (including morning after pills) should be made illegal.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 4/25/09 , edited 4/25/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:


Any abortion done for the wrong reasons is immoral, IMO. Like if a couple is was irresponsible. But in the cases of rape or incest, I think abortion at any time should be an option for the mother. It's not about whether life is a right or not, it's doing what seems to be the best for everyone. If a child is the result of a father raping his daughter, I think it would be cruel for both the mother and child not to give the option of abortion. The child will probably have defects and not the most pleasant life, and imagine how the mother would feel. An abortion in that case is the moral thing to do, IMO, life isn't always a gift for everyone.

And I would assume most abortions are not decided upon 32 weeks into the pregnancy. Don't most people get them as soon as possible when they know they are pregnant? Abortions that are performed sooner aren't the same as killing an already born human for the same reasons I said before.


Your stance on the issue is called ‘gradualism,’ and it’s actually the most common American attitude. Polls show that Americans are against banning all abortions. They’re also against allowing them under any circumstance. I have a tendency to agree with you. Still, I’m not convinced that we should legalize early term abortions on that logic.

Also, I’ve always hated it when people justify abortion by saying that it’s for the child’s sake. Peter Singer, a famous animal rights activist, recently created a massive stir amongst the public when he defended certain forms of infanticide. He felt that it was cruel to let a newborn baby with Down ’s syndrome to live. That’s essentially the same thing we’re arguing here with that ‘it’d be cruel not to kill the child.’


But, I do agree. A zygote does not have the same moral standing as a born human or a thirty-two-week old fetus. Can we both say that a thirty-two-week old fetus is just as valuable as a new born, and both are more valuable than an embryo? Now, the question comes, should the government base decisions off of religious sentiment like this?


Yeah, a 32 week old fetus is just as valuable as a new born and they are both more valuable than an embryo. I don't think this is a religious sentiment, it is just a moral sentiment. I don't think the government should ever base any decision off religious sentiment, that would make no sense at all.

And do you understand that life isn't always a gift? If there was a child born with extreme defects, was abused and neglected since birth and ends up dying a slow painful death at 8 years old, I think it would have been better off aborted.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/09

mystic17 wrote:

i still have mixed feelings about this situation, so i don't know


Well, at least you’re open-minded.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/09

Yei wrote:

And do you understand that life isn't always a gift? If there was a child born with extreme defects, was abused and neglected since birth and ends up dying a slow painful death at 8 years old, I think it would have been better off aborted.


Yeah, but instead of killing the child why not just make sure it doesn’t die a slow and painful death? We have programs and systems for children under these extreme circumstances. As it stands, very few abortions are being attained for the fetus’ sake. Most women who have abortions admit they doing it for social reasons like the matriculation of their career.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 4/25/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

And do you understand that life isn't always a gift? If there was a child born with extreme defects, was abused and neglected since birth and ends up dying a slow painful death at 8 years old, I think it would have been better off aborted.


Yeah, but instead of killing the child why not just make sure it doesn’t die a slow and painful death? We have programs and systems for children under these extreme circumstances. As it stands, very few abortions are being attained for the fetus’ sake. Most women who have abortions admit they doing it for social reasons like the matriculation of their career.


If a 14 year old girl gets pregnant from her father raping her. And the doctors say the baby would probably have many defects and mental disabilities. Do you think she should have the right to choose to get an abortion? And should she get one or not?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/09 , edited 4/25/09

Yei wrote:

If a 14 year old girl gets pregnant from her father raping her. And the doctors say the baby would probably have many defects and mental disabilities. Do you think she should have the right to choose to get an abortion? And should she get one or not?


I think I like Judith Jarvis Thomson’s example concerning the issue of abortion being attained in response to rape. Judith asks that you suppose you were kidnapped and attached to a stranger via a series of life supporting tubes. You can stay attached to this man for 8-9 months and he’ll live. You can also cut the cords and leave, but if you do this he’ll die. While it’d be a brave, admirable, and kind thing to support this man you have no obligation to do so. Quite the contrary, you have a right to do the exact opposite.

However, in cases of consensual sex it is no longer a matter of being kidnapped and forcibly attached to the musician. Instead it would be more accurate to say that you chose of your own volition to attach yourself to this stranger without his consent. (A fetus never asks to be conceived.) You have just made this man reliant on you for survival. You have done so of your own volition. I believe that you’re obliged to support him because you made the decision to create a dependent and Americans ARE obliged to provide for our dependents.

You can read more about this here: http://religiousgenocide.blogspot.com/2009/03/abortion-part-ii-roe-v-wade-and.html

As far as the defects, I think those are irrelevant. Would it be excusable for me to kill all newborn babies that have birth defects? No, not at all, so why should it be excusable for me to kill a thirty-two-week old fetus just because he/she has a birth defect?


Besides, rape and incest combined constitute less than 1% of abortions being attained in America. Read the posts within the link I provided.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 4/25/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

If a 14 year old girl gets pregnant from her father raping her. And the doctors say the baby would probably have many defects and mental disabilities. Do you think she should have the right to choose to get an abortion? And should she get one or not?


I think I like Judith Jarvis Thomson’s example concerning the issue of abortion being attained in response to rape. Judith asks that you suppose you were kidnapped and attached to a stranger via a series of life supporting tubes. You can stay attached to this man for 8-9 months and he’ll live. You can also cut the cords and leave, but if you do this he’ll die. While it’d be a brave, admirable, and kind thing to support this man you have no obligation to do so. Quite the contrary, you have a right to do the exact opposite.

However, in cases of consensual sex it is no longer a matter of being kidnapped and forcibly attached to the musician. Instead it would be more accurate to say that you chose of your own volition to attach yourself to this stranger without his consent. (A fetus never asks to be conceived.) You have just made this man reliant on you for survival. You have done so of your own volition. I believe that you’re obliged to support him because you made the decision to create a dependent and Americans ARE obliged to provide for our dependents.

You can read more about this here: http://religiousgenocide.blogspot.com/2009/03/abortion-part-ii-roe-v-wade-and.html

As far as the defects, I think those are irrelevant. Would it be excusable for me to kill all newborn babies that have birth defects? No, not at all, so why should it be excusable for me to kill a thirty-two-week old fetus just because he/she has a birth defect?


Besides, rape and incest combined constitute less than 1% of abortions being attained in America. Read the posts within the link I provided.


You didn't really answer the questions...
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/25/09 , edited 4/25/09

digs wrote:

But id you think about it, the zygote is a fully functioning human in the sense that in it's current status it is doing everything it needs to do to advance. Of course I understand the argument on whether or not the zygote is an individual yet. I personally believe that at conception a new life has been formed and should be protected, so all forms of abortion (including morning after pills) should be made illegal.


You know that the morning after pill isn’t a form of abortion? That’s really an urban myth of sorts. The morning after pill is just a stronger dose of the same hormones used in other birth control pills. You can take it up to seventy two hours after having sex and it’ll be effective, but if the male gametes fertilize the female eggs the morning after pill is useless. It cannot abort a zygote-although, it may be noted that women who become pregnant and take birth control pills AFTER conception often experience complications.

Anyway, that a zygote is a living human being is a scientific fact. The question isn’t rather or not it’s a living human being but rather is this particular member of our species morally significant? Can you really place the same value in a wad of organic material with no nerves, cognitive abilities, emotions, or awareness as you do a fully developed human being?


As far as it not being an individual, I don’t actually see how that’s relevant. Yes, it is dependent on its mother’s survival but so is an infant if you get right down to it. We actually have laws that force parents to properly provide for their children. Neglect and abuse are punishable by extensive prison sentences. Considering that a zygote is a human I don’t see why the laws concerning a new-born child don’t apply. Since when is our government allowed to make decisions based off of religious inventions like morality?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 4/25/09 , edited 4/25/09

SeraphAlford wrote:


Yei wrote:

You didn't really answer the questions...


Yes I did.


I asked if a girl in that specific case should have the right to get an abortion. The closest thing to answering that in your post was "Quite the contrary, you have a right to do the exact opposite." So I guess that means you think she should have that right?

And I asked if you thought she should get one or not. I'm guessing you think she shouldn't because bringing this deformed child which is also her half brother/sister into the world would be a kind thing to do. And this is not regarding what the 14 year old girl would be going through, I'm assuming.

If I was raped and got pregnant, I would absolutely hate to have to have that child. Now you can simply say "why not just give it up for adoption", but you have to understand how the woman would feel. I would never want to give one of my kids up for adoption, knowing one of mine was out there being raised by other people. And one day he/she would grow old enough and look for me and then how would they feel about everything.? It's very complicated, and would kill me emotionally to have to go through the rest of my life like that.

And btw, according to Christianity, what happens to these aborted babies?
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 4/25/09

digs wrote:
But id you think about it, the zygote is a fully functioning human in the sense that in it's current status it is doing everything it needs to do to advance.


I don't get exactly what you're trying to say, but if I'm understanding you correctly, then that means every living thing is a human being, since all living those to what they need to survive. Which doesn't make sense obviously.


I personally believe that at conception a new life has been formed and should be protected, so all forms of abortion (including morning after pills) should be made illegal.


So you think that the lives of all individual cells within a human are just as valuable as the human itself, and that killing even one cell is just as bad as taking the life of a human? Because that would mean that everyone who has hit puberty is a murderer, for reasons that I already explained.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.