So you think the US is in a moral downfall....

Palpy, I don't understand why you are asking that question. What place does it have in this discussion?

 

Jediflyer:

One could argue that prohibiting a sperm and an egg from creating a zygote is prohibiting the birth of a human being, just as one could argue that aborting an embryo is preventing the birth of a human being.

Palpazzar:

I think I know where you're going with this; however, just because William Shakespeare's mom could have aborted him and the world could have lost one of its great playwrights, doesn't mean that we have a right to make a blanket law about what individual women choose to do about their unplanned and unwanted pregnancies.

 

Hopefully making a point, Kessel. I'm waiting for AG's answer. You care to answer it yourself?

 

AJA: "apparently, in the 30 or so years since Roe V. Wade, 100 million kids have been born, and 40 million have been aborted. "

Yes, but how many were aborted before Roe v. Wade? Abortion has always been common, and it always will be. That's a sad fact, but making it illegal does not make it go away. I would be very interested to see stats on how many abortions were had in various periods of history before 1972, but I seriously doubt the needed information is available to put such a statistic together.

Fierce, you said "I'm saying that your belief that the unborn child is not human is being forced upon me, when I'm trying to stand up for the oppressed. "

The thing is, the woman is absolutely definitely alive, with whatever rights being alive confers upon a person, and the fetus is only debatably alive. How is it logical to put the rights of the debatably alive ahead of, or even on an equal level with, the rights of the definitely alive?

JediFlyer, it's very easy to sit around and judge people who are in a situation you yourself will never have to deal with. This causes your opinion to carry little weight with those listening.

 

I'm not talking about his mom. Now tell me, would you be honored to met William Shakespeare when he was a boy?

 

"One could argue that prohibiting a sperm and an egg from creating a zygote is prohibiting the birth of a human being, just as one could argue that aborting an embryo is preventing the birth of a human being."

Yes, you are right. The difference lies in that one is a human being and one is a just a cell from another person.

I would also be right if i said "One could argue that prohibiting a sperm and an egg from creating a zygote is preventing that new person from having his first birthday party, just as one could argue that shaking a crying baby and killing it is preventing the person from having his first birthday party.

 

OK, I may have to stay awake a few minutes later than planned to see exactly where you're going with this.

Would I be honored? Sure. Why not?

 

Treecave, I know, and that's why I don't push for abortion to be illegal. However, an argument can be made in that regard, that if we are unsure if it's life or not, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?


ag - Do you feel like a fish who just swallowed the bait? I'm not sure where this is going...

 

You were off in that you were taking a societial view.

Ok you would be honored because you were meeting the famous playwright. BUT he wouldn't be a playwright at that time. You are making a value judgement based upon what that boy will become rather than what he is.

Yet you do not apply this reasoning to a fetus. The fetus will become a child which will become a person (exceptions for unexpected death granted). For Shakespeare, you value what is in the future, yet you aren't for a fetus.

This is a contradiction because you are valuing the future in one case and not in the other. I expect you to argue this.

As to brainwaves, allow me to ask another question. Is there NOT a difference between someone 'clinically dead' that will no longer have brainwaves and someone that WILL have brainwaves later?

 

The difference lies in that one is a human being and one is a just a cell from another person.

According to your definition of when life begins. According to Jewish tradition, and I believe several major Eastern religions, life doesn't begin before the baby takes its first breath. We can unilaterally declare that life begins anytime we want, but who knows what the absolute truth is? Who can prove there even is an absolute truth?

Anyway, the majority of earth's population believe in reincarnation. If the fetus/baby isn't born now, most humans believe he or she will have hundreds more lives anyway. Perhaps we should treat the issue democratically and let the majority belief prevail, instead of assuming every zygote has only one chance to live.

Fierce, you said: " However, an argument can be made in that regard, that if we are unsure if it's life or not, shouldn't we err on the side of caution? "

My counter-argument is that life without freedom is worse than death, in my humble view. If the definitely alive person must loose her freedom in order for the debatably alive person to have life, that life has been bought at the cost of a living person's freedom. Most Americans seem to think that life is more important than freedom - and that's not a belief I can understand, personally.

 

"Abortion has always been common, and it always will be. That's a sad fact, but making it illegal does not make it go away."

Same with murder, but we still have laws about that.

"JediFlyer, it's very easy to sit around and judge people who are in a situation you yourself will never have to deal with"

It seems easy for you, TreeCave, to say unborn babies aren't human. All you have to do is plug your ears and keep right on talking.

"As to brainwaves, allow me to ask another question. Is there NOT a difference between someone 'clinically dead' that will no longer have brainwaves and someone that WILL have brainwaves later? "

Very good point, Palpazzar

 

It seems easy for you, TreeCave, to say unborn babies aren't human. All you have to do is plug your ears and keep right on talking.

I said earlier that, to me, they are human. Why don't you try reading all my posts instead of just the ones with your name in them?

 

The problem with your little "trap" Palpy is that we know how Bill Shakespeare was, and we can't divorce ourselves of that.

 

No trap, Kessel.

But the difference lies only in the fact that Shakespeare's potential is known. Does the fact that a child's future is unknown mean they have no potential? By the same logic, does that mean a fetus's unknown potential does not exist?

 

"If the definitely alive person must loose her freedom in order for the debatably alive person to have life, that life has been bought at the cost of a living person's freedom."

What Treecave said. And I don't understand people valuing life over freedom in America, either, especially since we were founded partially based on the words "Give me liberty or give me death."

Palpazzar: You expect me to argue that? OK, but it's pretty late at night.

Anyway--I am arguing that women should have the choice to have an abortion, not that abortion is the ideal situation. I value the future, as you put it, but I also value the freedom and well-being of women--since obviously, in this scenario, I can't have both, I am making a choice. Like Darth Fierce said, for nine months, the lives of the woman and her child are intertwined. In an ideal situation, no one will ever have to make a choice, but not all situations are ideal; in which case, I choose the woman over her unborn fetus.

What I still don't understand, because no one has argued this except to make circular arguments and rhetorical questions, is why no one seems to care about the woman who is stuck in the situation of having to make a choice about what to do regarding a pregnancy she didn't want and doesn't feel capable of sustaining. Where does she come in?

 

Speaking of people born into abusive families "I think he'd be better off aborted, personally."

And you say I judge to easily. What is this?
Who are you to judge whether a human has the right to live.

And

"We can unilaterally declare that life begins anytime we want"

Yes we can.

"Who can prove there even is an absolute truth?"

I can. Grass is a plant. A deer is a mammal. Fish live in water. Fetuses are alive and human.

 

i.e., if my fiance were to become pregnant, it would definitely result in:

A: her dying
B: our child being deformed and/or debilitated


So what of this? This is why absolute arguments don't work for an issue such as this.

 

Jediflyer:

You have less compassion for women than anyone I have seen in quite awhile. You care more about a group of cells than you do about a living, breathing human being who has been traumatized by an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, and that is disgusting. We are not second-class citizens and we are not objects. We are alive, we have heartbeats and brain waves, and we deserve better treatment.

Treecave:

"The next Shakespeare may be getting aborted right now, or he may be becoming incurably insane because he was born to people who abuse the living hell out of him because they never wanted him and haven't the capacity to think of anyone but themselves. I think he'd be better off aborted, personally. "

As many cases I've seen in schools, ranging from just plain old bad parenting to all-out abuse, I have to agree with you.

 

I edited this into an earlier post, but there's so much cross-posting (man, you guys are busy bunnies) that I think it got lost:

"Palpazzar, I know you're addressing AG and not me, but in my view, potential gets wasted all the time, and murder is one of the kinder methods to wasting it. The next Shakespeare may be getting aborted right now, or he may be becoming incurably insane because he was born to people who abuse the living hell out of him because they never wanted him and haven't the capacity to think of anyone but themselves. I think he'd be better off aborted, personally."

I would also like to point out.... when we're discussing the woman who has to make the choice, as AG described, let's only discuss women who've been responsible and come into the situation despite their best efforts. No one respects complete idiots who don't make any effort to keep out of circumstances they don't want to be in. Unfortunately, you can't deny rights to people like that without also denying rights to people who become pregnant by true accident.

And for anyone who doesn't know, it's exceedingly easy for birth control to fail. Antibiotics render the pill very ineffective, and I've known three women who became pregnant unexpectedly because their doctors forgot to mention that (or were too inept, stupid or lazy). The three women I knew were all married, so they had the babies and it wasn't that big a hardship, but they - and in particular, their husbands - were far from financially or emotionally ready to become parents.

 

For the mother, it is a difficult position. It isn't a perfect galaxy to quote Thor (kudos to anyone catching that reference). But in honesty, yes I value the baby as much as the mother. As such, I vaule basic rights over perferences. The right to live is more important than the right to be happy or rather to pursue happiness.

I don't mind adoption. I don't mind anything thay keeps the baby alive. Preventative measures are good. Of course the best idea is to avoid it at all.

But I cannot fathom the murder of an innocent because of a 'mistake'. For rape I admit there is stronger justification. But even then, I support adoption over abortion.

 

"You have less compassion for women than anyone I have seen in quite awhile"

50% of the people who's right to life I am defending are female.

It seems to me, TreeCave, that you only consider human the people who look like you. That kind of thinking has been found throughout history, from racism to violent religious differences to class warfare.

 

anakin girl and Treecave
Well, I think you're stretching the concept of freedom a bit. You're talking about restricting a woman's freedom for a short amount of time, compared to taking an entire lifetime away from someone else. You don't think that's a bit unfair?

 

"50% of the people who's right to life I am defending are female. "

You never answered my question: Why don't you care about the mothers????

And don't answer me with another rhetorical question, either.

 

I find it interesting how everyone is conveniently side-stepping the issue I raised.

 

Sorry, KesselRunner. I got caught up in the cross fire.

Anyway:
In this case, the rule of triage enters. Like some of those MASH episodes where they have to pick between which soldiers to save because they do not have the time to save both.