Yes, I do think it matters since I don't think abortion involves killing. I don't think killing someone painlessly is the same thing as torturing someone first. You mean that it would be the same to poke out the eyes of the convicted before you put him in the electric char than to just put him in the electric chair? I also think it's absurd and frightening that you don't think there's a line between killing a fetus and an infant child. BUT, if that's how you feel, I understand that you're against abortions.
Noooo. Read what I said again.
It would not be the same, but legally, it would boil down to the same thing. Our legal system cannot, obviously, make provisions for ALL situations. Here's what I said:
"Killing someone quickly and painlessly, legally, is the same thing as torturing someone first. You'll just get a longer prison sentence for the latter, most likely. The issue is not about which is worse, but about whether or not you can draw a reasonable, legal line between killing born children, and unborn children. I'm demonstrating that there is no such logical line."
?????? Are you serious?? You really think that the fetus could live without and outside the mother's body from day one?? It's a part of her body until it can live without it. Which takes a long while before it can.
No, I don't think it can. But there are a few things to consider.
1 - Just because it can't live on its own, why does that mean it is not its own body? It is merely DEPENDENT on her body...that doesn't make it PART of her body anymore than a leech is part of your body when it clings to you.
2 - The line of when it can survive on its own is very, very fuzzy. Not only that, but medical science comes into play. A baby born premature today have a decent chance at living, whereas the same baby born 200 years ago would likely die. Was that baby 200 years ago not just as human because of the technology at the time?
3 - Once you get into that gray area, you can never know whether or not the child could survive on its own until you actually take it out and see.
As a result, I think it's clear that using "when it can survive on its own" is not a viable standard for when life begins. You can't even begin to pinpoint it, and it's dependent on the technology of the time.
"Him"?? God's a black, lesbian woman, didn't you know??
Funny.
That's not my argument to keep it legal, that people would do it anyway. Not at all. I think it should be legal because I think it's the women's right. I do however prefer safe legal abortions to unsafe illegal abortions.
I do, too...but volume comes into play. If we illegalize it, there will be some unsafe illegal abortions, yes...but the overwhelming majority of abortions just won't happen, most likely, and it'll likely lean that way more and more over time.
It's not 1.3 million safe, legal abortions against 1.3 million dangerous, illegal abortions. We wouldn't have anywhere near 1.3 million illegal attempts.
I have never, ever, ever used poor living conditions to justify abortion. But unplanned pregnancies can lead to disastrous conditions for the child, wouldn't you agree? Do you think that I think that a lot of people would have been better off dead or aborted? That's absurd. And I didn't even think the word "poverty".
My mistake, I misunderstood you. Forgive me; it's a *very* common argument in favor of abortion (I'm not kidding), even though, as you pointed out, it is absurd.
Well, the obviousness of laws against murder etc. isn't exactly a subjective standard. Is there any country in the world where murder is allowed? Find ten and they still don't represent the whole.
It's not made any less subjective by the fact that others tend to agree. Objectivity is not made in the majority, as is clear in any rundown of world history...or heck, even current events.
My point is that you don't object to forcing morals on others at all. You just object to forcing morals you don't think sensible on others. Some you find "obvious," and you support forcing THOSE morals on people. You don't support the ones you do not find obvious...but let's not pretend you're against forcing morals on people...because you're not, and neither is anyone else in their right mind. It's a necessity.
No, I don't and I don't see the similarity between forcing anti-democratic views on people and following laws that have been shaped in a democratic process.
I could very well argue that abortion IS an anti-democratic view. I surely think so.
As for laws that have been shaped in a democratic process; that hardly makes them right. Democracies are as fallible as the people who populate them.
Hmmmm.. Make up your mind.
My mind IS made up.
It's a child, and that's that. Sad for the woman to go through with it, but her plight doesn't justify more violence.
Is this REALLY relevant to the discussion?? Are we talking about abortion of a 8½ months old baby or a 6 weeks old fetus?? It's a pretty big difference, don't you think?
It's relevant to the discussion for anyone who claims life begins at birth, because that clearly doesn't stand up to even a moment's worth of scrutiny.
You're drifting further and further away from the topic... As soon as the man puts his penis inside the woman's vagina he has full responsibility of his actions. And if that lovemaking results in a baby he has full responsibility to take care of his child. Now, we all now that it's the mother who's going to bear the child and she has the right to decide on her own if she wants to bear it. If both men and women got pregnant it would be another thing.
Responsibility is one thing. Making the decision is another thing.
I can't believe you're making this a money issue...
I'm not making this a money issue, but I'm a firm believer in knowing exactly what your decisions entail. Example: when you, for example, say that God does not exist, you are AUTOMATICALLY saying other things about the Universe in general, our origins, objectivity, and morality. Most people do not realize this. They think of those decisions in a vacuum.
I'm saying that this is similar: when you say that the man should have no legal rights at all, reasonably, you have to absolve him from financial responsibility as well. It's a fundamental principle that you cannot penalize someone for something when they do not have real control over the outcome. It's a bit like blaming ME for the failure of Enron.
You give the responsibility to a person, or persons, and that person, or persons, then bear the brunt of the consequences. That's the way it works. You don't give one person the power, and make another person the whipping boy when the first screws up. If a baby is a joint venture that the man should have to financially support (which I think he should, BTW), then he should have a say in whether or not its born.
Listen, I know wether it's a human or not. It's exactly when it becomes a human I'm not sure of.
Eh? I don't follow. You know whether it is or not, but you don't know when? This isn't art; you can't just say "I know it when I see it" and leave it at that. This is the law, and the law cannot make provisions for case-by-case situations like this.
You say you're not sure, yet you still say you're willing to support abortion. I must repeat the question: why RISK it? Why are you willing to gamble with over a million lives each year?
Finally, wouldn't it be better if we concentrated on the well-being of the millions of kids that actually were born than on the ones that never weren't?
There is no better...they all need help. The difference is that the things happening to kids in bad situations are already illegal and being almost universally fought, whereas abortion is legal and becoming far too common for comfort. First thing's first; get the rules laid down. The right ones. Second thing's second; enforce them.
It's not as if we have to choose one over the other, though.
Closed Thread
