Against Abortions mean you are Pro-Life

You know absolutely NOTHING about science. I am sure you had to look it up to even know how to spell it.

 

Never been proven wrong, in fact I have proven it to be correct repeatedly. You must be one of those who cannot handle the truth.

 

Really! SO can a non object be property?

 

Right, that is why YOU could not post the definition of what is an organism and evade all aspects to the debate that have to do with science in favor of dogma and dictionary definitions.

 

You can deny it all you want, you lied and it was not the first time and it was show that you lied. All your tirades and dancing will not change that.

 

Of course a dog is not an object. Its an animal which can feel and is sentient to some level. As such, it should have some rights, such as a right to not be tortured and abused. Animal abuse is illegal.

 

I know there are consequences. Just as there are consequences for a man's choice to have sex, pregnancy included. Bearing the the child, not.

Morality and ethics are not subject to popular opinion.

It is that easy for the living to condemn the unborn is it not?

I believe a human life is not a trivial matter regardless of the stage of developement.

"NEVER" you say? Such absolutes do tend to diminish your credibility.

No, it would be unethical to not treat someone injured when hit by a car. The consequences that the jaywalker must face are obvious.

You make my point. Because the unborn cannot grasp the concept of being, they are not given a "choice". You however, having the luxury of being a sentient being, "would never think such a thought." My argument is thus perfectly logical.

There is a difference between contraception and the abortion. Contraception is the act of preventing conception. Abortion is the act of destroying that which has been conceived.

I think perhaps you have missed what I have said completely. Go back and reread our conversation. I not only do not need to "cover my tracks", but I stand by every argument and statement I have made.

Rather judgemental to say that I am "obsessed" is it not? Nevertheless, I am simply stating the obvious, that there are indeed consequences, not that I wish ill to be imposed upon anyone.

Quite the contrary, ehtics is to judge those who choose a path of immorality and corruption. To pass judgement on the actions of others is a necessity of maintaining a just society.

An ethical person will show compassion towards the meek and defenseless.

Are you invoking God in the name of abortion? Now that is ironic.

 

I think the OP needs to elaborate a little more. Under the OP-logic, I could easily say that it makes no sense to want to keep tobacco legal while you don't smoke tobacco yourself. You can be anti-drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc., but still want all those things to be legal. The law uses force to achieves its goals, and so the use of force must be justified. I don't do any drugs or smoke tobacco, but I am wholeheartedly for the legalization of drugs, and prohibiting the use of force on the peaceful act of smoking a joint. The use of force should only be justified when it is the retaliation of force rather than the initiation of force. The use of force in order to prohibit peaceful acts is the initiation, while the use of force to prohibit forceful acts is the retaliation.

With the issue of abortion, it comes down to the question of whose right is superior: the right of the mother to do what she wants with her own body, or the right to life of the baby? I have the right to flux my finger, and even in the most fascist, communist societies, fluxing my finger is permissible. However, if I flux my finger when I'm holding a gun that happens to be pointed at your head, we have ourselves a problem. Every individual has the right to do whatever he or she wants with his or her own body, so as long as those actions do not contradict the will of others. With the case of abortion, it is using the initiation of force on the innocent baby to its death, and is thus murder, so it is a little odd for people to say that they're personally against murder but they wouldn't try to enforce their morality on others.

Also, pro-abortionists are not pro-choice since the act of abortion is forceful to the innocent baby. A better label would be "pro-abortion," "anti-choice," "pro-murder for really young kids," or simply "pro-force."

 

In short, you just said a fetus (it isn't a baby until it's born) has a right to life because it has a right to life.

 

You have misunderstood me. *I*, as a sentient being, CAN think such a thought. Its the aborted who would never think such a thought (or any other thought).

I think therefore I am. If it does not think, it does not exist as a being (only as an object). Embryos never think, so no being worthy of protection ever exists.

Mind existing is good.
Mind existing and then being stopped from existence is bad (murder).
Mind NEVER existing is neutral. Unless you want to claim that not procreating anytime we have a chance is somehow bad.

I dont care about conception.

Contraception is an act of actively preventing the potential future appearance of mind.
Abortion is an act of actively preventing the potential future appearance of mind.

Both are exactly equivalent from the position of protection of the mind.

 

Embryo has no mind, and thus no will. It is an object, not a subject or a being.

I think therefore I am.

Abortion question is ultimately a question about what exactly separates something with rights from something with no rights.

 

I'm a little hazy on where you stand, as most libertarians would be pro-abortion. If you are for the legalized use of tobacco, then you are pro-legal tobacco, regardless of whether you personally use tobacco. Pro-life is indicitive of someone who would like to abolish abortions. To say you are pro-life (because you choose not to have one), but pro-choice (as a political opinion regarding the legality) is hypocritical as well as an obfuscation of your responcibility as a citizen.
Then you seem to make an argument for the unborn here...which of course I agree with. I would just add that because the life of the unborn is considered just a potential life should not diminish it's claim to a right to life. If we indeed are a nation men, endowed by our Creator with the right to LIFE, liberty and the persuit of happiness, then it is incumbent upon us to protect those God given rights especially for those who cannot defend themselves.

 

You, as a sentient being, have the ability to think such a thought, but would not consider it. You have that luxury. The aborted are dead, and no longer have the potential for thought. The unborn on the otherhand do.

That works in philosophy. In reality, thought is not a prerequisit to existence. Not sure I buy the argument that if something does not think it does not exist as a being, only as a object. An (human) embryo is the begining state of being of a human life in my opinion, worthy of protection because it is defenseless. I don't agree with your argument that because an embryo does not think it therefore is not worthy of protection.

Perhaps a little more clarity is needed here. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

Again your point is not exactly clear. There is a difference as I made a point of saying earlier between prevention of conception, and the ending of a pregnancy once conception has has been achieved.

 

You said your position was the (only) ethical one. I asked, according to what authority? Yourself?

So only those who are NOT living can be credible about abortion? Do you see how ridiculous your reasoning is?

You can't determine it's a human being just because it is an organism or has DNA. A potential human being is not a human being. We have no laws to protect "potential human beings."

When you said, "It is wrong for other people to kill a human life for whimsical, arbitrary or capricious reasons," you implied that abortion is (always) done for those reasons. My absolute is far closer to the truth than yours.

Why, because YOU KNOW how God feels about abortion? Or because this is your way of avoiding the point made about making judgments?

 

Before I go on to argue, I would like to ask if you two have both just conceded that the "woman's body; woman's choice" type arguments are void, and the only relevant factor of abortion is the characteristics of the baby within the uterus? I'm not trying to put up a red herring; I will address the points you made -- I merely believe it is vital to first establish the fallacy of thought in this argument before proceeding.

That's the official Libertarian Party Platform position, but as someone who believes in individual rights for all human beings, the logical conclusion is to recognize the violation of rights within abortion.

I agree that I am pro-keeping the legal status of tobacco but to actually be pro-tobacco in itself is different. Being anti-abortion but supposedly "pro-choice" seems very odd since it's saying abortion is wrong but not murder...

I don't like the "potential" argument myself. I could make that argument for sperm, saying it has the potential human being if someone added an egg. Human development starts at conception -- if it isn't killed, it becomes more familiar to us and the obvious fact that it is a human being becomes more apparent.

 

I dont care about "potentials", since in that case even refusing sex or using contraception should be banned (such act also ends a potential of future sentient human appearing, which would otherwise probably appeared).

Either something has a mind at the moment of consideration, then it is protected as a person, or it cannot think at the moment of consideration, then it is not. Even if it has a potential to develop mind sometime in the future, it does not mean we should protect it like there already was a mind existing.

The point is that murder is not bad because it ends human life in the biological sense. It is bad only because it ends a sentient being.

Abortion is morally neutral, since it does not affect any existing mind negatively (it may affect the mind of the woman positively, so it may be actually good), in the same way as contraception or refusing sex is neutral because it does not affect any existing mind mind negatively. Even though both prevent the potential of future mind existing.

Well, OK then. Thought is not a prerequisite to existence, but to existence as a being, or a person. Rock exists, but it does not think, so it is not a person (moral agent, capable of posessing rights).
Just a question, if embryo was not defenseless, would it not be worthy of protection in you opinion?

From the protection of mind point of view there is not. Both have exactly the same effect on any existing or future minds. They do not negatively affect them at all, or prevent their future appearance before they would have a chance to appear for the first time.

 

The issue is not the fact that there are consequences, those exist for any and all actions, but rather how should one handle the consequence? Why not let individuals make their own decisions?

What are they subject to? Who determines what is moral and on what basis?

And that is just fine, live by that conviction but do not force it upon others.

You just made a similar assertion regarding morals and ethics.

Not at all, it is to determine what is and is not right within certain circumstance. Even Christ did not judge, but you seem to raise above that.

Does it? BY what or who's determination?

Yes, but a fetus does not even raise to that level.

 

Why are they void? Is it not her body and her choice? Denying that is denying reality.

On what basis do you consider a zygote a human being? What are the characteristics that make a human being one?

Probably because it is not murder.

Why is that significant?

Did you not just say you do not like the potential argument? Did you change your mind?

 

Again, before going into detail about why all babies within the uterus have the right to life from the moment of conception, let's first get the "woman's body; woman's choice" argument out of the way. I will address the point of why the stage of conception is significant, but I think it's vital for pro-abortionists to first drop the "woman's body; woman's choice" argument, seeing as if that argument holds water, all arguments about a zygote being nothing but a clump of cells are irrelevant. I ask you, do you support third trimester abortion? Should partial-birth abortion be legal (which wasn't outlawed until 2003)? Partial-birth abortion is when the baby's head is too big to be vacuumed out without going through labor, so they suck out the first half of the baby, and then use utensils to jab a sharp object up the baby's neck, in which they crush the skull to reduce the size of the head, and then pull the baby out. Keep in mind that the baby is fully conscious. Is that murder? Also, if I'm allowed to expel anyone from my property, can I not throw a baby out of my moving vehicle on the highway?

 

Why are you deflecting? The two are not related and as I said it IS a woman's choice, as no one else can make that choice. Instead of attempting to dismiss it, offer at least a reason why you do not wish to debate it.

Again, just do it, do not set conditions.

An unsupported assertion. If you have some reasoning for that post it.

Do not ask since till now you have not replied to questions posed to you earlier.
Why do you wish to debate the principle based on extremes?

Is it? Based on what?

 

The Catholic Church.

See my sig. My point again is only those who are for abortion were not aborted.

Sure you can. We know the difference between a human fetus and a dog fetus. A human fetus is a unique human being at an early stage of developement.

I can think of few reasons other than the life of the mother (and indeed, some would say this is never the case) to abort a fetus. I know that there are rare occasions where the life of the mother could be endangered.

It is always safer to error on the side of life. I think it irronic that you invoke God because most religious people are against abortion.

I think that your whole arguement only works if one were to agree on your definition of at what point in utero a person becomes worthy of protection. I for one do not agree with you on this point obviously. Your point regarding potential seems rather callous and uncompassionate. And your argument regarding contraception is irrelevent and unrelated to abortion. There is quite a difference between a potential conception, and an actual conception.

I am growing tired of going over all these posts point by point. Let me just say that I disagree with you wholeheartedly, paricularly on your last sentence.

 

Conceded? Apparently you didn't understand what I said. Your own argument is a logical fallacy. You can't conclude that abortion should be illegal because the embryo (not a baby until it's born) has a right to life. You are stating as fact the very thing you need to prove. Of course if it were established that an embryo has a right to life, abortion would be illegal, but that has never been established. You are begging the question, a logical fallacy.

 

I forgot to address this in my earlier response. This is an untrue statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act

http://crimemagazine.com/scott-peterson-pregnant-wife-killer

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/man-charged-with-killing-girlfriend-unborn-baby.html

So if you kill your girlfriend and her fetus, you get charged with 2 counts of murder. But if you walk in an abortion clinic pregnant, and walk out not pregnant there are 0 charges of murder.

 

It is not nearly as simple as that.
Fetal homicide laws are not universal, do not exist in every state and overall MOST states do not criminalize the killing of a fetus prior to viability.
As such your argument does not hold water.

 

The Catholic Church is not an authority, AND it has an obvious agenda. Do you think all women should be subject to the dictates of the Catholic Church?

I know you see your sig line as clever, but it is has no real meaning in an abortion debate as I attempted to illustrate for you.

Yes, the difference is, one is a potential human and the other is a potential dog.

If that were established fact, there would be no argument, but it isn't. It is your burden to prove it.

Abortion in the case of rape is not whimsical. Abortion in the case of incest is not whimsical. Abortion in the case of a pregnant 12 year old child is not whimsical. Abortion for a woman's health is not whimsical. Abortion in the case of having 6 existing children is not whimsical. There are as many reasons for abortion as there are women. It isn't up to you to approve or disapprove their reasons.

Safer for whom? Every pregnancy permanently damages a woman's body and potentially threatens her health or life. You always forget that women are unquestionably "life."

There are many religious organizations and churches that support reproductive choice. Judaism, for example, holds that human life begins at first breath. There is even a Catholics for Choice organization.