The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

I didn't just say for an individual. I fear if I was killed in such a way others may be upset for me, society at large may also find the act cruel and be upset by it. Meanwhile in the face of this there's no immediately obvious redeeming features.

If Australian society as a whole found abortions repulsive to the point where they got quite upset about it, then I think it would (ontop of the fact that we're killing a potential human) be enough to trump a womans right to an abortion and the benefits it brings to her. This of course, optimally in a society where there's a high level of real information about the question.

 

[KFunk]

Is bacteria a seperate multiplying organism with a unique human genetic sequence?

No.

What about a human genetic sequence causes it to deserve such special consideration? E.g. does that mean you would not appose the destruction of a multiplying organism with chimpanzee DNA? If you don't appose such destruction, why so?

Also, a side note which doesn't really affect your argument: you probably shouldn't use the term 'unique' given that we could be dealing with twins (or a clone?). I'm geussing the conclusions which come from valuing 'uniqueness' aren't ones you wish to support.

 

[Stott Despoja]

If Australian society as a whole found abortions repulsive to the point where they got quite upset about it, then I think it would (ontop of the fact that we're killing a potential human) be enough to trump a womans right to an abortion and the benefits it brings to her. This of course, optimally in a society where there's a high level of real information about the question.

Rather than it being enough, do you think that it would be right for the opinion of the majority to trump what should be a woman's right to control her own body?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't. But my point wasn't really about merely a majority, more that if more pain was caused by allowing abortions than banning them (something I can't see as being true) then I would support banning abortions. The only slightly realistic scenario I could think of that would change this balance for me would be if a large majority of people were suffering from some sort of depression due to having abortions occur.

 

[Stott Despoja]

Thanks for the response and the point of clarification, NTB .

 

[bshoc]

Rather than it being enough, do you think that it would be right for the opinion of the majority to trump what should be a woman's right to control her own body?

Why does it even matter if its minority or majority opinion? The right to life trumps any "right to choice," the government already "controls" through law or otherwise the bodies and choices of both its male and female citizens in many ways, and unlike alot of these controls, illegalizing abortion would be a positive one. There is no licit logic behind abortion.

Its like saying that a murderers choice whether to kill his/her victim is more important than the right the murderers victim has to life. Rights of the individual do not exist on an equal plane, they exist in a hierarchy, the right to life one would think, would be on the top of the said hierarchy.

 

[bshoc]

What about a human genetic sequence causes it to deserve such special consideration? E.g. does that mean you would not appose the destruction of a multiplying organism with chimpanzee DNA? If you don't appose such destruction, why so?

Because its human?
The same reason our legal system outside animal cruelty laws doesen't apply itself to chimps?

Also, a side note which doesn't really affect your argument: you probably shouldn't use the term 'unique' given that we could be dealing with twins (or a clone?). I'm geussing the conclusions which come from valuing 'uniqueness' aren't ones you wish to support.

Two identical beings can be unique, I guess that in the end it comes down to what you might term a "self contained" human being.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Because its human?
The same reason our legal system outside animal cruelty laws doesen't apply itself to chimps?

So you're willing to accept legal reasoning when it comes to saying something is human because of different genes (essentially an arbitrary decision along the genetic code) yet not accept legal reasoning on the question of when a fetus becomes a human because it's an arbitrary decision? I do think it's an interesting question kfunk brought up.

 

[ElGronko]

Because its human?
The same reason our legal system outside animal cruelty laws doesen't apply itself to chimps?

You can't apply "the law" as a basis for your own argument when what you are arguing disagrees with the same rational of "the law", that is to say, abortions are not illegal.

People in this thread are not arguing "umm, abortion is alright because of the same reasons our legal system says it's alright".

We would have no argument.

Please elaborate on why the life of one organism is superior to the life of another.

 

[HotShot]

Bshoc u argument is basically built on that having an abortion is murder? This is on the basis that your are killing a human.

firstly a foetus is human.

Killing foetus is murder. But so is euthanasia, suicide (murdering yourself) all of which is condemned - by various religious factions - many for good reasons.

The fact is though by legalising abortion or legalising euthanasia - it will be no longer considered a murder.

So have to give reason as to why - abortion shouldnt be legalised or why it should be legalised?

Saying it is murder isnt an argument at all? - As that is decided only after abortion is legalised or not.

-my view on abortion is it should be illegal. And legal only for exceptions. I see legalising abortions in Australia in particular to be exploited. Women will have sex - and then have an abortion -just like that.

Many of you claim that condoms are only 99% effective, rapes etc -these are excuses and not reasons itself.
No-one is forcing you to have sex - most women in Australia are educated enough to know what happens when you have sex. The standard of living in Australia is very high and we have excellent welfare system. So there is no reason to have an abortion. ITs a risk - and everyone understands this - so why take it? Unless you are prepared for the risk.

Exception go to rape victims who fall pregnant - this was totally out of their control. They are only people allowed to have abortions.

 

[HotShot]

Agreed. But why do you say it should only be acceptable in this instance? Isn't it the same as, "I don't agree with the death penalty except in certain instances"?.

My bad with previous post - putting rape as an excuse.

Everything has exceptions, law, science, moral etc etc.

Rape is something that isnt your fault. Whilst all the others are your fault, you took the risk.

Its also a loophole for desperate bitches.

 

[ElGronko]

Sex is not something you should be punished for.

 

[KFunk]

Because its human?
The same reason our legal system outside animal cruelty laws doesen't apply itself to chimps?

You've dodged the question. If you agree with the 'reason' used in our legal system then are you able to state what that reason is? As far as I can tell the reason we have such laws is often that we follow a doctrine of specieism. Also, as a point of interest, I should mention that some people have moved to create a declaration of rights for higher apes.

 

[Kwayera]

Apropos to that, Damage, I put forward my own view: for me, a foetus is not human until it has grown the ability for conscious thought which comes along with a brain, during the third trimester. Until that time, the foetus is not HUMAN - it is a bundle of cells belonging to Homo sapiens, but is not a human being. It is folly to think otherwise.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Until that time, the foetus is not HUMAN - it is a bundle of cells belonging to Homo sapiens, but is not a human being. It is folly to think otherwise.

Yea but bshocs point is that such categorisations are meaningless.

 

[ElGronko]

yeah, but he's wrong.

 

[bshoc]

You can't apply "the law" as a basis for your own argument when what you are arguing disagrees with the same rational of "the law", that is to say, abortions are not illegal.

People in this thread are not arguing "umm, abortion is alright because of the same reasons our legal system says it's alright".

We would have no argument.

Please elaborate on why the life of one organism is superior to the life of another.

Why do I have to waste time adressing moronic crap like this?

If you were given a gun and forced to choose between shooting a chimp or shooting a human child, which would you shoot?

 

[bshoc]

Apropos to that, Damage, I put forward my own view: for me, a foetus is not human until it has grown the ability for conscious thought which comes along with a brain, during the third trimester. Until that time, the foetus is not HUMAN - it is a bundle of cells belonging to Homo sapiens, but is not a human being. It is folly to think otherwise.

Folly if you're a leftist retard anyway ..

 

[bshoc]

Sex is not something you should be punished for.

Because quite obviously everybody is stupid enough to create pregnancy everytime they have sex right?

The only time you punish anyone for sex is abortion, so maybe you should start there.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

If you were given a gun and forced to choose between shooting a chimp or shooting a human child, which would you shoot?

The point is which would I be more right to shoot, in which case the answer (especially if we follow your idea of ignoring scientific classifications) is neither, or both equally as much. I would choose to shoot the child, but I know I'd do that because I believe my species is more special than others, I've made a distinction. The only problem is, when we take to thinking as you do, while there's this artificial distinction that scientists have made up, essentially thousands of years ago humans and monkeys shared the same ancestor and therefore we've merely placed a fairly arbitrary limit on what deserves the rights of a human.