Do you believe that life begins at conception?

[FallingPianos]

[1]The outcome of irresponsibly shooting is death
[2]The outcome of irresponsibly having sex is pregnanncy
[3]The shooter is forced to deal with the outcome of his actions - he goes to jail.
[4]The person having the abortion is not - she doesnt have the baby.

your mistake was with point 2. there is nothing inherently wrong with getting pregnant, like there is with shooting someone to death. The outcome of irresponsibly having sex is having unwanted children. having an abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions.

 

[tecoyah]

I see your point and I think you balance your emotional reaction to the abortion issue very well, but it is emotions out of control on both sides that diminish any hope for understanding or compromise. I think that's what he's getting at.

.....and she is of course....correct

No One wants to see a fetus chopped up and disposed of. Just as No One wants to watch a baby seal get its head bashed in. When the emotion is removed from this issue...we just might form a consensus on remedy, but until then it is a pointless back and forth.

 

[talloulou]

.....and she is of course....correct

No One wants to see a fetus chopped up and disposed of. Just as No One wants to watch a baby seal get its head bashed in. When the emotion is removed from this issue...we just might form a consensus on remedy, but until then it is a pointless back and forth.

It is kind of a circular argument because while many reasons can be given to either support or outlaw abortion none of them are the type of arguments that will change a persons mind at the end of the day.

Basically I think most prolifers just arn't able to separate the logical and technical arguments from the emotional ones. I know I can't. Some people can flush a live fish down the toilet without hesitation. Others can dump a pet out on the streets. Some will kill spiders while others will leave 'em be or catch them and put them outside.

Some people hunt only to feed themselves and others hunt recklessly with little regard or respect.

If killing our neighbor wasn't against the law most of us still wouldn't do it even if there was logical proof that noone would be affected by the neighbors death, that the neighbor contributed nothing to society, and the neighbors death would have zero impact on humanity in general. In fact if you look at the big picture the individual death of any one of us generally has little impact on society as a whole.

So I guess there is a spectrum with deranged serial killers on one end and gandhi on the other with most of us falling somewhere in between able to justify some degree of violence while not tolerating another.

I could hear the greatest prochoice arguement ever voiced tomorrow and it probably wouldn't change a thing. In my mind "abortion" is just violent and I won't ever be able to view it differently.

Basically I'm not that much different from doughgirl. You'll never change her mind because her God tells her abortion is violent. You'll never change my mind because every fiber of my being tells me abortion is violent.

 

[DeeJayH]

It is kind of a circular argument because while many reasons can be given to either support or outlaw abortion none of them are the type of arguments that will change a persons mind at the end of the day.

Basically I think most prolifers just arn't able to separate the logical and technical arguments from the emotional ones. I know I can't. Some people can flush a live fish down the toilet without hesitation. Others can dump a pet out on the streets. Some will kill spiders while others will leave 'em be or catch them and put them outside.

Some people hunt only to feed themselves and others hunt recklessly with little regard or respect.

If killing our neighbor wasn't against the law most of us still wouldn't do it even if there was logical proof that noone would be affected by the neighbors death, that the neighbor contributed nothing to society, and the neighbors death would have zero impact on humanity in general. In fact if you look at the big picture the individual death of any one of us generally has little impact on society as a whole.

So I guess there is a spectrum with deranged serial killers on one end and gandhi on the other with most of us falling somewhere in between able to justify some degree of violence while not tolerating another.

I could hear the greatest prochoice arguement ever voiced tomorrow and it probably wouldn't change a thing. In my mind "abortion" is just violent and I won't ever be able to view it differently.

Basically I'm not that much different from doughgirl. You'll never change her mind because her God tells her abortion is violent. You'll never change my mind because every fiber of my being tells me abortion is violent.

abortion is the cowards way out
so dont feel bad about your position
life is life
no matter what stage of life it is
everything the pro-choicers put out is nothing but semantics so they can sleep well at night while we race to 41,000,000 aborted
boy thats alot of candles

no matter how 'advanced' the human race becomes
this only serves to show how truly barbaric the race is at its core

 

[CoffeeSaint]

Since you wussed out, Jailman seems to be happy to carry your torch.

I wussed out, huh? I seem to recall you saying you couldn't argue with me any more because my position was so absurd that you had nothing left to say. I also recall posting a long response about the Roe v. Wade decision that got no response at all from you. But sure, I'm a wuss.

You passed 6th grade biology, didnt you!! Woohoo!

And clearly you did not. I don't know why this is hard for you to accept, why you are so insistent that people be held responsible for things that are outside of their control, but this argument you post here is totally ridiculous. It is also beside the point; as Jallman pointed out, and as I believe I said, as well, abortion is a perfectly responsible way to handle pregnancy. An irresponsible response to pregnancy would be to pretend one is not pregnant, ignore it for nine months, and then give birth in an alley and leave the baby there. I'm not arguing that that should be legal. But after an abortion, the problem is solved, even if you don't approve of the solution.

So, I'm going to leave you again: you have not disproven a single one of my points, IMO, but I tried to respond to this post of yours, and I couldn't think of any way to make sense out of it. I do not agree with you, but I don't want to argue about this any longer with you. Thank you for the debate.

 

[Goobieman]

I don't know why this is hard for you to accept, why you are so insistent that people be held responsible for things that are outside of their control, but this argument you post here is totally ridiculous.

I posted a variation of YOUR argument - that since every time you do X you do not get Y, there is no neccessary correlation between X and Y.

Of COURSE its totally ridiculous -- but since YOU came up with the argument, thats your fault, not mine.

 

[Goobieman]

your mistake was with point 2. there is nothing inherently wrong with getting pregnant, like there is with shooting someone to death.

Your mistake:
There's nothing inherently wrong with shooting someone to death.

The outcome of irresponsibly having sex is having unwanted children. having an abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions.

How, exactly, is that?
Seems to me that having an abortion absolves you of your responsibility.

 

[Goobieman]

Only as a retort to your absurd correlation between unintended pregnancy and some imagined manslaughter. Do try to keep up with your own ridiculous assertions....

Apparently, drawing a parallel to an argument to show the unsoundess of that argument is something beyond you. Sigh.

Fact is, you're arguing accountability for your actions is mitigated by how responsible you were when you took those actions - that is, if you are responsible with certain precautions and procedures, then you should not be held accountable for a mishap. IF your argument is sound, then two things are true:
- It applies to all situations
- It strongly implies that if you are NOT responsible, then you SHOULD be held accountable.

Now, you're happy to apply this to someone shooting someone else.
But, you're NOT happy to apply this to someone having sex -- oh, you thnk you are, by saying that having an abortion is being held accountable for irresposnible sex -- but an abortion isnt being accountable, its running away from it.

Because with an early term abortion, there is no death of a person. Didn't we do this already?

It is the death of a innocent human life. Didn't we do this already?

No, she has a medical procedure for curing a medical condition.

How is having an abortion being held accountable for her irresponsibility?
How does having an abortion do anything but ABSOLVE her of her responsibility?

I established step by step how the shooter may or may not be negligent

You did... and you refuse to apply your argument to your own position.

...oh nevermind...your circular claptrap isn't productive at all. Just another non-point being attempted by the infamous goober :roll:

Thats it! Run away!

 

[AlbqOwl]

.....and she is of course....correct

No One wants to see a fetus chopped up and disposed of. Just as No One wants to watch a baby seal get its head bashed in. When the emotion is removed from this issue...we just might form a consensus on remedy, but until then it is a pointless back and forth.

But you see, I don't WANT to ever get to the point where I feel nothing when I see that baby seal clubbed to death. I never want to get to the point where I would be unemotional about that.

Nor do I ever want to get to the point where I shrug and consider human life disposable because it is inconvenient. At any age.

 

[mixedmedia]

But you see, I don't WANT to ever get to the point where I feel nothing when I see that baby seal clubbed to death. I never want to get to the point where I would be unemotional about that.

Nor do I ever want to get to the point where I shrug and consider human life disposable because it is inconvenient. At any age.

But those emotions don't get us anywhere. From what I have read (on another forum where Canadians were discussing this issue) the clubbing of the baby seals is a highly regulated practice which a large segment of low-income Canadians use to supplement their income every year. To feed their families and help get them through the brutal winters. There are two sides to every story. And knee-jerk emotional reactions rarely serve any purpose except to convince the person feeling them that they have a heart. Of course, I'm not saying that it's bad to feel horrified when you see baby seal clubbing, I do too, only that it is a highly subjective place to come from when forming an opinion on what you're seeing. This happens far too often today in our media-saturated society and is used to the extreme in the pro-life & PETA movements. To their detriment, as far as I am concerned.

 

[jallman]

Apparently, drawing a parallel to an argument to show the unsoundess of that argument is something beyond you. Sigh.

Hardly...but forcing a relationship between two unrelated issues is not interesting or productive. Nor is it...how did you put it earlier in this thread? Oh, yeah, intellectually honest. :doh

Fact is, you're arguing accountability for your actions is mitigated by how responsible you were when you took those actions - that is, if you are responsible with certain precautions and procedures, then you should not be held accountable for a mishap.

Fact is, I took an example to juxtapose against your irrelevant scenario to try and bring the conversation back on track. But you seem to want to beat a dead horse that wasn't even in the race to start with. Sigh.

IF your argument is sound, then two things are true:
- It applies to all situations
- It strongly implies that if you are NOT responsible, then you SHOULD be held accountable.

Okay, so that applies to all pregnancies and shootings. I still don't see the relationship between the two, but you obviously are on some better drugs than I have ever had, so lets go with it.

Now, you're happy to apply this to someone shooting someone else.

In the case of negligence or malice, certainly. That's a no brainer...VERY GOOD!!!

But, you're NOT happy to apply this to someone having sex

That's because consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. I swear we have had this exact same conversation before.

-- oh, you thnk you are, by saying that having an abortion is being held accountable for irresposnible sex -- but an abortion isnt being accountable, its running away from it.

You'd like to think, but the Supreme Court currently disagrees with you. That's good enough for me. :mrgreen:

It is the death of a innocent human life. Didn't we do this already?

But it is not the death of a person. When I wash my hands, there are thousands of "human life" deaths occurring. Human dna and the raw definition of life do not equate to the sum of personhood. I know we did this already...please, keep up.

How is having an abortion being held accountable for her irresponsibility?
How does having an abortion do anything but ABSOLVE her of her responsibility?

Sigh...again. She elects to have an approved and legal medical procedure to remedy her unwanted medical condition. It's really quite simple.

You did... and you refuse to apply your argument to your own position.

No, I refuse to apply YOUR argument to my position. There's a difference.

Thats it! Run away!

Why would I when you make things so easy for me? :rofl

 

[Goobieman]

Hardly...but forcing a relationship between two unrelated issues is not interesting or productive. Nor is it...how did you put it earlier in this thread? Oh, yeah, intellectually honest. :doh

The issues ARE related -- being held accoutable for your actions based on your level of negligence. It doesnt matter what those actions are, the only thing that matters is how negligent you were.

For whatever reaosn, you dont seem to be able to comprehend that -- and its YOUR argument.

Fact is, I took an example to juxtapose against your irrelevant scenario to try and bring the conversation back on track. But you seem to want to beat a dead horse that wasn't even in the race to start with. Sigh.

Fact is, you want to apply your standard to one situation and not to the other.

In the case of negligence or malice, certainly. That's a no brainer...VERY GOOD!!! That's because consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. I swear we have had this exact same conversation before.

"Consent" here doesnt have anything to do with it -- negligence is the issue.
Its YOUR issue.

When you have sex, do you consent to get pregenant? No?
When you shoot a gun, do you consent to kill someone? No?
So, what's the difference? None.

When you do either, do you knowingly run the risk of getting pregenant/killing someone? Yes.
So, YOU argue that your level of accoutability for your action here needs to be based on how negligent you were in your actions. That's fine.

You argue that a negligent shooter needs to be held accountable fhos his actions.
The question is, why wont you hold the irresposnible person who has sex accoutable for the product of her having sex?

You'd like to think, but the Supreme Court currently disagrees with you. That's good enough for me. :mrgreen:

You're dodging.
Show me how having an abortion is accepting accoutability for the results of the act of having sex, and that an abortion is not running away from that accountability.

But it is not the death of a person.

So what? Its still an innocent human life.

When I wash my hands, there are thousands of "human life" deaths occurring.

No. Those cells are part of one of your organs, rather than an organism in and of itself.
Apples and oranges.

Human dna and the raw definition of life do not equate to the sum of personhood. I know we did this already...please, keep up.

Odd.
You havent shown how something that is alive and is human is not a human life. Try to keep up.

Sigh...again. She elects to have an approved and legal medical procedure to remedy her unwanted medical condition. It's really quite simple.

You still havent explained how this is being held accountable, rather than running away from accountability.

No, I refuse to apply YOUR argument to my position. There's a difference.

LOL
And you tell ME to keep up.
MY argument is EXACTLY the same as yours.

 

[FallingPianos]

Seems to me that having an abortion absolves you of your responsibility.

if you have been absolved of your responsibilities then you cannot be acting irresponsibly. giving up a child for adoption is no different.

 

[jallman]

The issues ARE related -- being held accoutable for your actions based on your level of negligence. It doesnt matter what those actions are, the only thing that matters is how negligent you were.

Categorically wrong and you know it. You are just being obtuse. You cannot honestly tell me that negligently shooting a person and negligently getting pregnant are the same. The only reason I even indulged your fool's errand was to help bring the conversation back around. Last time I make that mistake.

For whatever reaosn, you dont seem to be able to comprehend that -- and its YOUR argument.

Categorically wrong and if you could read and comprehend, you would know this too. My arguments are as follows, just so you can get back on track:

Abortion before the 21st week of gestation is a perfectly acceptable accounting for having gotten pregnant.

AND (irrelevantly, just to appease your needs):

A person discharging a weapon on an appropriate firing range at an appropriate target who hits an obscured person due to circumstances beyond his control is not responsible for the subsequent death.

Anymore obtuse questions?

Fact is, you want to apply your standard to one situation and not to the other.

Fact is, the two have nothing to do with eachother. I have related this many times.

"Consent" here doesnt have anything to do with it -- negligence is the issue.
Its YOUR issue.

Consent has everything to do with it. Negligence was not my issue, it was just a standard I applied to YOUR irrelevant example.

When you have sex, do you consent to get pregenant? No?

Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.

When you shoot a gun, do you consent to kill someone? No?

Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.

So, what's the difference? None.

All the difference in the world. One is an action that cannot be remedied if you are negligent, the other has a perfectly acceptable remedy if pursued appropriately.

When you do either, do you knowingly run the risk of getting pregenant/killing someone? Yes.

When you get in your car, you knowingly run the risk of getting crushed by a mack truck on the highway. What's your point?

So, YOU argue that your level of accoutability for your action here needs to be based on how negligent you were in your actions. That's fine.

Yes, and accountability is commensurate with the catastrophic nature of the outcome. In the case of unintended pregnancy, there is nothing that cannot be undone if pursued appropriately.

You argue that a negligent shooter needs to be held accountable fhos his actions.

If he is, in fact, negligent, then certainly. No brainer here. VERY GOOD!!!

The question is, why wont you hold the irresposnible person who has sex accoutable for the product of her having sex?

She is responsible and accountable. Only she can make the difficult decisions to follow. No one else has been killed or catastrophically touched by her actions.

You're dodging.
Show me how having an abortion is accepting accoutability for the results of the act of having sex, and that an abortion is not running away from that accountability.

Show me where it is.

So what? Its still an innocent human life.

No, prior to 21 weeks it's only a specialized mass of cells produced by a biological function.

No. Those cells are part of one of your organs, rather than an organism in and of itself.
Apples and oranges.

You show me where a skin cell has anymore worth to humanity than an embryonic stem cell. Oh, except that the stem cells can possibly save lives...

Odd.
You havent shown how something that is alive and is human is not a human life. Try to keep up.

A skin cell is alive and it is human, but it is not a human life. This discussion has been the center of intense debate on this site for some time, yet that fact seems to be lost on you. Though, your self induced ignorance isn't so odd to me at this point...it's just status quo.

You still havent explained how this is being held accountable, rather than running away from accountability.

You still haven't explained how it isn't.

LOL
And you tell ME to keep up.
MY argument is EXACTLY the same as yours.

If that's the case, just agree with me and shut up. :mrgreen:

 

[AlbqOwl]

But those emotions don't get us anywhere. From what I have read (on another forum where Canadians were discussing this issue) the clubbing of the baby seals is a highly regulated practice which a large segment of low-income Canadians use to supplement their income every year. To feed their families and help get them through the brutal winters. There are two sides to every story. And knee-jerk emotional reactions rarely serve any purpose except to convince the person feeling them that they have a heart. Of course, I'm not saying that it's bad to feel horrified when you see baby seal clubbing, I do too, only that it is a highly subjective place to come from when forming an opinion on what you're seeing. This happens far too often today in our media-saturated society and is used to the extreme in the pro-life & PETA movements. To their detriment, as far as I am concerned.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. But it occurred to me that you may have started the discussion down another slippery slope.

Do we really want to base right and wrong on whether the poor benefit from it? Those fishermen who destroy coral reefs or decimate whole species of fish have to make a living too. Or do we accept the poor trappers who trap out whole beaver ponds? Or we might consider the ethics of using steel traps at all and indeed they are illegal most places. For every industry with a downside, there are people who desperately need the jobs that are created by it.

Do we want it to ever make it a duty to die for the elderly person who is a financial hardship on his/her family? And do we want to send a message that it is okay to end a human life just because it is inconvenient for the mother?

Of course that last one brings us back to the thesis of the thread. When does that lifeform growing in the mother become a human life?

I agree that emotion/feelings/sensibilities etc. are usually a poor basis on which to make policy. But I think emotion/feelings/sensibilities can serve us well in choosing what we will accept as good vs evil, acceptable vs unacceptable, right vs wrong.

 

[mixedmedia]

Do we really want to base right and wrong on whether the poor benefit from it? Those fishermen who destroy coral reefs or decimate whole species of fish have to make a living too. Or do we accept the poor trappers who trap out whole beaver ponds? Or we might consider the ethics of using steel traps at all and indeed they are illegal most places. For every industry with a downside, there are people who desperately need the jobs that are created by it.

Well, there are several ways the clubbing of the baby seals is different.

They are not destroying the environment the seals are living in. Like I said, the practice is highly regulated and the seals are far from being decimated. And arguably (as in, I am only stating what I heard from someone else here), the way they kill the seals is quick and painless. Not at all like trapping an animal in a trap.

The only point I am trying to make is that there are two sides to this controversial issue (and most controversial issues, hint, hint). It is very easy for us to sit back and condemn the practice because it is so horrible to witness. But these trappers have been doing this for generations and before there were pictures of it, no one much gave a damn about the baby seals.

Do we want it to ever make it a duty to die for the elderly person who is a financial hardship on his/her family?

Umm, no. That's a pretty far stretch for someone to equate with an abortion at twelve weeks. Even myself and I am morally opposed to abortion.

And do we want to send a message that it is okay to end a human life just because it is inconvenient for the mother?

No, but I don't think the pro-life movement is going about finding a solution to it in a wise or thoughtful manner.

Of course that last one brings us back to the thesis of the thread. When does that lifeform growing in the mother become a human life?

I said it before and I'll say it again. I don't know.

I agree that emotion/feelings/sensibilities etc. are usually a poor basis on which to make policy. But I think emotion/feelings/sensibilities can serve us well in choosing what we will accept as good vs evil, acceptable vs unacceptable, right vs wrong.

To an extent they can, when tempered with intellect and common sense. Pure emotion can lead to irrationality and an uncompromising tunnel vision if allowed to run wild. Take the emotion of love, for example. :tongue4:

 

[Goobieman]

Categorically wrong and you know it. You are just being obtuse. You cannot honestly tell me that negligently shooting a person and negligently getting pregnant are the same. The only reason I even indulged your fool's errand was to help bring the conversation back around. Last time I make that mistake.

Categorically wrong and if you could read and comprehend, you would know this too. My arguments are as follows, just so you can get back on track:

Abortion before the 21st week of gestation is a perfectly acceptable accounting for having gotten pregnant.

AND (irrelevantly, just to appease your needs):

A person discharging a weapon on an appropriate firing range at an appropriate target who hits an obscured person due to circumstances beyond his control is not responsible for the subsequent death.

Anymore obtuse questions?

Fact is, the two have nothing to do with eachother. I have related this many times.

Consent has everything to do with it. Negligence was not my issue, it was just a standard I applied to YOUR irrelevant example.

Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.

Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't.

All the difference in the world. One is an action that cannot be remedied if you are negligent, the other has a perfectly acceptable remedy if pursued appropriately.

When you get in your car, you knowingly run the risk of getting crushed by a mack truck on the highway. What's your point?

Yes, and accountability is commensurate with the catastrophic nature of the outcome. In the case of unintended pregnancy, there is nothing that cannot be undone if pursued appropriately.

If he is, in fact, negligent, then certainly. No brainer here. VERY GOOD!!!

She is responsible and accountable. Only she can make the difficult decisions to follow. No one else has been killed or catastrophically touched by her actions.

Show me where it is.

No, prior to 21 weeks it's only a specialized mass of cells produced by a biological function.

You show me where a skin cell has anymore worth to humanity than an embryonic stem cell. Oh, except that the stem cells can possibly save lives...

A skin cell is alive and it is human, but it is not a human life. This discussion has been the center of intense debate on this site for some time, yet that fact seems to be lost on you. Though, your self induced ignorance isn't so odd to me at this point...it's just status quo.

You still haven't explained how it isn't.

If that's the case, just agree with me and shut up. :mrgreen:

This entie post cen be effectively characterized as you putting your hands over your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!!!!" as loud as you can.

Good work.

 

[jallman]

This entie post cen be effectively characterized as you putting your hands over your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!!!!" as loud as you can.

Good work.

Cut and run much?

 

[Goobieman]

Cut and run much?

Cut and run from what?
You refusing to drink once you lead yourself to water?
What's to run from? :doh

 

[jallman]

Cut and run from what?
You refusing to drink once you lead yourself to water?
What's to run from? :doh

Perhaps the fact that I am not letting you steer the discussion off on some wild tangent...just a thought though. :doh

 

[Goobieman]

Perhaps the fact that I am not letting you steer the discussion off on some wild tangent...just a thought though. :doh

Nope.

Its your refusal to apply your own argment consistiently and rationally.

But that's your problem, not mine.

 

[jallman]

Nope.

Its your refusal to apply your own argment consistiently and rationally.

But that's your problem, not mine.

I did not make that argument. I gave a counter example with relevance to combat your irrelevant drivel. You have absolutely no concept of the ebb and flow of discussion. Now wonder you are too terminally dense to recognize the difference between a total argument and a qualifying example. If you are the best pro-life has to offer, then I have no worry that abortion will remain safe, available, and legal for a long time to come.