Hello Mr. president, Abortion Is Murder! Life Begins At Fertilization! That's A Fact [snip]!

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


An exception to protecting all human life.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

It is not the only exception. Killing biologically still alive but braindead people (for example after a stroke) is also lawful (thats where organs for transplantation come from), even killing some not completely braindead but vegetative people was deemed lawful (Terry Schiavo).

Its obvious that the intent of the law is in fact the protection of the mind, which makes us persons, and not mindless humans, even if alive in the strict biological sense. Otherwise all braindead patients would have to be cared about until complete necrosis, and organ transplantations would be illegal.

Embryos are mindless humans too.

Do you not see a huge difference in stopping efforts to keep someone alive and actively killing someone?

If someone would have shot Terry Schiavo in the head...they would have been convicted of murder.

Your logic is way off.

edit on 3-2-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

No, there is no moral difference between active killing, and just letting die, if you have the means to stop it (not providing help while able to). The effect (consequences) is the same, and its the conseqences what determines the morality of an act or choice.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


And in fact, taking organs of a biologically alive but braindead human is ACTIVELY killing him, not just letting die. So unless you want to ban transplantations, you are OK with actively killing humans without mind.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

An exception to protecting all human life.

Laws against murder do not seek to "protect all human life". They prohibit intentional killing of human life. Keep in mind that I live in the U.S. and I am arguing about law based on the U.S. Constitution, not your value judgement based morality.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


If Constitution really bans intentional killing of all human life in the biological sense, then yes, according to Constitution, abortions should be banned to be consistent, as well as organ transplantations (except corneal transplants, corneas can be extracted even from humans which are biologically dead for some time).

Of course, I would rather seek better Constitution than that, one which respects that its the mind which gives us value, not life in purely biological sense. It is a document made by men which were not infallible and could not predict the future, after all.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

And in fact, taking organs of a biologically alive but braindead human is ACTIVELY killing him, not just letting die. So unless you want to ban transplantations, you are OK with actively killing humans without mind.

The difference between this and abortion is consent.

In donors...they have previously consented that if they are brain dead then their organs can be harvested. A fetus never has that chance.

Keep on spinning in circles though...it's amusing.

reply to post by Maslo


Is it logical to you that a building under construction be condemned on the basis that it is not yet complete? Maybe this will help you see things a little more clearly?

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Maslo

 

Is it logical to you that a building under construction be condemned on the basis that it is not yet complete? Maybe this will help you see things a little more clearly?

Yes. Or do you think building under construction should be regarded as completed building, even when it clearly is not?
And what exactly is "building under construction"? When does potential begin? Why at conception? All gametes also have a potential. Should they be protected as persons?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by OutKast Searcher

 

And in fact, taking organs of a biologically alive but braindead human is ACTIVELY killing him, not just letting die. So unless you want to ban transplantations, you are OK with actively killing humans without mind.

The difference between this and abortion is consent.

In donors...they have previously consented that if they are brain dead then their organs can be harvested. A fetus never has that chance.

Keep on spinning in circles though...it's amusing.

So you would be OK with denying ill people perfectly good organs which would save their life, just because someone who does not even exist as a person now wanted to selfishly let them rot instead?
Disgusting and hugely immoral.

Organ donations after brain death should be mandatory. Noone is harmed by it (the person who needs them does not exist now), but someone could be very helped. Its a moral no-brainer.


What is amusing is how you want to rationalise protecting something which does not even have a mind (which is basically "it", a thing, not a person) as if it was a sentient person which should have rights, like you and me. Whats next, protecting plants or bacteria as if they were persons?

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

The difference between this and abortion is consent. In donors...they have previously consented that if they are brain dead then their organs can be harvested.

Also, this is irrelevant either way. Braindead people are disconnected and left to die routinely, without consent. This would not be done if they were as valuable as persons with functional brain are. But they are not. They are just empty shells, the person is already gone.

Similarly, in foetii, the person does not exist yet.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

If someone would have shot Terry Schiavo in the head...they would have been convicted of murder.

I am on the fence when it comes to Terri Schiavo case myself, as the brain death was not clear. But if someone shot a braindead but biologically alive human in the head, it would not be murder. Legal death is brain death. And thats also the correct analogy with abortion.

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
reply to post by Maslo

 

Is it logical to you that a building under construction be condemned on the basis that it is not yet complete? Maybe this will help you see things a little more clearly?

Yes. Or do you think building under construction should be regarded as completed building, even when it clearly is not?
And what exactly is "building under construction"? When does potential begin? Why at conception? All gametes also have a potential. Should they be protected as persons?

I regard a building under under construction as simply that. You can't complete construction if you demolish it because it's unfinished. If you can't understand that, ask someone you know in construction to explain this elementary concept in terms you understand. As for how the concepts of potential and conception pertain to building construction perhaps an "abstract architect" could assist you there. Maybe wiki has something to say about it, I'm going there now to research how you make buildings in your country from gametes.

Except that baby in the womb is not a person, or "someone". It is someTHING, until the brain develops. Things dont have rights.

reply to post by Maslo

What do you think it is, a pet rock?
Of course, it is a person, a human, in an early stage of development. The fact that after a certain point, a fetus can live outside the body, proves it. The only difference is that it gets its nourishment through the mother's umbilical chord. It can react to noise outside the womb, and other stimuli. Those that deny that it is a human, are only rationalizing, so that they can then commit murder.
Yes, abortion is murder, regardless of what you say.
Hitler said that Jews were not human, so that he and his henchmen could justify murder. Do you believe that Jews are not human? I hope you don't. It is no different today. Abortionists and Nazis are both murderers of humans. Period.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

Except that baby in the womb is not a person, or "someone". It is someTHING, until the brain develops. Things dont have rights.

reply to post by Maslo

 

What do you think it is, a pet rock?
Of course, it is a person, a human, in an early stage of development. The fact that after a certain point, a fetus can live outside the body, proves it. The only difference is that it gets its nourishment through the mother's umbilical chord. It can react to noise outside the womb, and other stimuli. Those that deny that it is a human, are only rationalizing, so that they can then commit murder.
Yes, abortion is murder, regardless of what you say.
Hitler said that Jews were not human, so that he and his henchmen could justify murder. Do you believe that Jews are not human? I hope you don't. It is no different today. Abortionists and Nazis are both murderers of humans. Period.

Strawman. I am not saying a fetus is not human. Of course it is.

Simply biologically being human not enough for me to consider it a person. Skin cells and braindead humans are human, but not persons.

The only difference is that it gets its nourishment through the mother's umbilical chord.

And the fact that it does not have a mind.

It can react to noise outside the womb, and other stimuli.

Not before 5th month of fetal development, since it does not even have a mind before that.

Mindless things are not persons.

reply to post by Maslo


What makes your subjective opinion superior to another subjective opinion?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


Objectively, nothing.

But I think those who want to restrict freedoms of others by force have to justify such restrictions, not the other way around (those who want to simply keep the freedom). So in the absence of widespread consensus, the burden of justification and persuasion that abortion is wrong to the point that it should be banned by law is on the pro-life side.

Their arguments have not persuaded me to date.

I believe in freedom so it's pretty easy actually. If you believe abortion is bad, here's what you do. Don't have one. It's that simple. People who support freedom of choice aren't forcing you to get abortions, in fact as long as you adhere to your beliefs, it shouldn't affect you in the least. At least respect the fact the other people do not share the same religious beliefs as you, which is the only reason you consider it wrong. There is no objective evidence whatsoever to suggest a soul, afterlife or any of that even exists. Don't cram your beliefs down other people's throats.

Originally posted by Barcs
I believe in freedom so it's pretty easy actually. If you believe abortion is bad, here's what you do. Don't have one. It's that simple. People who support freedom of choice aren't forcing you to get abortions, in fact as long as you adhere to your beliefs, it shouldn't affect you in the least. At least respect the fact the other people do not share the same religious beliefs as you, which is the only reason you consider it wrong. There is no objective evidence whatsoever to suggest a soul, afterlife or any of that even exists. Don't cram your beliefs down other people's throats.

edit on 9-2-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)

I 100% agree, and I definitely can't see how others don't.

Roe vs. Wade aint going anywhere get over it fuity tooties

The only reason I'm pro chioce is to pss off religous people.

Not allowing a human to live is wrong. IMO anyway.