Very simple argument against abortion

a reply to: Gryphon66

If that's not your argument then what is?

a reply to: Thetan

Legalized murder is possible in 31 states.

It's called the death penalty. Are you against it?

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Gryphon66

If that's not your argument then what is?

My argument is above, very simple, and very clear.

No reason for you to restate it and then try to argue from that.

originally posted by: laminatedsoul
Do we need to eat dog, or any form of exotic creatures? No. Do we need to eat dolphins and other animals that have shown intelligence? No.

We have, in the west, enough food to feed everyone, and in fact throw so much edible food away it's a crime. There is enough food in the East also to not starve, yet they're happy to hang a dog up, beat it while alive, blow torch it's fur off and then slowly boil it alive. Disgusting, and hardly prejudice.

It's not cultural prejudice. It's respect for the world I live in. I do not agree that every creature was put on this earth for me to do as I please with.

Or you or that fat slob sucking down duck embryos because it's cool and hip - hence the video. Which was not in the Philippines, as you can clearly see.


ETA - we've gone off topic... I apologise to the OP... sort of, the topic was never really going to keep on track anyway..

Do you eat beef? Cows are very intelligent and in India they see qualities in cows that we see in dogs (they may hold cows in even higher regard than that).

We see what we want in our food, things we have attachments with we don't want to eat, while things we don't become mindless beasts meant for slaughter.

a reply to: laminatedsoul
Dogs are not exotic.

Or you or that fat slob sucking down duck embryos because it's cool and hip - hence the video.

I really don't care. It's a chicken embryo.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: AazadanBy definition legalizing murder is impossible. The mother has the prerogative to abort a fetus if the danger to herself is IMMINENT, the key word being "imminent." The mother wouldn't necessarily be aborting it for her own sake and she has the prerogative to abort it because it's an act of self defense.

Imminent means soon to be happening, it has no bearing on severity. If the baby is born the mother will likely die, but that's not always the case. Sometimes both mother and baby will live. If you kill the innocent baby, it will never live. Why does the mother get the right to terminate an innocent life? Why does the father not have any say in his childs fate?

originally posted by: rajas
a reply to: Thetan

All life is preacious

Freedom is more precious. Everyone dies eventually, some have even sacrificed their lives to leave freedom to future generations. That is the most important thing we can leave to our descendants. Medical decisions should be between a doctor and a patient. The last thing we need is government telling people what medical procedures we can or can't have. That will only lead to government telling people what medical procedures they must or must not have.

a reply to: Thetan

All intentional killing of innocent human beings is wrong.
Abortion is the intentional killing of an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Why would killing an innocent human being be wrong?

Because a human being is a sentient animal.

However the fetus doesn't have the necessary neurological development to give rise to sentience until after 20 weeks. Only 1.4% are performed at 21+ weeks. With the vast majority of legal abortions the fetus doesn't have the functional capacity to feel pain.

a reply to: [post=20010096]Aazadan[/post
The mother has the perogative because it is an act of self defense. While it would certainly be optimal for the father to get a say it isn't his perogative, just as it isn't his perogative to decide if she shoots the man trying to murder her. I compare them only because they are both acts of self defense, not becasue the situations are similiar to each other.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Murder by definition, cannot be legal. There is a difference between killing and murdering. It's a digression, but yes, I am against the death penalty.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

So you disagree with premise one?

a reply to: Thetan

I agree killing innocent human beings is wrong. As callous as it might sound to you I view the fetus as a potential human being until they are sentient. I don't have a problem with legal abortions unless they are very late term.

a reply to: Lucid Lunacy
Ah. So it's premise two that you disagree with. It's a member of the species Homo Sapien, so how can it not be a human being? "Person," is a legal term. Homo Sapien and by extension "human being," however, pertains to science and not legality.

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Gryphon66

Murder by definition, cannot be against the law. There is a difference between killing and murdering. It's a digression, but yes, I am against the death penalty.

Glad to hear it. At least you're consistent with your own beliefs.

I have no idea with what you mean by "murder by definition cannot be against the law."

It is against the law, except when the government does it.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Murder-the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
Killing- to cause the death of (a person, animal, or plant) : to end the life of (someone or something)

My apologies. I meant to say. "Murder by definition, cannot be legal."

Im 100% against abortion whether the conception is thru rape or other means, but hey that's me I value all life.

There is other means, adoption!

originally posted by: Thetan
a reply to: Gryphon66
Murder-the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.
Killing- to cause the death of (a person, animal, or plant) : to end the life of (someone or something)

My apologies. I meant to say. "Murder by definition, cannont be legal."

No worries, we all make mistakes. Your comment makes a bit more sense now.

Your definition of murder is redundant: every crime is unlawful.

The idea that the state cannot murder is ridiculous: the state orders the deaths of innocents perpetually.

a reply to: Gryphon66
It is not redundant. All cases of killing are not unlawful, only unlawful cases of killing are murder. Individuals whom consitute a state can murder, that is if they kill someone unlawfully. The "death penalty," however, is a judicial killing; judicial killings are not cases of murder since they are lawful.

When a fetus can survive outside a woman's body it is viable.

That is the point at which our laws intervene, and yet, the woman still has the right to act to preserve her own life.

An embryo is not a human person. A fetus is not a human person. I understand the appeal to emotion, and I am against abortion personally. I favor all other methods of birth control instead of abortion.

There is, however, no way to fairly legislate our emotional reactions over the right of a woman to control her own body.

We don't have to live with the results.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't get one.

a reply to: Thetan

I'll try paraphrasing a bit.

To be alive as a human being is to subjectively experience sensations and thoughts. It's our capability of sentience that allows for us to suffer physical and emotional pain. The wrongness of murder is directly connected to our concern for the suffering of sentient beings. We don't have repulsion to the idea a Christmas tree gets cut down because we know the tree doesn't have the ability to suffer the way we do. By the fetus being a potential human being I mean to say that the fetus is not sentient from the get-go. It has to have sufficient development of its nervous system in order to subjectively experience pain. So by taking the suffering component out of the equation any moral reservations I'd have against killing a Homo Sapien is not there.