Quote: from Shogun villimax at 4:29 pm on Dec. 30, 2008

---

The best reason you can come up with to justifiy
abortions is that feus' have no will?

---

---

and yet an older one that isint inside it's mom anymore DOES?!

---

---

I have a shared moral axiom for you:FETUS' ARE BABIES,only YOUNGER! it's scientific fact!

---

---

also many abortions arnt done because of rape and incesst,they'r done because the girl or boy doesen't want to to stop having fun!

---

---

... Again, whether or not a fetus qualifies as a baby is an irrelevant semantic issue (and unless you consider opening a dictionary science, well...). The critical difference between a born infant and an abortable fetus is that the latter has no will, no desires, no mind. No amount of scuffling over word meaning can change this. ...

---

---

- It likely violates the will of the infant. (Legally abortable fetuses are biologically incapable of having a will.)

---

At what age does an infant have a will?

---

- It's likely an unchosen tragedy for the infant's loved ones. (Abortions are chosen by the aborter, so no tragedy is forced upon them.)

---

Because the mother is the only one that could love the fetus of course. What if the baby-daddy is vehemently opposed, considers the child a child and [wants it?] The abortion is then an unchosen tragedy.

If the father isn't important enough for your little scenario, what if every member of both families save the mother-to-be feels that way?

I also fully supported the right of parents to "abandon their children on a hillside somewhere" though since if no-one had enough of a relationship with them to rescue them and pay for their upkeep then they were not "part of society" and "subject to its protections".

I believe this argument is perfectly reasonable when taken in context of assumptions that there is no God and thus no objective moral authority (if there is an objective morality then by definition there is a God, although there is no necessity for that God to be a personal one or to posses any specific attributes.) However when I came to the conclusion of there being a God I was forced to abandon this position, although to tell the truth I was going in that direction anyway.

However this is not the common argument I see used. Most arguments seem to center around trying to define the embryo/fetus as either "not alive" (absurd - any definition of life that excludes embryos excludes most of the biodiversity in existence) or "just a part of the mothers body" (a bit of a cop out, a developing embryo is clearly distinct from the mother if you think about it without prejudice) or "not human" (again, an embryo is human according to any definition that includes all accepted other humans) or finally, and what I think is the best argument out of these "not a person" - which begs the question what confers personhood? Is it consciousness (so people in deep coma? Are they not persons? Even if they can recover?) or birth (so a premature baby is a person but a more mature but as yet unborn baby is not a person?).

Then there is the dependence argument. But a newborn is just as dependent as is a fetus. Although not physically attached in some way. Its true that it is not dependent on an individual to the same extent, and individual can be substituted with another, but say no-one was willing to foot the bill for a newborns sustenance, is it then acceptable to just let it die? If we have an obligation to our fellows then we have it not just as a society, but as individuals, if someone relies upon us we cannot just shirk that obligation because its inconvenient for us personally, if everyone felt that way society would break down, the customs and laws of society should not be set up to benefit the most selfish at the expense of the generous.

-------
Κύριε ἐλέησον

In lamens terms it states that life of the flesh begins with the blood. Scientifically, blood is not created/given to the fetus from the mother until about 18 days after conception. Thus in the words of the bible, abortion is still legal up to this point, because life isnt formed yet.

They cant use religion against the life argument. And they cant use murder as an argument either because the bible has hundreds of murders in its pages.

Eye for an Eye is the basic religious policy.

-------
If I wanted to listen to an asshole. Id fart.

---

If anyone ever uses religion against you based on abortion, then cite Leviticus 17:11.

In lamens terms it states that life of the flesh begins with the blood. Scientifically, blood is not created/given to the fetus from the mother until about 18 days after conception. Thus in the words of the bible, abortion is still legal up to this point, because life isnt formed yet.

They cant use religion against the life argument. And they cant use murder as an argument either because the bible has hundreds of murders in its pages.

Eye for an Eye is the basic religious policy.

---

---

"not alive"

---

There is no clear line of division over what is and isn't alive. Viruses, for example, are often in dispute as being both alive and not. The soundest philosophical sound byte I've ever heard went like this: something is alive enough to care about if it fears its own death. Fetuses, lacking this consciousness, do not quantify.

Obviously there is no scientific justification for that statement, and I do not mean to use it as an argument, but "alive" is a very subjective statement.

---

But a newborn is just as dependent as is a fetus.

---

That is a cop out. You are smart enough to know that there is a difference between physical and social dependence, but you obviously did not acknowledge a distinction much clearer than life vs non-life in your conclusion just to get around the matter.

The fact of the matter is: stopping abortion requires the state to rape women of their autonomy. It creates artificial hierarchies. Since I derive my beliefs from science (Marxism), I find your morality abhorrently intolerable (double statement).

---

However when I came to the conclusion of there being a God I was forced to abandon this position, although to tell the truth I was going in that direction anyway.

---

Beliefs that originate from a counter-proposal of some supernatural being should be dismissed out of hand. Like god, such morality derives from nonsensical statements about what can't be proven. I could say that fairies believe abortion must occur or we'll all die, and I would have just as much evidence as you do from your belief in god.

Post edited at 2:02 pm on Jan. 5, 2009 by GeneCosta

-------
Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man
how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity. - Karl Marx

---

do you know how they abort some babies?  
they do inhuman things!

---

I think it's more inhumane to procreate when you can't provide for the child than abort the fetus before it achieves independence and consciousness.

-------
Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man
how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity. - Karl Marx

---

murder isn't just a legal term, but keep grasping at straws

---

Sorry, we don't have to conform to your subjectivity.

-------
Sell a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man
how to fish, you ruin a wonderful business opportunity. - Karl Marx

---

since at any stage of development the child has a relationship with God.

---

How do you figure? If one lacks the capacity to consciously perceive this world, what makes you think the infant would be able to 'have a relationship' with God? Or do you just mean that, despite the infant's unawareness, God had an interest in it?

---

(if there is an objective morality then by definition there is a God, although there is no necessity for that God to be a personal one or to posses any specific attributes.)

---

Where do you get this idea that deity and an objective moral standard are synonymous?

---

again, an embryo is human according to any definition that includes all accepted other humans)

---

Including the definition that a human is a born, human animal? No. Assuming a subjective, Godless, secular legal system, we can set the standard for humanity at birth. Who can challenge that? A man in a comma may be no more responsive than a fetus, but he's born, so he's taken on the role of a human, vegetable or not.

---

Then there is the dependence argument. But a newborn is just as dependent as is a fetus. Although not physically attached in some way. Its true that it is not dependent on an individual to the same extent, and individual can be substituted with another, but say no-one was willing to foot the bill for a newborns sustenance, is it then acceptable to just let it die?

---

The clear and obvious difference, and the one people advocating this 'dependant' argument will most often give you is that a new born (and an unborn child, from a certain stage onward) CAN live outside the mother. It could be given away to SOMEONE. Most abortions occur at a stage when the child can't depend on anyone except the mother. Society is responsible for the born, but maybe we shouldn't be responsible for those who cannot survive outside the womb.

If it is about dependence, maybe that should be the standard. Viability ex utero.

-------
Soon the power will be mine!

---

i guess. you do your thing and i'll do mine

---

That is pretty much the pro-choice motto

-------
Life is pleasant. Death is peaceful.It's the transition
that's troublesome.   --Isaac Asimov

---

Or do you just mean that, despite the infant's unawareness, God had an interest in it?

---

---

Where do you get this idea that deity and an objective moral standard are synonymous?  

---

---

A man in a comma may be no more responsive than a fetus, but he's born, so he's taken on the role of a human, vegetable or not.

---

---

The clear and obvious difference, and the one people advocating this 'dependant' argument will most often give you is that a new born (and an unborn child, from a certain stage onward) CAN live outside the mother. It could be given away to SOMEONE. Most abortions occur at a stage when the child can't depend on anyone except the mother. Society is responsible for the born, but maybe we shouldn't be responsible for those who cannot survive outside the womb.

If it is about dependence, maybe that should be the standard. Viability ex utero.

---