Abortion?
- Thread starter DavidLerner
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but the key difference is that one has done nothing wrong, and the other has pillaged, raped, and murdered.
That said, I only approve of the death penalty in extreme cases. I'd prefer to have most death row inmates confined to a small, dark cell for the rest of their lives to ponder their mistakes.
Surely it comes down to when you consider life to begin.
Is a fertilised seed a living plant? If life begins at fertilisation then that has to apply to all living things... us humans can't be a special case. (Unless you bring religion into it, then logic goes out the window.)
As for the death penalty, while I find it amazing that so-called developed countries (well, developed country... I think there's only the one left) can still practice it in the 21st century, it seems to come down to whether criminals should be punished or rehabilitated. (It's no coincidence the US prison population is so high too.) The desire for revenge seems to win over the chance to learn and prevent future crimes.
Capital punishment is outdated and illogical, but corporal punishment seems to work well in other countries and maybe should be considered as an option, as prison - for the most part - doesn't work.... Give a criminal a choice - serve 2 years or take 20 lashes.
Sorry, went off topic there...
I never got the argument in the first place. Are most of you pro-life people vegetarians or against the klling of animals as well? Because, theorteiclly, a chicken or cow or whatever has more emotive/intelligence/sensory capabilities than an unborn foetus. Is a human somehow more important because it has 23 genes instead of some other number?
HarveyJ
He is - THE CACTUS!
alex: A lot of the "pro-life" people never really look at it from the other perspective, because they're often wrapped up in their argument on a religious/fundamental level. But stop for am moment and think:
What does it take to make a life not worth living?
And don't tell me every life is worth living. Some are clearly not.
Now, if you think you cannot provide, at this time, a life that is worth living for that child, for whatever reason, how can you bring it to term in all good conscience?
Xtreme5000: We've got a LOT more than 23 genes. You're thinking chromosomes.
I'm sure most people get what you mean. but the distinction actually is kinda important.
What does it take to make a life not worth living?
And don't tell me every life is worth living. Some are clearly not.
Now, if you think you cannot provide, at this time, a life that is worth living for that child, for whatever reason, how can you bring it to term in all good conscience?
Xtreme5000: We've got a LOT more than 23 genes. You're thinking chromosomes.
I'm sure most people get what you mean. but the distinction actually is kinda important.
"Prevention is always better then cure" thats all I want to say.
Why to kill some one when we can prevent it..
Why to kill some one when we can prevent it..
I really do not think it's a question of whether or not you believe in abortion. I think it depends on what you define abortion as. If it's not abortion, then it must be murder, right? At what point is it abortion and at what point is it murder? We have to agree on some transition point there otherwise we'll never come to any real conclusions on the subject.
Usually a child can't survive outside of the womb after X number of weeks. That seems like a fair number to use as the transition moment. What do you think?
Usually a child can't survive outside of the womb after X number of weeks. That seems like a fair number to use as the transition moment. What do you think?
I take it you mean can survive?
My understanding of it is that most legislation worldwide takes this into account when deciding the cut off point. (Here it's 24 weeks unless the mother's health is at risk.)
The question that then arises is whether you look at whether the fetus/baby can survive naturally or artificiality assisted... I doubt a baby could survive unassisted prior to 24 weeks and only a handful of people (religious or otherwise) argue against us "playing God" by using machines to keep alive those who would naturally die.
I don't think it is possible to be pro-life and pro-war, so some of you folks who are pro-war, you might want to consider that dropping bombs on civilian targets is definitely not a pro-life position.
Everyone else, please carry on not killing people, but supporting the right to choose to kill.
Everyone else, please carry on not killing people, but supporting the right to choose to kill.
This thread has got to be one of the best threads on here, even better than the skittles thread. Its actually interesting to see how hot under the collar this issue is for some.
Anyone here who is pro choice pro freedom to murder too? It's a logical extension of your argument to the same extent that pro life involves no murder, even for criminals. The line of reasoning I am following is that it is alive in the sense that it is an organism, or an organ group of the mother (depending how you look at it). I am not asking whether you are for murdering anyone who hacks you off (although I sometimes empaphise with those who do), but whether you are for the freedom to plan to murder and suffer (or not, if the murderer doesn't get caught) the consequences.
So, is abortion effectively the ending of life in one form or another? Whether you define it as human or otherwise is irrelevant to my question.
Interestingly, the questions also makes me wonder whether amputating an organ group is the removal of life, or merely curbing the growth of a single living thing (the mother). I havn't given it much thought, but I suppose one might argue that for it to be the ending of life the organ group must be defined as alive by the signs of life (Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction etc - see biology 101) Does the foetus do so?
Hmm... now I can't get to sleep.
Anyone here who is pro choice pro freedom to murder too? It's a logical extension of your argument to the same extent that pro life involves no murder, even for criminals. The line of reasoning I am following is that it is alive in the sense that it is an organism, or an organ group of the mother (depending how you look at it). I am not asking whether you are for murdering anyone who hacks you off (although I sometimes empaphise with those who do), but whether you are for the freedom to plan to murder and suffer (or not, if the murderer doesn't get caught) the consequences.
So, is abortion effectively the ending of life in one form or another? Whether you define it as human or otherwise is irrelevant to my question.
Interestingly, the questions also makes me wonder whether amputating an organ group is the removal of life, or merely curbing the growth of a single living thing (the mother). I havn't given it much thought, but I suppose one might argue that for it to be the ending of life the organ group must be defined as alive by the signs of life (Movement, Respiration, Sensitivity, Growth, Reproduction etc - see biology 101) Does the foetus do so?
Hmm... now I can't get to sleep.
your logic is faulty..abortion is the deliberate murder of an innocent life...in war, innocent civilians are killed unintentionally in the process of trying to kill bad guys...thats pisspoor leftist logic...
You forget, human life is so much more valuable than any other life. God made us special, not like those dumb flies, dogs, dolphins and viruses that deserve to die if it makes our life better.
Last edited:
- Status