Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Gilgamesh, Nov 2, 2004.
also from the same site:
how is a fetus any more alive than a bug that you wouldn't hesitate to squaush? the only difference is that a human fetus' genetic material is closer to your own. the only attachement to a fetus you can have is if you're carrying it. anyone that you know you have an attachement to; you've talked to them, you've shared experiences with them... all that a fetus is is a POTENTIAL to be that. it is nothing special. unless one WANTS to spend a lot of money and a lot of time trying to turn that potential into something tangible, shouldn't one be able to turn down the chance?
I don't know if I would have made that specific argument... You can't really attach potential to a fetus. You could say the same thing about a newborn - 1 year old. You don't have to spend time and money to create a life, or to turn it into soething with potential.
it's the 'soul' thing.
A lot's changed in 30 years. My point was that assertions of rampant "baby killing" going on around the country are simply false. Given the choice, the large majority of people do not choose abortion.
See this report: http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/state_pregnancy_trends.pdf
Teen pregancy, teen birthrates, and teen abortion rates nationwide are all in decline. Education and contraception, not legislation, remain the best answer. The problem is that many of the same people opposed to abortion also oppose sex education and readily available contraception for teenagers.
It is worth noting that the highest abortion rates per 1000 teenagers occurred in NY, NJ, MD, CA, and NV, all "blue" states on the electoral map, except for NV. That's important because even if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it would still be up to the states to make abortion illegal, and at least a few of the mentioned states probably would not do so. A federal abortion law would be possible, of course.
Interestingly, the highest teen pregnancy rates per 1000 teenagers are in NV, AZ, MS, NM, and TX. All "red" states. Apparently conservatives love premarital sex.
Which cannot be a factor in a serious argument, there is nothing even close to proof such a thing exists.
It would be like bringing up forest-trolls when discussing economics.
At least IMHO...
I just did this on another forum. Rather than running the whole argument again, just read this thread.
In summary, the argument that unborn babies have souls is just as valid as the argument that they do not have souls. They are both religious arguments that are not based in science. Proof is variable.
Once again, a religious reason for enacting a law goes against the separation of church and state. Laws that are proposed/created supporting religious reasons are unconstitutional...
PS: Need to create an account over there to see thread...
Interesting point. What that says to me is that the "truth" depends greatly on one's point of view, to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi.
All the more reason for government to stay away from legislating morality.
That doesn't seem to stop anyone.
Except when the morality involves human life... Laws are a morality unto themselves.
not dropping by much
the large majority of people do not choose to murder their 5 year olds, but some do. let's make it legal!
We will have to start killing ourselves eventually, otherwise nature will kill us off. The human population is currently on the steep part of an exponential growth curve.
I suspect a huge war will take care of the problem before it becomes critical.
I think I see your point... however... the moment I bring up forest-trolls as an explanation to poverty everyone will laugh at me.
I don´t see how it would make it any more valid if 400 million people believed in forest-trolls.
When I say there is no such thing, I consider myself backed by science.
Read somewhere that there will be in excess of 9 Billion people by 2030... (wonder where they will all fit?)
No one chooses to murder 5 year olds, nor condones the murder of 5 year olds, nor would accept the murder of 5 year olds. While I appreciate the use of sarcasm to make a point, your example is a poor one.
Although it does illustrate the crux of the argument. You equate the unborn zygote/fetus/whatever to a 5 year old. This is a subjective position based upon your own moral compass. You are entitled to your position, as I am to mine, as millions of women are to theirs. For me the debate is not about abortion, it is about privacy. (In fact, Roe v. Wade is a privacy case.) It is not the purpose of goverment to legislate morality.
The other issue is where the line is drawn. My body produces millions of sperm a day. Each of these is a potential life. If you kill me, are you also responsible for a million other deaths? You see, you extend forward to 5 year olds, I can extend backward to sperm. This is why it is a subjective debate not meant for government to be involved in.
do the sperm have souls? How about eggs? When does a soul get installed into a fertilized egg? At the moment of fertilization does a soul get downloaded from heaven?
Bah... too many people see religious implications when all you have is the freak of nature that is life.
It all comes down to a select group trying to impose their will upon the masses... and what easier way is there to control the masses than to get them to believe in an Almighty, then tell them that "this-and-this" is allowed, but "that-and-that" is banned. Let people come up with their own ideas about what is right and wrong and not use religion as the basis of their argument...
A bunch of self-righteous bastards trying to tell everyone else what they can do pisses me off.
Separate names with a comma.