Discussion Forums > Politics
Todd Akin wants abortion banned for rape victims
Burkingam:
In some cases, if for example at the 15th week you realize the fetus is handicapped, I'd argue that keeping it would be evil. Better kill it before it becomes a being than to create a being whose life will be absolutely miserable.
Ixarku:
--- Quote from: AceHigh on August 23, 2012, 09:42:35 PM ---
--- Quote from: Ixarku on August 23, 2012, 09:23:54 PM ---When you strip away all of the extraneous discussion, it distills down to, 'Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?'
--- End quote ---
While I don't have anything against the perspective of both sides, some of the argument annoy me. This is one of them, because you use a possible future as a criteria. Yes it may become a person in the future, but it is not a self aware person at the moment. When a descision is made in present time, the discussion should be around present, not future. Because otherwise by that logic you could say that we murder potential people by masturbating instead of having unprotected sex.
--- End quote ---
The flaw in your logic is that a sperm by itself is not going to turn into a person. A zygote will. It's not a question of potential people versus actual people. At the point that you have a human embryo, unless something goes wrong or some other process interferes, it's going to gestate and eventually turn into a baby.
(I seem to be repeating this argument a lot; there seems to be a deliberate attempt by some people to dehumanize human offspring by insisting that a clump of cells is somehow less human or of less inherent value because it's not fully developed. I don't really understand this. Human is human. I'm personally OK with killing something, anything, if there's a rational or compelling reason to do so. Execute a condemned man or abort a human fetus -- the end result is still the same, and both can be morally justified in the right circumstances.)
And people make all kinds of decisions all the time based on considerations for the future. I choose route A on the drive home from work instead of route B because I think I'll run into traffic. I plan out my budget ahead of time so that I can anticipate future needs. Why is the decision to abort or not to abort somehow different?
--- Quote from: Burkingam on August 23, 2012, 10:31:42 PM ---In some cases, if for example at the 15th week you realize the fetus is handicapped, I'd argue that keeping it would be evil. Better kill it before it becomes a being than to create a being whose life will be absolutely miserable.
--- End quote ---
Sure, this is a practical example of where the parents should be allowed to make their own choice, rather than having the government force that decision upon them.
elvikun:
--- Quote from: Ixarku on August 23, 2012, 09:23:54 PM --- (click to show/hide)
--- Quote from: elvikun on August 23, 2012, 12:31:43 PM ---It would almost look like we are going in circles, but what I am trying to demonstrate is, that there are more complex and "alive" things which can live in human body than the handfull of cells we call an embryo that work in very similar way, only difference is that they are not cells originating from a human. The term "parasitic growth" summs it up quite nicely, actually. My point is, banning abortions in early stages is a bull, no matter your argument, because you cannot call that a human, unless you call every cell on human body a person.
--- End quote ---
Lol, I think we're going in circles because you won't acknowledge that none of those other things you've mentioned won't eventually turn into human beings. Whether an embryo is a human being "now" or not until "later" is completely irrelevant to the pro-life perspective -- the point, pure and simple, is that a human zygote will eventually turn into a human being if properly nurtured, and, as such, that speck of human life is sacred to them. There is nothing else that exists in the human body that will eventually turn into a person. It's fallacious to compare a zygote to dead skin cells, tumors, tapeworms or anything else biological.
The funny thing is, I agree with your stance that abortion should be a matter of individual choice, but I completely disagree with the logic you use to justify your conclusion. This has actually been a helpful discussion for me, because it helped me crystallize my thoughts on the subject. I've had trouble reconciling my liberal sensibilities that tell me abortion should be a matter of choice, and with my own moral compass that says it's wrong. I think practical considerations and the rights and morality of the parents should be the guiding factor in any individual case of abortion. Government and religious fundamentalists should not legislate morality (which is similarly why I think the religiously charged term 'marriage' should be removed from legal language altogether and replaced with the secular term 'civil union'). And certainly the government should not be involved in telling women what they should do with their bodies.
I think the difference in our stances is that I don't consider the situation at all from a scientific perspective, ie what defines a person, what defines human life. I think it's irrelevant. When you strip away all of the extraneous discussion, it distills down to, 'Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?'
--- End quote ---
By the same logic used here, you could say various rocks are pretty valuable because they will eventually turn into gems - and while that is mostly true, it's not a valid argument for anything. More extreme case, murder could be forgiven alltogether, seeing how human isn't much more than a ground fertilizer -eventually-. So no, you cannot treat something that is not human by any standards anyone can set, because there is a high chance that it could turn into human -eventually- when left alone. There is a reason why we treat things depending on what they are, not based on what will (likely) they become in the future.
Also, this is not a justificaton, this is a fact. Embryo is not a human and / or a person with rights it is a mass of cells and only mass of cells unless you apply spiritual or religious meanings, which is what is happening here.
The flaw I see in what you say is very clear in your summarisation at the end. "Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?" - Wrong. That is a false, flawed statement. The thing will not become is person nor is one. The thing, given time, nourishment and several other factors has a certain chance of becoming a human. You may say that is getting close to semantics in a way, but it is important. "You will be fired." and "You will be fired , should you violate agreement stated in your contract." - do you see the difference here?
Comic relief: Marriage is not an instution created by current religions, so if anyone should change the term, it's the people lobbiing for religious union.
Well, as you prolly noticed before, I'm actually more concerned about the incredible violation of rights going on there, rather than actual parasites which may eventually grow into a human. (The best part is that I don't really consider born kids to be much more than that either, but I aknowledge they are human at that point :D)
PS: Sorry for the seemingly chaotic writing here, but when it comes to longer posts, I have the bad habit of reading a part, then answering and reading further, so it may look a bit fragmented, but I hope understandable still.
Burkingam:
And egg and a sperm will become a human being unless something wrong happens e.g. Mister has an headache and is not in the mood, a condom is in the way, masturbation => Kleenex, another sperm gets there first. etc.
Ixarku:
--- Quote from: elvikun on August 24, 2012, 12:54:40 AM ---By the same logic used here, you could say various rocks are pretty valuable because they will eventually turn into gems - and while that is mostly true, it's not a valid argument for anything. More extreme case, murder could be forgiven alltogether, seeing how human isn't much more than a ground fertilizer -eventually-. So no, you cannot treat something that is not human by any standards anyone can set, because there is a high chance that it could turn into human -eventually- when left alone. There is a reason why we treat things depending on what they are, not based on what will (likely) they become in the future.
--- End quote ---
You keep making essentially the same comparisons over and over, but just changing the individual object, and I don't think your examples are really applicable. A rock is not a human being. Why would anyone care whether a rock might turn into a gem in a million years? It's not like anyone is going to be around to harvest it if it did become a gem. If they were, maybe they would care. Pro-lifers see an inherent value in human life. I'm thoroughly Atheistic, I don't believe in any sort of divinity at all, but I can appreciate this point. At least in regards to the beginning of life, while innocence still exists.
If you choose to believe that an embryo is not human (kind of silly IMO) or not a person (a more reasonable stance, not one that I think is relevant, but certainly more reasonable), that's fine. It's not going to convince a pro-life person that the embryo is any less special, though. You keep arguing as if your stance is rooted in some sort of absolute inescapable logic, but on both sides of the issue, it's really a question of two different, incompatible moralities. Edit - if you don't see an inherent value in the life of the unborn, that's fine, but recognize it for what it is -- a moral decision, not something grounded in science or logic.
Murdering an adult is a whole different discussion. Executing an adult who has committed a crime, also a different situation. Context is everything.
--- Quote from: elvikun on August 24, 2012, 12:54:40 AM ---Also, this is not a justificaton, this is a fact. Embryo is not a human and / or a person with rights it is a mass of cells and only mass of cells unless you apply spiritual or religious meanings, which is what is happening here.
--- End quote ---
I'm not arguing that an embryo has 'rights'. 'Rights' are arbitrary, an intellectual construct intended as framework so we can all try to get along without killing each other and pillaging and looting everything in sight. In my book, the state decides what rights we all have, and they are subject to change under the rule of law. If the state rules that an embryo has no rights until it reaches a certain age, then it has no rights. There's only one truly fundamental characteristic (I hesitate to call it a 'right') that we all have -- free will.
--- Quote from: elvikun on August 24, 2012, 12:54:40 AM ---The flaw I see in what you say is very clear in your summarisation at the end. "Here is a thing that will eventually become a person, and what do you want to do about it?" - Wrong. That is a false, flawed statement. The thing will not become is person nor is one. The thing, given time, nourishment and several other factors has a certain chance of becoming a human. You may say that is getting close to semantics in a way, but it is important. "You will be fired." and "You will be fired , should you violate agreement stated in your contract." - do you see the difference here?
--- End quote ---
I don't get what you're trying to say here. The mother doesn't have to do anything in order for an embryo to develop into a fetus. All she has to do is to not die. It's in her own self-interest to stay reasonably healthy, and it's no coincidence that her good health also affects the good health of the fetus.
2nd edit - incidentally, I'm kind of glad that we can actually have a discussion about this topic without it turning into a bunch of name calling or vitriolic arguing. I have no problem with you & I disagreeing fundamentally on the finer points.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version