Babies, the other white meat.

Well no, because a newborn is alive and breathing. It can feel pain. A group of underdeveloped cells cannot.

We just covered this. You can kill a newborn baby or any sentient human without causing any pain whatsoever. Thus, whether or not either party can experience pain is not relevant.

Wait Archaon, do you belive in making choices for pregnant women yourself or do you think it is up to them?

Here we go with this again.

First of all, as I've already said, I don't take a stance on this one way or the other. I'm merely arguing the point of the pro-lifers in order to spark some actual debate. Therefore, what I personally "believe" is not a relevant factor.

Secondly, as I also already said, you can only choose what to do within reason. I can "choose" to murder someone. But people will try to stop me. If I do it, I'll be arrested and imprisoned. Isn't that compromising my personal freedom? Isn't that forbidding me to make the choices I want to make?

Yes, it is. And that's because there have to be limitations on what it is and is not acceptable for you to do in order to preserve the life and liberty of everyone else, hence the entire premise of human rights.

Sorry, just a question because I thought I saw earlier that you were arguing a different case and it somewhat confused me.




Unlawfully being the key word. Taking someone off life support when they are an empty shell is not murder. So in a way, aborting a baby is like taking someone off life support. They have no soul, personality, anything. They are dead. [yes in the way of being alive in a medical stance but bear with me]

I notice you picked out the one definition that suited your argument and ignored the other totally.

That's not the point, though. First of all, I was using murder as an example to illustrate that "it's their choice to make" is not a valid argument, because you can choose to do plenty of things that aren't moral or ethical. What the exact definition of murder is and how it applies to abortion isn't relevant.

Secondly, taking someone in that situation off life support is not the same thing. Why? They have no chance of recovery.

Now, let's look at someone who's on life support, but is very likely to recover. Is it illegal to disconnect them from the life support? Yep. See the difference?

Never the less, starving someone to death is:

To wit, murder.

...what? I'm fairly sure that a patient who has suffered enough damage to yield no chance of recovery has to have their life support do a little bit more than feed them. They have to have their heart kept beating, they have to have respiration done for them and so on. Once you turn it off that's it. They're gone. That seems like a pretty humane death to me.

Which brings us back to pain. It is unlawful to murder someone.

It is humane to poison someone rather than hacking them to bits with a blunt rusty axe. So yeah, it has alot to do with pain, as it says

in the definition.


ahh I'm confusing myself.

I don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. As I've already said I was using murder as an example to indicate that there have to be limitations on the choices you can make. I could just have easily have said theft, or rape. Whether or not the term applies to abortion as it stands is irrelevant to the point I was making.

I'm a pro-life hippie - Abortion is wrong.

If you want to take part in the discussion I suggest you follow Archaon's example, as so far pro-lifers are lacking severly in the ability to argue their way out of a wet paper back.

Ok am I mistaken or arent hippies extremely liberal and all that stuff? Usually on the left wing over every debate there is? Because if this is wrong then my life is literally a lie. And if I am correct then you are just a dumb ass.

KEY WORD.

Eh I still thing a conservative hippy sure is one hell of a contradiction.

Also bear in mind that "I am a (something) hippy" is more likely to be intended as self-depreciating humour these days, rather than an actual proclamation of being a hippy.

Then it is the populos who is to blame for the vulgar use of the word and the lifestyle behind it.

Archaon is one of the very few people here arguing on the side of the pro-lifers that's actually being coherent and Logical. I'm impressed, and I'll read it and take it in, because he's stating valid points.

I'm still pro-choice though. I think a child shouldn't be brought into the world if it isn't wanted. A child should never be used as a punishment in the "well you shouldn't have had sex" argument. I HATE people who say that kind of stuff.

In return, the child becomes the recipient of the punishment. Then again, death could be argued to be the least painful of the options.
Yes, pain comes in more forms than physical, and such forms seem to be the ones that come with greater, 'unseen' damage.

Neither are they mature enough to have sex.

What's your point? Do you want to criminalize teenage sex?

Why not? It's illegal for three-sevenths of the teenage population.

I think that abortion is perfectly ok. Abortions aren't murder because when the abortion takes place all there is, is a bunch of cells. Some people say that teenagers should use birth control or condoms, birth control fails and condoms break. Even the birth control patch isn't 100% effective. You can try, and do everything in your power to make sex as safe as possible and keep from getting pregnant but there's always a chance it might happen. And if you have the baby and put it up for adoption, there's always the chance the kid will sit there when they're older and have found out they were adopted as a baby and go "Why did my mom not want me? Why'd daddy give me away?" I have a friend who suffers from sever depression and cuts herself because she was adopted as a baby because her mother wasn't ready to handle it. It hurts her because all she gets out of it is that her mother gave her away, to some stranger. Everyone's entitled to their own opinon, and mine is that abortion is fine.

Covered. It's still a living, developing being. The only difference between it and a newborn baby is that it hasn't developed sentience. You can't say "It's OK to kill it because it isn't sentient" because coma victims are not sentient either. Therefore, if you're using the sentience argument, you're essentially advocating the murder of coma victims.



Yep. There is always a chance. And that's the risk you take in having sex.



Invalid argument. Plenty of adpoted people lead perfectly happy lives. Therefore, what you're basically doing is denying a human the right to live because you think they might get depressed.

I'm sure I don't need to point out what's wrong with that.



Don't do that. I'm serious. I hate it when people end their arguments with "Everyone's entitled to their opinion" or "This is just my opinion, so..." or whatever.

People wave that statement at the end of paragraphs like a shield. "OK, I've tried to put forward some logical arguments here, but because I've said it's just my opinion you shouldn't argue with them." OK, fine. If it's all just a matter of opinion (and everyone's opinion is worthy of acceptance, as you seem to be suggesting) then the last 38 pages of debate are totally, totally pointless, because nobody can be right either way.

But you know what? It isn't a matter of opinion. Your opinions on the matter don't mean anything. Here I am arguing the case of the pro-lifers and I don't even support them.

You are right. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. That doesn't mean their opinion can't be wrong.

So a 19 year old isn't mature enough for sex? You need to be more exacting. Teenagers on average under a certain age are not mature enough for sex, and it is illegal, but that doesn't stop them. If they are going to have sex the best thing you can do is educate them to use contraceptives correctly, but from what I see in the sex forum on here the sex education in the US is a joke due to the religious right not wanting people to be educated.

And that's so smart!!!! I don't think that a few bloody fundies should make the decision for all of us. Not everyone even follows the same faith. Shock, horror.

People repeat that ad nauseum, shock horror!

Well taking coma patients off of life support isn't murder. So sentientis rather important in the case of abortion, wouldn't you think?

Taking a brain dead patient off life support is simply letting the person go. When a person is brain dead, it means that they cannot recover and are basically already gone. In the case of abortion, that is removing the potential for life and sentience. So I don't think that they can really be compared.

But they are not yet sentinent as they have not lived past the medical definition.

There's a difference between comatose and braindead.

Comatose means they are unconscious for a long time and exist with a potential to "live" again. They can be observed to be alive in biological terms.

Braindead means that in biological terms they're not alive. They aren't breathing, responding to stimuli, hell if it involves movement they're never doing it themselves again.

It is if they're expected to recover. Hence what I am saying. Coma victims (ones that are expected to recover) are not sentient, but have the high potential of gaining sentience. Thus, killing them is wrong. Explain why this does not apply to developing babies.

Ok well, a fetus is probibly as much aware as a carrot is, so do you think eating a carrot is evil? For all you know, plants, food- everything is aware and is probibly in a lot of pain too...

Even if that is not true... which we have no support for such an idea being true, but humans are pathetically stupid (at least I sure hope there's something out there better than us *shivers to think there isn't*)- is life so great that a child has to come and live in this awful world with parents that are not ready to take care of it? It would probibly be better off dying before it was 'aware' then grow up either with a mom that is now poor and possibly alone, or having to be placed in an orphanage, etc.

I'm just saying that if a person has to choose abortion it's probibly for a good reason, both for their happiness and wellbeing, and in the end, the baby's.

That'd be a good argument if carrots were human.

They aren't.



Even if that was valid in and of itself (again, I refer you to the fact that you can't kill someone because you think they might get depressed) nobody has a right to make that decision FOR anyone.



No, it's not for the baby's happiness and wellbeing. The baby's dead. That is not wellbeing.

And so what if it's "for a good reason"? I'm sure murderers everywhere believe that they did what they did "for a good reason". That still doesn't make it acceptable.

What about Terri Schiavo (the woman who's parents thought she was going to recover), what about her? Her feeding tube was removed because of the type of life she was forced to lead. She was suffering ALOT. The "potential life form/empty existing shell" would probably have a horrible life and would suffer quite a bit, as Terri Schiavo was.

You cannot have black and white veiws in this world, nothing works that way. I'm sure many people are mudered for good reasons- and maybe they really are or maybe they're insane (see another awful reason to be human)

And yes, you shouldn't make the choice for a creature that has not had a chance to speak it's mind, but really death is not so bad, especially if you understand it- which almost everyone does not... cept maybe buddhists. And if you believe in God then if they're dead they're in heaven- isn't that better?

No. See, perhaps you've noticed that it's still illegal to go out and murder someone who, say, raped and killed your daughter?




I'm sorry, WHAT? Please tell me you were joking here. If you are actually trying to put this forward as an argument I'm going to cry. "Death is not so bad." Alright, so I suppose in your vision of the world, all murderers would be let off lightly because "death isn't so bad".

As a sidenote, how do you know death isn't so bad? How do you know that you don't descend into a pit of eternal torment after you die? You don't.



Your beliefs don't count for jack. Sure, you can believe you go to heaven after you die if you want. What if you don't?

I'll tell you what this would lead to.

"OK, since I believe in heaven, I'm actually doing people a favour by killing them because I'm sending them to eternal bliss!"

No thank you.

EDIT:



As I have already said, being put up for adoption does not automatically mean you are going to lead a life of suffering. Where do you even get that idea from? Some people are going to be depressed when they discover they are adopted. You can't make judgements based on a group that probably isn't even a majority. Some people will be upset for a while and then get over it. Some won't be affected at all.

So you're saying you know more then an enlightened buddhist?

Ok well if there is no heaven then when I die I hope I'm not automatically going to Hell. Yes, I don't know- but nobody knows ANYTHING. No body is smart enough to actually know that something is completely true or not. Thus death could be fine. It could be the next step to enlightenment, or just a place where this is no pain.

But no body knows- cept the people that's dead. But as we can't know what is 'good' or 'bad'. Good and bad is only what is pleasurable and what is painful. Nothing is JUST good or bad. And no, I do not think rape, murder and such is ok. But it's not 'bad' or 'evil', it's just painful for one side and pain is not something we want to conintue in this mortal life, but it's here and we have to deal with it. The people that do such things are not happy either, they're insane and need medication or release of this life that does not suit them.

And speaking of rape- what if a woman gets raped? How could she even stand her child knowing she's looking at a relation to someone that forced her into sex that she did not want? Is it still bad to not have the baby then? why does our whole future and life and maybe happiness or any hope have to get destroyed because someone forced us into sex which got us pregnant? What importance does a potential baby have over us who already have plans for life, who's already had to go through so much to get where we are?

abortion === cruelty this is how i see it mother an father have a night of great plesure they make make baby on accident so kill it
but.....
then the whole rape scene if your raped adopt the baby out dont kill it just beacuse its father done something wrong punishing the baby for someone elses wrong aint cool. adopting the baby out) at least the baby will have a loving family an be cared for

Punishing rape victims for someone else's wrong = cool?

double post

Well yes, if your foolish enough to not wear a condom, or take BC, then I think you should Try and have the child and if you do not think you're a capable parent then put it up for adoption. I was going to be adopted, actually, but my grandparents said they would take care of me while my mom... partied lol. lucky me- so yeah, it can work out, specially if you've got a caring family. I think you should always try.

But what if the mother might die with the baby she did not want. Why is the baby more important than her and her life? Yes, once again, try, but if you're whole life- and most possibly the babies, is going to be taken away beause you were raped, is it ok then?

No. I'm saying I know the same amount when it comes to what happens after you die, because on that subject, an "enlightened" buddhist doesn't know anything.



I am not going down this road. The "do we really know anything about anything" issue is a completely different argument.



Or it could not be. This is a totally ridiculous argument. I shouldn't even have to explain this. You cannot condone or even lessen the severity of murder because "death might not be all that bad".



OK, do the words "morals" or "ethics" mean anything to you?

The act of murder, from a logical standpoint, is morally and ethically wrong. That is it. Nothing is going to change that.

Even if you don't believe this, you yourself have just said that it is not OK. So what point are you trying to make here, exactly? "We don't really know what good or bad are as they are just related to pleasure and pain, but I still don't think murder is OK." Right. You realise that this is not even an argument. You haven't presented anything at all because you have said yourself that murder is not acceptable either way.



It's got nothing to do with whether or not they are more "important" than you. The crux of the issue, which many of you appear to be ignoring, is whether or not it is acceptable to kill for your own convenience. I have yet to see any form of convincing argument be presented stating that it is.

Look, what I'm saying is there is no such thing as something to be purely ok or not. Who are you to say what is Right and what is not. When I say I don't think murder is ok- I'm sorry, I meant I don't think it is very... polite or considerate- but I do not belive in things being just ok or not.

But there is no point to this argument anymore, because we obviously have totally different believes and ideas. I am- for the most part, an atheist, so I'm not going to convine you into my reason and you're are not going to convince mine into yours. But thats ok, and I don't want to continue getting angry or make you angry because that's silly, rude and we're all entitled to out opinions and all that jazz. So I am sorry if I was rude- or confusing lol. But anyway, I've veared from the point of this thread.

The only thing is though- I do not- not matter how 'evil' it is, think abortion should be outlawed. As you are allowed to your opinion and to make your own choices in childbrith, then others with different opinions who want to make different decisions should not be prevented from what they want to do as well. If you can have the open mind to understand that everything and anything any Human says can be completely wrong, than allow that openmindedness (yeah, I know thats not a word) to let other people with what they feel is that right decision make their own choices.

As I don't think physical death is the end to your mind, it is if your ignorant of all the possibilities that this universe has to offer. I don't like your ideas, but I will keep my mind open to them. You could be completely right.

What is wrong isn't wrong because I say so. It is wrong because it is. With logic in mind, allowing murder is detrimental to us. Allowing theft is detrimental to us. Allowing many of the things that are currently illegal would be detrimental to us. That is why they are wrong, because they interfere with our ability to live. it's got nothing to do with what you "think" is wrong. I can "think" that "2 + 2 = 4" is wrong. It isn't. That is fact. What I believe on the matter has nothing to do with anything.



Oh god, not this cop-out. Yes, differing beliefs and all that. Whoop-dee-doo. As I have already stated, what you believe has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on logical debate. By this logic there is no point in anyone debating anything because they believe differently. What you believe is not automatically worthy of consideration or respect just because it is a belief.



So am I. What's your point?



Um, no. This pretty much suggests that every debate anyone has ever had or is going to have is pointless because one side can't be convinced either way. The essence of debate is that you use logic - fact-based reasoning, in your arguments to show those you are debating against why you are right. Beliefs, opinions and feelings have nothing to do with anything.



I've been over this several times. If you're going to say this then you have to allow total freedom in everything else as well (read: it's your choice to kill, it's your choice to steal, etc.) otherwise you are a hypocrite.



Having an open mind is not the same thing as giving consideration to things that are incorrect.



"I don't think, I don't like, I don't feel, I don't believe". Totally irrelevant, as I've already said.

Killing cannot be wrong in itself, it can only be wrong in social context. Killing is "believed" to be wrong either because of superstitions which falsely claim that God thinks killing is wrong, or because we are taught to fear and hate death. We wrongly pretend life is good and better than death because we are taught to fear and hate death.

Okay, say I put it up for adoption, I get to carry a bag of water & cells that I literally was ready to cut out for nine months? No one should have the authority to tell me that I have to carry a burden for nine months, endure the pain of childbirth, then give it all up to some family that I have never met? Thats bull. Go and get pregnant then tell me how it feels to carry a baby.

In the name of tangents.

Question: Is it morally wrong to use fly spray? Explain.

No. Look. This is very basic. Killing is wrong because you are depriving someone of their right to live. It has absolutely nothing to do with what death is like, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone believes. If murder were accepted it would be a detriment to us, as a species. That is what makes it inherently wrong. Nothing else.




I refer you to the example of murdering your boss who treats you like crap. I'm not sure how many times I have to repeat this. It is not acceptable to kill for your own convenience. What it feels like is completely irrelevant.


EDIT:



Perhaps I just need to say this more clearly or something.

INCONVENIENCE. IS. NOT. COMPARABLE. TO. DEATH.