Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[Redcomet]

ok, yea, abortion's bad. yea, us liberals got that memo too, its not just you. instead of prohibiting it, why don't you let people make their own decisions about their lives. Who knows what circumstances they are in? are you saying that every single person who is involved in an abortion is immoral? do abostion clinics deserved to be bombed? why are we hipocrites when freedom and democracy are on the march but they are limited in our own country? you cannot force morals onto others, you can try to, but you can't make it a moral bill that everyone must follow. morals, ethics, and one's Superego does not work like that. you can try to convince people not to get an abortion but forcing a child onto them because they made a stupid mistake or had an accident even though that child is unwanted? what problems do these children face later in life psychologically? saving lives isn't as simple as banning abortion. in addition, people who are too old to physically have children have different views about abortion than a "teenage hipster."

[a person]

however much freedom is being taken away from a women who is "forced" to hav a baby, in an abortion scenario the fetus obviously loses more, to say a baby is a clump of cells one minute and a living organism the next is pretty arbitrary, and until we can "define human life" and when a fetus attains it, the right to kill what might be a human is still murder.

[Gorgo]

Quote by: a person until we can "define human life" and when a fetus attains it, the right to kill what might be a human is still murder.

That's just it. It has been determined, by rule of law, when it is acceptable to abort, and when it is not. Humans have that ability to decide. What is the problem with that?

[Starboy]

Quote by: Gorgo That's just it. It has been determined, by rule of law, when it is acceptable to abort, and when it is not. Humans have that ability to decide. What is the problem with that?

There is nothing wrong with that. What we are seeing in the abortion battle is a struggle for religion to maintain its control over such decisions. They really do not like the idea of freedom and free choice. It is not enough for the religious in this county to not marry gays or not have abortions or not clone themselves or whatever, in order for their religion to maintain power they must force everyone to practice their religious morals. This battle has nothing to do with values and everything to do with the last dying breaths of supernaturalism. You see if the religions had actual control over their adherents this discussion would not be taking place.

Starboy

[Contrarian]

It says "explain" after "Other"...so.... The egg and sperm are alive prior to conception. Life thus does not begin at conception, let alone at birth. In any case, the question is a red herring: the real question is whether a fetus has a claim that overrides a grown woman's claim to her own body. My answer to that question is a resounding "No!"

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Redcomet ok, yea, abortion's bad. yea, us liberals got that memo too, its not just you. instead of prohibiting it, why don't you let people make their own decisions about their lives. Who knows what circumstances they are in? are you saying that every single person who is involved in an abortion is immoral? do abostion clinics deserved to be bombed? why are we hipocrites when freedom and democracy are on the march but they are limited in our own country? you cannot force morals onto others, you can try to, but you can't make it a moral bill that everyone must follow. morals, ethics, and one's Superego does not work like that. you can try to convince people not to get an abortion but forcing a child onto them because they made a stupid mistake or had an accident even though that child is unwanted? what problems do these children face later in life psychologically? saving lives isn't as simple as banning abortion. in addition, people who are too old to physically have children have different views about abortion than a "teenage hipster."

Well, why don't we just eliminate all laws that make it illegal to kill another human being? Why don't we just let other people decide if they need to kill their neighbors, or that ass that just cut them off in traffic?

Are all people who are involved in abortion immoral? I don't know. Do you think that all people who are involved in the premeditated killing of a completely innocent human being for no better reason that convenience are immoral? Personally, I think they are.

The laws that say that you may not kill your fellow humans have a moral foundation and I don't hear many people saying that they won't have that set of morals forced upon them, so it seems that morals can be forced upon people by society. There are plenty of laws that have their foundations in morals and people obey the law for the most part.

And the mere suggestion that it is better to kill than take the chance that a person may have an unhappy life is ludicrous. If that sort of logic stuck, all pregnancies would be terminated. People are unhappy on both sides of the tracks.

[jenniann111]

Morality is not the same as legality. Most would agree it is immoral to lie. Most would agree that to pass a law outlawing lying would be ridiculous.

One can believe abortion is immoral, but still allow the decision be left to the individual moral sensibility of the mother and left out of the legal realm.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: jenniann111 Morality is not the same as legality. Most would agree it is immoral to lie. Most would agree that to pass a law outlawing lying would be ridiculous. One can believe abortion is immoral, but still allow the decision be left to the individual moral sensibility of the mother and left out of the legal realm.

So why don't we eliminate all laws that have a basis in morality and leave such decisions to individuals?

By the way, there are laws outlawing lying. Purjury? Ever hear of it?

[jenniann111]

Quote by: Pale RIder So why don't we eliminate all laws that have a basis in morality and leave such decisions to individuals? By the way, there are laws outlawing lying. Purjury? Ever hear of it?

Just because law and morality are not the same does not mean that we should avoid the intersection of the two. It just means that they are not identical.

Law is based on utilitarian societal needs, not on morality. That does not mean the two do not sometimes cover the same grounds. Speeding isn't immoral, but it is unlawful.

Yes purjury... this is not based on the morality of lying but on the fact that lying in court makes proceeding grind to a halt. It is also utilitarian.

What is the societal benefit of not allowing a viable option of abortion to a woman? Remember this is not saying abortion is the right or wrong thing to do, it is simply allowing the mother to make the choice for herself, without intervention by the state.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder They have painted themselves into a philosophical corner. Science, and our knowledge of human development has increased much since the days of Roe. At every turn, science is defeating the arguments that they have used for so long. The more they attempt to argue on the pro choice side, the more self evident their hypocricy becomes. The only argument that they have left that really can't be defeated easily is the one in which they simply state that they do not have a problem with murdering innocent human beings for no better reason than convenience.

Use of science in a argument over moral issues is completely pointless. Morality is relative (unless you can prove otherwise) and the science you bring up is open to intrepretation by both sides of the argument.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: jenniann111 What is the societal benefit of not allowing a viable option of abortion to a woman? Remember this is not saying abortion is the right or wrong thing to do, it is simply allowing the mother to make the choice for herself, without intervention by the state.

What is the societal benefit of not allowing you to kill your neighbor because he plays his music to loud every night? This also is not saying that killing your neighbor is right or wrong, it is simply allowing you to make the choice for yourself without state intervention.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants Use of science in a argument over moral issues is completely pointless. Morality is relative (unless you can prove otherwise) and the science you bring up is open to intrepretation by both sides of the argument.

This is not a moral issue to me. It is a human rights issue. This country was founded on the idea that all humans have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. For a very long time, the pro choice side of the argument simply argued that unborns were not humans...science now says that the argument is not valid, and in matters of biology, and life sciences it is pointless to look to philosophers and gypsies for answers that we all know.

Morality may be relative, but when a nation is founded on the inalienable rights of humans, and one set of humans has absolutely no rights at all and in fact, may be killed for any or no reason at all, there is a gross misapplication of our laws and principles.

And to interpret "human life begins at the moment of conception" in any other way than a human life begins at the moment of conception is nothing but sophistry. You are free to interpet it any way you want, but we all know that such a statement has just one meaning. You can say that it means that the moon is cheese if you like, but when you do, it is obvious that you are no longer arguing from a position of fact.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder What is the societal benefit of not allowing you to kill your neighbor because he plays his music to loud every night? This also is not saying that killing your neighbor is right or wrong, it is simply allowing you to make the choice for yourself without state intervention.

For starters, that neighbour may have children who needs supporting, or that neighbour might be doing an important job, eliminating him/her would stop that job being completed. Freedom to kill anyone based on how annoying they are would cause our population to plumment overnight, until we reach an equilibrium, of course.

[jenniann111]

If law were based solely on morality, we'd never make any legal decisions because morality is a never ending debate (sort of like this one). Philosophy of law is full of various theories, but the current practice of law is based on the laws themselves, not ethics. Judges are not supposed to decide cases based on their personal moral judgements, but on whether the evidence shows a written law was violated.

Laws are human creations based on current societal needs. Hopefully the laws of our time respect our individual ethics (even God allows free will - so why not get rid of all laws? Because that would cause a pretty messy society.).

Killing another human is almost universally agreed upon as morally wrong, yet the law allows for many circumstances in which it is not - during war, in the US capital punishment, self defense, etc. War is a good example. Most moral codes don't say "thou shalt not kill, except when ordered to by a superior". But often people do what they must instead of what they morally believe to be right - and it is legal.

Law (current law in the United States, which is different than law in other countries at other times) protects the inalienable human rights you speak of. If (and no this isn't a given) the human-to-be is considered to have these rights before birth, this human-to-be's right to life may be in contradiction with the mother's right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Clash of rights.

But that's a whole different debate... sorry for getting kind of off topic here.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants For starters, that neighbour may have children who needs supporting, or that neighbour might be doing an important job, eliminating him/her would stop that job being completed. Freedom to kill anyone based on how annoying they are would cause our population to plumment overnight, until we reach an equilibrium, of course.

And the unborn MAY have within its head the proper sequence of synapses and just the right brain chemistry required to figure out cold fusion at the age of 12. Might, and should have and could have are hardly valid arguments.

And the earth is hardly overpopulated. Another myth created to excuse the killing of humans for no better reason than convenience.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: jenniann111 Law (current law in the United States, which is different than law in other countries at other times) protects the inalienable human rights you speak of. If (and no this isn't a given) the human-to-be is considered to have these rights before birth, this human-to-be's right to life may be in contradiction with the mother's right to liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Clash of rights. But that's a whole different debate... sorry for getting kind of off topic here.

Chose to sidestep the question huh? No worries, I expected it.

This last paragraph is interesting though. Human to be? Interesting wording. Of course for any of this to have any meaning at all, the onus is upon you to demonstrate that the offspring of two humans, even at the earliest stages, is not a human. Can you do that?

And if we have a clash of rights, which is more important? The right to life, or the right to privacy? Do you have a right to kill your neighbor who keeps a telescope trained on your house all the time and invades, or restricts your privacy?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Pale RIder And the unborn MAY have within its head the proper sequence of synapses and just the right brain chemistry required to figure out cold fusion at the age of 12. Might, and should have and could have are hardly valid arguments.

That same child could also become a second Hitler. So you're right, it's a moot argument but you asked a what if question pertaining benefits to society.

Quote by: Pale RIder And the earth is hardly overpopulated. Another myth created to excuse the killing of humans for no better reason than convenience.

What is your definition of overpopulated? In the Western world at too rapid rates, obviously China and India are catching up as they are industrialised. I'm sure you're well aware of the statistics which tells us just how many "earths" we need to sustain a typical American/European life style. Unless we do something about how much we consume, I'll maintain my stance.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Pooeypants of overpopulated? In the Western world at too rapid rates, obviously China and India are catching up as they are industrialised. I'm sure you're well aware of the statistics which tells us just how many "earths" we need to sustain a typical American/European life style. Unless we do something about how much we consume, I'll maintain my stance.

You could give every man woman and child on earth 1500 square feet of living space and they all could live within the borders of Texas. I would say that the earth is mostly uninhabited. And if we were really overpopulated, our resources would be getting very scarce and expensive...just the opposite is happening. Goods and resources are getting cheaper all the time.

[Matt W]

Goods and resources are getting cheaper all the time.

Depends entirely where you live. As for Texas - I'd like to see how they got fed & watered.

[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Matt W Depends entirely where you live. As for Texas - I'd like to see how they got fed & watered.

It is easy enough to find prices for minerals, etc and compare them to prices of a few decades ago. Everything is getting cheaper all the time.

The point about texas is that we are not overpopulated. Perhaps in specific geographical areas, but not the world as a whole.