Does life begin at conception? I think it does.

[WakeTFU]

Quote by: Morality Games Don't reference scientific vocabulary as a determinant to prove a point in a language game revolving around a metaphysical problem.

Don't tell me what to do.

[WakeTFU]

Quote by: Anmon So now we are comparing human life as no more important than fungus, what about mould?

Who mentioned importance besides you?

What's the most important part of a car, the steering wheel, the tires, or the gas pedal? It's all important. I'd imagine everything is like that.

[Anmon]

=WakeTFU;499722]Who mentioned importance besides you?

A lot more people would hold human life as a lot more important than fungus mate.

What's the most important part of a car, the steering wheel, the tires, or the gas pedal? It's all important. I'd imagine everything is like that.

irrelevant, fungus and human life are not all part of the same structure depending on each other, like you mentioned with the car example.

[gela]

I clicked at conception.

Still doesn't mean I can't support abortion.

The life that is in that lump of cells is about as meaningful as a lump bacteria.

Alive.. but so what?

Why is there so many topics on the same issue?

[Anmon]

Because the left are totally in love with abortion.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: WakeTFU Don't tell me what to do.

I always tell people who need guidance what to do. Don't use dysfunctional logic and you won't get the treatment.

That biology terms an entity as small as a single cell a living organism (for the sake of its own convenience) is not a substantial point worthy of mention by either side in this debate, as the logic of the science extends toward a different consideration than that of life in the sense we think of it.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: dotcoma I used to be pro-choice, but I thought about it for a while, and the privacy issue no longer makes sense to me. If you truly beleive life begins at conception then you have no right to privately destroy that life. It is like taking someone's life in your basement and claiming prosecution would be a violation of privacy in my opinion. So what are you feelings on this controversial social issue?

If a woman is driving down the street, makes a sharp turn, bumps her pregnant stomach and kills her unborn child, is it manslaughter?

Even if it is an accident, she is still responsible.

[Tycoon]

Even if it is an accident, she is still responsible.

I fail to see how she would be responsible. She could not have known that she was going to bump her stomach and kill her unborn child.

It's like saying anybody whose child dies before birth is responsible. But you run the risk of your child dying before birth just by having it. In the situation you described, nobody is responsible.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Tycoon I fail to see how she would be responsible. She could not have known that she was going to bump her stomach and kill her unborn child. It's like saying anybody whose child dies before birth is responsible. But you run the risk of your child dying before birth just by having it. In the situation you described, nobody is responsible.

Which seems more logical?
Aborting a baby because you had it by accident, and are not in any condition to have or raise a child.
or
Driving recklessly while you know sudden movements and bumping your stomach will affect and possibly harm/kill your unborn child.

[Halofan48]

Well, she might of been swerving to avoid a collision but could not in time. Or she may of hit some ice or something and spun out.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Halofan48 Well, she might of been swerving to avoid a collision but could not in time. Or she may of hit some ice or something and spun out.

None of those details were included in my example. She simple takes a sharp corner because she's in a hurry.

[Halofan48]

Well, it also lacked that information, so until that clarification, all possibilities were an option

[Vacuum]

Quote by: Halofan48 Well, it also lacked that information, so until that clarification, all possibilities were an option

I suppose so, and there is no solid answer in areas of gray like this. To be honest, I just randomly chose a side to argue. ;-)

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Vacuum None of those details were included in my example. She simple takes a sharp corner because she's in a hurry.

Neither was the detail that she was driving recklessly or that she was in a hurry.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: Vacuum If a woman is driving down the street, makes a sharp turn, bumps her pregnant stomach and kills her unborn child, is it manslaughter? Even if it is an accident, she is still responsible.

I don't think this is a valid argument. Abortion is intentional. While driving (even recklessly), the mother would not have the intention of killing the baby. The consequences might be the same, but to judge moral issues by only consequence (or by only intentions for that matter) I think would be a mistake.

I still say this is a wedge issue because it is an axiomatic, and arbitrary, proposition to decide when human life begins. What age should people be allowed to drink alcohol? When should people be allowed to drive? Its hard to say because they evoke a vague reference. The classic example of when a man should be considered bald is another. We know when a man is bald and we know when a man is not bald but we do not know when a man becomes bald (how few hairs are required?). Thus we can all agree that after birth killing a baby is murder and before conception it doesn't matter. However, when in between conception and birth it counts as murder is difficult to answer. We can create thought experiments but they don't necessarily solve the underlying issue.

So what we are left with is deciding based on social norms and through pragmatic considerations. But this does not mean it is right. And it is not at all clear that there is a specific time when a being turns into a human. So again, we have to find other way to judge the issues. Ways that are not necessarily right.

[gela]

Abortion is intentional. While driving (even recklessly), the mother would not have the intention of killing the baby.

If I deliberately drop a brick of the side of a building, with no intention of hitting anyone, but by some freak coincidence someone gets hit by the brick - I will be charged with manslaughter.

If killing fetuses intentionally is murder, then killing fetuses unintentionally is manslaughter.

[doittoit]

Personally I am against abortions, but I identify that as my choice based on my morality. Intellectually I have to ask:

What makes conception the determining factor of life? What makes a fertilized egg infinitly more valuable then an unfertilized one; are they both life? When does a womens right to liberity specifically become less valuable?

I certainly don't have the answer to these questions and I don't think there is a way to imperically define them. As such, beyond defining ones personal paradigm I actually think this question only helps to further divide the positions between pro choice and pro-life dicussion/politics.

I think to many people believe they are "right" about something they can't possibly of come to objectivly.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: ryanatau I don't think this is a valid argument. Abortion is intentional. While driving (even recklessly), the mother would not have the intention of killing the baby. The consequences might be the same, but to judge moral issues by only consequence (or by only intentions for that matter) I think would be a mistake. I still say this is a wedge issue because it is an axiomatic, and arbitrary, proposition to decide when human life begins. What age should people be allowed to drink alcohol? When should people be allowed to drive? Its hard to say because they evoke a vague reference. The classic example of when a man should be considered bald is another. We know when a man is bald and we know when a man is not bald but we do not know when a man becomes bald (how few hairs are required?). Thus we can all agree that after birth killing a baby is murder and before conception it doesn't matter. However, when in between conception and birth it counts as murder is difficult to answer. We can create thought experiments but they don't necessarily solve the underlying issue. So what we are left with is deciding based on social norms and through pragmatic considerations. But this does not mean it is right. And it is not at all clear that there is a specific time when a being turns into a human. So again, we have to find other way to judge the issues. Ways that are not necessarily right.

The first solution that enters my mind is that we do not have an age requirement on anything. By that, I mean people take tests to determine their level of responsibility in an area, and in succession, are granted the permission to engage in that activity (within reason, there would be an age requirement to take the test). However, this could very easily be considered taking away freedom. I'm really not sure.

[Vacuum]

Quote by: gela If I deliberately drop a brick of the side of a building, with no intention of hitting anyone, but by some freak coincidence someone gets hit by the brick - I will be charged with manslaughter. If killing fetuses intentionally is murder, then killing fetuses unintentionally is manslaughter.

My point, more clearly stated.

[ryanatau]

Quote by: gela If I deliberately drop a brick of the side of a building, with no intention of hitting anyone, but by some freak coincidence someone gets hit by the brick - I will be charged with manslaughter. If killing fetuses intentionally is murder, then killing fetuses unintentionally is manslaughter.

This is a much different example. Again, I said intention cannot be the only requirement to judge and neither can consequences.

It does not follow that what you are saying is true. Throwing a brick off a building is a different scenario than abortion. Thought experiments like this do not work. I pretty sure people can see the difference between throwing a brick off a building and unintentionally killing a fetus. But even unintentionally killing a fetus my be manslaughter in certain situations. My point is that situations are what must be judges not general cases.