NationStates Jolt Archive

I think I've got a pretty unique take on the abortion/euthenasia debate. I would like to address a huge fallacy that exists within our society. I'd like to begin by saying that I am not an animal rights activist. I really don't care that much how we sacrifice very few highly intelligent animals for the sake of even more intelligent animals but consider.
It strikes me as curious that many of the same people who advocate the right of a fetus, an entity that cannot communicate, that has never experienced our world of light and color, loves no one, and perhaps is brought into existence perhaps unwantedly, is more important than a chimpanzee that can possibly speak sign language. After all, the U.S. Government injects these chimps who are obviously at a higher level of cognition than a six month year old fetus with -- among many things -- ebola and other agents which invariably cause deaths more drawn out and excruciating than even piercing an adult's skull would cause.
We seem not to value life, but rather certain strains of DNA. Cognition is not valued. This strikes me as curious. The more capable one is of sensation I would contend the more worthy one's life is.
I'm not suggesting eugenics or the liquidation of the blind or deaf, but simply some reflection on what we really value if we oppose abortion.
If you bring up your God or your religious text solely I will ignore you, and I advise others to do the same.
If you do consider abortion to be murder, why don't you act as though you really treat it as such? If it's really murder, why don't you act in defense of the helpless?
If you saw a man armed with a knife on the street about to slice a nine year-old girl's throat, and you had a revolver in your hand, wouldn't you blow him away? I would.
If you're bent on "defending innocence," I expect you to be up tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. ready to stop some abortionists. That is your duty as a moral human being.

All animals are food.
Food has no rights.

Therefore, animals have no rights. (Unlike humans)

Unlike humans, that are not food, unless you are from New Guinea, but I don't know their position on abortion.

If you bring up your God or your religious text solely I will ignore you, and I advise others to do the same.
If you do consider abortion to be murder, why don't you act as though you really treat it as such? If it's really murder, why don't you act in defense of the helpless?
If you saw a man armed with a knife on the street about to slice a nine year-old girl's throat, and you had a revolver in your hand, wouldn't you blow him away? I would.
If you're bent on "defending innocence," I expect you to be up tomorrow morning at 9 a.m. ready to stop some abortionists. That is your duty as a moral human being.

Concerning religious text...
Many people say "justify your religion [which is based on a certain Holy Book, such as the Bible or the Torah] without using the Book." [which, may I reiterate, is the BASIS for the religion]. This is insanity. But, I will respect your request, and not mention any religious texts.

Yes, I consider abortion to be murder. I do act in defence of the helpless, in the most effective ways I can, while still following my personal beliefs. Two wrongs do not make a right. I would not kill the man. You cannot be certain that he would slice the girl's throat, and shooting him would probably trigger a reflex that would result in him slicing the girl's throat, even if he didn't intend to in the first place. Furthermore, I'm not a very good shot, so I could, quite possibly, shoot the girl.

I am trying to stop abortion right now. When I am in a position of more power than I currently am, I will use that power to try to stop abortion. As you said, it is my duty as a moral human being.

I hope you don't ignore me just because my opinion is different from yours...

you could always look at teenagers being pregnant a lesson to be learned

they chose to give themselfs away while be warned constantly and also the father has to take the punishment by being forced to work for that family

but sadley the child will grow up a crappy life and most likely appear in a orphan home

and for one to say a fetus to be stupid and not able to think and what not is kind of ironic since you where a fetus yourself and now you seek to destroy your origin?


i myself really cannot say, there are 2 sides to this and they both have good arguments on it

All animals are food.
Food has no rights.

Therefore, animals have no rights. (Unlike humans)

Unlike humans, that are not food, unless you are from New Guinea, but I don't know their position on abortion.

But what if Humans are food?

But what if Humans are food?

That's why I asked about NG. But assuming they are not, no problem.

and for one to say a fetus to be stupid and not able to think and what not is kind of ironic since you where a fetus yourself and now you seek to destroy your origin?

I don't think it's ironic. I am as willing to consider myself as a six month old dead fetus as I am to consider a piece of dead sperm that didn't make it. Maybe you think this is easy for me to say, but remember that I'm valuing consciousness. The very fact that I can assert this makes my life now more meaningful and valuable than a fetus's.

Two wrongs do not make a right. I would not kill the man. You cannot be certain that he would slice the girl's throat, and shooting him would probably trigger a reflex that would result in him slicing the girl's throat, even if he didn't intend to in the first place. Furthermore, I'm not a very good shot, so I could, quite possibly, shoot the girl.

Awww, c'mon. Don't pick on the specifics.
Let's say that you turned a corner, and a man with his back to you about five feet away has just struck a young woman with the butt of his gun.
Suddenly, he screams, "Bitch! I am going to put a cap in your cheating ass!"
Now, this is not about rights justifying wrongs. This is about defense of the innocent. And I don't care what a bad shot you are, you could absolutely nail this would-be murderer and protect innocence.

So, how about this. . .
Tomorrow, since you've got a pretty good idea that abortionists go to abortion clinics to perform abortions, steal a nurse's uniform, forge a name tage, and wait by the door to the operating room.
If you're still having some sort of internal moral problems, wait right until he shoves the forceps into the woman's vagina before blowing him away. It's murder, right? You're defending the innocent, remember!
So when you go to jail for life or get fried by the government, you'll be satisfied that you saved the life of a child. Isn't that enough?

My point is that you don't really see it as murder in the true sense. And if you don't see any difference between value of a 20-something woman's life and that of a dependant entity that doesn't know its mouth from its anus, then I don't know what to say else.

All animals are food.
Food has no rights.

Therefore, animals have no rights. (Unlike humans)

Unlike humans, that are not food, unless you are from New Guinea, but I don't know their position on abortion.

OK, I'm not one of the lunatics, but a significant portion of the world does not even consume animals, for religious or ethical or trendy reasons. And we do give animals some rights. Politicians have pandered to animal rights activists enough to stop testing of less important stuff like cosmetics. So, apparently they have some rights.
It's illegal to beat my dog Sparky to death with a shovel.

I prepared a long reply but lost it due to a computer problem, and now have the time to reply to only one thing. I may say the rest of it later some time, but then again maybe not.

For now.

DeaconDave:
All animals are food?

A) When was the last time you ate a rat? Or maybe something poisonous... some sort of amphibian, perhaps? I'm interested to hear about how that tastes.

B) Humans are most definitely food, whether due to cannibilism, getting eaten by large carnivores, or just eventual decomposition and thus being consumed by various microbes or small animals such as maggots. Oh, did I mention worms that feed on people while they're still alive?

C) Of course, the most obvious statement. People are animals.

(On the subject of abortion, I would like to say that although I feel it to be morally wrong in most cases I do not feel that under and circumstances it should be made illegal.)

All animals are food.
Food has no rights.

Therefore, animals have no rights. (Unlike humans)

Unlike humans, that are not food, unless you are from New Guinea, but I don't know their position on abortion.

Actually that it a flawed argument or at least short sighted.

One theory for the explanation of "Why AIDs?" is the practice of bushmeat(ie chimp meat). It is thought that SIDs mutated into what we call AIDs.

As to if they have rights? Well they sort of do. We have several laws about animal abuse.

Do not forget the cannibals, or the stuff that eats people

Ever watch "Soylent Green"?
take that into consideration

So, how about this. . .
Tomorrow, since you've got a pretty good idea that abortionists go to abortion clinics to perform abortions, steal a nurse's uniform, forge a name tage, and wait by the door to the operating room.
If you're still having some sort of internal moral problems, wait right until he shoves the forceps into the woman's vagina before blowing him away. It's murder, right? You're defending the innocent, remember!
So when you go to jail for life or get fried by the government, you'll be satisfied that you saved the life of a child. Isn't that enough?

My point is that you don't really see it as murder in the true sense. And if you don't see any difference between value of a 20-something woman's life and that of a dependant entity that doesn't know its mouth from its anus, then I don't know what to say else.No, that would be a stupid way to go about it. It would hurt your own cause more than anything else. There would still be many doctors performing abortions. The best way would be to do as what is happening now - attempting to make them illegal, so that no one is allowed to do it in the first place. If successful, it would have a far greater impact than just a single doctor's death (I do not condone killing anyone, for any reason). And the Reps wouldn't have bad PR to go with it either.

No, that would be a stupid way to go about it. It would hurt your own cause more than anything else. There would still be many doctors performing abortions. The best way would be to do as what is happening now - attempting to make them illegal, so that no one is allowed to do it in the first place. If successful, it would have a far greater impact than just a single doctor's death (I do not condone killing anyone, for any reason). And the Reps wouldn't have bad PR to go with it either.

OK, if you don't support killing someone in self-defense, then I don't know what you're thinking. If someone is trying to kill me with a gun or a knife, I'll kill them right on the spot.
Sorry. I'm not even for the death penalty, but murderers in the act temporarily suspend all rights to life.

With that in mind, let's just take what you just said and apply it to an adult whose life is equally as valuable as a fetuses's.

No, [intervening as a hitman was killing someone] would be a stupid way to [go about discouraging the murder of adults]. It would hurt your own cause more than anything else. There would still be many [hitmen commiting murders]. The best way would be to do as what is happening now - attempting to make them illegal, so that no one is allowed to do it in the first place. If successful, it would have a far greater impact than just a single [hitman]'s death (I do not condone killing anyone, for any reason [even to save an innocent life]). And the Reps wouldn't have bad PR to go with it either.

Oh, no, we can't hurt the reps.
If you guys really thought this was wrong, you'd be out doing the equivalent of destroying the gas chambers that burned the Jews during the holocaust.
Now, I realize that when I start talking about the holocaust everyone's mind turns to sludge because they get so offended that logic disappears, but. . .
It's apparent to me that you still think that protecting the unborn is a different matter than protecting those outside of the womb. Because of this, I can't help but think you have ulterior motives.
Like--discouraging women from enjoying single life, premarital sex, sex in general, a working life. It's also a war on the youth.

No, that would be a stupid way to go about it. It would hurt your own cause more than anything else. There would still be many doctors performing abortions. The best way would be to do as what is happening now - attempting to make them illegal, so that no one is allowed to do it in the first place. If successful, it would have a far greater impact than just a single doctor's death (I do not condone killing anyone, for any reason). And the Reps wouldn't have bad PR to go with it either.But consider that where abortion is illegal, women get abortions in illegal, back-alley clinics. Would you then try to track down these clinics, which are now as illegal as that guy threatening to kill the woman, and shoot the doctors there?

My own stance is that abortion is not, in most cases, murder.

I prepared a long reply but lost it due to a computer problem, and now have the time to reply to only one thing. I may say the rest of it later some time, but then again maybe not.

For now.

DeaconDave:
All animals are food?

A) When was the last time you ate a rat? Or maybe something poisonous... some sort of amphibian, perhaps? I'm interested to hear about how that tastes.

B) Humans are most definitely food, whether due to cannibilism, getting eaten by large carnivores, or just eventual decomposition and thus being consumed by various microbes or small animals such as maggots. Oh, did I mention worms that feed on people while they're still alive?

C) Of course, the most obvious statement. People are animals.

(On the subject of abortion, I would like to say that although I feel it to be morally wrong in most cases I do not feel that under and circumstances it should be made illegal.)


Rat = teh squirrel.

Frogs legs are good. Aligator is good.

Never had a human. :) .

I was really just making the point, for most people, animals != human. Therefore the chimp/fetus comparison is not apt.

But consider that where abortion is illegal, women get abortions in illegal, back-alley clinics. Would you then try to track down these clinics, which are now as illegal as that guy threatening to kill the woman, and shoot the doctors there?

My own stance is that abortion is not, in most cases, murder.I would not. Do you go track down every murderer that you hear about? It is the goverment's responsiblity to find and punish those responsible if it is against the law. We help make the law, and then we have the government to enforce the will of the people - which is why there is such a thing as 'goverments'.

Well, alligators aren't amphibians... frogs are, but that's not what I was talking about. There are some animals that it would kill you to eat, and thus they are not food since food is by nature not poisonous.

Regarding the hypothetical man trying to kill the nine-year-old girl, I would of course do my best to stop him and kill him if I absolutely had to. But if there was any way to stop him without killing him, I would take that option: after all, who am I to say that her life is more important than he is? I'd hate to kill him and later find out that the girl had just murdered his entire family.

All animals are food.
Food has no rights.

Therefore, animals have no rights. (Unlike humans)

Unlike humans, that are not food, unless you are from New Guinea, but I don't know their position on abortion.

All humans are animals. Therefor, by your logic, all humans are food.

And you really think that there is still canibalism in New Guinea?

Well, since you believe in a woman's right to murder their innocent unborn child, I don't suppose you'd mind if I went up and blasted a chunk of skull out of one of your relative's heads, would you? I mean, shit, if we can kill babies in this country, why can't we kill anybody?

Well, since you believe in a woman's right to murder their innocent unborn child, I don't suppose you'd mind if I went up and blasted a chunk of skull out of one of your relative's heads, would you? I mean, shit, if we can kill babies in this country, why can't we kill anybody?
Ooh Ooh, I know! Pick me!

Because that relative's brain (the one that is now sprayed on the floor) was doing something at the time of its destruction. Namely, it was being conscious and self-aware. Seeing as we don't see anything nearly as complex as a functioning brain until the later stages of fetal development, I don't see abortion as a problem. My philosophy: if it's not self-aware, it certainly isn't human in anything close to the full sense of the word. Likewise, I would oppose the killing of higher-order animals (say, chimps, dolphins, etc.) on the grounds that they may (not really sure, it isn't my field) be sentient. But I have no problem with killing cows, pigs, deer, or chickens. So don't worry about your dinner.

Personally, in my opinion, something that I cannot interact with is not alive to me.

A plant is alive to me: I can water it, and thus it grows. I can fail to give it water and it dies.

My cat is the same thing: Feed it and it will live, give it love and it will become something amazing. Neglect it and it will die.

A fetus: You can't see it unless it's exposed or on a special device. You cannot directly feed it or show your emotion to it.

Now yes, you can say by doing certain things you can kill it so there is interaction. Well, I can drop my watch and see the insides fly out. Does that make my watch a fetus? It has a tick-like hearbeat.

I could show my love to my computer, or my book collection. But they will always be a book collection, or my computer. You can love a fetus, but only by itself will it become a human being. It grows wether or not you love it; you can only destroy it.

/end

I would just like to say, that animals are on this earth for one reason and one reason only. To be eaten, and to be used for working, There is no doubt in the mind of my country that animals are only created for the benefit of us eating them.

The problem I have with the fetus isn't "self-aware" crap is, we know the fetus is going to develop into a human eventually. While it may not be self-aware the first three months of its existence, give it another three months and it will be very self-aware. There is no question about it; given the time to develop, the fetus WILL be a human life. Even if it isn't fully developed, it WILL be a human. So abortion is essentially murder.

All humans are animals. Therefor, by your logic, all humans are food.

And you really think that there is still canibalism in New Guinea?


I don't "think", I saw it on the National Geographic channel.

Although it is not a common practice, and more cerimonial than actually being a needed food source.

All animals are food.
Food has no rights.

Therefore, animals have no rights. (Unlike humans)

Unlike humans, that are not food, unless you are from New Guinea, but I don't know their position on abortion.
Actually, humans have no rights either, at least not natural. But if rights can be extended to fetuses and embryos, surely they can be extended to animals. And not all animals are food.

Actually, humans have no rights either, at least not natural. But if rights can be extended to fetuses and embryos, surely they can be extended to animals. And not all animals are food.

If cooked properly, yes they are. Name me an animal (that isn't a protected species) that isn't food.

Does anybody eat anteaters? Or platyapuses?

but sadley the child will grow up a crappy life and most likely appear in a orphan home

I am an anti-lifer ("pro-choice"). Let's see what happens to a child who is not given up for abortion:

1. The child is born with defects, because his teenage mother wasn't ready to produce young.
2. His family has no money, because the father ran away. They live from paycheck to paycheck.
3. The child, if not already given up for adoption, will lead a miserable life, and probably never feel family love.
4. He will grow up to be a depressed power-hungry axe murderer, and kill people.

Whereas if there was an abortion:
1. The mother gives birth to the fetus (owch).
2. She continues school, dumps the guy who got her pregnant, and finds her prince charmng.
3. They have a child, which grows up living a full and happy life. :)

Christians will only kill if it's in the name of religion. Otherwise, it's "immoral".

Does anybody eat anteaters? Or platyapuses?


I'm sure somewhere, people do. Though I think platypi are difficult to catch, and if you remove the legs of the males, you can keep from their venomous kicks.

If cooked properly, yes they are. Name me an animal (that isn't a protected species) that isn't food.
Sponges.

Sponges. Heh, I found that to be witty. :)

Thank you for finding an animal. I can't believe the ignorance of these people.

Sponges.


Sponges are food to other aquatic organisms, like sea cucumbers. Didn't you know? And dammit, I'm gonna try out some sponge if I ever get to cultivate some when I visit a coast.

Sponges are food to other aquatic organisms, like sea cucumbers. Didn't you know?
Do they cook them? In that case humans are also food. To other animals and to themselves.

[QUOTE=Tempers]
.....B) Humans are most definitely food, whether due to cannibilism, getting eaten by large carnivores, or just eventual decomposition and thus being consumed by various microbes or small animals such as maggots. Oh, did I mention worms that feed on people while they're still alive?...
QUOTE]

Yes but animals do not hunt us, homo sapiens are not prey items for any members of the animals kingdom as far as I know and by that I am saying this hoping not to get an onslaught of "oh well i knew a guy that got eaten by a polar bear' because that's not what I'm talking about. I simply mean that we are not regular prey items and granted every now and them someone gets bit by a shark or killed by a polar bear, but how often are they hunted down and fully consumed as predators do with actual prey items?

Do they cook them? In that case humans are also food. To other animals and to themselves.

I've had sea-cucmber.

I give it five out of ten. Maybe it was the fish roe sauce.

Has anyone had monkey-brain?

Sponges.

Go to a real chinese market.

The cantonese will eat anything.

This whole animal argument is making me sick. Humans are animals just like everything else, the only reason we aren't hunted regularly is that we have more intelligence than other creatures. Doesn't mean we should go around killing everything we wish.

As for abortion, I'm pro-choice because it's not like the fetus cares. I don't care how aware you say I was when I was a fetus. If they aborted me, I wouldn't have cared. I know that you can argue that it's a 'potential life,' that the fetus could do wonderful things for the world when it becomes a human, but couldn't I say the same about some random sperm? Should I go impregnate my neighbor because possibly the baby will be the next Gandhi?

This whole animal argument is making me sick. Humans are animals just like everything else.

Not under the law they're not. Which is what is being discussed here.

In any event, what do animals do for us?

The problem I have with the fetus isn't "self-aware" crap is, we know the fetus is going to develop into a human eventually. While it may not be self-aware the first three months of its existence, give it another three months and it will be very self-aware. There is no question about it; given the time to develop, the fetus WILL be a human life. Even if it isn't fully developed, it WILL be a human. So abortion is essentially murder.

A sperm cell and an ovum cell, even before joining togewther to make a zygot, WILL be a human. So contraception is murder.

Yeah yeah yeah certain conditions have to be met. Only one sperm per ovum, and the act of coitus, leads to a chance of pregnency, just as pregnency leads to a chance of birth. But the principle is the same... ok... maybe a little more of a stretch... but I just woke up. ;) Anyway it's just a little more of a stretch for the same result: these cells CAN become a human, so male masturbation is murder, and so is menstruation.

Just my 4 1/2 cents... WHERE'S MY COFFEE, BEE-YATCH???

I don't "think", I saw it on the National Geographic channel.

Although it is not a common practice, and more cerimonial than actually being a needed food source.

You don't think??? :D

And this was current? At any rate, in funerary canibalism, a human is not food, only a post-human corpse is food. That is, humans are not killed for food, their bodies are eaten in a funeral ritual.

That's why I asked about NG. But assuming they are not, no problem.

All life is food for life. Humans are no exception. Unless of course you are specifying humans as the eater (I.E. all animals are food [i]for humans[/b]). In which case you still loose the logic debate, because it would mean that a LOT of animals would have rights, as we cannot and/or do not eat them.

Well now...
In AP vis a vis a court decision identical in facts and decision to Roe v Wade only those who can excercise rights have them. Therefore it follows that animals do not have rights, since they can not excercise them, nor do children.

So, here, it is not so much that animals have rights as it is that Humans are considered to owe a duty of care towards them?

Agree, Disagree, how is this in other nations.

You don't think??? :D

And this was current? At any rate, in funerary canibalism, a human is not food, only a post-human corpse is food. That is, humans are not killed for food, their bodies are eaten in a funeral ritual.

Apparently some tribes still kill and eat members of other tribes occasionaly. And the odd-missionary. :)

All life is food for life. Humans are no exception. Unless of course you are specifying humans as the eater (I.E. all animals are food [i]for humans[/b]). In which case you still loose the logic debate, because it would mean that a LOT of animals would have rights, as we cannot and/or do not eat them.

Ah, but since the abortion debate centers on legal rights and not natural rights, I was highlighting, in a humorous way that animals and humans are qualitatively different under the law. In as much as we are free to kill and eat them, but not other humans.

This is my holistic approach to those who those who consider abortion to be 'murder'. If you consider it 'murder' and it should be outlawed, does the woman who has had a miscarrige be charged with manslaughter? I mean think about it. A person who hops behind the wheel of a car and kills his best friend as a result of a crash, he would be charged with manslaughter. As would the person who got into a rough and tumble with a fellow and, in the struggle, accidentally dropped the other guy on his head and killed him, wouldn't he be charged with manslaughter? So how is the mother who trips down a flight of stairs and accidentally kills her own child that is in her womb any different? Consider that. And I suggest you tell a lion that humans aren't food... Animals have the rights of any breathing, living thing on this planet. That is my philosophy. If you hurt anything that is alive, you are hurting a part of yourself. Well enough of my hippie hootinanny. Let's here some conservatives whine about Right To Life.

I've had sea-cucmber.

I give it five out of ten. Maybe it was the fish roe sauce.

Has anyone had monkey-brain?
I have had monkey, but not monkey brains. Maybe the brains were for the quesadillas later, but I don't know.

Go to a real chinese market.

The cantonese will eat anything.
I have and didn't see any sponge. Although I'm pretty sure they have tried to eat it at some point. Same thing with coral.

Not under the law they're not. Which is what is being discussed here.

In any event, what do animals do for us?

Which is exactly the point of this sometimes wonky thread. Animals don't have the same rights as humans under the law, and neither do fetuses. Of course, fetuses can become human, something animals can't do, but until that happens, for the law they are different.

And I agree that they shouldn't be considered human, mostly because they aren't yet sentient. On the other hand, that doesn't mean they should be totally devoid of rights, for example, abortion should not be decided by someone other than the mother. In the same way that animals have some rights, like not being treated cruelly, a clean environment and special protection in case they are endangered. But neither amounts to human in any case.

As for what animals do for us, well, they keep the planet livable. Some provide companionship, some food, some help us with drug, research and making drugs to keep us healthy. And even those that don't do anything for us (like the ones who live in caves) don't bother us much, so we might as well leave them alone.

I have had monkey, but not monkey brains. Maybe the brains were for the quesadillas later, but I don't know.


I have and didn't see any sponge. Although I'm pretty sure they have tried to eat it at some point. Same thing with coral.


Which is exactly the point of this sometimes wonky thread. Animals don't have the same rights as humans under the law, and neither do fetuses. Of course, fetuses can become human, something animals can't do, but until that happens, for the law they are different.

And I agree that they shouldn't be considered human, mostly because they aren't yet sentient. On the other hand, that doesn't mean they should be totally devoid of rights, for example, abortion should not be decided by someone other than the mother. In the same way that animals have some rights, like not being treated cruelly, a clean environment and special protection in case they are endangered. But neither amounts to human in any case.

As for what animals do for us, well, they keep the planet livable. Some provide companionship, some food, some help us with drug, research and making drugs to keep us healthy. And even those that don't do anything for us (like the ones who live in caves) don't bother us much, so we might as well leave them alone.


Hmm, I think sponge is seasonal. (But I'm not kidding I've seen it maybe it was for medicine though).

As to my comment about animals, again it goes back to the fact of there status under the law.

A sperm cell and an ovum cell, even before joining togewther to make a zygot, WILL be a human. So contraception is murder.

Yeah yeah yeah certain conditions have to be met. Only one sperm per ovum, and the act of coitus, leads to a chance of pregnency, just as pregnency leads to a chance of birth. But the principle is the same... ok... maybe a little more of a stretch... but I just woke up. ;) Anyway it's just a little more of a stretch for the same result: these cells CAN become a human, so male masturbation is murder, and so is menstruation.

Just my 4 1/2 cents... WHERE'S MY COFFEE, BEE-YATCH???

I agree with you. That is quite a bit of a stretch. We're talking about a fetus, one fetus, already in the growth process; not thousands of little sperms...that's a HUGE difference. As for the argument that sperms have the same potential for life as a fetus, you're nuts. That's all a sperm has...potential. Where as a fetus? Barring some bizzare disease or failure, there is no question the fetus will be human. Unless, of course, some cruel and uncaring mother stomps its life out.

This is my holistic approach to those who those who consider abortion to be 'murder'. If you consider it 'murder' and it should be outlawed, does the woman who has had a miscarrige be charged with manslaughter? I mean think about it. A person who hops behind the wheel of a car and kills his best friend as a result of a crash, he would be charged with manslaughter. As would the person who got into a rough and tumble with a fellow and, in the struggle, accidentally dropped the other guy on his head and killed him, wouldn't he be charged with manslaughter?

Oh, c'mon now. A miscarriage is out of the mother's control. That's a stupid argument if I've ever see one. Regardless of whether running your friend down was an accident or not, you still had control of the situation. You should've been paying attention to the road. A mother cannot control a miscarriage. Miscarriages are failures of a natural process.


So how is the mother who trips down a flight of stairs and accidentally kills her own child that is in her womb any different? That is my philosophy. If you hurt anything that is alive, you are hurting a part of yourself. Well enough of my hippie hootinanny. Let's here some conservatives whine about Right To Life.

While a mother tripping down the stairs and accidentally killing her baby is an interesting point, take into consideration how often that happens. It probably isn't an everyday occurence.

I would just like to say, that animals are on this earth for one reason and one reason only. To be eaten, and to be used for working, There is no doubt in the mind of my country that animals are only created for the benefit of us eating them.


Really?

Might I suggest a stone fish or at least a puffer fish.

Don't have it prepared, just eat it....

If cooked properly, yes they are. Name me an animal (that isn't a protected species) that isn't food.

Hmmm Stone Fish and Sea Scorpians?

I ask; why do you agree with killing human life, but are against experimenting on a chimp?

Oh, c'mon now. A miscarriage is out of the mother's control. That's a stupid argument if I've ever see one.


Actually not really. If there is a family history and the woman keeps it quiet?

There are drugs that are used to help. A miscarriage is not always things aren't "cooking right." Sometimes the woman's "mechanics" are not right.

My wife had it happen a couple times and our one kid she used well I can't think of the name and everything went fine.

I ask; why do you agree with killing human life, but are against experimenting on a chimp?

Do you mean me?

I am not against killing. I would slaughter anybody that would hurt my child or wife.

I wish chimp experimentation would end but I like Dr. Goodall understand it's need.

I am in the camp of if you are going to do it then you should have them in the most human set up as possible. Chimps are highly intelligent and have needs just like people.

Actually not really. If there is a family history and the woman keeps it quiet?

There are drugs that are used to help. A miscarriage is not always things aren't "cooking right." Sometimes the woman's "mechanics" are not right.

My wife had it happen a couple times and our one kid she used well I can't think of the name and everything went fine.

If a mother purposefully took drugs to try to induce a miscarriage, then I'm thinking she should be tried in a court of law, if indeed abortions were outlawed and fetuses were recognized as future humans rather than clumps of flesh who aren't "self-aware". But in the case that the miscarriage just happens, and isn't induced, than no she shouldn't be tried for anything.

A fetus is no more and no less alive than the eggs you buy from the store (if you buy eggs from the store - I myself don't).

Abortion isn't murder. Abortion is intentionally neglecting to allow something to become truly alive.

And by the way, those of you who are arguing the "animals don't have rights and people do, and fetuses are going to be people" argument, your argument is incredibly weak on those of us who think that animals should have the same rights people do.

Fetuses are not living things with the rights that all other living things should have, becase they have no personality. They haven't lived yet, and they have absolutely no idea what life is like. Without the mother's constantly giving her energy to keep them alive, they would die. And don't try to say that the same thing could be said of babies, because it can't. With babies there is an option, namely adoption. And babies have personalities.

Abortion is morally wrong, but it's also a woman's choice. There are a lot of things that are morally wrong, and people are still given a choice about it.

Ah, but since the abortion debate centers on legal rights and not natural rights, I was highlighting, in a humorous way that animals and humans are qualitatively different under the law. In as much as we are free to kill and eat them, but not other humans.

Except that, we are not free to kill and eat all animals all the time under the law. Besides obvious references to Endangered species, the hunting and/or killing for food of many animals has been outlawed for health or cultural reasons.

My point being, whether or not an animal is 'food' has no bearing on the dichotomy between its implied legal/moral rights and those of living humans. The dichotomy exists because of consciousness and for no other reasons. This applies to the abortion debate because a fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness before the ~20th week.

Oh, c'mon now. A miscarriage is out of the mother's control. That's a stupid argument if I've ever see one. Regardless of whether running your friend down was an accident or not, you still had control of the situation. You should've been paying attention to the road. A mother cannot control a miscarriage. Miscarriages are failures of a natural process.


Not neccessarily my friend, what if a spider was in the car and you suffer from extreme aracnophobia? A dozen things could be named to distract you while you are driving, therefor you really don't have real control of the situation, but I see your point. A mother who slips on a bar of soap should be held as responsible as the distracted man behind the wheel of a car according to these conservatives, if they don't have double standards.


While a mother tripping down the stairs and accidentally killing her baby is an interesting point, take into consideration how often that happens. It probably isn't an everyday occurence.

Well it seems to happen a lot in soap operas... :D Sorry couldn't help it. But I'm not saying that she should be held accountable, but if conservatives are saying abortion is murder, same rules should apply here. But that is one of the ultimate hypocrises in the conservative argument

TORTURING chimps
Whats wrong with torturing Bush's family?

And I agree that they shouldn't be considered human, mostly because they aren't yet sentient. On the other hand, that doesn't mean they should be totally devoid of rights, for example, abortion should not be decided by someone other than the mother. In the same way that animals have some rights, like not being treated cruelly, a clean environment and special protection in case they are endangered. But neither amounts to human in any case.
What do you mean by not sentient? The dictionary describes it as:
1. Having sense perception; conscious:
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling

I think you'll find that all animals experience sensation and feelings. Likewise, as all animals can be trained, they therefore experience time and perception.
So if your argument is that eating humans is not allowed on the basis of sentience, you need to apply that to animals out of necessity.
The same problems occurs if you say that what sets humans apart are that we're tool-makers, as most species of apes, and some birds use tools.

In fact the only basis of differentiation you can make between humans and animals is that humans aren't scared of vacuum cleaners.

Except that, we are not free to kill and eat all animals all the time under the law. Besides obvious references to Endangered species, the hunting and/or killing for food of many animals has been outlawed for health or cultural reasons.

My point being, whether or not an animal is 'food' has no bearing on the dichotomy between its implied legal/moral rights and those of living humans. The dichotomy exists because of consciousness and for no other reasons. This applies to the abortion debate because a fetus lacks the capacity for consciousness before the ~20th week.

Look at the origins of the laws you cite, they have nothing to do with animal "rights".

What do you mean by not sentient? The dictionary describes it as:
1. Having sense perception; conscious:
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling

I was going a bit beyond the dictionary definition. Technicaly even a plant is sentient, since they can feel where light is coming from and move that way. They also react to cold, heat and drought. Also, some plants and trees when under attack by a plague, release chemicals into the air that are picked up by other plants of the same species that then start producing chemical defenses against that plague. Much like a vegetal stampede.

But I was using the word to mean an animal with consciousness. One that can think in terms of self and describe itself separately from that which surrounds it. Humans have this capacity, and maybe other animals too, but it's very hard to know because we can't communicate. Chimps seem to do it, maybe dolphins and elephants. Can fetuses do that? Apparently not, since they lack the layers of brain necessary for such functions, even though they have some automatic reactions.

On the subject of food, I only said that not all animals are eaten (by humans). Should they all be eaten? I don't see why not, as long as it's edible. My only gripe is that many people think that something that you eat has no rights. I argue the contrary, something that's food should be treated with respect and be given its proper place. And that which is not food should simply let be.

Look at the origins of the laws you cite, they have nothing to do with animal "rights".

I never claimed they did. I claimed that capacity for being food has no bearing on their legal rights.

I never claimed they did. I claimed that capacity for being food has no bearing on their legal rights.

As I pointed out before, that was a joke.

However their lack of legal rights has bearing upon their capacity to be food.

The Empire of Presidency says, "Sacrafices must be made!"

I agree with you. That is quite a bit of a stretch. We're talking about a fetus, one fetus, already in the growth process; not thousands of little sperms...that's a HUGE difference. As for the argument that sperms have the same potential for life as a fetus, you're nuts. That's all a sperm has...potential. Where as a fetus? Barring some bizzare disease or failure, there is no question the fetus will be human. Unless, of course, some cruel and uncaring mother stomps its life out.


The conditions required for a freshly impregnated egg to become a baby are slightly less drastic than those required for a sperm to become one, but it's silly to say that it's unusual for a conceived egg to fail to develop. Happens all the time.

To make a slightly more realistic connection... It's a federal offense to assassinate the President of the United States. Say someone were to assassinate the nominee of the challenging party before the election— should they be tried with assassination of the President? After all, that person had a good — roughly 50% — chance of becoming the President in the very near future, even compared to a fetus.


Oh, c'mon now. A miscarriage is out of the mother's control. That's a stupid argument if I've ever see one. Regardless of whether running your friend down was an accident or not, you still had control of the situation. You should've been paying attention to the road. A mother cannot control a miscarriage. Miscarriages are failures of a natural process.


Heh- bull. Miscarriage happens when the external conditions of the mother aren't fit for the development of the baby. There are many factors involved in that (including genetics, as was brought up), but the mother has control over many of them.

Shouldn't any woman who experiences a miscarriage be investigated for manslaughter, see if maybe she was doing a lot of drinking or strenuous excercise? Not being careful enough walking down the stairs, perhaps? (Being as she knew she was pregnant — or even could be pregnant —, she should take extra care to avoid stressful situations. So it was an accident— she wasn't taking enough care about it. Negligence.)


While a mother tripping down the stairs and accidentally killing her baby is an interesting point, take into consideration how often that happens. It probably isn't an everyday occurence.

Mmm-mm. "Probably", now? Go find some statistics on miscarriages before you start quoting them.

How about this:

Yes, many animals are more self-aware than a three-month old fetus. Many animals are more self-aware than a human baby who is outside of the womb. And, in my experience, many animals are more self-aware than some adult humans. Are these humans less worthy of life than the animals who are more self-aware?

I would rather not end the life (since a fetus is alive, in the sense that all animals are alive) of a creature that might become more self-aware than I myself am.

I don't believe abortion should be allowed simply as a matter of convenience, and that the father should be held responsible for the welfare of the mother and child (no dead-beat dads would be tolerated). Also, there is a little thing called self-control. Simply don't put yourself into a situation like this. (Yes, I'm well aware that there are other circumstances, but in general, it shouldn't be too hard to wait.)

That said, I believe that sometimes sacrifices are necessary. We "torture" animals for the chance to cure diseases and save the lives of other creatures, billions of which have a higher level of sentience. This is an acceptable sacrifice, in my opinion. For the same reason, I believe that some embryonic stem cell research should be conducted. Abortions (the necessary ones) should be replaced with voluntary donation of the embryo to a laboratory. That way, the children will die for a noble cause.