NationStates Jolt Archive

Seems as if there are two types of 'pro-life' supporters. Those that want embryos to live becuase its unfair that they die without experiencing the outside world, and those that want embryos to live becuase abortion is the equivelent of murder. To the former I say:

If the baby hasn't experienced outside life before being aborted, then what has it to lose by dying? Anyway, babies don't go to heaven.

To the latter I say:

What makes humans special is their self-awareness and intelligence. A young embryo is not a fully centient being, and therefore aborting it would be the same as killing a chicken or cow, animals that are probably more aware of their existance and impending doom than a foetus.

Please don't bite my head off, but any thoughts?

To the former...makes sense. To the latter...also makes sense.

I'd have a little more tact in the wording of those two, but you make valid points.

The babies don't go to heaven part is classic. You'll get some debating from that.

Anyway, babies don't go to heaven.

Nobody does, but I'm still against abortion. I'm the rare breed of an athiest conservative.

i prefer the "its none of the governments business what a woman chooses when she is not pregnant enough for anyone else to be able to tell"

<snip>
What makes humans special is their self-awareness and intelligence. A young embryo is not a fully centient being, and therefore aborting it would be the same as killing a chicken or cow,<snip>

i agree, an embryo is an embryo.

I always prefer to go the route in this arguement by simply saying: "I'm sure you're glad your mother didn't decide to have YOU aborted." If anyone disagrees than that is your own psychological issue to deal with. ;)

When you look at a lifeless body, say at a funeral...is it just a lump of cells, or is it still the person you knew?

Seems as if there are two types of 'pro-life' supporters. Those that want embryos to live becuase its unfair that they die without experiencing the outside world, and those that want embryos to live becuase abortion is the equivelent of murder. To the former I say:

If the baby hasn't experienced outside life before being aborted, then what has it to lose by dying? Anyway, babies don't go to heaven.

To the latter I say:

What makes humans special is their self-awareness and intelligence. A young embryo is not a fully centient being, and therefore aborting it would be the same as killing a chicken or cow, animals that are probably more aware of their existance and impending doom than a foetus.

Please don't bite my head off, but any thoughts?

So everyone in a coma should be terminated ? because at that point in time they dont have self-awareness or intelligence by any mesaurable standard ?

The most common answer is no because it is but a temporary state (most of the time) and the potential exists.. the same is true for an embroy.. you are looking just at one point in time rather then the potential.

What of those mentally disabled ? or those senile people who dont even know who they are...

When you look at a lifeless body, say at a funeral...is it just a lump of cells, or is it still the person you knew?

It's a lump of cells. It used to be used and in some abstract sense inhabited by someone I once knew, but it's a lump of cells. Some of which may turn out to be useful to someone, for example - should someone nearby be missing a few billion of them.

Seems as if there are two types of 'pro-life' supporters. Those that want embryos to live becuase its unfair that they die without experiencing the outside world, and those that want embryos to live becuase abortion is the equivelent of murder. To the former I say:

If the baby hasn't experienced outside life before being aborted, then what has it to lose by dying? Anyway, babies don't go to heaven.

To the latter I say:

What makes humans special is their self-awareness and intelligence. A young embryo is not a fully centient being, and therefore aborting it would be the same as killing a chicken or cow, animals that are probably more aware of their existance and impending doom than a foetus.

Please don't bite my head off, but any thoughts?

Hate to say it, but you're not exactly saying anything new.

So everyone in a coma should be terminated ? because at that point in time they dont have self-awareness or intelligence by any mesaurable standard ?

The most common answer is no because it is but a temporary state (most of the time) and the potential exists.. the same is true for an embroy.. you are looking just at one point in time rather then the potential.

What of those mentally disabled ? or those senile people who dont even know who they are...

I think if a homeless single mom has to support someone in a coma, or someone who is mentally disabled, or someone who is senile, then yes, they should be terminated.

I think if a homeless single mom has to support someone in a coma, or someone who is mentally disabled, or someone who is senile, then yes, they should be terminated.

in our society today, this would be considered inhumane and in effect.. murder. Interesting then that abortion is simply the same thing only at a different stage in life.. yet is considered "acceptable" and not yet a human.

in our society today, this would be considered inhumane and in effect.. murder. Interesting then that abortion is simply the same thing only at a different stage in life.. yet is considered "acceptable" and not yet a human.

Our society just can't bear to move outside its deontological frame of mind. We try to claim some universal value to human life, and the more human it looks the more we jump at it. We need to reach the stage where we stop viewing humans as uniquely important and start understanding that you ALWAYS have to break eggs to make omelettes.

I always prefer to go the route in this arguement by simply saying: "I'm sure you're glad your mother didn't decide to have YOU aborted." If anyone disagrees than that is your own psychological issue to deal with. ;)

Whether or not you were serious, some people are when the use that arguement, and it has yet to make any sense.

For one, if I had been aborted, I wouldn't be able to care whether or not my mother aborted me. The simple fact that I'm here means that she didn't, and the point is moot.

Second would be the question "was there any reason for my mother to abort me?" and that answer would be "no." My mother didn't have any children until she was 33 and had been married for years before hand, and my father provided a steady source of income, allowing her to stay home and raise children. Something she did not object to doing. There was no reason to abort me.

And you know what? Women in her situation, that actually want children? They don't have abortions.

But personally, if my mother had been in a situation where she wanted an abortion, and yet didn't or couldn't have one, I think I would have rather been aborted than be an unwanted child. Better to not exist than live with the knowledge that your parents WISHED you didn't exist.

I believe I would prefer to be alive Kiwi-kiwi.

I believe I would prefer to be alive Kiwi-kiwi.

Yes, the unaborted you says you would prefer to be alive.

The aborted you wouldn't be able to form an opinion either way. Anyway, how do you know that if the aborted you could form such an opinion, it wouldn't prefer to be aborted?

The point is moot.

If you could go back in time and say, make Charles Manson's mother have an abortion..would you?

I think if a homeless single mom has to support someone in a coma, or someone who is mentally disabled, or someone who is senile, then yes, they should be terminated.


Here's a shocker: People can still live in poverty and still lead productive lives!!!!

Look at Charles Dickens and Beethoven, they both lived in poverty, maybe even below that and they still led productive lives.

Well, the Catholic church would have to agree with you that unbaptised babies go straight to hell.

Well, the Catholic church would have to agree with you that unbaptised babies go straight to hell.

All those poor people who don't have a choice not to be Catholic. God must not be very sympathetic in Catholic minds, no? :(

Here's a shocker: People can still live in poverty and still lead productive lives!!!!

Look at Charles Dickens and Beethoven, they both lived in poverty, maybe even below that and they still led productive lives.

I don't think that person was saying an impoverished person can't lead a productive life, it's that an impoverished person can't do so when they must care for someone that can't take care of themselves.

I believe I would prefer to be alive Kiwi-kiwi.

Well, that's your opinion, the other is mine. Neither is more right.

Some people survive hateful conditions and go on to live happy lives (though not without mental scars, I'm sure) and some of them will end up committing suicide.

I don't see how it's particularly more moral to decide to decide to condemn a kid to what could very well be a life of pain that they will end up ending of their own volition, than it is to abort a fetus that had an equal chance (actually, probably less of a chance) to have a relatively happy life. I don't see defaulting a kid to 'life, just in case' is a better option.

Then again, I don't see the human life as anything particularly special. Babies in general aren't a miracle, they happen all the bloody time. They can be miracles to the people who want them, but otherwise they're just another animal on the planet we call Earth.

At least with abortion, humans can terminate an unwanted pregnancy before a child is born. Before it even develops conciousness. Other animals that don't want their babies will just leave them to die.

All those poor people who don't have a choice not to be Catholic. God must not be very sympathetic in Catholic minds, no? :(
In the Catholic faith, all unbaptised babies don't go to heaven NOR hell. They are in a state of "limbo." It is a good place set aside for them. Not nessecarily heaven, but still good. :)

I always prefer to go the route in this arguement by simply saying: "I'm sure you're glad your mother didn't decide to have YOU aborted." If anyone disagrees than that is your own psychological issue to deal with. ;)

But I'm glad that she had the choice, because that means I wasn't forced on her.

Our society just can't bear to move outside its deontological frame of mind. We try to claim some universal value to human life, and the more human it looks the more we jump at it. We need to reach the stage where we stop viewing humans as uniquely important and start understanding that you ALWAYS have to break eggs to make omelettes.

Whose omelette? I think it's about time we actually took the idea of human rights MORE seriously and stop sacrificing human life for the omelettes of the élites.

If human rights don't exist in your mind, then what is the good we should be pursuing? This omelette sounds like an excuse to take advantage of those who can't defend themselves.

Whose omelette? I think it's about time we actually took the idea of human rights MORE seriously and stop sacrificing human life for the omelettes of the élites.

If human rights don't exist in your mind, then what is the good we should be pursuing? This omelette sounds like an excuse to take advantage of those who can't defend themselves.

Minorly off topic... my point was more that people can't avoid doing harm. It is impossible to follow any absolute rule. Thus we can't simply say that abortion is murder because not doing abortion may be murder as well. All we can do is find the solution with the least murder, and we can't do that with an absolute rule because every situation is different. Back to the human rights stuff, human rights also must necessarily conflict. With your "whose omelette?" analogy, human rights support both claimants of the omelette. Deciding based on what looks more important on face is stupid, we need to look into every effect, not just the immediate stuff.

In the Catholic faith, all unbaptised babies don't go to heaven NOR hell. They are in a state of "limbo." It is a good place set aside for them. Not nessecarily heaven, but still good. :)
I thought purgatory wasn't fully accepted... I don't remember, though. Decade or more since I gave up on Catholicism.

Nobody does, but I'm still against abortion. I'm the rare breed of an athiest conservative.

That's one of many things that I find wierd about atheists. I would think that someone who believes that life is all there is would be more supportive of the baby being born than most, and certainly care more about the baby's shot at life than the woman's choice to not carry it around for nine months. Being an agnostic, I believe that the baby won't simply cease to exist when aborted, and so, unless it meets the biological requirements for being "alive," I have less of a problem with it being so.

I thought purgatory wasn't fully accepted... I don't remember, though. Decade or more since I gave up on Catholicism.


I can tell you for a fact that Lutherans don't believe in a purgatory seeing as there is no scriptual basis for it.

What makes humans special is their self-awareness and intelligence. A young embryo is not a fully centient being, and therefore aborting it would be the same as killing a chicken or cow, animals that are probably more aware of their existance and impending doom than a foetus.

Please don't bite my head off, but any thoughts?

This is kind of off. By this same logic, all birthed but young babies and the mentally retarded can also simply be killed at their mother's whim, because they're no more intelligent or aware than animals.

This is kind of off. By this same logic, all birthed but young babies and the mentally retarded can also simply be killed at their mother's whim, because they're no more intelligent or aware than animals.

I'm sorry, when was the last time a fetus was able to see? Or hear? Or make noises? Or react to enviromental stimulants like a rattle?

Your argument is flawed.

I'm sorry, when was the last time a fetus was able to see? Or hear? Or make noises? Or react to enviromental stimulants like a rattle?

Your argument is flawed.

A fetus can't, but by the late second-third trimester the fetus has developed into a baby that can survive on its own if removed without being killed. Besides, the poster, via his analogy, was assuming that the only thing the being in question lacked was advanced intelligence, so I replied under that assumption.

A fetus can't, but by the late second-third trimester the fetus has developed into a baby that can survive on its own if removed without being killed. Besides, the poster, via his analogy, was assuming that the only thing the being in question lacked was advanced intelligence, so I replied under that assumption.

Look, nobody is for abortions after the 3rd trimester UNLESS it is in the interest of the safety of the mother.

Look, nobody is for abortions after the 3rd trimester UNLESS it is in the interest of the safety of the mother.

Actually many people are. A few on NationStates that I've seen discussing it before.

I still fail to see how abortion is not murder. No matter how you look at it, you're killing a person. If it's not a person, then what species is it? A zebra? A giraffe? A guinea pig?

The only way abortion is okay is when the mother's life is danger otherwise, under the logic that one death is not as bad as two deaths.

There has yet to be a single intelligent defense in favor of abortions for any other reason. The whole "It's my body" thing is sickeningly hypocritical. If you are using that defense, then are you suggesting that the kid has no body? Or are you just so arrogant that you care about yourself and all-else be damned?

Look, nobody is for abortions after the 3rd trimester UNLESS it is in the interest of the safety of the mother.

I do!

seriously I ain't touching this with a ten foot pole why? because it's been debated for years and always ends in "fisty cuffs"

what I will say is most of the world is pro choice and that I think abortion should be legal until it emerges from the wome (sp?)

I still fail to see how abortion is not murder. No matter how you look at it, you're killing a person. If it's not a person, then what species is it? A zebra? A giraffe? A guinea pig?

The only way abortion is okay is when the mother's life is danger otherwise, under the logic that one death is not as bad as two deaths.

There has yet to be a single intelligent defense in favor of abortions for any other reason. The whole "It's my body" thing is sickeningly hypocritical. If you are using that defense, then are you suggesting that the kid has no body? Or are you just so arrogant that you care about yourself and all-else be damned?

With the whole "it's my body" argument, we can make that the case for rape(which i'm not doing), It's the mans body, he can do what he wants with it.

With the whole "it's my body" argument, we can make that the case for rape(which i'm not doing), It's the mans body, he can do what he wants with it.

No, because your right to swing your fist ends where another person's space begins. The phrase "It's my body" applies to things effecting you and you alone.

I thought purgatory wasn't fully accepted... I don't remember, though. Decade or more since I gave up on Catholicism.
I'm not sure if it's purgatory or what. I remember reading it in the Bible. It's like, under heaven, but above earth. It was one of the subjects at Vatican Consul II. That's what the Holy Father decided, so I must follow that beleif until the Vatican repeals it. Not to get into religion. I'm sure everyone has there own veiw. I'm more for abortion. If a mother doesn't want I child, go for it.

No, because your right to swing your fist ends where another person's space begins. The phrase "It's my body" applies to things effecting you and you alone.

But then why does the pro choice movement use it as an argument?, The child is living and it's(abortion) affecting the child's space.

I'm rare I suppose, I'm not pro-choice, but pro-abortion.

I'm rare I suppose, I'm not pro-choice, but pro-abortion.
In all cases? Wow.

I dislike debating abortion because most pro-lifers I have argued don't use facts--indeed, one or two think it would be abhorrent and cold to use 'facts' in something like this--but rather appeal to emotion and belief as evidence.

And example is a common defense I have heard, "Abortion is murder because fetuses have souls, too'.

But I must press the issue. At which point does the soul enter the fetus, then? Does it jump down from some unknown external place into the mother's vagina, or is it there from conception? If that is the case, does the sperm or egg contain the soul, or equal parts? If the loss of a soul constitutes murder or death, am I committing genocide with every jack-off?

Assuming, of course, that there exists some mystical entity called a soul, which I do not believe.

But then why does the pro choice movement use it as an argument?, The child is living and it's(abortion) affecting the child's space.

Ah, but such a fetus is not sustainable outside of the mother's body, and indeed, is connected to it. Perhaps, then, a fetus is nothing more than a part of the women's body until birth?

I have not decided how much I subscribe to such a view, but I lay it out for the sake of playing devil's advocate.

Ah, but such a fetus is not sustainable outside of the mother's body, and indeed, is connected to it. Perhaps, then, a fetus is nothing more than a part of the women's body until birth?

I have not decided how much I subscribe to such a view, but I lay it out for the sake of playing devil's advocate.

It is only connected to the mother's body so it can live, the same as any other creature once was. To a certian extent the fetus is sustainable outside of the mother's body, I'm proof of it. I was born at 23 weeks, 4 months premature and i survived, granted i'm more then likely in the minority on that one, seeing as i had less then 1% of 1% chance of living.

I dislike debating abortion because most pro-lifers I have argued don't use facts--indeed, one or two think it would be abhorrent and cold to use 'facts' in something like this--but rather appeal to emotion and belief as evidence.

And example is a common defense I have heard, "Abortion is murder because fetuses have souls, too'.

But I must press the issue. At which point does the soul enter the fetus, then? Does it jump down from some unknown external place into the mother's vagina, or is it there from conception? If that is the case, does the sperm or egg contain the soul, or equal parts? If the loss of a soul constitutes murder or death, am I committing genocide with every jack-off?

Assuming, of course, that there exists some mystical entity called a soul, which I do not believe.

A soul enters the fetus at conception. Neither the sperm nor the egg contains the soul or even parts of it, seeing as a soul is an intangiable object. As to the last question i would have to do some more research on that.

What makes humans special is their self-awareness and intelligence.

but by that argument alot or retards and old people, not to mention anyone in a coma, wouldn't be a human being

A soul enters the fetus at conception. Neither the sperm nor the egg contains the soul or even parts of it, seeing as a soul is an intangiable object. As to the last question i would have to do some more research on that.

But how do we know a soul enters the fetus at conception? And in what manner? If it enters, it has to come from somewhere, also.

On a side note, it is quite difficult to pose debate questions on the internet without sounding like one is attacking someone else. So, to reiterate, I'm just interested in debate, I'm not attacking.

But how do we know a soul enters the fetus at conception? And in what manner? If it enters, it has to come from somewhere, also.

On a side note, it is quite difficult to pose debate questions on the internet without sounding like one is attacking someone else. So, to reiterate, I'm just interested in debate, I'm not attacking.

If a soul enters an embryo at coneption then what of unused IVF embryos are they frozen souls? Soulsickles :) The use of this humour is subject to copyright

A soul enters the fetus at conception. Neither the sperm nor the egg contains the soul or even parts of it, seeing as a soul is an intangiable object. As to the last question i would have to do some more research on that.

What happens to aborted embryos or indeed soulsickles, do they go to heaven or is there a special hell for aborted embryos and soulsickles?

Anyone who is in a coma, unconscious, senile, drunk or high should be immediately terminated. Anyone who is asleep must be awakened and tested for awareness. If they do not pass the test or do not wake up, terminate them.

And parents should have the option of terminating any child who is unruly or becomes someone they no longer wish to put up with, up to age 18.

And husbands should have the option of terminating their wives who get on their nerves about doing stuff they don't want to get to right now, like cleaning the stove or the toilet instead of watching tv. And wives should have the option of terminating their husbands if they won't do whatever the wife wants as soon as she asks.

Love you baby :fluffle:
:sniper: bye!

I don't believe that I am serious about any of the above, just tired of the debate. And anyone who disagrees should have a hole drilled in their skulls and their brains sucked out while their limbs are pulled off, no anesthetic cause pain is an illusion.