Abortion and Handguns

[Coney]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
And this is where I draw the line, that the mother in this case doesn't have the right to choose what's best for herself and her child. What's best for herself is selfish (However good her reasons are, we're still talking about a human life here), and what's best for the child she can't know, for she isn't God.

The mother does have the right to choose, the law gives her that right. If a woman decides against having an abortion for religious reasons then that is her decision but one religion should not be allowed to dictate the law for an entire nation.

Would abortion still be concidered murder in such cases as ectopic pregnancy?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Elvellon
The question if it is already human, or not, is the crucial question. It certainly isn’t a straightforward moral issue as you may be implying. It all comes to your beliefs, what defines an undifferentiated group of cells as a human being?

It is a straightforward moral issue when the thing already is coming to be alive. You are taking action to prevent its being alive, and that makes it a moral issue. Whether you have the right to prevent something being alive or not is different from whether you have the right to decide whether you're going to have a child or not. For here, whether it has a soul or not yet, you are taking action to prevent them from being alive. In the other case, you are simply not taking action to make it alive. There is a large difference between the two.

Originally posted by Coney
The mother does have the right to choose, the law gives her that right. If a woman decides against having an abortion for religious reasons then that is her decision but one religion should not be allowed to dictate the law for an entire nation.

Do you know how that law came into being? It was decided by one small panel of judges at that time, deciding for the nation. They worked very hard to prevent it from coming to the vote, for at that time the nation was overall against it and there wasn't any great need for abortion. The case would certainly have been lost. However, after they legalized it in one instance and made it legal for the nation (It became decided by due process of law later), far more abortions had by then been done. After it was already in place, it was much harder to get rid of.

And whether or not the law is right in this case is also very debatable. I think that it's definitely wrong, for not even the law of the nation has any right to decide whether or not these people should live or die. It smacks of what Adolf Hitler was doing in destroying the mentally or physically disabled, because they were "a drain on the economic resources." They were dehumanized and Hitler decided that the decision was up to others as to whether they should live or die. I think that you agree with me that even though it became "legal" to prevent these people from living, he had no right to make that choice.

But that was murder, you might say, and this is simply abortion, for these cells aren't even alive yet! Unwittingly, you're making the same mistake Hitler made. We kill crickets and other insects, sometimes even larger creatures when they are pests and disrupting our lives. What level is this group of cells at? If you don't know whether they are a life or not, then why are you killing them? We don't know how human the mentally insane are, so why shouldn't we just kill them off? Simply becaues they're clad in a human body doesn't somehow make them better than an animal that we would kill off if it's a drain on our resources.

Even if they aren't alive yet, or as fully alive as we are, it is still preventing them from being alive without their consent, and I think that the decision belongs to a higher rule than our own law. It still is taking something into your own hands which you don't have the moral right to take. That individual who was aborted could thirty years later have been happy and a blessing to all around him/her, as I said before. The decision as to whether or not that individual should live or not shouldn't be ours.

Would abortion still be concidered murder in such cases as ectopic pregnancy?

And should the death sentence be allowed either? Those are different cases.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It smacks of what Adolf Hitler was doing in destroying the mentally or physically disabled, because they were "a drain on the economic resources." They were dehumanized and Hitler decided that the decision was up to others as to whether they should live or die. I think that you agree with me that even though it became "legal" to prevent these people from living, he had no right to make that choice.

Oh yeah - it is so MUCH like what Hitler was doing. Don't be ridiculous. Each state has their own laws governing abortion. The Surpeme Court only ruled that the right to choose couldn't be restricted. Fight for your state to impose tougher restrictions. I'm for state rights - so what you and your state wants I don't want dictating what my state does.

[Lief Erikson]

I was pointing out that something being legal doesn't make it right. On moral issues like this, legality isn't proof of anything. Rights are all very well and good, I agree with you, jerseydevil, on there being rights of an individual and a state. However, there is a point where free rights can become wrong. Law is there to prevent free rights from going too far and leading to evil. And I think that you're placing the line too far to one side, by dehumanizing and taking into your hands what you shouldn't.

But you know what, I really don't want to fight with you, jerseydevil, or other people. And since this is a very emotionally charged topic, now that I've stated my opinions and the reasons for them, I think I'll withdraw from the thread.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I was pointing out that something being legal doesn't make it right. On moral issues like this, legality isn't proof of anything. Rights are all very well and good, I agree with you, jerseydevil, on there being rights of an individual and a state. However, there is a point where free rights can become wrong. Law is there to prevent free rights from going too far and leading to evil. And I think that you're placing the line too far to one side, by dehumanizing and taking into your hands what you shouldn't.

But you know what, I really don't want to fight with you, jerseydevil, or other people. And since this is a very emotionally charged topic, now that I've stated my opinions and the reasons for them, I think I'll withdraw from the thread.

The thing is that you view it as a black and white issue. As I have said nothing is ever black and white. Everyone has their own ideas of how far abortion should go and society is somewhere in the middle.

I personally am against abortion - but I support a person choice with restrictions. I also will not judge someone for getting an abortion since I wasn't in their shoes.

[Coney]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
And whether or not the law is right in this case is also very debatable. I think that it's definitely wrong, for not even the law of the nation has any right to decide whether or not these people should live or die. It smacks of what Adolf Hitler was doing in destroying the mentally or physically disabled, because they were "a drain on the economic resources." They were dehumanized and Hitler decided that the decision was up to others as to whether they should live or die. I think that you agree with me that even though it became "legal" to prevent these people from living, he had no right to make that choice.

But that was murder, you might say, and this is simply abortion, for these cells aren't even alive yet! Unwittingly, you're making the same mistake Hitler made. We kill crickets and other insects, sometimes even larger creatures when they are pests and disrupting our lives. What level is this group of cells at? If you don't know whether they are a life or not, then why are you killing them? We don't know how human the mentally insane are, so why shouldn't we just kill them off? Simply becaues they're clad in a human body doesn't somehow make them better than an animal that we would kill off if it's a drain on our resources.

Even if they aren't alive yet, or as fully alive as we are, it is still preventing them from being alive without their consent, and I think that the decision belongs to a higher rule than our own law. It still is taking something into your own hands which you don't have the moral right to take. That individual who was aborted could thirty years later have been happy and a blessing to all around him/her, as I said before. The decision as to whether or not that individual should live or not shouldn't be ours.

You think that an induviduals choice to terminate a pregnancy is on a par with Hitlers actions towards the genocide of whole races???

*speechless* *amazed* *very worried*

Hitler was one man making a decision for a whole nation. Abortion is one person making a decision that will effect their whole lives!

How do you live in a country whose law does not support you moral beliefs??

If the law was passed by such a minority, why is it still in place??

By the Gods I'm glad I don't see life as back&white as you.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Coney
How do you live in a country whose law does not support you moral beliefs??

You know coney - there is no country that can support all of someone's moral beliefs. Everyone would have to live by themselves on a deserted island and there aren't enough of those to go around. I know that England can not possibly do everything you think it should do.

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson

It is a straightforward moral issue when the thing already is coming to be alive. You are taking action to prevent its being alive, and that makes it a moral issue. Whether you have the right to prevent something being alive or not is different from whether you have the right to decide whether you're going to have a child or not. For here, whether it has a soul or not yet, you are taking action to prevent them from being alive. In the other case, you are simply not taking action to make it alive. There is a large difference between the two.

It is alive, yes, but what then?

A single cell taken from one’s body is alive, and it is a Human cell too, yet no one attributes any rights to it. So simply being alive is not sufficient. It is a necessary argument, but not a sufficient one.

What you are doing here is using implicitly the “potential to be human” argument. You are attributing rights based on potentiality. Yet you say “Whether you have the right to prevent something being alive or not is different from whether you have the right to decide whether you're going to have a child or not”. You seem to be falling into contradiction here. Consider this:

Reproductive cells have the potentiality to start a new human life too. They are also obviously alive. When one denies the possibility of becoming a human being to them (by the use of contraceptives or even, irony of ironies, by simple abstinence) a person is in effect “taking action to prevent them from being human,” an active action (in the case of the contraceptives) or a passive one (in the case of abstinence).

In any circumstance it involves a deliberate choice of action, or lack of it, to deny the fulfilment of potentiality. As such, if denial of potentiality is morally wrong, the means used by a person to deny such potentiality to be fulfilled are irrelevant.

But you seem to claim that this is acceptable in the case of reproductive cells, as opposite to the other case (the zygote). Yet, if one wants to remain true to the reasons you presented we would have to accept that the use of contraceptives (or even chastity) are morally wrong, since they are actions, active or passive, that prevent the potentiality of new human life to evolve into a real human.

Ultimately, to be completely faithful to the argument one should became subservient to the reproductive role, obviously an unacceptable thing.

So again I say, potentiality is not, by itself a valid argument. If one wishes to attribute human rights to a zygote one have to find a valid reason why. Simply saying it may evolve into a human is not enough.

And if one accepts the argument of potentiality, one should accept it fully. For if not, he denies the validity of the argument.

[Coney]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
You know coney - there is no country that can support all of someone's moral beliefs. Everyone would have to live by themselves on a deserted island and there aren't enough of those to go around. I know that England can not possibly do everything you think it should do.

Very true

But if I felt my government had laws which allow murder (as many on this thread feel abortion to be murder) then I would seriously consider relocating.

[crickhollow]

can you name western country where the laws concerning abortion are different? I'll consider moving there.

America, the land of opportunity, but only for those who are "wanted".

[Coney]

Originally posted by crickhollow
can you name western country where the laws concerning abortion are different? I'll consider moving there.

America, the land of opportunity, but only for those who are "wanted".

Vatican City.

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by Coney
Vatican City.

right. now to learn italian--I don't think my meager studies in Spanish will do the trick (though it's surprising how similar the two are).

[Wayfarer]

Vatican City.

Allright, guys, pack up! We're moving!

It is alive, yes, but what then?

It is alive, it is a complete human organism, and it is an individual.

It is not that a baby simply has the potential to be human. What is it if not human? And it is not that it is simply human genetic material. It is a unique being which is different from the mother and the father. And as such it should be accorded the rights we give other human beings. Including the right to exist.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by crickhollow
can you name western country where the laws concerning abortion are different? I'll consider moving there.

America, the land of opportunity, but only for those who are "wanted".

Going by your location - you're from British Columbia. I may be wrong - but I haven't heard any news flashes saying that British Columbia succeeded from Canada and has since joined the US. What concern is it of yours whether America allows abortion or not? You should be concentrating on whether Canada allows abortion or not. As long as they support your view then you should be happy.
ABORTION LAW IN CANADA

[crickhollow]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Going by your location - you're from British Columbia. I may be wrong - but I haven't heard any news flashes saying that British Columbia succeeded from Canada and has since joined the US. What concern is it of yours whether America allows abortion or not? You should be concentrating on whether Canada allows abortion or not. As long as they support your view then you should be happy.
ABORTION LAW IN CANADA

I am only north of the 49th to take advantage of the exchange rate on universities. I'm at a private school, paying the equivelant of a good state school at home. I am in Canada, but I am American
[edit: so there]

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Wayfarer
Allright, guys, pack up! We're moving!



It is alive, it is a complete human organism, and it is an individual.

It is not that a baby simply has the potential to be human. What is it if not human? And it is not that it is simply human genetic material. It is a unique being which is different from the mother and the father. And as such it should be accorded the rights we give other human beings. Including the right to exist.

Define complete.

A zygote doesn’t have a head, arms, legs, or any other organ for that mater, it doesn’t think or have aspirations or fears
so, in what sense you claim it to be “complete?”


“It is nothing but human,” true, so a single human liver cell is “nothing but human.” It just isn’t a human. And here you have the gist of the problem.

Uniqueness?
In what sense?
Genetically? What is the importance of it? What about identical twins? Since one is the genetic copy of the other is it OK to kill one? Uniqueness is preserved.
So what uniqueness are you talking about?

So what makes a human for you? You have failed to present any concrete, clear concept of it.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by crickhollow
I am only north of the 49th to take advantage of the exchange rate on universities. I'm at a private school, paying the equivelant of a good state school at home. I am in Canada, but I am American
[edit: so there]

Well then I guess you're half there to moving out to a place that supports your views.

[Wayfarer]

Complete:
a)Having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; entire.

An embryo is complete in that it has everything it needs to develop fully. As opposed to a sperm or an egg, which are incapable of doing anything on without the other in order to do anything, the embryo lacks no major aspect which it will not produce itself. An unborn baby will continue to live and develop as long as it receives a steady stream of nutrients-Which, I must point out, stays the same after birth. The infant is immature, not incomplete.


Human:
a)A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. (applies to the unborn.)
b)A person.

Person:
a)A living human. (Baby is alive and human)
b)An individual of specified character. (since the infant is itself, and not someone else, it does have a specefic character. While it is true that this character is not fulley developed, the same thing could be said of a newborn or an adolescent.)

Uniqueness?
In what sense?

An unborn child is unique genetically, true. But unique in the sense that it is itself and not something else. As opposed to the belief that the embryo is 'just some tissue in the mothers body'. It a singular organism, not a part of another organism or a copy.

The baby is (an) individual: Existing as a distinct entity;A single human. As such I believe it deserves the rights we give all individuals.

[Elvellon]

Complete:
a)Having all necessary or normal parts, components, or steps; entire.

An embryo is complete in that it has everything it needs to develop fully. As opposed to a sperm or an egg, which are incapable of doing anything on without the other in order to do anything, the embryo lacks no major aspect which it will not produce itself. An unborn baby will continue to live and develop as long as it receives a steady stream of nutrients-Which, I must point out, stays the same after birth. The infant is immature, not incomplete.

An embryo is incapable of fully develop, by itself. It still needs outside support to become more than an embryo. Otherwise this very discussion would be pointless. Reproductive cells, also, need outside factors to become something else, but have in themselves all they need to become something else, if their external needs are fulfilled (something that in their case involves it’s counterpart).

You claim a qualitative difference, but it is really more quantitative than qualitative. It is simply a matter of how many steps separates it from humanity and not of being human already.

Human:
a)A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. (applies to the unborn.)
b)A person.

Person:
a)A living human. (Baby is alive and human)

A human is a human because it is a human. Forgive me the pun, but if this kind of definition works fine in most (obvious) cases, it is precisely in the extreme cases were the need for a more accurate definition arises. And we were talking of one such case.

Person:
b)An individual of specified character. (since the infant is itself, and not someone else, it does have a specefic character. While it is true that this character is not fulley developed, the same thing could be said of a newborn or an adolescent.)

An unborn child is unique genetically, true. But unique in the sense that it is itself and not something else. As opposed to the belief that the embryo is 'just some tissue in the mothers body'. It a singular organism, not a part of another organism or a copy.

I don’t agree with your use of the “unique character” as being the relevant factor here. Identical twins have the same genetic makeup, so it is not a matter of genetic singularity. Personality is also absent in an embryo, so it is not a factor. So it’s unique character isn’t really extant.

And if not used in the sense of genetic singularity, nor in the sense of having a personality, uniqueness can only lead to one argument:

Potentiality.

It has the potentiality of being a unique individual, as opposed as being one. And potentiality is a weak argument, since it exists before the embryo.

[Aeryn]

Originally posted by cassiopeia
Murder is the intentional killing of another human being by another, that is all I am saying. You can't support capital punishment but not abortion if you say abortion is murder and murder is wrong.

*cracks up* HEEEHEEEHEEEHEEEHEEE I'm such an azz but that is hilarious. Capital PUNISHMENT! you don't punish an innocent person sweet heart! sheesh

Overview:
The word "capital" in "capital punishment" refers to a person's head. In the past, people were often executed by severing their head from their body.

From 1976, when executions were resumed, until 2002-JAN-1, there have been 749 executions in the US. About 30 to 60 prisoners are currently killed annually, most by lethal injection. About two out of three executions (65.6%) are conducted in five states: Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. Texas leads the other states in number of killings (256 killings; 34% of the national total). There were about 3,690 prisoners sentenced to death in 37 state death rows, and 31 being held by the U.S. government and military. 7 About 1.5% are women.

The United States is one of the very few industrialized countries in the world which executes criminals. It is one of the few countries in the world which executes mentally ill persons, persons with very low IQ, and child murderers (i.e. persons who were under 18 at the time of their crime).

When asked whether they prefer to keep or abolish the death penalty, about 60 to 80% of American adults say that they want to retain capital punishment. Numbers vary depending upon the precise wording of the question asked by the pollsters. When asked whether they would like to see executions continue or have them replaced with a system that guaranteed:

life imprisonment with no hope for parole, ever;
that the inmate would work in the prison to earn money;
that the money would be directed to helping the family of the person(s) that they killed, 55% choose the latter.

~~~~~~~

The Survey Research Unit of Ohio State University's College of Social and Behavioral Sciences published a news release on 1997-OCT-1. It described the opinions of Ohioans towards the death penalty. 2 The results were based on a random sampling of 805 English speaking adults who were interviewed by telephone during mid 1997-SEP. They found:

66% favored the death penalty for convicted murderers; 9% were in favor under certain circumstances; 17% were opposed and 8% were ambivalent.
46% thought it very likely or somewhat likely for an innocent person to be executed; 47% reported somewhat or very unlikely.
Adults without a college degree were more likely to believe that an innocent person could be executed than were college graduates by a ratio of 50% to 27%
59% would support an alternative to execution if it involved life in prison without chance of parole and a requirement that the inmate work while in prison with the money going to the victim's family. 31% supported the death penalty in preference to this alternative. An inmate working 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, over a 25 year sentence at $3.00 an hour would generate $150,000 for the family of the victim.
Non-college graduates (60%), those under 30 years of age (67%), females (68%), those not married (64%) and African-Americans (70%) were more likely to support this alternative than college graduates (53%), those 30 years old or older (56%), males (49%), those married (55%) and Whites (56%).

The margin of error is less than 4% on these data.