Sure, lets take a look. I'm going to go ahead and put your opinion under the harsh microscope of philosophy.Eureka wrote:I like your strategic choice for thread location, Kurieuo! I agree that it is important to recognize the large-scale moral and social implications of abortion legislation, and I hope the links you provided remind people that the pro-life movement is not exclusively driven by religious motivations. However, I don't agree that the pro-life position is necessarily the "logical" solution to this ethics debate. I really do think I've considered this issue with an open mind, so I'd like to explain where I get stuck when arguing for the criminalization of abortion--maybe someone around here can set me straight.
Do we need to go on? You pretty much conceded to Pro life once you called it Human and alive.Eureka wrote:I recognize that a newly-conceived embryo is fully alive, 100% human and completely unique, and I consistently and shamelessly refer to the 6 month-old fetus I'm currently carrying as my "baby" or my "son" even though he's still a bit too rare to safely handle birth just yet.
And this is backed by what evidence? What does conscious thought have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that we can kill people who are in coma, under general anesthesia, sleeping, or generally in any confirmed unconscious state?Eureka wrote:Even though this tiny unborn person has got me head-over-heels in love, I recognize that for the first several months of my pregnancy my baby had not yet developed the physical attributes that are necessary for any type of conscious thought.
You are of course talking about the cerebral cortex, correct? There isn't a single pre-natal doctor who agrees with you on this, btw. More on that later.
What is the overall value for life? Can you scale it down for me?Eureka wrote:Personally, I think that there is a major difference between a human with the capacity for consciousness and a human who does not have that capacity--and I honestly think that this is a critical consideration when discussing the intrinsic value of human life. Most people I know have said that they would prefer to die rather than be sustained in a vegetative state, so it seems that Im not the only one who recognizes that an active brain absolutely impacts the overall value of life. People usually respond to this argument by saying that the potential/probability of the human baby for achieving consciousness in the future is sufficient to dismiss this difference, and for the sake of argument I will yield to this line of thinking even though I'm not sure I really consider the situations to be equal.
Again, not sure what consciousness has anything at all to do weather or not you are human and if you have value.
Until you can prove that consciousness is necessarily connected to humanity and value, you're arguing from an irrational point. Believe me, you won't get there. Metaphysics are NOT physics. There is a serious presupposition here on your part that you need to clarify. Shrugging your shoulders and saying "I don't think its equal" commits 2 fallacies. Arguing from ignorance and Begging the question (seems to be popular to make these fallacies on this board lately).
I'd like for you to read this article.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dad-re ... ans-boy-r/
There are a lot of things that are dangerous to our health, but such does not justify murder of another person. In fact, pregnancy is a whole lot safer then plenty of dangerous hazards to our health that we are fully in control of.Eureka wrote:If we assume that the life of the embryo/fetus/baby is equal in value to the life of the mother, then the pro-life/pro-choice debate boils down to a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and how this right compares to the baby's right to life. This is because pregnancy is a dangerous, physically demanding process that introduces MANY health risks to the woman, including both temporary issues and lasting issues.
The very idea that danger to your health justifies decriminalized pre meditated murder or accomplice to murder is so out there. Making an exception to this to simply murder the silent and defenseless is irrational, inconsistent, and outright evil.
This is an argument from ignorance.Eureka wrote:Whether or not it is a "natural" process does not mitigate the damage that it does to your body, and the sliding scale of chaos that it imposes is pretty impossible to predict.
Did not consent? Are you arguing abortion for rape victims? Even if so, I cannot find where you are drawing that line that being a victim of rape justifies decriminalized pre meditated murder or accomplice to murder. Go ahead and make those connections and show me how they are necessarily true.Eureka wrote:Legally requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, particularly when the pregnant woman did not consent to the circumstances that led to the pregnancy,
Let me go ahead and ask this another way because you're still arguing from ignorance and I'm going to demonstrate it.Eureka wrote:is legally requiring a woman to sacrifice aspects of her own health for the life of another human being, and this is dangerous territory.
Can you rationally predict the future? For example, does tomorrow exist? Will you wake up tomorrow? Will you even be alive at noon? Dinnertime? Go ahead and prove to me that such events WILL OCCUR.
It is a reasonable statement. Your mind is in fact thinking rationally here. Lets see where you go with this.Eureka wrote:It could be argued that the right to life supercedes the right to bodily autonomy, and at first glance that seems like a reasonable statement,
They are severe? Really? and they are designed to protect individual rights? Then why are you advocating or supporting the idea that someone's individual rights tramples over another person's right to their life?Eureka wrote:but the implications of that argument are really severe. There are many laws describing the specific responsibilities that humans have to each other, designed to maximize the protection of each individual's own rights.
Well, I would certainly hope so. Could you imagine a world where parents aren't responsible for the raising of their children? or not legally responsible for any damage they inflict upon society? If anything, it makes the consequences of negligence a very real thing for parents to consider if they stop caring.Eureka wrote:Once someone has committed to parenthood and accepts the rights that accompany legal guardianship of a child, that person becomes subject to other legal responsibilities associated with parenting, and this is usually considered a pretty fair trade.
Let me give you clue. Because its inconsistent with the reality of what personhood is.Eureka wrote:Nonetheless, I do not know of any laws except for abortion regulations that require a parent to sacrifice his or her health to sustain the life of the child.
No, but it is a crime to murder or accomplice to murder.Eureka wrote:Whether or not a parent has a moral obligation to risk personal injury to save a child's life is a separate issue--but should it really be considered a CRIME to protect your own body?
Also, I assure you that you have a moral obligation to risk injury to yourself. For example, stress does in fact cause injury and health problems. Stroke, heart attack, lack of sleep, and so forth. Also, its not just stress inducing to save a child's life, its also stress inducing to SUSTAIN their livelihood. Children require sacrifices. What else is new? If you didn't consider those sacrifices before you began your sexual activity, it doesn't excuse you. Life has consequences for your actions (In my case, my child was a blessing to my life), and murdering the silent and defenseless isn't logically consistent or morally right. Its inconsistent and its a moral abomination. Point is, that one's personal psychology on becoming a parent is completely unrelated and holds NO weight on determining if someone else's life has value. Thats irrational relativism.
No, you went off the rails. You've made a syllogistic error here. Theres an ENORMOUS difference between illness and murder. Its not even close and I'm surprised anyone would even try to make such a connection.Eureka wrote:If we decide that the right to life is greater than the right to protect your own health, then you could rightfully be punished for refusing to donate your kidney when your child needs a transplant,
You're really off the rails here. Not only is bringing a homeless person into your home not a hazard to your health (despite that its not even a good excuse to murder someone else), a homeless person has a free will, ability to act, and does in fact have a life.Eureka wrote:or for refusing to let a strange homeless person take shelter in your home during a terrible blizzard.
Its actually pretty black and white, and easy for a court/judge to decide. Does your actions impede upon someone else's right to life? (Murder, accomplice to murder, etc)Eureka wrote:I think that these kinds of ethical dilemmas are outside the scope of the court, even if the protection I provide myself comes at the expense of another human life.
What the consequences would be for the offense is whats actually the unknown aspect of this.
First off, the murder of unborn children needs to stop. Its not logically consistent or rational. There are consequences for being an irrational human being, and I don't see why we should make murdering the silent and defenseless an exception.
Murder is ok right now? Quite a warped way of thinking things. Is this like one of those stand your ground arguments? Judge, this baby was killing me. I had no choice but to kill him first!Eureka wrote:Until the time that medicine can reliably remove and sustain a pre-term baby outside of the woman's body, killing the baby through abortion will remain a woman's only option for self-defense in this situation.
Sounds completely rational, right?
We're not saying that a unborn child is GREATER then the mother's life. I'm saying its equal and treating it as equal.Eureka wrote:To hold her criminally liable for protecting her own health is to say that the value of another human life is GREATER than the value of her life,
What you are saying is that its perfectly ok to murder unborn children because of some irrational prediction a future that does not exist in reality.
Now you're equating it to slavery? Please go ahead and show me how that is necessarily connected? This is gonna be good.Eureka wrote:which simply makes the woman a slave to her child.
Hey, guess what? You know why its unpleasant? Because its WRONG. Hello??? Are you listening to yourself? Are you saying that the laws that man have made are infallible?Eureka wrote:As unpleasant as it is to describe should-be loving relationships in these kinds of terms, I am only talking about the law right now--and laws about this specific scenario require comparing two human lives and determining the extent to which one individual's rights can impose upon the rights of another. Unless the rights of the baby are ranked higher than the rights of the mother, abortion should remain a legal option.
Nobody here is arguing that the rights of an unborn child is ranked GREATER then a birthmother. The logical stance is that they are equal. You've made a complete straw man argument out your position and moved the goal posts to somewhere where a Pro lifer doesn't believe in.
Am I reading this right? We're asking people to be rational and believe in value of the life of ALL persons. The unborn, the children, and the adults.Eureka wrote:Honestly, I think that just plain sucks...especially because the "pro-choice" movement has painted this image of a "strong woman taking control of her life and her body" like the triumph over a baby's rights is something to be proud of.
So, you want regulations in sanctioned murder? Not just criminalize it?Eureka wrote:The efforts that are made to downplay the baby's right to anything has been so successful that many people feel comfortable using abortion as a means of evading the consequences of their own actions, which is tragic. I believe that more regulations should exist to avoid the abuse of this procedure, but I honestly dont have specific suggestions.
I think its tragic that there are people who believe the arguments you presented are any good.Eureka wrote:Still, as tragic as it is, I support a woman's right to evict her baby from her belly...
There you go.