evil_d, I appreciate your answering my post though you weren't inclined to do so. Since you said you have somewhat of a disinterest in this conversation, I'll understand if you break it off. However, until then, I'm gonna keep replying.
quote:
quote:
The thing that makes it a crime is the killing of a human being, not a citizen.
Fair enough. Then we have to decide whether they're human beings. I don't believe we're equipped to answer that question, at least not yet.
We're equipped enough to take a reasonable guess: brain function. But even if we weren't, you can't say, "I can't answer that question, so it's an unimportant one." Obviously life begins sometime in the womb. The baby isn't different two minutes before delivery and two minutes after. Just because we aren't certain of the answer doesn't mean we can ignore the question.
quote:
quote:
You are free to argue to case for the non-killing of animals and plants all you like. However, whatever conclusion you come to will not detract from the inherent value of human life, unless you decide that no life at all is worth anything.
What inherent value of human life? Where did you get the idea that human life has inherent value?
Where did you get the idea it doesn't. I've gotta say, evil_d, though I respect your opinion on most everything, I think your "human life doesn't matter so abortion's fine" argument is insane. Completely. Do you believe there should be laws against murder, rape, assault? If so, why? Human life doesn't have any value.
quote:
Can you form a rational argument to convince me that it does?
I find it somewhat surreal that you actually need convincing that human life has inherent value. If there is even one more person on this entire forum that believes similarly, I would be shocked.
But if you need to ask about the value of human life, or are in a bad place where you need convincing, how about this:
- Empathy. Compassion. Love. The smile of a child. Courage. Strength. Honor. Resilience. The bright eyes of an old man. Evolution. Adaptation. Progression. In short, picture everything you hate. Then picture its opposite.
Actually, just the simple process of being able to imagine the opposite of what you hate should prove to you human life has value.
quote:
And while you're at it, can you form another rational argument to convince me that both animal and plant life have less value than human life? In all seriousness, I am perfectly willing to be persuaded of these facts. It would certainly ease my conscience about a lot of things.
I love all life. I really do. It's the reason I'm solidly pro-animal, anti-death penalty and pro-life. Consistency.
However, if you really don't see the difference between a human and your tomato plant, look at your toaster some time.
quote:
I'll bet you're interested in justice too, and I'll bet that it's at least partly because of your belief in Christianity. I don't believe in Christianity anymore, but that doesn't stop me from respecting your interest in justice.
I realize you were talking to DexX here, but let me stress something again. I don't know if you were doing it _d, but I know others were, so let me say: being pro-life doesn't have a damn thing to do with religious inclination. I'm an atheist and pro-life. Because the christian right has been the only organization with the balls to stand up for pro-life, lots of people think pro-life is synonomous with christian. It's not. They're two separate issues. So anyone out there who feels the need to argue against the pro-life position based on an anti-christian sentiment, don't. Your argument is without merit and brings nothing to the discussion.
quote:
Plenty of sane and rational people commit suicide, lots of them teenagers from what I hear. There have been times in my life when I wanted never to have been born, and there will certainly be such times again.
There were times you wish you were never born, but still you're here. You got to make that choice about your own life. That's pro-choice.
quote:
quote:
It is a very simple, and perfectly true "blanket statement" - the best default choice of being alive and being dead is the former.
Why must there be a default choice? Why not, as I suggested, consider every case individually and on its own merits?
Because life begins somewhere. It does. And if go out on a limb and take the rational (I sincerely consider your view irrational, evil_d) view that life has value, your next step is to protect it from the very point it begins.
quote:
quote:
Bad circumstances might make living undesirable or difficult, but this does not mean that the whole human race is better off dead.
I didn't say everyone was, just some people.
Again, their choice, not yours.
quote:
You are concerned that irresponsible people are getting pregnant and then having abortions because they just can't be arsed to raise a child. I understand that. But I don't think it's fair to characterize the majority of abortions that way. Even I have enough faith in human beings to think that most probably consider the matter carefully before proceeding.
The majority of abortions are based on the simple criteria of whether the baby is convenient or not. Not on whether the baby is alive or not.
quote:
Nor do I think that even a partial ban on abortion is a viable solution. People will find ways to beat the system. If they can't, then they'll have an illegal abortion with insufficient medical care.
I honestly have to say that if the two strongest arguments that pro-choice proponents have are "it's gonna happen anyways so why make it illegal?" and "life has no inherent value", the future of the pro-life movement looks very good. The first argument can be refuted by comparing it to rape, murder, assault, or any other crime. The second is so silly that someone supporting it could be shot in the head and be fine with that.
quote:
Or else they'll give birth to a child which they resent from day one. I just can't see how that's fair to the child.
I really dislike this pretense. Again, children want to live. Ask a few. So don't pretend you're on the child's side by wanting to abort them. You're not.
quote:
But it's not my place to make that decision for the child, you say. No, and neither is it yours. You have no more right to force life on a child than I have to force death on it (not to imply that I would want to force anything).
Quick, little Cindy is being forced to live! Hold a pillow over her face!
Holds no water.
quote:
Therefore it seems to me that the thing to do is let the decision fall to the parents.
Let's say a parent decides they want to kill their 3-year old toddler. Should this be allowed? If not, why? (And "if not", you're going to have to contradict yourself one way or another.)
quote:
And I hate to mimic a bumper sticker, but, if they're not competent to make that choice responsibly, then how can they be competent to raise a child?
You're completely ignoring adoption. What DexX says is ABSOLUTELY true: the demand curve for infant adoption is MUCH higher than the supply curve. (Haven't you heard the stories about 5-year adoption waiting lists?)
quote:
quote:
We are talking about killing babies, here. Sure, they aren't born yet, but does that really matter?
I don't know, maybe it does. Andy's point is worth considering. Sperm are babies that aren't born yet, aren't they?
No, they're not. IMO, you make the same mistake that andy did in his reasoning, namely the bolded section below.
quote:
Surely the reason killing someone is wrong is because it prevents them living the rest of their life? Isn't that why the death of a child is often considered even more tragic than the death of an adult?
The problem with this line of reasoning is that, if you accept it, using contraception or even not having sex at all, is akin to murder!
Sperm has no life. Therefore no "rest of their life." It has the potential for life. BIG difference. The difference that allows me to say I believe in aborting a fetus before life begins (pre-brain function imo), but not after.
quote:
I neither have nor want a blanket opinion on the ethics of abortion.
Do you want a blanket opinion on the ethics of rape? I may seem to be beating a dead horse, but I'm trying to point out that if you hold your "life has no value" argument, you need to be consistent on all damaging agents to life, or else you're simply contradicting yourself.
I have a blanket opinion about rape. Anti-. And I have a blanket opinion about aborting something with life. Anti-. Luckily, since my opinion of when life begins (~ 5 weeks) doesn't conflict with a rape or incest victim aborting a non-living fetus, I avoid some VERY tough decisions. As far as danger to the mother, I don't believe this is an abortion issue, but rather a common sense one. The doctor should do his best to save both, but if he can't, use his training to figure out who has the best chance for survival.
quote:
There's something tragically ironic about supposedly democratic governments that won't trust the judgement of their own citizens.
Again, would you allow people to trust their own judgment on murder, rape, assault? Those who are against murder aren't allowed to murder, and those who have no problem with murder can? You see, it's the same weakness in this argument. The only out I can see is that you're saying that "we don't know when life begins, so it's different", but you committed yourself against such an argument when you said "life is without value," thereby negating any influence this can have on your opinion.
quote:
Sometimes you just have to to give advice, and then let go and hope for the best, and I think that this is one of those times.
I agree with this. So let me say:
- If you believe in the value of human life,
- and if you believe life starts sometime in the womb,
- then the only logical position would be not to believe in abortion after the period you have decided life begins, whatever that may be.
That's truly as simple as If A and B are True, so must C be.