Abortion and the Death Penalty

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Cazzo, Jul 18, 2008.

?

I am :

  1. For abortion and for the death penalty.

    16 vote(s)
    41.0%
  2. Against abortion and against the death penalty.

    3 vote(s)
    7.7%
  3. Against abortion and for the death penalty.

    11 vote(s)
    28.2%
  4. For abortion and against the death penalty.

    8 vote(s)
    20.5%
  5. Not sure.

    1 vote(s)
    2.6%
  1. Kadark Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,724
    JamesR,

    When I say I value life, I mean it. Human life and animal life are both important issues to me, although I naturally consider one of the two to be of far greater value. As you reluctantly admitted with the ant/child scenario, an animal’s life does, in fact, get the short end of the stick when a human's life is in direct or indirect danger. Does this, in turn, mean that you don’t value the lives of animals? Of course not! It simply means that animals mean less to you than humans, which is perfectly normal, considering the type of species you, in specific, belong to. I value the life of a human more than I value the life of an animal for a variety of reasons; however, the single greatest reason as to why I feel this way is an innate characteristic within all living organisms capable of thought. Because I am a human, a fellow human’s life is far more important to me than any other species of animal; similarly, an animal will always prefer another animal of the same species to a human on any given day. Such is the quality of nature, James - you are going to naturally support your own kind before any other. Also, when I say humans are “better” than animals, I truly mean it. In terms of strength? Not so much, considering magnificent powerhouses such as bears, lions, etc., still roam the Earth today. However, in terms of intelligence, we are light years ahead of any other type of animal on the planet. Because animals are wholly under our control, this fact is simply a given. If you want to express the mindset that you are no better than, or equal in value to, a common fruit fly, then by all means, go ahead and think that way. I’m only asking you not to expect the same type of lowly attitude from the rest of us.

    First of all, my argument against abortion based on the sanctity of human life is not full of holes. Attempting to say such is the case by the use of animals is a fool’s errand, as I have outlined above. Animals are second-class to humans, and they are irrelevant to this debate. While I egregiously disharmonize with those who torture animals or kill animals for sport/in excess, I certainly cannot comprehend the expressed equivalence between the termination of a child and the use of an animal as a food source. I won’t go into more detail here, because I have already detailed my position on animals versus humans satisfactorily above. Next: the difference between a sperm cell and a “one cell embryo”, you ask? First of all, the question is skewed because abortion never takes place when the baby is a single cell - to deny this is dishonest and counterproductive toward our argument. Secondly, a sperm cell has no potential and eventually dies within the body anyway, whether a man ejaculates or not. The “one cell embryo”, however, is full of potential. Given enough time, that “one cell embryo” will develop and age to a point where it can sit across me in a room one day and debate the very issue of abortion. That, James, is the difference.

    You’re missing the point, James; whether you’re doing it deliberately or by accident, I will never know. Yes, perhaps the “one cell embryo” and the “six week old embryo” are not babies by our vocabular standards, but you must realize that it’s irrelevant and immaterial altogether. The only thing that matters is the potential of that “one cell embryo”, and that is, ultimately, a fully functioning human being, in the relatively short period of nine months. Killing that “one cell embryo” is enough to completely destroy what could have been a highly eventful, memorable life. It is nobody’s decision to terminate that life, regardless of whether or not the very mother of that baby doesn't want it.

    Yes, James, I certainly am. But what are their “own decisions”, when you truly think about it? Does their decision ultimately effect only them? Of course it doesn’t! Their decision ends the determined and developing life of an innocent child, whose only wrongdoing is its very existence, created by, in all likelihood, an irresponsible mother. Abortion is not a decision which merely effects the mother, which is an ostensible concept you surprisingly have yet to grasp.

    Oh, so now you care to speak of my personal experiences, and my level of education? Such blind speculation on your part surely won’t get you far in a debate. Of course, your opinions of me are of negligible importance, in all honestly. I don’t ask you to agree with my sentiments, or to even give my opinions the respect they deserve. All I humbly ask is that you fully read my posts, and refrain from asking me questions to which I have already provided answers for. Such courses of action on your part prove ultimately to be counterproductive and angering. I will not post in detail the way I view you and your standpoints, because I feel as if I’m too “good” for that.

    I am not the one who is “completely and conveniently overlooking” the man’s role in abortion - you are, James. You’re the one who consistently resorts to the “it’s the woman’s body!” excuse - not me. I outlined my opinions as to what the man’s punishment and responsibility should be concerning the child in question. If I have failed to voice this side of the story adequately, then the blame is to be placed squarely on your shoulders for preoccupying my debating time with trivial matters such as vegetarianism and the eating of animals. At the end of the day, though, people must realize - reluctantly or willingly - the blatantly obvious fact that women have more responsibilities in the case of pregnancy than men. Women physically carry the baby for nine months and endure all of the effects, up to and including the eventual birth of the child. Because women have more responsibilities during pregnancy (due to innate biological reasons), it’s only fitting that they should be extra cautious when indulging in sex. That’s the way it is, James, whether you like it or not.

    Kadark the Phantom
     
    Last edited: Jul 23, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    james you screwed up there mate, virus arnt alive only bacteria are. the cold is a virus so you cant "kill" it
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    That's not the same. Human life is more valuable, and it's no one's decision as to whether or not to destroy a potential life.

    In fact, I will quote Kadark here for what, in my opinion, was perfectly worded

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    As are sperms cells.

    Also, a cancerous growth can be considered an entity in your reasoning.
    It has its own distinct DNA, it is human, it is alive, it grows, it "wants" to survive just as much as a blastocyst does.
    I suggest you stop checking for lumps.
     
  8. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I don't think anyone answered my question about whether or not taking the morning after pill is considered abortion.
     
  9. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    medically no its not. it specifically says on the packet that THIS WILL NOT ABORT AN EMBRIO WHICH IS ALREADY INPLANTED
     
  10. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So the difference between a living human being and a blob of cells depends on whether it's implanted or not ?
    Is this what people opposed to abortion argue ??

    Question for the ones that oppose abortion: Do you consider the use of the morning after pill an act of abortion ?
     
  11. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    no, its just how the drug works
     
  12. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Also, what is it with this pro-choice thing ?
    If you are pro-choice shouldn't you respect a persons decision to abort ?
    Or do you mean that the fetus should have a choice whether to get born or not ?
    ..
     
  13. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    enmos how did you pull that out of my post?

    i said its not concidered to be an ABORTION i said nothing about wether abortion was right or wrong or wether abortion should be legal

    you asked about what the morning after pill does and i told you, it prevents fertilisation of a releaced egg and prevents a fertilised egg beining inplanted
     
  14. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    What do you mean ?

    The question was following the line of reasoning the ones opposed to abortion take.
     
  15. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    you have the argument backwards

    pro choice means they suport legalised abortion
    pro LIFE means they are against legalised abortion
     
  16. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    But... Inzomnia for instance mentioned several times that she is pro-choice.
    Yet she is against abortion..

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    then she is wrong
     
  18. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    No, I was just applying anti-abortionists logic.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Kadark:

    To the extent that you will happily kill or condone the killing of adult, fully-formed non-human animals such as cattle, while at the same time defending the right to life of a partially-grown human embryo.

    The issue here does not involve a choice between save the human and save the animal, as I pointed out earlier. I think we can safely drop the animal issue now that we have established clearly that you have a double standard: the life of any human being, no matter how undeveloped, is tremendously important to you (or so you claim), while the life of any animal, no matter how developed, has negligible importance in comparison.

    Capability for thought is obviously not that important to you. Compare an unborn human child with Down's syndrome to a fully functioning adult chimpanzee, for example. I assume that, given the choice, you would prefer the death of the chimpanzee. In which case, the important factor is not capacity for thought but species membership alone. If there is any doubt:

    So, let's drop this pretence that ability to think is important. Clearly, it is not important to you. All that really matters is what species something is.

    The fact is that the adult (or even juvenile) animal may have far more capacity than the human embryo, but that doesn't matter to you when you kill and eat the animal. Only species matters.

    Would it be ok to abort a one-celled embryo, in your opinion, then?

    Since every human child comes from a sperm, claiming that sperm cells have no potential is patently incorrect.

    But 1 in 4 one-celled human beings will never develop and age to the point where they can debate you, even without any "unnatural" intervention.

    Your fundamental mistake is in assigning all the rights of an X to anything that has the tiniest chance of becoming an X some time in the future.

    For example, if I buy a lotto ticket, I am a potential millionaire lotto winner. By your argument, I should therefore now, before the lottery is drawn, be given my prize, because the important thing is my potential and not my present characteristics.

    And throwing away my lottery ticket is enough to completely destroy my chance of being a millionaire lotto winner.

    You are using emotive language ("child") again. What is being terminated may be a six-week embryo, which is 34 weeks short of becoming any kind of "child".

    You also assume, incorrectly, that all women who become pregnant and want a termination are "irresponsible". Perhaps a few are, but in labelling them all that way you just reveal the extent of your ignorance on the range of circumstances in which conception can occur.

    Finally, I have never said that the decision to abort (or not) only affects the mother. That is a straw man. On the other hand, you have given no indication that the interests of the mother are the least bit important in coming to a decision in any particular case.

    You started the personal speculation. Remember?

    But in conception, men and women have equal input and so should have equal responsibility.
     
  20. madanthonywayne Morning in America Staff Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Damn! I had a nice long reply all ready to go when my computer decided to reboot itself to install some damned updates! Oh well.
     
  21. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    If at first you don't succeed..
     
  22. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    some right-to-lifers do. There are pharmacists here who refuse to dispense it. And the Catholic hospitals I know of do not carry it in their pharmacies. If a rape victim shows up for treatment, she will not receive that pill there.
     
  23. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    So they consider it a person immediately after fusion..
    You have to wonder about cancer then. Using that logic a cancerous cell is a distinct person in itself too..
     

Share This Page