Famous abortionist killed on his way into church

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Spin away. Keep changing the determining factor. It used to be when life begins...now we're talking about at what point we grant basic human rights? Ridiculous. It's a spin game.

Of course we are talking about what point basic human rights are granted. That is the crux of the whole situation.

As for when life begins.... I think that's a foolish point to discuss since we don't protect all life. We eat life. We kill insect life when it is trying to bite us. We put down mouse traps in our garage. We don't protect "life"...

It is only when life becomes "a person" that it is granted the right to life. So that is the only point worth discussing. And that, I have no answer to. And I don't think I'm "stupid" for saying so, despite peter12's claim.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Spin away.

Keep changing the determining factor. It used to be when life begins...now we're talking about at what point we grant basic human rights?

Changing criteria over time based on a different understanding or different factors isn't spin. It's only spin if it's done because of an agenda.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Of course we are talking about what point basic human rights are granted. That is the crux of the whole situation.

As for when life begins.... I think that's a foolish point to discuss since we don't protect all life. We eat life. We kill insect life when it is trying to bite us. We put down mouse traps in our garage. We don't protect "life"...

It is only when life becomes "a person" that it is granted the right to life. So that is the only point worth discussing. And that, I have no answer to. And I don't think I'm "stupid" for saying so, despite peter12's claim.

At what point HUMAN life begins.

The crux of the issue used to be that. Now it has been changed to what you say because pro-choicers were losing the battle on the original battle cry issue.

If you have no answer, what makes you able to so vehemently support abortion at that late stage?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

So you have no problem with killing viable fetuses because you don't know at what point they should be awarded human rights? It's nothing more than a LEGAL issue for you?

I find that difficult to believe Photon.

No, it's a scientific issue for photon and many others. He seek a rational and material answer to this incredibly complicated moral issue.

Unfortunately the only proper response is found within the ethics and human aesthetics found in philosophy and literature. I am certainly not a radical or a positivist regarding the abortion issue, yet I have this disturbing feeling that I should somehow consider myself incredibly blessed to be here, enjoying the human mystery of life. It is incomprehensibly wrong in my view that we could take that joy and privilege away from someone, just because they are unborn. Especially when abortion is done out of convenience, which is certainly alot.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by photon

Changing criteria over time based on a different understanding or different factors isn't spin. It's only spin if it's done because of an agenda.

Clearly, that is exactly the case with pro-choice groups. The scientific question was becoming more and more black and white and they had to change the key question to protect their stance.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

So you have no problem with killing viable fetuses because you don't know at what point they should be awarded human rights? It's nothing more than a LEGAL issue for you?

I find that difficult to believe Photon.

No, I'm saying that the point at which they should be awarded rights should be the point at which they become a person.

A fertilized cell is clearly not human, I have no problem with the morning after pill.

So at some point after that the brain and nervous system develop to the point that he/she becomes person. There's a line to draw.

Now all we need to do is define person. Self aware? Maybe, can something suffer if it's not aware of itself? I don't think it's just philosophical, I think science will eventually be able to answer the question.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

If you have no answer, what makes you able to so vehemently support abortion at that late stage?

Personally, I don't. If a family member had a late stage pregnancy I would plead with them not to get an abortion. Actually, let me back track. If a family member had a PREGNANCY, I would plead with them not to get an abortion.. forget term. Personally, I'd err on the side of caution and assume that human life starts at conception.

However, SINCE I DO NOT KNOW, I'm not about to go out and tell others that I know more than they do. Because I don't.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Personally, I don't. If a family member had a late stage pregnancy I would plead with them not to get an abortion. Actually, let me back track. If a family member had a PREGNANCY, I would plead with them not to get an abortion.. forget term. Personally, I'd err on the side of caution and assume that human life starts at conception.

However, SINCE I DO NOT KNOW, I'm not about to go out and tell others that I know more than they do. Because I don't.

I have to commend you for this post as it is much more honest and frank. Why can you not rely more upon your own ethical feelings regarding this issue?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by photon

No, I'm saying that the point at which they should be awarded rights should be the point at which they become a person.

A fertilized cell is clearly not human, I have no problem with the morning after pill.

So at some point after that the brain and nervous system develop to the point that he/she becomes person. There's a line to draw.

Now all we need to do is define person. Self aware? Maybe, can something suffer if it's not aware of itself? I don't think it's just philosophical, I think science will eventually be able to answer the question.

For the purpose of granting the right to live, what is wrong with the ability to live?

Clearly, it's not an absolute...but we sure as hell could encompass it within the restrictions on abortion in our laws. Couldn't we?

The problem is that pro-choice (just like every other political advocacy) refuses to accept the possibility that restricting some abortion might not infringe upon their rights. See the NRA as another example.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Clearly, that is exactly the case with pro-choice groups. The scientific question was becoming more and more black and white and they had to change the key question to protect their stance.

What agenda though? What's the ultimate agenda they're trying to drive and hide through spin?

I'll have to take your word for it since I don't know anything about the political landscape of this issue.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

Personally, I don't. If a family member had a late stage pregnancy I would plead with them not to get an abortion. Actually, let me back track. If a family member had a PREGNANCY, I would plead with them not to get an abortion.. forget term. Personally, I'd err on the side of caution and assume that human life starts at conception.

However, SINCE I DO NOT KNOW, I'm not about to go out and tell others that I know more than they do. Because I don't.

That's great and I worded the question wrong....it should've been vehemently support the right to abort at that late stage.

Not all supporters of legal abortion support abortion personally. I didn't mean to imply that. That's where I fit too.

I just don't understand how viability doesn't qualify as a determining factor in the right to live.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by photon

What agenda though? What's the ultimate agenda they're trying to drive and hide through spin?

I'll have to take your word for it since I don't know anything about the political landscape of this issue.

No restriction on abortion period. That's the goal.

[Azure]

See, this is where the whole abortion issue becomes a problem for me.

Because I simply don't know when a fetus becomes 'human'....I don't see how 'I' can support abortion.

But, because we just don't know.....I can't judge either way. Is it right/wrong?

Really, how can you say? I understand both sides completely, and if I had to pick, I would side with DFF here.

Because we don't know....I'm not okay with abortion.

[photon]

Originally Posted by peter12

No, it's a scientific issue for photon and many others. He seek a rational and material answer to this incredibly complicated moral issue.

I don't think that's fair at all. Of course it's a moral issue, I just don't think the moral question turns on the same point that others might. Life in and of itself isn't the crux.

Heck HUMAN life in and of itself isn't the crux; I'd be tentatively for extending human rights to chimps.

Why is that? Because I don't think the species we happen to be grants us some special place that we deserve special rights. Rather I think that there's some component of our brain that makes us "people" (for lack of a better word).

Science is just a way of measuring and evaluating something, in and of itself it has no moral position (or it shouldn't).

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by peter12

I have to commend you for this post as it is much more honest and frank. Why can you not rely more upon your own ethical feelings regarding this issue?

It's no more or less honest than any other post. I have maintained throughout that I do not know when human life is formed.

If you mean why don't I hold everyone to the same "err on the side of caution" criteria, I also don't go around telling people that they shouldn't eat meat because I "err on the side of caution" there as well. Everyone has their own opinions on what is deserving of the right to life and I'm not about to tell anyone that I have all the answers. I've made my decisions for my life and that's as far as it goes.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

For the purpose of granting the right to live, what is wrong with the ability to live?

Without a better measuring stick I guess that's fine, but really it doesn't measure what it SHOULD measure to answer the moral questions in my opinion.

What if it's found that a fetus becomes self aware and gains the ability to suffer BEFORE it's viable outside the womb? Then by the ability to live stick we're still committing murder if we're using a different measurement.

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Clearly, it's not an absolute...but we sure as hell could encompass it within the restrictions on abortion in our laws. Couldn't we?

The problem is that pro-choice (just like every other political advocacy) refuses to accept the possibility that restricting some abortion might not infringe upon their rights. See the NRA as another example.

Again I'm ignorant of that, but I don't have a problem believing it; any kind of political advocacy draws the fanatics, and things that start out as good ideas can go too far.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Azure

Because we don't know....I'm not okay with abortion.

I can't buy that either.

Someone makes the claim that "Using more solar panels will cause aliens to invade."

Seems inane. But there is always the extremely remote possibility. I don't know if it is true or not. Probably not true, but I don't have scientific proof that it will never happen.

Therefore I am going to ban solar panels because "I don't know"?

Making law based on "I don't know" doesn't seem like a wise practice to me.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by photon

Without a better measuring stick I guess that's fine, but really it doesn't measure what it SHOULD measure to answer the moral questions in my opinion.

What if it's found that a fetus becomes self aware and gains the ability to suffer BEFORE it's viable outside the womb? Then by the ability to live stick we're still committing murder if we're using a different measurement.



.

To answer the question....if science were to determine that then the laws could be tightened to reflect that. However, we are still aborting fetuses right up until birth....I'm not sure how restricting abortion based on the ability to live, when it's possible that an earlier date could become morally responsible in the future, is at all out of line.

See, this stance (which I assume DA shares) would seem to be one that would have people erring on the side of caution and not supporting any abortion rights whatsoever....yet it is always used to support the right. I don't get it.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Azure

See, this is where the whole abortion issue becomes a problem for me.

Because I simply don't know when a fetus becomes 'human'....I don't see how 'I' can support abortion.

I'd qualify it a bit more for myself.

A single cell (to me anyway) clearly isn't human. There's no brain, no nervous system, no mechanism for it to suffer, for it to be aware of itself. I have no problem with the morning after pill.

On the other extreme, the day before a baby is born, it has all these things. I'd have a problem with an abortion the day before it's born.

So somewhere in the middle there's a line to be drawn, by some kind of criteria. Where that line goes and by what criteria is the heart of the matter IMO.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

I can't buy that either.

Someone makes the claim that "Using more solar panels will cause aliens to invade."

Seems inane. But there is always the extremely remote possibility. I don't know if it is true or not. Probably not true, but I don't have scientific proof that it will never happen.

Therefore I am going to ban solar panels because "I don't know"?

Making law based on "I don't know" doesn't seem like a wise practice to me.

Come on, hardly an appropriate analogy.