@Deviant:Scripter:

Why? On which moral basis is it worse to kill something that cannot think yet

…is that in your professional medical opinion? :roll: I’d like to know how you plan to prove that this baby can’t think yet.

I do not have a professional medical opinion as i am not working in the medical field. But: For sensory impressions and to think you need nerves, and more than one. Thus, as long as the unborn human is more a bunch of cells (kind of un-diversified stem cells and no nerve cells), it cannot think or even feel anything.

How can you accept civilian casualties in war.

I’m curious to know why you don’t make the distinction between an INTENTIONAL murder of an innocent child, and the accidental death of a civilian.

Easy, because you don’t either….
i will quote you:

The baby didn’t commit any crime, do any harm to you, or deserve death in any way.

The civilian did the same. Maybe the civilian is not killed on purpose, but his death is taken into account, it’s accepted as something “inevitable”. The deaths of all the citizens of the cities during the terror bombing in WW2, or when the nukes where used…. these were not accidental.

…Better the civilian shuts up and dies for the greater cause, right?..
Or is it the old Stalin saying: “One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is statistics?”

Are you so programmed to think that abortion is the “right” of a woman that you fail to see that the entire objective is to take an innocent life. Whereas, a civilian casualty of war is an unfortunate side-effect in the process of saving many more lives.

Which right do you have to declare whose right is more important than others? If i said, well sorry, your right is second to this persons right… you certainly would say: “oh yes, how could i not see that…”
Well, it is the civilians right to die in a war, it is the generals right to decide which soldier doesn’t die (but not sending him to the front), it is the bomber pilots right to decide which child loses his parents, it is the terrorists right to decide whose husband dies, etc. etc. you seem to accept those, but not the one other thing.
The only difference is that civilians are helpless and the unborn child is totally helpless.

On wars saving lives, well you believe that from your heart. I couldn’t convince you the earth was round if you believed it from the heart to be flat.

you more looked like someone to take out two eyes of your enemy for the one he took from you.

You look more like the person to question why I took his eyes out in return, rather than why the instigator deserved it in the first place. :roll:

You do not say i am wrong with what i think of you.
And you are not that wrong. If you take out anothers eye in return, then “we” (all the ones not in that conflict) need to look wether it was “in return”, or wether you actually are the first to take out the eye.

Second, you need to have a look a game-theory.

You have the right to avenge yourself and do violence, but noone else has?

Do this sound completely barbaric to anybody else? F_alk, who are you avenging by committing an abortion?

I was going onto the bigger picture. Sorry if i didn’t make that clear enough. The point is “who has the right to decide when to do violence”. When and how do you “gain” that right? You gain it for self-defense, and most often as “revenge” (see “war against terrorism” etc)…. well, except you are a woman, then you are not allowed to act violently in response…

It should be targeted on the rapist first. But: if the rape leads to a pregancy, how can you force the woman to give birth to a child of the rapist? To nurture it and let it grow, that “thing” that she didn’t want, that reminds her of the rape and humiliation, that is made of half the genes of the rapist…
How can you force her to suffer more and longer, and what do you do to undo/justify these extra sufferings? People get millions of bucks because their coffee is sold hot to them, and they are too stupid to handle it. How much worth is it to force a woman to bear this kind of child, or permant denial-of-rights (what if she planned (before the rape) to do something that could now harm the kid) …

@F_alk:

@Deviant:Scripter:

Why? On which moral basis is it worse to kill something that cannot think yet

…is that in your professional medical opinion? :roll: I’d like to know how you plan to prove that this baby can’t think yet.

I do not have a professional medical opinion as i am not working in the medical field. But: For sensory impressions and to think you need nerves, and more than one. Thus, as long as the unborn human is more a bunch of cells (kind of un-diversified stem cells and no nerve cells), it cannot think or even feel anything.

Interestingly enough this applies to many of my patients who still have a very significant number of neurons - and yet they can not think or feel anything (or breath apart from a respirator). Given these people’s burden on society - should they be allowed to keep living? A very unaggressive approach would be to simply not keep them alive - something we all might repudiate if thought he had a chance at life. Yet we are actively killing someone in the same state and this option is embraced by the pro-baby-death coalitions.

How can you accept civilian casualties in war.

I’m curious to know why you don’t make the distinction between an INTENTIONAL murder of an innocent child, and the accidental death of a civilian.

Easy, because you don’t either….
i will quote you:

The baby didn’t commit any crime, do any harm to you, or deserve death in any way.

The civilian did the same. Maybe the civilian is not killed on purpose, but his death is taken into account, it’s accepted as something “inevitable”. The deaths of all the citizens of the cities during the terror bombing in WW2, or when the nukes where used…. these were not accidental.

…Better the civilian shuts up and dies for the greater cause, right?..
Or is it the old Stalin saying: “One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is statistics?”

i agree with D:S on this one. Both the civilian and the baby are innocent. They are guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In my mind they are both evil and tragic occurrances.

Are you so programmed to think that abortion is the “right” of a woman that you fail to see that the entire objective is to take an innocent life. Whereas, a civilian casualty of war is an unfortunate side-effect in the process of saving many more lives.

Which right do you have to declare whose right is more important than others? If i said, well sorry, your right is second to this persons right… you certainly would say: “oh yes, how could i not see that…”
Well, it is the civilians right to die in a war, it is the generals right to decide which soldier doesn’t die (but not sending him to the front), it is the bomber pilots right to decide which child loses his parents, it is the terrorists right to decide whose husband dies, etc. etc. you seem to accept those, but not the one other thing.
The only difference is that civilians are helpless and the unborn child is totally helpless.

right

On wars saving lives, well you believe that from your heart. I couldn’t convince you the earth was round if you believed it from the heart to be flat.

others of us believe that lives are valuable regardless of their age from our heart. Does this make me similarly dogmatic? Maybe.

you more looked like someone to take out two eyes of your enemy for the one he took from you.

You look more like the person to question why I took his eyes out in return, rather than why the instigator deserved it in the first place. :roll:

You do not say i am wrong with what i think of you.
And you are not that wrong. If you take out anothers eye in return, then “we” (all the ones not in that conflict) need to look wether it was “in return”, or wether you actually are the first to take out the eye.

Second, you need to have a look a game-theory.

I’m of the “you were once told an eye-for-an-eye but i say to you love your enemies (etc.)” school. Pre-emptive eye-taking is inappropriate. Is this what abortion is? Or are we talking about hostilities in Iraq?

You have the right to avenge yourself and do violence, but noone else has?

Do this sound completely barbaric to anybody else? F_alk, who are you avenging by committing an abortion?

I was going onto the bigger picture. Sorry if i didn’t make that clear enough. The point is “who has the right to decide when to do violence”. When and how do you “gain” that right? You gain it for self-defense, and most often as “revenge” (see “war against terrorism” etc)…. well, except you are a woman, then you are not allowed to act violently in response…

It should be targeted on the rapist first. But: if the rape leads to a pregancy, how can you force the woman to give birth to a child of the rapist? To nurture it and let it grow, that “thing” that she didn’t want, that reminds her of the rape and humiliation, that is made of half the genes of the rapist…
How can you force her to suffer more and longer, and what do you do to undo/justify these extra sufferings? People get millions of bucks because their coffee is sold hot to them, and they are too stupid to handle it. How much worth is it to force a woman to bear this kind of child, or permant denial-of-rights (what if she planned (before the rape) to do something that could now harm the kid) …

One must consider:

1. bad things happen to people. Regardless of if we planned it that way, we must live with the consequences - be it paraplegia of a ski-ing accident or a random shooting - it’s not fair and it’s not right. At the same time, is this victim permitted to take their misfortunes out on another person - their doctor, an orderly, or some person who pisses them off - by killing or otherwise hurting them?
2. 9 months vs. life. One might suggest that if the woman by having the child would die then abortion might be more acceptable - that her right might well equal or even supercede that of the child. At the same time, given that she finds out about the pregnancy usually within a month, begins to show by 5-6 months and labors for typically less than 8-24 hours - is this an appropriate exchange for the death of a child?

There is no single answer, right or wrong, to all the possible scenarios here, but I believe…

in many cases the woman and man make a decision to have unprotected sex…this was/is still considered wrong in many cultures/religions…

the woman feels forced/chooses to have an abortion…this was/is still considered wrong in many cultures/religions…

“Two wrongs don’t make a right” seems to fit many possible scenarios here.

In a previous forum here I mentioned that I had volunteered in a pregnancy crisis center for a few years. Many women came in for help after the abortion with guilt and remorse over what they had done. Some were dealing with issues from 20 years before.

Another situation I mentioned was that of a friend who had an abortion after having 3 kids. Her 9 year old son found out and said(paraphrased), “Why did you do that? One more mouth to feed wouldn’t be that hard. The food bank or church would have helped. I wish you would have had the baby.” Now mom, dad and three kids have to live with the aftermath.

One abortion can effect a potential mom, potential dad, potential brother(s), potential sister(s), potential grandmother(s), potential grandfather(s) , potential aunt(s) and uncle(s), friends, neighbors, etc.

Mother Teresa was asked if a cure to AIDS would ever be found. Her reply, “It was, but the discoverer was a victim of abortion.”

The only difference is that civilians are helpless and the unborn child is totally helpless.

In the above quote you admit that it is indeed a “child”. Now as far as I know, killing a “child” is murder, is it not? Murder is against the law, is it not?

I rest my case. :P

@Deviant:Scripter:

The only difference is that civilians are helpless and the unborn child is totally helpless.

In the above quote you admit that it is indeed a “child”. Now as far as I know, killing a “child” is murder, is it not? Murder is against the law, is it not?

Killing a child is killing a child. When it dies in an accident, it is not murder. When it dies on the reasons that make murder, it is murdered just as any other person that dies on the same reasons. Killing a child does not equate murder.

@cystic:

Interestingly enough this applies to many of my patients who still have a very significant number of neurons - and yet they can not think or feel anything (or breath apart from a respirator). Given these people’s burden on society - should they be allowed to keep living? A very unaggressive approach would be to simply not keep them alive - something we all might repudiate if thought he had a chance at life. Yet we are actively killing someone in the same state and this option is embraced by the pro-baby-death coalitions.

A tricky question indeed. I supposse the main difference is that the person in the coma/etc. once thought and felt. So, there are very slight differences between these two states you describe.

i agree with D:S on this one. Both the civilian and the baby are innocent. They are guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In my mind they are both evil and tragic occurrances.

I hope that is a typo with you agreeing D:S, otherwise i didn’t make my point clear enough. I agree with the above, yet accuse that the civilian “collateral damages” are accepted as something that just “has to be”.

others of us believe that lives are valuable regardless of their age from our heart. Does this make me similarly dogmatic? Maybe.

When we break that down we come to the question: when/where does life begin. That would be another tricky question.

I’m of the “you were once told an eye-for-an-eye but i say to you love your enemies (etc.)” school. Pre-emptive eye-taking is inappropriate. Is this what abortion is? Or are we talking about hostilities in Iraq?

I don’t agree with pre-emptive eye-taking either. But as you might have noticed, my argument was not including each and every abortion, but abortion following a rape. So, i would claim that it is not pre-emptively.

One must consider:

1. bad things happen to people. Regardless of if we planned it that way, we must live with the consequences - be it paraplegia of a ski-ing accident or a random shooting - it’s not fair and it’s not right. At the same time, is this victim permitted to take their misfortunes out on another person - their doctor, an orderly, or some person who pisses them off - by killing or otherwise hurting them?

This part should be taken by society, by punishing the wrong-doers. The question is, which part of society is to make up the order of the punishment? Should those who can’t be affected by a crime be able to set the penalty, or should those who can suffer it be the prime source for societies consensus?

2. 9 months vs. life. One might suggest that if the woman by having the child would die then abortion might be more acceptable - that her right might well equal or even supercede that of the child. At the same time, given that she finds out about the pregnancy usually within a month, begins to show by 5-6 months and labors for typically less than 8-24 hours - is this an appropriate exchange for the death of a child?

But how is she compensated for this prolonged suffering from the crime?
You don’t want to victimize the child, so you seem to further victimize the woman.

I agree with the above, yet accuse that the civilian “collateral damages” are accepted as something that just “has to be”.

That’s wrong. They’re not accepted as “has to be.” In actuality, if we were as apathetic as you’d like to portray us, then we would not spend so much time and effort trying NOT TO hit civilians and civilian targets. We wouldn’t go the extra mile to draw up plans which clearly define every specific target, we’d just carpet bomb the entire city. If we were accepting of civilian casualties why would we let people get so close to us as to risk the lives of our own soldiers? However, I digress. I was actually speaking of the military there, so my mistake.

However, I assume you are directing your comments toward the American public in general. I don’t think it’s so much “accepting” civilian losses as it is “looking at the bigger picture.” You have to weigh the risks, and realize that the potential outcome of Saddam unleashing anthrax on a major city would cost a bigger price in lives than the civilian casualties that we caused in Iraq.

Killing a child is killing a child. When it dies in an accident, it is not murder. When it dies on the reasons that make murder, it is murdered just as any other person that dies on the same reasons. Killing a child does not equate murder.

Ok, fine, you’re right. But abortion isn’t an accident! So isn’t it murder? (Ignore what the supreme court said for a moment.)

But how is she compensated for this prolonged suffering from the crime?

She’s compensated by seeing the rapist brought to justice. There’s nothing more you can do for her. You would have us believe that killing her baby is some sort of compensation? Like it’s a entitlement as a result of being raped? Umm….

Anyways, we’ve heard your argument about rape, and about how you don’t think that a rape victim should have to give birth to that child, but how do you explain the other million aborted babies out there?

D:S there. :wink:

Finally!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/politics/05ABOR.html?th

Im not adding to the aurgument, just posting my opinion

I’m for abortion completely

@GeZe:

Im not adding to the aurgument, just posting my opinion

I’m for abortion completely

well, in your case i might be too . . . .
8)

@cystic:

Finally!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/politics/05ABOR.html?th

I can’t access this link. Is it in reference to the law on partial birth abortions being voted on?

I guess I should say the law that has just been passed by congress.

@dezrtfish:

@cystic:

Finally!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/05/politics/05ABOR.html?th

I can’t access this link. Is it in reference to the law on partial birth abortions being voted on?

yup

@D:S:

I agree with the above, yet accuse that the civilian “collateral damages” are accepted as something that just “has to be”.

That’s wrong. They’re not accepted as “has to be.” In actuality, if we were as apathetic as you’d like to portray us, then we would not spend so much time and effort trying NOT TO hit civilians and civilian targets.
…
However, I assume you are directing your comments toward the American public in general. I don’t think it’s so much “accepting” civilian losses as it is “looking at the bigger picture.” You have to weigh the risks, and realize that the potential outcome of Saddam unleashing anthrax on a major city would cost a bigger price in lives than the civilian casualties that we caused in Iraq.

Ok, for the Anthrax threat… no comment.
For the rest: Ok, i agree that it is tried to minimize the number of civilian deaths. The perfect way to minimize it would be not to allow wars.
Now take this into the abortion debate: The way to minimze abortions is to make them illegal. That is your point of view. My point of view differs, but is not at all allowing every abortion.

So, if you compare these two different causes of deaths, can you please explain me why one live is worth more than others? Is it ok for you to kill one person to save 10 others? Where is the threshold that makes a killing acceptable?

Killing a child does not equate murder.

Ok, fine, you’re right. But abortion isn’t an accident! So isn’t it murder? (Ignore what the supreme court said for a moment.)

It could be manslaughter etc. i don’t know all the legal terms that are possible when someone/thing dies.

She’s compensated by seeing the rapist brought to justice. There’s nothing more you can do for her. You would have us believe that killing her baby is some sort of compensation? Like it’s a entitlement as a result of being raped? Umm….

Well, you surely would accept that you don’t get any compensation when someone breaks your arm, crashes into your car or maybe even when you are spilling hot coffee over yourself.
Well, being sarcastic, i would think that soon some males wear a T-shirt saying “Danger, i am male and not evading me can result in being raped” and that they would be proclaimed innocent in a trial.

Anyways, we’ve heard your argument about rape, and about how you don’t think that a rape victim should have to give birth to that child, but how do you explain the other million aborted babies out there?

That is a different story. We came here to discuss about an austistic woman who was raped while being “protected” by the state.
Other reasons for abortions need to be discussed seperatedly.

@F_alk:

Killing a child does not equate murder.

Ok, fine, you’re right. But abortion isn’t an accident! So isn’t it murder? (Ignore what the supreme court said for a moment.)

It could be manslaughter etc. i don’t know all the legal terms that are possible when someone/thing dies.

Manslaughter would be if a woman tried to wound her baby and accidently killed it. Shaken Baby Syndrome would fall into that category.
And how did legality become an issue?
Intentional killing, murder, even execution - it’s all the same when you intentionally kill someone.

Not really, intention is only one of the qualifiers for murder.
And i think it became a legal question here, because D:S said to his knowledge “killing a child is murder”.
In Germany, abortion is a “crime against life”, but not “murder”.
What i just stumbled upon, during this, is the view of other philosophies and religions on abortion. Did you know that it was 1869 that the catholic church banned abortion, because it was then that they decided that the old greeks (and Thomas of Acquin) were right in that the soul start iwth the fertilization. Before that, the catholics had a stance more like the Brahmans: here the first movement (felt by the mother)of the child is the starting point for a soul, and up to then (say 5th month) abortion was legal. This was common in many eastern countries, while animistic believes say that it is the mothers choice only: with the soul being reborn anyway, the body and time of birth are secondary for the soul.

Interesting ideas.

@F_alk:

Not really, intention is only one of the qualifiers for murder.
And i think it became a legal question here, because D:S said to his knowledge “killing a child is murder”.
In Germany, abortion is a “crime against life”, but not “murder”.
What i just stumbled upon, during this, is the view of other philosophies and religions on abortion. Did you know that it was 1869 that the catholic church banned abortion, because it was then that they decided that the old greeks (and Thomas of Acquin) were right in that the soul start iwth the fertilization. Before that, the catholics had a stance more like the Brahmans: here the first movement (felt by the mother)of the child is the starting point for a soul, and up to then (say 5th month) abortion was legal. This was common in many eastern countries, while animistic believes say that it is the mothers choice only: with the soul being reborn anyway, the body and time of birth are secondary for the soul.

Interesting ideas.

interesting points.
and i do not take seriously the stance of the Catholic Church on many issues. Much of what has arisen from there has been the result of councils wgere economics and politics determined the interpretation of the bible as opposed to the actual words of the scriptures.
“crime against life” eh? Is that worse than murder, or not-quite-as-bad?

It is not quite as bad, but i am no lawyer, and translated quite hand-wavingly.

@F_alk:

It is not quite as bad, but i am no lawyer, and translated quite hand-wavingly.

hand-wavingly?
and you’re ESL?
Man, you can butcher English even better than an American!!