U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Free Your Mind Archive (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/)
-   -   Abortion (http://www.u2interference.com/forums/f290/abortion-172884.html)

80sU2isBest 02-12-2007 04:13 PM

(* split off from Political Label thread *)

Quote:

Originally posted by verte76
I want a secular state. That means gay marriage, pro-choice on abortion, etc, etc. Economically I'm a follower of the left wing of the Democratic Party. I voted for Kucinich in 2004. I opposed the Iraq war but think the war in Afghanistan started out as a fair war because the Taliban are Islamofascists big time. Keep the clergy the hell out of the state apparatus.
Actually, wanting a secular state does not necessarily mean pro-choice. I don't think of abortion as a religious issue. Yes, many people who oppose abortion are religious people, but not all. I think it's a biological science issue.

A_Wanderer 02-12-2007 04:25 PM

It is an issue of moral precepts being applied to make an embryo a human life with legal protections, which in most cases is faith based.

80sU2isBest 02-12-2007 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
It is an issue of moral precepts being applied to make an embryo a human life with legal protections, which in most cases is faith based.
The consensus among embryologists is that an embryo is life. Is that faith-based?

A_Wanderer 02-12-2007 04:39 PM

It is not a human being; there is no conciousness or potential to survive outside the womb.

80sU2isBest 02-12-2007 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
It is not a human being; there is no conciousness or potential to survive outside the womb.
So, are you saying that whether or not a life is a human being is determined by whether or not it meets one or both of the following criteria?

(A) It is conscious
(B) It can survive on its own without assistance

80sU2isBest 02-12-2007 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
It is not a human being; there is no conciousness or potential to survive outside the womb.
Also, according to your own criteria, am I safe to say then, that you are opposed to abortions during the third trimester, since conciousness occurs anywhere from week 23 to week 27, and the baby can be born at 6 months and live?

A_Wanderer 02-12-2007 05:03 PM

No because that would mean that somebody in a coma on a ventilator would cease to have any rights. It is a question of what is a human being and when in development do the rights of this potential life exeed the reproductive liberties of the very much human mother, and given that most people can't tell the difference between a human and a zebrafish embro saying that a human life exists immediately after fertilisation doesn't strike me as accurate.

80sU2isBest 02-12-2007 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
No because that would mean that somebody in a coma on a ventilator would cease to have any rights. It is a question of what is a human being and when in development do the rights of this potential life exeed the reproductive liberties of the very much human mother, and given that most people can't tell the difference between a human and a zebrafish embro saying that a human life exists immediately after fertilisation doesn't strike me as accurate.
You're right, most people can't tell the difference between a human and a zebrafish embryo, but since when does what people know or don't know trump have any impact? The fact is that the people who are in those fields do know the difference.

A_Wanderer 02-12-2007 05:20 PM

It trumps because the argument of depriving reproductive liberty is built on a platform of protecting human life, parading around posters plastered with foetuses smiling to make a case that abortions are taking human life.

I feel that there is no distinction between a human life and a potential human life; that the ideology of these groups will never be able to make such a distinction - so their opposition to abortion will run through every stage.

If you are morally opposed to abortion then by all means raise your children to believe it to be wrong, just don't start stepping in to use the government to enforce a arbitrary and moralistic limit on other peoples reproductive liberty and sovereignty over their bodies.

BVS 02-12-2007 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


I think it's a biological science issue.

That it definately isn't.

You can argue it's not a religious issue, I may buy that, but it most definately isn't a science issue.

BVS 02-12-2007 05:40 PM

Sorry, got distracted.

Let's stay on topic.

80sU2isBest 02-12-2007 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
It trumps because the argument of depriving reproductive liberty is built on a platform of protecting human life, parading around posters plastered with foetuses smiling to make a case that abortions are taking human life.
Wait a minute, A...

These "reproductive liberties" have only been considered "liberties" since 1973. Before that, abortion was not a "reproductive liberty". Maybe I could look at the same issue and say that prior to 1973, human fetuses had the right to develop into fully functioning human beings, but that the fetus's rights were taken away in 1973. My argument, that the fetus' rights trump those of "reproductive lierties", has a much much longer precedence than "reproductive liberties" trumping fetus' rights to life.

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
I feel that there is no distinction between a human life and a potential human life; that the ideology of these groups will never be able to make such a distinction - so their opposition to abortion will run through every stage.
Even those who support abortion rights will concede the fact that a fetus is at least a "potential human life". But they say that there is a difference between a "potential human life" and a "human life". But you see no distinction between the two. So, you are saying one of the following:

(A) The fetus is not a potential human life and therefore is not a human life and therefore does not have the same rights as a human life

or

(B) The fetus is a potential human life and there is no distinction between a human life, but you are still in favor of abortion rights, therefore saying that "reproductive liberties" are more important than the rights of a potential human/human fetus to life?

If you are saying (A), then I think you are wrong and all biological science would prove you wrong, but I can at least respect the fact that you are not advocating that it is okay to kill an innocent human life.

However, if you are saying (B), then I cannot respect your stance on this at all, because it means that you think it is okay to kill an innocent human life as long as "reproductive liberties" are upheld.

Quote:

Originally posted by A_Wanderer
If you are morally opposed to abortion then by all means raise your children to believe it to be wrong, just don't start stepping in to use the government to enforce a arbitrary and moralistic limit on other peoples reproductive liberty and sovereignty over their bodies.
(1) I am morally opposed to abortion, but that moral opposition is grounded in biological fact, that a fetus is a life. All laws against murder are grounded in morality, and my desired law to make abortion legal would be no different.

(2) The reason I think it is necessary for the government to "step in" is because of the big mistake the government made when it "stepped in" in 1973 and declared that protecting life in the womb was no longer as important as protecting "reproductive liberties".

anitram 02-12-2007 06:01 PM

Well here's another thread down the abortion argument toilet....

BVS 02-12-2007 06:14 PM

For f**k sake, can we not stay on topic?

A_Wanderer 02-12-2007 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Wait a minute, A...

These "reproductive liberties" have only been considered "liberties" since 1973. Before that, abortion was not a "reproductive liberty". Maybe I could look at the same issue and say that prior to 1973, human fetuses had the right to develop into fully functioning human beings, but that the fetus's rights were taken away in 1973. My argument, that the fetus' rights trump those of "reproductive lierties", has a much much longer precedence than "reproductive liberties" trumping fetus' rights to life.
The fallacy here is that it is an appeal to tradition; because abortion was illegal in the past and there were fewer freedoms doesn't mean that making abortion legal and having more reproductive freedoms is wrong or that the principle of sovereignty over ones body is wrong.

You also imbue a foetus with rights; and this is the core - should anything from a foetus to fertilised egg be given the same level of legal recognition as a human being; stating that the science backs up your case is one of non-overlapping magisteria - science doesn't tell us that it's right or wrong to take any action, but that knowledge should inform opinions and shape how policy is formed.
Quote:

Even those who support abortion rights will concede the fact that a fetus is at least a "potential human life". But they say that there is a difference between a "potential human life" and a "human life". But you see no distinction between the two. So, you are saying one of the following:
I do see a difference between the two, abortion is ending a potential human life. Anti-abortion groups view it as ending a human life - they see no distinction.
Quote:

(A) The fetus is not a potential human life and therefore is not a human life and therefore does not have the same rights as a human life
A foetus is not a human life. It is a potential human right and is not subject to the same rights as a human being.
Quote:

(B) The fetus is a potential human life and there is no distinction between a human life, but you are still in favor of abortion rights, therefore saying that "reproductive liberties" are more important than the rights of a potential human/human fetus to life?
The liberties of the human mother exeed that of the rights of a potential human life inherent in a foetus.
Quote:

If you are saying (A), then I think you are wrong and all biological science would prove you wrong, but I can at least respect the fact that you are not advocating that it is okay to kill an innocent human life.

However, if you are saying (B), then I cannot respect your stance on this at all, because it means that you think it is okay to kill an innocent human life as long as "reproductive liberties" are upheld.
My point is proven, it comes down to abortion being to "lill an innocent human life", no recognition that an embryo is a potential human life and the rejection of the notion of reproductive liberties.



Quote:

(1) I am morally opposed to abortion, but that moral opposition is grounded in biological fact, that a fetus is a life. All laws against murder are grounded in morality, and my desired law to make abortion legal would be no different.
Then I assume that you also oppose eating meat, since that involves taking life.

Laws must not be governed by morality, it is that notion that will see women stoned for infidelity and men executed for homosexuality, they must be based on reasoning the liberties and rights of individuals within society and punishments for violating the rights and liberties of others; not what we find innately wrong.
Quote:

(2) The reason I think it is necessary for the government to "step in" is because of the big mistake the government made when it "stepped in" in 1973 and declared that protecting life in the womb was no longer as important as protecting "reproductive liberties".
Again this is due to the definition of human being and how laws should treat them. If a foetus is not a human being then it is a moot point and reproductive liberties should take precedence.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:29 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com