|
|
#122
03-31-2007, 01:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Ok, so they are ignorant 16 year old kids who literally do not know better. Now what? They 'should have known?' [/ QUOTE ] Yes. It's called accepting responsibility for your actions. [/ QUOTE ] Irrelevant. I'm not interested in their responsibility, I'm interested in their culpability. If they had no possible way of knowing what would happen, they are not culpable. Therefore, they did not enter into any implicit contract. Wait a second, txag. Are you seriously arguing that every person is responsible for the outcome of every action they take? No matter what that outcome is, no matter what your action, you are responsible for ANY and EVERY outcome of ANY and EVERY action you take? 
|
|
#123
03-31-2007, 01:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
A hair cell has never(that I am aware of) ever grown into a baby by natural processes.
Zygotes do every single day, it's what they do. I don't feel i'm doing any of the quibbling jeesh..
|
|
#124
03-31-2007, 02:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
A hair cell has never(that I am aware of) ever grown into a baby by natural processes. Zygotes do every single day, it's what they do. I don't feel i'm doing any of the quibbling jeesh.. [/ QUOTE ] Give it a few years. Are you honestly prepared to change your entire position just because some scientists decide to do something that we all know is theoretically simple? I mean, its a practical nightmare, and we won't be doing it anytime soon, most likely, but its simple as pie to turn a skin cell into a human, at least in theory. In other words, nothing is preventing it from happening except a little (ok, a LOT) of elbow grease. This cannot POSSIBLY make any difference to the logical argument. If we are to be concerned about things BECAUSE they could potentially become a human, why does the LIKELIHOOD of them becoming a human matter? I am aware that a zygote and a skin/hair cell are very, very different. Heck, one of the very few things they DO share is that THEY CAN BECOME A HUMAN BEING. Its really one of the only things they have in common.
|
|
#125
03-31-2007, 02:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
You're getting caught up on the 'potentially become a human' argument.
A zygote is on already it's way to becoming a baby - I think it has more value than a skin cell - and I find your argument against this bogus.
|
|
#126
03-31-2007, 02:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
at exactly what point does a sperm and an egg begin "forming a human"..to the point that it is given sudden full value as a human? and why?
|
|
#128
03-31-2007, 07:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Personally, I think neurulation is a reasonable cutoff. At least you know there is no suffering involved before that point. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Causing suffering shouldnt be too much of a factor when considering abortion. Obviously, causing suffering to innocent creatures should be avoided. But if the aborted fetus is the equivalent of an insignifigant animal, than the suffering it endures during an abortion is negligible against protecting the woman holding it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I disagree. If the woman choses not to have an abortion then she is taking some responsibilty for what happens next. Suffering caused by a later abortion can't then be dismissed as suffering of an insignificant animal any more than causing suffering to a pet dog can. Freedom to chose doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of that choice. chez -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is absolutely true and something I think a lot of pro-choice advocates are dead wrong about, or at least do not give proper consideration to. I personally think abortion is morally acceptable until birth, but it is CLEARLY better earlier. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Its a weak analogy but: If the women makes an informed decision not to have an early abortion then we can consider that a contract has been entered into with the feotus (like with a pet) and having a late abortion is a breach of contract which is therefore wrong. As a general rule we don't allow people to freely enter a contract and then harm the other parties by choosing to break the contract. On the bit we agree on - it follows that the right thing to do is ensure people are able to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place, quickly determine they are pregnant, provide information on the options (abortion, parenthood, adoptions etc), and provide easy access to early abortions. chez -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yes, this is exactly right, and usually a point it takes forever to get to. It is shaky ground, but I think that if a woman makes a decision early on in the pregnancy not to abort, you can make a strong case that she is now no longer allowed to break that contract, because of the excess suffering. This leads to the obvious next point: isn't having unprotected sex (or any sex at all, really) the same as entering into this implicit contract? And my answer is a typically poker-like one: It depends. [/ QUOTE ] We can't enter into a contract with anything that cannot suffer but we can enter into a contract with something that doesn't exist yet. The consequences of unprotected sex are initially whatever suffering you might go through if you get pregnant and want to abort. However once we are pregnant we can choose whether to enter into a contract with the the future feotus that can suffer (be harmed). If we decide to go ahead with the pregnancy then we can't just cause the suffering (once the feotus has reached the stage where its capable of suffering) without a breach of contract and the usual interference of law. chez
|
|
#129
03-31-2007, 07:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
... by natural processes [/ QUOTE ] Who cares about natural or not. We invent our skin cell ---> baby machine. Switch it on. Is turning that of different in some way because its not natural (whatever that means) chez
|
|
#130
03-31-2007, 08:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Real questions about pro choice
[ QUOTE ]
1. If you are pro-choice, what is your "cut-off point" after which the mother has no right to take the fetus' life? 2. What is your reasoning? [/ QUOTE ] 1. There is no point past which I think a person does not have control over her own body. 2. Women are moral agents entitled to make the decisions that they face as such. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The only way to ensure the third is to ensure the first two. Everything else is absurd masturbation by people who think they can make decisions for other people.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
