@OKJones:
Seems you didn't answer Vuzman's question:
You: But with an abortion you are preventing life.
Me: So do condoms.
You: But they are convenient.
Vuz: Is convenience the determining factor?
You: Most abortions are convenience related. <--this is a not an answer
So please read this and tell me where my logic is flawed:
Q - Are things that prevent life 'bad'?
A - Almost all things not directly aimed at procreating do in theory 'prevent life'. Some things like condoms and simple self-control do so 'actively'. Are these evil? Clearly not.
Q - Are things that are easy and prevent life 'good' while things that prevent life and are inconvenient 'bad'?
A - I can't see how convenience is relevant.
So unless there are other considerations then there is no moral difference between really early abortions and condom use. NONE!!!
I still believe there are people reading this that think abortions are wrong, regardless of how early they are done. If so, please let me know the logic behind this. I have not given this subject that much thought, so I am sure there are facts and ideas I haven't heard yet.
Do we really need the concept of personhood in this discussion? I think not.
Yes we do, removing persons is in most cases called murder or kidnapping.
An infant is not conscious in the regard that it is aware that it is an entity in itself, this comes somewhat later, around 18 months after birth. Consciousness is probably not something you'd want to factor into this, as many animals achieve this, and having to suffer the consequences of your own argument would really bum you out.
OK, if consciousness isn't the definition of a person, then what is your definition of a person? And do you need to know you're an entity to be classified as a person? WTF!
You people seem to have no problem with killing highly evolved and intelligent beings, so I guess this would put the abortion limit some time between 2-5 years after birth.
Now you are turning this into an animal rights issue.
The potential for a cell to become a human being? With our advances in cloning and other technologies, every human cell bears this potential.
If we include potential into this discussion I would argue that birth control should be as "potential destroyers". Pills, condoms, premature withdrawal/ejaculation all potentially destroy a human being. In fact, breast feeding is contraceptive! And what should we do about all those snobby women who refuse to "give it up"?
Well if we talk potential sperm in itself is not potential, if it stays in the same place it stays the same. Fetus grows.
"Rights" is a difficult issue. What about the right not to be born?
What about the right to be born?
What about the right to be raised with love and care?
Well you don't have that right, life sucks, if you're born that is.
Maybe it is in the fetus' best interest not to be born.
Maybe it is in YOUR best interest that it is not born, fetus doesn't have interest, remember.
Q - Are things that prevent life 'bad'?
A - No, but we need to figure out when that life begins, so that preventing life doesn't become ending life.
Q - Are things that are easy and prevent life 'good' while things that prevent life and are inconvenient 'bad'?
A - I can't see how convenience is relevant.
Well it's not relevant for you and is not relevant if it's right or wrong, but it still is a reason for many abortions (which you obviously give a damn about as you think they are A OK)
Convenience is not an issue for those who stand on the byline discussing this matter, but an abortion isn't just a walk in the park for anyone.
Well it's not relevant for you and is not relevant if it's right or wrong, but it still is a reason for many abortions (which you obviously give a damn about as you think they are A OK)
Convenience is not an issue for those who stand on the byline discussing this matter, but an abortion isn't just a walk in the park for anyone.
Could you plz rephrase this? I am not sure what you are getting at.
Do we really need the concept of personhood in this discussion? I think not.
Yes we do, removing persons is in most cases called murder or kidnapping.
Ok, but then you'll have to define the concept of "person". And that's not as straightforward and easy as it might seem.
OKJones wrote:
OK, if consciousness isn't the definition of a person, then what is your definition of a person? And do you need to know you're an entity to be classified as a person? WTF!
Well, I was responding to a statement by Grizlas. Also, it seems like those two sentences of yours are contradicting each other. What do you mean?
OKJones wrote:
Now you are turning this into an animal rights issue.
Well, actually Grizlas brought animals into the discussion, not me.
OKJones wrote:
Well if we talk potential sperm in itself is not potential, if it stays in the same place it stays the same. Fetus grows.
Well, I didn't bring up potential, and tried to point out that it was a bad idea to do so. But what are you trying to say? To me it seems that you're trying to say that since a "fetus grows" then it was "meant to be". Is that so?
OKJones wrote:
"Rights" is a difficult issue. What about the right not to be born?
What about the right to be born?
That's just a not-so-elegant way to completely avoid thinking about and responding to my question.
OKJones wrote:
What about the right to be raised with love and care?
Well you don't have that right, life sucks, if you're born that is.
Well, then why the hell are you procreating?
OKJones wrote:
Maybe it is in the fetus' best interest not to be born.
Maybe it is in YOUR best interest that it is not born, fetus doesn't have interest, remember.
They have the potential for having interests We can still talk about implied interest. I'm sure the fetus has an implied interest in having a good life, and so on. But of course none of this went through your head when you decided to spread your genes. I am sure you want to do the best for your children, but let's face it; when you decided the world needed an OKJones Jr, it was for purely selfish reasons. You did not consider that the potential person might not be interested in a life full of pain and disappointment, which you know there's great potential for.
OKJones wrote:
Q - Are things that prevent life 'bad'?
A - No, but we need to figure out when that life begins, so that preventing life doesn't become ending life.
As I tried to point out in the biology lesson in my previous post, life doesn't begin, it continues. Try to realize this, and consider the consequences of this realization.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
Ok, but then you'll have to define the concept of "person". And that's not as straightforward and easy as it might seem.
Excactly, and that I have to say is...erm hard. You have cells which somewhere along the line become people. Where that is I don't know excactly, emphasis on the I don't know part. Better to be safe than sorry.
Well, I was responding to a statement by Grizlas. Also, it seems like those two sentences of yours are contradicting each other. What do you mean?
Well, when the baby is born it has legs, arms, organs, heartbet and is cute and all that, to me it's a person. I don't need to know, that it knows that it is itself .
Well, I didn't bring up potential, and tried to point out that it was a bad idea to do so. But what are you trying to say? To me it seems that you're trying to say that since a "fetus grows" then it was "meant to be". Is that so?
Well if you want it to be, yes. If you don't want it, no. I'm not sure what you're getting at?
OKJones wrote:
"Rights" is a difficult issue. What about the right not to be born?
What about the right to be born?
That's just a not-so-elegant way to completely avoid thinking about and responding to my question.
Well I don't think about it, you obviously do for some reason? I don't see not getting born as a privelege.
Well, then why the hell are you procreating?
Well what I meant was that we all know that sadly not everyone can have that.
OKJones wrote:
Maybe it is in the fetus' best interest not to be born.
Maybe it is in YOUR best interest that it is not born, fetus doesn't have interest, remember.
They have the potential for having interests
So what you're saying is that the fetus has to become something it doesn't want to be, to know that it doesn't want to be what it has become?
We can still talk about implied interest. I'm sure the fetus has an implied interest in having a good life, and so on. But of course none of this went through your head when you decided to spread your genes. I am sure you want to do the best for your children, but let's face it; when you decided the world needed an OKJones Jr, it was for purely selfish reasons. You did not consider that the potential person might not be interested in a life full of pain and disappointment, which you know there's great potential for.
You sound so sad . Why should life be full of pain and disappointment, I hope and believe my children will have a good life. Not everyone is so pessimistic about life.
OKJones wrote:
Q - Are things that prevent life 'bad'?
A - No, but we need to figure out when that life begins, so that preventing life doesn't become ending life.
As I tried to point out in the biology lesson in my previous post, life doesn't begin, it continues. Try to realize this, and consider the consequences of this realization.
You either completely misunderstood most of what I said, or you're replying in a way which escapes my understanding. Either way, I'm not gonna reply to most of your post.
OKJones wrote:
You sound so sad . Why should life be full of pain and disappointment, I hope and believe my children will have a good life. Not everyone is so pessimistic about life.
I do? I didn't say that my life was full of pain and disappointment. I would, however, argue that everyone's life is full of pain and disappointment. It's just that for some of us this is outweighed by the joy and happiness we sometimes feel too. But, for many of us that's not the case. Almost a million people, every year, around the world, feel that this life is not so great and kill themselves. About 10-20 million make the attempt. Compare this to the 500.000 people killed by others every year, or the 230.000 killed in wars.
Maybe we should stop bringing children into this world; what if it turns out to be one of those with a life so full of pain that death seems to be the only way out? You said it best:
OKJones wrote:
Better to be safe than sorry.
...
OKJones wrote:
Begins or continues, you're still ending it.
So are you. You're ending life whenever you eat a steak, give flowers to your girlfriend or scratch your nose! I'm trying to make you realize that there's nothing "sacred", "magic", "miraculous" or even "special" about life itself.
When I kill her, I'll have her
Die white girls, die white girls
Maybe we should stop bringing children into this world; what if it turns out to be one of those with a life so full of pain that death seems to be the only way out? You said it best:
I don't see how this can justify abortion.
I'm trying to make you realize that there's nothing "sacred", "magic", "miraculous" or even "special" about life itself.
Well, then you obviously don't have any children, most parents would agree that children are all of the above.
First of all, children seem to be "sacred", "magic", "miraculous" or even "special" to their parents partly because the parents are pumped full of chemicals to make you feel this way. I am sure that most higher mammals feel the same way
Second, while I agree that we need to
figure out when that life begins, so that preventing life doesn't become ending life.
you seem to disagree to my point, that a zygote or a blastocyst isn't notably different from a sperm cell and an egg cell? If so, then tell me the difference between these.
Finally, a small thought:
Many that oppose abortion are in favor of In Vitro Fertilization even though excess embryos are discarded in the process. This would imply to me that the only consideration is to create more babies. Does anyone else get the same impression?
edit
@Vuzman: I am using the term 'Life' loosely because I have a hard time defining 'An independent entity, deserving full legal protection by virtue of its individuality, awareness and/or intellect' in one word
We can still talk about implied interest. I'm sure the fetus has an implied interest in having a good life, and so on. But of course none of this went through your head when you decided to spread your genes. I am sure you want to do the best for your children, but let's face it; when you decided the world needed an OKJones Jr, it was for purely selfish reasons. You did not consider that the potential person might not be interested in a life full of pain and disappointment, which you know there's great potential for.
.
. Why should life be full of pain and disappointment, I hope and believe my children will have a good life. Not everyone is so pessimistic about life. 
