Abortion: The American Holocaust. What do you guys think?

[Ambassador]

For those of you that don't know me, I'm Ambassador in the army server (also SmokingRabbit).

I believe whole-heartedly that abortion is dead wrong and the most evil practice in the history of this country (United States of America). Here is my basic argument:

Premise 1: It is immoral to take human life without strong justification and should therefore be illegalized by the government.
Premise 2: The unborn is scientifically human from conception. It is a member of the human species (homo sapiens), it is an individual life, not a part of another body (although it dwells inside another body), it is living and unlike sperm and egg, it is scientifically an actual human being, not a potential one.
Premise 3: The unborn is philosophically human from conception. That is, it is a person that deserves rights just like the rest of us because although there are many differences between the unborn and the rest of us, none of them are morally relevant to the question of human value.
Premise 4: Abortion (with the sole exception of saving the life of the mother) is the taking of human life WITHOUT strong justification. That is, we should not have the "choice" to kill people for the reasons people have abortions (with the one exception).
Conclusion: Abortion is immoral and should therefore be illegalized by the government.

For those of you that are unfamiliar with formal logic, this is called a syllogism. Two things are necessary for the conclusion to be true. First, all the premises must be true. Second, the conclusion must follow from the premises. That is, there is no logical fallacy in the syllogism itself.

I am interested in honest, civil discussion with anyone here who disagrees with me. Fair warning, if you're being unresponsive or extremely rude in a repetitive manner, expect to be ignored (I hope neither take place).

If you choose to take part, please state in the beginning of your post which premises you disagree with, simply to keep things organized.

One more thing, if you agree with my argument, you should not vote for John Kerry. Senator Kerry aggressively supports abortion, even partial-birth abortion. If abortion is what I say it is and you agree with me, it is one of the worst holocausts the world has ever seen. Over 45 million unborn children have been killed from surgical abortion in America alone since 1973. That is more than four times as many as Adolf Hitler killed in his holocaust. Therefore, regardless of how much you like Kerry's economic or foreign policy and how much you hate President Bush, ask yourself if you would vote for someone that supported the holocaust in Nazi Germany, simply because you liked their economic policies. You wouldn't. None of us would. Don't forget that Senator Kerry supports a practice far worse. Again, I'm speaking to pro-lifers here, asking them to take their position seriously and practice it consistently.

Edit: By the way, in the above poll, I voted for the second option.

[Snarr]

I voted 4.

Taking the life of a human being is wrong but I have to dispute an embryo being a human being.

Technically speaking any ova has the potential to developed to a human being, suffice to inseminate it and you have an a fertelised oocyte, those are killed regular basis during menstruation and it's not considered murder. Would you say the simple act of insemination gives an oocyte it’s humanity?

While it's true that genetically an embryo is the equivalent of a human being, so are cancer cells and in fact any other in your body. I would hardly use this to say cancer cells are human beings.

The humanity of a being is not defined by it’s genetic make up or by it’s potential to develop into a human being. What differentiates us from the animals and gives us our humanity is our ability to think, our sensibility and sensitivity, our emotions, memories and consciousness all of which an embryo or early fetus fails to show. It is therefore not yet a person and the abortion could not be considered murder.

There is however a line where the late fetus does start to show this qualities and abortion beyond this point is forbidden in most of the world. The line, of course, presents a large variation from case to case and is never clear one to judge but it must be set somewhere because the mother should be allowed to refuse pregnancy if she feels not prepared for it.

[Leigh]

WOW........ I'm impressed Snarr :D :D :D

And BTW... I voted 4 too (Please don't hurt me people :()

[MtSlayer]

*sigh* I'll play devil's advocate, under the condition of no flaming. This is easily the messiest topic out there, hopefully it won't turn into a war, if so I'll just bail. You just had to open the cage, eh? ;)

I support abortion on a level of necessity, however, I will throw out some arguments that I do not agree with entirely. I voted 4. (and posted during Snarr's post >.<)

Premise 1:
I agree with your first premise, there is no denying that fact, as it is presented in the same wording as a murder.

Premise 2:
The unborn is structured as a human, however, it is a parasite more than it an independent human. It lives, breathes in a sense, and feeds; however, it lives off of the resources of it's host, much like a parasite. It weakens and increases the cost of living for the mother.

Premise 3:
It is philosophically human, however, it is my limited understanding that the unborn are not US citizens. And therefore have no rights, also, aren't a child's rights limited until 18? Please correct me if I am wrong as I am unsure.

Premise 4:
Abortion, for the sake of saving a human life in a medical sense, is the most common perception of saving a life. However, consider the costs and damages of having a child. The cost of living is very high, and not all families can support themselves, let alone a baby, which requires constant diapers, food, and attention.

For example (extreme example), a poor couple, each working two jobs to support themselves have intercourse using a condom. The condom breaks, and bam, pregnancy. If they do not have medical insurance to cover the hospital visit, the cost of even going to the hospital to have a baby will be crippling alone. In this sense, abortion can save lives.

Premise 5:
Abortion after a criminal offense is acceptable. Take the above scenario, except now the mother has been raped and impregnated. Now the mother must deal with the post-tramautic stress, and the burden of supporting a child for 9 months until she can give it away for adoption. Abortion in this scenario is the most logical option.

Conclusion:
Abortion, when given the necessary circumstances, is socially acceptable and at times necessary.

[Leigh]

LORD HAVE MERCY BERSERKER... :eek:

How old did you say you were?!?!?!

[Foundation]

On a lighter side :p

http://www.ninjapirate.com/abortion.html


SRY edit : voted for #4

if you don't need a baby don't want a baby don't make a baby abort it

[MtSlayer]

I just turned 16. :P

That's so funny btw foundation, but so wrong, lol.

[Leigh]

Originally posted by MtSlayer
I just turned 16. :P

GET OUT (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) :eek: :eek: :eek:

OK then... I feel REALLY stupid right about now.... :(

[MtSlayer]

Lol, nah. Maybe I'll show you an essay I wrote sometime. :P

But yea, my dad's family is for abortion and my mom's heavily against it so I get a little of each side's arguments so that explains some of my reasonings. 'Xcept my mom's side doesn't know I'm for it since they're fanatical.

[Ambassador]

“Technically speaking any ova has the potential to developed to a human being, suffice to inseminate it and you have an a fertelised oocyte, those are killed regular basis during menstruation and it's not considered murder. Would you say the simple act of insemination gives an oocyte it’s humanity?”

When the sperm meets the egg, a new being has been formed. A being with human DNA (that any geneticist can recognize). Also, the law of biogenesis says living things reproduce after their own kind. In other words, dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats and humans produce humans. So that life, from conception, is a distinctly human one. No credible scientist will dispute that. This is basic science. Whether or not you or anyone else considers it valuable or a murder if it’s killed early on is a philosophical matter.

For the sake of clarity for everyone here, please speak in a more understandable manner. Most people here aren’t medical students.

“While it's true that genetically an embryo is the equivalent of a human being, so are cancer cells and in fact any other in your body. I would hardly use this to say cancer cells are human beings.”

Cancer cells are not distinct humans. Cancer cells do not have human parents. Cancer cells are not living in the sense that a fertilized egg is.

“The humanity of a being is not defined by it’s genetic make up or by it’s potential to develop into a human being.”

There is a very important distinction here. The unborn, from conception, is not a potential human being. It is an actual human being with the inherent potential to become an adult.

“What differentiates us from the animals and gives us our humanity is our ability to think, our sensibility and sensitivity, our emotions, memories and consciousness all of which an embryo or early fetus fails to show. It is therefore not yet a person and the abortion could not be considered murder.”

The characteristics you consider to be necessary to be a person are simply not good qualifications. The unborn lacks those because it is at a different stage of development. I agree that the unborn is less developed. But a fourteen-year old girl is far more developed than a four-year old girl. One has a developed reproductive system, one doesn’t. Does the fourteen-year old have the right to kill the four-year old because she is more developed? I don’t think so. We don’t assign value based on a being’s level of development. We don't do it with born humans, we shouldn't do it with unborn humans.

[Ambassador]

MtSlayer

“Premise 2:
The unborn is structured as a human, however, it is a parasite more than it an independent human. It lives, breathes in a sense, and feeds; however, it lives off of the resources of it's host, much like a parasite. It weakens and increases the cost of living for the mother.”

This seems like more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. Anyway, I never said it was an independent human. I agree, the unborn is dependent on the mother (though parasite is a demeaning choice of word). But we don’t disqualify humans from having rights simply because they’re dependent on another. Infants are completely dependent on their mothers. Does that mean they lose their right to live?

“Premise 3:
It is philosophically human, however, it is my limited understanding that the unborn are not US citizens.”

As far as I know, the unborn are not considered US citizens. So? Two-hundred years ago the Supreme Court decided that African-Americans aren’t citizens. That doesn’t mean there was any justice in mistreating them.

“Premise 4:
Abortion, for the sake of saving a human life in a medical sense, is the most common perception of saving a life. However, consider the costs and damages of having a child. The cost of living is very high, and not all families can support themselves, let alone a baby, which requires constant diapers, food, and attention.

For example (extreme example), a poor couple, each working two jobs to support themselves have intercourse using a condom. The condom breaks, and bam, pregnancy. If they do not have medical insurance to cover the hospital visit, the cost of even going to the hospital to have a baby will be crippling alone. In this sense, abortion can save lives.”

That sounds so compelling when you read it. There’s a problem with the argument though. It assumes the unborn are not human. Let me ask you a question? When people get expensive, may we kill them?

“Premise 5:
Abortion after a criminal offense is acceptable. Take the above scenario, except now the mother has been raped and impregnated. Now the mother must deal with the post-tramautic stress, and the burden of supporting a child for 9 months until she can give it away for adoption. Abortion in this scenario is the most logical option.”

Rape is a horrible crime, however I believe killing without justification is worse. Let me ask you this, if a woman who was raped stumbles runs into her rapist by coincidence a year after the rape, should she have the right to kill him on the spot? I believe most of us would say no. That’s anarchy. Unless you are dealing with an actual, present threat, it’s the government’s job. But if the mother doesn’t have the right to kill her attacker, why should she have the right to kill her innocent baby?

[Ambassador]

Foundation

“if you don't need a baby don't want a baby don't make a baby abort it”

This is simply inaccurate. It should read “if you don’t need a baby don’t want a baby don’t KEEP your baby, kill it.” A baby has already been made. It doesn’t work against toddlers so if the unborn is human, like a toddler, this is a bad argument.

[Amaroth]

Almost the same arguement as Snarr.

Abortion should be allowed to a point. In medical terms, it isn't considered a human until about six months. At that time, it's still an ebryo. And that is not considered murder. If you wake up in the morning and have a fried egg sandwhich, that doesn't mean you're supporting abortion. Because it had not fully developed yet. It's the same case with this. It's not fully developed.

Also, if the mother's life or health is at risk, and their is no alternative to it, abortion should be allowed as a last resort. So I voted for three.

[Punishment Co.]

I voted the first option because I've never been one to support abortion.

Hi ambassador :)

moving along..........

[Serge]

I voted for the fourth choice. I also wouldn't say it's murder since I wouldn't consider it alive until it distanctly looks like a human baby.

[xerent]

I could write chapters on this... I didn't vote, but I do have one thing to say.

I am unqualified to make a desicion for anyone else.

[Serge]

Originally posted by xerent
I could write chapters on this... I didn't vote, but I do have one thing to say.

I am unqualified to make a desicion for anyone else.

Exactly.

Since no one will agree when an unborn baby is a living human being, there can't be a law against it. You can only frown upon people who make that choice.

[***Duo***]

#4

I agree with all the points Snarr and Ach made and I've always thought that abortion shoould be allowed to some degree...

(Man...I was eating while reading this whole thread...)


-Duo

[Ambassador]

Amaroth

“Abortion should be allowed to a point. In medical terms, it isn't considered a human until about six months.”

I’m sorry dude but that’s just nonsense. How on earth did you come to that conclusion?

Again, the law of biogenesis says living things reproduce after their own kind. Unless you can figure out how two humans can create a non-human, your argument isn’t going to work.

“At that time, it's still an ebryo.”

That’s like saying at this point, I’m a teenager, not a human. The words “embryo” and “fetus” are just a reference to the development and maturity of the being in question. The embryo we are talking about is a human embryo.

“And that is not considered murder.”

It isn’t considered murder by our government but frankly the government has been wrong about who counts as persons before. Try the Dred Scott decision in the mid 1800’s.

“If you wake up in the morning and have a fried egg sandwhich, that doesn't mean you're supporting abortion.”

No it doesn’t. Because you are (most likely) eating a chicken, not a human.

“Because it had not fully developed yet. It's the same case with this. It's not fully developed.”

Actually it isn’t even close and I’m betting even Snarr knows that. It’s an undeveloped human but it is never going to develop into a chicken. And regardless of it’s development, it still is a human.

[Ambassador]

Serge

“I also wouldn't say it's murder since I wouldn't consider it alive until it distanctly looks like a human baby.”

Since when does our appearance determine our value?

[Amaroth]

It's not considered a human yet. At that time it's considered a multi-celled organism. Not a human yet. It has no self-awareness. After six months it becomes self aware to a VERY small degree. Before that, it has no mind. It acts entirely on instinct. Like I said, it's like cracking open an egg. A human baby is very much the same, just not a yoke.

[Ambassador]

Xerent

“I am unqualified to make a desicion for anyone else.”

A very interesting opinion. Are you qualified to tell a rapist that he shouldn’t rape a woman? Are you qualified to tell a woman not to kill her toddler?

[Ambassador]

Serge

“Since no one will agree when an unborn baby is a living human being, there can't be a law against it. You can only frown upon people who make that choice.”

In the 1800s we disagreed about the value of blacks. Would you say that you could only frown on slave-owners?

[Amaroth]

Originally posted by Ambassador
A very interesting opinion. Are you qualified to tell a rapist that he shouldn’t rape a woman? Are you qualified to tell a woman not to kill her toddler?

No, she's not. Based off human law no person can tell another person what to do. If someone wants to kill someone, and it's right, then that's their opinion. No person should have control over another. Weed is legal in Germany, does that mean you can tell them it's wrong? It has ti be right, afterall, the government said it was.

[Ambassador]

Amaroth

“It's not considered a human yet. At that time it's considered a multi-celled organism. Not a human yet.”

I just provided an argument. Refute my evidence based on the law of biogenesis. Also, explain how you came to the conclusion that it isn’t considered a human yet.

[Ambassador]

Amaroth

“No, she's not. Based off human law no person can tell another person what to do. If someone wants to kill someone, and it's right, then that's their opinion. No person should have control over another. Weed is legal in Germany, does that mean you can tell them it's wrong? It has ti be right, afterall, the government said it was.”

So you’re telling me that you would not do anything to prevent a rape?

[Amaroth]

Originally posted by Ambassador
Amaroth

“It's not considered a human yet. At that time it's considered a multi-celled organism. Not a human yet.”

I just provided an argument. Refute my evidence based on the law of biogenesis. Also, explain how you came to the conclusion that it isn’t considered a human yet.

Any common medical book will tell you the same thing. Up to six months it's not human. It's an embryo that will become a human. After six months, in my opinion, abortion is murder. And even before that I'd only agree with it as a last resort. And the circumstances would have to be horrible to allow it.

[Amaroth]

Originally posted by Ambassador
Amaroth

“No, she's not. Based off human law no person can tell another person what to do. If someone wants to kill someone, and it's right, then that's their opinion. No person should have control over another. Weed is legal in Germany, does that mean you can tell them it's wrong? It has ti be right, afterall, the government said it was.”

So you’re telling me that you would not do anything to prevent a rape?

I never said that. I said no human has the right to tell any human what to do. But reguardless humans do what they want to others. Thus law is born. You saying your opinon over others is important, that is bullshit. That's implying that one particular person is greater and should be able to control people and how they live.

[Ambassador]

Amaroth

“Any common medical book will tell you the same thing. Up to six months it's not human. It's an embryo that will become a human.”

That’s nonsense. You’re gonna have to back up your assertion. Show me one medical book that agrees with you.

Also, you’re ignoring the law of biogenesis, a scientific ARGUMENT, not an assertion.

Snarr, if you see this please talk some sense into this guy.

“I never said that.”

You’re right, I asked you a question. Answer it. It's a simple question. Would you tell a man not to rape a woman? Would you aat least call the police to have them stop him?

“I said no human has the right to tell any human what to do.”

Every law that is passed is passed by humans judging what humans have the right to do to each other.

“You saying your opinon over others is important, that is bullshit. That's implying that one particular person is greater and should be able to control people and how they live.”

Firstly, it’s implying that some people are right about moral issues and some people are wrong. Not that some people are better.

Secondly, do you think I’m wrong? Do you think your opinion on this is more important than my opinion?

[Serge]

Ambassador, for you sake I hope you know the difference between what I said and what you tried to infer I was saying. There is also a difference between abortion and the Holocaust. Why is it right that abortion can take place when the mother's life is at risk? This makes no sense to me. If you think abortion is murder, and that it's "the American Holocaust" why do you think it's right to have an abortion when the mother's life is at risk?

[Amaroth]

Originally posted by Ambassador
Firstly, it’s implying that some people are right about moral issues and some people are wrong. Not that some people are better.

Secondly, do you think I’m wrong? Do you think your opinion on this is more important than my opinion?

How do you determine what is right and wrong? Look at it this way:

Hitler wanted the Aryan race to dominate Earth. In his eyes, if you don't have blonde hair, aren't six feet, blue eyes, then you should be executed.

He was implying that because he said so, anyone that doesn't meet up to those requirements should be killed.

You're saying that just because a group of people pass a law, their opinion means more. That because they have power in a government, what they think is right.

Just because you think somthing is immoral doesn't mean it is. Alot of people think being homosexual is immoral. Is it?

You can't base human law off your opinion. True, no human should take the life of another. But they are on this planet, and if you terminate the factor of government, they can do what they want. Nobody ever stated what you could and couldn't do before civilization was created.

Obviously their are things that are considered immoral by the masses. Rape being one of them. But where in the creation of the universe is it written in stone that you can't do it? Sure, it may be mean, and brutal. But nowhere did nature set a book of rules and laws.

[Serge]

Originally posted by Ambassador

Firstly, it’s implying that some people are right about moral issues and some people are wrong. Not that some people are better.

Secondly, do you think I’m wrong? Do you think your opinion on this is more important than my opinion?


Who are you to decide who's morals are right and who's are wrong? Are you calling every country who has a lower drinking age than the U.S. wrong?

[Ambassador]

Serge

“Ambassador, for you sake I hope you know the difference between what I said and what you tried to infer I was saying.”

First, I wasn’t trying to infer anything. I was asking fair questions. Second, I have no idea how your statement could have meant anything different than it looks. Please answer my questions.

“There is also a difference between abortion and the Holocaust. Why is it right that abortion can take place when the mother's life is at risk? This makes no sense to me. If you think abortion is murder, and that it's "the American Holocaust" why do you think it's right to have an abortion when the mother's life is at risk?”

This is a very good question. When the mother is going to die, in most cases the unborn will die as well. I believe it is a greater moral good that we take action and kill the unborn child that will die anyway to save the mother’s life. Look at my first premise. It’s wrong to kill WITHOUT strong justification. I believe this is strong justification.

In the cases when the unborn won't necessarily die but the mother will, it's still justified but for less obvious reasons. This gets a little more difficult to understand but I'll do my best to make it clear.

I believe all humans have intrinsic value, which is why it is a tragedy when we are killed without justification. I believe the mother and the unborn have equal intrinsic value as they are both 100% human. However, the thing that tips the scale here is a different measurement of worth: instrumental value. An unborn child is intrinsically valuable and shouldn't be killed unless it's absolutely necessary but it is not useful in the lives of others the way the mother is. When it's one or the other, the mother (who may have other kids or people depending on her) should be saved. I hope I explained this well, if I didn't I'd be happy to clarify. Thank you for asking.

[Ambassador]

Serge

“Who are you to decide who's morals are right and who's are wrong? Are you calling every country who has a lower drinking age than the U.S. wrong?”

First of all, I’m calling countries that allow abortion (an evil practice) wrong. Secondly, as to who I am to decide, I am a human being, capable of moral thought. Thirdly, who are YOU to decide your morals are more right than mine? It goes both ways.

[Ambassador]

Amaroth

Amaroth, I’m getting tired of having my questions ignored. Respond to my entire post, please. When I come back, I’ll compile a list of all the things you need to respond to. That’s the way fair discussion works, both sides pay attention to each other. I’ll respond to your questions and statements in your last post as well when I get back.

[xerent]

Abortion always brings up this argument:

'What makes a human human?'

When I ask that question. I mean, What makes a human human to such a degree that it is ok to kill a cow to feed it, but to kill another human is appaling?

In this instance, we are asking, what makes a human seperate from it's food?

The answer, I believe, can be found in our ancestors. Right along that line in the evolutionary scale of Homo Habilis... when we started to make tools.

Consider for a moment you were in that time, a member of your tribe in ancestrial earth. And keep in mind this question.

You have a crudely fashioned spear, and two other members in your tribe are crouched low in the tall grass, hunting prey. You look at the ground, and see tracks. You can tell by the direction where the prey was heading, you can tell by the size of the print how large it was. You know that the prey is near because of the moistness and clarity of the track. We could see other tracks and know that this prey had an earlier scuffle, and is now probably weak, etc...

It is in this point in time that we are able to look at evidence and deduce a STORY from it. We became seers, able to know things without directly observing them. This, I believe, is when we seperated ourselves from our food, and is what made humans human.

Until a human is capable of doing that, it is arguable that a human is indeed, not human.

To your previous counter-argument

A very interesting opinion. Are you qualified to tell a rapist that he shouldn’t rape a woman? Are you qualified to tell a woman not to kill her toddler?

I am indeed not qualified to make those decisions for these people. Telling people to do something and making the desicion for them are two entirely different things.

[Serge]

Originally posted by Ambassador
Serge

“Who are you to decide who's morals are right and who's are wrong? Are you calling every country who has a lower drinking age than the U.S. wrong?”

First of all, I’m calling countries that allow abortion (an evil practice) wrong. Secondly, as to who I am to decide, I am a human being, capable of moral thought. Thirdly, who are YOU to decide your morals are more right than mine? It goes both ways.

Ambassador, go to one of these countries that allow abortion, stand in the street, and tell them they're wrong. I'm not going to argue with you because you twist almost everything I post. Most of your remarks remind me of yellow journalism and propaganda, it's rather annoying, so this will most likely be my last post on this thread.

[Lord Shinok]

I voted #1, Ambassador has the point. Murder is Murder

[xyxaxyz2]

I voted 5, abortion is always acceptable, provided it is the mother's choice to do so.

Lets look at your premises:

Premise 1: It is immoral to take human life without strong justification and should therefore be illegalized by the government.

Is it immoral to take human life? Why is it immoral to take human life rather than animal life?

What is it about the "humaness" of a person that makes their life of value?

A religious answer to the question: A soul- every human has an immortal soul, given to them at conception, which gives them intrensic value. Most people who says the quality of being human is what gives people value are implying this answer, as I think you are. The problem here is, we are not a religious government; the first amendment prohibits the government from restricting abortion based on religious reasons. If you want to personally believe that abortion=murder for this reason; fine, but the governemnt has no right to force this religious belief on anyone.

A rational answer to the question: Consiousness is what defines personhood and the value of people's lives. Being aware, feeling, experiencing, thinking, caring. If you are not conscious, you can not care about your own life; so why should someone else care about yours? An unborn baby never had any desire to live, so killing it is not immoral. Consciousness is not aquired until a significant amount of time after birth. Therefore, abortion is acceptable at any time of the process for any reason whatsoever.

Premise 2: The unborn is scientifically human from conception. It is a member of the human species (homo sapiens), it is an individual life, not a part of another body (although it dwells inside another body), it is living and unlike sperm and egg, it is scientifically an actual human being, not a potential one.

Agreed, pretty much. It is human, a member of homo sapiens. So? There is nothing especially unique about the basic human body; it isn't any more different from other animals as other animals are from each other.

Premise 3: The unborn is philosophically human from conception. That is, it is a person that deserves rights just like the rest of us because although there are many differences between the unborn and the rest of us, none of them are morally relevant to the question of human value.

What is morally relevant? You haven't said.

One more thing, if you agree with my argument, you should not vote for John Kerry. Senator Kerry aggressively supports abortion, even partial-birth abortion.

Not really...Kerry is against a partial birth abortion ban without an exception for when the mother's life is in danger.

[Amaroth]

Very good, Xy.

[Lord Shinok]

Originally posted by xyxaxyz2
I voted 5, abortion is always acceptable, provided it is the mother's choice to do so.

Lets look at your premises:

Premise 1: It is immoral to take human life without strong justification and should therefore be illegalized by the government.

Is it immoral to take human life? Why is it immoral to take human life rather than animal life?

What is it about the "humaness" of a person that makes their life of value?

A religious answer to the question: A soul- every human has an immortal soul, given to them at conception, which gives them intrensic value. Most people who says the quality of being human is what gives people value are implying this answer, as I think you are. The problem here is, we are not a religious government; the first amendment prohibits the government from restricting abortion based on religious reasons. If you want to personally believe that abortion=murder for this reason; fine, but the governemnt has no right to force this religious belief on anyone.

A rational answer to the question: Consiousness is what defines personhood and the value of people's lives. Being aware, feeling, experiencing, thinking, caring. If you are not conscious, you can not care about your own life; so why should someone else care about yours? An unborn baby never had any desire to live, so killing it is not immoral. Consciousness is not aquired until a significant amount of time after birth. Therefore, abortion is acceptable at any time of the process for any reason whatsoever.

Premise 2: The unborn is scientifically human from conception. It is a member of the human species (homo sapiens), it is an individual life, not a part of another body (although it dwells inside another body), it is living and unlike sperm and egg, it is scientifically an actual human being, not a potential one.

Agreed, pretty much. It is human, a member of homo sapiens. So? There is nothing especially unique about the basic human body; it isn't any more different from other animals as other animals are from each other.

Premise 3: The unborn is philosophically human from conception. That is, it is a person that deserves rights just like the rest of us because although there are many differences between the unborn and the rest of us, none of them are morally relevant to the question of human value.

What is morally relevant? You haven't said.

One more thing, if you agree with my argument, you should not vote for John Kerry. Senator Kerry aggressively supports abortion, even partial-birth abortion.

Not really...Kerry is against a partial birth abortion ban without an exception for when the mother's life is in danger.
MMM Now Xy got the point......

[Aro23r]

I voted 4, but now, I wish I could take it back and vote 5. I find it is the mother's choice.

For those who believe it is wrong no matter what, I simply have to ask you what you would do in cases of rape (as an example).

[Twilurk]

Wow, amazing post Xyx

I voted 4, only because partial birth abortions are sick... I agree with the other two under number 4 though.

One thing I'd like to add.

Premise 2: The unborn is scientifically human from conception. It is a member of the human species (homo sapiens), it is an individual life, not a part of another body (although it dwells inside another body), it is living and unlike sperm and egg, it is scientifically an actual human being, not a potential one.

Actually no, it's not scientifically human from conception. See at conception it's an egg and sperm... then it's a fertilized egg... then it's a fertilized egg that splits repeatedly and quickly, then it's a developing featus... so on so forth. I forget the stage, but it's definately after 3 weeks that the baby is anywhere near human, and "scientifically" anything before 3 weeks is only human in the fact that it's connected to a human mother, and is part of her body... not a seperate entity.

[MtSlayer]

I leave for 2 hours and this thread multiplies! And just address each person in one post.

Ambassador

Premise 1:

This seems like more of a philosophical argument than a scientific one. Anyway, I never said it was an independent human. I agree, the unborn is dependent on the mother (though parasite is a demeaning choice of word). But we don’t disqualify humans from having rights simply because they’re dependent on another. Infants are completely dependent on their mothers. Does that mean they lose their right to live?

Parasite (taken from dictionary.com): An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Based on this definition, the unborn are scientifically parasites. Infants are completely dependent on their mothers, this is true, however, there is a large difference between an infant and the unborn. The infant lives, the unborn may not live and also is not a recognized citizen. Which also brings up the question of defects. If you knew your child was going to be born with say, down syndrome or a crippling disease or syndrome, would you abort it rather than have it suffer?

Premise 2:

As far as I know, the unborn are not considered US citizens. So? Two-hundred years ago the Supreme Court decided that African-Americans aren’t citizens. That doesn’t mean there was any justice in mistreating them.

Two hundred years ago, yes, but people thought differently then. I see your point, however, it again brings up the point that the unborn are not US citizens. Also, are the unborn intelligent, or simply mechanical in function?

Premise 4:

That sounds so compelling when you read it. There’s a problem with the argument though. It assumes the unborn are not human. Let me ask you a question? When people get expensive, may we kill them?

The argument is not about killing people when they are expensive, but rather saving the lives of two people, who function in society, as compared to an un-insured birth bringing the downfall of the two people. However, basic survival shows that in a pack, when something is slowing you down it often is either left behind or it dies. Although it is said that we are different from animals because we separate ourselves from instinctive impulses, the concept is the same.

Premise 5:

Rape is a horrible crime, however I believe killing without justification is worse. Let me ask you this, if a woman who was raped stumbles runs into her rapist by coincidence a year after the rape, should she have the right to kill him on the spot? I believe most of us would say no. That’s anarchy. Unless you are dealing with an actual, present threat, it’s the government’s job. But if the mother doesn’t have the right to kill her attacker, why should she have the right to kill her innocent baby?

If I was the husband of the woman, and I saw the guy, I'd snap his neck in a heartbeat and claim dim cap. I'd think less of myself if I didn't. However, the scenario mimics the previous scenario in how the survival of two, and the mental health of one of the two, is superior to the survival of one unknown life.

..Jeebus christ you guys post fast. >.<

[Twilurk]

Amazingly well said, Amaroth. I liked the last point at the end VERY much.

[Ambassador]

Xerent

“When I ask that question. I mean, What makes a human human to such a degree that it is ok to kill a cow to feed it, but to kill another human is appaling?”

This is a fair question. I am a Christian and my position is that humans have intrinsic value. I’m assuming you aren’t and therefore won’t accept my source of authority, the bible. Thus, I will answer your question secularly.

Secularly, it is simply moral intuition that humans are different. I can’t spell the guy’s name that said this but he referred to it as one of the things “you can’t not know.” We all have a conscience. For some reason, most of us accept that we aren’t allowed to kill toddlers simply because they’re inconvenient. My argument is simply that if the unborn is human and valuable like a toddler, we can’t say one can live and the other can’t. It all comes down to that question, what is the unborn?

So it’s a fair question. To put it simply, I want our law to be consistent. We don’t tolerate mothers that kill their toddlers. We don’t say we can’t tell them what to do. We don’t say “don’t like killing toddlers, don’t kill your toddler.” My position is that the unborn deserve the same rights and thus should be treated the same way (premise three).

“It is in this point in time that we are able to look at evidence and deduce a STORY from it. We became seers, able to know things without directly observing them. This, I believe, is when we seperated ourselves from our food, and is what made humans human.

Until a human is capable of doing that, it is arguable that a human is indeed, not human.”

For the record, this is an attack on one of the premises my argument relies on, that the unborn are persons.

The reason the unborn can’t do that is that it isn’t developed enough. As I told Snarr in one of my first posts, we shouldn’t discount some humans from being valuable because of their level of development. I’m more developed physically, emotionally and intellectually than my pre-adolescent brother. Yet we are equally valuable. See my post to Snarr for a more thorough answer. It’s one of the first ten.

Earlier I asked this: “Are you qualified to tell a rapist that he shouldn’t rape a woman? Are you qualified to tell a woman not to kill her toddler?”

You responded with this: “I am indeed not qualified to make those decisions for these people. Telling people to do something and making the desicion for them are two entirely different things.”

I think we are at an impasse here. I believe it is necessary to keep a man from raping a woman if we can, you believe you can’t make that decision for him. This is simply a presupposition that your case rests on that we simply disagree on. It’s unfortunate because I don’t think we can go anywhere from here because of it and I was enjoying our discussion.

[Ambassador]

Serge

“I'm not going to argue with you because you twist almost everything I post. Most of your remarks remind me of yellow journalism and propaganda, it's rather annoying, so this will most likely be my last post on this thread.”

I would like everyone to look at my questions to Serge that he/she won’t answer. All I want Serge to do is take his/her position seriously. Serge calls it twisting.

[Hydrant]

I wont argue ethics right now

But if abortion were illegal, it wouldnt stop women from getting them. And thus abortions would be more dangerous to have (back alley coathanger anyone?)

Thus it makes more sense for them to be legal so they can be done safely

[Ambassador]

Xyxaxyz2

“Is it immoral to take human life? Why is it immoral to take human life rather than animal life?”

It’s simply something we know through moral intuition. If you believe it’s moral to take human life, that’s your presupposition. Take it seriously.

“What is it about the "humaness" of a person that makes their life of value?”

Something we know through moral intuition is that humans have value, which is why we despise murder and rape. My argument is that there is no relevant difference between the unborn and a newborn, thus they should be treated equally.

“A rational answer to the question: Consiousness is what defines personhood and the value of people's lives. Being aware, feeling, experiencing, thinking, caring. If you are not conscious, you can not care about your own life; so why should someone else care about yours? An unborn baby never had any desire to live, so killing it is not immoral. Consciousness is not aquired until a significant amount of time after birth. Therefore, abortion is acceptable at any time of the process for any reason whatsoever.”

The unborn cannot function in that way because it is at a different level of development than we are. As I’ve said already, we shouldn’t say one human is more valuable than another based on level of development. If we should, I can kill my pre-adolescent because I am more developed physically, emotionally and intellectually.

Also, if what you said above is your real position, you need to take it seriously. Which means people in comas, who aren’t aware, who aren’t conscious, who don’t care about their own lives at that time, can be killed.

[Ambassador]

Aro23r

Mother’s shouldn’t have the choice to kill their toddlers so if there is no relevant difference between the two, they shouldn’t kill them either. It all comes down to that one question. Choice is irrelevant if the choice in question is evil.

Rape is a horrible thing but killing without justification is worse. A mother doesn’t have the right to kill the rapist a year after the rape, she shouldn’t have the right to kill her innocent child either.

[Ambassador]

Twilurk

“Actually no, it's not scientifically human from conception. See at conception it's an egg and sperm... then it's a fertilized egg... then it's a fertilized egg that splits repeatedly and quickly, then it's a developing featus... so on so forth. I forget the stage, but it's definately after 3 weeks that the baby is anywhere near human, and "scientifically" anything before 3 weeks is only human in the fact that it's connected to a human mother, and is part of her body... not a seperate entity.”

Life begins at conception, consult any text book. Before conception it’s egg and sperm, potential life. After conception it’s a zygote, actual (although undeveloped) life. The law of biogenesis says living things reproduce after their own kind. That proves that scientifically the unborn are human from conception.

The unborn is connected to her but is not part of her body. For one thing they have different genetic codes.

[Ambassador]

Mtslayer

“Based on this definition, the unborn are scientifically parasites. Infants are completely dependent on their mothers, this is true, however, there is a large difference between an infant and the unborn. The infant lives, the unborn may not live and also is not a recognized citizen. Which also brings up the question of defects. If you knew your child was going to be born with say, down syndrome or a crippling disease or syndrome, would you abort it rather than have it suffer?”

The unborn may die, the infant may die. Both are already alive.

African-Americans weren’t recognized as citizens, that doesn’t mean it’s moral to mistreat them.

As to defects, is it okay to kill the disabled NOW, after birth? Obviously not. Therefore, if there is no relevant difference between the unborn and the born, the argument fails. It all comes down to that one question.

“Two hundred years ago, yes, but people thought differently then. I see your point, however, it again brings up the point that the unborn are not US citizens. Also, are the unborn intelligent, or simply mechanical in function?”

People thought WRONG then. My point is simply that the government can be immoral, thus the decision of the government doesn’t end the debate about whether or not something is moral.

Since when do we measure value by intelligence?

“The argument is not about killing people when they are expensive, but rather saving the lives of two people, who function in society, as compared to an un-insured birth bringing the downfall of the two people. However, basic survival shows that in a pack, when something is slowing you down it often is either left behind or it dies. Although it is said that we are different from animals because we separate ourselves from instinctive impulses, the concept is the same.”

The argument is saying that the parents can’t afford the child, so they should kill him/her. What if it was already born? Can we kill our expensive infants?

“If I was the husband of the woman, and I saw the guy, I'd snap his neck in a heartbeat and claim dim cap. I'd think less of myself if I didn't. However, the scenario mimics the previous scenario in how the survival of two, and the mental health of one of the two, is superior to the survival of one unknown life.”

Here’s the distinction. It’s understandable that you would kill for revenge. That doesn’t make it moral and it doesn’t make it something the government should allow. My point is that the unborn are the innocent party and thus there is no similar justification (even if it is justification in the rapist’s case).

“..Jeebus christ you guys post fast.”

You’re right, and it’s time-consuming. It’s me against like ten people, I have to post fast to keep up.

[Ambassador]

Hydrant

“But if abortion were illegal, it wouldnt stop women from getting them. And thus abortions would be more dangerous to have (back alley coathanger anyone?)

Thus it makes more sense for them to be legal so they can be done safely”

We don’t legalize bank robbery because it’s dangerous for the criminals. If abortion is wrong, it should be illegal anyway.

[Ambassador]

Amaroth

My next post to you will take a great deal of time, which is why I haven't responded to you yet. Don't worry, I will. I just don't want to spend all that time on one person and ignore the comments have half a dozen others.

[Twilurk]

Oh, I never said it wasn't life. Just not human. Our cells are living, each and every one of them. A single living cell is life, but not human. That's all.

[MokoToko]

Originally posted by Ambassador

“A rational answer to the question: Consiousness is what defines personhood and the value of people's lives. Being aware, feeling, experiencing, thinking, caring. If you are not conscious, you can not care about your own life; so why should someone else care about yours? An unborn baby never had any desire to live, so killing it is not immoral. Consciousness is not aquired until a significant amount of time after birth. Therefore, abortion is acceptable at any time of the process for any reason whatsoever.”

The unborn cannot function in that way because it is at a different level of development than we are. As I’ve said already, we shouldn’t say one human is more valuable than another based on level of development. If we should, I can kill my pre-adolescent because I am more developed physically, emotionally and intellectually.

ok, just wanted to drop in for a bit during this long wkend

First off, i think you are twisting what people say a bit, and your questions look rhetorical to me, but its the internet so its hard to tell

what you said in the quote is twisting what he said

You and your brother are much mroe similar than you and a unborn fetus, you have conscious thinking as well as your brother so killing you would steal that from you

a fetus that does not have consciousness is extremely differnt, when you retort to someones post in the furute keep that in mind

and for people who are in comas
A) they have a chance to regain consciousness and live their life
B) how do you know they do not have consciousness?
C) Fetus' never have Consciousness to begin with (i figured u will say "a fetus has a chcne to ahve consciouness too"

Bye everyone, *wonders who will catch this*

[Ambassador]

Twilurk

“Oh, I never said it wasn't life. Just not human. Our cells are living, each and every one of them. A single living cell is life, but not human. That's all.”

A zygote has two human parents (remember the law of biogenesis). Our cells don’t have parents.

It is simply a biological fact that the unborn is a member of the human species (homo sapiens). Biogenesis PROVES that. If you want to make a point, don’t assert you disagree. Refute my argument based on the law of biogenesis.

[MtSlayer]

Quit quadruple posting! >.< Unless you exceed the character limit that is.

[MokoToko]

Originally posted by Ambassador
Twilurk

“Oh, I never said it wasn't life. Just not human. Our cells are living, each and every one of them. A single living cell is life, but not human. That's all.”

A zygote has two human parents (remember the law of biogenesis). Our cells don’t have parents.

It is simply a biological fact that the unborn is a member of the human species (homo sapiens). Biogenesis PROVES that. If you want to make a point, don’t assert you disagree. Refute my argument based on the law of biogenesis.

our cells have parents, the cell(s) that created it are its "parents"

and he sextuple posted (is it sextuple?)

[xyxaxyz2]

xyxaxyz2: Is it immoral to take human life? Why is it immoral to take human life rather than animal life?

Ambassador: It’s simply something we know through moral intuition. If you believe it’s moral to take human life, that’s your presupposition. Take it seriously.

Moral intuition??? Based on no objective standard?

You make an argument you claimed to be logical; set it up in a supposedly logical way, with premises and conclusions and all that, and now you're telling me: abortion is wrong because I feel it is wrong. That’s your argument? You can't come up with anything better than that?

Moral values are in no way standard among human cultures! Using the moral intuition argument opens yourself very much to the moral relativists you know: those people who say there is no actual right and wrong, its just what you think. There are lots of cultures and individuals who place a very low value on life. The "moral intuition" of a mother who wants an abortion is usually not that abortion is wrong, or she wouldn't get the abortion!

Reason is objective; you claimed to use it in your original post; now use it to defend your stance. Or don't claim to be using rational arguments at all, just tell me that your god is against abortion and you want to force everyone else to follow your god.

X: A rational answer to the question: Consciousness is what defines personhood and the value of people's lives. Being aware, feeling, experiencing, thinking, caring. If you are not conscious, you can not care about your own life; so why should someone else care about yours? An unborn baby never had any desire to live, so killing it is not immoral.

A: The unborn cannot function in that way because it is at a different level of development than we are. As I’ve said already, we shouldn’t say one human is more valuable than another based on level of development. If we should, I can kill my pre-adolescent because I am more developed physically, emotionally and intellectually.


You know that’s not a valid comparison!

The qualification for being of value, consciousness, is not some sliding scale! You either are conscious, or you are not. Its not about development in itself, it's about the characteristics of a conscious entity verse a non-conscious one.

What you're argument is here is: I said a human develops consciousness; I said consciousness gives human value; therefore, I must believe that further development gives humans further value and less developed humans have no right to life. This is totally logically invalid; I never talked about development in reference to anything except consciousness.

My single criteria for determining whether a human is valuable and deserving of life is consciousness. If you want to argue against that, do so; don't assume I believe anything else.

Also, if what you said above is your real position, you need to take it seriously. Which means people in comas, who aren’t aware, who aren’t conscious, who don’t care about their own lives at that time, can be killed.

I do believe that non-conscious people who are in comas with absolutely no chance of getting out of them can be killed.

[Ambassador]

Mokotoko

“First off, i think you are twisting what people say a bit, and your questions look rhetorical to me, but its the internet so its hard to tell

what you said in the quote is twisting what he said”

I don’t believe I am. Instead of asserting I’m twisting something, demonstrate how I am twisting it.

“You and your brother are much mroe similar than you and a unborn fetus, you have conscious thinking as well as your brother so killing you would steal that from you”

A difference in degree, not in kind. My point is that we can’t use level of development as a moral yardstick for value. I’m afraid you’re guilty of circular reasoning here.

“a fetus that does not have consciousness is extremely differnt,”

It is different. It is not different in a relevant way because we can’t disqualify humans based on level of development.

“when you retort to someones post in the furute keep that in mind

and for people who are in comas
A) they have a chance to regain consciousness and live their life”

The unborn has a chance to gain consciousness as well. Give it time, just like the coma person.

“B) how do you know they do not have consciousness?”

How do you know the unborn doesn’t? I suppose we can’t know for sure in either case, depending on how skeptical you are. The evidence indicates it though.

“C) Fetus' never have Consciousness to begin with (i figured u will say "a fetus has a chcne to ahve consciouness too?

Nice try, you again explained a difference without giving any reason it’s relevant. So what if the fetus was never conscious? What is it about that first conscious second that gives value? Your argument doesn’t work because it lacks moral premise.

[kyrios24]

For now, all I'll say is...

- This might interest you guys. Ambassador doesn't believe in evolution. Warcow and I had this out with him already a couple nights ago... So you can probably see now where he's coming from with some of his human-superiority ideas.
- If you want to say it's life as a zygote, ok. Animals are life too.
- All of your "secular moral" statements are coming just as much from the bible as your "religious moral" statements.
- Good stuff xyx.
- Ambassador, stop x-tuple posting.

[MokoToko]

The first conscious second is when it knows ti exists and my point is that there is no harm done if it never knows it exists

when you know you exist dying would be a horrible thing, im having ahard time explainging this because death is so mysterious


imagine not existing, its nothing and thats what a fetus that doesnt know it exists is

this topic is very complicated so u might not get what im saying, if not ill try to explian ti again

and what i type was a little broken up b/c i was on phone but am too lazy to go back:D

[T3km4n]

I voted 5, but maybe I am wrong. I don't see an unborn baby as a human. Calling abortion murder to me is calling not having sex a murder.

[xyxaxyz2]

I'd much rather Ambassador post multiple times in a row than put all his replies to different people in a single post. I would never single post when it only leads to more confusion, and he shouldn't either.

[MtSlayer]

Using the right formatting it could be done well. See below.

Ambassador

The unborn may die, the infant may die. Both are already alive.

African-Americans weren’t recognized as citizens, that doesn’t mean it’s moral to mistreat them.

As to defects, is it okay to kill the disabled NOW, after birth? Obviously not. Therefore, if there is no relevant difference between the unborn and the born, the argument fails. It all comes down to that one question.

The unborn is not so much alive as it is on life support, as it does not support itself and is entirely incapable of doing so. An infant can scavenge to a point, the unborn do not. But the infant has survived the birthing process, it is not 100% certain that the unborn will. And we are not talking about after birth, we are talking about a crippled or diseased unborn. So rather commit the child to a life of suffering, you could be merciful and abort it. And by disabled I mean severely mentally disabled, not physically.

People thought WRONG then. My point is simply that the government can be immoral, thus the decision of the government doesn’t end the debate about whether or not something is moral.

Since when do we measure value by intelligence?

You say they thought wrong, from a morale standpoint. So do I, however, they are not wrong, their mindset just differs from ours. And by intelligence I don't mean an IQ, I mean as in intelligent life. And I would definitely take the smart worker of the dumb worker, hes more valuable to my purposes if I were an employer. ;)

The argument is saying that the parents can’t afford the child, so they should kill him/her. What if it was already born? Can we kill our expensive infants?

Already born babies can be given away for adoption. Simple as that. The damage cannot be undone. In Adoption vs Abortion, I support Adoption 100%. But this is Abortion, which deals with the period before birth. You can't cut out a baby and give it to a foster parent, but you can sure as hell sign an infant over to a willing foster parent.

Here’s the distinction. It’s understandable that you would kill for revenge. That doesn’t make it moral and it doesn’t make it something the government should allow. My point is that the unborn are the innocent party and thus there is no similar justification (even if it is justification in the rapist’s case).

Yes, the unborn are innocent; however, for the couple to suffer all of the damages from the birth process is unrealistic.

[Ambassador]

Xy

“You make an argument you claimed to be logical; set it up in a supposedly logical way, with premises and conclusions and all that, and now you're telling me: abortion is wrong because I feel is is wrong. Thats your argument? You can't come up with anything better than that?”

You don’t understand my argument. My argument is based on the premise that it is wrong to kill people without a good reason. If you don’t accept that premise, you don’t need an argument. In my opinion you need a psychiatrist.

For the record. If you think it’s okay to kill people without a good reason, reject my argument. But live with that principle. If you think it’s wrong to kill people, reject Xy’s argument.

“Moral values are in no way standard among human cultures!”

Not for an issue like homosexuality but for an issue like murder, it is. Some cultures think we’re wrong about murder. They can reject my argument based on that reasoning but they have to live with that reasoning.

“Using the moral intution argument opens yourself very much to the moral relativists you know: those people who say there is no actual right and wrong, its just what you think.”

You’re right. I don’t mind that though because moral relativism is a load of nonsense and it’s easy to refute.

“There are lots of cultures and individuals who place a very low value on life. The "moral intuition" of a mother who wants an abortion is usually not that aborition is wrong, or she wouldn't get the abortion!”

My point isn’t that moral intuition decides morality. My point is that I’m asking you to accept the premise that it’s wrong to kill. We all know it is. Anyone that says otherwise is either bluffing or nuts, in my opinion. I’m just saying the unborn should be treated that way. It all comes down to the question, what is the unborn?

“The qualification for being of value, consciousness, is not some sliding scale! You either are conscious, or you are not. Its not about development in itself, it's about the characteristics of a conscious entity verse a non-conscious one.”

So you assert. You claim it isn’t a valid comparison, why isn’t it? It’s a difference in degree, not in kind.

“What you're argument is here is: I said a human develops consciousness; I said consciousness gives human value; therefore, I must believe that further development gives humans further value and less developed humans have no right to life. This is totally logically invalid; I never talked about development in reference to anything except consciousness.”

What you believe is that the unborn isn’t valuable because it isn’t conscious which is because it isn’t developed. I provided an argument to show we shouldn’t use development to decide value. You need to do more than assert that “that’s different.”

“My single criteria for determining whether a human is valuable and deserving of life is consciousness. If you want to argue against that, do so; don't assume I believe anything else.”

You didn’t say the word development in your post but that doesn’t mean it isn’t implicit in your position.

“I do believe that non-conscious people who are in comas with absolutely no chance of getting out of them can be killed.”

We don’t disagree. This misses the point though. I’m not talking about people that are basically brain-dead. I’m talking about people that will exit their comas. Respond to that argument.

[Third]

For those of you that don't know me, I'm Ambassador in the army server (also SmokingRabbit).

I believe whole-heartedly that abortion is dead wrong and the most evil practice in the history of this country (United States of America). Here is my basic argument:

Premise 1: It is immoral to take human life without strong justification and should therefore be illegalized by the government.
Of course it's immoral to take human life without justification. What does this have to do with abortion? If you define abortion as taking life; fair enough, but to use such a general claim in such a specific argument is wrong.

Premise 2: The unborn is scientifically human from conception. It is a member of the human species (homo sapiens), it is an individual life, not a part of another body (although it dwells inside another body), it is living and unlike sperm and egg, it is scientifically an actual human being, not a potential one.
Scientifically? Speaking scientifically, every cell of every human being is considered a human being, no? Did you ever wonder why an animal must be incubated before birth? Even non-mammals, whose offspring are created inside an external egg, must be protected while they develop. If a baby was a full-fledged organism from the moment of conception, why does it not just pop out?

Premise 3: The unborn is philosophically human from conception. That is, it is a person that deserves rights just like the rest of us because although there are many differences between the unborn and the rest of us, none of them are morally relevant to the question of human value.
Philosophy cannot be enforced by the government. One may think what he likes, but that doesn't mean there should be laws to back him up. Also, why do none of the differences between the unborn (even this term indicates they are not yet developed...) and the born affect the morale and philosophy of this discussion?

Premise 4: Abortion (with the sole exception of saving the life of the mother) is the taking of human life WITHOUT strong justification. That is, we should not have the "choice" to kill people for the reasons people have abortions (with the one exception).
Obviously, the abortion has strong justification in the eyes of the person who requests it. Who are you to say which situations require abortion and which ones do not?

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral and should therefore be illegalized by the government.
This conclusion implies that anything immoral should be illegalized by the government. By whose standards do we make these morals? To some, divorce is immoral, but that isn't illegal. Alcohol may be immoral to some, but it is not illegal.

For those of you that are unfamiliar with formal logic, this is called a syllogism. Two things are necessary for the conclusion to be true. First, all the premises must be true. Second, the conclusion must follow from the premises. That is, there is no logical fallacy in the syllogism itself.
?

I am interested in honest, civil discussion with anyone here who disagrees with me. Fair warning, if you're being unresponsive or extremely rude in a repetitive manner, expect to be ignored (I hope neither take place).

If you choose to take part, please state in the beginning of your post which premises you disagree with, simply to keep things organized.
Fair enough. I hope you respond to my arguments. I haven't read the rest of this thread yet, so this reply is to your post alone.

One more thing, if you agree with my argument, you should not vote for John Kerry. Senator Kerry aggressively supports abortion, even partial-birth abortion. If abortion is what I say it is and you agree with me, it is one of the worst holocausts the world has ever seen. Over 45 million unborn children have been killed from surgical abortion in America alone since 1973. That is more than four times as many as Adolf Hitler killed in his holocaust. Therefore, regardless of how much you like Kerry's economic or foreign policy and how much you hate President Bush, ask yourself if you would vote for someone that supported the holocaust in Nazi Germany, simply because you liked their economic policies. You wouldn't. None of us would. Don't forget that Senator Kerry supports a practice far worse. Again, I'm speaking to pro-lifers here, asking them to take their position seriously and practice it consistently.
So, where do you get your information? "Aggressively supports abortion?" You're wrong. John Kerry is a Catholic. Catholics actively oppose abortion. Now, in the interests of the public over which he hopes to preside, he is not letting his religious views get in the way of his political decisions. In doing this, he is taking a less fascist stance on abortion. In fact, I'm pretty sure that he would agree with you that abortion is wrong and should not be allowed. The difference is, he is not willing to impose his personal morals on anyone else. True, there is a line to be drawn where certain universal morals can be accepted and followed, but saying that abortion is illegal and no one can do it ever no matter what is not right. Limits must be imposed and compromises must be made.

John Kerry does not equal abortion. Get that out of your head now.

For someone who likes formal logic and analyzes fallacies, your arguments are flawed. Your logic regarding John Kerry is also flawed. Please do some research before posting such strong convictions.

Also, if you don't like senseless killing, what of the war on Iraq?

[Ambassador]

Kyrios

“This might interest you guys. Ambassador doesn't believe in evolution. Warcow and I had this out with him already a couple nights ago... So you can probably see now where he's coming from with some of his human-superiority ideas.”

We aren’t talking about evolution, thus this is simply an ad hominem.

“All of your "secular moral" statements are coming just as much from the bible as your "religious moral" statements.”

Only if you think killing is okay.

[Ambassador]

Mokotoko

“The first conscious second is when it knows ti exists and my point is that there is no harm done if it never knows it exists”

Harm can be done even if you aren’t aware of it.

[Twilurk]

Lets clear this up... Any thing, parasitic or otherwise with cells is considered living. Hell, viruses might even be considered living (they're debating it).

So yes it IS alive. This isn't about whether it's living or not. We should all admit it's alive, just like grass is living, dogs are living, trees are living.

So if this is about killing a living thing, just kill yourself now and get it over with because everything you do is the result of something dying.

If this is about it being human, therefore superior... well scientifically speaking it's only human when it reached a point that it's no longer a parasite on the host's body. Until it reaches a point where it can possibly, however tiny that possibility it may be, live through a very very very early birth, it is not human. It is merely an apendage of the female inside the womb. It's nothing but growing and developing cells.

I however still think it sick to kill it after it can feel pain on it's own. However, cows and other things feel pain and I don't mind eating them... mmmm, steak.

It's your own morals which decide whether it's right to kill anything at all, fine. But don't start labeling it as something it is not. A zygot, an embryo, an egg is not human. Period. It is part of a human body, the host. Parasites, plants, animals... they're all living. Bacteria is living. If you're only reason for not having abortions is because you're killing something, as I said just kill yourself and get it over with because you kill things everyday. You kill bacteria, at the very least.

So make sure all of you have these things in your mind before saying whether it's living or human or not.

[Ambassador]

Mtslayer

“The unborn is not so much alive as it is on life support, as it does not support itself and is entirely incapable of doing so.”

It is dependent. That doesn’t mean it isn’t alive.

“An infant can scavenge to a point, the unborn do not.”

Not if it’s in a scenario when it’s only chance of survival is it’s mother’s milk.

“But the infant has survived the birthing process, it is not 100% certain that the unborn will.”

This is completely irrelevant. Both are living, both can die. Nothing magical happens at birth.

“So rather commit the child to a life of suffering, you could be merciful and abort it.”

By that reasoning we should be merciful and kill the disabled. All of them.

“Already born babies can be given away for adoption. Simple as that. The damage cannot be undone. In Adoption vs Abortion, I support Adoption 100%. But this is Abortion, which deals with the period before birth. You can't cut out a baby and give it to a foster parent, but you can sure as hell sign an infant over to a willing foster parent.”

In nine months, you can place the baby up for adoption.

“Yes, the unborn are innocent; however, for the couple to suffer all of the damages from the birth process is unrealistic.”

I don’t have the time to get any more into the rape issue, I’m getting avalanched here. My primary concern isn’t the rape issue. I’d sign a bill that allowed abortion with rape if it stopped abortion on demand.

[Serge]

Ambassador


Those are not "fair" questions. You changed the scenario completely. I mentioned the difference between an unborn child and it's mother and you metioned the difference between an African-American and a white American. To you, there may be no difference, but to me, there is. Someone said something about women getting abortions if they aren't financially able to support their baby, you suggested they should advocate the killing of toddlers when their parents can't support them. Again to someone as stubborn and bull-headed as you, they may be the same thing, but to me they aren't.


Again, how do you decide that in the event that the mother of an unborn child is going to die, but the child will live, why is the mother more "valuable"? What if that mother is a violent drug-addict, and the unborn child may one day grow up to be the president of the United States?

[MokoToko]

ill say it this way

-Your brother is less developed than you, but he has a consciousness
-You are more developed than your brother and you have a consciousness
---You cannot abort your brother even though you are moer developed because he has a consciousness
-------You CAN abort a fetus that has no consiousness because it "does not exist"

[Twilurk]

It exists, just there are doubts about whether or not it thinks/has a consciousness

[kyrios24]

Originally posted by Ambassador
Kyrios

“This might interest you guys. Ambassador doesn't believe in evolution. Warcow and I had this out with him already a couple nights ago... So you can probably see now where he's coming from with some of his human-superiority ideas.”

We aren’t talking about evolution, thus this is simply an ad hominem.
Actually we are. As I said, it shows where you're coming from with your human-superiority ideas. You think we're disjoint from animals. It's completely relevant. Completely aside from that, it gives us a general idea of just how fanatical you are.

Only if you think killing is okay.
And you would only say that if you a) think that your views are all intrinsically right, which seems to be the case, and b) if you decide that you know exactly what I'm talking about, which you don't I wasn't talking about killing toddlers or that other crap you keep on "connecting" this issue to, I was responding to your failed attempt to get away from the bible. Go look up your own post. You're talking so fast you don't even know what you're saying... why am I not surprised?

[Ambassador]

ATTENTION ALL

I simply can't do this. I do not have the time to argue with this many people at once. I wish I did but I don't. I thought I would try. It just isn't working any more because it seems like every time I post there are two more posts I need to deal with. This isn't the kind of arguing I like. I prefer conversations I can put a lot of thought into. Considering it's me against ALL of you, I hope you can understand this. I sincerely regret not being able to discuss this with all of you, I just don't have the time to continue like this.

I'm not sure what to do now. One option would be for you guys to elect a couple of people to argue and everyone else can send private messages to them. I don't know, do something, figure it out. I don't have the time to continue like this.

I will answer ANY argument, which is why I'm fine with arguing with just a couple of people. I simply don't have time to argue with twenty people.

I'd really like to continue my conversation with Xy in particular because he/she is asking good questions. Whichever you guys prefer, figure something out. I truly hope you don't believe I can't answer these arguments. I can and there is an answer for every question. Just please figure out a way to make this more reasonable for me.

[Twilurk]

Judging by the poll there are roughly 13 or so people, at least, who could find ways to agree with you and help you out. The reason they don't could be anything from they're saying the same as you to the fact they don't want to get involved.

However, this country is a democracy. We live by "mob rule." If the majority of our population decided that masturbation is good and we should be paid for it, a law/bill would be passed and we would be paid for it. That said, since the majority who have responded to this have decided not to agree with you, that would mean that on these forums you are wrong. You might not be wrong in the USA, you might not be wrong in Europe, you might not be wrong in the world. But on these forums, the majority have ruled that your logic is flawed and/or that they don't see what's so bad about abortion and/or a million other reasons. Really, I don't know why they don't agree. I can only say why I don't agree.

[Warcow]

Originally posted by Snarr
. What differentiates us from the animals and gives us our humanity is our ability to think, our sensibility and sensitivity, our emotions, memories and consciousness all of which an embryo or early fetus fails to show.

Snarr I had this disscusion on Rev with Ambassador and this is THE EXACT same arguement I used, once again you continue to amaze me with how much like me you think, very creepy

[theburning]

Originally posted by Ambassador
ATTENTION ALL

I simply can't do this. I do not have the time to argue with this many people at once. I wish I did but I don't. I thought I would try. It just isn't working any more because it seems like every time I post there are two more posts I need to deal with. This isn't the kind of arguing I like. I prefer conversations I can put a lot of thought into. Considering it's me against ALL of you, I hope you can understand this. I sincerely regret not being able to discuss this with all of you, I just don't have the time to continue like this.

I'm not sure what to do now. One option would be for you guys to elect a couple of people to argue and everyone else can send private messages to them. I don't know, do something, figure it out. I don't have the time to continue like this.

I will answer ANY argument, which is why I'm fine with arguing with just a couple of people. I simply don't have time to argue with twenty people.

I'd really like to continue my conversation with Xy in particular because he/she is asking good questions. Whichever you guys prefer, figure something out. I truly hope you don't believe I can't answer these arguments. I can and there is an answer for every question. Just please figure out a way to make this more reasonable for me.

:rolleyes:
What are you talking about?
You didn't really think you could create this thread and have it not noticed?

[MokoToko]

Originally posted by Ambassador
Mokotoko

“The first conscious second is when it knows ti exists and my point is that there is no harm done if it never knows it exists”

Harm can be done even if you aren’t aware of it.

im sorry that you cant handle this, so this will be my last post on the subject

there is a huge difference between not being aware and not having consciousness, and consciousnness i describe as not thinking at all

if you arent thinkiing, which would be nothing, you wouldnt exist....

if you dont exist then you cannot recieve any harm, whatsoever, and if you can please explain to me how

do you know understand my point? i will wait for your response and then leave

thanks for the argument

[xerent]

Secularly, it is simply moral intuition that humans are different.

Secularly, it is because of the exact reason I posted earlier on why humans are different. Because we are story tellers.

I can’t spell the guy’s name that said this but he referred to it as one of the things “you can’t not know.”

It may have been C.S. Lewis

We all have a conscience. For some reason, most of us accept that we aren’t allowed to kill toddlers simply because they’re inconvenient. My argument is simply that if the unborn is human and valuable like a toddler, we can’t say one can live and the other can’t.

You're right, only the mother can. Any other person is not qualified to make that choice.

It all comes down to that question, what is the unborn?

I like my term better, What makes humans human, but yours works too

So it’s a fair question. To put it simply, I want our law to be consistent. We don’t tolerate mothers that kill their toddlers. We don’t say we can’t tell them what to do. We don’t say “don’t like killing toddlers, don’t kill your toddler.” My position is that the unborn deserve the same rights and thus should be treated the same way (premise three).

Your question "What is the unborn" is not answered, but that is addressed later

“It is in this point in time that we are able to look at evidence and deduce a STORY from it. We became seers, able to know things without directly observing them. This, I believe, is when we seperated ourselves from our food, and is what made humans human.

Until a human is capable of doing that, it is arguable that a human is indeed, not human.”

For the record, this is an attack on one of the premises my argument relies on, that the unborn are persons.

The reason the unborn can’t do that is that it isn’t developed enough.

True enough, but I'll address this later after some more quotage...

As I told Snarr in one of my first posts, we shouldn’t discount some humans from being valuable because of their level of development. I’m more developed physically, emotionally and intellectually than my pre-adolescent brother. Yet we are equally valuable. See my post to Snarr for a more thorough answer. It’s one of the first ten.

Cows are not as developed as humans, yet they too hold the potential, if left alone, to aquire this as well. As do monkeys, trees, bacterium, etc. Does that make you equally valuable to a cow?

Our level of development is the only thing that seperates us from the hunt-or-be-hunted life style that every other life form on this planet follows.

Your answer to this might be that this analogy is invalid, because humans do not hold a moral intuition for cows. Please don't say that.

Earlier I asked this: “Are you qualified to tell a rapist that he shouldn’t rape a woman? Are you qualified to tell a woman not to kill her toddler?”

You responded with this: “I am indeed not qualified to make those decisions for these people. Telling people to do something and making the desicion for them are two entirely different things."

I think we are at an impasse here. I believe it is necessary to keep a man from raping a woman if we can, you believe you can’t make that decision for him. This is simply a presupposition that your case rests on that we simply disagree on. It’s unfortunate because I don’t think we can go anywhere from here because of it and I was enjoying our discussion.

Perhaps we are. Let me clarify it just a bit more, however...

It cannot be my choice on weather or not the man decides to rape the woman. What is my choice, however, is the choice on weather or not I intervene based on a number of criterium.

[MtSlayer]

Fair enough, our conversation whittled down to the point where neither of us could get the other really. I wasn't able to successfully explain all of my points, but I had fun.

However, I think this thread and poll shows something, that a majority of people don't completely oppose or support abortion.

Props to all for avoiding flaming, first time I've seen a thread like this not get messy.

[T3km4n]

No one said I was wrong, does that make me right?

[xyxaxyz2]

You don’t understand my argument. My argument is based on the premise that it is wrong to kill people without a good reason. If you don’t accept that premise, you don’t need an argument. In my opinion you need a psychiatrist.

I understand your argument completely.

I agree that it is wrong to kill people without a good reason.

However, "people" is not directly synonymous with "humans". A "person," as in "personality," is conscious.

Your premise; that it is wrong to kill humans, is false. I demonstrated clearly why it is false; and your only objection to this is that you feel I am wrong. But emotions have no place in objective analysis.

If your first premise was true; then you would be correct. But it isn't true and you are wrong.


X: Moral values are in no way standard among human cultures!”
A: Not for an issue like homosexuality but for an issue like murder, it is. Some cultures think we’re wrong about murder. They can reject my argument based on that reasoning but they have to live with that reasoning.

Lots of cultures place a very low value on life. Think of Aztec culture; sacrificing people for their religion. Or early Medieval/Roman Christian culture; kill everyone who doesn't have exactly the same view of Jesus as you do. Murder, defined as a killing of a valued person, is universally accepted as wrong. But how we value people differs. You value people based on their innate humanity; their "soul". That is not an innate value by any means; in fact, I would argue its popularity is pretty recent.


You’re right. I don’t mind that though because moral relativism is a load of nonsense and it’s easy to refute.

Agreed, and you using the basic premises of moral relativism makes what you say a similar load of nonsense similarly easy to refute.

Just because you believe something to be true does not make it true. That’s why moral relativists are wrong; and that’s why you are wrong. Just because you think killing any type of human is wrong, does not make it so- you need a good reason to believe it before it can be logically accepted. And you have given me no reason except your personal "moral intuition." Which is a good reason only to the moral relativists.

My point isn’t that moral intuition decides morality. My point is that I’m asking you to accept the premise that it’s wrong to kill.

I won't accept it without a reason, and the only reason you have given me is your moral intuition.

Wrong to kill? Kill what? Do you include all mammals in that calculation? Then the American holocaust is a lot bigger than 45 million. You drawing the line at "human" and saying that its wrong to kill anything human and not wrong to kill anything not human is arbitrary. It is, I think, based on your cultural upbringing, and not any attempt at logic.

Let me say this very simply: You can either argue using reason, or not. If you want to claim to use reason, you have to use it for everything in your argument. You can't pick and choose. And if you don't want to claim to use reason, then just say what I'm pretty sure you believe: my god is against abortion, therefore, the government should make it illegal.


X:The qualification for being of value, consciousness, is not some sliding scale! You either are conscious, or you are not. Its not about development in itself, it's about the characteristics of a conscious entity verse a non-conscious one.”

A: So you assert. You claim it isn’t a valid comparison, why isn’t it? It’s a difference in degree, not in kind.

No, it's not. It is a difference in kind. A fetus is not conscious. They are not aware of themselves. A 3 year old child is definitely and obviously aware that he exists.

What you believe is that the unborn isn’t valuable because it isn’t conscious which is because it isn’t developed.

No, it's not. You're getting sort of annoying. You seem intelligent enough to know your argument here is silly.

What makes consciousness give a person value is not the fact that it is a development, but characteristics of the consciousness. And I explained those characteristics in my first post to you. You're arguing against something I never stated.

You didn’t say the word development in your post but that doesn’t mean it isn’t implicit in your position.

It's not implicit in my position. Read, ok? If consciousness was attained at conception, I would be against abortion. In species where consciousness is never attained, I am not against killing at all. Consciousness is all that matters. Not development.

We don’t disagree. This misses the point though. I’m not talking about people that are basically brain-dead. I’m talking about people that will exit their comas. Respond to that argument.

Nice! :)

Why even go into comas? The same could be said of sleep. We are unconscious when we sleep. So why is it immoral to kill a person in their sleep?

Because a conscious awake person wants to be still conscious after he sleeps. We don't only desire awareness in the present, we want it in the future as well. We (in general) don't want to die, not today and not in one week from now. The fact that as conscious people we value our future consciousness gives our future consciousness value. Therefore, stopping this consciousness without good reason is immoral, regardless of the present consciousness of the person.