Re: Abortion laws, is there a real argument?
 

"Environmental/animal rights activists will go to war to defend the life of a tree, which cannot feel or think. They will commit acts of vandalism and violence to rescue labratory animals, some of which are considered vermin by the population at large (Please note this - I am not speaking of only endangered species). Their position is they are defending those who have no voice, who cannot defend themselves. Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights. I'd like to see these individuals explain themselves and how they logically came to the conclusion a helpless potential human being deserves no defense while a chicken does."

This is a lot less straightforward than if it is turned around. A Pro-life supporter who eats meat is responsible for the death of a creature far more aware than a foetus of any stage of development. It is more capable of thought and self-awarness (I suppose this is arguable but if you don't aplly it to a cow then i don't see how you can to a foetus).

Hypocrisy aplenty.

Re: Abortion laws, is there a real argument?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sure about that? That sentence sounds like it was taken right from the Sean Hannity playbook: "these guys are the same guys that ______________". Here's a tip: they are often not the same people!!

Name me one individual who is a tree hugger and an pro-choice activist. I'm sure they exist, but you're suggesting it's all of them. I call your bluff - name one.

-ptmusic

[/ QUOTE ]

Alec Baldwin. Martin Sheen. Lots of Hollywood types. I'm not going to google them all. The ones I have a real beef with, the ones that resort to vandalism and violence, I of course don't have their names. The radicals tend to operate in secret, with good reason.

With that said, I perhaps used too wide a brushstroke. I have actually researched this issue a fair amount today and read several essays (long and boring) on animal rights websites that explore this issue. There is actually considerable conflict in the animal rights community over this, and the end result is the issue is generally swept under the rug to stave off dissention in the ranks. The consensus among animal rights groups seems to be that the animal and abortion rights issues are completely separate. I actually agree, but for very different reasons. I consider human life to be far more valuable than the life of a hedgehog. But that's another thread entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Martin Sheen is pro-life, dumba**. Google it.

Re: Abortion laws, is there a real argument?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a lot less straightforward than if it is turned around. A Pro-life supporter who eats meat is responsible for the death of a creature far more aware than a foetus of any stage of development. It is more capable of thought and self-awarness (I suppose this is arguable but if you don't aplly it to a cow then i don't see how you can to a foetus).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try, but most people assign the life of a human being much more value than that of any other species. You can question the reasoning behind that if you like, but in that case it is probably more appropriately discussed in the philosophy forum. But we as a society value the life of human being much more than any other form of life and for that reason your attempt to turn it around is flawed.

Re: Abortion laws, is there a real argument?
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is no baby. There is an embryo, and then a fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the words embryo and fetus are an attempt to divorce people from the realization that these are just different stages of human development. At the moment of conception, a genetically complete human being is formed and will from that point on continue to develop along the normal continuum of life. Once you acknowledge this scientific fact, it becomes clear that this is no different than killing of a human being at some other point in their development. If you think this is just some conservative or religious propaganda, read some of Peter Singer's work, who fully acknowledges the fact that if you allow abortion, then infanticide becomes viable as well and so forth. I find it amusing that people here (and this isnt directed at niss, just happened to be responding his post) who pride themselves on their clear and logical, scientific thinking immediately try to bring up fuzzy questions about the nature of life and when it all actually begins. It begins at conception. Any other line is an arbitrary one that we draw and say "ending a human life is ok before this point".

Re: Abortion laws, is there a real argument?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no baby. There is an embryo, and then a fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your use of the words embryo and fetus are an attempt to divorce people from the realization that these are just different stages of human development. At the moment of conception, a genetically complete human being is formed and will from that point on continue to develop along the normal continuum of life. Once you acknowledge this scientific fact, it becomes clear that this is no different than killing of a human being at some other point in their development. If you think this is just some conservative or religious propaganda, read some of Peter Singer's work, who fully acknowledges the fact that if you allow abortion, then infanticide becomes viable as well and so forth. I find it amusing that people here (and this isnt directed at niss, just happened to be responding his post) who pride themselves on their clear and logical, scientific thinking immediately try to bring up fuzzy questions about the nature of life and when it all actually begins. It begins at conception. Any other line is an arbitrary one that we draw and say "ending a human life is ok before this point".

[/ QUOTE ]

this is why I believe it is only a matter of time before the prolife movement ultimately wins out. This is also why I believe those that support the right to abortion are so clearly oppossed to allowing the people to decide.

Re: Abortion laws, is there a real argument?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The way I see it, the wealthier elements of society will be able to travel overseas to get it done, and the less well off will go to backstreet chop shops. I really can't see an argument in favour of these laws, other than a desire to impose your values on others by legislation.

Opinions pro and against appreciated.

Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

your exact same case can be made WRT "for hire" hitmen.

fim

Re: Abortion laws, is there a real argument?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find it amusing that people here (and this isnt directed at niss, just happened to be responding his post) who pride themselves on their clear and logical, scientific thinking immediately try to bring up fuzzy questions about the nature of life and when it all actually begins. It begins at conception.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like it might be directed at me, I said this....

[ QUOTE ]
The subjects you mention are different from each other and the one at hand. When do we consider the embryo/fetus has become a human being, I think you are suggesting conception which I would disagree with, but I think the current UK limit of 24 weeks is far too late. This seems to be an emotive subject, and everyone I know has a strong opinion one way or the other, I don't personally see it as black and white.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks but I don't see that as fuzzy at all, and I'm certainly not daft enough to think that the opinion of people who are anti abortion is not worth listening to.

Also for what its worth no one as far as I can tell suggested that it was....

[ QUOTE ]
If you think this is just some conservative or religious propaganda

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to add these extras to reinforce the validity of your argument, completely unnecessary in my opinion.

I think many pro choice people are uncomfortable with the idea of abortion and not really certain what the best course of action is, in my opinion they sensibly suggest that the decision is left in the hands of the person best qualified to decide and the one who is unlikely to make the choice lightly.

Regards Mack

Re: Abortion laws, is there a real argument?
 

[ QUOTE ]
"Environmental/animal rights activists will go to war to defend the life of a tree, which cannot feel or think. They will commit acts of vandalism and violence to rescue labratory animals, some of which are considered vermin by the population at large (Please note this - I am not speaking of only endangered species). Their position is they are defending those who have no voice, who cannot defend themselves. Yet these individuals almost unfailingly walk in lockstep idealogically with those who support abortion rights. I'd like to see these individuals explain themselves and how they logically came to the conclusion a helpless potential human being deserves no defense while a chicken does."

This is a lot less straightforward than if it is turned around. A Pro-life supporter who eats meat is responsible for the death of a creature far more aware than a foetus of any stage of development. It is more capable of thought and self-awarness (I suppose this is arguable but if you don't aplly it to a cow then i don't see how you can to a foetus).

Hypocrisy aplenty.

[/ QUOTE ]

this assumes that you value the lives of human beings equally to lives of animals. this illogical viewpoint is generally only held by far left leaning americans and most of europe.

fim

Re: Abortion laws, is there a real argument?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like it might be directed at me, I said this....

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasnt thinking of your post at all when I wrote that. I was thinking of all the previous threads on this subject.

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks but I don't see that as fuzzy at all, and I'm certainly not daft enough to think that the opinion of people who are anti abortion is not worth listening to.

[/ QUOTE ]

I refer to it as fuzzy thinking because the bottom line scientific fact, is that life begins at conception. In fact medical textbooks consider it such. Any other point you pick is arbitrary (in the big picture view, obviously it may not seem arbitrary if it is your opinion) and hence, fuzzy. And for what its worth, I am daft, because I cant see a sensible way to justify killing a child who is at its earliest stage of development. The only caveat that I consider worthwhile is to preserve the life of the mother, which is a very small percentage of why people have abortions.

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to add these extras to reinforce the validity of your argument, completely unnecessary in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the propaganda comment was certainly a pre-emptive strike [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] And as for adding things to reinforce the validity of my opinion, why wouldnt I do that? The fact is that the pro-death crowd tries very hard to not think the through the ramifications of allowing abortion on demand. Peter Singer makes very clear what the ramifications are. And since he is most certainly in the pro-death camp, and is well known figure in academia, I am certainly going to point him out.

Re: Abortion laws, is there a real argument?
 

[ QUOTE ]
in my opinion they sensibly suggest that the decision is left in the hands of the person best qualified to decide and the one who is unlikely to make the choice lightly.

Regards Mack

[/ QUOTE ]

if this is the mother than this is extremely faulty thinking.

refer to vulture's post concering the scientific definition of life and infacide.