CAF poll on legalized abortion (Ireland all over again)

[Canvas]

The firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and others by the Allies were,objectively speaking, war crimes. They were designed to kill non combatants. Women, children, the elderly, the disabled etc. (Hamburg, for example, was designed to target the civilian population by British RAF Air Marshal and Chief of Bomber Command Arthur Harris, who was a staunch advocate of indiscriminate destruction of German cities in order to force them to surrender by breaking them.) Tokyo, in March 1945, was designed by USAAF (there was no independent Air Force in WWII) General Curtis LeMay to kill as many Japanese as possible. They flew the B29s in low, dropped firebombs and incinerated 16 square miles of Tokyo and over 100,000 people. This was even more effective than raids over Germany because Japan did not have anti-aircraft weaponry as good as the Nazis and the bulk of the homes were made of highly flammable materials. The Bomber crews in some planes in later waves could literally smell burning human beings. It was the single deadliest air raid of all time, killing more people than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

 

[KJW5551]

It depends on what stage it’s at whether it could survive on its own.

No it does not. Could a newborn infant survive on its own? Or a slowly dying woman lying in bed unable to feed herself? Of course not, yet they are individuals.

A zygote is simply the beginning stage of human development. Do we know when ensoulment occurs? Of course not, we are not God. But we know how human beings grow and develop. Ignoring biological facts is a bad look for the pro-choice crowd.

 

[Roguish]

The firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and others by the Allies were,objectively speaking, war crimes.

This.

It is incomprehensible that the allies did this, and yet to this day continue take it for granted that they were, beyond any doubt, the side that were ethically in the right.

 

[KJW5551]

It is incomprehensible that the allies did this, and yet to this day continue take it for granted that they were, beyond any doubt, the side that were ethically in the right.

Uh, you’re questioning whether we were on the right side in WWII? That’s not going to be a popular position here…

You do realize we were fighting two enemies (Germany & Japan) who were committing full scale genocides, right? Of course the bombings of Dresden and Tokyo were immoral. But to question if we were on the right side? Now that’s a scary proposition right there.

Edit: I realize this is 100% off topic (sorry to the OP!), but I couldn’t not respond to this ridiculous statement.

 

[Roguish]

Uh, you’re questioning whether we were on the right side in WWII? […] Edit: I realize this is 100% off topic (sorry to the OP!), but I couldn’t not respond to this ridiculous statement.

Errr, okay, thanks. By the way, I am the OP. Apologies accepted.

As for my “ridiculous” statement, I did not mean to assess the entire war, though in that regard too there is some room for (unpopular) questions. Commenting on your post I meant that it seems to be taken for granted that the actions of the allies were ethically justifiable.

 

[KJW5551]

I see, and I apologize. I misunderstood your statement to mean the whole war. And I didn’t realize you were the OP. Hastiness on my part (not the first time).

 

[AlNg]

The firebombings of Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo and others by the Allies were,objectively speaking, war crimes. They were designed to kill non combatants. Women, children, the elderly, the disabled etc. (Hamburg, for example, was designed to target the civilian population by British RAF Air Marshal and Chief of Bomber Command Arthur Harris, who was a staunch advocate of indiscriminate destruction of German cities in order to force them to surrender by breaking them.) Tokyo, in March 1945, was designed by USAAF (there was no independent Air Force in WWII) General Curtis LeMay to kill as many Japanese as possible. They flew the B29s in low, dropped firebombs and incinerated 16 square miles of Tokyo and over 100,000 people. This was even more effective than raids over Germany because Japan did not have anti-aircraft weaponry as good as the Nazis and the bulk of the homes were made of highly flammable materials. The Bomber crews in some planes in later waves could literally smell burning human beings. It was the single deadliest air raid of all time, killing more people than either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Yes. I don’t see any moral justification for murder of non-combatants.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

No it does not. Could a newborn infant survive on its own? Or a slowly dying woman lying in bed unable to feed herself? Of course not, yet they are individuals.

I was responding to the question “Is a fetus an individual organism?”

As for the larger question, “Is a fetus a human being?” the answer to that depends on what religion you belong to. Everyone (almost) agrees it’s a human being after it becomes viable outside the womb. Before that, different religions differ. Notice I’m using the word “religions.” We’re not talking atheists, etc. Too many (in my opinion) people believe that they have the “truth” and that this justifies them forcing their views on everyone else. To be pro-choice is exactly that: to be in favor of allowing each person to decide based on their own beliefs. It has nothing whatsoever to do with your own beliefs about abortion.

As for the “human development” argument, it’s like handing you a rock and saying “Look at this beautiful sculpture of David!” Sure, the rock has the POTENTIAL to be a beautiful sculpture, but is it a sculpture? A clump of cells at 6 hours old has the POTENTIAL to be a human being, but is it a human being now? That’s not a scientific question, it’s a religious question. And yes, of course the clump of cells isn’t going to turn into a fish or an elephant, it’s going to be–if it survives–a human being. But that begs the question. It’s a religious / philosophical question, and different religions answer it in different ways. To say “killing a human being” is wrong for everyone may be true, but that’s not the issue. The issue is “What is a human being?”

 

[brian_custer]

man oh man ; i love this anti-american crap

the japanese launched balloon attacks on the pacific NW

they succeeded in killing US civilians

japanese submarines shelled california until the US Navy stopped that

i’ll bet you are sorry the japanese couldn’t come up w/ weapons in this regard as effective as the US

which, by the way, EVERY NATION involved in WW2 was completely committed to attacking & exterminating civilians

the US was by the far the less egregious of this practice

 

[KJW5551]

Except they aren’t the same at all because a rock left undisturbed will remain a rock, while a zygote left undisturbed will grow into a baby. Apples and oranges.

Furthermore, abortions don’t typically kill zygotes, they kill embryos and fetuses, which as you know are even more developed.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Except they aren’t the same at all because a rock left undisturbed will remain a rock,

OK, let’s change it to a chicken egg! So you come along, pick up an egg, and say “What a great looking chicken!” Hardly.

 

[Brendan_64]

So since “The decision to take innocent human life is always and everywhere a grave sin” that means that it is always a mortal sin to drop an atomic bomb on a populated city. Further firebombing a populated city such a Dresden would also be a mortal sin under your reasoning.

The deliberate and intentional killing of innocent human life is, I believe, a grave sin. If the intention of the bombing is to kill innocent people, then yes it is, I believe a grave sin.

The intention of a deliberate abortion is to kill an innocent person.

 

[Elf01]

I was responding to the question “Is a fetus an individual organism?”

What is a fetus then?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

What is a fetus then?

I think in the popular sense it means any unborn baby. But the scientific definition is a bit more limited: a fetus has to be about 2 months old.

And then of course my question would be “What do you mean ‘individual organism’?” I think you could define that different ways: does it have its own DNA (not until the cells divide several times); does it have the beginnings of essential organs; is it able to survive without being attached to another organism (the mother)? There are probably more you could come up with. But I think that’s my point: leaving the religious question of “What is human life?” aside, there are various stages in the development of a baby where rational people could disagree about whether or not it is an ‘individual organism’ or a ‘separate living thing’ or whatever you want to call it.

 

[Elf01]

What are they before they become individual organisms assuming they’re not. Please provide references.

 

[1john418]

I don’t see the debate. The baby becomes an individual organism at conception.

The baby already has its own DNA, gender, and blood type. Furthermore, that baby already has the coding for eye color and skin color.

EDIT: figured I should post a source — http://www.pennlife.org/subject_bioethics.html

Trying to argue at which point a baby could be aborted is nonsensical in my opinion. Even if you dismiss that point, there is still no way you could make an ethical hardline. For example, if we said terminations can must be stopped, say 15 weeks, is that baby suddenly more human 15 weeks and 1 day in?

 

[Brendan_64]

I don’t see the debate. The baby becomes an individual organism at conception.

Yes indeed.

I think it is backwards logic. I think some people support abortion, but are uncomfortable with the fact that the child in the womb is a living human being, so they look for reasons to show that the child is not a human being because this would suit their wish to support abortion.

 

[Monica83]

Lol just because you can’t see something because a chick is in an egg(or a fetal human being is in their mother’s womb)doesn’t mean its not there. This is a common dehumanization tactic.

 

[Brendan_64]

Yes. And how many supporters of abortion are shocked at babies that survive abortions being left to die, yet it was acceptable to be trying to kill them a few minutes before this?

 

[Erikaspirit16]

What are they before they become individual organisms assuming they’re not. Please provide references.

You’re not reading my posts. If I don’t know what you mean by “individual organism” then I can’t have a conversation about them. In my post just above yours I said “I think you could define that different ways” and I gave three examples.

But I’ll play along. If I define “individual organism” (for example…) as something that could survive if you removed it from the mother and without using all sorts of medical equipment it would live, then what is it? Again, it seems to me that rational people (without bringing religion into it) could call it a range of things. But I’m not sure what your point is. Why does it matter if I call it one thing and you call it another? So what?

Ultimately you’re trying to convince me that whatever it is is a “human being” with all the rights of a normal human being. But again, that’s religion / philosophy, not science.