Poll: Contraception, abortion, infanticide

[vz71]

Why are you people even talking to Shredderbeam?

Here is why…

Gamera:

This thread has powerfully rekindled my commitment to the pro-life movement. The more insights I read from a mind that would justify or excuse the killing of babies, the more deeply I feel the horror of the abortion holocaust. I’ve recently added several pro-life links to my internet “favorites,” completed reading a pro-life book that I had left unfinished (“Ending Abortion” by Fr Frank Pavone) and sent a contribution to our state Right to Life Committee. I’ve been cyclically active in the pro-life movement for years, but this thread has reminded me how important it is to keep at it.

 

[Shredderbeam]

vz71:

Would that we could take the word ‘honest’ at its true meaning here.

Ouch. Let’s try to be a bit better than that.

vz71:

But this is the third different line that you have drawn.

Why not just come clean and admit that your position is indefensible? We already are witness to you shifting the line over and over.

This is the position I have had for around 18 months, now. I apologize if I’ve been confusing rewording my arguments, but allow me to set it straight:

Human beings are accorded rights when they become separate beings, or become rational beings. Given the facts of pregnancy and childbirth, humans become separate beings before they become rational beings, which is why I usually mention the separation first.

Is there any part of this I can elaborate upon?

neat62:

Why are you people even talking to Shredderbeam?

The world’s problems do not go away by being ignored.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Rationality is derived from bra(name removed by moderator)ower. The human brain does not really develop enough to permit rationality for several years after birth.

1. There is no way one person to conclusively determine the rationality of another person. For example, Helen Keller was a rational human being, but she was presumed to lack rational thought until she learned to communicate with people.
2. Human beings can lose and regain their capacity for rational thought over the course of a lifetime due to illness, injury, or, arguably, inebriation. Are you saying that these individual cease to be human beings during the period of incapacitation, and then resume human status once they regain their capacity for rational thought?
3. What exactly is “bra(name removed by moderator)ower.”

 

[Verisimilitude]

Hitler and Stalin stripped separate and rational beings of their rights. I argue that non-separate, non-rational beings do not receive rights.

Wow.

…I do apologize for my lack of imagination, but can you explain your position?..
Well, let’s say that I had no connection whatsoever with them, be it emotional, biological, etc. My instinct would urge me to save the child, as it seems to be in human nature to save children. However, rationally, I would probably choose the old lady, as she is both physically separate and rational.

The correct answer is you make every effort to save both and if one, both or yourself dies in the process then that is the result. All human life is equal.

I wouldn’t say that they are one being, yet they are clearly not separate.

To address the issue here, the reason I hold physical separation to be so important is due to the self-ownership principle. The mother, being the full master of her own body, has every right to do to it what she wishes.

Are you so extreme as to allow a woman to amputate her perfectly healthy arms and legs simply because she is master of her own body and wishes to do so? What if she wants to end her own life to enter a space ship behind a comet passing by Earth?

I am not morally responsible for anybody else other than myself, unless I enter into a contract with them. If I do not wish to supply nutrients for a fetus, I cannot be required to.

You are under contract as a US citizen to your neighbors- I assume you are. If you don’t want the responsibility don’t get pregnant. It’s that simple.

I find that a lot of people disagree with me for a lot of reasons, to be honest. Ah well. Makes for some interesting conversations.

So you are a contrarian by nature.

Self-ownership principle.

Your definition of self is lacking, but you don’t care I’m sure. Just for the sake of the argument, if you applied self to the child in the womb would you still support abortion?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Human beings are accorded rights when they become separate beings, or become rational beings.

Your wording is unclear.

Do you mean to say:

1. Human beings are accorded rights either when they become separate beings or when they become rational beings.
   *(this would imply that you are stating that one, but not both, of these two conditions are necessary to be accorded rights)

1. Human beings are accorded rights when they become separate, or rational, beings.
   (this would imply that you are equating “separate” with “rational.”)
2. Human beings are accorded rights when they become separate AND rational beings.
   (this would imply that you require both conditions for someone to be qualify for human rights.)

Is there any part of this I can elaborate upon?

That depends on whether you meant to ask-

If you really intended the question as you phrased it, then I think the answer is “no.”

But if you meant to ask “Would you like me to elaborate on any part of this,” then yes, I would.

How do you define separate?

1. Being functionally separate?

An unborn baby’s brain functions and bodily functions are completely separate from her mother’s.

Babies in the womb have their own unique DNA.
They have their very own blood supply, which they produced using their very own bone marrow.
They do not exchange blood with the mother, often have different blood types than the mother, and their organs function independently of the mother’s organs.

In terms of the nervous system…The mother’s nervous system does not in any way control, regulate, or otherwise interact with the nervous system of the baby in her womb. For example, a baby in the womb is able to experience pain, but the mother does not also feel this pain. Also, a baby in the womb is able to suck his or her thumb, but the mother is not causing this to happen.

It is kind of pointless to argue that a baby is not functionally separate from their mother, so let’s try something else…

1. Being physically separate?

I guess this refers to the separation of the physical connection between the mother and the child through which oxygen and nutrients are provided. The problem with this definition is that, as evidenced by the survival of premature babies, an unborn baby has the ability to live independently of the mother before the end of the normal gestation period. That is, in the natural course of a pregnancy, the ability to live without the physical separation actually precedes the point when physical separation ordinarily occurs.

If this is your definition, then what are your thoughts on conjoined twins? I’m really not being sarcastic- it is just that many conjoined twins share essential bodily functions through their shared tissue and are unable to survive separation from one another. If you define “separate” as a physical condition, then conjoined twins have been parading around with human rights that don’t belong to them.

[/INDENT]

The world’s problems do not go away by being ignored.

So you agree that your theory is one of the world’s problems?

 

[vz71]

Why are you people even talking to Shredderbeam?

The world’s problems do not go away by being ignored.

You know…a perfectly valid interpretation of this is that you admit to being one of the world’s problems.

I would not take such a dim view of yourself, you seem fairly reasonable. I imagine if you were to see the error in the way you think of human life, you could be a very strong advocate for the pro-life cause.

 

[vz71]

Ouch. Let’s try to be a bit better than that.

Sure…here it is again, only this time I did not leave the meaning off (as you did)

Would that we could take the word ‘honest’ at its true meaning here.
But this is the third different line that you have drawn.
Why not just come clean and admit that your position is indefensible? We already are witness to you shifting the line over and over.

My apologies if the truth hurts here, but there is no real way to be nice with it. You appear to advocate murder, and you keep re-drawing the line of what is and is not acceptable.
By this writing, 4 times.

 

[Shredderbeam]

Oscarthecat:

1. There is no way one person to conclusively determine the rationality of another person. For example, Helen Keller was a rational human being, but she was presumed to lack rational thought until she learned to communicate with people.

It is possible to determine the rationality of others by examining the front of their brain, where logical thought stems from.

Oscarthecat:

1. Human beings can lose and regain their capacity for rational thought over the course of a lifetime due to illness, injury, or, arguably, inebriation. Are you saying that these individual cease to be human beings during the period of incapacitation, and then resume human status once they regain their capacity for rational thought?

No, no, not at all. A human being, in the normal state, is a rational being. If, temporarily, they go through a period where they cannot express their rationality, there is still no reason to initiate aggressive action against them unless they violate your rights.

Oscarthecat:

1. What exactly is “bra(name removed by moderator)ower.”

In the context of this debate, I would call it rationality, or the ability to comprehend rights and responsibilities.

Verisimilitude:

Wow.

Wow? Why wow?

Verisimilitude:

The correct answer is you make every effort to save both and if one, both or yourself dies in the process then that is the result. All human life is equal.

I was given a choice - the baby or the old lady.

However, if all human life is equal, then wouldn’t the moral thing for me to do right now be to drop everything, brush up on my first aid training, and go out to Africa, helping to save lives over there?

Verisimilitude:

Are you so extreme as to allow a woman to amputate her perfectly healthy arms and legs simply because she is master of her own body and wishes to do so? What if she wants to end her own life to enter a space ship behind a comet passing by Earth?

I’d probably try to convince her not to, but if she really wants to do it, it’s up to her, in both scenarios.

Verisimilitude:

You are under contract as a US citizen to your neighbors- I assume you are. If you don’t want the responsibility don’t get pregnant. It’s that simple.

Well, I’m not a U.S. citizen yet.

If you’re referring to the “social contract”, I can agree that it exists, but I disagree over its contents. I would argue that it only extends to prohibit aggression against my fellows.

Verisimilitude:

So you are a contrarian by nature.

Haha, I do get accused frequently of going out of my way to irritate people, but I can assure you it’s nothing like that. I just seem to disagree with a lot of people.

Verisimilitude:

Just for the sake of the argument, if you applied self to the child in the womb would you still support abortion?

Well, if we could agree that a fetus has the same rights as a baby, then I wouldn’t support abortion as such. However, I would support the mothers right to remove the fetus from her womb.

Oscarthecat:

1. Human beings are accorded rights either when they become separate beings or when they become rational beings.
   (this would imply that you are stating that one, but not both, of these two conditions are necessary to be accorded rights)

This is what I meant.

Now, allow me to explain. A non-rational, but physically separated human (such as a newborn baby) is not a normal human. A normal human is around 20-30 years old, and rational. Now, as they are not yet of the species proper, they should be preserved until they become rational (note that it is not harmful anyway to allow them to survive as they can hardly act aggressively against you).

Oscarthecat:

1. Being physically separate?
   
   I guess this refers to the separation of the physical connection between the mother and the child through which oxygen and nutrients are provided. The problem with this definition is that, as evidenced by the survival of premature babies, an unborn baby has the ability to live independently of the mother before the end of the normal gestation period. That is, in the natural course of a pregnancy, the ability to live without the physical separation actually precedes the point when physical separation ordinarily occurs.

This is how I would define “separate”, yes.

They could survive, yes, but as non-rational beings they are simply potential lives.

Oscarthecat:

So you agree that your theory is one of the world’s problems?

It was an odd bit of humor. My point was that ignoring those you disagree with doesn’t really work.

vz71:

My apologies if the truth hurts here, but there is no real way to be nice with it. You appear to advocate murder, and you keep re-drawing the line of what is and is not acceptable.
By this writing, 4 times.

I’m only redrawing lines, not redefining them.

 

[rpp]

The use of contraception is a moral choice, commit a grave sin by using it or do not use it and do not sin.

Abortion is always murder.

Advocating the murder a child or an infirm person is nothing less than proof that a person is a sociopath, like the Nazis were.

And finally, don’t feed the trolls.

 

[vz71]

I’m only redrawing lines, not redefining them.

Then the fluid nature of your arguments is admitted to.

It would appear that you are rapidly losing ground.

 

[Shredderbeam]

I’m sorry, I meant to say that I am making the lines clear and less ambiguous.

 

[vz71]

I’m sorry, I meant to say that I am making the lines clear and less ambiguous.

Odd.
You have had to re-word your position several times already.

How is this “clear and less ambiguous?”

 

[Verisimilitude]

However, if all human life is equal, then wouldn’t the moral thing for me to do right now be to drop everything, brush up on my first aid training, and go out to Africa, helping to save lives over there?

Yep…go to Africa and stay out of America. We have enough fruit and nuts already so maybe you could do some ‘good’ elsewhere.

 

[Shredderbeam]

vz71:

Odd.
You have had to re-word your position several times already.

How is this “clear and less ambiguous?”

I’m getting the impression that people do not understand what I am trying to convey. In re-wording, I thought it might be understood better.

If there are still problems, please do not hesitate to inform me exactly what they are, and I shall do my best to explain.

Verisimilitude:

Yep…go to Africa and stay out of America. We have enough fruit and nuts already so maybe you could do some ‘good’ elsewhere.

I really would like to keep hostilities out of the discussion.

My question now is if that is the ultimate moral good, why do so few people partake of it?

 

[rpp]

Yep…go to Africa and stay out of America. We have enough fruit and nuts already so maybe you could do some ‘good’ elsewhere.

Not charitable.

Not advisable either. Th e last thing and African nation needs is a person promoting the murder of the sick, the young and the disabled. I mean, they already have a large number of people with HIV and such attitudes could result in some of these countries deciding it is cheaper and easier to kill all the HIV-positive people. Of course, such a policy would go a long way in eradicating that scourge. Genocide always results in getting rid of undesirables.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Not charitable.

Not advisable either. Th e last thing and African nation needs is a person promoting the murder of the sick, the young and the disabled. I mean, they already have a large number of people with HIV and such attitudes could result in some of these countries deciding it is cheaper and easier to kill all the HIV-positive people. Of course, such a policy would go a long way in eradicating that scourge. Genocide always results in getting rid of undesirables.

I should have listened to my conscience and not responded at all as I am done debating such ignorance.

 

[vz71]

If there are still problems, please do not hesitate to inform me exactly what they are, and I shall do my best to explain.

1. 
   *]Advocacy of murder based upon the inability to communicate.
   *]The claim that the woman’s rights “over her own body” supercede the right of a child to live.
   There are more, but these are the most glaring problems I can see with your particular view.

 

[Shredderbeam]

1. 
   *]Advocacy of murder based upon the inability to communicate.
   *]The claim that the woman’s rights “over her own body” supercede the right of a child to live.
   There are more, but these are the most glaring problems I can see with your particular view.

1. 
   
   I don’t see how the murder of a non-rational being is really a bad thing. I’m not sure I’d even call it murder - during a fairly large chunk of the pregnancy, there’s nobody home.
   
   A woman’s rights to her own body naturally would supersede another’s right to life, unless you can demonstrate how the woman is morally responsible for the child?

 

[Oscarthecat]

I don’t see how the murder of a non-rational being is really a bad thing. I’m not sure I’d even call it murder - during a fairly large chunk of the pregnancy, there’s nobody home.

When you say “non-rational being” are you also referring to adults who have temporarily lost their capacity for rational thought? Because earlier you said that those people retained their human rights.

Is murdering a non-rational human who retains the potential for rationality a bad thing?

 

[Oscarthecat]

A woman’s rights to her own body naturally would supersede another’s right to life, unless you can demonstrate how the woman is morally responsible for the child?

Can you demonstrate this principle in any context other than abortion?

For example, as a man, I have rights to my own body, right? Tell me how I could defend myself in court for 1st degree murder by arguing that my rights to my own body supercede another’s right to life.