Explain why you can't smother your 1 and 2 year old

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

aprilmayjune wrote:IMHO that's a really rediculous argument. A sperm doesn't become a human life until it is joined with an egg, why didn't you go so far as to criminalize menstration while you're using such rediculous extremes as examples.

I'm not sure where to even start. Do you understand the phrase "begging the question"? The entire crux of the argument here is "when does human life begin." But of course, to you, it begins when the sperm "is joined with an egg."

Take measures to prevent your pregnancy.. but if you're going to have sex, you need to know that there may be consequenses. I won't judge someone negatively who has an abortion for serious health risks, in fact, I imagine it's the hardest thing some of them have ever had to do.. but as I said before, that's an extremely small percentage of abortions. MOST of them are just irresponsible people trying to cover their irresponsible actions, and that's something that I would never be able to support.

Right, but the larger point is, Who gives a shit whether you'll "judge someone negatively"? Frankly, who appointed you the arbiter of morality and responsibility. It's pretty clear you haven't given these issues even the slightest bit of adult consideration. So why should we give your barely informed opinion any weight?[/quote]

Thanks, PP, couldn't have said it better myself.

[Anonymous]

To those who consider themselves pro-choice, when do you say human life begins, and why? Isn't that a scientific question, not a matter of opinion? If it's a matter of opinion, who gets to decide? Is your definition of the beginning of life consistent with your definition of the end of life?

[Anonymous]

Look, as far as "scientific opinion" goes, a sperm is alive. An egg is alive. Remember 5th grade science class? Scrape your cheek with a toothpick. See those cells? Those are alive.

I think that "those who consider themselves pro-life" need to stop pretending there's anything objective or rational about their unexamined claims that "life equals a blastocyst", or whatever faux "common sense" position they take.

Also, accusing some of "using such rediculous extremes as examples" while starting a thread titled "Explain why you can't smother your 1 and 2 year old" is a bit rich, and highly indicative of the level of self-awareness among a certain subset of the pro-life community.

[aprilmayjune]

First of all, you're using two different people as your one example, I said someone was using an extreme example, however I am not the one who asked why it's not okay to smother a child.

Second of all, that's why I don't understand why people start posts like this in forums like these.. No one is going to change the others mind so it's pretty useless in trying.

And Third, it is extremely offensive to imply that someone with different opinions, viewpoints and morals than you have is less intellegent than you are for that fact. That we're not rational because we feel that life begins at conception?? Using insults to try to prove your point isn't doing you any favors.

[Anonymous]

aprilmayjune wrote:it is extremely offensive to imply that someone with different opinions, viewpoints and morals than you have is less intellegent than you are for that fact. That we're not rational because we feel that life begins at conception?? Using insults to try to prove your point isn't doing you any favors.

"Rational" has a very specific meaning. I didn't say you weren't *capable* of rational thought, or that *you* were irrational. I was pointing out that your distinctions are without any rational basis. They may be how you feel, and it may be what you feel your religion requires. But these are inarguably irrational.

As to your, "extremely offensive" I'm sorry you're offended, but really that's not my fault. If you're going to adopt and live your faith, why would you be offended by someone pointing out that you're acting irrationally? After all, that's a major component of any religion. Faith *is* irrational. You should embrace it, not be offended by it.

Sorry, if you want to make a rational argument that "life begins at conception" you should do so. (Just to be clear, you haven't.) But don't expect everyone else to agree to elevate your unexamined moral assertions to the level of "an argument" so as not to hurt your feelings. Especially when you use those assertions as a tool to arbitrarily judge others. That's extremely offensive--and gratuitously so.

[Anonymous]

The differences we have on this issue go back to our fundamental assumptions on life, morality, etc. These assumptions are not subject to rational argument. The best we can do is too look for some common ground that will let us live peacefully despite our differences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The differences we have on this issue go back to our fundamental assumptions on life, morality, etc. These assumptions are not subject to rational argument. The best we can do is too look for some common ground that will let us live peacefully despite our differences.

Would you say the same thing to someone who believes that girls should have their sex organs cut so they can't enjoy sex? Or that people who commit adultery should be stoned to death? If your neighbor engaged in this conduct, would you "look for some common ground"? These are questions that should be debated and debated, until we arrive at some consensus as to what is right. Just like our country did with slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The differences we have on this issue go back to our fundamental assumptions on life, morality, etc. These assumptions are not subject to rational argument. The best we can do is too look for some common ground that will let us live peacefully despite our differences.

Would you say the same thing to someone who believes that girls should have their sex organs cut so they can't enjoy sex? Or that people who commit adultery should be stoned to death? If your neighbor engaged in this conduct, would you "look for some common ground"? These are questions that should be debated and debated, until we arrive at some consensus as to what is right. Just like our country did with slavery.

True, but the *rational* arguments against those practices are quite simple. Not so with the abortions/birth-control issues as PP pointed out. Most of the arguments against early-term abortion/birth-control have to do with a combination of magical thinking, and "ick" factor.

[Anonymous]

OP, if you're still reading, and if you're interested in the questions, rather than just the tennis/boxing match you've stirred up (shocker!), I suggest you read some of Peter Singer's work. He is a practical ethicist, teaching at Princeton, and widely regarded as one of the world's foremost experts on these questions. While a lot of his reputation comes from his work on animal rights, he has also addressed the question of abortion and infanticide extensively.

(IIRC, I think he personally agrees with you-- that there is no moral difference between aborting at 6 weeks gestation and smothering your two-year-old. However, the benefit of a professional ethicist is that he'll go through all of the arguments and expose logical fallacies where they exist.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The differences we have on this issue go back to our fundamental assumptions on life, morality, etc. These assumptions are not subject to rational argument. The best we can do is too look for some common ground that will let us live peacefully despite our differences.

Would you say the same thing to someone who believes that girls should have their sex organs cut so they can't enjoy sex? Or that people who commit adultery should be stoned to death? If your neighbor engaged in this conduct, would you "look for some common ground"? These are questions that should be debated and debated, until we arrive at some consensus as to what is right. Just like our country did with slavery.

I was the earlier poster, and I think I would answer yes and no. Some disagreements are too extreme for my suggested solution and in a really extreme case you end up with WW II. A somewhat less extreme example was the South Africa boycott.

For the case at issue here, I think that both sides will keep working in the political and judicial arenas to advance their causes. But my point is that rational argument is not going to convince me that the government should be allowed to force a woman to go through a pregnancy, nor will it convince a pro-lifer that it is moral to destroy what she perceives as a baby. However, that should not stop us from accepting each other as people of good will and working together to find ways to help women (and potential baby-daddies) avoid that painful choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you're still reading, and if you're interested in the questions, rather than just the tennis/boxing match you've stirred up (shocker!), I suggest you read some of Peter Singer's work. He is a practical ethicist, teaching at Princeton, and widely regarded as one of the world's foremost experts on these questions. While a lot of his reputation comes from his work on animal rights, he has also addressed the question of abortion and infanticide extensively.

(IIRC, I think he personally agrees with you-- that there is no moral difference between aborting at 6 weeks gestation and smothering your two-year-old. However, the benefit of a professional ethicist is that he'll go through all of the arguments and expose logical fallacies where they exist.)

I think he agrees abortion is morally permissible, as is killing a newborn baby under his definition of personhood. I'm not sure that reasoning would stretch to a two year old who is old enough to want to continue to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, if you want to make a rational argument that "life begins at conception" you should do so. (Just to be clear, you haven't.)

And neither have any of those in the "pro-choice" camp made any rationale arguments that life doesn't begin at conception.

Get off you high horse. You don't sound very rational, so you are in no position to tell others how to be.

[Anonymous]

This thread is beginning to make me long for retroactive abortion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, if you want to make a rational argument that "life begins at conception" you should do so. (Just to be clear, you haven't.)

And neither have any of those in the "pro-choice" camp made any rationale arguments that life doesn't begin at conception.

Get off you high horse. You don't sound very rational, so you are in no position to tell others how to be.

I am not the person you are responding to -- in fact I'm the one who claims neither side has a rational basis for it's fundamental assumptions. However, I would submit that no proof of when "life" begins is needed to argue for the rights of a pregnant woman. Whether you agree with that argument is your choice, but don't expect us to abandon it to play word games with you about "life". Bacteria are alive too; do you oppose penicillin?

I hope I don't sound like I'm on a high horse. I am trying very hard to make it clear that I respect your right to your opinions, even when I think they ignore the line between your faith and other women's rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry, if you want to make a rational argument that "life begins at conception" you should do so. (Just to be clear, you haven't.)

And neither have any of those in the "pro-choice" camp made any rationale arguments that life doesn't begin at conception.

Get off you high horse. You don't sound very rational, so you are in no position to tell others how to be.

Here's a rational argument-if you believe that abortion is wrong, don't have one. Do not attempt to impose your beliefs on others in this country. Nuff said?