MaumeeRocket Wrote:

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:There are stages of abortion where the fetus isn't alive. 

Are you not in favor of abortion in the case of:
- Rape
- Incest
- Under 21

?

And because I can hear objections to under 21 already... it's more times than not unsafe, and almost always unplanned.  Condoms break.  Pills don't work.  The day after pill doesn't alwasy work.  Etc.  In today's very sexual society, it happens more.  Instead of ruining a teens education and chances at a respectable life... give them another option.

I also find it stunningly pompous to say what other people can and can't do.  Legit arguments start when the fetus can be considered a live organism with rudamentary thought.

Im not aginst abortion on the following grounds, a charge of rape, the womans life is in danger, or incest. However im against people man and women or just women being irresponsible one night and taken that as being excuse to cover up for their mistake. Their are many people in the world that cant have children, maybe instead of some of these people only thinking of how a baby is going to ruin their life, why not think of the pople that want a child and would be willing to adopt.

Next time you are pregnant, feel free to apply those standards to yourself. :wave:

MaumeeRocket Wrote:However im against people man and women or just women being irresponsible one night and taken that as being excuse to cover up for their mistake. Their are many people in the world that cant have children, maybe instead of some of these people only thinking of how a baby is going to ruin their life, why not think of the pople that want a child and would be willing to adopt.

Go to a large high school. See the ruined lives of pregnant women there. Even those that use adoption are changed for the worse forever. It is the ultimate scarlet letter, and they will be forever ridiculed. If they're RH+ ... they'll never have another child again. They're immediate social outcasts. I could go on and on.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:

MaumeeRocket Wrote:However im against people man and women or just women being irresponsible one night and taken that as being excuse to cover up for their mistake. Their are many people in the world that cant have children, maybe instead of some of these people only thinking of how a baby is going to ruin their life, why not think of the pople that want a child and would be willing to adopt.

Go to a large high school. See the ruined lives of pregnant women there. Even those that use adoption are changed for the worse forever. It is the ultimate scarlet letter, and they will be forever ridiculed. If they're RH+ ... they'll never have another child again. They're immediate social outcasts. I could go on and on.

Yes, but you'd continue to exaggerate.

Plenty of unwed mothers get over this. The stigma goes away. Teen agers find this hard to believe, but life exists past 18. In fact, your social structure changes appreciably and alot of folks won't ever know what happened.

However, the guilt of an abortion tends to linger for many.

<a href='http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=157&id=411572004' target='_blank'>Not a pro-life page</a>

<a href='http://www.w-cpc.org/news/tribune10-96.html' target='_blank'>Chicago Trib article</a>

Although the numbers vary, to avoid argument, I'll concede that it's below 50% based on current data. What is not clear is how legit those data are.

The RH+ thing occurs w/ pregnancy, so it's not clear that an abortion "solves" this.

Schadenfreude Wrote:

Wryword Wrote:Because there is no point after conception that the embryo that will become a child is not human and will develop into a "viable" child, absent some tragedy, every "choice" is baby killing.&nbsp; Conception to birth is a continuum, not just a series of trimesters.

Most reasonable people would not see aborting a zygote as the ethical equivalent of baby killing.

Who gave you the right to decide what "reasonble" is?

Wow, this is pompous.

I read about 1/3 of this thread and the usual suspects took the usual sides. I dont believe in abortion. Far to often it is just retroactive birth control. I think that is wrong. I do believe in a womans right to choose a safe place to have an abortion. She will have to live with the guilt she will feel. Odd, if a late term abortion is for the mothers safety, and the baby is viable, should the woman do a c-section to save the babys life?

Looked at a couple of posts above. The RH- thing works like this. The more kids a woman has, the more at risk she takes. My step mother had 3 and she is RH-. The doc said no more after that.

rickheel Wrote:Odd, if a late term abortion is for the mothers safety, and the baby is viable, should the woman do a c-section to save the babys life?

That option would likely be explored prior to the abortion taking place, however if I were consulted :rolleyes: under the conditions you cite, I would be for the c-section.

KlutzDio I Wrote:The killing fields in Saddam's Iraq, along with the torture chambers have been going on for a long, long time. There was a time, throughout much of the 1980s, that the United States government, headed by both Carter in the early portion of the decade, and later Reagan, supported Saddam Hussein by providing him with materiel, money, munitions, and CIA wet teams.

Our government only began decrying the killing and torture by Saddam only after he quit playing ball with us.

Not only that, but may I remind you that torture and killing were not the justifications for invading that nation. Our justification was weapons of mass destruction, and these being a direct and forboding threat to the continental United States.

Killing and torture only became part of the justification for invasion after WMD's and ChemWeapons never turned up.

I understand this. But, why does it make the invasion "wrong". Oh, in a legal sense you could argue that, "HE LIED TO US". But, in the ethical sense that we're discussing, why does that make it wrong?

And what does the sordid history do to negate this? No one on the pro-life side delights in supporting a tyrant. But, what is the solution?

Regime change? Nope that's out.

Sanctions? Lives still lost under the tyrant, and some argue that the avg citizen suffers.

No action? Lives still lost.

I throw my hands up in frustration, b/c you're criticizing the Pro-life folks like they're the ones doing the killing. And when folks decide they won't even support it implicitly, they get criticized.

Yes, I can accept that every killing involves rationaliztion. If that's the point you're trying to make, then so be it. However, if the rational is justified then so be it.

Quote:Next you bring up justice. Why don't you give us a definition of justice?

You know that a thorough discussion of this is too long. But, I'll be brief, how about starting w/ the Golden Rule?

Quote:On Hannity, he doesn't research, he berates much like O'Reilly.

Hannity is painful to listen to. He does all that you say. Except I will defend Hannity and O'Reilly (geez are all conservatives micks? THAT'S A JOKE!) to say that they ask leigitmate questions. They can (and often do) pare things down to a simple question. Sometimes they overdo this technique, and they look stupid and come up w/ dumb arguments. But, they sometimes get to the heart of a matter, and I think that's why they're so popular.

Quote:These programs also reinforce lazy and sloppy thinking, i.e. logical fallacies.

Secondly, I can get information from the best sources available to me, C-SPAN, BBC, the internet, and the public library.

The NYT, Wash Post, Yahoo! and major networks also reinforce lazy and sloppy thinking. So did the letter from my congressman I received the other day. The average person's reasoning ability is not high. I believe we agree here.

I respect C-Span. It's a primary source, but takes alot of time to extract useful info. The BBC may be better than US networks, but they have their problems.

Facts:

1.4 million abortions are performed in the US per year, 44% on women who have had previous abortions, 82% on women who are unmarried or separated. This is enough for 43% of American women to have an abortion during their lives at present rates.
89% of abortions in US are performed before 12 weeks, 1% after 20 weeks (90% of these for non-medical reasons).
D&X (Dilation and Extraction) A late-term (post 20 week) procedure in which the fetus is brought feet first into the birth canal, a large needle is inserted into its skull, its brain suctioned out, and the fetus removed. Popularly known as "partial birth" abortion.
D&E (Dilation and Evacuation) A late-term procedure in which a serrated forceps is inserted into the womb, and the fetus dismembered and removed. More common than D&X, above.
In D&X or D&E the fetus is usually, but not always, killed first, by cutting umbilical cord or via injection of digoxin or other lethal agent. The rationale for not killing the fetus before suctioning its brain or cutting it to pieces is a better medical outcome for mother, and that the nervous system of fetus not sufficiently developed to "appreciate pain."
Women who have had late-term abortions for non-medical reasons tend to be young, living with their parents, and to have involved their parents in the decision. The inference is that it just took a long time for the families to reach a decision to abort.
– US News & World Report, January 1998, pp 20-32

To survive, a very premature baby usually must have developed at least 23 weeks. – US News & World Report, March 30, 1998, p60.

Dr. T,

The justification for war forged by the Administration was lacking on several points:
1. Saddam was a threat to the United States, his neighbors and the world because he had WMD's.
2. Saddam's possession and matriculation of WMD's was a violation of U.N. resolutions and treaties that ended Gulf War I.
3. The U.N. was not enforcing their own resolutions.
4. Invasion and toppling of the Saddam regime in Iraq would negate his ability to threaten his neighbors and the continental United States with his weapons of mass destruction, would stabilize the mid-east region and would foster democratic reorganization in Iraq, which would lead to democritization of the mid-east region in general.
5. Saddam's military capability to repel invasion was seriously hampered as a result of Gulf War I, consequently any invasion would be swift with few casualties.
6. Iraqis of all stripes were eager to welcome coalition (mainly U.S. and British) forces, even aiding the toppling of the Saddam regime.
7. Saddam was afforded ultimatums to leave his nation, which he did not act upon, leading to invasion of Iraq by the coalition.
8. The U.S. is responsible solely for its own protection and do not look toward any other body, namely the U.N. for its national protection.
9. re-stated: Saddam was in violation of several U.N. resolutions.

This was the argument and justification for war with Iraq, as outlined by the Administration beginning as early as Summer 2002 and continuing until the commencement of the invasion.

Looking at points 3, 8 and 9 from above, effectively the U.S. acted to enforce U.N. resolutions against a nation despite the U.S. understating the importance of the governing body that passed the resoluations against Iraq.

Looking at the first two, 1 and 2 above, along with 3 and 4, WMD's have not turned up, have not been found. So, there is either a continuation of the threat these weapons posed, or intelligence in this manner was lacking and no weapons of mass dest. actually existed.

Yet look at point 5. Saddam's ability militarily to repel invasion had been seriously hampered. His troop strength was down to more than 1/3 of what it was in Gulf War I. His armored divisions were depleted by 75% of its Gulf War I strength. U.S. Aussie, French, and British jets maintained air superiority over the nation and Saddam's air force was non existence prior to invasion.

So, was Saddam a threat? The Administration claimed he was a threat, but he was weak militarily. This does not compute, danger Will Robinson!
If Saddam had WMD's, then the most predictable action would have been the use of these weapons against invasion forces.

The Administration said the Iraqis would be eager to support coalition, invasion forces. This occurred in some regions, but even where this did occur, it was short-lived. The Administration's claims in this area were poorly researched and poorly planned considering that the TV was filled with battle scenes yesterday, almost one full year since "major combat operations" ended.

Democritization justification for war, invasion is lacking as well. First of all, founding a democracy while gun-barrels are pointed at you does not seem like a fruitful way to promote democracy.
Secondly, democracy is not the best form of government.
Thirdly, historical examples illustrate the dangers associated with advancing upon such a policy, going as far back to 300 bce Greek wars. When warring parties have arrogantly thought military action would compel a foreign people into moral righteousness, their efforts have failed in the long-term.

So, this leads back to your original question. Was war morally wrong in this instance?

I believe war is always morally wrong, so the question is complex and cannot be answered without a book-length discussion of war, policy, international relations and ethics.

We were given a different reason for invading, waging war, those outlined above. What the Administration should have done was outlined all the abuses of the Saddam regime, the suffering of Iraqis and other humanitarian reasons and then the war would be less morally egregious because there were factual bases for these claims. Not so on the WMD's. Military intelligence, many will tell you, is a haphazard process, so much so that we use the term "intelligence." If military intelligence were the truth, then we'd call it military facts.

Perhaps the biggest moral problems with the justification for war are two fold:
1. The Administration changed their tune on WMD's since none of the banned weapons have been found.
2. Now that WMD's are non-existent (currently, I mean it is possible they could turn up), the Administration advances the humanitarian argument/justification for war.

So the problem is the about-face on part of the Administration. They should have outlined human rights abuses as a cause for war, but doing so would have placed foreign policy on an unacceptable footing. If we correct the human rights problems in one nation via invasion and war, then we'd have to do that for other nations, i.e. Cuba, Israel, Rwanda, Nigeria, Liberia, Ghana, Indonesia, Tibet, China, N. Korea, Russia, Lybia, and on and on and on.

I said prior to war that if the Bush Administration advanced a human rights case for war, I'd have to support it, not support it because war is morally correct, but support it because of the Golden Rule principle that you mentioned in a previous post.

Likewise, however, the Golden Rule still applies and if Iraqi citizens want to elect a muslim cleric as their leader, then we should oblige. The Administration is forcefully resisting Iraqi attempts to place clerics and other charismatic personalities into positions of leadership.

What I don't like about the justification, old and new, is the Administration's audacity that they can advance a completely illogical and irrational, hopelessly flawed justification for war and the American people (along with the world) are to accept that without reservations.

How does this relate to abortion?

I'll have to post that shortly because I have to work. I do have an answer, though.

rickheel Wrote:Looked at a couple of posts above. The RH- thing works like this. The more kids a woman has, the more at risk she takes. My step mother had 3 and she is RH-. The doc said no more after that.

But, you have to add to that, the father and the child have to be RH+.

Dr. T,

The war justification directly corresponds to abortion practice and protest in a variety of ways, namely under the rubric of ethics.

You mentioned "morality" in your previous posts, claiming as have others than the practice of abortion is morally wrong. It is wrong because the aborted fetus has the potential to becoming a living human being. Abortion is wrong because these potential humans (a fetus) are killed, snuffed out, and killing of humans is wrong.

While many (not all) anti-abortionists would agree with the above characterization, it brings up a contradiction with other core beliefs of anti-abortionists.

Many anti-abortionists (not all), especially those personalities that participate in this forum, have categorically supported the killing of human beings by supporting and including rationalizations and justifications for war against Iraq.

This places the value of the fetus above the value of a living, breathing human soldier, marine, sailor, Iraqi military person, and civilians. The anti-abortionist claims killing is wrong for fetuses and rationalizations for abortion represent immorality on part of the one having or performing the abortion. Yet at the same time, justifications and rationalizations for warfare are not considered immoral, although warfare kills more and is more bloody and deadly than abortion is, in general.

One thing I've noticed on this thread is how the statistics for abortion in the U.S. cited on this forum are extremely inflated figures.
One responder mentioned 3 million abortions in the Toledo are in one year. I don't think there were 3 million clinical, recorded abortions in the whole nation. Consider that abortion is simply unavailable in many areas of the U.S. Also, consider the moral questions/ramifications of those wanting an abortion, in combination with state-mandated waiting periods, the cost and the actual procedure itself.

I have, for some time now, felt the abortion issue is merely a pet-issue for moralistic factions in our nation. I feel as though the common American rarely gives it a thought. I, for one, know that I would never ask a girl to have an abortion, or even suggest it because it is wrong. As stated in previous posts I made, abortion is a means of one escaping responsibility for their actions.

Now on a technical, linguistic objection, the moralistic factions that are vehemently opposed to abortion are called "Pro-Life." Pro meaning "good" and "life" meaning existence of a human agent.
If life is considered good for Pro-Lifers, then why do so many Pro-Lifers support warfare and executions (I could add sport hunting of animals here as well, but I specifically defined "life" as it relates to humans)?
It seems to me that if an organization, or even loose association of people who believe a certain way or in a certain ideal, should oppose warfare or execution if they consider human life to be of intrinsic value and worth preserving. To support warfare and executions while claiming one is also Pro-Life as it relates to abortion is a contradiction of valus on part of the Pro-Lifer. Perhaps Pro-Life elements should name themselves Pro-Fetus because that is in essence the position in which they adhere.

More on this shortly, although you can add your objections if you like.

I'm Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. How do you like them apples? :D

KlutzDio I Wrote:Dr. T,

The war justification directly corresponds to abortion practice and protest in a variety of ways, namely under the rubric of ethics.

You mentioned "morality" in your previous posts, claiming as have others than the practice of abortion is morally wrong. It is wrong because the aborted fetus has the potential to becoming a living human being. Abortion is wrong because these potential humans (a fetus) are killed, snuffed out, and killing of humans is wrong.

The anti-abortionist claims killing is wrong for fetuses and rationalizations for abortion represent immorality on part of the one having or performing the abortion. Yet at the same time, justifications and rationalizations for warfare are not considered immoral, although warfare kills more and is more bloody and deadly than abortion is, in general.
To support warfare and executions while claiming one is also Pro-Life as it relates to abortion is a contradiction of valus on part of the Pro-Lifer. Perhaps Pro-Life elements should name themselves Pro-Fetus because that is in essence the position in which they adhere.

I would take issue w/ the term "potential". Science would be forced to conclude that it is an actual human life.

Quote:While many (not all) anti-abortionists would agree with the above characterization, it brings up a contradiction with other core beliefs of anti-abortionists.

Many anti-abortionists (not all), especially those personalities that participate in this forum, have categorically supported the killing of human beings by supporting and including rationalizations and justifications for war against Iraq.

This places the value of the fetus above the value of a living, breathing human soldier, marine, sailor, Iraqi military person, and civilians...

If life is considered good for Pro-Lifers, then why do so many Pro-Lifers support warfare and executions (I could add sport hunting of animals here as well, but I specifically defined "life" as it relates to humans)?
It seems to me that if an organization, or even loose association of people who believe a certain way or in a certain ideal, should oppose warfare or execution if they consider human life to be of intrinsic value and worth preserving.

That point doesn't fly with me. Simply put, the unborn baby is guilty of no crime. The criminal guilty of a capital crime has done so knowing the appropriate ethical (I'll try to use ethically and morally in a precise fashion, but confess I slip and use them interchangeably sometimes.) response is capital punishment.

Pro-life folks don't delight in that, but it is the ethical consequence. (Not all pro-life folks think so.)

The war-time victims, including soldiers may be in a different class. You've already made it clear you don't believe in a "just war" theory. I understand you choose not to accept that, but it is not a logical fallacy for those Pro-life people who do accept such a theory. Their logic is sound even if you don't believe it to be valid.

Moreover, you who point out such "inconsistencies" have yet to provide the appropriate reponse to the murderous tyrant. Is it better to kill him, and save lives, or let him live and continue taking more lives?

Motown Bronco Wrote:Very true, Odd. Late-term abortions are fortunately quite rare. And I also favor any and all procedures whereas the mother's life is in jeopardy.

So, we can avoid addressing the merits of the issue if we can say that a particular procedure is "rare". Should we then put a moratorium on murder prosecutions where the murder rate can be said to be low? How many lives have to be lost before we decide that no lives should have been lost? Would Stalin have been more acceptable if he had only killed a few thousands of his comrades instead of millions.

I can't believe that the question of the moral and ethical rightness of conduct is only ripe for consideration if we can say that the conduct doesn't happen all the time.

joebordenrebel Wrote:I'm Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. How do you like them apples? :D

You aren't Billy Clinnon, JBR. Not even the Prince of Ketchup. Good try, though.

DrTorch Wrote:

KlutzDio I Wrote:Dr. T,

The war justification directly corresponds to abortion practice and protest in a variety of ways, namely under the rubric of ethics.

You mentioned "morality" in your previous posts, claiming as have others than the practice of abortion is morally wrong. It is wrong because the aborted fetus has the potential to becoming a living human being. Abortion is wrong because these potential humans (a fetus) are killed, snuffed out, and killing of humans is wrong.

The anti-abortionist claims killing is wrong for fetuses and rationalizations for abortion represent immorality on part of the one having or performing the abortion. Yet at the same time, justifications and rationalizations for warfare are not considered immoral, although warfare kills more and is more bloody and deadly than abortion is, in general.
To support warfare and executions while claiming one is also Pro-Life as it relates to abortion is a contradiction of valus on part of the Pro-Lifer. Perhaps Pro-Life elements should name themselves Pro-Fetus because that is in essence the position in which they adhere.

I would take issue w/ the term "potential". Science would be forced to conclude that it is an actual human life.

Quote:While many (not all) anti-abortionists would agree with the above characterization, it brings up a contradiction with other core beliefs of anti-abortionists.

Many anti-abortionists (not all), especially those personalities that participate in this forum, have categorically supported the killing of human beings by supporting and including rationalizations and justifications for war against Iraq.

This places the value of the fetus above the value of a living, breathing human soldier, marine, sailor, Iraqi military person, and civilians...

If life is considered good for Pro-Lifers, then why do so many Pro-Lifers support warfare and executions (I could add sport hunting of animals here as well, but I specifically defined "life" as it relates to humans)?
It seems to me that if an organization, or even loose association of people who believe a certain way or in a certain ideal, should oppose warfare or execution if they consider human life to be of intrinsic value and worth preserving.

That point doesn't fly with me. Simply put, the unborn baby is guilty of no crime. The criminal guilty of a capital crime has done so knowing the appropriate ethical (I'll try to use ethically and morally in a precise fashion, but confess I slip and use them interchangeably sometimes.) response is capital punishment.

Pro-life folks don't delight in that, but it is the ethical consequence. (Not all pro-life folks think so.)

The war-time victims, including soldiers may be in a different class. You've already made it clear you don't believe in a "just war" theory. I understand you choose not to accept that, but it is not a logical fallacy for those Pro-life people who do accept such a theory. Their logic is sound even if you don't believe it to be valid.

Moreover, you who point out such "inconsistencies" have yet to provide the appropriate reponse to the murderous tyrant. Is it better to kill him, and save lives, or let him live and continue taking more lives?

Well said, DrTorch, well said indeed.

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:There are stages of abortion where the fetus isn't alive.&nbsp;

Are you not in favor of abortion in the case of:
- Rape
- Incest
- Under 21

?

And because I can hear objections to under 21 already... it's more times than not unsafe, and almost always unplanned.&nbsp; Condoms break.&nbsp; Pills don't work.&nbsp; The day after pill doesn't alwasy work.&nbsp; Etc.&nbsp; In today's very sexual society, it happens more.&nbsp; Instead of ruining a teens education and chances at a respectable life... give them another option.

I also find it stunningly pompous to say what other people can and can't do.&nbsp; Legit arguments start when the fetus can be considered a live organism with rudamentary thought.

What stage or stages would you be referring to, and by what definition to you say they are not "alive"?

Pompous to tell other people what to do? I don't tell anybody what to do, but I surely have the right as a citizen to have a view and to express that view. Beyond that, why don't you ask me where I get off "telling" drunks that they do ill if they drive while drunk, or that rapists do evil when they rape. I mean, by your measure, a person shouldn't say nuthin about nuthin about what others should do. If that is so, where do you get off telling me I am pompous for telling other people what to do.

I think Roe v. Wade and progeny were wrongly decided. I can say that.

Is abortion wrong in the case of rape or incest? This is the hardest of all questions, but to be consistent, I would say that it is. However a child is concieved, it is not less a human being because it was conceived by rape or incest. This is not to say that this would be an easy thing to accept, but I do think it is the moral thing to accept. Politically, this will never happen, even should abortion on demand should end.

A real risk of serious physical harm or death to the mother? I think the question has been resolved in favor of the life of the mother, on the notion that the child will almost certainly die. However, given the availibility of C-sections and such, this quandry will not often be seen. There may indeed be some strange and unusual medical conditions that would present this problem. In all events, threats to lifestyle, "depression", and such things as that are not "threat" to the life of the mother.

You say that life should be thought to begin once a fetus is a "live organism, capable of rudimentary thought" What does that mean? How would we know when a fetus is capable of "rudimentary thought", and how rudimentary can it be to be permitted life? I know some people who have been born, lived for years, and do not give evidence of what I would call "rudimentary thought". And then, since your standard, if it could be defined, is hardly likely to occur to "live" fetuses at the very same time in development, how are we to apply this standard?

Dr. T,

You said,

"I would take issue w/ the term "potential". Science would be forced to conclude that it is an actual human life."

I used the term "potential" because the fetus could turn out to be a still-born, or the mother could conceivably miscarry at almost any time during the pregnancy, of course, the first trimester are the typical periods in which a pregnancy can fail.

In addition to a fetus turning out a still-born, any other such calamity could befall either the mother or the fetus.

This reminds me of a friend I had 14 years ago, who knocked up his girlfriend. He didn't want to marry her, and persuaded her to get an abortion. She considered it, but they went on and had the baby after they got married. This was before ultra-sound was prominent with pregnancies upon regular visits with an OBGYN. Anyway, the child was born with her intestinal tract outside of her body.

The child survived for years, but it was a long, arduous journey for the child, parents and the grandparents. This was especially hard on my friend, who was recently married, 18 years old and so broke he couldn't pay attention. My pal's father had CHAMPUS insurance coverage on his son, but the marriage negated the policy.

Currently, the child's condition at birth and her subsequent recovery tore the two "child-parents" apart, and they divorced four years later. About that time Mya was almost fully recovered from the birth anamoly, in 1998 she died from complications, and shortly thereafter, Mya's mother overdosed on pain-killers and anti-depressants. My friend, we'll call him "joe" is a drunk and an all around mess today and has been since his daughter died. Every time I see him the subject comes up and he always insists he knows abortion is wrong--categorically--but wishes they had gone that route. He says his life would have been better off had they done that. This is an ad hoc conclusion he's making, of course, and I'm not bringing this up in attempt to claim these results are typical for all cases. I am merely trying to point out the chance one takes when one gets pregnant.

In any event, I want to tell my friend he's made his bed and now he must lie in it, but what's the point in pouring salt on a wound?

You say,

"Simply put, the unborn baby is guilty of no crime. "

Conceivably (speculative here) the un-aborted fetus could be carried to term, birthed, raised and committ horrible murders, and then be put to death at the hands of the state of Texas. Or the fetus could have been birthed, and 18 years later join the Marines (by economic necessity) only to perish by shrapnel on some god-forsaken beachhead.

Conceivably, the un-aborted fetuses of this world could all have been born, turned into human beings who end up on welfare.

Conceivably, the un-aborted fetuses could be born and raised, and turn into the next Hitler.

All kinds of possibilities abound, but what strikes me about your statement is killing convicted murderers is acceptable, but killing fetuses is not. In all realms of possibility, a convicted murderer could reform themselves and generate great acts of giving and kindness just as easily as an un-aborted fetus could be born and be the next Mother Theresa.

More on this: a convicted criminal, a murderer if you will, not necessarily "knows" fully what they are doing. Certainly most do, but on a case-by-case basis, many convicted violent criminals are mentally ill, learning disabled and not every human being has the same notions of morality. Some murderer could have a profound sense of justice that is "an eye for an eye" sense of the concept. The guy is wronged by someone is a serious way, and the victim cannot receive justice by the authorities for lack of evidence. The guy is so moved by his sense of justice that he takes it upon himself and murders the perpetrator of the great injustice (this was brought up just to clarify how different people in the same culture can have drastically different ideas of abstract concepts, i.e. justice, morality, etc.).

And, you need to really think of what you have said here. On one hand you make the claim to take human lives is immoral and those guilty of this offense deserve their lives taken in return. If killing humans was really categorically immoral in your view, then it would be equally immoral to kill humans convicted of violent crimes. So you are not applying your moral principle (killing humans is wrong) in an equitable manner.

You said,
"Pro-life folks don't delight in that, but it is the ethical consequence. (Not all pro-life folks think so.)"

Everytime some poor soul on death row is about to be executed, the usual anti-death penalty activists show up and protest. If the convicted murderer/criminal is guilty of a high-profile crime (such as killing a police officer), then death penalty advocates show up to counter the other protest. Many of the signs seen from this latter group clearly show that they have a bloodlust for the inmate, begging for his head on a platter. Many of this crowd consider themselves Pro-Life, meaning they are opposed to legal abortions. And, I said in my previous post that not all Pro-Lifers fit this characterization, and they don't just like all anti-war people don't hold the same positions. And I will add that most Pro-Lifers in my neck of the woods have a bloodlust for certain human lives but not fetuses.

You wrote,
"The war-time victims, including soldiers may be in a different class. You've already made it clear you don't believe in a "just war" theory. I understand you choose not to accept that, but it is not a logical fallacy for those Pro-life people who do accept such a theory. Their logic is sound even if you don't believe it to be valid."

I don't think I've said I automatically reject a just war theory. I think I was clear that warfare itself is an immoral action because warfare is a continuation of policy by other means (Clausewitz). Warfare as propagated by the current Administration is merely their policy. Certainly moral human agents, humans maintaining the highest intelligence known in this world, can come up with other policies to break an enemy's will.

To fight a war "morally" is a contradiction, and to attempt to do so is folly (Clausewitz, and Walzer). Any warfare in which human lives are not taken would cease to be a war in the typical definition. But on just war, meaning 'we are justified to kill' is a moral dilemma, has been the only recourse for humans during some epochs of history, given the limitations of human thought, technology, or various social and economic calamities all contribute to the situation in which warfare is the only option to pursue.
"We are fortunate that war is so horrible...lest we should grow too fond of it." R.E. Lee.

Since you didn't get my previous point, any Pro-Lifer (meaning one opposed to abortion practices) should consider another form of nomenclature for their position if that Pro-Lifer favors warfare, especially unnecessary wars such as the current conflict in Iraq. It is inconsistent to claim you value life, but only in certain circumstances. A Pro-Life position suggests one values life--categorically. Most Pro-Lifers I've met have an actual disdain for lives other than their own, and some even have a disdain for their own lives as they constantly engage in self-destruction through drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, obesity, dangerous situation such as drag-racing or bungee jumping, etc.

I never said this was a logical fallacy, to favor life only in cases of pregnancy, but to dis-value life in cases of war or crime and punishment. If I did, then I was wrong. This is not a fallacy, it is an inconsistent application of a principle; it is a position that only holds up only in certain cases--pregnancies and one's attempt to end a pregnancy before term. Most Pro-Lifers I know value human life if and only if certain conditions apply. If these conditions do not apply, then they certainly do not value life.

Logic is the study of arguments, how ideas and terms relate to one another, and how we arrive at true statements of value. Logic is utilized so that one cannot create a position in which you have A and not-A at the same time. Logic is a tool needed to prevent reasoning skills, inherent to the human mind, from infering paradoxes. It is paradoxical to say "I Joe Smith value human life, so women should not abort their fetuses, and we should kill those murdering bastages in Texas' Huntsville facility."

You wrote,
"Moreover, you who point out such "inconsistencies" have yet to provide the appropriate reponse to the murderous tyrant. Is it better to kill him, and save lives, or let him live and continue taking more lives? "

What is interesting here is Saddam became a murderous tyrant in the eyes of Americans since the Gulf War I ended. When I was a high schooler in the 1980s, Saddam was our government's friend because he kept the Iranians at bay by shelling them everyday. Of course, Saddam's always been a murderous tyrant, it is only recently that Americans are appalled by it. Back in the 1970s and 80s, Saddam's murderousness was tolerated, condoned and aided by our government (and certain elements in the private sector as well) because he murdered the right folks. Americans back then were, for the most part, oblivious to Saddam's actions.

Another interesting aspect to the above quoted statements you made is the fact that we had to kill some helpless and innocents in Iraq in order to oust Saddam and stop his murderousness. This is classic utilitarian philosophy--some moral evil can be tolerated only if it leads to the greater good. The greater good in the case of the recent Iraq war has yet to be seen, well except for Haliburton who stated publicly today that their profits for the year exceed $5 billion. So they have experienced the greater good by tolerating the evil of invasion, killings and war (and I would suspect Haliburton board of trustees sees money as having intrinsic value). The armless soldier recuperating at a military hospital, perhaps, has yet to experience the greater good.

But since you brought it up, when are we going to go after the other murderous tyrants of the world? I keenly sense that Kim Jung Il of N. Korea is due for his judgement day and "coalition" force invasion.

Lastly, I am a lowly sports reporter at a small newspaper and foreign policy decisions are not in my job description. For that we elect representatives to Congress and the White House, so the answer to your question about what the best solution is, is niether here nor there.

I will say this, and I have a problem with being manipulated, deceived and lied to. With that in mind, I certainly wish GW Bush had just come right out and said exactly why we were invading Iraq, rather than going through this extended song and dance.

I would be more apt to agree with war, especially the current war, if an Administration official just came out and said something to the effect:
"today we are launching a war against nation X because those are some immoral little bast*rds over there worshipping their false gods and wearing Pizza Hut table cloths on their heads. Furthermore, they have this precious resource that we need, my friend's company can get rich off of the reconstruction contracts, and we Americans are bigger, badder, stronger and we need to kick somebody's arse to test all these new weapons we have, so it might as well be nation X. And, uh...oh yeah, nation X's leader tried to kill my pappy and he should've know...don't mess with Texas!"

At least that would be easier to believe and easier to accept than some convoluted explanation derived solely to dupe the general and voting public.

Wryword Wrote:

joebordenrebel Wrote:I'm Pro-Choice and Pro-Life. How do you like them apples? :D

You aren't Billy Clinnon, JBR. Not even the Prince of Ketchup. Good try, though.

Seriously, I am. If I ever get pregnant, I plan to keep it.

But that's the whole point, Moses. It's not my call. I can't tell you how to live an ethical life and you can't tell me (or you can, but I just snore through the lecture).

You think it's a baby inside; there are plenty of women who see it as a potential baby but still just a bunch of cells.

Even a bunch of Catholics. . .ain't that weird?

"

Assertion: The fetus is a person from the moment of conception. I care about the mother too, but you can't ignore-or kill-the little person inside her.






Response:





In fact, most of the world's scientific, medical, legal, and religious communities do not share that view. Even the Vatican says that science and medicine cannot tell when the fetus becomes a person and that theologians differ on when a fetus gains a soul, which for some religions marks passage into personhood. Different relgions and different societies put forth different ideas.There is no definitive statement on which everyone agrees.









Society will not likely settle this question in our lifetimes, and we are certainly not going to settle it tonight. Good people will diagree. The question is what kind of laws should we have when there exists repectable diversity of both scientific and religious views on the status of the fetus. I think it is unjust and unworkabl for the law to forbid something which respectable opinion supports.





While we really have no consensus in society on when the fetus becomes a person, we do agree that the pregnant woman is a person. She is the one who must decide what she believes to be the value of the fetus, when it becomes a person, and under what circumstances it would be morally justifiable for her to have an abortion. She has to weigh all the information available and make her own decision.





No matter what value you place on fetal life, you cannot ignore the consequences of illegal abortion on the quality of a woman's life. When women are deprived of information and the ability to decide to have or not have a legal, safe abortion, they suffer, men suffer, and children suffer-everybody suffers when abortion is illegal.







 



FACTS:
Personhood







Dozens of distinguished scientists, including 11 Nobel laureates, have argued before the US Supreme Court that science does not tell us when a human person's life begins. "The only 'consensus' that may be said to exist among scientists on the question of when a human life begins is that science alone cannot answer that question," they wrote. "Science cannot define the essential attributes of human life any more than science can define such concepts as love, faith or trust."





The scientists quoted the 1981 congressional testimony of Dr. Leon Rosenberg, then chairman of the Yale University Medical School Human Genetics Department: "I maintain that concepts such as humanness are beyond the purview of science because no idea about them can be tested experimentally." Amici Curiae Brief of 167 Distinguished Scientists and Physicians, including 11 Nobel laureates, in Support of Appellees, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, in the US Supreme Court (case no. 88-605).






Views on abortion and the status of the fetus vary widely within and among religions. For example, an expert on religious views cites





"enormous differences of opinion" among Baptists;


a 1988 resolution supporting the legality of abortion in the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church;


a 1988 statement by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America recognizing that members hold various opinions and declaring that a fetus does not have an absolute right to birth, nor a woman to abortion;


official support among Methodist denominations for legal abortion;


the position of the Presbyterian Church (USA) that abortion should be legal and that fetal life is inviolable only after viability;


Judaism's Talmudic law that, while abortion is serious, the fetus is "part of its mother," not a person entitled to birth;


the fact that opinions vary among Buddhists and that Buddhist clergy have created a rite to acknowledge abortion; and


that Islam permits abortion during the first 40 days because the fetus at this stage is "in the form of a seed."






Paul D. Simmons, "Religious Approaches to Abortion," in J. Douglas Butler & David F. Walbert, eds., Abortion, Medicine, and the Law , 4th ed. (New York: Facts On File, 1992), pp. 712-28.





Even within Roman Catholic teaching, the Vatican has not reached a conclusion about when a fetus becomes a person, and theologians take varied positions:


"This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement." Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Vatican), Declaration on Procured Abortion, 1974


"Only about 45% of eggs that are fertilized actually come to term. The other 55% miscarry for a variety of reasons.... Such vast embryonic loss intuitively argues against the creation of a principle of immaterial individuality at conception."






Thomas A. Shannon and Allan B. Wolter, O.F.M., "Reflections on the Moral Status of the Pre-Embryo," Theological Studies, 51:4 (1990), p. 619. "

<a href='http://www.cath4choice.org/lowbandwidth/howtotalk.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.cath4choice.org/lowbandwidth/howtotalk.htm</a>