Wait a moment... so abortion really does = murder....
-
dennisrwood
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:20 pm
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
Aah, but is the choice to err in favour of the humanity of the foetus the cautious answer? I feel that perhaps it is not. To criminalise abortion is not the result of least consequence. On the contrary, it seems to me to hold for more dire consequences to all involved.
The parent may suffer an unwanted child, society may suffer added burdens, but worst of all, the child suffers from all of this as well. If nothing else, error on the side of caution should be geared toward the outcome with the least negative consequences.
--Avatar
The parent may suffer an unwanted child, society may suffer added burdens, but worst of all, the child suffers from all of this as well. If nothing else, error on the side of caution should be geared toward the outcome with the least negative consequences.
--Avatar
-
dennisrwood
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:20 pm
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
Fair enough, if we're talking about children in general. They are our hope for the future, and the only one at that. Of course, a large part of their ability to realise that hope lies in the world that we leave them.
But while I have no problem with the concept of children as our hope, it is very different if we look at each individual child. And even there, while our hope does lie equally in individuals, one less child does not lessen that hope. The hope remains, whether 5,000 are born, or 500,000.
Do we have less hope every time a foetus is not brought to term? Not in terms of humanity, I think.
--A
But while I have no problem with the concept of children as our hope, it is very different if we look at each individual child. And even there, while our hope does lie equally in individuals, one less child does not lessen that hope. The hope remains, whether 5,000 are born, or 500,000.
Do we have less hope every time a foetus is not brought to term? Not in terms of humanity, I think.
--A
-
Gadget nee Jemcheeta
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 2040
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:05 pm
- Location: Cleveland
-
Gadget nee Jemcheeta
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 2040
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:05 pm
- Location: Cleveland
You said 'do we have less hope in human life' because of abortions. Obviously, our hope for the children of the future is not diminished when an abortion takes place (at least I don't think so). In that same way, I don't think the value of human life is decreased when abortions take place. Because no one actually values human life less.
Start where you are,
use what you have,
do what you can.
use what you have,
do what you can.
-
dennisrwood
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:20 pm
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
We destroy life all the time. Terrible wars, serial/mass murderers. Historically, life has always been considered of little worth anyway. And yet despite this, we have still arrived at a point where we try to respect life.
Respect for life in general is not diminished by the fact that abortions occur. Respect for life in general is not diminished when soldiers kill each other in war. Nor when people are executed. It may diminish for the people involved, but humanity still believes itself to respect life, despite wars etc.
That potential for life is realised only at birth really. Up until the point where the foetus is an autonomous being, it isn't here yet. It still exists in potentia, but it is an unrealised potential. If it is never born, it is almost as though it never existed, in terms of the world at least.
We prevent it from realising its potential, yes. But that is not murder. At the point when abortion occurs, there is no person. There is something that may become a person without interference, but that is the most you can say.
--Avatar
Respect for life in general is not diminished by the fact that abortions occur. Respect for life in general is not diminished when soldiers kill each other in war. Nor when people are executed. It may diminish for the people involved, but humanity still believes itself to respect life, despite wars etc.
That potential for life is realised only at birth really. Up until the point where the foetus is an autonomous being, it isn't here yet. It still exists in potentia, but it is an unrealised potential. If it is never born, it is almost as though it never existed, in terms of the world at least.
We prevent it from realising its potential, yes. But that is not murder. At the point when abortion occurs, there is no person. There is something that may become a person without interference, but that is the most you can say.
--Avatar
-
dennisrwood
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:20 pm
Avatar:
Pope John Paul II talks about our culture of death and how all of the killing
brings with it a disrespect of life. that if we were to cherish life we would try to protect it. abortion being wrong in all cases. if the mother's life is in danger, then we are talking about a medical procedure and not abortion. he talks of euthenesia as circumventing God's will. and wars as evil. the last just war may have been WWII, but we still did wrong in Dresden, Hirshima and Nagasaki. if we valued life, we would not allow these things to happen. after 1000's of years, war is still a favorite option? there is no
repsect for life if we quibble when it begins. without conception there is no life. pure and simple. it is the starting point. and we are to protect that life while it is unable to do so.
Pope John Paul II talks about our culture of death and how all of the killing
brings with it a disrespect of life. that if we were to cherish life we would try to protect it. abortion being wrong in all cases. if the mother's life is in danger, then we are talking about a medical procedure and not abortion. he talks of euthenesia as circumventing God's will. and wars as evil. the last just war may have been WWII, but we still did wrong in Dresden, Hirshima and Nagasaki. if we valued life, we would not allow these things to happen. after 1000's of years, war is still a favorite option? there is no
repsect for life if we quibble when it begins. without conception there is no life. pure and simple. it is the starting point. and we are to protect that life while it is unable to do so.
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
So if the question of our value of life rests on far more than simply whether or not abortion is legal, then making it illegal is not going to suddenly engender real respect for life. As long as all the other things carry on, we are still not respecting life as you would have it.
And surely part of our respect for life is in the respect for the way that people choose to live their lives. Respecting the choices of the living is a step toward respecting their lives.
Nothing on earth is designed to protect life, except by our culture. In fact, protection of the weak can be considered counter-survival. Nature never intended the weak to live. We allow it, and thereby may be sowing the seeds of our eventual destruction.
Protection of the weak is a luxury that we gain only through having been strong enough to reach this point. There may be no life without conception, but that does not mean that every conception must become a life.
--Avatar
And surely part of our respect for life is in the respect for the way that people choose to live their lives. Respecting the choices of the living is a step toward respecting their lives.
Nothing on earth is designed to protect life, except by our culture. In fact, protection of the weak can be considered counter-survival. Nature never intended the weak to live. We allow it, and thereby may be sowing the seeds of our eventual destruction.
Protection of the weak is a luxury that we gain only through having been strong enough to reach this point. There may be no life without conception, but that does not mean that every conception must become a life.
--Avatar
-
dennisrwood
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:20 pm
Avatar: but all life has possibility. my child who was not allowed to be...
1) could be wonderful and a credit to mankind.
2) could be a monster, creating misery at each point.
3) could number among the quiet masses. content and here.
4) could have died already, breaking my heart.
5) all the abover or something else.
6) could be singing my songs, working out chart progression for me.
yes, i want to change the whole culture of death. i can aspire to this. and protecting the weak should be our cause. it's just the liberal in me.
1) could be wonderful and a credit to mankind.
2) could be a monster, creating misery at each point.
3) could number among the quiet masses. content and here.
4) could have died already, breaking my heart.
5) all the abover or something else.
6) could be singing my songs, working out chart progression for me.
yes, i want to change the whole culture of death. i can aspire to this. and protecting the weak should be our cause. it's just the liberal in me.
-
Gadget nee Jemcheeta
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 2040
- Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 2:05 pm
- Location: Cleveland
Avater Wrote:
If you don't know what you're missing, you're not missing it at all.
I disagree. That line of thinking suggests mind control as an effective means of government. I would think we would be trying to maximize the amount of potential happiness into realized happiness.
If you don't know what you're missing, you're not missing it at all.
I disagree. That line of thinking suggests mind control as an effective means of government. I would think we would be trying to maximize the amount of potential happiness into realized happiness.
Start where you are,
use what you have,
do what you can.
use what you have,
do what you can.
Yeah Av, I think that's a really dangerous stance to take. For example, there were generations of people in the USSR (and in SA) that had no idea what true freedom was. Are you suggesting that it wasn't something they wanted (or deserved) just because they hadn't experienced it?
"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." - PJ O'Rourke
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
_____________
"Men and women range themselves into three classes or orders of intelligence; you can tell the lowest class by their habit of always talking about persons; the next by the fact that their habit is always to converse about things; the highest by their preference for the discussion of ideas." - Charles Stewart
_____________
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." - James Madison
_____________
-
dennisrwood
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:20 pm
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
I think that there is a fundamental difference between my statement in terms of this topic, and the interpretations that are being made of it.
JemCheeta -- Mind control would be an effective means of government. Thats not to say that its right, but it would be effective, if it was perfect. As soon as that perfection slips, and people learn about other possibilities, it fails.
Cail -- those people were very aware of the fact that they didn't have true freedom. If they weren't at first, they soon became so. They were not experiencing it, but they knew about it. They knew what they were missing.
Dennis -- Same applies. At some point, the children would realise that not everybody lived that way, and that they didn't have to themselves. Again, they knew, or would learn, what they were missing.
In terms of the topic that we're discussing, we will never know what could have been. If it never is, then it never was. A better example may be that you walk past 100 bucks in the street, and never see it. You'll never know that you missed it, because you didn't know that it was there. Which means its the same as if it never was there. As far as you're concerned, you didn't miss a single thing.
--Avatar
JemCheeta -- Mind control would be an effective means of government. Thats not to say that its right, but it would be effective, if it was perfect. As soon as that perfection slips, and people learn about other possibilities, it fails.
Cail -- those people were very aware of the fact that they didn't have true freedom. If they weren't at first, they soon became so. They were not experiencing it, but they knew about it. They knew what they were missing.
Dennis -- Same applies. At some point, the children would realise that not everybody lived that way, and that they didn't have to themselves. Again, they knew, or would learn, what they were missing.
In terms of the topic that we're discussing, we will never know what could have been. If it never is, then it never was. A better example may be that you walk past 100 bucks in the street, and never see it. You'll never know that you missed it, because you didn't know that it was there. Which means its the same as if it never was there. As far as you're concerned, you didn't miss a single thing.
--Avatar
-
dennisrwood
- The Gap Into Spam
- Posts: 4048
- Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:20 pm
but you are taking away the possibility that the child could grow to realize
what could have been missed. and most folks, if they had to choose retroactively, would choose life i believe. the mother has the advantage here. if it were a year old child, you would surely advocate against terminating the child's life? can you argue that a child will be the result of a pregnancy in most normal gestations? we are arguing about the when of we qualify the life. i'd rather err on the side of caution. if i'm wrong we have another child. if you're wrong...
"don't throw away what you did not create"
-nova mob (grant hart) please don't ask.
what could have been missed. and most folks, if they had to choose retroactively, would choose life i believe. the mother has the advantage here. if it were a year old child, you would surely advocate against terminating the child's life? can you argue that a child will be the result of a pregnancy in most normal gestations? we are arguing about the when of we qualify the life. i'd rather err on the side of caution. if i'm wrong we have another child. if you're wrong...
"don't throw away what you did not create"
-nova mob (grant hart) please don't ask.
-
Avatar
- Immanentizing The Eschaton
- Posts: 61791
- Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 9:17 am
- Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 22 times
Take that child away, (prevent it from being a child), and there is no possibility.
You may be right in saying that, given a retroactive choice, they would choose differently. But again, the point is that they can choose. That is always my over-riding consideration. The right of people to determine their own lives, for good or ill.
Mistakes will be made, and the consequences will have to be lived with, but they will be made through the choices of each person concerned. Not enforced by some authority. We cannot choose for people. Whether it is a mistake or not, they have the right to them.
Of course, we differ on who created what as well. As far as I'm concerned, we do create it. By that reasoning, (not necessarily mine), we can throw it away.
--Avatar
You may be right in saying that, given a retroactive choice, they would choose differently. But again, the point is that they can choose. That is always my over-riding consideration. The right of people to determine their own lives, for good or ill.
Mistakes will be made, and the consequences will have to be lived with, but they will be made through the choices of each person concerned. Not enforced by some authority. We cannot choose for people. Whether it is a mistake or not, they have the right to them.
Of course, we differ on who created what as well. As far as I'm concerned, we do create it. By that reasoning, (not necessarily mine), we can throw it away.
--Avatar