[buffoon]

This abortion discussion will achieve what previous ones on these forums did.

Nothing.

The basic disparity existing between pro-life and pro-choice (here) boils down to the one thing that one party considers the abortion of a fetus murder, where the other one doesn't. The basic issue being that no agreement can be reached as to when a developing organism has become a person (i.e. life).

The arguing, pro and con, of women's rights to their body is all very well, but hardly has any bearing on the issue.

I'm using principles we all agree on, such as murder being wrong, and universal logic.

The rub lying in the first part of that sentence. Principles maybe but we do not ALL agree on abortion of a fetus being murder. And where some of us don't, the question of murder being wrong, self evident as that is, becomes moot as irrelevant to the topic.

And I'm glad that universal logic has been arrived at. Now if somebody could give some enlightenment as to its definition ????

[Ent]

This abortion discussion will achieve what previous ones on these forums did.

Nothing.

That depends on your perspective. For me it offers a very good opportunity to show where Biblical principles can and should be applied outside the church, in contrast to the apparently prevalent view around these parts that truth is relative and what other people think of things is none of anyone else's business.

The basic disparity existing between pro-life and pro-choice (here) boils down to the one thing that one party considers the abortion of a fetus murder, where the other one doesn't. The basic issue being that no agreement can be reached as to when a developing organism has become a person (i.e. life).

Absolutely. I would point out though that this is the issue I'm waiting for any response on. If anything Nittiley acknowledges it as wrong, but keeps throwing up smoke clouds about when it should be accepted anyway and sees it exclusively as a question of women's rights.
"even if you produced stats that demonstrated say, 80% of women get abortions because they 'hate babies' & 'enjoy murdering' them , i wouldn't relinquish my right, or any other women's right to decide what to do in any pregnancy situation."

The arguing, pro and con, of women's rights to their body is all very well, but hardly has any bearing on the issue. The rub lying in the first part of that sentence. Principles maybe but we do not ALL agree on abortion of a fetus being murder. And where some of us don't, the question of murder being wrong, self evident as that is, becomes moot as irrelevant to the topic.

That is very clear, but again there is an underlying flaw in this thinking in the unwillingness to accept that your disagreement could simply be wrong. What if I believed that killing disabled people (or insert any other group of people) isn't murder? It may be logically valid for me to assert that it's OK to murder disabled people with that rationalle, but the falsehood of the underlying reason makes the conclusion false.

And I'm glad that universal logic has been arrived at. Now if somebody could give some enlightenment as to its definition ????

Universal logic defines the quality of an argument such that such that, given the truth of the reasons, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.
For example
Given that all members of A are X
and B is a member of A
B is X.

Explicitely (and universally) excluded are ad hominem arguments, circular reasoning arguments, slippery slope arguments, false dichotemies, and other forms of arguments called logical fallacies.

[Wino]

Pure politics and what the bible has to say about it is irrelevant.

I'm anti-abortion, but pro choice. The argument that something alive outside a woman's body is the same as that inside a womans body is ridiculous. Calling an abortion murder just adds to the inanity.

At the rate the right wing in the USA is rushing to protect that which isn't theirs to protect also adds to the silliness. I expect next they will be pushing the banning of mensuration, miscarriages, male masturbation and nocturnal emissions as criminal offenses punishable as a felony since they do not have intent or culminate in procreation. They are already doing their best to eliminate contraception altogether. The craziness is crazier almost daily.

[Ent]

Pure politics and what the bible has to say about it is irrelevant.

Incorrect. See the openning of the thread.

The argument that something alive outside a woman's body is the same as that inside a womans body is ridiculous.

On what grounds?

At the rate the right wing in the USA

And why should I care? I'm not in the USA. I also happen to think the whole 2 party or 1 dimensional spectrum of parties is inherently broken on the basis that given 2 issues complex and controversial enough, the idea that one party would get the perfect right answer to both and the other the wrong answer to both is untenable. Multiply across by all the issues they squabble over...

rushing to protect that which isn't theirs to protect

Last time I checked, being willing to hold a line purely to protect someone else was considered a virtue rather than a vice.

I expect next they will be pushing the banning of mensuration, miscarriages, male masturbation and nocturnal emissions as criminal offenses punishable as a felony since they do not have intent or culminate in procreation.

Double score! a slippery slope and a straw man in one statement.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by Ent

Incorrect. See the openning of the thread.

Incorrect. Bible has no meaning to me.

On what grounds?

Truth.

And why should I care? I'm not in the USA. I also happen to think the whole 2 party or 1 dimensional spectrum of parties is inherently broken on the basis that given 2 issues complex and controversial enough, the idea that one party would get the perfect right answer to both and the other the wrong answer to both is untenable. Multiply across by all the issues they squabble over...

I don't care whether you care or not.

Last time I checked, being willing to hold a line purely to protect someone else was considered a virtue rather than a vice.

Depends on what/when you consider somethng someone. You draw your lines, I'll draw mine, and neither the twain shall meet.

Double score! a slippery slope and a straw man in one statement.

You forgot to add IMHO.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Ent

Double score! a slippery slope and a straw man in one statement.

actually, pretty sure that one would fall under sarcasm and/or cynicism..........

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by Ent

That depends on your perspective.

Naturally..................

For me it offers a very good opportunity to show where Biblical principles can and should be applied outside the church, in contrast to the apparently prevalent view around these parts that truth is relative and what other people think of things is none of anyone else's business.

...........as shown by YOUR above perspective. Clearly, as shown, not shared by everyone.

Absolutely. I would point out though that this is the issue I'm waiting for any response on. If anything Nittiley acknowledges it as wrong, but keeps throwing up smoke clouds about when it should be accepted anyway and sees it exclusively as a question of women's rights.

Well, I'll leave that one up to nittiley.

Nevertheless it seems that abortion is (normally) legal in Britain up to the 24th week of pregnancy, attached stipulations notwithstanding, and the US, last I heard, holds similar time stamps with state interests and those of the (non) mother to be balanced. Sybillinic ?

I in fact know of no country where abortion y/n is exclusively the affair of the pregnant.

"even if you produced stats that demonstrated say, 80% of women get abortions because they 'hate babies' & 'enjoy murdering' them , i wouldn't relinquish my right, or any other women's right to decide what to do in any pregnancy situation."

if, if, if.

If my granny woulda had wings, I'd have started an airline.

That is very clear, but again there is an underlying flaw in this thinking in the unwillingness to accept that your disagreement could simply be wrong.

Goes for all of us.

What if I believed that killing disabled people (or insert any other group of people) isn't murder? It may be logically valid for me to assert that it's OK to murder disabled people with that rationalle, but the falsehood of the underlying reason makes the conclusion false.

false dilemma for one, can probably add plurium interrogationum andpetitio principii

Universal logic defines the quality of an argument such that such that, given the truth of the reasons, the conclusion is guaranteed to be true.
For example
Given that all members of A are X
and B is a member of A
B is X.

Explicitely (and universally) excluded are ad hominem arguments, circular reasoning arguments, slippery slope arguments, false dichotemies, and other forms of arguments called logical fallacies.

That's speaking logic as it's "generally" understood (valid description, generally arrived at).

There is currently no universally accepted notion of logic, the idea strives for that and no conclusion reached.

[nittiley]

Originally Posted by Ent

That depends on your perspective. For me it offers a very good opportunity to show where Biblical principles can and should be applied outside the church, in contrast to the apparently prevalent view around these parts that truth is relative and what other people think of things is none of anyone else's business.

why can't you apply biblical principles inside your home, church, & community? why the insistence on applying them outside of that realm?

in spite of occasional snarky comments, i do feel most religious people mean well & they're not intentionally trying to cause problems. yet when those problems are highlighted, it seems as if most humans of religious persuasion throw up their bibles & profess because it's in their good book it must be correct.

Absolutely. I would point out though that this is the issue I'm waiting for any response on. If anything Nittiley acknowledges it as wrong, but keeps throwing up smoke clouds about when it should be accepted anyway and sees it exclusively as a question of women's rights.

i responded endlessly to this.. what are you lacking here? i explained that yes, the fetus' life is being terminated in an abortion. i've given my own personal opinions (i.e. would not abort 3rd trimester, yet do not feel my preferences should be applied to all women in all situations).

also how the topic remains under the realm of women's rights because it is her body/uterus/fetus -- even if that fetus is genetically distinct.
save for any additional humans affected by the situation (father, current children, et al.) the choice remains the woman's.

i loathe to mention this because it's gender biased, but it's often said among women that if men could become pregnant, there would never be a discussion of whether abortion was allowed (meaning it would always be permissible).

That is very clear, but again there is an underlying flaw in this thinking in the unwillingness to accept that your disagreement could simply be wrong. What if I believed that killing disabled people (or insert any other group of people) isn't murder? It may be logically valid for me to assert that it's OK to murder disabled people with that rationalle, but the falsehood of the underlying reason makes the conclusion false.

absolutely nothing to do with, say a zygote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote

which is under the umbrella of abortion.

Explicitely (and universally) excluded are ad hominem arguments, circular reasoning arguments, slippery slope arguments, false dichotemies, and other forms of arguments called logical fallacies.

& if you apply any of these to the peripheral factors surrounding abortion, they do not negate the presence of such factors & their impact on abortion.

[nittiley]

Originally Posted by Ent

I have no idea what this is about.

Then please don't demand that I come up with a figure.

Approximately 50% of all maternal deaths resulted from illegal abortion during the first half of the 20th century

http://www.now.org/issues/abortion/r...foreafter.html

jumping around from one of your previous posts..the above are stats regarding deaths due to when abortion was illegal before roe vs. wade, the law that made abortion legal in the states.

do you shirk your obligation to the children already born who need to be fed, housed, & loved when considering abortion laws? when you add extra children to over burgeoned numbers, then what? how will that affect the quality of those other childrens’ lives? don’t their lives get any consideration..only the fetus matters & not these other little ones?

bringing more children in a world where:

10.9 million children under five die in developing countries each year. Malnutrition and hunger-related diseases cause 60 percent of the deaths;
(Source: The State of the World's Children, UNICEF, 2007)

in the u.k.:

In 2003 to 2004, 21% of children lived in households below the poverty line. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty...United_Kingdom

these children need to be taken care of before more arrive. more children , less resources.. then what? increasing the population when the current amount of children aren’t getting basic needs met is creating another problem.

these aren't red herrings.. these are facts. children that need to be considered when one decides every fetus must go full term & be born.

i will try to get to the rest of that prev. post & either edit here or put a new one..


------------
remainder:

Guttmacher Institute survey (here).

i looked at the survey. based on ~1,200 respondents, so it’s valid, yet it’s only a single survey.

I'm using principles we all agree on, such as murder being wrong,

are you saying: murder is always wrong/sinful, or murder is always wrong/sinful when it involves abortion? i would assume you mean the latter..

i do not believe abortion is always wrong (nor always ‘right’ ). it is the female’s prerogative to decide about fetal existence before that fetus exits the uterus. at that juncture, you & i disagree, no? you feel it’s murder in utero & that it should be illegal on the grounds that it’s immoral/sinful.

There are a number of things which are illegal or immoral to do to your body.

what you consider immoral (& in other situations what society deems illegal) doesn’t necessarily translate to something being inherently wrong.

yes, suicide is an area similar to abortion. in some areas (my p.o.v.) it should be allowed & is the only just & humane approach; i’m referencing the terminally ill here.

I have already pointed out that the fetus is not part of your body.

yes, incorrectly.
once again.. uterus & fetus are attached via an umbilical cord, therefore it is a part of the female anatomy. if you start at the beginning of conception, the zygote attaches to the uterine wall. uterine lining attached to uterus, which is attached to human female. until the baby is delivered & the umbilical cord is severed, it is a part of the female’s reproductive organs.

Medically the fetus is a distinct organism from yourself,

yes, well aware of that prior, & it doesn't change anything.

Explain why the duty of society to safeguard its members doesn't apply to those in utero.

because the fetus is in utero.. therefore it falls under the jurisdiction of the woman. would you like me to tell you how you can manage your reproductive parts & any form of life emanating from them? should i dictate what you do with your sperm? of course not. i could argue that sperm is the precursor of life, & will become a medically distinct human eventually -- and perhaps that it should be sent to a lab to ensure there won’t be any genetic defects being unleashed into society. however, some of us would not invade your personal realm in that manner.. & i suggest you do the same for women.

Yes. Does this imply that you do not in general approve of abortions, but perhaps justify them as the lesser of 2 evils?

i feel unwanted, unintended pregnancies are a tragedy, & it would be best if those situations never occurred. however, they do & they will continue to, which is why abortion should not be made illegal. too many additional, negative consequences come from making that procedure illegal, which i’ve already explained in detail.

Now this is a very good question. Of course I can't do it; you've got that spot on. Now, is there or can there be a structure in place to look after those in unfortunate situations? How does society cope when people are landed in such situations (perhaps due to redundancies for example) after they've been born? Unfortunately public welfare is too broad a side issue to delve into, and one in which the American system apparently differs greatly from the British one I'm vaguely familiar with. I can tell you one thing for sure though; they don't kill them.

covered this earlier re. child poverty, over population, sustainability of the planet.

On what grounds do you claim that you have such a right in the first place? The right to abortion isn't granted to you as a Citizen of the USA by the Bill of Rights, it isn't granted as a human being by the UDHR, and you certainly aren't appealing to a Biblical or religious "right from God".

on primacy of child-bearer grounds.

It is not just that they're living organisms, but that they're both human beings. We cleared out the issue of animal death earlier, but these are people.

i really don’t think we cleared out the issue of animal death. you eat meat, you’re murdering an animal. one poor, innocent animal who just had the misfortune of be available for slaughter for you to consume.

so you’ve murdered an innocent life when you’re doing that, have you not? likely you see nothing wrong with it (you’re hungry). i agree it isn’t immoral to kill that animal in order to sustain yourself.

however, we have a certain stage of human life, & suddenly now it becomes immoral to murder it. i assume simply because you consider human life superior to animal life, no? the animal may feel differently, but they can’t speak english, as you know. so they’re innocent & mute to us.

yes, i feel it’s a women’s decision & right whether or not to murder her fetus. i would hope any parts of the aborted fetus would be used to better those already in society (stem cell research). some good can be produced from a tragic situation..

I'm arguing a general case that abortion is morally equivalent to the murder of an inocent human being. However, I have stated that there are situations where it would be morally acceptable to perform an abortion, just as it's morally acceptable to shoot someone in the head in some situations. That just isn't most situations.

therein lies the problem.. you don’t know what is going on in “most situations.”

Trust me, I have a broader perspective on life than most of my peers, partly as a result of being a TCK.

what is TCK?

I assume you mean that most people are going to keep having sex purely for pleasure and there's nothing you can realistically do to stop it, that they (the female ones anyway) will keep getting pregnant as a result. I don't like that, but sadly I can accept it as very likely.

i see it as depressing that expressing your humanity is considered sinful or sad. certain religions in the states used to ban dancing on the grounds that is was sinful.
dancing..

do you believe your god put you on earth to solely to suffer & anything aside from that, especially if it's pleasurable, is sinful?

While the situation is complex, the question is simple. Is it morally right to kill someone to get out of the inconvenient result of such behaviour?

i believe your use of the word ‘inconvenient’ doesn’t even begin to cover the scope of the situation, which i why i won’t answer it. it’s an incomplete question..

complex situations produce complex questions.. simple would be convenient, but not a true reflection of what abortion entails. even though you wish for something simple, you will not find it in this & many other issues..

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by nittiley

i loathe to mention this because it's gender biased, but it's often said among women that if men could become pregnant, there would never be a discussion of whether abortion was allowed (meaning it would always be permissible).

If men were ever to become pregnant, we wouldn't go on about it (take) for three quarters of a year.

[nittiley]

Originally Posted by buffoon

If men were ever to become pregnant, we wouldn't go on about it (take) for three quarters of a year.

no, it would take you at least 2 years!

ps) 1 buffoon is all this planet requires!! if it ever required 1 in the first place..

[valis]

Originally Posted by nittiley

ps) 1 buffoon is all this planet requires!! if it ever required 1 in the first place..

hah!!!!!

quote of the year, and it's only April..........

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by nittiley

no, it would take you at least 2 years!

No way. Being ready for watching football (both American and European) alone, would preclude that.

ps) 1 buffoon is all this planet requires!! if it ever required 1 in the first place..

I carry my name with pride.

[buffoon]

Originally Posted by valis

hah!!!!!

quote of the year, and it's only April..........

Bah.....just getting bitter with envy

[nittiley]

Originally Posted by buffoon

No way. Being ready for watching football (both American and European) alone, would preclude that.

soccer football & american football, i assume.

you can watch telly while pregnant.. try again