Is Abortion Ethical

[dimreepr]

I'm interested in how you guys see this. Personally I think its wrong(go figure) and I can't understand how people feel it is right, ethical, or why it should even be legal.

 

 

At what point does a potential life, live?

 

Every egg and sperm has the potential to live, is contraception murder?

 

Don't lose sight of the fact of consciousness, a fetus that's in the legal window, at least in the UK, for abortion isn't; as such the emotive language of murder isn't appropriate; would your ethical stance suggest a coma victim be forced to wake, in order to suffer, just to live?

Edited November 7, 2016 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

 

 

At what point does a potential life, live?

 

Every egg and sperm has the potential to live, is contraception murder?

 

Don't lose sight of the fact of consciousness, a fetus that's in the legal window, at least in the UK, for abortion isn't; as such the emotive language of murder isn't appropriate; would your ethical stance suggest a coma victim be forced to wake, in order to suffer, just to live?

A coma victim is a coma victim. A fetus is a fetus. My ethical stance does not suggest that a coma victim be woken up to suffer, but a fetus that is inevitably going to wake up no matter what we do short of killing it is. If you can't care for a child you can give it away if you want, if not that it will at least grow up. You would suggest that anyone with suicidal thoughts should and could be allowed to commit suicide based upon the fact that they are suffering inside. Yet, you don't. Attempting to apply an ethical stance for one subject to another opens a large realm of possibilities that not only contradict each other, but are also actively agreed upon. There's too many variables to simply change the subject and apply my ethical stance or yours to it.

[DrP]

And where would you draw the line?

 

Thankfully I do not have to decide - and I am not qualified to decide either... I'll go with the current law on the subject and accept that it is all open for moral discussion, so long as it doesn't put unnecessary pressure or shame or troubles upon anyone forced to make their decision. These girls have enough to go through as it is without people who are supposed to be offering them love and support making them feel even worse about themselves by piling guilt on their heads - it is wrong and VERY unloving.

Edited November 7, 2016 by DrP

[Raider5678]

 

Thankfully I do not have to decide - and I am not qualified to decide either... I'll go with the current law on the subject and accept that it is all open for moral discussion, so long as it doesn't put unnecessary pressure or shame or troubles upon anyone forced to make their decision. These girls have enough to go through as it is without people who are supposed to be offering them love and support making them feel even worse about themselves by piling guilt on their heads - it is wrong and VERY unloving.

To prevent the suffering of one you would end the life of another. Your choice.

[dimreepr]

A coma victim is a coma victim. A fetus is a fetus. My ethical stance does not suggest that a coma victim be woken up to suffer, but a fetus that is inevitably going to wake up no matter what we do short of killing it is. If you can't care for a child you can give it away if you want, if not that it will at least grow up. You would suggest that anyone with suicidal thoughts should and could be allowed to commit suicide based upon the fact that they are suffering inside. Yet, you don't. Attempting to apply an ethical stance for one subject to another opens a large realm of possibilities that not only contradict each other, but are also actively agreed upon. There's too many variables to simply change the subject and apply my ethical stance or yours to it.

 

 

Well done you've failed to answer any of my questions.

[Raider5678]

 

 

1. At what point does a potential life, live?

 

2. Every egg and sperm has the potential to live, is contraception murder?

 

3. Don't lose sight of the fact of consciousness, a fetus that's in the legal window, at least in the UK, for abortion isn't; as such the emotive language of murder isn't appropriate; would your ethical stance suggest a coma victim be forced to wake, in order to suffer, just to live?

1. Potential life isn't life until its set into motion.

2. Again, not setting it into motion means its not life because it hasn't been put into motion.

3. No, it does not apply to a coma victim.

[DrP]

 

2. Again, not setting it into motion means its not life because it hasn't been put into motion.

 

 

Again, where do you draw the line? 1 cell? 2? 4? 8? 16? 32?............

 

It is heartless to force a young girl to have a baby she doesn't want (and I'm not listing the sickening reasons why a mother wouldn't want her child, but this is the world we live in - where is god when these girls are suffering?) - A ball of cells is not yet compos mentis, where the mother is a full life human being - her choice - not yours.

 

I used to be a christian - I was sickened to my core when I heard that it was a christian movement that hang around outside abortion clinics throwing eggs at girls and piling guilt on their heads - shame on them and all of their supporters... don't talk to me of love when you let those people suffer like that and enhance their suffering with your backward ways.

[dimreepr]

1. Potential life isn't life until its set into motion.

2. Again, not setting it into motion means its not life because it hasn't been put into motion.

 

 

 

When is that? My sperm was set into motion when I reached sexual maturity.

 

 

 

3. No, it does not apply to a coma victim.

 

 

 

 

It seems equally valid.

 

(Edit I don't know what happened to my post) these aren't answers, just denying the questions exist.

Edited November 7, 2016 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

 

1. Again, where do you draw the line? 1 cell? 2? 4? 8? 16? 32?............

 

2. It is heartless to force a young girl to have a baby she doesn't want (and I'm not listing the sickening reasons why a mother wouldn't want her child, but this is the world we live in - where is god when these girls are suffering?) - A ball of cells is not yet compos mentis, where the mother is a full life human being - her choice - not yours.

 

3. I used to be a christian - I was sickened to my core when I heard that it was a christian movement that hang around outside abortion clinics throwing eggs at girls and piling guilt on their heads - shame on them and all of their supporters... don't talk to me of love when you let those people suffer like that and enhance their suffering with your backward ways.

1. I draw the line at the point where the egg is inevitably set to the point where nothing will stop it from becoming a baby besides killing the baby when it gets old enough.

2. Again, if she doesn't want the child, she can give it away.

3. That's against christian values, as I'm sure you know. If the hate group claim's their christian then its most definitely not christian. For example, when Jesus saved the woman from being executed for adultery. Don't pick a random group and label them a christian.

When is that? My sperm is set into motion when I reached sexual maturity.

Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't realize you were born with eggs as well as testicles. Because that's the only logical conclusion I can come up with where as soon as your sperm became sexually mature it conceived a child.

[DrP]

It is not a random group though is it? It is all supported by their church.. If god is infallable he'd stop it, he doesn't because he just isn't there. The whole idea is ridiculous. I would ask how anyone in this day and age could believe such claptrap, but I used to believe it myself so I know how easy it is to be tricked into such nonsense.. I don't make excuses for gods shortcomings anymore, it's impossible in the long run.

 

It isn't a random group - it is a group of christians who think they are doing gods will by causing emotional pain on people that are already in a really vulnerable situation. Shame on all them.

[dimreepr]

Oh, I'm sorry. Didn't realize you were born with eggs as well as testicles. Because that's the only logical conclusion I can come up with where as soon as your sperm became sexually mature it conceived a child.

 

 

Then your logic is flawed and I'm still waiting for answers, not just your line in the sand; an ant is alive but not conscious, I doubt you'd hesitate to step on it, if it stung you.

[Raider5678]

 

 

Then your logic is flawed and I'm still waiting for answers, not just your line in the sand; an ant is alive but not conscious, I doubt you'd hesitate to step on it, if it stung you.

I doubt you would hesitate to murder a baby either.

 

And I answered your questions. The point where it becomes set in motion is where contraceptives and morning after pills will no longer do anything.

[dimreepr]

I doubt you would hesitate to murder a baby either.

 

And I answered your questions. The point where it becomes set in motion is where contraceptives and morning after pills will no longer do anything.

 

 

Unless you advocate the sanctity of all life how dare you judge others for their own line in the sand.

 

Edit BTW the morning after pill works after your line in the sand, but that seems OK to you.

Edited November 7, 2016 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

it is a group of christians who think they are doing gods will by causing emotional pain on people that are already in a really vulnerable situation. Shame on all them.

Shame on them indeed. But their still wrong regardless of what you believe.

[DrP]

I doubt you would hesitate to murder a baby either.

 

 

What rubbish! Conversation over mate, how can you say that even?

[dimreepr]

 

What rubbish! Conversation over mate, how can you say that even?

 

 

Forgive him, he's just trying to avoid the question, I hope he didn't actually mean that.

[Raider5678]

 

 

Unless you advocate the sanctity of all life how dare you judge others for their own line in the sand.

 

What rubbish! Conversation over mate, how can you say that even?

I don't judge you. You said it yourself.

 

You said it yourself DrP. A baby isn't conscious, and neither is a fetus. You do not hesitate to kill a fetus simply because it isn't conscious, why would you do the same with a baby? Why is there a line half way through it but not at the beginning? Or why not only after a baby is entirely conscious and aware? You can't advocate for one with out doing the same for the other unless you would want to be a hypocrite.

 

 

Forgive him, he's just trying to avoid the question, I hope he didn't actually mean that.

I am not avoiding any question that I am aware of, if I am I'm sorry but I'll need you to restate it because I can't find it.

I've removed myself entirely from this emotionally, so yes, I did mean that.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Raider5678

[dimreepr]

I don't judge you. You said it yourself.

 

You said it yourself DrP. A baby isn't conscious, and neither is a fetus. You do not hesitate to kill a fetus, why would you do the same with a baby? Why is there a line half way through it but not at the beginning? Or why not only after a baby is entirely conscious and aware? You can't advocate for one with out doing the same for the other unless you would be a hypocrite.

 

 

No one said that, least of all DrP, but I did say a fetus within the legal age of abortion isn't conscious and so the term murder doesn't apply, unless you advocate the sanctity of all life, do you?

Edited November 7, 2016 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

 

 

No one said that, least of all DrP, but I did say a fetus within the legal age of abortion isn't conscious and so the term murder doesn't apply, unless you advocate the sanctity of all life, do you?

I do not advocate the sanctity of all life.

Question answered.

 

But I do advocate the sanctity of life that will become conscious. Which, go figure, includes fetuses and babies. Now answer my questions.

[dimreepr]

I do not advocate the sanctity of all life.

Question answered.

 

But I do advocate the sanctity of life that will become conscious. Which, go figure, includes fetuses and babies. Now answer my questions.

 

 

What question?

Edited November 7, 2016 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

What question?

"You do not hesitate to kill a fetus, why would you do the same with a baby? Why is there a line half way through it but not at the beginning? Or why not only after a baby is entirely conscious and aware? "

[Delta1212]

Is a baby not conscious or does it simply lack the capacity for complex communication? How intertwined are communication and thought and is there anyone "there" when you interact with a baby?

[dimreepr]

"You do not hesitate to kill a fetus, why would you do the same with a baby? Why is there a line half way through it but not at the beginning? Or why not only after a baby is entirely conscious and aware? "

 

 

Your arbitrary line in the sand is not an absolute, SO unless you advocate the sanctity of all life you have no right to draw it.

Is a baby not conscious or does it simply lack the capacity for complex communication? How intertwined are communication and thought and is there anyone "there" when you interact with a baby?

 

 

That's a different question.

 

Sorry Delta post merged.

Edited November 7, 2016 by dimreepr

[Raider5678]

Your arbitrary line in the sand is not an absolute, SO unless you advocate the sanctity of all life you have no right to draw it.

Avoiding the question,

[dimreepr]

How is my answer not an answer?