Pioneer, I do not have a moral position on abortion.
I have a couple of beliefs.
I believe every person should be left alone unless harming other people. (Do as many drugs as you want in your home, make your own decisions, shoot as many guns at the range, smoke alone, etc... don't shoot me or someone else, don't do drugs and drive, etc)
I have a moralistic belief against murder. If someone wants to murder, my belief against harm outweighs my belief in freedom.
I also have a firm belief that in order for murder to occur, a person must be viable either without life support or have the potential to eventually be viable without life support.
I do not believe that shutting off a ventilator after it has been established that someone can not recover from a head injury is murder. Likewise, my opinion is that abortion is not murder so long as the cells were not viable at the point at which abortion was chosen.
I do not feel abortion should be a religious issue. It is a personal rights issue that unfortunately falls into a religious issue just like gambling because of the ways the parties divide. I would rather see abortion debated from a medical and personal rights approach than a right/wrong religious approach. If the time comes when we can artificially make a few cells viable, I then feel abortion should be outlawed and women should have the right to move a pregnancy to an artificial incubator, but to tell a woman she must give birth completely goes against the rights of freedom. Giving birth puts a woman at risk (Whether normal birth or c-section, the death rate in the US is over 1/10,000 and elsewhere over 1/1000 - I am not an OB, so if you want perfect numbers, call an OB) I do not feel anyone can require another person to put themself at risk.
-Sean
The Devil asked us to start another thread to discuss this abortion issue.
Sean, you choose not to take a moral position on abortion, and then you spend the rest of your post articulating your rather contradictory position on abortion.
Your very first belief..."I believe every person should be left alone unless harming other people." Now what could be more harmful to other people than killing them in utero? So by your own "belief", you believe people should not be left alone to abort other people.
You are against murder; murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being. The only reason abortion is not murder is because we have legislated a specific law, unconstitutionally I might add as the law was created not by the legislative branch of our govt but by the judicial branch, that says that abortion is lawful. It is still killing a human being by another human being, but now through judicial fiat, it is lawful and therefore not murder.
You have another belief..."I also have a firm belief that in order for murder to occur, a person must be viable either without life support or have the potential to eventually be viable without life support." You are confusing viability with life; viability refers to the ability to live outside the uterus; just because a fertilized egg is not viable, does not mean it is not alive. Life is defined as..."The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." A fertilized egg is alive by the definition of life, and furthermore, the fertilized egg has "the potential to eventually be viable without life support", which was one of your beliefs, so again, you are opposed to abortion on those grounds also.
You have an opinion about abortion..."Likewise, my opinion is that abortion is not murder so long as the cells were not viable at the point at which abortion was chosen." Well, as I have shown you it is not murder because it is not unlawful, but it is indeed still killing a human being by another human being. Your argument about viability is moot anyways because you added the provision, "or have the potential to eventually be viable without life support."
So once again, it appears that you do not support the killing of a human being by another human being, even though it has been unlawfully declared, lawful.
This is a fascinating idea on your part..."If the time comes when we can artificially make a few cells viable, I then feel abortion should be outlawed and women should have the right to move a pregnancy to an artificial incubator,"...as you well know, that time is here now! Medical science could transfer an established pregnancy to another uterus that was properly hormonally prepared. I'm not saying it has been done or that it will ever be done, I hope to God it never is done, but it is already in the realm of possibility, so once again, I guess by your own words, you are against abortion.
And finally, your dissertation on risk, ie. "I do not feel anyone can require another person to put themself(sic) at risk." Do you realize how ridiculous this argument is? There is risk in everything we do in this life. According to your "thesis" I should not be forced to go to work because it is so risky on the road; please tell my employer or the govt to just send my check every week. There is a risk in having an abortion also; there is a risk in having sex; etc. etc. But you know, Sean, I could actually go along with your idea; if a woman thought it was too risky to deliver her baby, she should be given an abortion by hysterectomy...there would be very few abortions!
I have a couple of beliefs.
I believe every person should be left alone unless harming other people. (Do as many drugs as you want in your home, make your own decisions, shoot as many guns at the range, smoke alone, etc... don't shoot me or someone else, don't do drugs and drive, etc)
I have a moralistic belief against murder. If someone wants to murder, my belief against harm outweighs my belief in freedom.
I also have a firm belief that in order for murder to occur, a person must be viable either without life support or have the potential to eventually be viable without life support.
I do not believe that shutting off a ventilator after it has been established that someone can not recover from a head injury is murder. Likewise, my opinion is that abortion is not murder so long as the cells were not viable at the point at which abortion was chosen.
I do not feel abortion should be a religious issue. It is a personal rights issue that unfortunately falls into a religious issue just like gambling because of the ways the parties divide. I would rather see abortion debated from a medical and personal rights approach than a right/wrong religious approach. If the time comes when we can artificially make a few cells viable, I then feel abortion should be outlawed and women should have the right to move a pregnancy to an artificial incubator, but to tell a woman she must give birth completely goes against the rights of freedom. Giving birth puts a woman at risk (Whether normal birth or c-section, the death rate in the US is over 1/10,000 and elsewhere over 1/1000 - I am not an OB, so if you want perfect numbers, call an OB) I do not feel anyone can require another person to put themself at risk.
-Sean
The Devil asked us to start another thread to discuss this abortion issue.
Sean, you choose not to take a moral position on abortion, and then you spend the rest of your post articulating your rather contradictory position on abortion.
Your very first belief..."I believe every person should be left alone unless harming other people." Now what could be more harmful to other people than killing them in utero? So by your own "belief", you believe people should not be left alone to abort other people.
You are against murder; murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being. The only reason abortion is not murder is because we have legislated a specific law, unconstitutionally I might add as the law was created not by the legislative branch of our govt but by the judicial branch, that says that abortion is lawful. It is still killing a human being by another human being, but now through judicial fiat, it is lawful and therefore not murder.
You have another belief..."I also have a firm belief that in order for murder to occur, a person must be viable either without life support or have the potential to eventually be viable without life support." You are confusing viability with life; viability refers to the ability to live outside the uterus; just because a fertilized egg is not viable, does not mean it is not alive. Life is defined as..."The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism." A fertilized egg is alive by the definition of life, and furthermore, the fertilized egg has "the potential to eventually be viable without life support", which was one of your beliefs, so again, you are opposed to abortion on those grounds also.
You have an opinion about abortion..."Likewise, my opinion is that abortion is not murder so long as the cells were not viable at the point at which abortion was chosen." Well, as I have shown you it is not murder because it is not unlawful, but it is indeed still killing a human being by another human being. Your argument about viability is moot anyways because you added the provision, "or have the potential to eventually be viable without life support."
So once again, it appears that you do not support the killing of a human being by another human being, even though it has been unlawfully declared, lawful.
This is a fascinating idea on your part..."If the time comes when we can artificially make a few cells viable, I then feel abortion should be outlawed and women should have the right to move a pregnancy to an artificial incubator,"...as you well know, that time is here now! Medical science could transfer an established pregnancy to another uterus that was properly hormonally prepared. I'm not saying it has been done or that it will ever be done, I hope to God it never is done, but it is already in the realm of possibility, so once again, I guess by your own words, you are against abortion.
And finally, your dissertation on risk, ie. "I do not feel anyone can require another person to put themself(sic) at risk." Do you realize how ridiculous this argument is? There is risk in everything we do in this life. According to your "thesis" I should not be forced to go to work because it is so risky on the road; please tell my employer or the govt to just send my check every week. There is a risk in having an abortion also; there is a risk in having sex; etc. etc. But you know, Sean, I could actually go along with your idea; if a woman thought it was too risky to deliver her baby, she should be given an abortion by hysterectomy...there would be very few abortions!
