Your moral code only refers to you, nobody else. The laws of the US based on it's Constitution are laws you must abide by and are a condition of being part of that society, violate those laws and you run the risk of being removed from that society. no problem. Whether a person uses contraception or not doesn't change the reality that a person does not lose the right to consent to who, what, where and when their body is used by another, if the unborn are deemed as persons from conception then they become the "other" in exactly the same way a born person is the "other", do you not agree that all people have the right to be left alone from interference from others unless they consent to that interference? The issue is not whether someone attempts to protect themselves against pregnancy, the issue is whether a person loses their rights due to taking a risk that could possibly result in injuries to themselve, and the answer to that is categorically no. I find nothing immoral in abortion what so ever simply because I find nothing immoral in a person defending themselves against violation by others.
I will not dispute the above but in the end a moot point to me as my views are not based in legality. They are two different scenarios that need to be assessed individually.
I am not attempting to force my moral code on to anybody, my aim is simply to point out the glaring errors in pro-life ideology. Great, then I look forward to you placing your ideas etc here so we may discuss them and perhaps learn from each other.
Jewish Law (for at least a couple of thousand years) has said the baby is a person when more than 50% of the fetus is outside. Reference: http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm In Jewish law, although the human soul exists before birth, human life begins at birth, that is, at the time when the child is more than halfway emerged from the mother's body. For more details about the consequences of this doctrine, see Abortion. I did not say the fetus had to become self-aware before it could be considered a person. I said "there is no evidence that it is possible for the fetus become self-aware until the last month or two of pregnancy." The difference is that once the brain has developed to the stage that self-aware thought is possible, then you have some basis to assume the physical body might be inhabited by a self-aware mind (or spirit or soul depending on your philosophy). Before the brain has developed to that stage, you know it is impossible for it to sustain self-awareness. Any apparent brain activity you observe is just "noise" or reflex activity as the nervous system is developing through different phases (but no meaningful thought). So I am not saying a newborn has to pass an IQ test to cross the threshold to "personhood." I am saying that it cannot be a person until the developmental phase (in the last month or so of pregnancy) that first makes it possible to have meaningful thought. That, in my opinion, is a more logical threshold than heart and lung development. We can rescue a person by replacing a faulty heart, and someday might be able to replace a faulty lung, but we cannot replace a faulty brain (and if we did, it would not be the same person, would it?).
then please post the substance of your views and how you came to obtain them, that way misunderstandings can be avoided. I disagree, the foundation of the scenarios is the same .. that a person who knowingly took a risk should accept the consequences of that risk ergo the woman who knowingly took the risk of sexual intercourse should accept the consequences, just as the woman who knowingly took the risk to jog in the park after dark should accept the consequences. The point I am making is that consenting to the risk of something does not imply you consent to the consequences of that risk, if that were true then no person injured in any sport would be allowed medical treatment, or any person injured in a car accident would be allowed medical treatment .. both are consenting to the risk of injury, but neither are consenting to the possible resulting consequences of that risk.
Based upon what you have seen... and you see what... an accurate reflection of reality? Now can we dispense with the red herrings and get back to the business of debate? Yet the bolded is not my logic, it is yours. From my perspective it depends upon the context. All any of us have is opinion be it legally backed or not. Sorry, I cannot abide by that as opinions are allowed here. The only evidence I would source as backing my argument is evidence that argues that human life is set in motion when the sperm fertilizes the egg. I am hoping that you really do not need me to find some video on the birds and the bees as a source but I can if you like. Life begins at conception. What is the moment that a human life begins from your perspective? That was condescending. Debate; a discussion between people in which they express different opinions about something http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debate We are having an actual debate here whether you realize it or not.
When exactly does the spirit or soul manifest in the fetus and what proof is there that the spirit or soul was not present befor detection? What scientific tool is used to observe and otherwise measure the spirit or soul? Are you referring to in vitro fertilization or just the random meeting of sperm and egg? Sorry, you are loosing me. In the end it does not matter as I do not oppose others right to abortion, I am just trying hain knowledge from the perspective of others and thank you for yours.
Indeed nor have I claimed otherwise. In the case of unprotected consensual sex, no. That is the issue as you see it, not I. We see from different perspectives but I appreciate you giving me yours.
I find no evidence that the soul, or spirit, is anything different from the self-aware mind. If you DO have evidence that the soul or spirit is something different, I welcome you to present it. It is obvious that the brain is the only organ capable of sustaining a self-aware mind. If you replace a heart you do not change the self-aware mind, spirit, or soul of that person. That is still the same person. That would not be the case if you could install Joe's brain in Bob's body. That would be Joe's personality/spirit/soul inhabiting Bob's body. Medical science tells us that the brain of the fetus is not capable of meaningful thought until the last month or so of pregnancy. That means the essence of personhood (the self-aware mind, or spirit, or soul) would not be able to inhabit this body until nearly the end of the pregnancy. If our self-aware mind (or spirit or soul if you prefer) exists from the beginning of time and persists after our body is dead, it does not exist in the physical realm until it finds a host capable of supporting self-awareness. We can detect it when we see brain waves indicating meaningful thought patterns. My question about Sperm A and Egg B was an attempt to determine if your concern was based on the unique DNA of each body. Apparently that is not your concern. If it is, then I can try to explain it better.
Who gets to decide what is a substantive argument for all and by what authority? What is a substantive argument if not one that you agree with? As for misunderstandings, they are unavoidable when two people debate from different premises. The best way I have found to avoid misunderstanding is to ask lots of questions and avoiding assuming to know the minds of others. Thanks for your perspective.
Not a single one of your examples comes close to the intrusion represented by forcing a woman, against her will, to contain and grow what will eventually become a new person inside her body. They are not the same.
I have seen no proof of the exsistance of a human spirit or soul. To me spirit is another way to say pep, or zest for life, while soul is a genre of amazing mood setting music. Thanks for the clarifying comments and perspective.
no an accurate reflection of reality would be that abortion has been practised since records began and quite likely prior to that, as yet you haven't offered anything to debate, every time a question is asked of you-you evade it. no, the basic of your assertion is that with risk comes consequences and that people who takes risks should accept those consequences, if I am wrong explain how I am wrong. how? correct, but until it is backed up by evidence it remains nothing more than an opinion and as such not subject to debate because no matter what is said you or I can quite easily say "my opinion differs from yours" ie there is no foundation to start a debate. A debate requires an assertion with evidence to support that assertion to which your opponent can offer rebuttals using their evidence. Except that human life was set in motion millions of years ago, conception is nothing more than the continuation of that process, furthermore the process of conception is not something that happens instantaneously, it can take up to 24 hours for the sperm and ova to combine, so at what point in that 24 hours does life begin for you? As I said human life began millions of years ago, unless you are saying that sperm and ova are not alive? I prefer debate as a verb - Argue about (a subject), especially in a formal manner: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/debate ie a discussion about a subject based on an agreed set of rules, most rules require an assertion with evidence and a rebuttal with evidence.
Neither have I claimed you have. Why, is the fetus somehow not another person? Then please put what the issue is for you. Then what is your perspective please. - - - Updated - - - Luck has nothing to do with it.
Abortion is legal and as an American I uphold individual rights, like free speech, even when I disagree with what others are saying. Hard to note something that wasn't there. Prohibition was based upon "morality" and was an abject failure. Laws are based upon actual crimes that cause harm. Morality is an attempt to legislate behavior that the moralists don't like but no actual crime is being committed. A classic example was DOMA. So no, morality does not "separate right from wrong". Instead it tries to criminalize behavior. Moralists would outlaw freedom of expression. Exactly as it was. In other words there is no legitimate way to legislate "subjective morality".
I suppose the difference between us is that my opinion is not set in stone, I am always open to changing my opinion if the evidence shows I am wrong. I don't let my personal bias cloud my judgement and have on a number of occasions changed my viewpoint based on compelling evidence . .that is not to say I will not argue my corner to the fullest extent. See this is where the issues start, you have offered nothing to dispute and as such can it be assumed you agree with me?
From this naturally empty post I pulled this : The poster asked you "do you not agree that all people have the right to be left alone from interference from others unless they consent to that interference? """ You replied,""In the case of unprotected consensual sex, no""" I think it's fine that you actually made a statement but do you really think people's sex lives should be watched/governed/controlled/ regulated? And by whom? The government? You? The Anti-Choice police?
I gather from this and prior posts that you believe it is immoral to terminate the development of the body because it is "human life," but that in itself does not explain your rationale for that position. God, or nature, performs hundreds of thousands of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages every year. That is tragic for a woman who wanted to have a child, but are you saying God, or nature, is immoral to do so? I respect your right to protect your own developing human life when you are pregnant, but why do you believe another woman is under some moral obligation to sustain a developing "human life" that she does not choose to create?
Not getting the answer you want or agree with is not evasion. Because it is not a blanket statement as there are exceptions to the rule such as my being for abortion in the case of rape. Consensual sex involves consent whereas rape does not. My main issue is with consensual sex where contraception is not used which leads to an unwanted pregnancy as this is irresponsible to me as most teens adults in America understand the risk of unprotected sex. Then why do you continue to respond to my posts. If I am not debating to your satisfaction then move on to debate those who debate in a way that you find satisfying. A good question, perhaps when the egg is penatrated by the sperm, or perhaps when the cell splits. A Google in the topic returns many different results thus it seems the issue is not universally agreed upon. I think you took what I asked too literal as I am not asking for a regressive analysis of the human species on a historical timeline. Then perhaps you should quit replying to my posts in this thread as most of what I have on this particular topic is anecdotal based opinion.
It runs afoul of my moral code. My main issue is with consensual sex where contraception is not used which leads to an unwanted pregnancy as this is irresponsible to me as most teens adults in America understand the risk of unprotected sex. See the above.
You: ""My main issue is with consensual sex where contraception is not used which leads to an unwanted pregnancy as this is irresponsible to me as most teens adults in America understand the risk of unprotected sex.""" You finally made a statement. Is there anything you want to do about it? BTW, even if it were true that "most" teens and/or adults understand the risk of unprotected sex that doesn't mean they're not going to have it. You hate using history but it's been that way since the first teenagers..... Why do you object to abortion? You haven't answered that........ And I certainly agree with, ""Not getting the answer you want or agree with is not evasion."""" It works both ways..
Why did it fail? As I see it a supply side law that has no impact upon demand is doomed to failure, just as our current drug laws have been an abject failure. Pointing out a failed law does not prove that good laws are not based upon morality. Indeed, and harm is often what separates a legal action from an illegal action the same as a moral code seperates action form immoral action. Law and moral code are one in the same as Laws are moral codes set forth by government. Where did you come by that view? Pointing out the exceptions does not make it the rule. We are all moralists as we all have set views of right and wrong as right and wrong aka morality aka Law is relative to an individual assessment thus subjective as opposed to being agreed upon by all humanity. As all laws are opposed by some they are subjective as opposed to being universally agreed upon by all.
I would agree that unprotected sex is risky. By the way, do you support comprehensive sex education in our schools so all young people will be fully aware of the risks? For someone who is young and unprepared to be a mother, the whole process of learning she is pregnant and arranging for an abortion seems like it would be intense enough to "teach her a lesson" if she are capable of learning. Do you think a woman who is not capable of learning from an abortion would make a good mother if the government forced her to have the baby as punishment for being so irresponsible?
