"Right Wing"

[Blackhawk2001]

No, you claimed that one view was more consistent than the other view. I merely pointed out the absurdity of that claim. You have created a straw man. While I do believe that murder of unborn human babies is morally bankrupt, I was not making that argument here. Instead, I was arguing that it is morally bankrupt to condone the murder of unborn human babies while simultaneously condemning the execution of convicted murderers sentenced to death. Further, I asserted that such view even more absurd in comparison to the view that condemns the murder of unborn human babies while simultaneously condoning the execution of convicted murderers sentenced to death.

Note that I have also said that I personally would be fine with eliminating the death penalty - and especially so if it meant the end of all elective abortions.

I don't consider myself "morally bankrupt" because I condemn the murder of unborn babies and approve of the execution of convicted murderers. In the case of the unborn, they have done nothing to deserve death and the old argument that they are "undifferentiated tissue" has been scientifically proven false. Convicted murderers, on the other hand, HAVE done something to deserve death, and in many cases killing them just prevents them from murdering again. I'll concede that my views aren't typical of the "Pro-Life" movement.

 

[JS1911]

Instead, I was arguing that it is morally bankrupt to condone the murder of unborn human babies while simultaneously condemning the execution of convicted murderers sentenced to death.

I'd be interested to hear precisely HOW such a viewpoint is "morally bankrupt" For the record, I don't believe abortion should be illegal. Hell, they go a long way towards saving us taxpayers a great deal of money in the long run.

 

[oldpink]

I'd be interested to hear precisely HOW such a viewpoint is "morally bankrupt" For the record, I don't believe abortion should be illegal. Hell, they go a long way towards saving us taxpayers a great deal of money in the long run.

And with that statement, pro-abortionists wonder why people such as myself do a

 

[jamil]

I'd be interested to hear precisely HOW such a viewpoint is "morally bankrupt" For the record, I don't believe abortion should be illegal. Hell, they go a long way towards saving us taxpayers a great deal of money in the long run.

People who oppose abortion tend to believe that it is the life of an innocent human being that's being aborted. To kill innocent human beings is murder and immoral. To people who value life, legally executing a person who has murdered a human being is justice. Such a justice system is moral. I identify more with this paradigm, though I tend to oppose the death penalty for cases where the accused is less than 100% slam dunk guilty.

People who don't oppose abortion tend to believe that the thing being aborted is not yet a human being, and therefore there is no moral question at all. People who believe this can still say they value life with no moral inconsistency. Often people who believe there's no moral question about abortion also believe it is wrong to execute people for committing murder. I have to admit that I don't understand this sentiment but I don't doubt the sincerity of those who do the candle light vigils outside of prison walls. But I don't think they're morally bankrupt. They're just ****ing nuts.

It is not productive for either group to call into question the morals of the other, because they are based on completely different core beliefs. Yet both sides continually do it.

 

[steveh_131]

People who don't oppose abortion tend to believe that the thing being aborted is not yet a human being, and therefore there is no moral question at all. People who believe this can still say they value life with no moral inconsistency.

So if someone doesn't think a different group of people (let's say black people, for example) are real human beings, you would not question their morals if they killed one? They could still claim to value "life"?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So if someone doesn't think a different group of people (let's say black people, for example) are real human beings, you would not question their morals if they killed one? They could still claim to value "life"?

No, you'd question their sanity.

 

[chipbennett]

No, you'd question their sanity.

And that same approach, applied to those who deny that unborn human beings are, in fact, human beings...?

 

[Kutnupe14]

And that same approach, reapplied to those who deny that unborn human beings are, in fact, human beings...?

If the fetus is viable outside the womb, then I'd call it a human being. A unborn fetus which isn't viable outside of the womb isn't comparable to a locomotive black human breathing air.

 

[steveh_131]

If the fetus is viable outside the womb, then I'd call it a human being.

It's not really viable. It's still dependent on the mother, right? What does it matter if it consumes her blood or her paycheck to stay alive?

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's not really viable. It's still dependent on the mother, right? What does it matter if it consumes her blood or her paycheck to stay alive?

Nope, a mother is no longer required when a fetus is viable. A full term child could be taken care of by a trained chimp. Unlike a non-viable fetus which is completely dependent on one person, the mother.
Just some I'm clear, you guys are calling any abortion, "murder" in the legal sense? (IE should be a criminal act)

 

[steveh_131]

Nope, a mother is no longer required when a fetus is viable. A full term child could be taken care of by a trained chimp. Unlike a non-viable fetus which is completely dependent on one person, the mother.

So, hypothetically, if modern medicine reached a point where a fetus could be transplanted to a different mother... you would then consider the fetus 'human', and oppose abortion?

 

[HoughMade]

So dependency is the line? A baby born 2 days ago....or 2 months ago is just as dependent as one in utero, it's just that more than one person is capable of providing the care necessary after birth.

 

[MisterChester]

So dependency is the line? A baby born 2 days ago....or 2 months ago is just as dependent as one in utero, it's just that more than one person is capable of providing the care necessary after birth.

The line is birth. Once you're born, you get rights and privileges as a citizen. If unborn, you are property of the mother the same way an organ belongs to her.

 

[steveh_131]

The line is birth. Once you're born, you get rights and privileges as a citizen. If unborn, you are property of the mother the same way an organ belongs to her.

Why?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The line is birth. Once you're born, you get rights and privileges as a citizen. If unborn, you are property of the mother the same way an organ belongs to her.

I've been avoiding this thread like the plague... thought I'd peek in and see where it's at now.

Wow.

If you want to play semantics with "rights and privileges" and "organs"... go right ahead. But the morals involved in thinking this is beyond comprehension.

 

[oldpink]

Right, an unborn baby is a precious child, eagerly awaited and nurtured, just because the mother wants it.
But just let that exact same unborn baby not be quite so welcomed (economic or marital circumstances of the same mother), and it suddenly transmogrifies into an "inviable tissue mass."

 

[spencer rifle]

How about we use the same criteria for life and death? Heartbeat and brain wave activity = live human with rights.
Unless we're fixated on some non-essential, like "location."
The unborn has a completely different genetic makeup, unlike the mother's other organs.

 

[MisterChester]

Why?

I'm not sure, ask the people that made the citizenship at birth rule.

 

[Clarity]

There is a lot of gray area here. "Birth" surely can't be the line, as the baby could live if extracted from the mother quite a bit earlier. The word "right" is misleading in some respects, as people think of rights as inviolable. That's just not so. Your right to liberty can be circumscribed if you break society's rules, and so forth. A woman's right to control over her body also comes with limits. As far as I know, assisted suicide is still illegal, and you don't have the right to ingest cocaine.

At what point is the fetus' right to exist greater than the mother's right to be free of it? If science could transplant a second trimester fetus to an alternate uterus, artificial or not, without harm to the mother, would that constitute an acceptable abortion? Or is the mother's right to an abortion because it is her body also the right for the issue of her body to not exist?

 

[HoughMade]

The line is birth. Once you're born, you get rights and privileges as a citizen. If unborn, you are property of the mother the same way an organ belongs to her.

Not even the Supreme Court, in 1973, saw it that way.