Why abortion should be legal everywhere.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#1 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts

Warning>>>LONG READ AND REQUIRES CRITICAL THINKING.

When dealing this topic, tension will almost inexorably grow harsher the deeper the conversation grows. It is so because in the end, this is a yay nay discussion (binary choice), but with many angles to be covered, and most of them are relative or even go to philosophical realms. However whichever your point is, the final question is: Do we legally allow abortion as a medical treatment or do we ban it? It is a final question because whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, what we are in the end fighting is this: Allow it legally or ban it. If you are pro-choice you will not ask forums about a desicion you have already made, and if you are pro-life you will not be arguing about why you do not have abortions.

So, when dealing with abortion, the real deal is not about ethics or biology. It is a legal discussion. It is about if we allow this conduct in legal grounds (whether you choose to do one or not) or we ban it.

Being that said it is necessary to ask why do we have rules or what are our laws. Legal systems and laws are best described by Social Contract (I know that it is not the only explanation, but IMO it deals best with what laws are made for).

Social contract describes a broad c|ass (avoid censor) of theories that try to explain the ways in which people form states to maintain social order. The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up some rights to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.
--Wiki--

Basically what social contract says is this: You laws are made so we dont kill/hurt each other. We accept these bans so we can keep a society working. Or if you want to it say this way, whatever you do, do not hurt anyone else. That is the base of -almost- every legal system. If you are doing something do not hurt a third person. Laws (except in the case of religious states, like some from in Middle east) DO NOT deal with matters of morality, good, bad, ugly, fair. It is either legal or not, no matter how disgusting it is. Proof below.

If you decide to take a hammer and smash your testicles with it, there is no law which forbids it. Why? Because you can do whatever you want if you dont hurt a third person.

If you decide to eat for a whole month glass and only glass, ripping your throat and bowels, there is no law which forbids it. Why? Because whatever you do, you should not hurt anyone else.

If you wish to destroy your house and burn the remains, making yourself a beggar at the moment, you should not better burn the tree next house, because that is not according to the legal system.

I repeat and no doubt about it. You can do anything. It can be bad, gross, inhuman, unhealthy, criminal, sad, silly, dangerous and scary; but if ut does not affect someone else, the law doesnt concern. The case of drugs is different. The ban is made because politicians say that the use of drugs tend to make society dangerous and with criminal tendencies, thus damaging a third one.

Moving back to our topic, and this is the hardest part to take (but in no part fake): Abortion doesnt meddle with the core of laws, Social Contract. Abortion does not damage a third party or society. Before you start typing, FLAMES about how a fetus is a human and you are killing someone, get this straight.

The earliest stage of pregnancy is mute. No one could tell the difference between a non-pregnant woman and a woman who has 9 weeks. No one could tell which one is pregnant and which is not.

Point is that, except from the woman making an abortion and her doctor, no one could tell. No one else is being harmed, no one is being damaged and the woman is making what she wants. You may still ask : What about the baby being killed?? Isnt that murder??

Let us assume for a moment that abortion is the killing of human beings. This is a benefit of doubt and not to be discussed. Imagine that a woman has an abortion.

The woman kills the little human inside her by aborting, but still hasnt broken the Social Contract. Why? Because that little living human being wasnt a part of the society. The little killed human being, was not regarded as a third person yet. The act of killing that precious little life with an abortion, will not create social tension and will bring relief. The monstruous act did not interfere with the basic premise of every law we have. Keep the society together by avoiding everyone else killing/damaging amongst themselves. The horrendous manslaughter, which an abortion is, an act as discrete as going to visit the doctor.

People may argue that abortion is killing, that it is cruel, that it is the worst, but point is: Laws do not follow morality, justice or anything else. It is about keeping society from damaging each other.

You may dislike it and it is your right. But just because you dont like it, doesnt mean you should ban it.

Ps. Mods, dont exaggerate.

Avatar image for Tjeremiah1988
Tjeremiah1988

16665

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 Tjeremiah1988
Member since 2003 • 16665 Posts
Let us not start the NewYear like this :?
Avatar image for tofu-lion91
tofu-lion91

13496

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 tofu-lion91
Member since 2008 • 13496 Posts
I didn't read that but I'm pro-choice anyway so woot
Avatar image for Xx_Hopeless_xX
Xx_Hopeless_xX

16562

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 Xx_Hopeless_xX
Member since 2009 • 16562 Posts

Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'. Week 3: By the end of third week the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape. Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg. Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop. Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming. Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming. Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

I would say that it affects another human being...

Also, if a pregnant women is murdered the murderer will be charged with a double homicide..which means the law acknowledges that the unborn child is in fact a human being..

Avatar image for EMOEVOLUTION
EMOEVOLUTION

8998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 EMOEVOLUTION
Member since 2008 • 8998 Posts

I agree with that. I have no problem with abortion when used for the right reasons.

Avatar image for Major_Commie
Major_Commie

186

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 Major_Commie
Member since 2009 • 186 Posts
if you solely own your body, then you have a right to say what uses YOUR resources.
Avatar image for Good-Apollo
Good-Apollo

751

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 Good-Apollo
Member since 2007 • 751 Posts

I think people should start being more responsible for their bodies and not using abortion as a fall-back because it's handy. Having said that I am pro-choice up to a certain point.

Avatar image for jetpower3
jetpower3

11631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 jetpower3
Member since 2005 • 11631 Posts

I'm not so sure you could hurt yourself without intervention from authorities. And in some places of the world (like India or Singapore), physical harm against your body, such as attempted suicide, is a crime you can be charged for. So even then this version of the Social Contract is not something universal, and therefore NOT making abortion something that should be legal "everywhere". You still have the argument and debate over what counts as a living being, whether consciousness can be determined or not. You are also not accounting for the economic and social loss that an abortion might bring, and why this might be to justify them to "live" (or develop so to speak). Believe me, there are many reasons why the debate over abortion is a legal, moral, and social grey area that I feel will never be decisively solved or defined.

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#9 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts
That's too much for me to read... especially since I'm already pro-choice...
Avatar image for deactivated-5c37d3adcd094
deactivated-5c37d3adcd094

8362

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 deactivated-5c37d3adcd094
Member since 2006 • 8362 Posts
I'm already pro choice, but I imagine your argument is very convincing. :?
Avatar image for Elraptor
Elraptor

30966

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#11 Elraptor
Member since 2004 • 30966 Posts
"The act of killing that precious little life with an abortion, will not create social tension and will bring relief. " You wouldn't describe the abortion controversy itself as a form of "social tension"?
Avatar image for Setsa
Setsa

8431

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#12 Setsa
Member since 2005 • 8431 Posts
I think too many people are overlooking the fact that some people consider fetuses to be living things, hence why I find calling it "pro-choice" to be stupid. If someone is pro-choice, then such a title extends to other fields, and addresses other topics not even remotely affiliated with abortion.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180034 Posts
The start of life is different to different people. You cannot expect everyone to accept your opinion.
Avatar image for Pixel-Pirate
Pixel-Pirate

10771

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#14 Pixel-Pirate
Member since 2009 • 10771 Posts

I think abortion should be legal everywhere because making it illegal does not stop it, it only causes the women to run off and get dangerous back alley abortions. Making abortion illegal does not stop it anymore than making alcohol illegal stopped it.

Avatar image for Bluestorm-Kalas
Bluestorm-Kalas

13073

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#15 Bluestorm-Kalas
Member since 2006 • 13073 Posts

I'm pro choice, by whatever means, I think if a couple want an abortion, it's their business.

However, for pro life people...Think of it this way. If a doctor cannot legally give an abortion, there is a stranger in a back alley with a coat hanger ready to get the same ends as the doctor by different means. You think making abortions illegal will stop it? Hell no, it will make them more dangerous.

However, I do understand pro-life people saying (for Canadians mostly) that this procedure shouldn't be free (aka paid by tax payer money) and the burden of money should fall on the couple having the abortion, I can understand that, but I don't agree with it. It's a medical procedure, and that's free in Canada.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180034 Posts

I'm pro choice, by whatever means, I think if a couple want an abortion, it's their business.

However, for pro life people...Think of it this way. If a doctor cannot legally give an abortion, there is a stranger in a back alley with a coat hanger ready to get the same ends as the doctor by different means. You think making abortions illegal will stop it? Hell no, it will make them more dangerous.

However, I do understand pro-life people saying (for Canadians mostly) that this procedure shouldn't be free (aka paid by tax payer money) and the burden of money should fall on the couple having the abortion, I can understand that, but I don't agree with it. It's a medical procedure, and that's free in Canada.

Bluestorm-Kalas

However, government funding should not go to abortion. Other than that you cannot legislate personal morality and I don't see any change in the abortion laws. Though late term abortion should NEVER be performed.

Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#17 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts
[QUOTE="Elraptor"]"The act of killing that precious little life with an abortion, will not create social tension and will bring relief. " You wouldn't describe the abortion controversy itself as a form of "social tension"?

When I wrote relief I meant the woman.
Avatar image for ZookGuy
ZookGuy

2340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#18 ZookGuy
Member since 2008 • 2340 Posts

You may dislike it and it is your right.

curono
I'm pro-choice and I don't "like" abortion, I don't see how anyone sane could "like" abortion.
Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#19 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts
The start of life is different to different people. You cannot expect everyone to accept your opinion.LJS9502_basic
Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefully
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180034 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The start of life is different to different people. You cannot expect everyone to accept your opinion.curono
Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefully

I don't need to. You cannot simplify this argument toward your opinion. It's very complex. And life is very important in understanding this issue....
Avatar image for EMOEVOLUTION
EMOEVOLUTION

8998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#21 EMOEVOLUTION
Member since 2008 • 8998 Posts
[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The start of life is different to different people. You cannot expect everyone to accept your opinion.LJS9502_basic
Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefully

I don't need to. You cannot simplify this argument toward your opinion. It's very complex. And life is very important in understanding this issue....

so the definition of life isn't absolute.. but cowardice is? interesting.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#22 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180034 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="curono"]Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefullyEMOEVOLUTION
I don't need to. You cannot simplify this argument toward your opinion. It's very complex. And life is very important in understanding this issue....

so the definition of life isn't absolute.. but cowardice is? interesting.

Some people prefer not to see a fetus as a living human. Some do. I think we can see that a disparity exists.....interesting no?
Avatar image for Setsa
Setsa

8431

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#23 Setsa
Member since 2005 • 8431 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The start of life is different to different people. You cannot expect everyone to accept your opinion.curono
Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefully

That's one of the biggest problems with the situation now though. People assume a fetus isn't alive and say abortion should be allowed simply because it is a woman's time/effort at stake and only she should be able to decide what to do with it. If, by some manner of magic, it was wholly accepted that a fetus is not alive by all people, then it would be merely a matter of choice. This is not the case though, and too many people overlook that.
Avatar image for EMOEVOLUTION
EMOEVOLUTION

8998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 EMOEVOLUTION
Member since 2008 • 8998 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I don't need to. You cannot simplify this argument toward your opinion. It's very complex. And life is very important in understanding this issue....

so the definition of life isn't absolute.. but cowardice is? interesting.

Some people prefer not to see a fetus as a living human. Some do. I think we can see that a disparity exists.....interesting no?

but.. there is no disparity in other words? or a possibility that a culture ignores their interpretation all together.. for japan.. the samurai would be consider a coward for not taking his own life. Yet, many, in western civilization would think suicide is cowardice. Can't say.. I really see where you're going here. I think I made it clear enough though. And I agree with you.. it depends when you define life.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180034 Posts
[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] so the definition of life isn't absolute.. but cowardice is? interesting.

Some people prefer not to see a fetus as a living human. Some do. I think we can see that a disparity exists.....interesting no?

but.. there is no disparity in other words? or a possibility that a culture ignores their interpretation all together.. for japan.. the samurai would be consider a coward for not taking his own life. Yet, many, in western civilization would think suicide is cowardice. Can't say.. I really see where you're going here. I think I made it clear enough though. And I agree with you.. it depends when you define life.

i don't think that is accurate about suicide. I think most people feel that the person had some issues that prevented them from seeing things weren't as they seemed. Not cowardice. It's not the definition of cowardice that you are arguing, however, but what situations are considered cowardice. Thus...the cultures don't have different definitions of cowardice. Yes....the definition of life is at that heart of the abortion debate.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#26 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]

I'm pro choice, by whatever means, I think if a couple want an abortion, it's their business.

However, for pro life people...Think of it this way. If a doctor cannot legally give an abortion, there is a stranger in a back alley with a coat hanger ready to get the same ends as the doctor by different means. You think making abortions illegal will stop it? Hell no, it will make them more dangerous.

However, I do understand pro-life people saying (for Canadians mostly) that this procedure shouldn't be free (aka paid by tax payer money) and the burden of money should fall on the couple having the abortion, I can understand that, but I don't agree with it. It's a medical procedure, and that's free in Canada.

LJS9502_basic

Though late term abortion should NEVER be performed.

Ehh, I agree except in the case when the mother's life is in danger.

Avatar image for danwallacefan
danwallacefan

2413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#27 danwallacefan
Member since 2008 • 2413 Posts

I'd go through your entire post and dissect it point-by-point, but I'll just say this: Your entire post is self-contradictory. First you try to divorce legal questions from ethical questions, but then you try to intertwine them. That is what you do when you say "abortion ought to be moral". Your entire post is predicated upon the assumption that Governments ought to obey the social contract. This is an absurd justification for abortion because there is no set-in-stone "social contract" between the people and the government.

Avatar image for Shad0ki11
Shad0ki11

12576

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 Shad0ki11
Member since 2006 • 12576 Posts

Pro choice ftw.

Avatar image for rmfd341
rmfd341

3808

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#29 rmfd341
Member since 2008 • 3808 Posts
I'm pro choice...It should be legal, unwanted babies only bring bad things, even for themselves, and there are also their mothers, which could try to abort with some random doctor and die in the table...
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180034 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Bluestorm-Kalas"]

I'm pro choice, by whatever means, I think if a couple want an abortion, it's their business.

However, for pro life people...Think of it this way. If a doctor cannot legally give an abortion, there is a stranger in a back alley with a coat hanger ready to get the same ends as the doctor by different means. You think making abortions illegal will stop it? Hell no, it will make them more dangerous.

However, I do understand pro-life people saying (for Canadians mostly) that this procedure shouldn't be free (aka paid by tax payer money) and the burden of money should fall on the couple having the abortion, I can understand that, but I don't agree with it. It's a medical procedure, and that's free in Canada.

chessmaster1989

Though late term abortion should NEVER be performed.

Ehh, I agree except in the case when the mother's life is in danger.

I agree with that. But I was talking strictly decision making in regard to having a baby or not.
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#31 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Though late term abortion should NEVER be performed.

LJS9502_basic

Ehh, I agree except in the case when the mother's life is in danger.

I agree with that. But I was talking strictly decision making in regard to having a baby or not.

Ahhh alright, I took your use of "never" to mean, well, never...

Avatar image for danwallacefan
danwallacefan

2413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#32 danwallacefan
Member since 2008 • 2413 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The start of life is different to different people. You cannot expect everyone to accept your opinion.curono
Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefully

you try to hide it, perhaps from yourself, but the issue of personhood is an important part of this argument.

Curono, your post seems built upon a cultural relativism.

Now, my question for you is: If I go to mexico and murder a mexican, and then come back to the United States before being arrested by the Mexican police, should I be prosecuted by either the United States government or the Mexican governments (or local and state/provincial governments thereof)?

If your ethical theory is true, then it follows that I shouldn't be prosecuted by anyone. If I am out of mexico, then I am no longer under their social contract. I can't be prosecuted by America because I didn't violate the social contract between teh people and the United States Government. Perhaps you'll say "extradition" but that won't work because I still did not violate the social contract with the United States government, therefore they cannot extradite me to mexico.

Avatar image for danwallacefan
danwallacefan

2413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#33 danwallacefan
Member since 2008 • 2413 Posts
I'm pro choice...It should be legal, unwanted babies only bring bad things, even for themselves, and there are also their mothers, which could try to abort with some random doctor and die in the table...rmfd341
You've begged the question
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180034 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Ehh, I agree except in the case when the mother's life is in danger.

chessmaster1989

I agree with that. But I was talking strictly decision making in regard to having a baby or not.

Ahhh alright, I took your use of "never" to mean, well, never...

Yeah but I assumed this was voluntary abortions with the TC's OP.
Avatar image for jimmyjammer69
jimmyjammer69

12239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 jimmyjammer69
Member since 2008 • 12239 Posts
The problem is we have no clear basis for ascertaining when a foetus gains sentience/ consciousness/whatever you want to call that internal life. AFAIC, that's a good enough reason for society to err on the side of caution as to what constitutes an individual, if only to avoid a slippery slope precedent (eugenics for the disabled or those considered too weak or stupid to deliberately opt into the social contract, here we don't come).
Avatar image for chessmaster1989
chessmaster1989

30203

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#36 chessmaster1989
Member since 2008 • 30203 Posts

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I agree with that. But I was talking strictly decision making in regard to having a baby or not.LJS9502_basic

Ahhh alright, I took your use of "never" to mean, well, never...

Yeah but I assumed this was voluntary abortions with the TC's OP.

Okay I can understand that.

And there's no chance I'm getting sucked into another abortion debate *leaves thread*

Avatar image for EMOEVOLUTION
EMOEVOLUTION

8998

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 EMOEVOLUTION
Member since 2008 • 8998 Posts

[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Some people prefer not to see a fetus as a living human. Some do. I think we can see that a disparity exists.....interesting no?LJS9502_basic
but.. there is no disparity in other words? or a possibility that a culture ignores their interpretation all together.. for japan.. the samurai would be consider a coward for not taking his own life. Yet, many, in western civilization would think suicide is cowardice. Can't say.. I really see where you're going here. I think I made it clear enough though. And I agree with you.. it depends when you define life.

i don't think that is accurate about suicide. I think most people feel that the person had some issues that prevented them from seeing things weren't as they seemed. Not cowardice. It's not the definition of cowardice that you are arguing, however, but what situations are considered cowardice. Thus...the cultures don't have different definitions of cowardice. Yes....the definition of life is at that heart of the abortion debate.

It's called Seppuku, and it did happen. What about he Japanese Kamikaze during WWII? They were not considered cowards.. the interpretation of cowardice varies from culture to culture. The most applied forms of cowardice as applied today come from sentiments such as the chivalric code. Anyways, this isn't really the thread for this discussion but. I thought I'd bring it up here since you're insisting the importance of how the conception of life is defined. Which the whole argument over abortion comes down to... most of the time.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#38 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180034 Posts

It's called Seppuku, and it did happen. What about he Japanese Kamikaze during WWII? They were not considered cowards.. the interpretation of cowardice varies from culture to culture. The most applied forms of cowardice as applied today come from sentiments such as the chivalric code. Anyways, this isn't really the thread for this discussion but. I thought I'd bring it up here since you're insisting the importance of how the conception of life is defined. Which the whole argument over abortion comes down to... most of the time.

EMOEVOLUTION

Uh I don't want to derail this thread. However, my comment was that you are defining actions....not the meaning of the word. By doing so you are reinforcing that cultures have the same meaning for the word cowardice. Just that certain actions which are not done in other countries can be labelled as cowardice. But that does not change the meaning of cowardice.

So definition isn't the problem. However, the start of life is debated and as such we have differences in opinion as to if abortion should be legal or not.

Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#39 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts
[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The start of life is different to different people. You cannot expect everyone to accept your opinion.LJS9502_basic
Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefully

I don't need to. You cannot simplify this argument toward your opinion. It's very complex. And life is very important in understanding this issue....

No. When legalizing something it does not really. That is why I wrote this, because from a binary decision discussion goes to strange places.
Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#40 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts
[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The start of life is different to different people. You cannot expect everyone to accept your opinion.Setsa
Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefully

That's one of the biggest problems with the situation now though. People assume a fetus isn't alive and say abortion should be allowed simply because it is a woman's time/effort at stake and only she should be able to decide what to do with it. If, by some manner of magic, it was wholly accepted that a fetus is not alive by all people, then it would be merely a matter of choice. This is not the case though, and too many people overlook that.

Stil didnt read. Look boy, I did took a scenario where the fetus was considered as a human being, and it resulted irrelevant. Read the original post completely.
Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180034

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#41 LJS9502_basic
Member since 2003 • 180034 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="curono"]Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefullycurono
I don't need to. You cannot simplify this argument toward your opinion. It's very complex. And life is very important in understanding this issue....

No. When legalizing something it does not really. That is why I wrote this, because from a binary decision discussion goes to strange places.

No when legalizing something that takes the life of another then the start of life is extremely important.
Avatar image for danwallacefan
danwallacefan

2413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#42 danwallacefan
Member since 2008 • 2413 Posts

[QUOTE="Setsa"][QUOTE="curono"]Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefullycurono
That's one of the biggest problems with the situation now though. People assume a fetus isn't alive and say abortion should be allowed simply because it is a woman's time/effort at stake and only she should be able to decide what to do with it. If, by some manner of magic, it was wholly accepted that a fetus is not alive by all people, then it would be merely a matter of choice. This is not the case though, and too many people overlook that.

Stil didnt read. Look boy, I did took a scenario where the fetus was considered as a human being, and it resulted irrelevant. Read the original post completely.

Yes, you say that it does not damage society. So you obviously take "society" to be the interactions among conscious beings, not necessarily persons. The problem with this is that you assumed two controversial premises

1: That fetuses are not part of society, and

2: That the Government ought to do only what is allowed by this mysterious "social contract".

Avatar image for CornishPixie88
CornishPixie88

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 CornishPixie88
Member since 2010 • 25 Posts
lol what a topic ;-) I think its a choice all females should have, up to a reasonable length of the pregnancy. It would be a difficult choice for anyone to live with I would imagine, either way can have major consequences. I had a work placement at a birth centre- was seeing people commonly my age (21) with one or two children but at the end of the day I think it comes down to personal beliefs and ambitions- Im doing well at university and certainly wouldnt want to be in the situation of making that sort of decision, but you would have to be in that situation to know what to do I think. Others maybe more than happy to stay at home and start a family etc. The thing I would find the hardest though is if, not sure if any of you have, but I have seen quite a few scans done, particulalry at 20 weeks. A fetus is surprisingly well developed and it would be difficult to think that you can still terminate this far on in the pregnancy, though obviously this is rare at this stage as its normally done a lot earlier and plus it would probably need a natural delivery afterwards.
Avatar image for Snipes_2
Snipes_2

17126

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#44 Snipes_2
Member since 2009 • 17126 Posts

Government Funds should not go to Abotions. I find abortion despicable in every imaginable way, and I will never support it.

I've already argued this point numerous times, and I don't feel like debating it again.

Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#45 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts

[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]The start of life is different to different people. You cannot expect everyone to accept your opinion.danwallacefan

Start of life was never in question in my argument. Read a little more carefully

you try to hide it, perhaps from yourself, but the issue of personhood is an important part of this argument.

Curono, your post seems built upon a cultural relativism.

Now, my question for you is: If I go to mexico and murder a mexican, and then come back to the United States before being arrested by the Mexican police, should I be prosecuted by either the United States government or the Mexican governments (or local and state/provincial governments thereof)?

If your ethical theory is true, then it follows that I shouldn't be prosecuted by anyone. If I am out of mexico, then I am no longer under their social contract. I can't be prosecuted by America because I didn't violate the social contract between teh people and the United States Government. Perhaps you'll say "extradition" but that won't work because I still did not violate the social contract with the United States government, therefore they cannot extradite me to mexico.

Nope. My post was based upon the idea of Social Contract, a valid theory which is +300 years old. Your question becomes irrelevant, but here it comes. Murder as you point is a form of braking social contract. Getting away with it (which is what you are basically proposing) is completely different, since you get out of the area where the social contract was made. However, imagine this as a tribal thing. If a tribes member gets killed by the member of another tribe, there will be tension and most likely conflict (which is why we have law). The best thing and to keep things calm will be a way to calm it. What you are talking about is like a kid spitting on the wall without no one noticing it. Breaking a rule+getting away with it is different to make something that looks like breaking a rule but it is ok.
Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#46 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts

Government Funds should not go to Abotions. I find abortion despicable in every imaginable way, and I will never support it.

I've already argued this point numerous times, and I don't feel like debating it again.

Snipes_2
My last sentences go to people you the fact that you hate it does not mean that you should ban it.
Avatar image for Setsa
Setsa

8431

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#47 Setsa
Member since 2005 • 8431 Posts

[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="Setsa"] That's one of the biggest problems with the situation now though. People assume a fetus isn't alive and say abortion should be allowed simply because it is a woman's time/effort at stake and only she should be able to decide what to do with it. If, by some manner of magic, it was wholly accepted that a fetus is not alive by all people, then it would be merely a matter of choice. This is not the case though, and too many people overlook that.danwallacefan

Stil didnt read. Look boy, I did took a scenario where the fetus was considered as a human being, and it resulted irrelevant. Read the original post completely.

Yes, you say that it does not damage society. So you obviously take "society" to be the interactions among conscious beings, not necessarily persons. The problem with this is that you assumed two controversial premises

1: That fetuses are not part of society, and

2: That the Government ought to do only what is allowed by this mysterious "social contract".

Exactly, this whole topic is moot because it's all under the assumption that fetuses aren't living or "aren't part of a society". It's presented as an ignorance is bliss situation, where morality is irrelevant to personal desires. If society was truly based upon absolute freedom of choice, abortions wouldn't be the only thing that is currently illegal in most areas, that would become legal :|
Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#48 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts

[QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="Setsa"] That's one of the biggest problems with the situation now though. People assume a fetus isn't alive and say abortion should be allowed simply because it is a woman's time/effort at stake and only she should be able to decide what to do with it. If, by some manner of magic, it was wholly accepted that a fetus is not alive by all people, then it would be merely a matter of choice. This is not the case though, and too many people overlook that.danwallacefan

Stil didnt read. Look boy, I did took a scenario where the fetus was considered as a human being, and it resulted irrelevant. Read the original post completely.

Yes, you say that it does not damage society. So you obviously take "society" to be the interactions among conscious beings, not necessarily persons. The problem with this is that you assumed two controversial premises

1: That fetuses are not part of society, and

2: That the Government ought to do only what is allowed by this mysterious "social contract".

1.Society is not interaction, but the people and links within it. Society cant be a group of entities with no relation at all. That would deny the very definition of what a society is. Being conscious, or not remains irrelevant, because being the case people asleep would not be part of the society and thus, do not fall under the legal system. 2.Social contract is not an entity. Is a way to explain why every social group has laws and legal system. It is not a divine entity in legality...I look forward to ignore you next time.
Avatar image for curono
curono

7722

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#49 curono
Member since 2005 • 7722 Posts
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="curono"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I don't need to. You cannot simplify this argument toward your opinion. It's very complex. And life is very important in understanding this issue....

No. When legalizing something it does not really. That is why I wrote this, because from a binary decision discussion goes to strange places.

No when legalizing something that takes the life of another then the start of life is extremely important.

Like killing in self defense or death penalty or suicide or *letting go* the patient. We should judge how important is life, not a legal system. Doing so would be similar to stating legally what is good and bad. Therefore, legal system should allow as long as it doesnt damage a third party.
Avatar image for danwallacefan
danwallacefan

2413

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#50 danwallacefan
Member since 2008 • 2413 Posts

Nope. My post was based upon the idea of Social Contract, a valid theory which is +300 years old. Your question becomes irrelevant, but here it comes. Murder as you point is a form of braking social contract. Getting away with it (which is what you are basically proposing) is completely different, since you get out of the area where the social contract was made. However, imagine this as a tribal thing. If a tribes member gets killed by the member of another tribe, there will be tension and most likely conflict (which is why we have law). The best thing and to keep things calm will be a way to calm it. What you are talking about is like a kid spitting on the wall without no one noticing it. Breaking a rule+getting away with it is different to make something that looks like breaking a rule but it is ok.curono

So now we're not talking about the social contract, we're talking about the preservation of an orderly society, A.K.A Utilitarian ETHICS.