3063 US soldiers have died in Iraq... Wanna stop deaths?

True!

True. Some people may have wrong takes on that, but in the way you have stated it, consider situations like war or self-defense, or justice.

True!

True. However, note that over 99% of abortions in this country are done for personal reasons; not for just reasons (such as life of mother endangered, etc.)

True, as long as "the best decision" is NOT what will gain the mother the most.

I agree with the rest of your post! ^_^ I just wanted to clarify.

 

The statement in bold is dubious at best, and your argument is flawed. Your unstated premise is that nature has an intent, which I don't believe is the case, so if you're really writing this message to those of us who believe in evolution you haven't convinced me.

 

You can term them, "knuckle children" or "Drain Babies"

 

Forgive me if this question sounds cold, Chulium, but can you provide an argument as to why a <5 week old fetus is deserving of more consideration than the desires of its mother?

I don't mean to be abrasive with that question, it's just the next step in the argument.

 

Oh boy, I think I just got a major clue!

 

Also dubious, but not central to the argument.

 

It seems to me that the real crux of this issue lies in one's capacity to suffer (those who believe in the eternal soul will obviously disagree with me on this).

Supporting premise for the following argument: A woman is an autonomous being who has the right to make choices of life and death for herself, and for any of her offspring who are incapable of rational autonomous thought.

Argument: I certainly think we should err on the side of caution, but I think it's safe to say that a fetus has no capacity to suffer in the first 5 weeks of life. As such I think the the mother is certainly deserving of more ethical consideration than her fetus. If her suffering would be lessoned by the abortion of her child (who cannot suffer), and if she is of the opinion that her child will be better off unborn than in foster care (or wherever else he/she would end up), I believe that a woman has every right to abort her child and should not have any unreasonable burdens placed upon her to keep her from doing so.

If you disagree with me I think it will be based on your opinion that an unborn child has a non-empirical interest in "life." Am I wrong?

 

I leave for 30 minutes and look what happens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproduction says:

Big paragraph, but explains my point well. Convinced yet?

Sure! I understand your reason for the question. A fetus (in a human female) is a living organism and is a Homo sapien, though young, thus qualifying itself for the rights and morals of any other human. It has not had a chance to make its own decisions yet as for whether it will live or die (compared to humans that are born and with understanding that we can commit suicide or not) - and so we must make the decision for it. We cannot communicate with it, but... there is a point here that every human deserves the right to life. You will find that almost anywhere. It is unanimous. The right can be taken AWAY, by due process of law, but only after a decision is made by the human in question (e.g. murder and death penalty)

Okay, maybe not 99%, but in the overall picture, MOST abortions are done for personal reasons... here: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

That guy knows his stuff. There's too many stats to quote here! Check them out.

I cannot prove my beliefs scientifically right now, (although I have come very close in the past of proving an absolute on the basis of science and opposites) ... so I will just say that I disagree w/ you.

Not sure what you mean by "non-empirical", however my basis of "unborn child" lies in the fact that that child may not have a complete physical body but is only because of the fact that mortal beings take time to develop, whereas that fetus' spirit is alive and well. Denying it the chance for life is against a basic human right.

 

Your Wikipedia quote actually supports my suggestion that your statement was dubious, as there are "a variety of circumstances" which lead to the differences in number of offspring between species. It is not the case that your stated reason is the reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your point was as follows: Natural selection has made human beings produce fewer offspring because nature "expects" humans to be better equipped to care for their young. Thus, to take the life of an unborn child is to act against nature.

Convinced of what? That the reason humans typically have one baby at a time is because "humans are expected to be able to survive better?" Er... No. I'm convinced that's a reason among thousands of others, yes. Or are you asking whether or not I'm convinced that your argument is valid? Cuz what I said was that your assertion is dubious, AND your argument is flawed.

Even if I were convinced that "humans are expected...," your argument still wouldn't stand up to logical scrutiny (nor my sensibilities). To suggest that man can defy nature is a fallacy, so I'm afraid your argument can never really get off the ground. Plus, even if it wasn't a fallacy you'd still be charged with convincing me that it is somehow immoral to defy nature.

So I guess the answer is no.

Here you're just spinning your wheels; we've already agreed that life has a right not to be killed, yada, yada, yada. But I asked you a very specific question, and I'll ask again: Why is a <5 week old fetus deserving of more consideration than the desires of its mother?

As I said you might. When you can empirically prove the existence of the immortal soul you should PM me right away.

I guess I'm not.

 

The article says that "which strategy is favored by evolutionists" depends on a variety of things, not the purpose for reproduction entirely, just which strategy is best for a species.

Pretty much, depending on your definition of nature and exact use of the term "expects", as in, as what evolutionists might believe, evolution made the species more fit for surviving and reproducing that way for a reason. We're getting on tangent, though, I think? Correct me if we're not.

For reference sake, convinced that, and I quote myself:

Sorry for avoiding, I guess I missed the point. I will answer now.

I guess it depends on the situation. Is the mother's life in danger? Was the mother raped in a situation she could not have avoided whatsoever? Is the fetus going to live (out of the womb) a healthy life, or will it die just moments after birth, and if so, which option is better for the innocent baby? If anything, it's the mother that has made a poor decision and should pay the consequences; not the child that has no control over anything yet. There are special circumstances that may allow the justified act of abortion, however, I will still prefer the child be born then sent to nursing homes/child care services for adoption if REALLY necessary.

I have come close! And when I posted it, it got only good, private comments. Nobody really replied anything disagreeing with it (but I asked them not to debate it, yet... the theory is still immature) - so I might reference you to it if you want.

Are you suggesting a spirit cannot know things?

 

This logic is so off the wall and crazy that it puzzels me how even some one can come up with this nonsesne.

Here is the length of pregnancy among different Animals:

Elephant 22 months ( 660 days )
Horse 11 months ( 330 days )
Cow 9.5 months ( 285 days )
Human 9 months ( 275 days )
Sheep 4.5 months ( 144 days )
Pig 4 months ( 114 days )
Dog 2 months ( 61 days )
Cat 2 months ( 61 days )
Rabbit 1 month ( 31 days )
Mouse 3 weeks ( 20 days )

Does this mean that elephants, Horses and cows are more fit to take care of their children that human are? I suppose you have never heard about steak. Aren't cows suppose to have a shorter pregnancy time according to you and your definition of God's will because we kill the cows and eat it?

Don't bother, you already proved behind a shadow of doubt that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

I think you successfully proved that you know NOT of what I "speak".

You mention pregnancy length, but I mention nothing of that... I find it rather regardless. We're not talking about the ethics of killing animals, rather, we are talking about the ethics of killing innocent humans.

This tangent is not worth getting sidetracked on. Let's stay focused here on the topic at hand: abortion.

 

But I thought the topic was about Iraq and the # of soldiers deaths...was gw changing the subject again (as usual)??

 

It was very clear what you posted and everyone can read it. the only problem was that you didn't even know about the length of pregnancy for elephants, horses and cows and therefore you made up a bull shit story about the human capacity for taking care of children and God's will. Your logic was a total nonsense as it was shown in my post.

 

And just as we were discussing abortion, the best argument for why abortion should be allowed and in some cases is preferable, makes a posting.

 

If someone is bad mouthing his buds...the terrorists in Iraq, you can bet he'll go to great lengths to change the topic. Usually to something about how bad the US is, how bad Christians and Jews are, or dmoz.

 

why do you do this to yourself gw? I bet you were to far along to be aborted...and now, back to the subject...

So how many more deaths do ya'll think the war will have? I personally doubt it will reach 5000...

 

It was your bible preaching friends who started with their nonsense about abortion, I just answered to show what a half brain bunch you are.

In order to have a doubt, you must be capable of thinking. I am still not convinced that you are.

 

I like how after I make all these huge posts and rebuttals, that just one line is quoted in reply.

Kinda makes me feel superior

 

Shit is shit even if you have a ton of it, the quantity doesn't change it to gold.

Your logic and posting is such a nonsense that it needs almost no effort or a big post to show the stupidity of it.