Not everyone sees things like you and of course this is a ridiculous comparison that ignores what we have come to understand. You can argue over the value of potential all you want, but the fact is that's an argument of a very subjective nature on both sides that requires you to be ignorant of a lot to be resolute on either side.

What exactly does it ignore that we have come to understand?

In the eyes of the law and for medical purposes it isn't subjective.

How exactly does my opinion make me ignorant? As far as I can see, I'm the one with the information.

Your position\opinion is not ignorant you're refusal to acknowledge opposing points of view is.

Your are ignoring the fact that we know in all likelihood a fetus unaborted will become a human being and that that potential is as valuable as life to some people. It doesn't matter if you believe a fetus is a living being or that it's life is as valuable as developed human being.

There is nothing scientifically or logically flawed about that, it doesn't discredit your opinions based in science, but it's another equally valid perspective which you seem to ignore or dismiss because you don't share in it.

All right, all right. The question of potential is something that should affect your decision on whether to have an abortion, but not the rule of law on it. That is my final point, I guess.

I have to disagree, it very much matters whether the fetus is as valuable as a developed human, because when you say, 'the potential for human life is what matters' that's akin to saying 'man should never masturbate because those millions of sperm all had the potential to become human' So by rubbing one out, you're committing genocide.
Then, why stop at masturbation, we might as well never have sex again, because when he B's his L in the V, millions of sperm will still be destroyed.
I respect your argument, I just think that particular point is flawed.

lol. I don't want to give you a sex ed. lesson but there's a bit of difference between a sperm's potential and an embryo's potential.

They argued that a fetus is much closer to a baby than sperm are, which suits the shoebox metaphor in that a shoebox closer to a million dollars contains more money than the shoebox at the beginning. I understand what they're saying but we definitely disagree.

I totally agree and as we talked about before, that's a big part of why I am pro-choice, I just don't think the pro-life people are nuts at all, well the ones who don't blow up abortion clinics anyway.

Which members would you like to give a sex ed lesson to?

For the most part I don't have a problem with people's individual beliefs; I begin to take umbrage when people attack a woman (who is already making a difficult decision) for something that is clearly not murder in the slightest. She doesn't need additional chastisement from someone who knows nothing of her situation and certainly doesn't need the government dictating what she is allowed to do with the contents of her own body.

Yes; again we are on exactly the same page here. I don't like the idea of abortion myself, I'd certainly not compare it to murder but I would try to take my children grandchildren out of the decision. Otherwise I'd keep my mouth shut and respect the individual(s) decision.

You don't need to. Obviously an embryo has much greater chance of becoming a human than a random sperm. I'm just saying if potential for human life is all that matters, we should treat every single sperm cell like a potential human, and never masturbate and never have sex, because you'll murder millions of innocent 'potential humans'

It's about playing the odds and staying in reality. Not having an abortion in cases where it is not medically necessitated is realistic (not suggesting it's the right or best option) getting people to stop masturbating is certainly not, I can personal vouch for this one. Literally over my dead body.

It's a very radical stance to take - and the only the Catholic Church does take it. It's a very silly argument to take and no moderate person would make it because it's only purpose is to prove an extreme point in an argument.

I'd agree with that. But as you know extremists don't mind making silly arguments.

I have a strong distaste for the terms "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Choice." It's obvious that both terms are just examples of political framing,(They show ones philosophy in the best light possible.) and are flawed and inaccurate. For example, I know many "Pro-Lifers who hunt animals and eat them. On the other side of things the term "Pro-Life" implies that the alternative view point is "Anti-Choice", which isn't necessarily true. I think it would be our best interests to refer to ourselves as people who are for or against abortion.

I for one, am for abortion, on the grounds that even if it were made illegal it wouldn't stop women, particularly young naive women from having an abortion. It would instead, increase the amount of dangerous and illegal back alley abortions, most of which will be performed by untrained or failed hacks who own out of date equipment if any at all.

*On the other side of things the term "Pro-Choice" implies that the alternative view point is "Anti-Choice", which isn't necessarily true.

*Correction "Pro-Choice"

I'm also for abortion and to some degree I agree with your post, but I don't think "back alley abortions" is a good enough reason for a society to base a "pro-choice" (excuse the term) politics on. I think we need some firm moral grounds for choices like this, some principles.

My moral stance on this was stated earlier many times. Basically, I don't think a fetus deserves much moral consideration when compared to the mother because of it's lack of capacity for feeling, reasoning and communication - it's less able to know pain or happiness in the broadest terms. Because of that, the mother's wishes are what's important because her needs get priority over her unborn child.

The popular idea is that all human lives are worth the same, but it's a naive ideal which is ultimately not true and usually not practiced when push comes to shove such as when lives are at stake. If a person had to die in your society and you had to choose which - one was an old, frail man at the end of his days and the other was a young teenager whose life had just started, who would you choose should live and die?

That was a rhetorical question but if you agree that the rightest thing to do would be to let the young person live, then you see people do have different worths. I think fetuses usually have comparatively less worth than their mothers.

i am stuck in between. i'm pro choice, but i'm also pro-life. if you're irresponsible enough to have an unplanned pregnancy it is still your right to end the childs life, but in knowing that, why should you? if you are not able to raise a child that does not necessarily mean it should be 'killed'. foster parents, special organizations, etc. are usually available. i know it's more complicated than that, but that's my stance so far. maybe if i'm involved in such a situation i'll change my mind.

there's a duality in the "worth" of a human being, and you're right in that most people would want the teenager to live. i think this is the difference and the reasoning behind the thought process; the younger the human, the more potential they have. i agree that a fetus is unable to communicate and reason in a living capacity, however every single living thing has been in such a state. in a world where there is no "right or wrong", yet we still try to apply those terms to arbitrary topics, i believe the "right" thing to to would not get an abortion. this is irrelevant of the problems that the child would cause in the context of society, because no amount of money can create life.

^I don't actually think potential is that important, at least not with fetuses. You don't know if the child is going to survive birth or not or if something else is going to happen to it. There are arguments that say you could base your moral decisions on the future, but then you're basing it on a scenario which might not even happen so I think in those push-shove cases, you base it on the present - what you know and what is.

That might sound like a contradiction to my example above, but it's not. I already wrote that when push comes to shove like when lives are at stake, I think you have to choose what causes most happiness / least suffering. The old man would probably tolerate death more than the young man, he's had a life and is old and is probably more emotionally suited to deal with the idea of dying. The people who would be touched by his death would probably have an easier time accepting the death of 90 year old granpa than the close family and friends of the 14 year old boy.

By this moralistic thinking, you have to think a bit and evaluate the worth of your actions. There's perhaps a bit of predictive thinking in that, but at least not the sort where you don't kill the boy because he might have a family in 20 years.

I'm not really a utilitarian on a day-to-day basis. My moral ideals are usually quite normative and absolute, but I do realize that the "thou shalt not" sense of morale is a luxury for those who don't have to make tough decisions themselves. If killing 1 would save a million, would killing still be wrong? I believe in abortion when I believe the abortion causes more happiness/less suffering than the alternative.

that's the problem with the whole discussion - human lives and human life is regarded as highly important. on a basic level we live to procreate. it's too complex to be a quality or quantity of life issue, and that is why people are concerned with the future of their present actions. if i were to have a kid (with someone) i'd suggest adoption before abortion. that's my stance.

I haven't read all 19 pages of posts on this subject, so if i repeat what has already been said, i apoligize.

The way I see it, this is not in any sense of the word a black and white issue. There must be a solution that is somewhere in the middle of "Pro-life" or "pro-choice." Without a middle ground, when we try and define things as right or wrong or take the absolute stance on the issue, we make a lot of enemies and cause a lot of pain without ever really getting to the core of the issue, which in my opinion, is "how do we provide for the best quality of life for the most people?"

I personally, in my own life and situation, am pro-life. I did have a period time when i was absolutely terrified that i might be pregnant. As a sixteen year old with a lot of hopes and dreams, none of which involved a family, you can imagine that this was in very many ways positively terrifying. Yet, the experiance, though a false alarm, awakened a sense of moral and motherly instinct within me. Regardless of situation or consequences, i was going to protect the baby that may or may not have been growing inside of me. The choice between abortion and life would have been a no-brainer for me.

But i have been fortunate to grow up in a family with enough money to support many children. Having a child would not have put me on the streets or threatened my financial standing...at least not right away...because of my parents. For girls not so lucky as myself, it can be a totally different story.

In my idealistic mind, abortion should be an application only procedure. Based on family history, past abortion history, circumstance of pregnancy, and financial standing, an request for abortion would be approved or denied. Counceling would be available for the mothers who's requests were denied (in order to reduce the likely-hood of their going to a quack to have an illegal procedure done), and for those whos requests were approved. Having done some reading on the subject, an abortion can be absolutely devistating to a mother's emotional and psychological health.

The life of child, no matter how small (2 cells big!) is brimming with potential of all kinds...good and bad. For us as a society, and for the mother, to decide based on panic and fear the direction of that potential isn't fair. But that doesn't mean that a more educated decision making process shouldn't be available. Sometimes....killing is neccessary.

Thread cleaned up. This discussion has been going comparatively well so far, so let's try and keep it on topic.