Well, aren't you Christians waiting for him to come again? There he is! Twice in fact: one for the week and one for Sunday Best! Always good to have a spare, just in case! :laughing:

(Are you now going to change your name to Urban Peacemonger?) :pssst:
Incidentally, I would have said Urban Lovemonger, but that just sounds gay... :rofl:

I've already used up Urban Lovemonger

He obviously doesn't think it's wrong and the joke was innocuous. It's not like he said, "This, that, or the other is gay." It's neither creating or contributing to an anti-gay atmosphere nor is it attacking a pro-gay atmosphere. It's not perpetuating stereotypes. If it's not 100% sensitive, who the **** cares?

as in not gay at all but experimenting with their sexuality to the fullest? Yeah, being comfortable enough to admit that publicly, how fucking queer.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m6...7488o1_500.jpg

Urban beat me to it but you are taking the Lord's name in vain but that's to be expected from someone that can't see what they said is wrong and then attempts to defend their ignorant comment by using stereotypical jokes to explain it away. Those two things are fompletely different actually but I'm done. Not going to OT anymore.

Urban was, I assume, joking. Holy ****ing buddha, Mohammed or The Great Pink Pixie! Would you prefer I just kept my mouth shut? You find fault in the tiniest remarks. I have to say, your holier-than-thou attitude is really starting to wear thin with me, man. Like I say, instead of allowing the comment to stand as a sincere compliment to two great debaters you've pulled it down to the level where you're now accusing me of not only not being sensitive to homosexuals but to Christians as well!

Just give it a rest, will you? Your self-righteous crap is sticking in my throat.

Exactly right TH, so now let's all move the conversation back to the topic at hand.

Let's try this again shall we.
Back on topic please.

Lmao really that was worth deleting? Ffs.

I told everyone to get back on topic and people continued to post so it got deleted by a mod. You're welcome to talk about the thread topic however. :)

Voted pro-choice, but the picture of the baby on the other page and the thought of it being aborted, makes me feel a bit uncomfortable.

Not something I'm that arsed about though.

Here's why I think it's a problem. If you propose that abortion isn't wrong because it doesn't involve suffering, then it should follow that any killing without suffering isn't wrong. If that isn't true, then it undermines your whole premise.

There's no consistent standard being applied, in such a case. To apply the moral theory in such a way is to arbitrarily override the theory with gut morality whenever you feel the situation calls for it. The question then arises: why bother with the moral theory at all? I'm not really sure how you can not see this as a problem. The idea that people fundamentally value human life, thus possibly contradicting the utilitarian arguments for something like abortion.

Actually, what I proposed is that when deciding whose interests you should protect, the fetus or the mothers, you should protect the interests of the mother because she is the one most capable of being affected by the decision (she is the one who potentially suffers the most for it). In other words, the mother should get to choose. I added that basing a decision on what the fetus could become is basing a decision on an assumption, something I think of as a weakness.

So, it's a utilitarian sort of idea, but it is also good for non-utilitarian reasons. It has good consequences which further validates it. I believe mothers, members of our society, will appreciate the freedom to make the decision and I believe it will lead to slightly happier, healthier families. It is good for society. So unlike you I actually do think it makes sense, even if utilitarianism isn't flawless in every instance. If you still disagree with that, then that's fine with me.

Actually, if people fundamentally value a human life, they will suffer more when a human life is taken. Imagine a chicken getting killed and a human getting killed. Both suffer equally. But the death of the human likely causes more suffering in others and so the death of the human is worse. For the death of a chicken to be as bad as the death of a human, you have to get a little creative.

Either way, I still don't think it matters much :p:

To say it is an "assumption" is a weakness in itself. It is not an "assumption" but a scientific fact that a human embryo will mature and develop as human being. Science provide us with knowledge to know what a human fetus "could" become ... a human.

My point is the embryo might die naturally in the womb, or the person it becomes might be mentally retarded to the point where he or she won't ever have the rights of a healthy adult. Basically, a number of scenarios can play out and so the point is you shouldn't have to morally treat the fetus as if it is a healthy adult human being when you don't know if it ever will become one. Assuming the embryo will one day become, unless aborted, a healthy adult human being; that is the assumption I'm talking about.

Given the odds, the counter assumption to that seems to be of even less value...

That doesn't just apply to a foetus. There are any number of things that can go wrong between birth and adulthood. It doesn't lessen the value of the young child's life does it? Why should this lessen the value of the foetus's life?

I'm not suggesting we lessen the value of anything. I am suggesting we treat things for what they are. Children are generally treated as children. They are not allowed to drive, they have to be home at certain times, they don't get to watch certain movies and so on. They are not treated like adults, not even from a moral point of view.

So, treat a fetus like a fetus and not f.ex as a healthy, young child - just like you don't treat a kid like a healthy adult.

Is this so confusing? All in all, this was a minor point, but I now feel it detracts from the major one because people seem to misunderstand.

There is a difference between "what some one does" and "who some one is." Driving a car is an action that some one does, child is a human being. A elderly person, a young adult, a teenage, a child, a toddler, a baby, fetus can divided into groups depending on age, gender, developmental skill, physical development etc... but one thing is always constant they are human beings.

the argument i hear a lot is that an acorn isnt yet a tree, what do u feel about that

So what?

These restrictions are generally for the protection of the child. I don't see how they strengthen the case for treating a foetus as less than human.

:bowdown:

Less than human? Those are your words.

According to your moral logic, I assume killing a two weeks old fetus is as bad as killing a healthy thirty five year old who is a husband, friend, father, brother, coworker and more?

After all, both are human and so the difference in consequences is not really important?

Ok that was probably a fairly emotive term to use. I was referring to treating a fetus like a fetus.


Well this thread began with a link to discussions about 20 week abortions. At two weeks I doubt that a foetus would even be visible so there is obviously a huge difference between a foetus at this stage and the grown adult. However I think using a person's relationships or lack of connections to establish their overall value as a human being is a bit of a misdirection. We don't use that standard to devalue for example the murder of a homeless drifter.

Murder laws have a normative basis, a law that we shall not kill. Such a law does not make distinctions between people, but that doesn't mean different humans can't have different values. Convicted criminals f.ex have their rights taken away from them. In some states, they can even be sentenced to death. In other words, killing someone because they have been sentenced to death is no longer illegal. They've lost their moral value and thus protection.

Earlier, I used another example with someone who has been in an accident and became severly brain damaged so that they are no longer to perceive, reflect upon, feel anything. That person has to be on life support, or he or she will die. Killing this person may also be legal. My argument then was that a fetus has more in common with this brain damaged person than a healthy adult human being. The mother, on the other hand, likely is a healthy adult human being entitled to moral consideration and protection.

If you admit that there is a huge difference between a two week old fetus and an adult, like you have, then you've already admitted that you too see that different humans have different moral values. Of course they do. If you were to save only one of two people from dying, one of them your child and the other a homeless stranger, you wouldn't think that it matters not which one you save because both have equal worth. Of course you would save your kid because he or she means more to you and the suffering of your kid dying would be greater than if the stranger dies. Well, other people in the world would feel the same if they had to choose between their friend, father, mother, partner, spouse, whatever or the embryo of some woman who wants to have an abortion. Noone in their right mind would say that both are equal anyways and so it doesn't matter.

So when you have to choose, humans do have different values and consequences matter. While "thou shalt not kill" makes sense as a law, it's too simplistic to base your personal idea of human worth on. Unless you really feel in your heart that you might as well save the stranger over your own kid because both are humans, you feel that way too.

I'm **** at this kind of thing, but I think that an important distinction needs to be made between being a human being, and being a person. One involves DNA, and the other involves a set of sometimes nebulous criteria that include but are not limited to: consciousness, ability to suffer...I'm sure I could think of more if I weren't so lazy. Basically I'm just interested to see if Tore might want to expand on that, since I've seen him touch on that, but he hasn't really outright mentioned it. Sorry for asking you to do work, Tore, but you're smart and I'm not. :D

Slippery slope when you allow the government to speak on behalf of your body and your rights to it.

At what point, then, does a fetus become its own body? Surely we don't think unborn children are appendages or benign tumors?

When it comes out of a uterus

or whenever it moves out of mom's basement and stops being a freeloading little bitch

So what is your stance on the abortion of a foetus that you have a genetic stake in? Do your arguments still apply if you are considering a partner rather than 'some woman'.

I'd sacrifice my dad to get an abortion, I'm not gonna lie

Agreed. I'm all for making your own decisions, but I still get bothered by the fact that there's people out there who would take such matters so flippantly. I'm pretty sure I mentioned it earlier in the thread, but my sister's friend (or, perhaps ex-friend) is a good example.

Those type of people are in the minority though and are pretty rare cases imo.

Most women that have abortions find it emotionally draining similar to having a miscarriage. It's not something they would do lightly and frequently.

Oh I know. I didn't mean to insinuate that they were a majority or anything. Just saying I wish those people that act that way cared more about their decisions and really think them through. And not just about abortion, but maybe even more so with people who go through with their pregnancy. Like if they fully intend on having a baby, that they eat healthy, don't smoke, don't drink, etc.

Actually, I wish a lot of people cared more. Not just about abortion, but in general. About everything.

So educate people about the problem
making light of them doesn't solve ****

I would if I had a big enough voice. I have zero authority. Listen to me, I am from the Beers clan of Pennsylvania.

...which is based on the premise that suffering is the reason killing is wrong. Otherwise it is irrelevant who potentially suffers the most. So I was giving examples of why I don't think that adds up as an explanation for why we find killing human beings to be wrong. I never said the practical reasons for supporting abortion don't make any sense.

Although, the interests of the mother vs interests of the fetus point brings up the question of justice. You say that morally we should always value the one that has the ability to suffer more/cause more suffering by proxy, but what about when one party is innocent and the other is directly responsible for the predicament? Would that principle extend to situations that involves weighing the interests of 2 adult humans, regardless of innocence or guilt?
There's nothing that could make the death of a chicken worse than the death of an innocent human, in most people's eyes. No matter how you tilt the suffering scale in the chicken's favor. That's because people generally value human life beyond its ability to suffer.

edit - If you're saying that people value human life more because it has the capacity to cause more suffering in others, then that seems to me to be circular reasoning.

Agreed, like I said earlier my older sister was premature, born at around 24-26 weeks so that's very messed up to me... not that I'm pro-life or anything but it does bother me.

Totally not true! You'd be surprised how easy it is to educate people on such things, especially with social media. If you care about it, talk about it. You might not make huge changes but you'd be surprised how many people you can reach, and those people pass it on, etc. You don't have to go to protests and **** to be an activist either, people who think Internet activism is not activism are idiots.

We live in an age where you can tweet your congressman, so no excuses!!!