Abortion is murder, no doubt about it. You wouldn't kill a kid with down's syndrome, why should you do the same to a foetus? Even in the case of rape (though the number of babies actually concieved in rape is miniscule), you can't punish the child by taking away it's life just because of what its father did. You don't know who you're going to kill, with abortions it's possible that the world has lost many great artists and thinkers, murder is murder is murder.
Hello again, Jersey.
Sorry, this will be probably be one of those long and rambling answers, so I’ll get my apologies in early.
jerseymackem: said:
Abortion is murder, no doubt about it.
You say this in such a declarative and certain manner that I was momentarily tricked into believing that you must speak on my behalf or find yourself privy to a truth that eludes me.
There appears to be
plenty of doubt as to whether abortion is murder, Jersey, as even the most cursory glance at these pages will show. If you simply mean to say that abortion is murder in your very personal, very subjective opinion – and in the opinions of those people who may think similarly to you – then fair enough. (Although what a horribly pejorative and unforgiving term “murder” is when aimed at women faced with such a choice; when used in such a sensitive and difficult moral area.)
By suggesting that there is
no doubt about it, however, you appear to believe that you have all the answers and speak for all of humankind. No need for any more thinking, people, the answer is mine to declare. But I have
plenty of doubts, Jersey – I don’t aim to speak for anyone else – and this alone is sufficient to prove the fallacy of such a wildly anti-intellectual observation, okay? Can you at least accept that some people may have some doubts and that therefore, contrary to what you just said, some doubts may in fact exist as to whether abortion might be classed as murder, whether you share these doubts or not?
Sorry for being picky, but I always sort of feel that absolutist pronouncements around such sensitive issues rarely help anyone at all.
jerseymackem: said:
You wouldn't kill a kid with down's syndrome, why should you do the same to a foetus? Even in the case of rape (though the number of babies actually concieved in rape is miniscule), you can't punish the child by taking away it's life just because of what its father did.
Well, I would hope that nobody felt compelled to come to such a decision, obviously – I’m (reluctantly) pro-choice, as distinctly opposed to being pro-abortion – and again, the emotive use of language in describing a foetus as a “kid” is not really something I’m likely to find myself doing. I disregard this anti-scientific and emotive categorisation out of hand – I don’t view it as being credible or serious – in the same way that you’ll disregard my refusal to acknowledge its validity. So we can just agree to disagree on that, as I doubt it will lead anywhere terribly productive.
You won’t punish the developing foetus (how about the embryo?) and yet you’ll punish the woman who carries it by forcing her to see the pregnancy through? How is this (consistently) moral or humane? And how is it that you feel (morally) equipped to tell rape victims how they must act after the event, no matter the brutality they have suffered and no matter the psychological scarring? Who gave you these powers and why must we take you seriously if you sit in such a high moral judgement over women?
I suppose this just feels rather pitiless to me, a one-size fits all pronouncement that sets a greater store in the imagined life of an embryo (that may in any event be aborted by nature or God – you’ll not class miscarriages as being immoral, I trust) over the already established lives of women. I’m not saying that you hate women, okay? I’m just saying that it sounds like it. (Big difference.)
But this may be irrelevant, in any event, as you appear to be arguing about the
potential of these embryos, which seems to be a different argument altogether:
jerseymackem: said:
You don't know who you're going to kill, with abortions it's possible that the world has lost many great artists and thinkers….
This sounds like the favourite argument of those religious fundamentalists so readily found online (and elsewhere). I’ll concentrate on them, as I’m not sure of your precise argument here and it will save this from becoming personal. I think they normally use Beethoven as their example, don’t they? Immaterial, anyway, as the surreal idiocy of their argument should be immediately apparent to all those people not infected by a (supernaturally) religious dogma.
It’s not just that we are as likely to “kill” a potentially great artist or thinker as we are to kill a potential Adolf Hitler or Pol Pot or child-killing *****, but logically, taken to it’s mentally illiterate extreme, we can see that every time any fertile individual refuses to copulate they may be said to be depriving a potential child of the right to life. In these warped imaginings, the diseased logic of the needlessly inhumane determines that resisting rape may also be classed as depriving a potential child of the right to life.
And there’s no use in these people trying to apply brakes to the logic of their own witheringly unsympathetic pronouncements towards women, because they simply have no (observably superior) qualifications to do so. If they want to start drawing lines in the sand and telling us how we must all behave and think, other people can just as easily draw the line further back in order to highlight the scale of their seeming madness and the very obvious dangers of this particular way of thinking.
Back to you for a minute:
jerseymackem: said:
Murder is murder is murder.
I simply don’t know what this means, sorry. What are your views on IVF?