CJD

This use of the word promiscuous is seriously weird. I am happy that we can at least agree on something.

Check your dictionary, Toto. Besides the common sexual referent, "promiscuous" means simply "Lacking standards of selection; indiscriminate; casual; random; consisting of diverse, unrelated parts or individuals; confused," etc.

Irresponsible copulation? Is that related to unbridled lust? Is this the root cause of your concern?

No, and no. It's what I said earlier about the sanctity of life, which, by the way, I invest in the entire created universe. Considering an embryo or 3 month fetus a human being or not is quite beside the point.

. . . a desparate attempt to find some rationale for forbidding abortions.

And I have argued for the forbidding of abortions where? Listen, just because I think the choices we have to make are despicable does not give me the right to legislate accordingly. I don't think there is an answer to this that will excuse us from the flippancy with which we treat life, while you apparently do. I also honestly think that it is that kind of philosophy that leads to many atrocious crimes against humanity.

CJD

The Other Michael

I'd like to see some evidence of the ability of a fetus to give or withhold consent. Some evidence of the ability of a fetus to demonstrate a sufficient level of cognition to be able to arrive at a decision about whether to give or withhold consent would be pretty interesting too.

Could it be that a fetus is actually a fully functioning and cognitive individual, and somehow they are dumbed waaaaaaaaaaay down by the experience of birth?

cheers,
Michael

yguy

What reason is there to believe that any human would consent to being killed?

Since a person in a coma can't give or withhold consent to be unplugged, does that give us leave to unplug him? Not of itself, certainly. We may reason that we are not obligated to spend taxpayer's money to keep him alive; but taxpayers were not responsible for his being dependent on external assistance. The parents of a fetus are.

HRG

What negligence is inherent to sex ?

You say that she should be blamed for creating a new situation: the existence of an embryo, and accept responsibility for it. But that responsibility is easily discharged: an early abortion restores the status quo ante.

IOW, sex causes no harm to the embryo (on the contrary: it changes it from non-existent to existent) and thus cannot create any responsibility for its well-being.

Regards,
HRG.

Jewel

Informed consent? Appearantly Yguy thinks the fetus should be able to give or withhold this but the one who must sacrifice at least 9 months of her life (if not the rest of her life) has no right whatsoever to give or withhold consent to this process. That's just bullshit. I firmly believe that children, above all else, deserve to be wanted and loved. Forcing a woman to carry to term and give birth to a child she does not want is nothing short of slavery.

yguy

Consent of the mother is implied by the sexual act, save in the case of rape.

Evidently this doesn't extend to children in the womb. Why not?

Why don't we allow mothers to kill infants then, for those who find diaper changing a form of slavery?

fromtheright

Toto,

That's your opinion, but that's not the law - because most people don't share your opinion. The fetus is not a child until it is born, or at least viable, so the charge of murder in inappropriate.

I disagree with what appears to be your premise--that the majority determines what is and is not murder. If the majority comes to believe that killing a child less than a year old is not murder, will it then no longer be murder? If the law says, as it effectively did in the South, that killing blacks is not murder, was it then not murder?


To Vylo: Your profile says you are a positive atheist. Most people with a gut level opposition to abortion are Catholic theoretists or southern evangelical Christians. Most of the propaganda against abortion is thinly disguised Christian missionary work, even where it pretends to be based on neutral principles. This is because there is no rational basis for opposing early abortion.

I guess this means the atheist big tent is out--"All atheist pro-lifers, you are frauds! Get out!"


dangin,

And across the animal kingdom "assault and muder" happen so often as to be of little interest. As I type a predator is killing and swallowing the carcass of another animal. Not only that, but it is possible that the prey is the same species as the predator.

So the next time you're in the jungle, armed or not, and are killed by a tiger or viper then perhaps someone will prosecute the beast. What separates us is that in civil society we have rules. If we're just "another animal" then why do we have rules?

Why are humans in need of special protection?

Because we're human and we choose to specially protect ourselves from those among us who think the rules don't apply to them.

Toto

That's easy.

A mother with a child has the option of putting the child up for adoption or hiring someone to change the diapers for her.

Until artificial wombs are developed, a pregnant woman has no such option.

Toto

"Murder" is a social and legal definition. In societies where infanticide is or was legal (much of the ancient world), killing a child under a year would not have been murder. (I am not familiar with the laws of the south under slavery, but I don't think murdering a slave was legal even then.)

Infanticide is a crime in our society because evolution has created humans who instinctively want to nurture and protect human infants, and our science based economy has created the wealth and knowledge to allow us to do that. The anti-abortionists want to extend this instinct to fetuses, but most people can see the difference between a fetus and a child.


There has never been an atheist big tent. But maybe the Brights (tm) will see room for the so-called pro-lifers.

I don't see atheist pro-lifers as frauds, just as wrong, perhaps understandably since they have been subjected to a deluge of propaganda from religious people who hide their religious motivation.

Vylo, in any case, is not "pro-life." He seems to support abortion up to viability, and thinks partial birth abortions should be outlawed.

Jewel

Ah, the 'pregnancy is punishment for having sex' arguement. Now that's original.

Ideally no one would ever be faced with an unwanted pregnancy, but that is simply not the reality of the situation.

Straw man. Surely you can do better than that.