Pseudonymph

The "do you have anything to say" part was rude and I'm sorry for that. But the rest of my post still stands. Remarks like the ones you make rely on shock value and little else(slaves? please)

That's not the point...she made a choice to engage in an activity where she knew the consequences. As much as people love an easy way out, your right to swing your fist ends where anothers nose begins.

Yes...you are right. As I said before...having intercourse is CHOOSING a course of action. Choosing to have sex. Choosing to deal with the consequences.

Pseudonymph

So we've come no further than the dark ages? I simply don't understand...and it breaks my heart to see these things. So many children who will never have a chance at life, all because we are fickle and decide our morality and ethics on the fly.

GeoTheo

Rick are you by any chance an abortion doctor?
I ask because you don't seem to base your position on logic, so I am thinking perhaps you have some type of emotional baggage that causes you to arrive at your position.
Or perhaps you are merely a moral realativist, with a lot of time on his hands and so spends time debating moral issues even though you know you will never reach any moral conclusions.
The following should make it obvious that the issue I am arguing for the right to life of a fetus because I believe it to be a person and not because I have some desire to have a say over women's bodies.
here it is:
I don't care what women eat
I don't care if they get tattoos
I don't care if they get body piercings
I don't care if they dye their hair
I don't care how they dress.
I don't care who they have sex with,
how often, in what position etc.
I care about protecting life.
I think the beltway sniper should have "Other people control his body" and incarcerate him.
I think that supersedes his right to privacy and his right to "do what he wants with his own body" which is namely use his index finger to squeeze the triggers of guns aimed at people.
Therefore I am entirely consistent in my pro-life stance. If you believe We should violate the beltway snipers privacy you are not consistent in your stance. But a moral relativist, if that is what you are can never be consistent in the matter of any moral issue any how. There is no reason to value anything above anything else in that system anyway.

The Other Michael

You mean the way the Christian god does it?

cheers,
Michael

GeoTheo

Actually that is not how it works. Otherwise the NewTestament woulg give instructions on how to take over governments.

GeoTheo

So, Mike are you saying there is a flaw with "might makes right"?

Albion

Geo, you really aren't going to get very far here with sweeping comments about people who disagree with you on this point having no morals. We aren't saying that a foetus is exactly equivalent to a human but if it suits us we'll kill it anyway, we're saying that a foetus isn't equivalent to a grown human. You may disagree with that, but it's just a clash of incompatible moralities, it isn't morality versus no morality.

Now how about you get back there and answer - honestly - that question about which of those five choices you'd make? Would you really just toss a coin to decide (all choices being equal and all that) and then explain to the losers that one of them gets to die because as far as you're concerned they have no more humanity than a dish of cells? Would you? Really?

Dr Rick

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: rbochnermd ]</p>

GeoTheo

Core set of values that are common to all societies and are in fact necessary for any society to exist. These values are:
(1) we should care for children,
(2) we should tell the truth, and
(3) we should not murder.

Take away this and you have no society.
This is why moral relativism does not work.
I would say the pro-choice position argued from the perspective of moral relativism violates at least two of these.

(edited for clarity)
Adding "unless we don't want to" at the end of each one has the same effect.
That is what happens when "choice" is placed ahead of all other values.

[ November 01, 2002: Message edited by: GeoTheo ]</p>

Albion

You've been getting straight answers all the way through this thread at any rate. It isn't anybody else's fault if you disagree with them; they're still straight answers. So, as straight as I can manage - a first-trimester foetus isn't an innocent unborn child. It doesn't qualify for personhood until it shows some attributes of being a person. Having human DNA is not sufficient to make it a person. So asking what it's done and claiming that it's innocent (original sin notwithstanding, I assume) are meaningless. OK, go ahead and disagree with that. But don't say you've never been given a straight answer. You've been given plenty of straight answers.