abortion

[Magn]

The law is the agreed upon definition of what is ethical and unethical. Every person has his and her own ethics and one cannot say that someone's opinion about what is ethical and not is wrong. Sure you can make all kinds of arguments supporting your opinion of what is ethical but unless you convince the other person that you are right then his/her opinion about what is ethical is worth as much as yours. In my opinion the law, what the majority of the people consider ethical and unethical, ought to be of interest when discussing ethics.

First of all, not all laws are voted on (by the general population that is). Actually, most aren't so I fail to see how they portray the values of the majority as long as they don't go so much against the general tendency that people feel a need to manifest their outrage.

Laws are essentially a practical application of some abstract ideal.

They are always in a state of change and can always be improved to better portay their abstract ideological roots in a multitude of unforeseen situations.

I would not hold the laws to be the highest authority in ethics, only in our current knowledge of their application. There is a nuance here.

[AFKain]

First of all, not all laws are voted on (by the general population that is). Actually, most aren't so I fail to see how they portray the values of the majority as long as they don't go so much against the general tendency that people feel a need to manifest their outrage.

People vote for representatives who share their views, if you are in favor of abortion you don't vote for some right wing nut case. It's how representative democracy works, we can't vote for every little thing. Do you think that a majority of the people in countries where abortion is allowed actually is against it?

I would not hold the laws to be the highest authority in ethics, only in our current knowledge of their application. There is a nuance here.

What higher authority is there then?

[Magn]

People vote for representatives who share their views, if you are in favor of abortion you don't vote for some right wing nut case. It's how representative democracy works, we can't vote for every little thing. Do you think that a majority of the people in countries where abortion is allowed actually is against it?

Democracy is not perfect.

First of all, there is plenty of dishonesty in politics (ie, politicians showing one face to the public while behaving differently while elected) as well as corruption.

Furthermore, people tend not to take enough time to properly inform themselves about various candidates and a lot of the time, don't vote for the candidate that is right for them due to ignorance.

And finally, sometimes, all the available candidates simply don't represent overall public opinions very well, but they still need to pick one among the bunch that they have.

What higher authority is there then?

Whoever cares about ethics enough to spend the time to form a clear opinion on various ethical issues by rationalizing about it and not just sit on the currently accepted norm.

Great thinkers have drastically reshaped the values of the masses for eons with novel ways of viewing things.

[RAKIdaRHINO]

AFKain
more? why is piece of gold worth more than a piece of rock? i dno. i wasnt putting value to anything. but ones the egg is fertilized a new life begins.

[METALLICA]

"Why is a fertilized egg worth more than other forms of life?"

the argument is actually on whether or not the egg should be worth less than the life of a fully grown human.

[AFKain]

Magn you're sort of ignoring my main point there though, sure democracy isn't perfect but I have a hard time believing that there are democratic countries which allow abortion where the public is against abortion.

Sure great thinkers have had a big impact on people's values, but if nobody agrees with the great thinker how can he/she be an authority? There's no right and wrong when it comes to ethics... IMO great thinkers represent the possibility of changing the opinion of the masses while the law represents the current will of the masses

Raki: the value of a gold coin exceeds that of a rock because people say it does. I'm not sure where you're going with that though. Since people say that both the killing of fertilized eggs and the killing of cows are allowed does that mean that they are worth the same?

the argument is actually on whether or not the egg should be worth less than the life of a fully grown human.

You might not think that it should be but in my book it's a given fact that it is. So for me the argument is about why it should be worth more than an other form of life.

[RAKIdaRHINO]

AFKain
where im going? you asked me a question i cannot answer without first going into what value is and how it is given/granted to an entity.

And ofc not. I can buy both a rock and a piece of gold. I might have to pay more for the goldpiece though. Jaywalking and murder are both crimes, they are punished differently though. The world isnt black and white.

Both cows and fertilized eggs respresent individual life though. People might not want to talk about it like it is, but it is.

why it should be worth more than an other form of life.

the simple answer is
a) because its human
b) because were human
c) humans are worth more than non-humans.(because we said so)

[AFKain]

Why? The only human quality that a fertilized egg has is that it might some day become a human. A cow is a thinking (at least more than the egg) living creature that feels pain etc etc. It is "more" alive than the egg.

Both cows and fertilized eggs respresent individual life though. People might not want to talk about it like it is, but it is.

That was sort of my point.

[RAKIdaRHINO]

"might become" is a bit of an understatement. The cycle of life has begun. Unless something bad happens a new child will be born 9 months later..

a cow might be more "alive" but the fertilized egg is a life. sure, at that point not more than a few cells, but its still life. individual life. a new being.

And you cant ask me "why" questions after i just said that it is that way because we say it is. It depends on your belief on value really.

Well, glad its your point, then maybe you can stop asking me questions like that. The cows life is worth less because we want to eat the cow, and if we gave the cow as much value as a human we couldnt rightfully kill it. Its really not that complicated. The whole "thinking" argument is just bs made up to ease our minds.

[AFKain]

Unless something bad happens a new child will be born 9 months later..

= might become.

Of course I can ask you why questions. You say that a human egg is more worth because it is human, I ask you why that is. If your answer is "because we said so" then abortion is also right, because we say so. Both are living creatures and our might gives us the right to kill them both.

[RAKIdaRHINO]

yes, but might become sounds like its somewhat unusual for it to happen where as in reality it will happen unless something unusual happens.. just like you can die from being hit by a car when you cross the road.. saying that you "might" be alive is taking it too far imo.. sure youre correct in that nothing is certain, but youre making it sound like its totally random if a kids pops out or not.

[octobrev]

He speaks the truth. Life begins at conception. I think its horrible that 78% of conceptions end in spontaneous abortion due to something as simple as a cold. Womens' ignorance of their own bodies is the real crime here. Every sexually active woman, by probability, is guilty of MURDER, and by democratic law, should be locked away for life. Furthermore, we know they will all spend eternity rotting in hell for their sins.

Unfortunately, giving conservatives power would leave us with nothing but bumsex. And we all know how god feels about the gays :(

Please consider suicide nub conservative scum.

[Ishandra]

For the pro-life folks...

If someone wants to terminate (murder) an unborn child to protect it from a poor quality of life (no financial security, no loving family, child of rape victim, mother genuinely resents and hates the child etc) you say thats wrong.

But then its ok to murder a full grown adult, in order to protect the quality of life of the other people living in that country or in your own? Such as terminating criminals, enemy soldiers, terrorists etc.



Is it the fact the child is considered innocent, or that it has a *chance* of having a happy life?

Because I think statistically, there are more unhappy people in the world than happy, by quite a large margin.



And the pro-choice people...

Its not the sanctity of life that is being protected, its the sanctity of *human* life they are trying to protect. Not because its some God given righteous gift, but because its ingrained in our genes to protect our own species above other species. 'Altruism' in all its forms in nature is directly proportional to the relatedness of the individuals involved.

Thats why people value primates, then mammals, then animals, then lastly plants and bacteria :P Inorganic 'life' has practically no value, so much so we dont even consider it alive.

[Swirvin' Birds]

Swirvin' Birds - "And again. YOU are not going to burn in hell for someone else having a abortion.

What you are trying to do in essence is to force your beliefs on others."

I am only trying to educate you with facts that were facts for thousands of years up until the past 40.

No, it is a matter of opinion when 'life' begins. And if you are trying to overthrow Roe vs. Wade then yes you are trying to force your religious beliefs upon me.

[Swirvin' Birds]

potential life isnt life. life starts at inception. once the egg is fertilized life begins. simple as that. cattle isnt human either, but i understand what youre trying to say.

Not really. It's still just cells. My sperm is on the same level of cellular growth. If your talking 'souls' no one can claim to know that.