Political Crossfire Forums

Saf · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 377

A common abortion arguement:
1. A foetus is an innocent life.
2. We have to protect innocent life.
3. Abortions should be illegal.

Okay, I understand your argument but I dispute premise 1. This is nothing new. But about 50% of people hold premise 1 to be true, and about 50% don't. So it comes down to agreeing on what is "innocent life." But think about why most people who are vegetarian are the way they are; they believe:
1. An animal is an innocent life.
2. We have to protect innocent life.
3. I will choose not to eat meat.
Notice that at least most vegetarians do not hold others to their moral standard, even though their standard includes protecting innocent life.

If we all hold each other to standards over things that aren't cut and dried like what makes an innocent life and who has the right to take it, we'd live in a fascist state where everyone would be forced into one religion, have to be vegan, have one party, &tc.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

the life of a human supercedes the life of any animal and any number of them.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: the life of a human supercedes the life of any animal and any number of them. But it doesn't necessarily make the life of the animal unimportant, especially as you can live just fine without eating meat. So your argument is besides the point.

If you have the option to save "innocent life," should you do it?

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

innocent human life

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: innocent human life But you WON'T save any other innocent life, even if you have the chance. Yes, thanks for underscoring that.

Prole · Joined: 02 May 2005 Posts: 2262 Location: Edinburgh

Saf wrote: A common abortion arguement:
1. A foetus is an innocent life.
2. We have to protect innocent life.
3. Abortions should be illegal.

Okay, I understand your argument but I dispute premise 1. This is nothing new. But about 50% of people hold premise 1 to be true, and about 50% don't. So it comes down to agreeing on what is "innocent life." But think about why most people who are vegetarian are the way they are; they believe:
1. An animal is an innocent life.
2. We have to protect innocent life.
3. I will choose not to eat meat.
Notice that at least most vegetarians do not hold others to their moral standard, even though their standard includes protecting innocent life.

If we all hold each other to standards over things that aren't cut and dried like what makes an innocent life and who has the right to take it, we'd live in a fascist state where everyone would be forced into one religion, have to be vegan, have one party, &tc.
Well said. But I think there are a couple of flaws in reasoning here.

First, not all pro-life people are anti-choice; there are quite a few, right here on this forum even, who believe that abortion is wrong based exactly upon your arguements but still believe that it should remain a personal choice. Kumar, Saracen and TGND all hold this view, and probably quite a few others who I am overlooking.

Second, not all vegatarians (and animal rights activists in general) are so tolerant. At Oxford University recently, construction of an animal testing lab had to be halted and resumed months later entirely by masked construction workers after violent attacks and threats by animal rights protestors.

Such violence represents an extreme minority of animals rights protestors, just as violence against abortion-performing doctors is done by an extreme minority of anti-choice individuals. Similarly, mainstream people who believe both to be wrong condemn such attacks.

But what does set the two apart, as you rightly point out, is that there do seem to be a much higher rate of people who believe abortion is wrong and would legislate based upon this belief than there are people who believe that eating meat is wrong and would legislate based upon this belief. It comes down to (assuming premise 1 is accepted, in both cases) how far people believe that personal choice extends with regards to morality, and if even such immoral behavior should be considered unethical, when both abortion and animal rights are arguably such hugely subjective issues.

In truth, the two groups mirror each other. Perhaps not identically in terms of ratios with belief, or personal justification (those who believe abortion wrong doing so on religious grounds more often than those who believe eating meat wrong, for instance), but they are really not different in anything other than degree of support and the nature thereof, not how their supporters believe and act.

Saf · Joined: 23 Mar 2006 Posts: 377

Plodder wrote: the life of a human supercedes the life of any animal and any number of them.
I find this sentiment to be unfounded and sickening.

Revenant · Joined: 16 Apr 2006 Posts: 17143 Location: Bliss

Saf wrote: Plodder wrote: the life of a human supercedes the life of any animal and any number of them.
I find this sentiment to be unfounded and sickening.

I'm pro-choice and I still find it logical.

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

shocking. Quote: But you WON'T save any other innocent life, even if you have the chance. Yes, thanks for underscoring that not if its animal or any else. those hydraform moles are already dead humans and are tumores, cut em out.

so yes I refuse to save any number of animals instead of one baby

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: I find this sentiment to be unfounded and sickening to bad. its like AI said, that horse will never thank me, but that baby if I ever run into it in a frew years will appreciate what aI did. this is not the only reason.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: shocking. Quote: But you WON'T save any other innocent life, even if you have the chance. Yes, thanks for underscoring that not if its animal or any else. those hydraform moles are already dead humans nope, you are lying. They are live cells with full human DNA originating at conception. Sure seems to fit your definition of "person."

Quote: and are tumores, cut em out. Ah, just like an abortion.

AllAmericanMan · Joined: 07 Mar 2005 Posts: 3606

Quote: Ah, just like an abortion. IS it just me or do you have romantic fantasies about violence and possibly even ...abortions?

alclarkey · Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 1360

Saf wrote: Plodder wrote: the life of a human supercedes the life of any animal and any number of them.
I find this sentiment to be unfounded and sickening.

The affinity for one's own species is sickening?

Plodder · Joined: 01 Nov 2005 Posts: 803 Location: USA

Quote: IS it just me or do you have romantic fantasies about violence and possibly even ...abortions? of course he does.

and a baby is not a tumor.

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

AllAmericanMan wrote: Quote: Ah, just like an abortion. IS it just me or do you have romantic fantasies about violence and possibly even ...abortions? Nope, it is just you. :roll:

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

Plodder wrote: Quote: IS it just me or do you have romantic fantasies about violence and possibly even ...abortions? of course he does. Another Plodder-lie. You should take out a patent.

Quote: and a baby is not a tumor. And the fetus and embryo are not babies.

alclarkey · Joined: 12 Jul 2005 Posts: 1360

steen wrote: Plodder wrote: Quote: IS it just me or do you have romantic fantasies about violence and possibly even ...abortions? of course he does. Another Plodder-lie. You should take out a patent.

How very clever! However it is a worthless comment that means nothing.

steen wrote: Quote: and a baby is not a tumor. And the fetus and embryo are not babies.

Evidence steen, evidence. You see most people have to back up their claims with evidence. I guess you feel you are immune from that little law don't you?

steen · Joined: 14 Jan 2006 Posts: 1430 Location: Upper Midwest

alclarkey wrote: steen wrote: Plodder wrote: Quote: IS it just me or do you have romantic fantasies about violence and possibly even ...abortions? of course he does. Another Plodder-lie. You should take out a patent. How very clever! However it is a worthless comment that means nothing. just like yours and plodders. Uhum. :roll:

Quote: steen wrote: Quote: and a baby is not a tumor. And the fetus and embryo are not babies. Evidence steen, evidence. You see most people have to back up their claims with evidence. I guess you feel you are immune from that little law don't you? Please provide a referenced, neutral source that defines "embryo" or 'fetus" and has "baby" in the definition.

No?

Tingeling · Joined: 15 Jul 2004 Posts: 428 Location: uu.se

Plodder wrote: the life of a human supercedes the life of any animal and any number of them.

Alright, now this makes me a bit curious. On what do you base this? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the above claim, but I'd like to know what sort of criteria you base it upon. Why are human lives inherently more important than animal ones?

Steen wrote:
Please provide a referenced, neutral source that defines "embryo" or 'fetus" and has "baby" in the definition.

This is silly. Wheter a source is "neutral" or not is rather arbitrary, and so is the definition it might present. You can't really hope to "prove" anything about wheter a fetus is a person or not in some sort of objective way- it all depends on what your criteria are.

LostSoul3412 · Joined: 11 Feb 2005 Posts: 8341

Tingeling wrote: This is silly. Wheter a source is "neutral" or not is rather arbitrary, and so is the definition it might present. You can't really hope to "prove" anything about wheter a fetus is a person or not in some sort of objective way- it all depends on what your criteria are.

Agreed, the truth is always relative. It cannot be proven either way, but I agree that if one is advocating the protection of the potential life of a human, then they should be even more vigilant in the protection of the actual animal life.

Life itself does not have changing degrees of value. An animal life is just as valuable as a human life, since both are equally alive. I am not more alive than the cow I slaughter for steak, but that is not to say that I do not eat animals. While it is life that I am ending for the sake of my own choice, it is just that... MY CHOICE.