[karajorma]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Now slavery is universally recognized as morally reprehensible.

Except for the bits in the bible telling you how to do it properly?

Not to have a go at you but I find it interesting to hear someone describing something his own deity says is okay in such strong terms.

[Unknown Target]

*pokes head into thread and looks around...sees it, and walks back out*

Not even gonna touch it.

[Rictor]

See this face? This is my "I couldn't care less" face.

Seriously, there are far bigger fish to fry than whether abortion is considered a "human right" or not. It doesn't mean that Country X will suddenly ban abortion, just cause the UN doesn't consider it a basic right, even if this were to pass, which is doubtful.

I've never really understood the importance that most American liberals attach to the twin issues of abortion and religion. For me, and this is probably just my own bias/environment, its almost a total non issue.

[phreak]

Im against abortion but for killing babies

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Pre-Civil War America was half-slave and half-free using exactly the same logic.  People thought that was a workable, if not ideal, solution at the time.  Now slavery is universally recognized as morally reprehensible.

Abortion opponents see the abortion debate in the same way.

Unfortunately, slavery isn't a suitable parallel because there's easy to define why it is wrong.

In the case of slavery, it's very simple to factually prove why it is wrong; for example, all you have to do is show that slaves are human, thus they deserve the right to freedom of choice and (paid) work, thus they should not be slaves.

In the case of abortion, the issue is basically over the right to life.  But the definition of life scientifically differs with the various beliefs over what defines life and when it starts, so there's no way to get an unequivocal right or wrong verdict.

[Kie99]

Its totally obvious isnt it?  Life begins at 60

[Janos]

Originally posted by Ai No Koriida
I can't wait to see what Kazan is gonna say to this...

goddamnit pre-emptively attacking other posters in political debates is not cool

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Unfortunately, slavery isn't a suitable parallel because there's easy to define why it is wrong.

In the case of slavery, it's very simple to factually prove why it is wrong; for example, all you have to do is show that slaves are human, thus they deserve the right to freedom of choice and (paid) work, thus they should not be slaves.

In the case of abortion, the issue is basically over the right to life.  But the definition of life scientifically differs with the various beliefs over what defines life and when it starts, so there's no way to get an unequivocal right or wrong verdict.

Today, yes. But in the era of slavery there were no universally accepted human rights; those were granted by citizenship, not by humanity, and the former, the slaves did not have. Ergo they did not have the right to freedom. We of course take a different view to that now - and society in the future may well take a different view to the rights of unborn children. But I doubt the argument will be as clear-cut.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Janos

goddamnit pre-emptively attacking other posters in political debates is not cool

Eh? I wasn't attacking anyone, dear Janos.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by SadisticSid


Today, yes. But in the era of slavery there were no universally accepted human rights; those were granted by citizenship, not by humanity, and the former, the slaves did not have. Ergo they did not have the right to freedom. We of course take a different view to that now - and society in the future may well take a different view to the rights of unborn children. But I doubt the argument will be as clear-cut.

In which case we cannot make a law based on upon what may or may not happen in future.

[Mongoose]

Originally posted by Flipside
Thing is for me, it's always been like the movies, if you don't want to watch a movie, or don't agree with it's contents, walk past the door, that's what your feet are for.

I feel pretty much the same way about abortion, I wouldn't tell people what movies they should be watching, but I'm intelligent enough to make up my mind for myself

This is all well and good for the example you posted, but it differs in the case of those of us who oppose abortion.  Put it this way:  if you truly believed that millions of innocent people were being slaughtered every year, would you sit by and say nothing?  Would you say, "I think what's going on is wrong, but I won't deny others' right to do it?"  Probably not.  For those of us who believe the fetus represents fully human life, your example is invalid.  We are obligated to try and end the loss of life.  I realize that most of you don't agree with me, but I think that this particular example, which is used all too frequently, doesn't apply to the whole abortion issue.

Kazan, the last thing I want to do is to get in another flamewar with you.  I will say, though, that the abortion issue is not purely a religiously-motivated one.  There are many atheists who are part of the pro-life movement.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Mongoose

This is all well and good for the example you posted, but it differs in the case of those of us who oppose abortion.  Put it this way:  if you truly believed that millions of innocent people were being slaughtered every year, would you sit by and say nothing?  Would you say, "I think what's going on is wrong, but I won't deny others' right to do it?"  Probably not.  For those of us who believe the fetus represents fully human life, your example is invalid.  We are obligated to try and end the loss of life.  I realize that most of you don't agree with me, but I think that this particular example, which is used all too frequently, doesn't apply to the whole abortion issue.

Kazan, the last thing I want to do is to get in another flamewar with you.  I will say, though, that the abortion issue is not purely a religiously-motivated one.  There are many atheists who are part of the pro-life movement.

you can't prove it is a loss of life, though, because you can't prove it is life; not by any method other than your own belief, or an assumption that the fetus can and will develop into a healthy living child.

I wouldn't use this as a specific corollary, but many of the worst things in history have been done for the common good; however feverently you may believe something, it doesn't make it correct to force that upon another.  In many ways it could be considered akin to forcing parts or even indeed all of Shariah law upon you..

[WeatherOp]

I think I'll just sit on this too, got to much moddeling to do, can't get in a huge flamewar at this moment, can you start one maybe next week.

[aldo_14]

I don't consider this a flamewar, just a frank exchange of views & counter-views.

[Ace]

Of course, it is ironic that this is a new issue due to the fact that before modern medicine except for a few folks no one knew about fetuses, etc. and didn't debate about their rights.

The official stance of the Catholic church was that life began during quickening. (when first feeling it kicking)

Now with modern medicine the fetus can be directly observed so this huge "moral debate" has begun.

I support the choice of abortion for one reason: It creates a battlefront that keeps people from destroying the true reproductive right: contraceptives.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Ace
The official stance of the Catholic church was that life began during quickening. (when first feeling it kicking)

Pity that the bible didn't say that. Would have saved a hell of a lot of arguments

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by karajorma
Not to have a go at you but I find it interesting to hear someone describing something his own deity says is okay in such strong terms.

The Bible never condones slavery; it may be permitted but it isn't held as morally beneficial.  Same with divorce and polygamy.

Consider this verse...

Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you -- although if you can gain your freedom, do so. For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. (1 Corinthians 7:21-23).

And don't forget that slavery was abolished in Britain (and subsequently in America) thanks in a large part to Christian influence.

Originally posted by aldo_14
In the case of slavery, it's very simple to factually prove why it is wrong; for example, all you have to do is show that slaves are human, thus they deserve the right to freedom of choice and (paid) work, thus they should not be slaves.

I could turn this around and say that all you have to do is show that unborn children are human, thus they deserve not to be aborted. Or I could even say that since there's uncertainly about whether it's a life, we should err on the side of preserving life as a matter of ethics.

[Genryu]

Well, since the Bible was written by human, what stops someone in the Church to do this ?

.......

I'm gonna have to stop egging the Christian on, or I'm sure I will get extra-crispy otherwise

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Problem is we've done this so many times.......  technically, though, in the former case you are only depriving the foetus of the right to live (skirting over the issue of whether a foetus is considered alive) if the mother chooses to make that choice.  

Choice by itself isn't dangerous; the consequences of that choice made can be.

I'm just tired of this feeling that there are two sides to the debate: There are liberal babykillers, and then there are sexist religious conservatives. I read this thread and I see people griping because the US is imposing civil rights 'progress'. What exactly does that mean? It seems to me that it's some arbitrary label, that can apply to complete opposites of the same side. Unless you believe in complete anarchy, more 'rights' aren't necessarily a good thing. Nor do I see this as being some sort of equal rights progress, because most of the opinion's I've heard have been to grant unequal decision power. (See the last debate on this topic) It's always the mother's right to choose, not the childbearer. As many feminists are always quick to add when someone uses the male pronoun rather than a gender neutral one, that makes a difference. (I'm not exactly a big supporter of affirmative action - better to weed out corruption than to encourage counter-corruption, IMHO).

Anyway, so I don't see this as a victory on China's part, or some grand crusade on part of the US's part, just two different ideologies in conflict.

Edit:

Or I could even say that since there's uncertainly about whether it's a life, we should err on the side of preserving life as a matter of ethics.

Actually, that's sort of where I am. Aborting a baby for some arbitrary reason seems unreasonably cold to me, but I do recognize there's more of a responsibility and a risk in having the baby than just saying, "Well, let's go ahead with it!" Especially since AFAIK the couple will end up with the medical bills, which nowadays are oretty hefty.
But just try and legislate that.

[Ford Prefect]

Unless you believe in complete anarchy, more 'rights' aren't necessarily a good thing.

There is a practical reason why rights are a safe default: The more restrictions you impose, the more unstable the society becomes. Where possible, it's usually safer to let people make their own decisions, just so they don't explode.  

The problem is, rights/liberties are almost always debated on emotional grounds-- "we deserve this right because it's right", etc. This tends to make the advocates rather obnoxious people, but their protests are mass psychology at work, and it's a dangerous thing to brush aside.

EDIT: Haha! "Chr!stofascist" is taboo now. Ah well, it was corny anyway.