[colecampbell666]

I don't see why everyone's ripping on Zack, she has more to worry about this than any of you. She isn't inhuman, and if I'm interpreting her views right, she has a very big-picture view.

Many of these unwanted children that could've/would've been aborted will become criminal or at least less-savory due to the lack of a stable mother/father/family/role-model. They will drain on the funding of the state due to prison/police/legal funding, as well as the hospitals with more dangerous behavior. If all of this were to disappear, there would be more money and less people, more money per-person and better quality of life. Higher overall education and standards of living, more money to health care and other services, and less (fewer?) unwanted, unhappy people.

Think of another point. "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic. " - Good Ol' Joe Stalin.

These (anti-abortion) organizations, much like the organizations against African poverty (noble causes), PETA (debatable, not big-picture IMO) and others, try to appeal to your empathy and compassion rather than your judgment. They show you these shocking images and personalized tragedies, all the while subversively convincing you not to think. You don't look at the big picture such as I outlined above, you think of the poor little Afghani/Indian/whatever girl with no meat on her bones. The big picture is that people need to die. Call me cruel, call me inhuman, call me heartless; death is a part of life. In today's world (and most likely well into the future) many people will die, many at an "unfairly" young age. If it saves them from a probable life of hardship and goes towards the greater good, I deem it an acceptable loss. It wouldn't be unfair to them as one can't miss what one has never had, and if they go to "heaven" and meet "god", will he not welcome them the same? Are babies (and by extension fetuses) not sinless?

2) An unborn child qualifies as a) innocent; and b) a person.

This is debatable.

Hence 2a.

That's part of my point, we have a good month of solid leeway. Course, you did post a good 10 minutes before I finished editing my post.  

There is a doubt, true, but as Herra stated, scans and testing have solidly indicated that at about week 20 there is a chance of survival, being very conservative. Before this, terminating a pregnancy is not ending a "life" as the life never had a chance to occur in the first place.

[Polpolion]

Think of another point. "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic. " - Good Ol' Joe Stalin.

These (anti-abortion) organizations, much like the organizations against African poverty (noble causes), PETA (debatable, not big-picture IMO) and others, try to appeal to your empathy and compassion rather than your judgment. They show you these shocking images and personalized tragedies, all the while subversively convincing you not to think. You don't look at the big picture such as I outlined above, you think of the poor little Afghani/Indian/whatever girl with no meat on her bones.

 These organizations exist because someone somewhere thinks that they serve a good purpose. No one in their right mind would create and maintain an NGO just for the hell of it.

The big picture is that people need to die. Call me cruel, call me inhuman, call me heartless; death is a part of life.

And that's where you differ from most people. Most people actually try and change that, hence the NGOs you just mentioned.

In today's world (and most likely well into the future) many people will die, many at an "unfairly" young age. If it saves them from a probable life of hardship and goes towards the greater good, I deem it an acceptable loss. It wouldn't be unfair to them as one can't miss what one has never had, and if they go to "heaven" and meet "god", will he not welcome them the same? Are babies (and by extension fetuses) not sinless?

There's another thing that people try and change. The hardship doesn't have to be a part of their life, but it will be as long as there are people that want to just kill them instead of fixing the problems. You're side stepping the issue and rationalizing it by saying "I don't think they would've wanted to live anyway..."

[iamzack]

Oh, btw, I'm pregnant.

[redsniper]

Oh, btw, I'm pregnant.

<Turambar> time for some falcon punches

[Nuclear1]

Oh, btw, I'm pregnant.

Oh ho really?

[colecampbell666]

Think of another point. "One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic. " - Good Ol' Joe Stalin.

These (anti-abortion) organizations, much like the organizations against African poverty (noble causes), PETA (debatable, not big-picture IMO) and others, try to appeal to your empathy and compassion rather than your judgment. They show you these shocking images and personalized tragedies, all the while subversively convincing you not to think. You don't look at the big picture such as I outlined above, you think of the poor little Afghani/Indian/whatever girl with no meat on her bones.

 These organizations exist because someone somewhere thinks that they serve a good purpose. No one in their right mind would create and maintain an NGO just for the hell of it.

And I never said they didn't, I just stated which tactics they use/how they operate.

The big picture is that people need to die. Call me cruel, call me inhuman, call me heartless; death is a part of life.

And that's where you differ from most people. Most people actually try and change that, hence the NGOs you just mentioned.

I myself am for changing that, I'm behind the principles 100%. The truth still stands, in today's world, it's not feasible nor possible to save everyone. Improving quality of life and education for the living is the first step towards this.

In today's world (and most likely well into the future) many people will die, many at an "unfairly" young age. If it saves them from a probable life of hardship and goes towards the greater good, I deem it an acceptable loss. It wouldn't be unfair to them as one can't miss what one has never had, and if they go to "heaven" and meet "god", will he not welcome them the same? Are babies (and by extension fetuses) not sinless?

There's another thing that people try and change. The hardship doesn't have to be a part of their life, but it will be as long as there are people that want to just kill them instead of fixing the problems. You're side stepping the issue and rationalizing it by saying "I don't think they would've wanted to live anyway..."

A. I never said that they wouldn't have wanted to live, I said that they wouldn't know life and so wouldn't miss it. B. Refer to response #2.

[Turambar]

[iamzack]

Turambar: I dare you.

[karajorma]

1) Murder is the willful killing of an innocent person.
2) An unborn child qualifies as a) innocent; and b) a person.
2a) Corollary to 2) -- As long as there is any doubt of the precise moment of time as to when an unborn child achieves personhood, it is wise to err on the side of caution and assume it as the onset of pregnancy.

Except that there is no scientific doubt. Of course that's never stopped religious organisations in the past from claiming that there is. A collection of 8 cells is not a person. You want to claim that it is which makes the rest of your argument dubious.

3) Abortion is "willful termination of pregnancy".  Miscarriages are not willful; implantation failure due to rhythm or whatever is not willful.

Nice try but if you're claiming that abortion is murder then the rhythm method is negligent homicide. You seem to want to imply that it doesn't count because this is all going on in the mother's body without her knowledge. But that still doesn't change what is actually happening in there. If you honestly believe that abortion is murder you would save a lot more lives killing off the use of the rhythm method in favour of other forms of birth control. It would probably be easier too as you're already dealing with people who believe that conception is when life starts. If you're really after triage you should go after the largest wound first.

And if you don't want to, then I question whether you're really doing this to save lives.

[Goober5000]

Except that there is no scientific doubt. Of course that's never stopped religious organisations in the past from claiming that there is. A collection of 8 cells is not a person. You want to claim that it is which makes the rest of your argument dubious.

Must we restrict this to scientific doubt?  The vast majority of people believe that human beings possess a soul; it's what separates man from animal.  If adult humans have souls, then there's a good chance unborn humans have souls as well.  And if they do, and if we as a society have decided to value souls, then we have a vested interest in preserving them, whatever their age.

You may think that's side-stepping the question, but you could just as easily apply that to murder of adults as well.  Why have we as a society decided that murder is morally wrong?  Not just legally wrong, or wrong from a practical point of view or a sustainability point of view, but wrong from a moral point of view?

Nice try but if you're claiming that abortion is murder then the rhythm method is negligent homicide. You seem to want to imply that it doesn't count because this is all going on in the mother's body without her knowledge. But that still doesn't change what is actually happening in there. If you honestly believe that abortion is murder you would save a lot more lives killing off the use of the rhythm method in favour of other forms of birth control. It would probably be easier too as you're already dealing with people who believe that conception is when life starts. If you're really after triage you should go after the largest wound first.

K.  There are some churches which discourage all forms of contraception, including the rhythm method.  I shall research this more.

[karajorma]

Must we restrict this to scientific doubt? 

Yes. Any other view forces people who don't have the same belief system you have to live under yours.

If adult humans have souls, then there's a good chance unborn humans have souls as well. And if they do, and if we as a society have decided to value souls, then we have a vested interest in preserving them, whatever their age.

Protecting them from what? The soul is indestructible (at least as far as man is concerned). Even if abortion is murder it's not doing anything to the souls of the unborn.

Furthermore that view is very Abrahimocentric. Why would a Buddhist care? Or a Hindu? Or a Sikh? All three believe that the soul will simply be reincarnated elsewhere IIRC. Again this is about forcing everyone to live with your beliefs.

You may think that's side-stepping the question, but you could just as easily apply that to murder of adults as well.  Why have we as a society decided that murder is morally wrong?  Not just legally wrong, or wrong from a practical point of view or a sustainability point of view, but wrong from a moral point of view?

It's wrong from a moral point of view because morals are simply practicalities that have lasted long enough to become ingrained in the culture. Most societies simply wouldn't work if murder wasn't illegal. We make a moral distinction between murder and killing all the time based on that.

K.  There are some churches which discourage all forms of contraception, including the rhythm method.  I shall research this more.

Yes but the Roman Catholic church pushes for the use of natural birth control methods. With around one billion of them the number of "deaths" due to the rhythm method is probably much higher than anything from abortion.

[Herra Tohtori]

...not to mention the deaths and human suffering caused by AIDS, hepatitis C, human papillomavirus (HPV infection in women has causative link to cervical cancer) and to lesser degree by less lethal STD's that would be trivial to prevent with the use of condom, yet the Catholic church insisting on evilness of condoms makes it socially unacceptable for millions of people to use them.

But that is a matter for different conversation mayhaps.

[colecampbell666]

The vast majority of people believe that human beings possess a soul

Just because many believe something does not make it true.

kara covered all the rest of the topics I was going to rant about.

[Ford Prefect]

Furthermore that view is very Abrahimocentric. Why would a Buddhist care? Or a Hindu? Or a Sikh? All three believe that the soul will simply be reincarnated elsewhere IIRC. Again this is about forcing everyone to live with your beliefs.

Technical point: Buddhists do not believe in a soul. Really just reinforces your point, but just in the interest of nitpicking.