how do we survive our soul crushing world?

[Gary Childress]

You are exploiting your own circumstance to tell others what to do? How low can you get?

And your answer is?

If your mother had aborted you in her first trimester, then I don't think it would make a whit of difference to you any more than it would to me if my mother had aborted me in my first trimester. I'm not particularly worried about it. We're both here now and that undeniably makes us privy to being worthy of life, however, I don't think I was here to feel or know anything before my first trimester. Maybe my developing body was but I don't recall being in it. I mean, people generally aren't kept on life support forever if they are deemed to be unconscious with little to any hope of reviving. Is it 'murder' to pull the plug on a human body that is completely unresponsive other than having a pulse but is forever tied to life support? And if not, then why is it not murder? It doesn't seem like murder to me, yet we have a fully developed human body lying in a bed with a pulse and wires and tubes sticking out of it.

Or should we keep every single person who is born in this world indefinitely on life support? I wonder how many that would be. If we went back to the beginning of genetic humans, that would come out to something like 117 Billion people, according to one source I saw. Could you imagine the electric bill and carbon emissions of keeping 110 Billion people on life support (minus the 7 billion or so currently living on Earth)? Would you categorize that as a gross waste of resources? I would have to say "yes".

[Maia]

You are exploiting your own circumstance to tell others what to do? How low can you get?

And your answer is?

If your mother had aborted you in her first trimester, then I don't think it would make a whit of difference to you any more than it would to me if my mother had aborted me in my first trimester. I'm not particularly worried about it. We're both here now and that undeniably makes us privy to being worthy of life, however, I don't think I was here to feel or know anything before my first trimester. Maybe my developing body was but I don't recall being in it. I mean, people generally aren't kept on life support forever if they are deemed to be unconscious with little to any hope of reviving. Is it 'murder' to pull the plug on a human body that is completely unresponsive other than having a pulse but is forever tied to life support? And if not, then why is it not murder? It doesn't seem like murder to me, yet we have a fully developed human body lying in a bed with a pulse and wires and tubes sticking out of it.

The plug is never pulled if there is a good hope of recovery. With a baby, there is an almost complete certainty of "recovery" (that is, being born) so the analogy is grossly flawed, I'm afraid.

[Gary Childress]

And your answer is?

If your mother had aborted you in her first trimester, then I don't think it would make a whit of difference to you any more than it would to me if my mother had aborted me in my first trimester. I'm not particularly worried about it. We're both here now and that undeniably makes us privy to being worthy of life, however, I don't think I was here to feel or know anything before my first trimester. Maybe my developing body was but I don't recall being in it. I mean, people generally aren't kept on life support forever if they are deemed to be unconscious with little to any hope of reviving. Is it 'murder' to pull the plug on a human body that is completely unresponsive other than having a pulse but is forever tied to life support? And if not, then why is it not murder? It doesn't seem like murder to me, yet we have a fully developed human body lying in a bed with a pulse and wires and tubes sticking out of it.

The plug is never pulled if there is a good hope of recovery. With a baby, there is an almost complete certainty of "recovery" (that is, being born) so the analogy is grossly flawed, I'm afraid.

There are differences but I don't see the difference as particularly important. The real similarity to stress to me is the fact of actually being conscious. If you're not conscious during the 1st trimester when most abortions are being performed, then you're not there to be 'murdered.'

[Maia]

If your mother had aborted you in her first trimester, then I don't think it would make a whit of difference to you any more than it would to me if my mother had aborted me in my first trimester. I'm not particularly worried about it. We're both here now and that undeniably makes us privy to being worthy of life, however, I don't think I was here to feel or know anything before my first trimester. Maybe my developing body was but I don't recall being in it. I mean, people generally aren't kept on life support forever if they are deemed to be unconscious with little to any hope of reviving. Is it 'murder' to pull the plug on a human body that is completely unresponsive other than having a pulse but is forever tied to life support? And if not, then why is it not murder? It doesn't seem like murder to me, yet we have a fully developed human body lying in a bed with a pulse and wires and tubes sticking out of it.

The plug is never pulled if there is a good hope of recovery. With a baby, there is an almost complete certainty of "recovery" (that is, being born) so the analogy is grossly flawed, I'm afraid.

There are differences but I don't see the difference as particularly important. The real similarity to stress to me is the fact of actually being conscious. If you're not conscious during the 1st trimester when most abortions are being performed, then you're not there to be 'murdered.'

So it's ok to kill people in comas, then? Or even asleep?

[Gary Childress]

The plug is never pulled if there is a good hope of recovery. With a baby, there is an almost complete certainty of "recovery" (that is, being born) so the analogy is grossly flawed, I'm afraid.

There are differences but I don't see the difference as particularly important. The real similarity to stress to me is the fact of actually being conscious. If you're not conscious during the 1st trimester when most abortions are being performed, then you're not there to be 'murdered.'

So it's ok to kill people in comas, then? Or even asleep?

Not at all. If there's a good chance the person will come out of it, then they are probably still "here", just unconscious. A fetus in the first trimester, I don't think is yet "here".

[Maia]

There are differences but I don't see the difference as particularly important. The real similarity to stress to me is the fact of actually being conscious. If you're not conscious during the 1st trimester when most abortions are being performed, then you're not there to be 'murdered.'

So it's ok to kill people in comas, then? Or even asleep?

Not at all. If there's a good chance the person will come out of it, then they are probably still "here", just unconscious. A fetus in the first trimester, I don't think is yet "here".

And yet, the fetus will come out of it, almost certainly.

[Gary Childress]

So it's ok to kill people in comas, then? Or even asleep?

Not at all. If there's a good chance the person will come out of it, then they are probably still "here", just unconscious. A fetus in the first trimester, I don't think is yet "here".

And yet, the fetus will come out of it, almost certainly.

The operative word is "yet". If a person is in the world, then all should be done to preserve them. However, if they aren't here yet, have yet to taste life for even the first time, then it seems like fair game to me to abort as much as to use spermicide will 'murder' sperm.

[Maia]

Not at all. If there's a good chance the person will come out of it, then they are probably still "here", just unconscious. A fetus in the first trimester, I don't think is yet "here".

And yet, the fetus will come out of it, almost certainly.

The operative word is "yet". If a person is in the world, then all should be done to preserve them. However, if they aren't here yet, have yet to taste life for even the first time, then it seems like fair game to me to abort as much as to use spermicide will 'murder' sperm.

The same arguments could be used to justify infanticide. After all, what does a new born baby know?

[Gary Childress]

And yet, the fetus will come out of it, almost certainly.

The operative word is "yet". If a person is in the world, then all should be done to preserve them. However, if they aren't here yet, have yet to taste life for even the first time, then it seems like fair game to me to abort as much as to use spermicide will 'murder' sperm.

The same arguments could be used to justify infanticide. After all, what does a new born baby know?

Not necessarily, a "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy according to most texts. I don't know if a new born is "here" yet or not, however, at that stage I don't think abortion should be allowed. I wouldn't want to take the risk. Once a child starts to look like a child, then our human sensibilities kick in and it becomes grotesque/fails the "yuck" factor. I think there's something to be said for that. IMO.

[Maia]

The operative word is "yet". If a person is in the world, then all should be done to preserve them. However, if they aren't here yet, have yet to taste life for even the first time, then it seems like fair game to me to abort as much as to use spermicide will 'murder' sperm.

The same arguments could be used to justify infanticide. After all, what does a new born baby know?

Not necessarily, a "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy according to most texts. I don't know if a new born is "here" yet or not, however, at that stage I don't think abortion should be allowed. I wouldn't want to take the risk. Once a child starts to look like a child, then our human sensibilities kick in and it becomes grotesque/fails the "yuck" factor. I think there's something to be said for that. IMO.

In my opinion, a slippery slope argument is perfectly valid.

The problem with saying that it's ok to abort in the first trimester is that any line you draw is arbitrary, and, indeed, specifically designed to allow abortion.

[Gary Childress]

The same arguments could be used to justify infanticide. After all, what does a new born baby know?

Not necessarily, a "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy according to most texts. I don't know if a new born is "here" yet or not, however, at that stage I don't think abortion should be allowed. I wouldn't want to take the risk. Once a child starts to look like a child, then our human sensibilities kick in and it becomes grotesque/fails the "yuck" factor. I think there's something to be said for that. IMO.

In my opinion, a slippery slope argument is perfectly valid.

The problem with saying that it's ok to abort in the first trimester is that any line you draw is arbitrary, and, indeed, specifically designed to allow abortion.

OK. Do you think it's OK to abort at the zygote stage? What about using spermicides? If the line is arbitrary then we shouldn't abort anywhere along the stages, right? Do you think all men are bald because it's impossible to draw the line between where "baldness" begins and having a "full head of hair" ends? That's why the "slipery slope" is considered a fallacy. We wouldn't be able to make any distinctions at all.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

On the other hand, I think most people are repelled by the idea of killing babies. But any line between the two is purely arbitrary.

Incidentally, just to put my cards on the table, in cases of rape, I think a good case can be made for abortion, because the baby is an intruder, as it were. But there is no good case when the sex was consensual, since no precautions are 100% reliable, and everyone knows that. Again, it's responsibility.

The other scenario often brought up is cases of disabled babies. I was born with atrophied and non-functioning eyes, and they were removed when I was little, as an infection risk. If my parents had known this, should they have aborted me?

You are exploiting your own circumstance to tell others what to do? How low can you get?

And your answer is?

Nothing to do with me. Their choice.

[Maia]

Not necessarily, a "slippery slope" argument is a fallacy according to most texts. I don't know if a new born is "here" yet or not, however, at that stage I don't think abortion should be allowed. I wouldn't want to take the risk. Once a child starts to look like a child, then our human sensibilities kick in and it becomes grotesque/fails the "yuck" factor. I think there's something to be said for that. IMO.

In my opinion, a slippery slope argument is perfectly valid.

The problem with saying that it's ok to abort in the first trimester is that any line you draw is arbitrary, and, indeed, specifically designed to allow abortion.

OK. Do you think it's OK to abort at the zygote stage? What about using spermicides? If the line is arbitrary then we shouldn't abort anywhere along the stages, right? Do you think all men are bald because it's impossible to draw the line between where "baldness" begins and having a "full head of hair" ends? That's why the "slipery slope" is considered a fallacy. We wouldn't be able to make any distinctions at all.

No, I don't believe that sperm or unfertilised eggs need to be considered as people. That, to me, is a blatantly obvious cut off point.

[Gary Childress]

In my opinion, a slippery slope argument is perfectly valid.

The problem with saying that it's ok to abort in the first trimester is that any line you draw is arbitrary, and, indeed, specifically designed to allow abortion.

OK. Do you think it's OK to abort at the zygote stage? What about using spermicides? If the line is arbitrary then we shouldn't abort anywhere along the stages, right? Do you think all men are bald because it's impossible to draw the line between where "baldness" begins and having a "full head of hair" ends? That's why the "slipery slope" is considered a fallacy. We wouldn't be able to make any distinctions at all.

No, I don't believe that sperm or unfertilised eggs need to be considered as people. That, to me, is a blatantly obvious cut off point.

What about zygotes?

[Maia]

OK. Do you think it's OK to abort at the zygote stage? What about using spermicides? If the line is arbitrary then we shouldn't abort anywhere along the stages, right? Do you think all men are bald because it's impossible to draw the line between where "baldness" begins and having a "full head of hair" ends? That's why the "slipery slope" is considered a fallacy. We wouldn't be able to make any distinctions at all.

No, I don't believe that sperm or unfertilised eggs need to be considered as people. That, to me, is a blatantly obvious cut off point.

What about zygotes?

An individual is created when the egg is fertilised and the genetic information is assembled. There is no dividing line after that, as it's all a continuum.