Glenn said:Not remotely? It isn't anything else, and it certainly will develop into a full grown human adult, if given the chance. I see your point, but I think that saying that it isn't remotely human may be going a bit far.
Maybe, but to me it's still not human. It's no more 'alive' than a sperm or an egg on their own, other than the fact it grows.
I don't think that she is the only one who suffers here. Think about the mother and father's parents. Do you think that they don't care about having a grandchild? Do you think that they aren't affected in the least by what the mother does with her child?
Put it this way, if grandparents are involved, then will they care more for? Their real, adult children and their lives, or their unborn grandchildren?
Like I said before, just because someone wants to have an abortion doesn't mean that they are in dire straits. There are people who just view it as a convenience issue. Also, how hard is it to not get pregnant or get someone pregnant? If you can't afford to get pregnant, there are measures that you can take to prevent it. If you play with fire, there is the possibility that you will get hurt.
Morally, you're correct, and preventing conception is better than 'curing' it. But people aren't perfect, in fact most are far from it, and in this day and age they have the right to utilise medical technology to whatever extent they want within the law...don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's OK for people to take risks, just because they can fall back on an abortion, it's hardly a nice prospect for them anyway, but what I'm saying is it shouldn't matter how much it would actually affect them. In my opinion they should have the right to do as they wish with their own bodies.
Like I said above, people also care about children.
Yes but in the case of an abortion, who will? we have to assume the parents haven't gone ranting and raving about the child to everyone they know. And even so, deciding to keep a child just because relatives/friends would be upset if you didn't is no reason to do it.
Have I argued that the baby has a soul? Have I used any religious rhetoric in my arguments?
Nope, but they're typically used in a lot of pro-life argment, that's all.
If you think that it's OK to kill an infant because it can't fend for itself, then I suppose that you feel that it's OK to kill retarded people, who don't have the mental capacity to keep up with everyone else even at adult age.
That's a totally different kettle of fish, but I would rather be killed if I was in such a state, myself. I also didn't say it was OK to kill something just because it can't survive on it's own, but that it was ok for the parents to, specifically (no-one else). They have given birth to it, it is utterly reliant on them, it's life is literally in their hands. Why shouldn't they be in control still?
Also, what about elderly people who aren't totally in control of their body, and who can't feed themselves?
They've generally worked all their lives and paid taxes and thus earned the right to a retirement and national health service.
I'm not sure that it would be rational to kill a child for any reason. Would it be rational to kill 1/3 of the people on the planet to avoid overpopulation, even if we were all (what's left of us) better off for it and the 1/3 had no idea that it was coming?
Rational yes, socially acceptable no, practical no. Besides, who is gonna take a decision like that? There's plenty of things that would be better for the planet as a whole that could have been done but won't ever be done because of the immorality or whatnot.
I suppose that you think that an amoeba is also more alive than a human baby, or an ape baby, etc.
Well, yeah. It moves and eats for itself which is more than what babies do.
Of course, it doesn't have a fraction of the potential for intelligence or physical development. But does this mean it should have less rights?
And why do the millions of animals slaughtered have less rights than humans, even while millions of tonnes of surplus grain is wasted each year?
Offtopic, but it shows hypocrisy to me (not aimed at you personally). Personally I don't see people as any more 'value' as their pets. They're just lucky to have been born human. People make SUCH an uproar over anything that infringes on 'human rights' then go home and tuck into a juicy steak from a cattle that was probably reared in a tight compartment and fed crap to fatten it up to be killed for human pleasure.
Apparently not, if you think that it's OK to kill infants, and even children who can't walk and talk. Using this logic, it's OK to kill anyone up until the age of 18, because only then are they considered adults, and only then are they expected to be autonomous and self-sufficient. If we all thought this way, then our species would not be around right now.
No you're twisting my words there. I said I wouldn't be bothered if two parents killed their very young child. Well, in fact, I would, I'd be shocked at the audacity to break away from social norms in such a way, and I'd say they'd have to be pretty messed up individuals to do it BUT only considering the norms they'd been brought up in themselves. As an act itself, it wouldn't bother me.
I disagree, if we all focused more on logic, than emotions and 'rights' then our species would be more advanced.