Quarkmoon:
Quarkmoon said:
JR said:
There's another problem with the argument, too. Any pair of sperm and egg have the potential to become an embryo, which in turn has the potential to become a newborn child. By using contraception, you are eliminating the chance for the sperm and egg to get together to make an embryo.
The lottery ticket argument was addressed by someone else so I will address this. Yes, you are eliminating the chance for pregnancy, which is the main objective to using protection. I am not a religious person, I don't believe people should only have sex to procreate (or else I would be a hypocrite).
If an egg is never fertalized, than I have no problems. However, as soon as that egg is fertalized and developes into a fetus, it has the potential to grow into a child, therefore it is immoral to abort it.
Why draw the line at conception? A separate sperm and egg are a potential child. Why don't all sperm not have a right to life?
Just before sperm meets egg, we have two cells. Just after, we have one cell. According to you, that one cell has all the rights of a new born baby, while the separate sperm and ovum have no special rights. Why? Surely they have approximately equal potential.
Animals are killed for their nutritional value. Ever heard of protein, Vitamin B12, Vitamin B6, Iron? Again, this is a distractive argument, a tactic heavily used by people who try to defend Bush's policies. It does not address the main concern, it is pointless.
That's completely incorrect. This is an important point. It is only because your morality is inconsistent that you immediately, without even starting to think, dismiss the rights of sentient creatures, while at the same time giving much greater rights to a random class of non-sentient beings.
In short, you are quite happy to kill an adult cow, for example, which is a fully conscious, thinking and feeling being with the potential to continue to live a full and happy life. Why is killing it ok, according to you? Because it will give you a small amount of pleasure. Any yet, at the same time, you will defend the "rights" of a human embryo, which has no consciousness, does not think, has no feeling (up to a certain stage). Why? Because of its "potential" to grow into an adult human?
Giving special treatment to human life
just because it is human rather than some other species is called speciesism. No ethically valid argument can be made for such a position.
On a less important point, your claim that humans must eat animals for their "nutritional value" is also baseless. Yes, Quarkmoon, I have heard of vitamins and iron. They are all readily available in vegetables and other non-animal foods.
For example, vitamin B12 is found in dairy foods, eggs, breakfast cereals and soy milk. Protein is found in grains, cereals, peanut butter, baked beans, milk, eggs, yoghurt, pasta, seeds, peas and beans. Iron is found in pumpkin, sunflower and sesame seeds, peanut butter, chick peas, hommus, soy beans, kidney beans, wheat bran, wheat germ, dried figs, peaches, prunes... The list goes on and on.
Do no patronize me. Just because you are older does not automatically make you more knowledgeable. And so far, you have done a terrible job of making your case, this discussion has actually reinforced my opinion.
No, you're just getting defensive. You're right about age, of course. Age doesn't automatically make you more knowledgable. I'm more knowledgable than you on this issue simply because I've obviously looked at it more carefully than you. But you'll learn.
Quarkmoon said:
JR said:
So, 47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one. So what? What's your argument against allowing abortion to anyone (apart from in rape cases), to which that fact is relevant? Don't be shy. Tell me what you really think.
I have stated it's relevance on numerous occasions. So many times in fact that I was starting to sound like a broken record. Read any one of my responses for why that statistic is relevant.
I checked back, but could see anything. Come on, Quarkmoon. One sentence ought to be enough. "Two abortions are worse than one because ..."
Quarkmoon said:
JR said:
So, would you support the abortion option for those women who would find adoption more traumatic than having an abortion?
1. If they are evaluated by a licensed psychologist
2. and it is determined that adoption would have lasting emotional effects on the women above abortion
3. and the women has never had an abortion before
4. and the women is not supported by the father
, than she should would be allowed to have an abortion (if complete prohibition can not be made).
That's a lot of conditions. I found your escape clause particularly amusing: "if complete prohibition cannot be made". Given that clause, your actual answer seems to me to be: you don't really care if adoption would be more traumatic for mothers - abortion should be prohibited even in such cases. Why not be honest about it?
If, on the other hand, your escape clause was accidental, then I wonder why you are suddenly bringing in the mother's interests, when previously only the interests of the foetus mattered to you. Suppose all your conditions (1)-(4) are met in a particular case. None of those things change the fact that the embryo is a potential human adult. So, why does your main argument get thrown away at this point, if these conditions are met? What makes the difference?
Quarkmoon said:
JR said:
So, in essence, you do believe that women are reckless about the chances of pregnancy. You actually think that, in general, women don't worry about getting pregnant when they have sex. What makes you think that?
Yes, if a women does not want a child, chooses not to use protection and has sex anyway, that is the very definition of recklessness.
Do you think this would be the case for most women who have abortions? If not, approximately what proportion would you estimate?
