My common sense is telling me that if elective abortion is banned, that would already be reducing abortion rates. What other issues? Just focus on life of the unborn human rah.
And women health, family planning are unimportant?
If unborn is not human at all, then I agree with chiu that it has no instinsic worth to be assigned. Abort it is no different than extracting a bad tooth. Pro choice is right and should be supported. To hell with the prolifers for wanting to take away such choices!
But if unborn is human? An unborn human is worth less than born human? You double confirm this?
So? You believe something differently. No biggie, I not going to force you.
But the problem here is that you're trying to force OTHERS into doing what you believe.
And that sets a new criteria altogether.
Experience pain or sentient thought is irrelevant to whether unborn is human or not. A developing human in the womb is without saying not functioning like matured human adult, but this does not make it any less human. :
You UTTERLY miss the point. The argument as I said is not about defining whether something is human or not. There are two issues at discussion here.
1: Should the foetus enjoy the same rights as a human being or does it enjoy a special status?
2. How much say does the state and society have on a person decisions and health especially when moral positions by its members differ?
1: I argue that a foetus enjoy a special status based on its nature.
2. A woman has the right to say that its her health, its her body and she and her partner has the right to decide on what means to achieve family planning.
The criteria for state and societal intervention in this private decision does not exists.
The fact is, your sole criteria for arguing for state/society intervention in this private decision is that abortions=murder human life. Its an appeal to special circumstances, namely, that a collection of cells is unique enough that we should not terminate its existence via artificial means.
I also set out my own decisions on when its too close to call, that abortions in the third trimester borders too close on the edge of causing harm to another sentient being and I'm agreeable to having a waiting period for second trimester abortions due to the nature of the foetus, but otherwise? Nope.
Go by this logic, then comatose people who are braindead or lepers who have loss of sensation of pain not human arh? My logic is telling me that your admitted arbitrary way of assigning moral value to developing unborn human is fraught with slippery roads. Arbitrary basis is no basis rah!
You misread the post. My post was saying that miminal harm is being done.
The foetus at the first and part of the second trimester cannot feel pain, it cannot feel hurt. It has no intelligence, no nerves even at the first to feel pain.
The adage in my stance on abortion during the second trimester comes about because one can argue that the foetus at the late stage may be capable of being hurt. And especially in the third trimester, especially if the foetus becomes viable.
And it isn't arbitrary, despite your contention. Again, a collection of cells cannot feel pain, it cannot feel loss. Thus, miminal harm is being done. What is done is merely the termination of unrealised potential.
And your focus on just what makes something human(which is different from sanctity of life) is causing you to make fallacious arguments.
I did not argue that a foetus isn't human, I argued that the mother decision to abort causes miminal HARM.
And since the decision to abort can bring about good....
And that the state/society has no influence on the matter because it extends no rights and obligations...
Abortions should remain legal and available to women.
My logic already explained, if you don't want the child, then don't kill it, give it up for adoption. People are damn whimsical creatures, now say unwanted later say want. Chiu neber see enough TV dramas?
And? Does the state bear the costs of nurturing the mother medical bills for 9 months? Childbirth, which costs thousands of dollars still has a hefty bill in the form of its impact on your Medisave account.
Ditto to the other needs and impact a mother goes through in the nine months of pregnancy.
If the state/society does not support the mother during this period, I say again, the state moral voice and influence on what should be a private decision is diminished.
Sanctity of choice is what pro-choice people asking for, choice trumps life. My choice more important and to be protected than human life, even if it is the life of my own baby inside me.
Again, you ignore my post.
I have already laid out the criteria which in my opinion, the state and society must fulfill if its is to have a voice in the matter. Namely, if the state/society supports the costs of bringing the pregnancy to term and/or compensation in other kind, then the State/Society has an equal voice in this private matter.
What crap you talking about me feeling morally superior? Go on personal attack now? Don't tell me you not feeling that prochoice is morally superior to prolife?
So, when called on your moral posturing, you now switch to aggressive attack?
I seriously no understand some of the people here on CAL. Their language is very rude, aggressive, yet, they don't understand that its rude. So, when called and challenged on how rude they are, they turn around and say its me who's rude instead.
And since you summarized already that you agree abortion is morally undesirable short of saying it is wrong (lack moral guts?),
More moral posturing? I'm sure it makes you feel ooohh... so good.
debate with you further is pointless and moot.
Again, I am perfectly WILLING to agree to disagree.
You have your criteria on how and when the state/society should intervene, I have mine.
My continued posts however are meant entirely to rebut entirely fallacious, nay, fictitious arguments you're conjuring up about my position.
The problem is not with denying health services rah. Standard and quality of health care is good in Singapore. Making drug abuse illegal (and removing your choice to take drugs) is different from saying denying health care to people abusing drugs hokay?
AGAIN, the problem is what RIGHT does the state/society has to intervene in this matter?
Your criteria rests solely on the argument of sanctity of life. That human life is precious and special and should not be terminated at any point.
I, and many others, DON"T agree.
In a democratic society, both our positions have the same and equal right to exist and be expressed. The current laws allow for that perfectly.
You can choose NOT to abort a child. You can choose to convince and counsel others NOT to go for abortions.
But you cannot force into law a position that deny other people their rights and moral positions.
A foetus is a growing human, not a mere lump of cells which chiu try to use words to define away the humanity of the unborn. Chiu also collection of cells.
More personal attacks? Really?
Do you REALLY think you can survive a flamepost by me?
My logic is telling me that your admitted arbitrary way of assigning moral value to developing unborn human is fraught with slippery roads. Arbitrary basis is no basis rah!
