By potential I meant positive human potential. I suppose I should have been more specific.Originally Posted by gwahir
I disagree, I view it as having more potential because it is more likely to become a human (at this level that is pretty much all the potential it can have).
I'm sure you mean "person", not "human".
And "more likely to become a person" does not equal "more potential". They have the same potential; one is just more likely to achieve it. And at what point does likelihood decrease to the point of being negligible?
Besides, just because there isn't one distinct being whose potential is being frustrated by not having sex, that doesn't mean potential isn't being frustrated. Certainly, a human being WILL come out of a successful session of reproductive sex -- not having sex means that no human being will be created. The same amount of potential is being frustrated.
Ah, abortion. Always a fun argument because even after you eliminate religion, it is still an incredibly complicated scientific and ethical debate.
Just a disclaimer, all of my arguments run on the secular idea that no soul exists.
A personal solution I offer to this problem is incomplete yet I believe it is more complete than any other theory:
Humans are separated from the other animals on Earth mainly by the existence of an intelligent conscience. I believe this separation should distinguish when an abortion is legal. Up until the presence of a conscience (the start of brain activity to be more accurate) abortion should be legal. This allows plenty of time for drunk 16 year olds and raped mothers to correct the course if they wish.
The most prominent argument against this would be the mere existence of handicapped people. How do you define intelligent? I think there needs to be a standard, such as the existence of basic emotion and response to stimuli. If they pass the test (which 100% of current handicapped people would be able to), great!
Finally, the religious right, in their final death throes, would argue that apes and dolphins too have emotions and a conscience. Since us evil evolutionists think the crazy idea that we came from these apes and dolphins (?) we must put them on the same level as us.
Know what I would say? Fuck you.
The first argument is laughable even in itself; even the handicapped have brain waves, so the point is invalid as-is. There'd be no need for a new test because we already have the means to determine that. So all that would need to be determined is whether the fetus has brainwaves and you're good to go.The most prominent argument against this would be the mere existence of handicapped people. How do you define intelligent? I think there needs to be a standard, such as the existence of basic emotion and response to stimuli. If they pass the test (which 100% of current handicapped people would be able to), great!
Finally, the religious right, in their final death throes, would argue that apes and dolphins too have emotions and a conscience. Since us evil evolutionists think the crazy idea that we came from these apes and dolphins (?) we must put them on the same level as us.
Know what I would say? Fuck you.
To make my views on the issue clear: I support people having the right to choose whether to abort or not; I do not support abusing this right by having lots and lots of unprotected sex and just choosing the "abort" option every time. I'd much rather see the child birthed and adopted (in most instances where possible, save for the obviously unsavory circumstance(s)) or birth control/condoms used correctly (it's not perfect, but it cuts the possibility down very low when the varied forms are used in combination).
THE QUEER STONER HAS SPOKEN!
Last edited by StonedOne; 05-24-2009 at 01:57 PM.
Why only positive human potential? What about negative potential, as in somebody who will grow up to be a rapist (or an abortionist). If we had the power to know who would become a good human being, would we kill all the babies that don't pass that test?
Fuck you is right. Apes and dolphins are not on the same level as us. Although I don't believe killing is right (human or dolphin), I don't honestly give a fuck if you do it. I'm not going to question why you killed your baby. Its yours, and if you don't want it, so be it.Ah, abortion. Always a fun argument because even after you eliminate religion, it is still an incredibly complicated scientific and ethical debate.
Just a disclaimer, all of my arguments run on the secular idea that no soul exists.
A personal solution I offer to this problem is incomplete yet I believe it is more complete than any other theory:
Humans are separated from the other animals on Earth mainly by the existence of an intelligent conscience. I believe this separation should distinguish when an abortion is legal. Up until the presence of a conscience (the start of brain activity to be more accurate) abortion should be legal. This allows plenty of time for drunk 16 year olds and raped mothers to correct the course if they wish.
The most prominent argument against this would be the mere existence of handicapped people. How do you define intelligent? I think there needs to be a standard, such as the existence of basic emotion and response to stimuli. If they pass the test (which 100% of current handicapped people would be able to), great!
Finally, the religious right, in their final death throes, would argue that apes and dolphins too have emotions and a conscience. Since us evil evolutionists think the crazy idea that we came from these apes and dolphins (?) we must put them on the same level as us.
Know what I would say? Fuck you.
When it comes down to it, fetus' know nothing of anything. They have no intelligence, intelligence is something that is learned, you are not born intelligent. Therefore, the baby wouldn't even know it is being killed because it doesn't know that its alive, or what death is, or know emotions. Emotions are all described by words, and thoughts, and since fetus' cant think with logic, they wouldn't even know they had been killed. You're not taking away the life of somebody who knows whats going on, you're taking the life of a dumb fetus that does nothing bur feed off its mother.
So are you suggesting we raise the abortion limit to about 2 years after the baby is born?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks