Where am I politically?

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by Radar

If you are against abortion, you should not get one and don't exercise force to prevent others from getting them if they choose. Allow them to be judged by god. The same is true of prostitution, gay marriage, collecting stem cells, drug use, polygamy, etc.

These activities don't physically harm or endanger anyone other than potentially harming those taking part willingly in them. This means it's unreasonable to create a law against those things.

The unborn child is murdered - I think thats "harming someone"?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by yesman065

The unborn child is murdered - I think thats "harming someone"?

No one thinks that they are killing anyone. It's just opinion on when the fetus actually becomes life.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

No one thinks that they are killing anyone. It's just opinion on when the fetus actually becomes life.

I think the important question is when life (under some minimal definition) becomes life worth protecting.

Now we can examine the assumption that life is somehow sacred!

Is it?

I think it's a good idea to treat it that way. But who can know if it's true? Nobody I know.

(Here I go again, breaking my personal rule about posting in the Politics/Current Events/Philosophy forums.)

[Toymented]

Originally Posted by grant

I think the important question is when life (under some minimal definition) becomes life worth protecting.

Now we can examine the assumption that life is somehow sacred!

Is it?

I think it's a good idea to treat it that way. But who can know if it's true? Nobody I know.

(Here I go again, breaking my personal rule about posting in the Politics/Current Events/Philosophy forums.)

It's a good indication that life is worth protecting and the particular life is sacred when the mother elects to advance the organism. Beyond that, why should anyone feel motivated to nurture that which is not desired by its own mother?

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by Toymented

It's a good indication that life is worth protecting and the particular life is sacred when the mother elects to advance the organism. Beyond that, why should anyone feel motivated to nurture that which is not desired by its own mother?

I came in late. I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

My previous comment was based solely on what ph45 said in what I quoted. Sorry if I'm more out of it than I thought.

[Toymented]

Originally Posted by grant

I came in late. I'm not really sure what you're talking about.

My previous comment was based solely on what ph45 said in what I quoted. Sorry if I'm more out of it than I thought.

I was speaking to your point - when life becomes worth protecting.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by Toymented

I was speaking to your point - when life becomes worth protecting.

Ok, then.

Originally Posted by Toymented

It's a good indication that life is worth protecting and the particular life is sacred when the mother elects to advance the organism. Beyond that, why should anyone feel motivated to nurture that which is not desired by its own mother?

I have a couple questions since the above is still escaping me to some degree.

What's this good indication?

So a life becomes sacred when a "mother elects to advance the organism"? There are problems with this even when we restrict the organisms to human beings. Are we restricting the definition of "advance" to "nurture and raise", or "let it live", because in my book "advance" allows that sometimes destruction is advancement.

And I'm not sure anybody "should" feel motivated to nurture unwanted life. But I think life is generally more interesting than death (which I think might underlie the arguments of many pro-anti-abortionists). The problem I have with your question is that you can't really construct and deal with "shoulds."

I'm really confused now, which is why I stay out of these threads. It's good to be confused from time to time, but this is one of those questions that's out of my philosophical depth and interest.

(pardon any brain-slips, my blood sugar is in the negative numbers post-gym)

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by grant

(Here I go again, breaking my personal rule about posting in the Politics/Current Events/Philosophy forums.)

[Radar]

Originally Posted by yesman065

The unborn child is murdered - I think thats "harming someone"?

There are no "unborn children". Birth is a requirement in order to be a child. Before birth, you're merely a fetus.

Note: I'm saying this while my wife is pregnant with the fetus that she will hopefully allow become my child. Abortion is not murder. In fact the only human lives who have ever been lost due to abortion are those of women who got back alley abortions with rusty tools from butchers when one group tried to force their religious beliefs onto others by making abortions illegal.

We each have sole dominion over our body and all the organisms within that body. We alone choose life or death for any of those organisms regardless of what they are or how they got there. For all intents and purposes, we are the GOD of our body and our decisions are not to be questioned by any other person or group of people regardless of their number.

Let's not make this an abortion thread. She asked where her views were politically, and I told her. She has thanked me because I was correct and pointed her in the right direction based on her expressed beliefs.