So why would a society that held murder as wrong be better able to survive and thrive?

someone plz PM me when nielsio is done brainstorming and comes to a genius conclusion.

Its not "thou shalt not kill."

and also much more likely to result in the death of the other human being involved.

Except that every abortion discussion always includes the standard "Health of the mother exception". If your point is that women must have all pregnancies come to full term then pregnant women are giving up self preservation under certain circumstances without volition.

Btw what is the basis of "fetus"= "human being" for your world? Potential life? Fertilization?

If an unmarried woman is unconscious and not self-supportive can her parents act on her behalf in deciding that she not continue on life-support? If she is married, can her husband decide assuming she has no previously declared intent?

We forbid murder because most of us value our own lives and the lives of the people we feel connected to. I guess having people believe in "murder is wrong" is one good way to prevent it... It seems to me that "right or wrong" is just an efficient tool to prevent different sorts of action.


To link this with abortion, I think one way to look at it is examining who is affected by it.

An example: Michael Corleone's wife having an abortion and telling him "I didn't want your son, Michael! I wouldn't bring another one of you sons into this world! It was an abortion, Michael! It was a son Michael! A son! And I had it killed because this must all end!"

I think what she did could be considered "wrong" because she destroyed a fetus that Corleone had some emotional attachment to. Given that Michael already had created in his mind the future of the fetus, it can already be considered as a person. Therefore, I think it is as if she killed someone, even though it is only a potential someone.



On the other side, let's say a girl gets pregnant on a one night stand, and she has an abortion without anyone caring about it. Maybe, only maybe, this isn't "wrong". Noone values that fetus' life. I don't think the fetus is conscious enough to care about its own life.
Also, I don't think a 1 day old child cares more about its life than a 5 month old fetus. So that previous case is equivalent to a woman being secretly pregnant, giving birth in her bathtub and disposing of the newborn. If we say that doing this is wrong, then abortion is wrong as well.

Now, if we as a society, decide that we need and value the newborns for whatever reason, (and declare for example that we are ready to adopt the kids), then I guess that abortion needs to be declared as "wrong".

Does that all make sense?

Sometimes it is just best to meditate on simple truths rather than trying to over analyze something. A simple truth such as...

...and also much more likely to result in the death of the other human being involved.

The father?

I really hope this needless nittery is a level.

Can we have it as on op so I don't miss it?

Must be talking about the doctor. Because if there is a pregnant woman in her 1st trimester and a doctor in the room, there are only two human beings involved.

Simple? yup. Don't understand how the doctor is much more likely to die though.

Because its citizens can focus their energies on being economically productive due to having less fear of their neighbour coming over and slitting their throat. Also because murder cuts short people's lives which reduces the number of their productive years.

It's not a principle I adhere to; I was just curious about Nielsio's use of 'axiom' so I substituted in the principle that he seems to follow (and, indeed, I'd have to be more specific about 'initiation of violence' if the content of the principle were relevant).

Yeah I think Nielsio was being overly nitty about axioms vs. principles. They're the same thing in common usage.

Mike Huckabee interviews Abbie Johnson, a former director at Planned Parenthood and now pro-life activist.

Powerful interview, especially where she describes watching a fetus struggle for its life during an abortion (which caused her to quit and reconsider her position)

FWIW I'm pretty sure Ron Paul's pro-life position was on account of seeing an abortion first hand as a resident.

Out of sight out of mind, if i had to see the animal get killed every single time before I ate i'd probably have a much harder time loving steaks. Should we stop doing everything that isn't so nice see first hand?

lol probably? I don't think there are too many vegetarian cattle farmers btw.

You're inferring from my post that I'm somehow saying morality or even a basic sense of rightness/wrongness is somehow defined by how tough something to watch. I could watch an autopsy being performed or a cow being led to the slaughter and experience a visceral unease, yet at the same time be perfectly certain nothing immoral is happening, which is clearly different from Johnson/Paul seeing an innocent human life being extinguished.

I probably shouldn't find this comment funny, and yet...

Of course, one can just shift the question: why oppose abortions when the fetus can't struggle?

Good post. That said, I think that visceral response is not completely devoid of power in shaping one's moral views.

So doesn't the fact that there are people that do this everyday for a long time, mean you can be conditioned against the emotional effect?

I'm trying not to infer anything, this is something where i'm really on the fence about and so I'm going to ask a lot of questions

id be pro choice because whatever, **** happens. im all for letting people do what they want

*****Warning Nazi Germany reference to follow******



In other words it's quite possible to harden your heart to some truly horrific things.

ok, understood...plz ask away.