Originally posted by Wajoma
It's not 'morally suspect' it's one hundred percent utterly wrong.

There is only one question to be settled, at what stage does the fetus become a human? And that haas been the subject of thousands of posts on this message board alone with no sign of anything being settled.

Using stats to predict the chances of a child becoming a criminal? We see simil ...[text shortened]... it is assigned to a whole group based on some BS stats.

Wrong

We are all individuals.

At the point of fertilization the zygote has human DNA so is human. A more interesting and relevant question is: when does the foetus become conscious?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I don't value all human life equally. In fact no one really does (many people support the death penalty, for example), and it's much harder to argue consistently that human life is all of equal value than to argue that it isn't.

So if the "unborn children" are criminals then it's ok to terminate the unborn children.

Just drop it guy, you're digging yourself a bigger hole.

Originally posted by Wajoma
So if the "unborn children" are criminals then it's ok to terminate the unborn children.

Just drop it guy, you're digging yourself a bigger hole.

Your logic is flawless.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Your logic is flawless.

Puts me about a million miles ahead of your killing unborn children logic.

Cheers

Originally posted by sh76
Someone mentioned Freaknomics on this board a couple of weeks ago.

Probably the most central and most vigorously defended thesis in that book is that the most important reason for the dramatic crime reduction in the US in the 1990s and 2000s was the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. Essentially, the authors argue, quite convincingly, that abortion rates obviousl ...[text shortened]... ike this to enter into the equation, even if one is sharply ambivalent on the underlying issue?

Socialists often quote lower crime rates as a justification for greater redistribution of wealth -- so they might accept the argument from the moral standpoint that 'society benefits' from legal abortion.

I don't accept either as a rationale because I don't put primacy of societal interests over individual interests. I think societal interests are only a sum total of individual interests -- they can't trump their own foundation.

A fetus doesn't have interests that compare with it's mother's until it could live as a separate entity.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Puts me about a million miles ahead of your killing unborn children logic.

Cheers

If a 12 year old girl is raped and gets pregnant, are you for forcing her to carry the fetus to term?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
You could use the same arguments with capital punishment.

A major reason why capital punishment doesn't really do much to deter crime is because it takes so long after the crime before the execution occurs (if it occurs at all). The reason it takes so long is because we want to make absolutely sure that the person wasn't falsely convicted.

We could ...[text shortened]... d be better to have a higher crime rate than to allow the killing of these innocent people.

"Unborn child" is a paradox. Fetuses become children at birth.

"Human being" is an unclear phrase. Both of these phrases of yours are being used for emotional impact, not because they are accurate.

Otherwise, a good post!

Originally posted by sh76
I certainly agree that, for most people who believe that an unborn child is a human being with a full right to life, this fringe benefit would be irrelevant. Capital punishment, whatever you think of it, certainly takes the life of a human being with a right to life.

I can't agree with that (not that you asked). I can agree with this however:

I certainly agree that, for most people who believe that a fetus is a person with a full right to life...

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
At the point of fertilization the zygote has human DNA so is human. A more interesting and relevant question is: when does the foetus become conscious?

And before fertilization the sperm and egg had human DNA. In fact human DNA has existed in this biological chain since humans first split off from non-humans.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I can't agree with that (not that you asked). I can agree with this however:

I certainly agree that, for most people who believe that a fetus is a person with a full right to life...

Okay; I agree that "unborn child" is a bit of an oxymoron.

Same difference. 😉

Originally posted by sh76
Clearly, middle and upper class folks would have easier access to illegal abortions. Anything risky is going to be expensive.

it wouldn't be expensive if the market couldn't bear the expense.

i thought a lot of the upperclass women were going to the lower class to get their abortions?

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
If a 12 year old girl is raped and gets pregnant, are you for forcing her to carry the fetus to term?

wtf?

Did you have some idea I'm anti-abortion? You're on the force freaks team around here bud, not me.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Did you have some idea I'm anti-abortion? You're on the force freaks team around here bud, not me.

So according to libertarian principles, if a pregnant mother "initiates force" against her unborn child by having an abortion, should the foetus take up arms in self-defence, or just sue?