Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: ↑Sun May 05, 2019 2:03 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat May 04, 2019 3:24 amYou surely can't be saying that "anyone questioning the morality of abortion" has the right to say who's human and who's not.
No I'm saying that those questioning the morality of abortion have to look at why they value regular human beings, and see if those same underlying attributes can be applied to an embryo.
What makes us confident that the way to know the value of a human being is to look at his or her "attributes"?
I mean, this is just a basic process of inductive reasoning as you've done below what you said here, isn't it? You've taken the standard for why people have value (e.g: they have value in the eyes of God) and have determined the same thing applies for an embryo.
Yes, but not because of some "attribute" any of them have: rather, by dint of being someone created and loved by God.
it's not just me that sees a clear line between first and third trimester abortions - this is something that is self-apparent to most people.
Not at all. The "trimester" distinction is completely convenient, since the entire gestation is nine months. It's the easiest way to divide, but it's not profound in any way. A late-second trimester baby may well be more developed than an early-third trimester baby. In addition, many locales make no such distinctions, and abort babies up to full womb-exit. Canada, for example, does this.
Well, where do you stand on the issue? If you think abortion is infanticide, shouldn't people be judged as though it were infanticide?
In this case, as you pointed out earlier, we're talking about "sex-selective" abortions. That's pure murder. It should be absolutely banned, no question in my mind. And it doesn't even have any excuses going for it -- this is an instance wherein the mother would keep the baby if he were a boy, but would kill her if she is a girl. That's infanticide, plain and simple.
A guy who's murdered his own child?
That's like an abortionist -- except the abortionist kills
other people's children.
Here's another interesting thing. Have you ever noticed that abortionists thrive on NOT providing women with information?
What I mean is this: if I go for a gall bladder operation, say, the doctor takes it as his sacred duty to make sure I'm fully informed before I agree to the procedure. He is certain to tell me ALL the possible negatives and positives. If anything, he paints the grimmest picture, so that I will be fully prepared for the consequences of my decision. Not only that, but he does an ultrasound, and shows me the pictures: he says, "Here is your gall bladder, and here is the tumour we have to excise, and here's where what scope we use, and this is how much pain you could potentially have, and here's how long it will take you to recover..." and so on. Not only that, but the doctor would likely show me the post-op results as well, to reassure me that the tumour had been properly diagnosed and excised.
If abortion is such a healthy procedure, why don't abortionists do the same? They should at least show the victim what her child looks like, and say, "Here's the fetus, and here's her hands and feet. Here's the instrument with which we will inject saline into her skull, here's where we will drive the scissors into the spine, here's where we will suck out the brain tissue, collapsing the skull, and here's what sort of counselling you'll need to recover from the procedure... etc. And by the way, before you leave we'll show you the remains of the operation, so you know we got all of her, and so you won't have to live in any fear of sepsis or residual decay as a result..."
Imagine that, eh? The fully-informed woman getting an abortion. And doctors could do that. But they don't. Because we all know what it is, and what would happen if we did that. Women would be horrified at what they are doing, and would not dare to harm the child anymore; and if one did, it would only be because she had become a psychopath of some kind. So the only way they can get normal women to do it is to preserve their ignorance of what is really going on.
So who's really standing up for women's rights: the person who wants them ignorant, or the one who wants them informed?