User loginNavigationRRS WebsitesThis site is part of the Rational Response Squad network of sites. Your username/password will work at these sites: Other sites... |
Views on Abortion
Posted on: Tue, 2007-02-06 18:35
 Offline
Views on Abortion
I was wondering what other peoples view on abortion are. I will post my own once some other people start posting, but I do not want any religion related reasons because this is in the Science Forum. Rational Squad Alerts |
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 90 guests online.
|
| Freethinking Teens is hosted by The Rational Response Squad as a free service to the children of our future. |
Well, I think that i could come up with a better reason than this (the baby is still essentially a parasite until it comes out (sorta))
But do we have a definite line when the neurons connect?
If we do, then I would consider that a 'line'
It could also get complecated if the fetus has to live in the mother after the neurons connect for a while (that would be some sort of force against an unwilling person (like you must keep your fetus alive)) and I am against that
However, if the neurons connect and the fetus can be delivered at that time... and there is a definite line of when (Like in the space of a couple of days or so)... then I see no reason why we cannot proclaim the fetus an independent being at that time and make a forced delivery if the mother wants it
I think that the fetus is a human that must, in its developmental state, live by being a saprophitic lifeform. It is it's own being, but cannot live without the mother or an artificial womb.
So Roe V Wade arbitrarily decided that the fetus is a legal non-person. This in and of itself is not "bad." The results are.
Results:
1. Death because the baby was inconveinient
2. Slippery slope of law (this is a real effect. All laws have unforeseen effects.)
3. Arbitrary law.
4. Violation of the Hipocratic Oath. The proper Hipocratic Oath has a clause forbidding abortions. Modern abortion doctors either violate the oath, or never took the proper form in the first place.
So yes, it is a parasite
Row V. Wade was not totally arbitrary, but I am not going to argue this point
I disagree with 1 because it is not a baby, it is a fetus... babies have been born
I disagree with 2 because it should not count against this law more than others (if all laws have unforseen effects right?)
no, 3 was mentioned above (and lots of laws are arbitrary)
no 4 should not be mentioned because it is a personal code of ethics - no government involvement. Like if your are a monk and you take an oath of chastity... if the government makes sex legal and you have sex, it is you that has violated your oath, not the decision to make sex legal by the government
(In reference to 4)
I was merely commenting on the inconsistancy of being an "abortion doctor." Doctor implies the Hipocratic oath, abortion is forbidden in the proper Hipcratic oath.
On ethics (which is related to abortion)
There are two basic sources for ethics
1. Human authority
2. Divine authority
If you want to have any kind of binding ethic, only the latter will do anything. The first one, being created by human authority, can be over-ruled by human authority. To say there is no universal ethic is to say there is no ethic at all, just a conscience.
[quote]I was merely commenting on the inconsistancy of being an "abortion doctor." Doctor implies the Hipocratic oath, abortion is forbidden in the proper Hipcratic oath.[/quote]
Yes, I personally feel that most doctors should shun abortion... and I think that they do
[quote]If you want to have any kind of binding ethic, only the latter will do anything. The first one, being created by human authority, can be over-ruled by human authority. To say there is no universal ethic is to say there is no ethic at all, just a conscience.[/quote]
This is going to get off point a little and we have a topic fore ethics, but - We should believe in god because we cannot have objective ethics without him? Seems like a silly reason to believe (as opposed to the truth of the matter...)
[quote=Egann](In reference to 4)
I was merely commenting on the inconsistancy of being an "abortion doctor." Doctor implies the Hipocratic oath, abortion is forbidden in the proper Hipcratic oath.
On ethics (which is related to abortion)
There are two basic sources for ethics
1. Human authority
2. Divine authority
If you want to have any kind of binding ethic, only the latter will do anything. The first one, being created by human authority, can be over-ruled by human authority. To say there is no universal ethic is to say there is no ethic at all, just a conscience.[/quote]
Let's break your argument down into assumptions and steps
Morality can exist in 2 ways, by human authority, or by divine authority.
Authority is not binding(what does that mean?) when it is Human. Therefore, there is a God
There's a huge assumption there that ethics exist as anything other than social custom. However, that aside, what do you mean 'binding?' If there is no punishment, it's not ok? I'd cnosider a morality you study and discover on your own(or with help) to be far more minding than something arbitrarily enforced on you by a dude in the sky.