What it comes down to, ultimately, is that most people have fundamentally different moral/political/theoretical/theological premises that they're working from.
Most pro-life people are prioritizing human life very highly (a moral premise) and going on the assumption that a fetus is a human life (a theoretical or theological premise - it can be based on biology, religion, or some combination of the two).
Many pro-choice people either prioritize individual freedom over human life (or at least feel that the STATE should prioritize individual freedom over human life in and of itself), or don't want to acknowledge that a fetus is a living human.
And of course, most of us are somewhere in between - we recognize the need for individual freedom, we recognize the value of human life, and what we think should and shouldn't be allowed fluctuates depending on the circumstances, development of the fetus, et cetera.
The thing that makes the discussion interesting is getting past the rhetoric and finding out what the basic principles are that everyone is basing their viewpoint on. More often than not, you simply find that you disagree with someone because you have fundamentally different priorities. For example, dr. d believes that it's more humane to euthanize someone who's likely to have an unhappy life than it is to let them live it. I'm in favor of giving people every possible chance to try to lead a happy life, even if the odds are against them. This is a fundamental difference in philosophy, and so we can't really discuss the issue any further, but it was fun whittling our viewpoints down to that issue.
Agreed, Samwise. sometime's it's just so hard to pin other people down on their exact beliefs though <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Well since I was discussing this as I discuss all things in this forum completely objectively and used hypotheticals, argumentative instances, and conclusions based on logic that should be used to pass legislation I don't really see how you could pin my beliefs on anything. And since you were doing the same, except exclusessivly to push a hypothetical situation, I can't say I know your beliefs either.
But on a side note if it is truly your belief that all people should have a chance to live normal happy lives you would be out there donating to organizations sponsoring responsible adoption, giving money to feed the children, and voulnteering about every free second you had in one form of charity or another because as it stands now there are a lot of people that aren't leading those normal happy lives.
If I actually believed what you said I'd be out there lobbying to get euthanasia legalized and advocating the mass murder of children in foster care.
I am not my argument.
edit: Whee this discussion is over, 9 pages of points and counter points proves it, the one you are making has been made about 5 times, I was defending myself against Sam jupming to conclusion that everybody posts strictly from a subjective position.
Look back a couple of pages, dr. d - I stated my opinion pretty clearly. I said that I believed that the moment an egg is fertilized, it becomes the moral equivalent of a full-fledged infant.
Everyone has certain convictions and beliefs about how the world should be. Few have the gumption to go and fight for those convictions. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Nobody <i>is</i> their argument. Fortunately. Or I'd be pillaging and looting right now.
<!--QuoteBegin--Wheeee+Aug 29 2003, 10:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Aug 29 2003, 10:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Look back a couple of pages, dr. d - I stated my opinion pretty clearly. I said that I believed that the moment an egg is fertilized, it becomes the moral equivalent of a full-fledged infant. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why? [edit] NM I don't understand and never will understand your point, but I'm not going to try to convince anyone otherwise, you are entitiled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine[/edit]
Samwise, you hit the jackpot on this, and I quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The thing that makes the discussion interesting is getting past the rhetoric and finding out what the basic principles are that everyone is basing their viewpoint on. More often than not, you simply find that you disagree with someone because you have fundamentally different priorities. For example, dr. d believes that it's more humane to euthanize someone who's likely to have an unhappy life than it is to let them live it. I'm in favor of giving people every possible chance to try to lead a happy life, even if the odds are against them. This is a fundamental difference in philosophy, and so we can't really discuss the issue any further, but it was fun whittling our viewpoints down to that issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It eventually becomes one jeez I hate that explanation. If I left a fruit on a table for long enough it would become dirt. That does not mean it is dirt RIGHT NOW! Anything can eventually become something different but that does not mean it is something different. A person can become a soldier but before they do they are not considered soldiers.
What you fail to understand is that a soldier can choose whether he becomes one or not. An egg cannot choose whether to become a human, a chicken, or a cow. It may be genetically defective, yes, but that's a separate issue. I disagree with the "anything can become something else theory" because while fruit will decompose because it is *eaten* by bacteria (or fungi), if left by itself an orange won't become anything else. A fertilized egg will.
Ahh but if left by itself in a vacuum sealed enviroment an egg wont grow either. As for soldiers being able to choose have you ever heard of a draft? It's when you are forced to join the army during a war. And my arguement was that it wasn't considered to be a soldier not that it could choose not to be. Oh and because you just said egg not human fertilized egg it won't grow and if it was fertilized what if it's a chicken egg hmm? Don't be nit picky.
Yes, if you take it out of the womb; however if you leave it as is, it will become human. I could say "if I stuck you in an evacuated [vacuum] room, you would explosively decompress and become nothing more than protein goo on the walls. These kinds of "what if" arguments serve no purpose.
Hey you started the what if arguement with the arguement about the orange all rooms have bacteria you'd need to put the orange in a clean vacuum to stop it from decomposing. You said it needs bacteria to decompose I say fertilized eggs need mothers to grow.
Comments
Most pro-life people are prioritizing human life very highly (a moral premise) and going on the assumption that a fetus is a human life (a theoretical or theological premise - it can be based on biology, religion, or some combination of the two).
Many pro-choice people either prioritize individual freedom over human life (or at least feel that the STATE should prioritize individual freedom over human life in and of itself), or don't want to acknowledge that a fetus is a living human.
And of course, most of us are somewhere in between - we recognize the need for individual freedom, we recognize the value of human life, and what we think should and shouldn't be allowed fluctuates depending on the circumstances, development of the fetus, et cetera.
The thing that makes the discussion interesting is getting past the rhetoric and finding out what the basic principles are that everyone is basing their viewpoint on. More often than not, you simply find that you disagree with someone because you have fundamentally different priorities. For example, dr. d believes that it's more humane to euthanize someone who's likely to have an unhappy life than it is to let them live it. I'm in favor of giving people every possible chance to try to lead a happy life, even if the odds are against them. This is a fundamental difference in philosophy, and so we can't really discuss the issue any further, but it was fun whittling our viewpoints down to that issue.
But on a side note if it is truly your belief that all people should have a chance to live normal happy lives you would be out there donating to organizations sponsoring responsible adoption, giving money to feed the children, and voulnteering about every free second you had in one form of charity or another because as it stands now there are a lot of people that aren't leading those normal happy lives.
If I actually believed what you said I'd be out there lobbying to get euthanasia legalized and advocating the mass murder of children in foster care.
I am not my argument.
edit: Whee this discussion is over, 9 pages of points and counter points proves it, the one you are making has been made about 5 times, I was defending myself against Sam jupming to conclusion that everybody posts strictly from a subjective position.
Nobody <i>is</i> their argument. Fortunately. Or I'd be pillaging and looting right now.
Wait, why am I not pillaging and looting?
(dons Viking helmet and charges off)
Why?
[edit] NM I don't understand and never will understand your point, but I'm not going to try to convince anyone otherwise, you are entitiled to your beliefs and I'm entitled to mine[/edit]
Samwise, you hit the jackpot on this, and I quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The thing that makes the discussion interesting is getting past the rhetoric and finding out what the basic principles are that everyone is basing their viewpoint on. More often than not, you simply find that you disagree with someone because you have fundamentally different priorities. For example, dr. d believes that it's more humane to euthanize someone who's likely to have an unhappy life than it is to let them live it. I'm in favor of giving people every possible chance to try to lead a happy life, even if the odds are against them. This is a fundamental difference in philosophy, and so we can't really discuss the issue any further, but it was fun whittling our viewpoints down to that issue.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->