The abortion-capital punishment debate

[Adron]

The point is that it isn't her choice to take another's life.  It is that person's.  By aborting the baby, she is making that choice for her child.  As Grok has pointed out, it gives her unequal rights.

As Grok has pointed out, the father should be able to take the life of the fetus as well. Makes sense. Well, either that, or void fathership.

And the baby is not capable of making choices. So someone else has to do it. Actually someone else will do it until the age of 18 in most places.

[MyndFyre]

The point is that it isn't her choice to take another's life

thats an iffy way to word it.
cancels out possibility/justification of execution.
Thats why i dont like pro-life/choice stickers

pro-life means NO death
pro-choice means kill whoever you chose

You're right; that isn't the way I intended to word it.

Rather, I was attempting to express the idea I articulated in my first post: abortion is the consequence of no action on the part of the person who is being aborted.  Because that person has done nothing to deserve death, what right does anyone have to give death to that person?

OTOH, a person convicted and sentenced to death has done something knowingly violating society's standards, and also done so knowing that death is a potential punishment for committing such an act.  Following through in that act is implicit acceptance of a death penalty.

The criminal accepts death when he or she commits a crime that has a death penalty associated to it.  The unborn child never seeks death on his or her own (except in miscarriage cases, in which it's still iffy whether the child is seeking death).

[Thing [vL]]

For me, the most logical stance is that all abortions and executions are justifiable.

Could you define justifiable? That *you* could agree with them, that *someone* could agree with them, or something else?

I'm saying it's OK with me.  Kill them all.

[MyndFyre]

For me, the most logical stance is that all abortions and executions are justifiable.

Could you define justifiable? That *you* could agree with them, that *someone* could agree with them, or something else?

I'm saying it's OK with me.  Kill them all.

You would.  Look at that little gnome woman.  No wonder you're mad at the world. 

[Adron]

Rather, I was attempting to express the idea I articulated in my first post: abortion is the consequence of no action on the part of the person who is being aborted.  Because that person has done nothing to deserve death, what right does anyone have to give death to that person?

Some ways of seeing it:

1. That is not a person! It's a bunch of cells, like a wart, and it is getting removed.

2. There is an intended way of things, and in that way, no person is being created. Abortion is setting things right as had there never been someone there. No loss of life if the life would not have been created without the man/woman deciding on abortion.

[CrAz3D]

Same applies for uh...killing criminaly peoples

[CrAz3D]

Adron said it all. Its not a person. Therefore its not a crime.

Lock this thread.

It is a soon-to-be person.

[WoOdTroll]

Anyway I've heard that you cant have an abortion if you wait too long. So its not going to be anywhere near person like by that time.

[MyndFyre]

2. There is an intended way of things, and in that way, no person is being created. Abortion is setting things right as had there never been someone there. No loss of life if the life would not have been created without the man/woman deciding on abortion.

Okay, so for a girl who got raped, by your logic, if she carries the child to term and he or she grows up to, say, 18 -- it's still right to kill them?  Because, by your logic, that life would not have been created because (presumably) neither wanted the girl to get pregnant as a result of the rape.

[Adron]

Okay, so for a girl who got raped, by your logic, if she carries the child to term and he or she grows up to, say, 18 -- it's still right to kill them?  Because, by your logic, that life would not have been created because (presumably) neither wanted the girl to get pregnant as a result of the rape.

Philosophically, yes. Though you would have to undo all those effects on the world as well.

[MyndFyre]

Okay, so for a girl who got raped, by your logic, if she carries the child to term and he or she grows up to, say, 18 -- it's still right to kill them?  Because, by your logic, that life would not have been created because (presumably) neither wanted the girl to get pregnant as a result of the rape.

Philosophically, yes. Though you would have to undo all those effects on the world as well.

OK.  So then I hope that the rest of the people here can see my problem with this position.

[Adron]

OK.  So then I hope that the rest of the people here can see my problem with this position.

It's not really the position I am arguing, I am more for the wart one, but it is a philosophically good position I would say.

[Joe[x86]]

You all know my opinion. I'm not going to post it here though, because its just flamebait.

[CrAz3D]

You all know my opinion. I'm not going to post it here though, because its just flamebait.

Then why post?

Killing an 17 year old would be killing a fully functiong born human, no?

[MyndFyre]

You all know my opinion. I'm not going to post it here though, because its just flamebait.

Then why post?

Killing an 17 year old would be killing a fully functiong born human, no?

One would think, but by Adron's logic it's okay as long as that 17-y/o was not intended to be born, because the parents didn't intend to conceive.