atlantabiolab said:
Your argument would state that one cannot know that being shot is bad, if one has never been shot. Disregard abortion for a second, can we state that murder, as defined as the killing of a person, unlawfully, is immoral? Does it matter that I have never been murdered, have never had one attempt to murder me, and have never had a loved one murdered? Can I still with reason, determine that murder is bad? Does a murderer have a different moral code since he has murdered? Can a murderer state that non-murderer's law does not apply to him, since they have never murdered?
The crux of most pro-abortion arguments is emotion, simply because one can argue that the person obtaining the abortion may feel grief or regret or pain, that somehow they are not subject to moral law. What other laws do we disregard if the person can state that while they were breaking the law they didn't feel good?
no, my arguement is that he may be better informed on the subject and that he is therefore able to make a more informed arguement than most. it doesn;t make his arguemet more right.....but when we get into the realms of dis-allowing personal choice over someones body do you not think it better that part of the decision making is influenced by someone who is exposed to the reality of the situation on a day to day basis? of course that person shouldnt be the only one, there should be a wide range of people making cases, and some sort of final arbritration, but the fact still remains someone with that kind of experience is better equipped than most to make a descsion that reflects the womans interests
saying that one doesnt know that being shot is bad until one has actually been shot is an oversimplification of the arguement at hand......like a sporting event being judged by non-athletes. If someone hypothetically clings to the idea that there is no possible reason for abortion, then actually see;s the reality of someone needing/wanting an abortion and changes there mind, were they informed enough to begin with? all i am pointing out is that a ob/gyny doctor is one of the many people well informed enough to make a fully informed arguement. its not exclusive to doctors. an abortion councillor, someone who has lived through an abortion, midwifes etc...
atlantabiolab said:
And how in the hell does a doctor infer more about this subject than anyone else? Is it that hard to sympathize with humans? Do you even have a clue that all philosophy derives from men who generally did not have formal training in their subjects? Through shear reasoning they attempted to derive concepts about the observable reality.
due to the stigma of abortion and the confidentiality that needs to be maintained, doctors are one of the few people that as a job get exposed to women who request abortions. as such they are some of the people who get to see the reasons of abortion first hand and how it affects a person, at least in the short term and perhaps in the long term. so do councillors etc...
its not the same as philosophers....yes you can philosophise about abortion whether you are a doctor or not. but in terms of knowing what it feels like to have to get an abortion, a doctor is going to be in a position to be aware of more of the issues surrounding that abortion. you don;t NEED to be a doctor, and its also very possible you could be aware of these issues and understand without being a doctor....but a doctor is understandably going to be in the position where he is exposed to it in a much greater frequency
so yes, people other than doctors could make very accurate statements and pontificate about abortion, im not saying they can't. im just saying that a doctor is automatically in a better informed postion than most. if you were to look at obs/gyny doctors and the general population and were to somewhow ascertain how many of each understood and REALLY comprehended the reasons for abortion you would im sure agree the % wiould be higher in the doctors. not because they are speacial, or better, but because they are simply in a poston to be
atlantabiolab said:
You must be joking? Self-awareness is a progressive trait of humans. We are not instinctual creatures, we must sense the world and learn from it. Your argument does not elaborate, and never will, on why it is not OK to kill a newborn. They are not autonomous, they are not self-sufficient, but they are self-aware, just as has been shown of unborns, who are developing self-awareness of their surroundings. All pro-abortion arguments derive from the simple disregard of reality, that somehow what is covered by skin, fat and uterus, is not real, but what is exposed to air is real. They utilize the concept of spontaneous generation.
the arguement is any creature that has showed any kind of rudimentary higher brain thought oither than basic life functions exhibited by any cell has some sort of neural tube and a brain. there is no example in nature of a form of life without a brain showing that level of awarness
now the arguement for 1st trimester abortions is precisely that, without a neural tube or brainstem, any foetus has no ability to comprehend life or be aware of it even at its most primitive level. brainstem death is currently the most up to date definition of death used within the medical field i believe, and is used to define when a patient is truly dead. if a patient therefore didnt have a brainstem, would he be alive and concious of his life?
aborting by the 1st trimester allows those whom have strong reasons to abort, while not allowing the development past the blastomere stage and the development of any kind of concousness. do you think a ball of cells is concious? are you opposed to stem cell research? what about all the epithelial cells your gut goes through every day
2nd and 3rd trimester abortions are very very dfferent
atlantabiolab said:
Do you really wish to use the argument of "parasite" as justification of abortion? Hitler used this reasoning to enslave and murder millions of people with this same concept. If metaphorical parasitism is a justification, then why not apply it more, say to newborns, who totally dependant on the actions of another, or to welfare recipients, who derive their existence from the productivity of others.
its totally different. i merely want to use it as an arguemtn that a woman has a certain right over what goes on within her body and a government shouldnt be able to dictate what she can or cannot do
at the stage of the 1st trimester and before, the foetus is a blastomere. its method of nutrition is parasitic in nature. it can be argued that a woman who did not give consent for that foetus to be inside of her (i.e. rape) is now having her body used against her will and its nutrients etc used. does she not have a right to have it removed? it is still an undifferentiated ball at this stage and isnt concious of life
as soon as it even has the POSSIBILITY of conciousness, it gains rights as it has potential comprehension of sentience, and then abortion isnt allowed. but surely a woman should be allowed to choose what happens within her body?
a newborn is a near fully developed human who has this ability to be self aware and has presumably been brought into the world with the mothers consent. as such its ludicrous to say that 1st trimester abortion equates to killing any baby
damn thats a long post
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
