WN: Rudy Giuliani Tells Pro-Life Advocates: Get Over Abortion Issue -

[Guest LadyC]

the "fetus" in that film is LESS THAN 12 weeks old. it is about the same gestational age as most aborted fetuses are.

go watch it. go on, watch it.

[Tubal-Cain]

I would argue that every human being deserves to be protected. God told us we were not to commit murder, and he didn't make an exception based on their desires.

The Bible is not a book on ethical theory.

I don't even know where you came up with that crazy argument.

Study ethical theories. You will want to look into desire utilitarianism in particular.

While I love animals, and have 2 spoiled rotten cats that are treated like family, they are not equal to humans. To make such a comparison is ridiculous.

Note that I never said animals are equal to humans, merely that both "higher" animals and humans deserve moral consideration. Cats have different desires than humans and so, of course, they should be treated differently. Once again we see how an appeal to desires can explain the situation quite elegantly.

In addition, you have no way to prove an unborn baby doesn't have the desire to live. Based on the movie "Silent Scream," it sure appeared to me that baby desired for that hired assassin to leave him alone, as he tried to get away from his instrument of murder. Whether or not someone has desire is never given as the standard by which we measure whether or not a person is deserving of legal protections, nor should it be.

I never denied that the baby in Silent Scream had desires. I said that earlier fetuses do not have desires.

[Tubal-Cain]

go watch the video called "silent scream" and then dare to tell me that the "infant" doesn't DESIRE to live.

As I said to Butero, I don't deny that the fetus in the movie had desires. I'm essentially saying that not all fetuses have desires (i.e., early fetuses).

[Tubal-Cain]

At what point did he develop the desire to escape death?

When he developed a brain that could desire to not feel pain.

If you are not denying his desire to live, then perhaps allowing abortion throughout the entire first trimester is wrong?

That's quite possible.

What week should it be legal till, and how could we prevent someone from crossing that line?

I leave that up to doctors and scientists ultimately. From my studies (and there are conflicting opinions) anywhere from week 10 to week 20 seems possible. If you think abortion can be banned outright I'm sure it is possible to ban abortions that occur, say, after week 10.

On top of that, why is desire the end all requirement in your mind where a person deserves protection?

Because an appeal to desires explains morality better than any other idea I have come across. It explains why "lower" animals, plants and inanimate objects don't deserve moral consideration while "higher" animals and humans do. It could even explain morality regarding some alien species if need be. Yet, at the same time, it explains why a human should be treated differently than a cat or dog. It explains why values exist and why we value some things more than others. It explains why there are "big crimes" and "little crimes." For example, murder is the worst crime because, unlike other crimes, it thwarts all the desires of the victim.

I don't care anything about "ethical theories," when I have the Bible to tell me right from wrong.

But the Bible does not give rulings on every single matter and so an ethical theory is necessary. Such an ethical theory need not compete with the Bible. In fact, being able to defend biblical ethics on purely secular grounds allows you to converse with non-Christians more easily on ethical matters.

You may not have consciously thought about any ethical theories but I am sure there is at least a rudimentary ethical theory in your mind. You mention that you have cats. Now the Bible gives no instructions on how to care for cats and yet you know how to do it. How can you do that unless there is something other than the Bible driving your actions?

[Tubal-Cain]

If you are not denying that the baby killed in "Silent Scream" has desires, then you cannot believe that desires aren't present all the way up to 20 weeks. It is doubtful the baby in that movie was even at 10 weeks.

I haven't watched the video yet (I'll get to it later). That's why I did not come out and say the fetus in the movie had desires (merely that I don't deny that it did). It should be noted that around 95% of abortions are in the first trimester so even a ban on abortions late in the first trimester would not be a ban on all abortions.

Regardless, scientist can only guess, so I am not willing to trust their judgement in such matters.

Vagueness on matters like this always exists. However, that is not the same as saying that scientists have no clue on the matter. There is no doubt that at the moment after conception the embryo has no desires. Likewise, there is no doubt that the fetus has desires the moment before it is born. In other words, the vagueness only applies to a range of time during the pregnancy, not the whole pregnancy.

You have given an answer as to why you believe desires is the deciding factor, but I still don't agree. To me, the deciding factor is that we are human beings, created in the image of God, and deserving of legal protections just for that reason.

And even here we see how vagueness plays a role. What does it mean to be made in the image of God (who has no physical manifestation)? This is one of the greatest questions in Judeo-Christian tradition. Do we want to base all of morality on what is essentially an unanswerable question? I'm sure some interpretations of what it means to be made in the image of God could allow lots of killing.

As far as how I look at cats and dogs, that is merely based on my personal judgement, and cannot be applied across the board. To me, they are friends and of great value, but to others, all animals are nothing but a source of food. When it comes to human beings, God placed a higher value on man than animals, and gave man dominion over animals. You have even said you do not deny that a fetus is human from the very beginning. The argument with you seems to be your belief that simply being human is not enough, whereas that is all that matters with me. Desires would mean nothing.

So you believe that morality regarding animals is subjective while morality regarding humans is objective? That there is no real moral difference between someone who humanely kills an animal for food and someone who tortures animals for fun?

[kat8585]

So now the reason why you support abortion early on is the unborn baby doesn't have desires?

Tubal-cain: I am consistent in that I extend moral consideration to all creatures with desires. Early in pregnancy the embryo/fetus does not have desires.

kat: I've never heard anything like this, and it is absolutely the most rediculous reasoning I've ever heard. It's worse than the pro-choice crowd that insists life doesn't begin til a certain point so it gives them an excuse for murder. For them, mostly for convenience, and for the abortionists, obviosusly, for the money.

[Tubal-Cain]

kat: I've never heard anything like this, and it is absolutely the most rediculous reasoning I've ever heard. It's worse that the pro-choice crowd that insists life doesn't begin til a certain point so it gives them an excuse for murder. For them, mostly for convenience, and for the abortionists, obviosusly, for the money.

My idea is worse than that of an adamant pro-choicer, yet an adamant pro-choicer condones more abortions than I do? I think that is the ridiculous reasoning.

If you have a better ethical theory I'm all ears. As I said before: An appeal to desires explains morality better than any other idea I have come across. It explains why "lower" animals, plants and inanimate objects don't deserve moral consideration while "higher" animals and humans do. It could even explain morality regarding some alien species if need be. Yet, at the same time, it explains why a human should be treated differently than a cat or dog. It explains why values exist and why we value some things more than others. It explains why there are "big crimes" and "little crimes." For example, murder is the worst crime because, unlike other crimes, it thwarts all the desires of the victim.

[dakota190]

it is a shame that we have so many laws that would put you into prison for killing a baby animal, yet nothing to protect a human baby.

If you want to make a legitimate comparison show us laws where animal abortions are outlawed. If you killed a human baby (someone who was born) you would be put in jail.

as it was predicted for the endtimes, what is right will be wrong and what is wrong will be right. we have arrived!!

Abortion has been around since antiquity. Things have actually gotten better as back then born infants were actually left to die from exposure.

i believe i made a legitimate comparison. if you value animal life on a par with or more than human life, you are wrong. if you do this and you claim to be a christian, you are not!!

if you can't understand that comparison, what is anyone to say!!! to equate human abortion with animal abortion as you did in your demand for statistical qualifications, leaves me somewhat speachless. go back to your tofu burger. by the way i didn't say anything about animal abortions, i spoke of how concerned the world is about the lives and suffering of animals but don't seem to care about the life of a human. if you want or need the stats on animal abortions, if there is such a thing, get them yourself, i do not need them.)

why all of the complications about abortion? once it is known that a woman is pregnant, it is a life. DON'T harm it. if people want to classify me as a rabid or hard core pro-lifer, i will wear that title. to repeat a phrase, "it is a baby, not a choice" the choice people have is the act prior to the pregnancy, after that the concern belongs on the baby. if it is matter of the life of the baby or the mother, pray, pray like you never have before in your life. that is not a matter for public debate.

if a man does not think he will be affected by the abortion of the baby, he is really wrong.

[Oh Hamburgers!]

Dakota, the comparison you made stated that killing a baby animal gets you in more trouble with the law than killing a baby human. That is technically incorrect. If a baby out of the womb is killed, you would certaintly be put in prison longer than you would if you killed a baby animal out of the womb. Similarly, you would not go to prison for aborting an animal in the womb, just as you would not go to prison for (currently) aborting a human in the womb.

I actually like Tubal's reasoning. It makes sense in a lot of situations. I am mostly pro-life, yet I see times where abortion is acceptable. I think that this recent ban was a good idea, partial birth-abortion is pretty horrible. But the issues I have with extreme pro-life is as follows:

1-Endangerment of the parents

2-Knowledge of extreme disabilities in the child/ health complications

3- miscarriages being treated as human deaths?

4- the fact that street abortions and unsafe conditions would occur, possibly creating even more deaths.

I don't think that a human life is created as soon as sperm hits egg, however I think that it is a human life at some point before emerging from the womb. There is a gray area in the middle somewhere where the transition between embreyo and human is achieved. I personally don't have an exact time, but if I had to venture a guess I would say this takes place certaintly at some point in the first trimester, probably relatively early.

But yeah, it seems like this thread is just turning into another pro-life/choice debate.

[Guest LadyC]

tubal, you're really sounding more and more absurd the more you post.

the baby in the film was 11 weeks.

HOWEVER.

it has been scientifically PROVEN that babies can feel pain as early as SEVEN WEEKS of gestation. a whopping 90% of all abortions occur within the first twelve weeks.

you oppose the death penalty because there is a chance that some innocent person might be wrongly convicted and put to death. can it happen? sure. how often does it happen? not often, and i firmly believe that dna evidence should be a requirement for a person to be sentenced to death... most death row convictions without such evidence now get overturned. could it still happen? i'm waiting to see what happens to darlie routier. i have no doubt of her innocense.

but the odds of an innocent person on death row being executed STILL are much smaller than those of an innocent baby who can FEEL pain and has a desire to ESCAPE pain, and death... in fact, astronomically smaller.

scripture supports the death penalty for convicted murderers... even if one occasionally gets wrongly executed. do you think God wasn't aware when He instititued the death penalty that it would occasionally happen? He knew, and He still commanded it.

but NEVER does scripture support killing an unborn baby.