On 30/07/2006, at 9:38 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
We don't need to think of a sperm or zygote as "sacred." But
we should consider what we do when we cultivate a sentiment
among us
that babies don't matter and are no more worthy to live than
germs, and less worthy to live convicted murderers.
Again, the constant equating of "zygotes" to "babies". Why can
you not see that it's possible to value them both, but
differently? Even if you disagree.
First, not even you believe that abortion should be restricted to
zygotes. Moreover, in the United States, abortion is legal up
until the moment of birth.
I was arguing with his conflation of "zygotes" and "babies".
Secondly, one wonders that if someone doesn't recognize a meaningful
moral distinction between "unborn child" and "zygote," if one most
always pretend that such a distinction exists in conversation.
Again, I was arguing with the conflation of "zygotes" and "babies".
But yes, you're already aware that I recognise a moral difference
between "zygote" and "unborn child". I think "unborn child" most fits
mid-to-late stage pregnancy. I'm aware that you see it different, and
I think we've done that part to death.
Of course, I don't think that Brother John does anyone any favors
when he equates ova and sperm with zygotes and unborn children.
No, he equated sperm and zygotes with "babies". Babies are infants in
the minds of most people. Not unborn children. He may have meant it,
but it's not what he said. It's that sort of rhetoric that makes it
impossible to have a debate with so many. Talking about babies and
children (rather than specifying unborn children or foetuses) puts
anyone on the other side in exactly the same position that asking
them "When did you stop beating your wife?" does - there is no
response that doesn't make them look defensive or bad.
But then, I see that "Brother John" is happily trolling in a couple
of subthreads now...
I'd be willing to bet anything that the hard-hearted men and
women
who abort unborn children don't love those that are born very
much either.
What utter utter bullshit. "Hard-hearted"??? It's often the
hardest decision someone has to make. A couple with 3 kids who
love those
kids very much might have a contraception failure. If she becomes
pregnant, they might decide to abort for the sake of the kids
they
already have. They don't love their kids any less.
Harder than the decision to carry the child to birth? Harder than
the decision to give up the child for adoption? Harder than the
decision to raise the child?
I meant "hardest decision" as in the hardest choice, not the hardest
alternative of those offered. They're all hard. As for adoption, of
course I approve of adoption as I was adopted as an infant. But there
are other reasons to avoid pregnancy, like health reasons. Pregnancy
can be dangerous, and a 3-time mom might well want to avoid that
again. Others might relish the chance of a 4th. It's got little to do
with whether you "love kids".
Charlie
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
