Those Against Abortion yet Pro-Capital Punishment and War

[Ghost of Jaco]

No more or less than it is presumptuous of you not to entertain the possibility.

Since it was useless to use in an argument either for or against I chose to disregard it.

No, I didn't miss it but I didn't find it logical either.  You essentially began with a premise and backed into it.

But I kept my head up my arse to help me see better as I was backing up, lol!
Seriously, this is a logical argument I have been going over in my head for years. It's not perfect, but neither is our current "model".

Something upon which we can agree!    Actually, your ability to converse in complete sentences makes it significantly less tedious than it would have been otherwise.  <--compliment

I knew I was "pitching underhanded" to you with that line, so I got the "hit" I was expecting. Actually, I expected a lot worse *chuckle*.
And thanks for the compliment.

As did I when I brought up the removal of a cancer.

On which I did not disagree...I lack enough knowledge of the genetic makeup of cancer cells to "plug" them into my argument.
Case #1: Cancer cells are genetically identical to the other cells in a person's body.
Case #2 Cancer cells are NOT genetically identical to other cells in a person's body.
Hmmm...
Under my argument, one would have no "right" to harm cancer cells if Case #2 is true. However, it is generally accepted that a person has a right to defend themselves from destruction of their DNA (read: from death), so then a person would have a right to defend themselves against cancer, even at the expense of the cancer's DNA.

For Case #1...genetically identical cancer cells belong to the "owner";  they may do with them as they please.

Awol brought up some excellent points about twins that may "fit" if we agree that everyone has a "right" to defend their DNA (life).
Requires more thought.....

Easy, you're getting dangerously close to throwing your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back again.  

hahaha! I didn't mean my essay, I meant everyone's discussion of it has been friendly.
But I can see how I did not make that clear, so razz deserved.

You're not the boss of me.  

But I said PLEASE!!

[Ghost of Jaco]

Then in reverse, you can't claim some moral objection to a woman's right to abortion if you kill, eat or wear the skin of any animal.

That is quite correct, even without a reference to morality.
If we agree that a person has a "right" to do with as they please with the DNA of other creatures, then it logically includes abortion.

Taken to the extreme, yes.  Are you arguing that people meat is significantly different from the meat of any other mammal?  I don't relish the thought of eating rats either so what's your point?

I'm just being logically consistent with my argument, as unappetizing as it may sound. "Taste" is a subjective experience.
(and I hear Henry Hawk is quite tasty when roasted slowly over low coals and basted regularly. Tastes just like chicken, lol!)

[Palehorse]

SIDE BAR / COMMENT:

I don't know about the rest of you but I am eating this stuff up. This is developing into quite the discussion and I honestly find it very interesting. Let's keep exploring and challenging and maybe I can learn a little something along the way! 

(Once my brain stops hurting)

[Dexter Morgan]

To commit genocide you first have to depersonalize your intended victims so the general populace will stop finding the murder of such abhorrent. 
See: WWI, The Third Reich, Mein Kampf, the Holocaust, etc.

The German people allowed the Jewish Holocaust to occur because they had been conditioned by Hitler to view the Jews as something less than human.
Perhaps he called them "alive, but not really human beings".

Maybe he convinced the German people that the Jews were merely "non-viable clumps of cells", thereby making it quite easy to dispatch them with, well, dispatch.

That's a great point Ghost. I think people try to justify abortion by saying it's just a clump of cells. That way there is no guilt on their part for killing an unborn child. 

[Dexter Morgan]

Here's something to ponder.... if the woman has the choice to abort, should the babie's father have any say in it?  Case in point.... a guy that I work with got his girlfriend pregnant with twins.... she went and had an abortion ,without even telling him she was going to. I think that is wrong on soooo many levels. Anybody got any thoughts on this?

[Henry Hawk]

(and I hear Henry Hawk is quite tasty when roasted slowly over low coals and basted regularly. Tastes just like chicken, lol!)

[Dexter Morgan]

Don't worry HH!!!! I'll save you!!!! 

[Sandy Eggo]

Here's something to ponder.... if the woman has the choice to abort, should the babie's father have any say in it?  Case in point.... a guy that I work with got his girlfriend pregnant with twins.... she went and had an abortion ,without even telling him she was going to. I think that is wrong on soooo many levels. Anybody got any thoughts on this?

When they find a way to successfully transplant the embryo into the biological father's body, then I'd say, "yes he should definitely have a say". Until then (and maybe even after that) I'd say that the decision to include the father in the decision to abort or keep the child is  dependant on the woman's preference.

[dan foster]

That's a great point Ghost. I think people try to justify abortion by saying it's just a clump of cells. That way there is no guilt on their part for killing an unborn child. 

Yes, pretty much the way bush/cheney dehumanized iraqis by their constant insistence that iraq had attacked us on 9/11.

[Monroe]

Again, exactly the mindset that allows so-called pro-lifers to trivialize life as it relates to virtually every other species on the planet.  It is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Then Exterminator is a Hindu or a hypocrit.

[Dexter Morgan]

Yes, pretty much the way bush/cheney dehumanized iraqis by their constant insistence that iraq had attacked us on 9/11.

You really love replying to me. Here reply to this Dan.

[kimmi]

When they find a way to successfully transplant the embryo into the biological father's body, then I'd say, "yes he should definitely have a say". Until then (and maybe even after that) I'd say that the decision to include the father in the decision to abort or keep the child is  dependant on the woman's preference.

I agree.

[me]

You really love replying to me. Here reply to this Dan.

  (I second that)

[me]

When they find a way to successfully transplant the embryo into the biological father's body, then I'd say, "yes he should definitely have a say". Until then (and maybe even after that) I'd say that the decision to include the father in the decision to abort or keep the child is  dependant on the woman's preference.

But that baby is part his too. Both parties know going into it that there is a possibility of the female becoming pregnant so if she isn't prepared to birth a baby she should take the necessary precautions or be ready to deal with the consequences of her actions which means bearing the child.

[kimmi]

OMG are you kidding me?  SHE has to take precautions?  Well if SHE has to take precautions then SHE gets to make the decision!!