danielson said:
people's moral stances on subjects are shaped in part by their experiences...asking someone what their stance is on abortion before and after they have been raped for example. blanket laws on what people can choose to do with their body worry me, the government shouldnt be able to dictate that unless it can be proven it is severely detrimental towards others
Your argument is the definition of subjectivism. You think that reality is shaped by an individual's ideas, instead of the other way around. Something is true, if the concept agrees to the observations of reality. Science would not function if reality was shaped by each individual's thoughts. 2+2 always equals 4 because it agrees to reality.
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?
doctors are also fully aware that this can work the other way (i.e. ask the raped women what she feels about the death penalty)...reviewing the worth of medical research is done with a full range of scientists, doctors and lay persons being involved on the panel for example. but i think its fair to say someone who has been exposed to the p[roblem and is fully aware of the facts is perhaps better informed.
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.
im sure you knew he meant sentient life.
the arguement being an undifferentiated ball of cells not being self aware
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.
but if you were not to look at the species as a whole but the individual, regardless of whether it is a method of species propagation or not, the pregnant women has something inside her growing, and it is a 1 way relationsip in that she gets nothing from it where as it uses everything else. pregnancy can be argued in all the other points as opposed to point one as being a parasite, so in terms of its effect on the mother and not the species it is essentially parasitic in its nature/actions if not in its overall outcome
in this regards his point is valid, as it shows that something may very well be using the mothers own body against her will. now you can argue the specifics of the definition parasite but it doesnt change the context of this arguement, of course no-one would actually think a baby is ACTUALLY defined a parasite
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.
Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
