Abortion

[maddoggy00]

So why miscarriage again? The baby can't survive outside of the womb at week 14-20 anyway. If i'm correct miscarriage is not considered "abortion" and not exactly relevant at all...

I gather you're not a father then, or have experienced a miscarriage. Being sustainable outside the womb is irrelevant, but rather being sustainable under normal growth circumstances. Basically my thought process is, once the fetus has a >95% chance of survival (I never actually got a clear answer from the doctors I spoke to regarding this timeline, but most of them said generally around 14 weeks), that is when I consider it to be wrong.

Well the only reason I didn't answer your "questions" is because they were rhetorical. Not only that, a little bit off-topic as you were telling me about general law, and not the topic at hand. It's kind of the "let me ramble on and act like it proves a point" type of argument. Answering it would only distract from abortion into a topic of general law and it's creation. Which is fine, but make another thread for that.

-Please, don't make the same mistake people make here and just say "oh it's logical and relative" but not explaining why, especially when i'm explaining why not.

My apologies if they came of as rhetorical. While it could be another topic of debate, it's still relevant to comparing the eagle egg law, for reasons I already outlined. Your list of reasons is not clear to me at all, and is not explained well. Do not confuse poor communication with a lack of intelligence; if you feel I am missing your points, then you did not explain your logic well enough. Here we go.

You argued:

It's not relevant for several reasons.
1. It's not a law applying to humans.
2. It's a fine, even if we applied the same fine or more, you'd be arguing that "human life" has a set price.
3. It's also a ridiculous law to begin with, and only there for preventative measure. Doubt there is more than 1 person annually who breaks the law and is fined.
4. By logic you could compare that law to any number of things(speeding through a schoolzone), and it makes them seem petty by perspective.
Again, the eagle fine isn't an argument. It's taking a silly law and applying it to a moral issue.

1- why does this make it irrelevant? if you argue human life is equal in value to eagles, then it is relevant because a bird has a safety law and a human does not. If you argue human life is more valuable than an eagle, then by default why wouldn't any abortion at 0 weeks have a hefty fine or greater penalty? A greater potential loss should have a greater potential deterrent. I guess if you argue human life is less valuable than an eagle, I would agree it is not relevant. But I, and probably most, wouldn't agree with that.
2- All human life has a set price. How much would it take for you to be willing to kill someone?
3- Ridiculous to you. Probably not to someone who spends their whole life in aviation and understand the grave consequences that would happen should the species go extinct. Your ignorance blinds you.
4- What logic? I do not see the logic, because someone's opinion on the law is biased by their own understanding of each situation. A crossing guard might find it appalling, whereas a bird watcher might think the exact opposite.
If you define a moral issue as something relevant to only affecting humans, then it still applies. If the eagle goes extinct, it will have an ecological consequence to pretty much every animal, since the eagle sits at the top of the food chain. In direct consequence, you will starve people the opportunity to go bird watching and whatever else people do with eagles. If you consider this to be a lesser moral "wrong" than your speeding in a school zone example, then you are contradicting your example in #1.

Its like you read #2 and didn't understand why its a stupid idea to argue unborn eagles/humans have a set monetary value if you applied a fine to the law.

I thought it would be rather obvious, but it's apparently not.

Fines do not equal value, they are a deterrent.

In this case, since the egg would no longer have value after breaking/killing it, it is, in fact, buying what you broke. Therefore, it is a set value on the egg.

There are already laws on abortion and accepted weeks of doing so. If you want to argue against abortion that's fine, arguing against the laws is fine too.

Just don't be stupid and argue semantics. It's a waste of my time.

A common tactic for someone deficient in their logic is to attack the person, rather than the issue at hand. Rather than try to insult me, why don't we stick to the topic?

I guess I fail to see why you would argue about abortion and ignore the laws on abortion. Seems like a pretty meaningless conversation to me if you don't take into account real life application...

You might also want to look up the definition of semantics. Arguing the definition and suggestion of the word "law" is semantics. Arguing the purpose and existence of law is philosophy. Arguing if abortion is moral or not is ethics, which is a branch of philosophy. Related.