This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think at this point, it's just going around in circles. All of the people who are pro-choice are using the same examples, and getting the same responses. The reason that you're never going to persuade someone who is pro-life with arguments about rights of the mother, convenience, economics, etc., is because they consider them children. You are looking at this as involving the rights of one person, they're looking at it as an issue of the relative rights of two people.
If this was a thread about women who wanted it to be legal to kill toddlers under age 3, for the parents, then every one of you would look at people who wanted to justify it with similar arguments and you'd think they were sick. It could be completely true that a woman can't afford her toddler, that he's keeping her from finishing school or doing something with her life, or that she doesn't want to be a mother. It could be true that nothing exists that will allow her to give the child away to another family, and that if she doesn't do it she'll have to take care of it against her will. However, if an article came up about a woman who drowned her three-year-old, and she said she felt justified for all of those reasons, you would be screaming about what a monster she was. If a child-murderer's response was "If you don't agree, then don't kill your kids, but don't you dare think you can interfere with my choice to kill mine," you wouldn't understand how they would think that murder, which involves another person, could fall into the category of "no one else's business."
Well for a person who is pro-life, it's the same argument. I'm not trying to make you believe they're children (because I think it would be wasted energy). I'm just saying that, if you want to win a debate against a pro-life person you have to give them reasons it should be legal that would also be justifiable reasons to murder a living child who was 2, 3, 5 years old. Because anything that you can't justify shooting a child in the head for, they won't accept as a justification for performing an abortion.
Post by
MyTie
Elhonna just said everything I've been trying to say, only better. Well done!
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lombax
I think abortion should be a choice for the woman to decide.
What if the mother wants to keep it and the father doesn't?
Post by
gamerunknown
if you want to win a debate against a pro-life person you have to give them reasons it should be legal that would also be justifiable reasons to murder a living child who was 2, 3, 5 years old
This is only true for those that do not distinguish between abortion at any period. For others (and not necessarily just the irreligious*) it's more of a point on a contiguous scale where it becomes indistinguishable from murder.
* As I said, in Catholic theology until the 19th century it was held that the soul was implanted at 40 days for boys and 80 days for girls, in Islam it has been held consistently that the foetus is ensoulled at 100 days.
There is a separate argument of natural law in Catholicism that holds that deriving sexual pleasure from any source other than the procreative act is a sin and there is I think an ongoing debate about whether women are allowed to manually finish themselves off if they do not climax with their husbands. Since Catholicism is quite ardently pro-life and forms the biggest division of Christianity, it's probably where the image of pro-lifers as fusty old misogynists comes from.
Post by
Azazel
I think abortion should be a choice for the woman to decide.
What if the mother wants to keep it and the father doesn't?
Flip a coin :P
But in all seriousness, I don't know. It would probably be sexist if only one gender could decide the outcome.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think abortion should be a choice for the woman to decide.
What if the mother wants to keep it and the father doesn't?
Flip a coin :P
But in all seriousness, I don't know. It would probably be sexist if only one gender could decide the outcome.
The alternative is that they can legally strap a woman down against her will and cut the child out by force...so...that kind of doesn't work with the "My Body, My Choice" argument.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
This is only true for those that do not distinguish between abortion at any period. For others (and not necessarily just the irreligious*) it's more of a point on a contiguous scale where it becomes indistinguishable from murder.
I hate the scale. It isn't scientific, but instead some arbitrary time stamp that people put on life, and when it is ok to end a life. It's pride that allows people to do that. Either you don't care about human life, and abortion is ok, or you care about human life, and abortion is not ok. Trying to devise some sort of moral scale off the top of your head, just reeks of self righteousness.
1)I did not get answer to my question. You said you understand the problems of having kid sometimes, but at the same time you list no other exit. I don't know how better to answer your question. There is no exit. There is no exit for pregnancy, just as there is no exit for once you already have kids. You can't just make them go away, because they are inconvenient, nor should you want to. If you expect me to provide a magical solution for unwanted pregnancy besides abortion, I can't offer that. I told you already. That doesn't offer you a justification for abortion, though. Just because there is no safe "out" doesn't mean that an unsafe "out" is acceptable, when it is possible to just go ahead and give birth.2)On killing bit. If I recall correctly my Biology classes (hated those) Baby starts as bunch of cells that are part of the woman and not separate life form yet. If abortion performed at that point, it is murder as much as cancer surgery is murder of living cells. The problem is we don't know where this thin line lies.
The cells are NOT part of the woman, nor were they ever. The egg cells are separate from her flesh, and the sperm cells are not hers. As soon as they meet, a unique DNA is formed. The cell cluster immediately after conception is ALIVE, it is HUMAN, and it is NOT THE MOTHER. That is biologically provable, in a very scientific and definitive way. It is indisputable fact. There is no "thin line" between when these cells cease to be the mother and become their own entity. Those cells never were part of the mother's body. They were simply housed inside the mother, and provided nutrients and environment by the mother. Testing on an egg, at the moment of conception will show DNA that is unique from the mother and the father. For the rest of that cell cluster's life, from the moment of conception, until that cluster of cells is sitting in a rocking chair, bouncing another cluster of cells on its knee, until it dies, and even after its life is over, it is unique. It never was part of the mother. You need to brush up on biology.
Post by
Lombax
Either you don't care about human life, and abortion is ok, or you care about human life, and abortion is not ok.
Yeaaaaa, not true. What would make you think this?
Post by
Orranis
The cell cluster immediately after conception is ALIVE, it is HUMAN, and it is NOT THE MOTHER. That is biologically provable, in a very scientific and definitive way.
This comes down to a discussion of Philosophy rather than Biology.
Is something that is not yet sentient human? Biologically yes, philosophically, not necessarily.
Or can it be considered truly 'alive' philosophically rather than biologically.
I agree that it is not the mother, but I think the other two are on sketchier ground from a philosophical point of view.
Post by
MyTie
The cell cluster immediately after conception is ALIVE, it is HUMAN, and it is NOT THE MOTHER. That is biologically provable, in a very scientific and definitive way.
This comes down to a discussion of Philosophy rather than Biology.
Is something that is not yet sentient human? Biologically yes, philosophically, not necessarily.
Or can it be considered truly 'alive' philosophically rather than biologically.
I agree that it is not the mother, but I think the other two are on sketchier ground from a philosophical point of view.
I said the flesh is human. It isn't a matter of philosophy. You can show that that is human flesh. It isn't pig flesh, or plant material, or goat flesh. It is human flesh.
I said the flesh is alive. It grows, responds to stimuli, it reproduces... it is alive, by definition.
I said the flesh is unique. You can show through DNA that it is not the mother's flesh.
It is human, it is living, and it is unique. Take your philosophy, and soak it. It doesn't hold up to fact.
Post by
Gone
I think abortion should be a choice for the woman to decide.
What if the mother wants to keep it and the father doesn't?
Push her down the stairs.
...what?
Calm down Im kidding...
Post by
Azazel
I think abortion should be a choice for the woman to decide.
What if the mother wants to keep it and the father doesn't?
Push her down the stairs.
...what?
Calm down Im kidding...
It was an accident, officer.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Lombax
Too make it even more extreme take the examples and combine them all.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
In the end it all comes down to whether or not you view a fetus as a real person or not. If a fetus is a person then abortion is probably one of the most evil crimes somebody can commit, and is only really excusable if the baby would never survive anyway. If not then it really isnt a big deal.
Not that those are the only two stances, and I dont think that anybody really stands all the way on one end of that issue or another, more like each person draws their own line somewhere in the middle of the massive grey area.
Post by
MyTie
Ok, I am not going to discuss whether or not this murder or not because this is such a open-ended question that we will just go in circles. However, I will list 3 cases and I would like to hear your opinion on them:I'm happy to answer!1) Pregnancy is going to kill mother. For some reason or another, our hypothetical mother will die while giving birth to this child. Should we save mother or the kid (potentially putting burden of murder on his shoulders early on in his life)?Abortion is wrong.2) Baby will be born with innate disease(s), that is going to kill him in few months after birth. Should we end this now or let the kid suffer his first and last day on this Earth?Abortion is wrong.3) Generic rape victim. Especially if she is her teen years. Will we burden her life with something she never agreed upon or give her a salvation?
Abortion is wrong.
Not that those are the only two stances, and I dont think that anybody really stands all the way on one end of that issue or another, more like each person draws their own line somewhere in the middle of the massive grey area.
I disagree. I stand all the way to one side. Abortion is never ok. NEVER. There is no gray area. Not massive, not miniscule. There is no gray. Abortion is wrong. Period. I have stood the test to real life application, and have answered that test in a very real way in my own life, with the life of my most precious person, my wife. She faced death. Abortion was wrong. Period. End of story. Killing children. When is it ok? Not ever. What if? No. Never. But what if? No. How about when? No. Never! NEEEEVVEEEERRRRR!
Post by
gamerunknown
Trying to devise some sort of moral scale off the top of your head, just reeks of self righteousness.
Well, there are some instances such as ectopic pregnancies where the zygote, which is a developing independent human, will not survive. Is it self-righteousness to recognise that?
There are other instances where the foetus, despite being a developing independent human, is not capable of feeling pain. I'd argue that it isn't pride that causes humans to accept that aborting in such instances is such instances is acceptable, it's an independent moral scale (and not an arbitrary one, it's specifically termed Utilitarianism). I'd agree that life isn't the absolute arbiter on such a scale, but rather reducing pain and increasing pleasure for everything that is capable of feeling either.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.