Based on what I've seen, it seems like if you want to find a bunch of people getting infractions, just type "abortion" into the thread search.

People bypass the auto-censor, make tasteless personal attacks, etc.

So this thread is for a CIVIL debate on abortion. Any opinions are welcome but please be polite about them.

Abortion is definitely a thing.

There is nothing civil about abortion.

A civil debate about abortion is not very likely, and I imagine it won't ever be. It just isn't the kind of topic.

I don't hink it's really something you can discuss.
It all hinges on one premise: what is a fetus ?
A fetus is either a human (btw, I don't think it is) in which case abortion would obviously be murder or it's just a bunch of cells which could potentially but won't necessarily grow into a human at some point in which case you can't really make an argument against abortion.
If people disagree on that they won't agree on anything else.

I don't hink it's really something you can discuss.
It all hinges on one premise: what is a fetus ?
A fetus is either a human (btw, I don't think it is) in which case abortion would obviously be murder or it's just a bunch of cells which could potentially but won't necessarily grow into a human at some in which case you can't really make an argument against abortion.
If people disagree on that they won't agree on anything else.

Exactly.

Now, I don't think one necessarily has to be religious to object to abortion, FWIW. But one certainly has to feel that a fetus has some humanity. I'm not even sure what I think about abortion anymore, personally. Even though I don't think of it in religious or spiritual terms I'm uncomfortable just saying "A fetus isn't human" as an absolute.

There is nothing civil about abortion.

So you would ban it in every and any situation?

I don't hink it's really something you can discuss.
It all hinges on one premise: what is a fetus ?
A fetus is either a human (btw, I don't think it is) in which case abortion would obviously be murder or it's just a bunch of cells which could potentially but won't necessarily grow into a human at some point in which case you can't really make an argument against abortion.
If people disagree on that they won't agree on anything else.

Agreed . The irony is that if the debate is initially framed around this , I see no reason a civil discussion cannot ensue . Without this discussion , we really are debating the pros and cons of what one side perceives to be murder, which is destined to end in the sewer.

I don't hink it's really something you can discuss.
It all hinges on one premise: what is a fetus ?

I always thought it hinges on the female in question - it being her decision to make.

I always thought it hinges on the female in question - it being her decision to make.

If the anti-abortionists can make a legitimate case for a fetus being person , then the rights of the woman carrying the fetus are reasonably called into question.

A logical debate on abortion is impossible, because the Big Question can't be answered logically.

That Big Question is, when does a "fetus" become a "baby"? Gregory House would answer "six minutes before the end of the show" because he can't very well have an emotional flip-flop right at the start of the show. No drama. Makes for poor television :D

Anyway, the question of when a fetus becomes a person is unanswerable. Neither medical science nor philosophy nor religion has been able to work it out with any verifiable results. There's no way to prove for certain whether a fetus is a baby. So the entire debate ends up being a question of what each participant believes.

I always thought it hinges on the female in question - it being her decision to make.

It's not anyone's decision to kill a child. Avoiding 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth would not justify murder.
If a fetus was a human being with rights the only acceptable justification for abortion would be complications that endanger the life of the mother.

Anyway, the question of when a fetus becomes a person is unanswerable. Neither medical science nor philosophy nor religion has been able to work it out with any verifiable results. There's no way to prove for certain whether a fetus is a baby. So the entire debate ends up being a question of what each participant believes.


Agreed. Personally, I think too many variables exist to make one general decision one way or another.

What I think Should be illegal is the controversy about abortion. People who shout, "Pro Life," don't seem to care much about the already-living. I mean shooting doctors? Bombing facilities? Harrassing women but not offering alternatives?

A few months ago, I got into a car wreck because abortion protestors were blocking the entrance to the plaza where the clinic was. The first car slammed on its brakes. The second car did the same, and I hit the second car. According to someone who lived nearby, this has happened numerous times, and each time, the protestors take no responsibility for what happens, but instead say it's our fault for driving by the clinic. Note that this is a major road so there's no way to even drive around it!

Show me pro-life supporters who actually care about life and I might actually take that pro-life thing seriously.

It would help when both sides would be able to argue from the other side's position and not portray a pro-choice stance as a pro-abortion or even pro-murder stance, and the pro-life stance as anti-choice or anti-women.

No one who takes part in the debate is pro-abortion, pro-murder, anti-choice or anti-women. If you judge someone's position from your own perspective it leads to those wonderful 'discussions' (apologies to the word) we're so familiar with.

There is nothing civil about government intervention in a woman's decision-making.

Even if a fetus is a person, that shouldn't give it rights that trump the rights of the woman carrying it. If I were ill, and could only be saved by borrowing your kidneys, I can't force you to give me one. Even if this were a temporary problem and it could be solved by running tubes between us so your kidneys could process my blood while still staying in your body, I can't compel you to do this to save me. Why should a fetus be able to do so?

From what I know, no fetus possesses consciousness. So I have to wonder - why are we obliged to treat it any different than we treat a cow? I can see why we wouldn't with born babies. Because those babies will likely grow to be conscious. But if a fetus isn't, and never will, where would a different moral obligaiton stem from than we hold towards a cow?

Now having said that, I think we have no moral right to kill and eat cows, while I still support doing so, being the evil dude I am. And being the inconsistent dude I am, would not support it for a fetus as soon as there are to be expected fairly complex emotions, simply for sentimental reasons (though as said there are IMO good moral reasons, too, just that those very same reasons would also deny me meat). Though I can't say what that actually means, just that for me early abortions are cool and late troublesome.

But I like to hear people who think differently about cows.

Oh and agree with CKS.
edit: Well maybe I don't. I most of all agree with GoodSarmatian.

Indeed, I have a really hard time accepting that a woman doesn't have full rights with what she does to her own body.

Though the current American Constitutional argument (about privacy rights) as to why abortion is currently allowed I think is a particularly interesting one, since it doesn't seem to coincide with the main public discourse at all.

It's not anyone's decision to kill a child. Avoiding 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth would not justify murder.
If a fetus was a human being with rights the only acceptable justification for abortion would be complications that endanger the life of the mother.

Which still leaves the 'if': it's more or less subjective to make out whether a fetus is a human being or not.
In my opinion, women should have the choice.

Even if a fetus is a person, that shouldn't give it rights that trump the rights of the woman carrying it. If I were ill, and could only be saved by borrowing your kidneys, I can't force you to give me one. Even if this were a temporary problem and it could be solved by running tubes between us so your kidneys could process my blood while still staying in your body, I can't compel you to do this to save me. Why should a fetus be able to do so?Interesting angle. A bit hesitant in accepting a this-is-just-like-this reasoning though, but there are certainly parallels.
From what I know, no fetus possesses consciousness. So I have to wonder - why are we obliged to treat it any different than we treat a cow? I can see why we wouldn't with born babies. Because those babies will likely grow to be conscious. But if a fetus isn't, and never will, where would a different moral obligaiton stem from than we hold towards a cow?
I have always wondered about this, since it's an emotion I also share. It's the purest form of racism. Also, although in my reasoning I always argue against the potential-argument, it exists in my non-rational take on abortion. Maybe just the reason I argue so vehemently against it.

Even if a fetus is a person, that shouldn't give it rights that trump the rights of the woman carrying it. If I were ill, and could only be saved by borrowing your kidneys, I can't force you to give me one. Even if this were a temporary problem and it could be solved by running tubes between us so your kidneys could process my blood while still staying in your body, I can't compel you to do this to save me. Why should a fetus be able to do so?

In the case that it is a person it shouldnt trump her rights in terms of health, but its health should trump her rights to convenience. In your example its a case of "i cant hurt your health for my health" when you need to talking about "I cant hurt your health for my comfort".


This is hypothetically assuming though it is suddenly agreed a fetus is a person, which I would agree with after a certain stage but not the early stages.

A civil abortion discussion is impossible because of the implications. If the pro-life argument is right, then abortion is one of the biggest atrocities in the history of mankind.

I have always wondered about this, since it's an emotion I also share. It's the purest form of racism. Also, although in my reasoning I always argue against the potential-argument, it exists in my non-rational take on abortion. Maybe just the reason I argue so vehemently against it.
"Purest form of racism" puts it nicely. So now pro-lifers are racists. :mischief: :lol:
Anyway, I think we all realize the source of the power of the potential-argument. It goes against every inch of evolution to not care more about our offspring than cows, be coherent morality be damned. But to me the sign of a civilized being is the ability and the willingness to move beyond instinct and rest decisions on rationality (not saying that this is impossible for pro-life people, please don't feel attacked).

I suppose it's not so much the life part as the fact that they won't have a chance to live (I'm probably not describing it very well) even a crap life is better then nothing. I don't see what give me the right to snuff that out.
The whole pro-life pro-capital punishment being contradictory, I never saw it that way those considered for the death penalty have royally screwed up their chance to live a decent life.

I also really don't like it when people claim the baby(cells whatever) is a parasite because it can't survive by itself (forgotting the fact that is still true even after it's born).
When I didn't have a job and was on the dole I clearly couldn't provide for myself, I certainly don't like the implication that my death would be ok because of that.

A civil abortion discussion is impossible because of the implications. If the pro-life argument is right, then abortion is one of the biggest atrocities in the history of mankind.

As a pro-choicer, I can endorse this stance except that I don't think an objective "right" exists.

The purpose of this thread I assume is not to convert the other side, but to let them see you're not a woman-hating monster or that you're not a baby-murdering monster. I think the abortion debate could use some of that realization.

What's the difference between killing a fetus and not having a child when you can have one?

those considered for the death penalty have royally screwed up their chance to live a decent life.

even a crap life is better then nothing. I don't see what give me the right to snuff that out.

&

He was the spitting image of the killer, had the same first name and was near the scene of the crime at the fateful hour: Carlos DeLuna paid the ultimate price and was executed in place of someone else in Texas in 1989, a report out Tuesday found.
http://news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html

even a crap life is better then nothing. I don't see what give me the right to snuff that out.

They screwed up when they killed someone.

They screwed up when they killed someone.

even a crap life is better then nothing. I don't see what give me the right to snuff that out.

&


http://news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html

even a crap life is better then nothing. I don't see what give me the right to snuff that out.
&
http://news.yahoo.com/wrong-man-executed-texas-probe-says-051125159.html

Well I think it's pretty obvious I don't like what happened there?

What's the difference between killing a fetus and not having a child when you can have one?
Yep, that is also one of those very good questions.
Though, I always kind of struggled with that. I mean, why wouldn't it be immoral to deny all those potential human beings I could have already conceived existence? I think in this instance morality becomes such a burden that it is simply not worth the effort.

Well I think it's pretty obvious I don't like what happened there?
No, because you ignored it and went on assuming that someone that got the death penalty deserved it.

No, because you ignored it and went on assuming that someone that got the death penalty deserved it.

I thought it went without saying, were you expecting me to leap to the defence of what happened?

"Purest form of racism" puts it nicely. So now pro-lifers are racists. :mischief: :lol:
Indeed. And I am too, since I too would grant the foetus rights which I wouldn't grant a sentient animal.
If the pro-life argument is rightWhat if you can't say either side is right or wrong?

I'll side-step the various arguments that exist for pro-life, in favour of the one I think you would most identify with and is most useful to explain. I assume you consider a foetus to be a person because you believe it has been given a soul by God. That is your perspective and you are right to be against granting the choice for abortion.

I don't believe in a soul, nor do I believe that a genetic make-up makes something a person. Sentience is the first step to becoming a person I feel, and by gaining that I should be granting it the same rights as I would a sentient animal. But I too have irrational reasons to value a sentient foetus over a sentient animal. From that point on I'd not want to endanger it's life unless the mother's life would be. So, I'd be right to be in favour of given the woman the choice for abortion until sentience and beyond that only for life-threatening scenarios.

A civil discourse is possible, but only to clarify our positions, not to determine who's right.

As said earlier, the same goes for me. Yeah well, to be racist with regards to humanity as a whole is pretty ordinary I guess.

I guess cows feel the same way towards their own :)

What's the difference between killing a fetus and not having a child when you can have one?

Yep, that is also one of those very good questions.
Though, I always kind of struggled with that. I mean, why wouldn't it be immoral to deny all those potential human beings I could have already conceived existence? I think in this instance morality becomes such a burden that it is simply not worth the effort.

i think a biological argument can be made in that a gamete (sperm or ovum) only contains one set of chromosones (haploid)..... an individual cannot choose to combine his/her gametes to produce offsping, that is not a choice an individual can make.

Even if a fetus is a person, that shouldn't give it rights that trump the rights of the woman carrying it. If I were ill, and could only be saved by borrowing your kidneys, I can't force you to give me one. Even if this were a temporary problem and it could be solved by running tubes between us so your kidneys could process my blood while still staying in your body, I can't compel you to do this to save me. Why should a fetus be able to do so?

I have been intrigued by this sort of argument recently. I suspect the counterargument would be that there is a responsibility/implied consent as a result of engaging in sexual intercourse. I can kind of see the logic in that (i.e., the counterargument) but I'm not sure that I find it convincing.

My personal view is that if abortion is in fact murder, then surely there must be some provision for self-defense. Any policy that does not include that is, in my opinion, absurd. The absolutism that seems to permeate this issue is just stupid. Ending a pregnancy that is threatening your life is entirely justifiable, for the same reason that shooting someone who is threatening your life is.

Indeed, I have a really hard time accepting that a woman doesn't have full rights with what she does to her own body.

Though the current American Constitutional argument (about privacy rights) as to why abortion is currently allowed I think is a particularly interesting one, since it doesn't seem to coincide with the main public discourse at all.
There is currently a private member's bill in Parliament to reopen the matter of whether or not abortion should be allowed in Canada. I remember the case of Chantal Daigle, whose boyfriend managed to get the courts to try to prevent her from obtaining an abortion. She sneaked across the border into the U.S. and got her abortion, and I remember being glad. Not because I hate babies (or whatever), but because she absolutely would NOT let this guy dictate what she could or could not do with her own body.

What is your opinion of the current situation? Should this whole issue be reopened?

Ending a pregnancy that is threatening your life is entirely justifiable, for the same reason that shooting someone who is threatening your life is.
Bravo. Just yesterday I was reading on Care2 how there are some Catholic hospitals that refuse to perform abortions for women who have ectopic pregnancies (where the fetus is growing outside the uterus). These are cases where the fetus has ZERO chance of survival, and the woman has an excellent chance of dying if the fetus is not removed. And yet the hospitals scream "Oh noes! We won't abort that baby - that would be MURDER!" :run: And if/when the woman dies, they have the gall to spout some platitude about "God's will."

No. Such things are not "God's" will. They are the "will" of fanatics who claim to be pro-life, but have the most hypocritical way of showing it.

If the anti-abortionists can make a legitimate case for a fetus being person , then the rights of the woman carrying the fetus are reasonably called into question.

It's not anyone's decision to kill a child. Avoiding 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth would not justify murder.
If a fetus was a human being with rights the only acceptable justification for abortion would be complications that endanger the life of the mother.

You are assuming I am pro abortion - which I am not.

she absolutely would NOT let this guy dictate what she could or could not do with her own body.

Which basically sums up most abortion ´debates´: men telling women what to do.

So yes, it´s still about women´s rights. Men can´t get pregnant, but they love to tell the other party what´s right and what´s not.
-----------------------------------

Valka, that´s not a foot, it´s a paw. ;)

There is nothing civil about government intervention in a woman's decision-making.
Of course there is. Drunk driving, for example. Drunk driving is illegal, whether or not you actually cause an accident. If you make it all the way home without crashing into anything or hurting anybody, you can still be arrested, fined, have your car taken away, etc., and nobody I know of would question this.

There are lots of ways in which we really aren't supposed to have full control over our own bodies.....

Valka, that´s not a foot, it´s a paw. ;)
It's a parody of the phrase "Talk to the hand" where the individual holds a hand up to the camera.

Of course there is. Drunk driving, for example. Drunk driving is illegal, whether or not you actually cause an accident. If you make it all the way home without crashing into anything or hurting anybody, you can still be arrested, fined, have your car taken away, etc., and nobody I know of would question this.

There are lots of ways in which we really aren't supposed to have full control over our own bodies.....
Drunk driving isn't punished because the government wants control over what women (or men) do with their bodies. It's punished because it's illegal for a drunk person to have control of a motor vehicle.

Drunk driving isn't punished because the government wants control over what women (or men) do with their bodies. It's punished because it's illegal for a drunk person to have control of a motor vehicle.

That´s actually a useful analogy: just as drunk driving isn´t stopped by forbidding it by law, abortion won´t end by making/keeping it illegal to do so. The only effect will be the make the procedure less safe. It´s a medical procedure and should be performed by a medical doctor.

Drunk driving isn't punished because the government wants control over what women (or men) do with their bodies.
And anti-abortion activists don't want control over what people do with their bodies. They want to prevent unborn babies from getting killed.

It's punished because it's illegal for a drunk person to have control of a motor vehicle.
Exactly. It's illegal for a drunk to control a motor vehicle. My point was, it's still illegal even if the drunk idiot doesn't hurt anybody.


That´s actually a useful analogy: just as drunk driving isn´t stopped by forbidding it by law, abortion won´t end by making/keeping it illegal to do so.
Which has no bearing on whether it should be illegal. You're right; drunk driving isn't stopped by making it illegal. Nevertheless, it should be illegal.

Gay-bashing won't be stopped by banning gay-bashing; does that mean we should simply abolish all gay-rights laws? Kyoto didn't slow down global warming; should we have simply abandoned Kyoto? Anti-war protests didn't stop George Bush Jr. from pummelling Iraq; does that mean they shouldn't have been protesting? Don't answer any of those. Just consider the answers in your mind, and you'll realize this: there's no reason to abandon a law simply because it doesn't work all the time.

No, abortion won't be stopped by banning it. But that has no bearing on whether banning abortion is the right thing to do (something on which I, personally, am undecided)

And anti-abortion activists don't want control over what people do with their bodies. They want to prevent unborn babies from getting killed.

Unfortunately that amounts to the same thing here.

Exactly. It's illegal for a drunk to control a motor vehicle. My point was, it's still illegal even if the drunk idiot doesn't hurt anybody.

It´s beyond a government´s control whether people engage in stupid or unethical behaviour. It is within a government´s control to provide proper medical care.

Which has no bearing on whether it should be illegal. You're right; drunk driving isn't stopped by making it illegal. Nevertheless, it should be illegal.

Gay-bashing won't be stopped by banning gay-bashing; does that mean we should simply abolish all gay-rights laws? Kyoto didn't slow down global warming; should we have simply abandoned Kyoto? Anti-war protests didn't stop George Bush Jr. from pummelling Iraq; does that mean they shouldn't have been protesting? Don't answer any of those. Just consider the answers in your mind, and you'll realize this: there's no reason to abandon a law simply because it doesn't work all the time.

No, abortion won't be stopped by banning it. But that has no bearing on whether banning abortion is the right thing to do (something on which I, personally, am undecided)

Whether abortion is good or bad has no bearing on what a government should provide. Abortions happen. Medical care should be available. Making or keeping abortion illegal is not a solution. Medical care is. If doctors think it is unethical to perform abortions, they can refrain from it; that, however, does not imply that all doctors should refrain from it - on the contrary. Going through an abortion is no joke; it is a traumatical experience, and even when handled with appropriate medical care, it is a physically painful procedure. I would not want to be in such a situation; but there are plenty of girls and women who are. So far I haven´t heard a single word about the ramifications of such an event for a woman - even apart from the ethical dilemmas involved.

I always thought it hinges on the female in question - it being her decision to make.

If the anti-abortionists can make a legitimate case for a fetus being person , then the rights of the woman carrying the fetus are reasonably called into question.

You are assuming I am pro abortion - I'm not

Nah , slight misunderstanding which I'll clarify . I make no assumption as to your views I simply question the rights of women from the viewpoint of the anti-abortionist. What I meant was that from an anti-abortionist view ,which is that a fetus is a person , they can reasonably argue against the decision being the females to make . If a fetus is a person , it follows that abortion is murder and thus the rights of the woman become less black and white .

So for someone like myself who is generally pro-abortion , it is important to firstly address the "personhood" of a fetus when debating abortion with an anti-abortionist . This can be a civil discussion . Without this discussion , matters become enflamed in a slanging match of "womens rights" and "fetus' rights" that is unresolvable.

Susan Campbell

6:50 p.m. EDT, May 11, 2012

I was a young, single Christian woman who taught Sunday school and knocked doors for Jesus.

And I was pregnant.

A few years earlier, I'd been told by a quack gynecologist that I would never have children. I'd mourned that loss because I thought I'd be a good mother, if given the chance. And here it was, the chance.

Rest of article HERE (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-campbell-abortion-0513-20120511,0,2927199.column)


Century Later, Male Politicians Still Don't Get It

Gina Barreca Not That I'm Bitter

5:40 p.m. EDT, March 21, 2012

The political "war on women" has been in the spotlight recently, so it might not shock you to read a prominent newspaper headline blaring, "Never before in the history of the United States have women taken a deeper interest in a presidential campaign than this year."

What might surprise you, however, is to learn that this headline appeared 100 years ago in the New Orleans Picayune.

Rest of article HERE (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-op-war-on-women-by-clueless-politicians-20120321,0,3088090.column)


If you care to read them, these explain why I can't oppose abortion.

I find the ethics of reproduction to be very interesting. They're hard to pin down. I'm allowed to apply teratogens to my sperm, if I want. But I'm not (morally) allowed to apply teratogens and then use the sperm to create a baby - that would be monstrous.

If I were to put the Huntington's mutation into a sperm and make a baby, I'd be in big trouble. But if a couple with Huntington's has a baby (with, say, a 75% chance of having Huntington's) they'd be in much less trouble - and not only because of the 75% probabilities.

We naturally miscarry a horrendous number of embryos, and while sad they don't seem to be worth saving. If I created an injection that eliminated the possibility of miscarriages but dropped the IQ of all the treated babies by 20 points ... people would rather have the miscarriages and 'select' for normal IQ babies (I'm sure). But the idea of killing low-IQ babies (or even denying them life essentials) is also horrific.

There is currently a private member's bill in Parliament to reopen the matter of whether or not abortion should be allowed in Canada. I remember the case of Chantal Daigle, whose boyfriend managed to get the courts to try to prevent her from obtaining an abortion. She sneaked across the border into the U.S. and got her abortion, and I remember being glad. Not because I hate babies (or whatever), but because she absolutely would NOT let this guy dictate what she could or could not do with her own body.

What is your opinion of the current situation? Should this whole issue be reopened?


Bravo. Just yesterday I was reading on Care2 how there are some Catholic hospitals that refuse to perform abortions for women who have ectopic pregnancies (where the fetus is growing outside the uterus). These are cases where the fetus has ZERO chance of survival, and the woman has an excellent chance of dying if the fetus is not removed. And yet the hospitals scream "Oh noes! We won't abort that baby - that would be MURDER!" :run: And if/when the woman dies, they have the gall to spout some platitude about "God's will."

No. Such things are not "God's" will. They are the "will" of fanatics who claim to be pro-life, but have the most hypocritical way of showing it.

So you are saying that women don't have choice by not having sex in the first place? The fact that some women don't bother to do the right thing and they proclaim it's their choice is a terrible argument. From biology we know that the foetus is human and from a scientific vie the child is human. The facts are that the majority of women who have abortions are single women and also many of them have had more than one, which shows they aren't treating their body right. The fact that these women harp on about choice when they refuse to choose other choices is a cop-out for bad behaviour.

It's quite easy to have a civil debate over abortion, but it becomes far harder when the participants begin to self-identify as Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

These labels denote fixed (though not necessarily rigid) political positions, wherein the essential arguments have already been decided, and opposing views are written off as little more than heresy. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that, inasmuch as they fit the labels, Pro-Lifers and Pro-Choicers rarely debate anything. Nearly all of what they do is merely shouting slogans at one another - behaviour which is aimed primarily at demonstrating tribal loyalties and/or ideological righteousness.

For the United States in particular, abortion rights have been politicised to the point where it seems virtually impossible to untangle the moral and legal questions from the left-vs-right dichotomy. What's especially odd about this is that, when you look at polling data, you will find that the largest group is always the one in the middle - that is, the one which says abortion should be legal in some, but not all circumstances. With roughly half the population falling into this group, it seems clear that many Americans recognise that this is a nuanced question, and, therefore, that it is one which is open to civil debate. The problem for them, and for American political life in general, is that the poisonous and utterly implacable opposition between Pro-Choice and Pro-Life has become the dominant narrative.

What's the difference between killing a fetus and not having a child when you can have one?

One requires an active action to create a human, the other requires an active action(usually) to prevent one from being born?

Which basically sums up most abortion ´debates´: men telling women what to do.

So yes, it´s still about women´s rights. Men can´t get pregnant, but they love to tell the other party what´s right and what´s not.[/SIZE]

I think this line of logic is largely a crock. It's human sexual reproduction. Yes, a woman should and does have more of a say in her pregnancy as it is her body, but trivializing and writing off the role and rights of men in fatherhood falls far short of a reasonable point of view. :(

1) Having sex is not bad behaviour. It is perfectly natural and something humans are pre-disposed to do. Thank this fact for your own existence.

2) Abstinence is the single least effective means of birth control. If you honestly believe that you can pragmatically preach abstinence, in total contradiction to human nature (see point #1) then you can only do so if you can adequately justify arguing for a non-effective policy that cannot ever work and has never worked. Methinks you have your work cut out for you there.

3) If you think that termination of pregnancy is morally wrong, then nature/god has a lot to answer for. Given that you likely think God is responsible for the natural state of affairs, how do you morally justify the fact that the majority of pregnancies are naturally terminated - frequently without the mother ever even being aware that she was briefly pregnant?

3) If you think that termination of pregnancy is morally wrong, then nature/god has a lot to answer for. Given that you likely think God is responsible for the natural state of affairs, how do you morally justify the fact that the majority of pregnancies are naturally terminated - frequently without the mother ever even being aware that she was briefly pregnant?

This doesn't make sense to me. All human lives are naturally terminated, yet it is unacceptable for me to commit homicide outside of very specific circumstances.

True, but in this case the termination consists of "putting the embryo in a place where it's quite likely to die of starvation and dehydration". If I were to put a baby into a location where it had a 30% chance of death, I'd be seen as a naughty boy.

Well if you kill someone it is a deliberate act, rather than being 'natural'. But if your argument against abortion is that it is morally wrong to deliberately end human life once it starts, then you must explain how it is fine for 'god' to design human pregancies to fail most of the time. Nature in effect is designed (by god) to violate the allegedly divine moral law used by some Christians to oppose abortion. It's just an inconsistent position.

I approve of Winston Hughes' post
The fact that some women don't bother to do the right thing and they proclaim it's their choice is a terrible argument.
To proclaim your opinion what is "the right thing" as fact is terrible debating style, very provoking and even a subtle personal attack of sorts. So exactly what this thread was not supposed to yield.
ut if your argument against abortion is that it is morally wrong to deliberately end human life once it starts, then you must explain how it is fine for 'god' to design human pregancies to fail most of the time.
And now you bring God into it? Why? Jeez, this thread went so well at first.

There is currently a private member's bill in Parliament to reopen the matter of whether or not abortion should be allowed in Canada. I remember the case of Chantal Daigle, whose boyfriend managed to get the courts to try to prevent her from obtaining an abortion. She sneaked across the border into the U.S. and got her abortion, and I remember being glad. Not because I hate babies (or whatever), but because she absolutely would NOT let this guy dictate what she could or could not do with her own body.

What is your opinion of the current situation? Should this whole issue be reopened?


Bravo. Just yesterday I was reading on Care2 how there are some Catholic hospitals that refuse to perform abortions for women who have ectopic pregnancies (where the fetus is growing outside the uterus). These are cases where the fetus has ZERO chance of survival, and the woman has an excellent chance of dying if the fetus is not removed. And yet the hospitals scream "Oh noes! We won't abort that baby - that would be MURDER!" And if/when the woman dies, they have the gall to spout some platitude about "God's will."

No. Such things are not "God's" will. They are the "will" of fanatics who claim to be pro-life, but have the most hypocritical way of showing it.So you are saying that women don't have choice by not having sex in the first place? The fact that some women don't bother to do the right thing and they proclaim it's their choice is a terrible argument. From biology we know that the foetus is human and from a scientific vie the child is human. The facts are that the majority of women who have abortions are single women and also many of them have had more than one, which shows they aren't treating their body right. The fact that these women harp on about choice when they refuse to choose other choices is a cop-out for bad behaviour.
How do you get all that from what I said? :confused: What "right" thing did Chantal Daigle not do, in your opinion? Would you deny an abortion to a woman whose pregnancy turned out to be ectopic, and therefore unviable? Women don't choose to have a pregnancy go wrong - that's up to Mother Nature, and sometimes she makes mistakes.

Well if you kill someone it is a deliberate act, rather than being 'natural'. But if your argument against abortion is that it is morally wrong to deliberately end human life once it starts, then you must explain how it is fine for 'god' to design human pregancies to fail most of the time. Nature in effect is designed (by god) to violate the allegedly divine moral law used by some Christians to oppose abortion. It's just an inconsistent position.

Arguments from religious doctrine can be dismissed quite easily without the need to draw bizarre and illogical equivalences.

One requires an active action to create a human, the other requires an active action(usually) to prevent one from being born?


With exactly the same result: one less individual on Earth.

Maybe this difference is the same difference as this one : the difference between killing a man and not saving a man's life while you could do so without a large amount of effort.

I'm increasingly tending to think that the difficulty of a reasonable ethical debate on abortion lies in the failure to establish as shared metaphysical framework, and given the strength of religious belief (both of the scholastic and irrationalist varieties) among the majority of pro-lifers, I'm fairly sceptical that this would actually be possible.

With exactly the same result: one less individual on Earth.

Maybe this difference is the same difference as this one : the difference between killing a man and not saving a man's life while you could do so without a large amount of effort.

The end result may be the same, both actions(or inaction) could be morally undesirable, but I still see a meaningful distinction between the two. I'm not certain pregnancy falls neatly into your last comparison though. "Saving a man's life while you could do so without a large amount of effort" is not the same as pregnancy/birth/childrearing. Even if you were to give the child up for adoption there is an enormous amount of impact to complete a healthy pregnancy.

I'm increasingly tending to think that the difficulty of a reasonable ethical debate on abortion lies in the failure to establish as shared metaphysical framework, and given the strength of religious belief (both of the scholastic and irrationalist varieties) among the majority of pro-lifers, I'm fairly sceptical that this would actually be possible.It would seem obvious to me that in a secular society religious arguments should have no impact on the decision making. That is the biggest problem people who want to ban abortions out of religious motivation have. The realisation that their religious doctrine cannot be used in a discourse about abortion, coupled with the severe implication those convictions have on the subject of abortion.

I really honestly do have sympathy for the deadlock they are faced with.

Even if a fetus is a person, that shouldn't give it rights that trump the rights of the woman carrying it. If I were ill, and could only be saved by borrowing your kidneys, I can't force you to give me one. Even if this were a temporary problem and it could be solved by running tubes between us so your kidneys could process my blood while still staying in your body, I can't compel you to do this to save me. Why should a fetus be able to do so?

I don't think that analogy works, since it describes passive inaction resulting in death, where as abortion is an explicit action resulting in death. Suppose that, after being kidnapped by a mad scientist or failing to read the full terms of use for the new version of iTunes, you awake one day hooked up to a machine that uses your body as a life support system for somebody else, causing you significant inconvenience for a decent length of time. If you pull the plug, he dies. Once you're already in that situation, is it right to end it?

The problem with that, though, is that it poses bringing a pregnancy to term as passive, which it isn't: the passive response to pregnancy is to lie down on the ground and die. Bringing a pregnancy to term and terminating it both represent different active responses, outcomes that both require active human intervention in the material universe to bring about, so neither analogy properly describes the situation.

The problem with that, though, is that it poses bringing a pregnancy to term as passive, which it isn't: the passive response to pregnancy is to lie down on the ground and die. Bringing a pregnancy to term and terminating it both represent different active responses, outcomes that both require active human intervention in the material universe to bring about, so neither analogy properly describes the situation.
Pregnancy is a remarkably unique situation, so any analogy is going to be flawed. I still think the point stands that taking action terminating the life of another person is wrong. That is still assuming that a human fetus is morally comparable to a human adult.
I'm increasingly tending to think that the difficulty of a reasonable ethical debate on abortion lies in the failure to establish as shared metaphysical framework, and given the strength of religious belief (both of the scholastic and irrationalist varieties) among the majority of pro-lifers, I'm fairly sceptical that this would actually be possible.
And that's really the heart of the matter and why I really don't think these discussions will get anywhere without veering seriously off topic. At least we can hope reasonably for some growth in mutual understanding.

i think a biological argument can be made in that a gamete (sperm or ovum) only contains one set of chromosones (haploid)..... an individual cannot choose to combine his/her gametes to produce offsping, that is not a choice an individual can make.
I am not sure I see your point. Are you implying that moral obligations become irrelevant once they require collective effort to be fulfilled?

There is currently a private member's bill in Parliament to reopen the matter of whether or not abortion should be allowed in Canada. I remember the case of Chantal Daigle, whose boyfriend managed to get the courts to try to prevent her from obtaining an abortion. She sneaked across the border into the U.S. and got her abortion, and I remember being glad. Not because I hate babies (or whatever), but because she absolutely would NOT let this guy dictate what she could or could not do with her own body.

What is your opinion of the current situation? Should this whole issue be reopened?


Generally I'm pro-legal-abortions. I don't really have any problems with the status quo (except maybe the part where PEI refuses to perform them, and seeks to avoid paying for them).

I don't have a position thoroughly thought out, but the 'life begins at conception' argument has always struck me as stupid. Clearly a fetus is not the same as an infant. Even if it were, life@conception would seem to me to effectively make both birth control pills and the morning after pill wrong in the same swoop as doing so for abortion (ethically, probably not legally), which strikes me as incredibly naive, and a terrible loss for the women's rights movement.

The private members bill in question is not something I could support, and I'm pretty glad that supporting it would be far to large a political liability for the Tories.

I don't have a position thoroughly thought out, but the 'life begins at conception' argument has always struck me as stupid. Clearly a fetus is not the same as an infant.

Why is that so?

How do you get all that from what I said? :confused: What "right" thing did Chantal Daigle not do, in your opinion? Would you deny an abortion to a woman whose pregnancy turned out to be ectopic, and therefore unviable? Women don't choose to have a pregnancy go wrong - that's up to Mother Nature, and sometimes she makes mistakes.

I really do want to hear a pro-life member on this forum explain their position on a woman going through an ectopic pregnancy. Is she justified in terminating a pregnancy that'll kill her, or do you tell her to hope for the best?

I really do want to hear a pro-life member on this forum explain their position on a woman going through an ectopic pregnancy. Is she justified in terminating a pregnancy that'll kill her, or do you tell her to hope for the best?

I'm not sure you are going to get one, much less in the convenient "I believe this" format that would allow the satisfaction of squaring off against somebody.

The best I can do is try to explain a very high level overview of what I think those people believe.

The only people I can imagine advocating against ectopic pregnancies are pretty hard core Catholics. At least you can give them consistency on this topic. They will oppose all forms of birth control and all forms of abortion. If you don't want to have a child, don't have sex and try not to get raped. If you do wind up pregnant, God is the alpha and the omega, there is a reason it happened. Even if everything appears to be wrong about it, it's part of God's plan and it is up to you and yours to deal with it as best you may. Nothing will justify the killing of what is defined as a human. You have to take into account that faith also believes in the direct intervention of God in everyday life through the intercession of saints and tangible proof of miracles, so the hand of God in their lives will seem to them much more visceral.

Disagree with them on religious grounds all you want but it is nice that we are keeping it civil. At least the Catholics are pretty consistent. They have a bright-line definition for life and they stand by it across the board from birth control to euthanasia to capital punishment. I really don't understand the "kill-em-all" pro-life pro-capital punishment militant evangelical protestants.

Edit: ack, forgot to answer the direct question. I don't believe they would tell her to "hope for the best," I believe they would tell her the pregnancy is going to kill her and to make peace.

The main thing that I took from this thread is that, as a male, I shouldn't have an opinion on abortion. Which is fine by me, since I'm not going to have children anyway. But I will ask this:

How many pro-lifers here have had a family member require an abortion for one medical reason or another? Just asking.

Why is that so?

Because there's nearly no difference between a fertilized egg and the unfertilized egg that existed moments before it. Because a fetus lacks any observable sentience. Because it lacks most of the qualities we use to define life. Because it lacks every quality we use to define humanity. I mean it's clearly alive, but a freshly fertilized egg is not all that different from the uncountable number of stem cells living inside me. A seed is a not a plant, and won't treat it as such.

That, and if you really, truly believe that a person, with all the rights that entails, just pops into being at the moment of conception, then it leads you down a ridiculous road where a lot more than abortion needs to be illegal.

Well, a seed is by definition a plant and an embryo is by definition human. A fetus embryo possesses all the trademarks of life. I don't think those are the terms you are looking for. Genetically speaking, a fertilized egg and unfertilized egg have less in common than a person and a monkey.

Sentience and/or person-hood are closer to the distinctions you are looking for, I think. At least those terms will more accurately address the issue of women's reproductive rights and what rights, if any, you can justify assigning to the unborn. Somewhat ironically, some of the most committed women's rights advocates will simultaneously support the right to abort late-term fetuses while supporting feticide laws.

Because it lacks most of the qualities we use to define life.
For the record, the fertilized egg does fit the qualifications of life, just not human life.

Why not? It's pretty indisputably a specimen of H. sapiens.

I really think that sentience should be the proper metric. To me, this handily explains why we toss the placenta but keep the baby

I'm increasingly tending to think that the difficulty of a reasonable ethical debate on abortion lies in the failure to establish as shared metaphysical framework

Would you explain what you mean by 'shared metaphysical framework', and why it's necessary?

I really think that sentience should be the proper metric. To me, this handily explains why we toss the placenta but keep the baby

Where are we drawing that line, though?

Well, that's something to be investigated after it's decided whether it's a metric or not. The advantage of "conception" or "birth" is that they're relatively clear lines, and only really 'fuzzy' within a couple hour period. Sentience might have a longer fuzzy period, but there're still obvious indicators on either side of that fuzzy period.

Biology is inherently sloppy. Most of our definitions are for convenience. Some people like to measure, for example, the 'heartbeat' of a fetus. While the heartbeat of a baby is a rather obvious thing, and embryos clearly have no heartbeats - there's a lengthy period of fetal development where 'heartbeat' is debatable.

There is nothing civil about government intervention in a woman's decision-making.

This.

A fetus is basically a parasite until the later stages of pregnancy.

Bravo. Just yesterday I was reading on Care2 how there are some Catholic hospitals that refuse to perform abortions for women who have ectopic pregnancies (where the fetus is growing outside the uterus). These are cases where the fetus has ZERO chance of survival, and the woman has an excellent chance of dying if the fetus is not removed. And yet the hospitals scream "Oh noes! We won't abort that baby - that would be MURDER!" :run: And if/when the woman dies, they have the gall to spout some platitude about "God's will."

No. Such things are not "God's" will. They are the "will" of fanatics who claim to be pro-life, but have the most hypocritical way of showing it.

People can just ask to be transferred to another hospital to get the abortion done though, can they not?

I don't hink it's really something you can discuss.
It all hinges on one premise: what is a fetus ?
A fetus is either a human (btw, I don't think it is) in which case abortion would obviously be murder or it's just a bunch of cells which could potentially but won't necessarily grow into a human at some point in which case you can't really make an argument against abortion.
If people disagree on that they won't agree on anything else.
That sums up the "debate".

Save for one point : in many case, abortion is not about a "fetus" but an "embryo". Abortion with a fetus is a rather hard case to separate (we enter into what Basketcase describe, that is "when can you call it just a fetus and when does it becomes a baby"), but embryo not being a person can not really be challenged on nonreligious ground.

For the rest, the same arguments have been made over and over and over and over, so any abortion thread with people having already "discussed" it in the past will just see the same copy'n'paste of the same things and it's why it will quickly devolve into either pointless polite discourse, or inflammatory argument.

I really think that sentience should be the proper metric. To me, this handily explains why we toss the placenta but keep the baby

Maybe you could re-post your example with the 2 sets of conjoined twins ? That was quite an eye opener for me

Would you explain what you mean by 'shared metaphysical framework', and why it's necessary?
Well, in this context, I mean a shared understanding of the metaphysical nature of the subject. (Generalising a bit,) People who hold an idealist conception of the subject as "a life", an immaterial "vital spark" prior to concious being, will overwhelmingly be pro-life, because they view a newly-fertilised egg as possessing the same vital spark as you or I. People who hold a materialist conception of the subject as a sentient organism will tend to be pro-choice, because they do not regard a foetus as attaining moral significance until it develops a sentient mind. People who hold a dualist conception of the subject, as immaterial but necessarily sentient, and tend to be moderate on the issue, because they regard the foetus as not possessing intrinsic moral value, but developing it quite quickly, generally at the first signs of neural activity. (Not all of these frameworks are made explicit, not least the number of self-proclaimed "materialists" working in a de facto dualist framework, but I think that it's more or less fair as a rough characterisation of the three main tendencies.) What this means is that we're working with a number of different assumptions about what a person actually is, and thus how it is that we are to act towards other people in an ethical manner; while I might consider a foetus to be nothing more than a blob of cells, a pro-lifer considers a full-blown person (and, by the same token, where I might hypothetically consider an advanced AI to be a full-blown person, a pro-lifer might see it as nothing more than a bundle of cables and microchips). It makes debate pretty pointless, because for the most part we're just hammering away at foundations that for the most part none of us really recognise that we have and which we don't stand much of a chance of denting. All you can really hope for is compromise, and that much is never gong to emerge from a debate between evangelical fundamentalist like CelticEmpire and an epitome of godlessness like Useless.

Part of the metric though deals with the female who makes choices even before their brain is fully developed as an adult. Abstinance is said not to work, because the "animal" attraction is stronger than the responsible developement. Humans have slipped past the point where we want things now, and cannot wait until the brain is fully developed to enjoy them.

or however any one wants to parse this

I am not sure I see your point. Are you implying that moral obligations become irrelevant once they require collective effort to be fulfilled?

sorry, no....actually, kinda the opposite....my point was that one person cannot really assume the burden of conceiving "potential" humans because gametes are only 1/2 potential humans....one would need "cooperation" to conceive.

People can just ask to be transferred to another hospital to get the abortion done though, can they not?
That assumes that:

1. There is another hospital within a reasonable distance where abortions are performed.

2. The Catholic doctor will do the needed paperwork and referrals, without whining about his/her "conscience."

Considering that a bunch of New Jersey nurses insist on not doing ANYTHING for abortion patients - even bringing them pills or taking their blood pressure - some medical "professionals" stretch the so-called conscience clause excuse far beyond anything remotely reasonable.

Well, in this context, I mean a shared understanding of the metaphysical nature of the subject. (Generalising a bit,) People who hold an idealist conception of the subject as "a life", an immaterial "vital spark" prior to concious being, will overwhelmingly be pro-life, because they view a newly-fertilised egg as possessing the same vital spark as you or I. People who hold a materialist conception of the subject as a sentient organism will tend to be pro-choice, because they do not regard a foetus as attaining moral significance until it develops a sentient mind. People who hold a dualist conception of the subject, as immaterial but necessarily sentient, and tend to be moderate on the issue, because they regard the foetus as not possessing intrinsic moral value, but developing it quite quickly, generally at the first signs of neural activity. (Not all of these frameworks are made explicit, not least the number of self-proclaimed "materialists" working in a de facto dualist framework, but I think that it's more or less fair as a rough characterisation of the three main tendencies.) What this means is that we're working with a number of different assumptions about what a person actually is, and thus how it is that we are to act towards other people in an ethical manner; while I might consider a foetus to be nothing more than a blob of cells, a pro-lifer considers a full-blown person (and, by the same token, where I might hypothetically consider an advanced AI to be a full-blown person, a pro-lifer might see it as nothing more than a bundle of cables and microchips). It makes debate pretty pointless, because for the most part we're just hammering away at foundations that for the most part none of us really recognise that we have and which we don't stand much of a chance of denting. All you can really hope for is compromise, and that much is never gong to emerge from a debate between evangelical fundamentalist like CelticEmpire and an epitome of godlessness like Useless.

I'm not sure it makes the debate pointless, so much as it shows that - when certain people get involved - the debate is too easily turned from substantive discussion to empty sloganeering. This is why I say it's a problem of oppositional politics (in the US, at least; elsewhere it seems far less difficult): the primary motivation of those who derail the debate is not for anybody to arrive at a better understanding, but rather to make a show of their political allegiances by attacking the enemy. I see no other great reason why one should not be able to appreciate and weigh up multiple different conceptions of the nature and value of human life.

The fact that pregnancy can be terminated moots the claim that consent to sex is consent to possible parenthood. It really is as simple as that. Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of either parenthood or termination.

(Not a comprehensive rebuttal to all the wrong in this thread, but I don't think anyone else has touched it.)


This "debate" has nowhere new to go. Engaging it can be a fun exercise in rhetoric or a jump-off for other interesting topics, but here we have a deadlock. SO. If we stopped shouting at each other about misogyny and murder then we could work together to actually prevent abortions, like, in the real world! We all want to do that (particularly the folks that keep shreiking about evil), and there are methods that we all actually agree on (except the sex-haters with screwy priorities). Or maybe yelling is more important.

(I'm tired.)

The fact that these women harp on about choice when they refuse to choose other choices is a cop-out for bad behaviour.

I'll spare you the reply to the insulting rest of the post, but this part is special.

If you can work out why that statement expresses nothing but contempt for the concept of choice, I will give you a cookie.

Here's your hint: Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black.

How many pro-lifers here have had a family member require an abortion for one medical reason or another? Just asking.

This will be underrepresented, since abortion is a very private thing and still carries a lot of stigma.


BTW Winston Hughes won the thread.

sorry, no....actually, kinda the opposite....my point was that one person cannot really assume the burden of conceiving "potential" humans because gametes are only 1/2 potential humans....one would need "cooperation" to conceive.
Yes, your point is that you need two person to assume the burden. And as a consequence, I ask you if you want to suggest that the need for collective effort frees one of moral obligations. And then you go on to say that this were the opposite? Are you sure you know what "collective" means?

Yes, your point is that you need two person to assume the burden. And as a consequence, I ask you if you want to suggest that the need for collective effort frees one of moral obligations. And then you go on to say that this were the opposite? Are you sure you know what "collective" means?

I'm not following you here, I thought bernie was responding to the possibility of considering eggs alone as worthy of human protections and what, if any, moral burden a woman would have by not conceiving a child every time she would possibly be able to.

Walk me through it? :)

I'm not sure it makes the debate pointless, so much as it shows that - when certain people get involved - the debate is too easily turned from substantive discussion to empty sloganeering. This is why I say it's a problem of oppositional politics (in the US, at least; elsewhere it seems far less difficult): the primary motivation of those who derail the debate is not for anybody to arrive at a better understanding, but rather to make a show of their political allegiances by attacking the enemy. I see no other great reason why one should not be able to appreciate and weigh up multiple different conceptions of the nature and value of human life.
Well, experience has tended to suggest that the Christian idealists find the conception of the self as a sort of meat-golem to be incomprehensible, if not abhorrent, and that the materialists don't think much more of the conception of the self as a fleshy mecha piloted by a ghost. It's possible to compromise between the two at the level of policy, mebbe, but establishing any sort of ethical consensus is a different question altogether.

Well, experience has tended to suggest that the Christian idealists find the conception of the self as a sort of meat-golem to be incomprehensible, if not abhorrent, and that the materialists don't think much more of the conception of the self as a fleshy mecha piloted by a ghost.

But why is it that people in the US cleave so hard to these metaphysical conceptions when abortion is the issue at hand? The answer, I believe, can be found in the historical and constitutional circumstances surrounding Roe vs. Wade, and the way in which that judgement became a defining moment in American politics. Debate has not become so difficult because the metaphysical tension is any greater in the US, but because of the political subtext.

The fact that these women harp on about choice when they refuse to choose other choices is a cop-out for bad behaviour.
Many women choose to give birth. Most women choose to decline to have sex with some males that have expressed a desire to the woman to have sex.

But why is it that people in the US cleave so hard to these metaphysical conceptions when abortion is the issue at hand? The answer, I believe, can be found in the historical and constitutional circumstances surrounding Roe vs. Wade, and the way in which that judgement became a defining moment in American politics. Debate has not become so difficult because the metaphysical tension is any greater in the US, but because of the political subtext.
That's a very fair point, yeah. :think:

Yes, your point is that you need two person to assume the burden. And as a consequence, I ask you if you want to suggest that the need for collective effort frees one of moral obligations. And then you go on to say that this were the opposite? Are you sure you know what "collective" means?

my posts were specifically responding to the following question that you posed…..


why wouldn't it be immoral to deny all those potential human beings I could have already conceived existence?


in regards to whether moral obligations become irrelevant once they require collective effort, I would certainly say so, if they depend on the collective or for that matter just one other person, unless you believe an individual has the right to force their morality on others?



I'm not following you here, I thought bernie was responding to the possibility of considering eggs alone as worthy of human protections and what, if any, moral burden a woman would have by not conceiving a child every time she would possibly be able to.

....or the couple of hundred million "potential" humans a male fails to conceive every time he....well you know....a heavy burden indeed :lol:

A few months ago, I got into a car wreck because abortion protestors were blocking the entrance to the plaza where the clinic was. The first car slammed on its brakes. The second car did the same, and I hit the second car. According to someone who lived nearby, this has happened numerous times, and each time, the protestors take no responsibility for what happens, but instead say it's our fault for driving by the clinic. Note that this is a major road so there's no way to even drive around it!

This sounds to me like you got into a car wreck because you weren't maintaining safe stopping distance to the car in front of you.

Well, a seed is by definition a plant and an embryo is by definition human.

Not by commonly accepted definitions.

Even if a fetus is a person, that shouldn't give it rights that trump the rights of the woman carrying it. If I were ill, and could only be saved by borrowing your kidneys, I can't force you to give me one. Even if this were a temporary problem and it could be solved by running tubes between us so your kidneys could process my blood while still staying in your body, I can't compel you to do this to save me. Why should a fetus be able to do so?

For a random dude on the street, no. For ypur own living child (And I'm not talking about abortion yet, I'm talking about an indisputable child who is going to die unless he can temporarily borrow his parents' kidneys) I would have no real issue with the government mandating it, just like a parent can't kick their kid out on the street, or whatever. You have a responsibility to take care of your kid.

Now, if its your life VS their life, its a bit more of a challenge, and one that I'm not going to address here.

So if you take the above, combined with a belief that it would apply to a fetus, you would be pro-life (At least in theory.) That's where I stand.

If you think a fetus has human rights, as per above, but do NOT think that you could force a parent to help their child, you might be pro-choice, but I really think that's a pretty awful position, to the point that I'm not even really going to consider it. Which leaves us with:

At what point does a fetus have human rights?

Wherever you draw that line is when you think abortion should be illegal.

I don't believe in human rights.

Explain????

I don't think they exist. I don't think we have any reason to believe that they exist.

So, what do you believe regarding rights? And if people have no rights, can I shoot you in the head? (Serious question BTW, since life is protected BECAUSE it is a right.)

You can shoot me in the head whether or not I have "rights"; the mechanical process of putting a gun to my head and pulling the trigger is in no way obstructed by an abstract prohibition. If you're asking whether or not you should shoot me in the head, that's altogether too circumstantial a question to give a simple "yes" or "no".

No, but why shouldn't I shoot you in the head if you have no rights?

And a more generic question, why don't you believe in rights?

No, but why shouldn't I shoot you in the head if you have no rights?
I don't want you to shoot me in the head. Isn't that reason enough?

And a more generic question, why don't you believe in rights?
I don't think that we have any reason to believe that they exist.

No, but why shouldn't I shoot you in the head if you have no rights?

And a more generic question, why don't you believe in rights?

Generally if you claim something exists, you're supposed to provide the evidence that it does exist instead of asking people to prove a negative. Why do you believe in rights?

Unfortunately that amounts to the same thing here.
Not really. The "reason why" makes an important difference.

It´s beyond a government´s control whether people engage in stupid or unethical behaviour.
Irrelevant. Point is, said stupid or unethical behavior is still punishable even if nobody actually gets hurt. There is already a longstanding legal precedent, unchallenged by the courts, in which government is authorized to control your body. Such as by throwing you in jail if you drive your car while blitzed.

Whether abortion is good or bad has no bearing on what a government should provide.
Then don't bring up the topic of what a government should provide--because, as you said yourself, the one has no bearing on the other.

I'm increasingly tending to think that the difficulty of a reasonable ethical debate on abortion lies in the failure to establish as shared metaphysical framework, and given the strength of religious belief (both of the scholastic and irrationalist varieties) among the majority of pro-lifers, I'm fairly sceptical that this would actually be possible.
Well, here we have proof that an abortion thread with no personal attacks is extremely difficult--because T-fish committed one, against pretty much every religious person on the planet....... :eek:

Granted that religious people are stubborn. However, being seated squarely in the middle of the whole thing, I can say with 100% confidence that both sides are extremely stubborn on this issue.

Well, here we have proof that an abortion thread with no personal attacks is extremely difficult--because T-fish committed one, against pretty much every religious person on the planet....... :eek:
Eh? I must have missed it.

He said rational debate would be impossible because of religious people being so passionate on the issue, ignoring everyone else doing the same thing. So I would consider it a slight insult, though its not something I'm above doing or something I'm going to demonize him over.

Well he specifically said that strong religious convictions would make it difficult to establish a shared metaphysical framework, which seems true enough, so I didn't interpret it that way.

Meh, everything is open to interpretation. I guess it depends on how you look at it. Truth be told, the only person who knows for sure what he meant is him:)

Let's move on, shall we?:p

Well he specifically said that strong religious convictions would make it difficult to establish a shared metaphysical framework
Delete the word "religious" from that, and you've got it. (or was it T-fish who's got it?? :D )

Strong convictions of any kind make it difficult to find common ground. And I speak from personal experience, because at one time or another I've been on both sides of the abortion argument.

Meh, everything is open to interpretation. I guess it depends on how you look at it. Truth be told, the only person who knows for sure what he meant is him

Let's move on, shall we?

Yes, let's. Answer this, please. It's the only point at which this thread has been even remotely interesting.

I don't want you to shoot me in the head. Isn't that reason enough?


I don't think that we have any reason to believe that they exist.

I think that 'rights' fall into the category where we create collective punishment for those who violate them. Remember, to punish another costs me something, and so (biologically) we consider whether punishing is worth the cost. Many, many animals will bother to 'punish' if the perceived offense is against themselves, but punishments for affecting someone else are very rare in the animal kingdom.

Humans are willing to punish strangers (at personal cost) for something the stranger did to someone else. This allows us to create rules of society. Amongst those rules, we have learned that some of the rules are objectively applicable enough that they deserve actual moral standing. It's not just about what 'works', but is also what is 'good'. Those are often incorporated into the idea of 'rights'. (Other rights seem to give consideration to the idea of 'natural' - it's 'natural' for a person to defend themselves or want to reproduce, ergo they deserve those rights).

I don't believe in human rights.

Why reject that particular fiction when you're prepared to take so many others at face value?

Well, much as I like TF he is just swimming in his element with that particular statement: challenging all terms and definitions. While I sympathize with that getting wearisome fairly frequently I am also inclined to think it is likely the only productive conversation to be had here.

Why reject that particular fiction when you're prepared to take so many others at face value?
Which ones do you mean?

(Edit: My originally post was as Winston quotes it, but I changed it a little while later because it seemed like it be taken facetiously. (Just me being paranoid? I dunno.) Presumably he quoted my original post before I edited, but only came back to it later.)

Well, much as I like TF he is just swimming in his element with that particular statement: challenging all terms and definitions. While I sympathize with that getting wearisome fairly frequently[...]
It's nice to know that I've graduated from being tediously pedantic to tediously sceptical. Go me! :lol:

Actually had to laugh. Considered using "pedantic" and discarded it. No offense taken I hope, none intended. :D

Which ones are you referring to?

You're still a Marxist, aren't you? If so, your perspective relies on a whole number of imagined devices (i.e. fictions), both to explain the world and to have any hope of changing it. These things are not 'real' in any material sense, but this has not prevented them from having influence over the course of events, for better or worse.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but knowing you there's an insightful point being made if only I could figure it out. ;)

When you say you don't believe in human rights, the implication is two-fold. On the one hand, you are pointing out that they are fictions; that they themselves have no material existence to speak of. On the other hand, you are suggesting that these fictions have no utility; that we would be better off if we stopped thinking and talking and acting as if they were real. The latter does not flow inevitably from the former here. Regardless of their metaphysical status, I would judge that these particular fictions have been a reasonably (and, on occasion, remarkably) effective catalyst for positive change, which makes me wonder why you're so ready to cast them aside.

You're still a Marxist, aren't you? If so, your perspective relies on a whole number of imagined devices (i.e. fictions), both to explain the world and to have any hope of changing it. These things are not 'real' in any material sense, but this has not prevented them from having influence over the course of events, for better or worse.
Ah, I see. Well, I'd argue that there's a distinction to be made between abstractions and fictions: that an abstraction is something that does not exist in itself, but describes something which does (or, at least, is purported to), while a fiction is something that simply does not correspondence to reality. To take your example of Marxism, I would certainly agree that "class struggle" has no independent existence, that it is an abstraction drawn from numerous historically specific relationships, while the National Socialist concept of "racial struggle" is simply a fiction, because it poses entirely made-up groups doing entirely made-up things, and doesn't describe our reality any more than an episode of Scobby Doo.

When you say you don't believe in human rights, the implication is two-fold. On the one hand, you are pointing out that they are fictions; that they themselves have no material existence to speak of. On the other hand, you are suggesting that these fictions have no utility; that we would be better off if we stopped thinking and talking and acting as if they were real. The latter does not flow inevitably from the former here. Regardless of their metaphysical status, I would judge that these particular fictions have been a reasonably (and, on occasion, remarkably) effective catalyst for positive change, which makes me wonder why you're so ready to cast them aside.
Well, as I said above, I wouldn't reject the claim that abstractions are useful- necessary, in fact- I'd simply regard this particular abstraction as a fiction, as deriving from false premises. I don't think that we have any reason to believe that "natural rights" exist, and that, so far as I have encountered them, theories purported to demonstrating the existence of natural rights are flawed. I could well be wrong, but it seems to me reasonable to decline affirmation of their existence until it is demonstrate to me, rather than affirming it on the assumption that somebody, somewhere, is capable of demonstrating it should the need arise.

Of course, that raises the further question of the relationship between validity and usefulness, and I'll readily admit that it's far from apparent that this is the case; there are such as thing as useful fictions. I wouldn't criticise the rallying cry of "the rights of man" in the Early Modern ear, for instance, because I think that the political philosophy it expressed contained a genuinely emancipatory content, and that it articulated in an authentic manner the social and political experience of those who took it up as their own. I'm not as a matter of universal principle opposed to the concept of rights, but rather that I view their emancipatory potential as being ultimately limited, that at some point a new ethical and thus political paradigm is necessary to continue the project of human emancipation.

So at the risk of invalidating the pose of empiricism that I adopt above, I'd hazard that "natural rights" isn't simply an idea that is simply wrong, that needs to be abandoned as an error, but rather something that needs to be surpassed, that has functioned as the historically necessary condition of such a paradigm. You could debate when that becomes the case, and in all honesty I'm not entirely sure myself, but I think that it's a point in time that we have either arrived at, or that we will arrive at in the not too distant near future. My rejection of natural rights theory may seem nihilistic, and in a certain sense it is, but it's not an ahistorical nihilism, a claim that "this is objectively bollocks", but an historical one, a claim that the theory is no longer sufficient as the articulation of our emancipatory impulse.



(Also, it occurs that some of you will think me a hopelessly rash anarchist, while other will think me another tedious post-68er. The wonders of perspective! :D)

I am writing a novella that some of you will probablyattack me over that has abortion as a central theme.

I will publish it here if I am not banned first. Odds are 3-1 against.

I am writing a novella that some of you will probablyattack me over that has abortion as a central theme.

I will publish it here if I am not banned first. Odds are 3-1 against.

Pro-life I assume? If so, good luck :goodjob:

Since you're here, GhostWriter, you wouldn't care to outline a defence of natural rights theory, would you? I think we could get a halfway decent discussion going on the topic.

Isn't natural rights theory the "no, duh!" version of "is this right one of those that we should mutually protect for everyone?"

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mbw4sjkxy0e3fqbcfd8eja.gif

Thankfully the tide is starting to turn in this debate.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mbw4sjkxy0e3fqbcfd8eja.gif

Thankfully the tide is starting to turn in this debate.

I really don't see any tides turning, at least not definitively. Looks to me like it's sticking pretty close to 50-50. And it'll probably keep doing that.

What's going on with the unintentional pregnancy rate? That's the most important determinant of abortion, usually.

I think the transformation from closed adoptions(no contact with birth mother after placement) to open adoption(letters, pictures, maybe annual visits) has had a small but significant impact on the pro-life pro-choice debate. Not usually on the hardcore wingnuts, but more on the quieter people in the middle that don't want abortion blanket banned while still being very saddened by it's use in non-dire circumstances.

Closed adoptions had a large amount of shame and stigma attached to the birth mother. I think open adoption goes a long way towards eliminating some of that stigma and making it a more attractive option.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154838/Pro-Choice-Americans-Record-Low.aspx
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mbw4sjkxy0e3fqbcfd8eja.gif

Thankfully the tide is starting to turn in this debate.
Holy crap, and I thought it was hyperbole when people joked about USA backwardness :eek:

Holy crap, and I thought it was hyperbole when people joked about USA backwardness :eek:

'Fraid not :sad:

Holy crap, and I thought it was hyperbole when people joked about USA backwardness :eek:

Eehh. That's a gross oversimplification. One graph asking an either/or answer on a complicated issue doesn't tell us much at all. I know a lot of people who are personally pro-life(myself included) who would probably give that answer on a survey. I in no way support the pro-lifers who demand the overturn of Roe v. Wade or that a secular government adopt a religious pro-life stance. Which makes me pro-choice politically.

But roll with the sound byte if it makes you feel better. :lol:

Thankfully the tide is starting to turn in this debate.

Unfortunately that's not a great way to actually stop abortions, but I guess it's nice if it makes you happy.

Unfortunately that's not a great way to actually stop abortions, but I guess it's nice if it makes you happy.

Interested in speculating regarding the shift in adoption practices and how birth mothers are treated in respect to their decision to abort or not abort a pregnancy?

Eehh. That's a gross oversimplification. One graph asking an either/or answer on a complicated issue doesn't tell us much at all. I know a lot of people who are personally pro-life(myself included) who would probably give that answer on a survey. I in no way support the pro-lifers who demand the overturn of Roe v. Wade or that a secular government adopt a religious pro-life stance. Which makes me pro-choice politically.

But roll with the sound byte if it makes you feel better. :lol:

Than you are pro-choice. To say you are pro-life would be a blatant lie, and answering that way on the poll I would see as nothing more than an attempt to skew the results.

This is a very simple debate. Either you respect the rights of the unborn, or you don't.

Plus, Roe VS Wade not only allows the killing, but forces state governments to stand by and watch as well. I applaud all the states like Mississippi that have tried to pass personhood amendments, even if they haven't passed :sad:

Death to the barbaric institution.

This is a very simple debate. Either you respect the rights of the unborn, or you don't.

Not entirely, that presumes that the rights of the unborn exist at conception and can therefore actually be disrespected.

I have no respect for or recognize or attribute the quality of "life" to a collection of cells that have acquired no sentinence. A just formed zygote means no more to me than a scab on my knee.

The conundrum for me is at what point does the status of this fetus change to sentiment being and deserved of the protections that all people should be afforded. This I am less sure of.

Yep, I have no respect for or recognize or attribute the quality of "life" to a collection of cells that have acquired no sentinence. A just formed zygote means no more to me than a scab on my knee.

The conundrum for me is at what point does the status of this fetus change to sentiment being and deserved of the protections that all people should be afforded. This I am less sure of.

But you have to admit, at some point or another, that baby is going to have human rights and so be worthy of life, and when that point arrives, you can't cop-out with "Well, I'm personally pro-life but who am I to judge?" anymore.

That line of thinking might work for other issues, but never for abortion, which is a very exact issue.

I generally don't even bother to defend the rights of zygotes, I believe they exist, but you generally can't abort a zygote anyway, and even if you could, it would probably be impossible to prove. I do know that after 18 days the heart starts beating, and (In my opinion) its utterly ridiculous to claim that a human being with a beating heart does not have human rights. And most abortions don't even happen until AT LEAST a couple months after that.

End the barbaric institution.

But you have to admit, at some point or another, that baby is going to have human rights...
No I don't.

No I don't.

I know you take umbrage with the concept of "human rights", but if we remove this term and simply state that at some point, a fetus takes on the status of a person, do you agree with this definition and therefore conclude this person deserves protection from violence?

Than you are pro-choice. To say you are pro-life would be a blatant lie, and answering that way on the poll I would see as nothing more than an attempt to skew the results.

This is a very simple debate. Either you respect the rights of the unborn, or you don't.

Plus, Roe VS Wade not only allows the killing, but forces state governments to stand by and watch as well. I applaud all the states like Mississippi that have tried to pass personhood amendments, even if they haven't passed

Death to the barbaric institution.

Well, I said I am personally pro-life and I am. I find abortion in non-critical situations abhorrent. I also recognize that in a secular democracy not everybody is going to see things the way I do and that, sometimes, on important issues where the right of the issue is unclear, pragmatism must hold dominion even if I do not like the specific application. Only Sith deal in absolutes(I'm kidding here for the record ;))!

At the end of the day, which is more important: one permutation of a political idea I profess or how I choose to live my life and the differences I choose to try and make? My son's adoption should finalize in a couple months and I couldn't be happier.

I'm quite serious when I think that a change in messaging from pro-lifers away from legislating against female choice and focusing more on the social context surrounding adoption would be more effective and save more unborn lives than the tripe approach that is being used now. I am pro-life even if you think I am "doing it wrong." I can sincerely state that I think you are "doing it wrong" as well. I do not attribute duplicity to you in our difference of opinions.

Well, I said I am personally pro-life and I am. I find abortion in non-critical situations abhorrent. I also recognize that in a secular democracy not everybody is going to see things the way I do and that, sometimes, on important issues where the right of the issue is unclear, pragmatism must hold dominion even if I do not like the specific application. Only Sith deal in absolutes(I'm kidding here for the record )!

I'm proud to be Sith:p (Proceeds to go change avatar)

That said, I couldn't care less about democratic consensus on this point, the right to life is much more important, and toying with it much more dangerous.

At the end of the day, which is more important: one permutation of a political idea I profess or how I choose to live my life? My son's adoption should finalize in a couple months and I couldn't be happier.

This isn't an "Either or" question.

I'm quite serious when I think that a change in messaging from the pro-lifers away from legislating against female choice and focusing more on the social context surrounding adoption would be more effective and save more unborn lives than the tripe approach that is being used now. I am pro-life even if you think I am "doing it wrong." I can sincerely state that I think you are "doing it wrong" as well. I attribute neither ineptitude nor duplicity to you in our difference of opinions.

I agree that there's a right and a wrong war in doing it. For instance, to scream at people while picketing isn't going to accomplish much, and bombing abortion clinics would accomplish even less. So, even though the theoretical point of "If you really believe life is sacred from conception, why haven't you blown up any abortion clinics" is sometimes postulated, there's a darn good reason we don't do it.

However, just because you focus in a different area doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't sign the anti-abortion bill were it to come to your desk. That's really what it comes down to. If you had the power to ban abortion, or to overturn Roe v. Wade, would you do it? It sounds like your answer is "No." So even if you're against abortion, I would not consider you "Pro-life" rather I would consider you "Pro-choice." You can't be "Both." Romney tried that and I didn't believe him either:p

I know you take umbrage with the concept of "human rights", but if we remove this term and simply state that at some point, a fetus takes on the status of a person, do you agree with this definition and therefore conclude this person deserves protection from violence?
I don't think that anyone has an unqualified entitlement to anything. What concerns me is the actual outcome of our actions.

That said, I couldn't care less about democratic consensus on this point, the right to life is much more important, and toying with it much more dangerous.
You reject the need for democratic consensus on the matter of abortion, but think that it's necessary on the matter of slavery. Interesting double standard.

So even if you're against abortion, I would not consider you "Pro-life" rather I would consider you "Pro-choice." You can't be "Both." Romney tried that and I didn't believe him either:p
But, given that the terms refer to artificial political orientations, you could quite easily be neither.

You reject the need for democratic consensus on the matter of abortion, but think that it's necessary on the matter of slavery. Interesting double standard.

When did I say that again?

That said, abortion is much, much more evil than slavery. At least slavery wasn't murder (More akin to kidnapping, which is bad enough.)

But, given that the terms refer to artificial political orientations, you could quite easily be neither.

I agree, but you can't be both. That said, the majority of people are one or the other...

Given that I didn't consent to being born, but that existence was foisted upon me, I don't know if you can say that the 'pro-life' crowd respects the intrinsic rights of the unborn more than the pro-choice.

A fundamental aspect of 'rights' is that you cannot do things to someone without their consent.

By the way "having a heartbeat" is a fairly inappropriate way of determining whether a person counts as a person. This would make organ donation (and heart transplantation) quite weird, since a heart transplant requires taking a healthy heart and replacing a sick one.

Again, sentience is the best metric.

However, just because you focus in a different area doesn't necessarily mean you wouldn't sign the anti-abortion bill were it to come to your desk. That's really what it comes down to. If you had the power to ban abortion, or to overturn Roe v. Wade, would you do it? It sounds like your answer is "No." So even if you're against abortion, I would not consider you "Pro-life" rather I would consider you "Pro-choice." You can't be "Both." Romney tried that and I didn't believe him either:p

You don't have to believe me. I have chosen what I hope is the more effective path in attempting to create the world our religion teaches us we should strive for. Appealing to force of law is the quick and easy path here and I don't believe it is the one that serves our lord best.

You don't have to believe me. I have chosen what I hope is the more effective path in attempting to create the world our religion teaches us we should strive for. Appealing to force of law is the quick and easy path here and I don't believe it is the one that serves our lord best.

Wait, you're Christian? Have you mentioned that before?

I never claimed that the force and law should be the *Only* thing we should do, but I don't think consenting to what we consider to be murder to be legal because its "Too easy" to just ban it (Or really I think you believe it would be too hard and would not be effective.)

Think of it this way, if slavery could be "Legally regulated" or it could be banned, which would you prefer? Even if slavery would still go on illegally (And it does) I suspect you'd still want it banned.

Its the same here, for me.

When did I say that again?
You are of the opinion that the unwillingness of the Northern states in the years before 1861 to achieve democratic consensus with the Southern states on the issue of slavery legitimised the cause of Southern secession. As a result, you are critical of the unilateral military suppression of the Southern insurrection. This appears contrary to your stated disregard for democratic decision-making on the matter of abortion.

That said, abortion is much, much more evil than slavery. At least slavery wasn't murder (More akin to kidnapping, which is bad enough.)
You think that it's worse to destroy wholly non-sentient beings than to enslave fully sentient ones?

I agree, but you can't be both.
I don't disagree, but the observation is banal, because all you're saying is that two political camps constructed in opposition to each other are in opposition to each other. You're not actually saying anything of ethical significance.

Wait, you're Christian? Have you mentioned that before?
Not everyone feels the need to loudly proclaim their beliefs, you know.

Isn't that what this forum is for?

You are of the opinion that the unwillingness of the Northern states in the years before 1861 to achieve democratic consensus with the Southern states on the issue of slavery legitimised the cause of Southern secession. As a result, you are critical of the unilateral military suppression of the Southern insurrection. This appears contrary to your stated disregard for democratic decision-making on the matter of abortion.

Not exactly, but that's a topic for another thread.

You think that it's worse to destroy wholly non-sentient beings than to enslave fully sentient ones?

I don't think sentience is the point. Humanity is.

I don't disagree, but the observation is banal, because all you're saying is that two political camps constructed in opposition to each other are in opposition to each other. You're not actually saying anything of ethical significance.

I wasn't trying;) All I was saying is that Farm Boy's claim that he is politically pro-choice but is still pro-life isn't consistent, in my opinion.

Sorry first forget that and then my reply magically disappeared. Also my compliment to Winston Hughes and Traitorfish for their awesome debating culture. So here again:

I'm not following you here, I thought bernie was responding to the possibility of considering eggs alone as worthy of human protections and what, if any, moral burden a woman would have by not conceiving a child every time she would possibly be able to.

The two are very distinct questions.

If eggs are worthy of human protection depends on what you base this worthyness on (being a person, being human, being sentient, having a soul...) and what consequences this is supposed cause (must be protected, can on sundays...).
Now I see no good reason to protect cells, but base the worth of life on its mental state of mind (which cells don't posses), so I find this question easy to answer.

What at least I was talking about was not if eggs are worthy of protection, but if we have a responsibility to people that don't exist, but could if we only wanted to. By having sex without precautions against pregnancy. Now this is a moral responsibility that would require collective effort. Or to be more precise, cooperation with the member of the other gender.
Now it was argued that collective moral responsibility would not exist because it would be wrong to force someone else.
To that I have a hypothetical on my mind.

(1) Imagine a fat guy is about to accidentally fall off a bridge. You need help to pull him back up, or he will fall and die. People are around. You could approach them. Or you could just argue that you couldn't force them and walk away. Which is morally sound?

Either you respect the rights of the unborn, or you don't.

Also the mother. Do not forget the mother.

I have mentioned my faith in other threads, perhaps not as explicitly. You can classify me as a non-Calvinist Protestant and you can qualify my wife(as my personal life/views on abortion seem to be the topic of our exchange here) as Roman Catholic.

The comparison to slavery is not similar enough for me to buy in. Slave ownership does not suffer from the same definitional and humanist problems that conception, fatherhood, motherhood, and embryohood/fetushood/babyhood do. Restrictions on slave ownership also do not bring the might of law to bear against largely powerless members of society in the way which reproductive laws do.

I forget if you have mentioned it before, do you support banning abortions in case of ectopic pregnancies where both the mother and the unborn child are certain to die? If you are willing to consider allowing those abortions to be legal my wife certainly would not classify you as "pro-life."

You don't have to be a'o.k. with abortion to think that the federal or state governments of the USA should not be the entities which enforce our theological position on pregnancy and life. I believe attempting to use these particular institutions, in fact, sets our cause back and costs, rather than saves, lives.

Also the mother. Do not forget the mother.
The mother should have the right to kill a sentient human being because it is otherwise inconvenient for a few months?


Helloooooo?

(Not talking about early abortions or risk of life situations)

You are of the opinion that the unwillingness of the Northern states in the years before 1861 to achieve democratic consensus with the Southern states on the issue of slavery legitimised the cause of Southern secession. As a result, you are critical of the unilateral military suppression of the Southern insurrection. This appears contrary to your stated disregard for democratic decision-making on the matter of abortion.


You think that it's worse to destroy wholly non-sentient beings than to enslave fully sentient ones?


I don't disagree, but the observation is banal, because all you're saying is that two political camps constructed in opposition to each other are in opposition to each other. You're not actually saying anything of ethical significance.

Ok. I am going to pick on you in a friendly way, so I am not trying to offend you purposefully, but private property in the US is one of those things introduced from the conception of this country. In both cases the democratic consensus was that slaves and fetuses were/are private property. So on that basis alone, both had to fight to gain even a semblance of "rights".

It is harder for one to give a fetus rights, for obvious reasons, but even some toddlers unless properly trained are about as sentient as a fetus. They obviously have a better chance being no longer kept in a closed environment.

So yes having private property should not be a right, but that has been ingrained in the psyche of most 2nd generation Americans, because that is part of the "dream" of being an American.

For both African Americans and to some extent a fetus after a certain point of developement (sentience) should not even have to fight for rights. They should just be allowed to be who they are. It is my opinion that neither are private property. They both seem to receive a lot of prejudice though.

There are a couple of instances even in the Bible where ancients were aware that a fetus had sentience and knew what was going on. For some reason the brain does not retain memories until after a certains age, so it is any one's guess what is going on. I do not think that it would be recorded in history, if there was no sentience though. At what point does one have to give up their own desires for those of another "equal" person? This seems to be the biggest sticking point. I think that every one should have an equal opportunity at life, no matter how handicapped or genius they are. I would not call that a right, but a respect. I too am not fond of rights, because no one should be forced to entitle another more than one is capable of doing so. If we train people to respect on equal footing, then no one has a need to claim rights. I doubt though, we will never run out of "things" that need rights.

Also, to the religious people: I recently picked up that thourhgout Christian history, the catholic Church assumed that a baby was as soon a being with a soul, as it would be noticed by its movements by the mother. The assumption war, that then the spark of life would have risen.
In the 19th century, it became possible to diagnose pregnancy before such a "spark of life" was noticeable. The Pope reacted by deciding that from now on during the whole of pregnancy there was a soul present, which caused the today still present Christian idea of the soul and pregnancy.

What do Christians think about that?

Interested in speculating regarding the shift in adoption practices and how birth mothers are treated in respect to their decision to abort or not abort a pregnancy?

Absolutely. I think it's really very obvious what sorts of things encourage and discourage abortion, and accommodating pregnant women and mothers that didn't plan to be, whatever that may amount to, is always the right answer if you want them to end their pregnancy by giving birth.

I'll admit not being well-informed about adoption practices, but it makes good sense. Any social stigma that a woman endures by choosing to give birth will encourage abortions. Alleviating that stigma will remove that incentive.

And even apart from the stigmas, (far more important,) a lot of abortions are undergone by women that would much prefer to give birth if they thought they could adequately provide for a child. If they have the opportunity to see the child well provided for, even by someone else, some will opt for that. Good for them! Good for any arrangement that gives women better options.

Than you are pro-choice. To say you are pro-life would be a blatant lie, and answering that way on the poll I would see as nothing more than an attempt to skew the results.

This is a very simple debate. Either you respect the rights of the unborn, or you don't.

Plus, Roe VS Wade not only allows the killing, but forces state governments to stand by and watch as well. I applaud all the states like Mississippi that have tried to pass personhood amendments, even if they haven't passed :sad:

Death to the barbaric institution.

This is awfully nasty, and I think, including the posts that follow it, betrays the spirit of the thread.


So does the word "inconvenient".

This is awfully nasty, and I think, including the posts that follow it, betrays the spirit of the thread.

For what it is worth, I do not believe he is being nasty to me. If anything, I am probably squarely being a heretic in the eyes of some for supporting the same goal he does, in the name of the same religion he does, while not agreeing on the basic terms. I can understand a degree of confusion and/or cognitive dissonance.

For my part, I have to admit to being somewhat bemused by somebody attempting to "force me out" of the pro-life camp when I have spent most of my working life advocating, and ultimately pursuing, adoption. This has not been a selfless action on my part - I have received a son, far more than I have invested.

If you want to be pro-life, go be pro-life.

I don't think sentience is the point. Humanity is.
"I don't think [objectively determinable attribute] is the point. [Vague arbitrary concept] is."

You're doing that a lot.

Also the mother. Do not forget the mother.

The mother does not have any right to destroy human life. The fetus' right to life trumps any right to bodily freedom liberals would like to argue she has.

I have mentioned my faith in other threads, perhaps not as explicitly. You can classify me as a non-Calvinist Protestant and you can qualify my wife(as my personal life/views on abortion seem to be the topic of our exchange here) as Roman Catholic.

I'm shocked your wife can tolerate your heretical opinions on abortion:p:):D:scan:
The comparison to slavery is not similar enough for me to buy in. Slave ownership does not suffer from the same definitional and humanist problems that conception, fatherhood, motherhood, and embryohood/fetushood/babyhood do. Restrictions on slave ownership also do not bring the might of law to bear against largely powerless members of society in the way which reproductive laws do.

Anti-abortion legislation protects the MOST defenseless members of society, the unborn.
I forget if you have mentioned it before, do you support banning abortions in case of ectopic pregnancies where both the mother and the unborn child are certain to die? If you are willing to consider allowing those abortions to be legal my wife certainly would not classify you as "pro-life."

I think I've mentioned this type of thing before, but I've probably said different things at different times. In any case, I think in a case where there is absolutely no scientific or medical means by which to save anyone except via an abortion, I would say in such a rare case that the intent would actually be to save a life, rather than to kill, and so it would be necessary.

However, if there's any chance whatsoever to save both lives, there is a moral, and should be a legal, obligation to choose that path.
You don't have to be a'o.k. with abortion to think that the federal or state governments of the USA should not be the entities which enforce our theological position on pregnancy and life. I believe attempting to use these particular institutions, in fact, sets our cause back and costs, rather than saves, lives.

I fail to see how illegalizing abortion will cause a single innocent person to die that could be saved by any other means, when those means cannot coexist with illegalizing abortion. In other words, there's no case where banning abortion will cause more death, and indeed, it will cause less.

I'll admit not being well-informed about adoption practices, but it makes good sense. Any social stigma that a woman endures by choosing to give birth will encourage abortions. Alleviating that stigma will remove that incentive.

I agree with that. While my personal opinion is sex outside of marriage is a sin, its just that, a sin. Being pregnant is NOT a sin.



This is awfully nasty, and I think, including the posts that follow it, betrays the spirit of the thread.

Abortion threads are always going to be nasty. We can try to minimize it, but I think its a mistake to say that just because we can beat around the bush means that we should. Abortion is murder, its barbaric, and I have absolutely no fear of pointing this out.

Granted, we should always strive to be nice to individuals, but I don't feel any need to give any concessions to the pro-choice side.
So does the word "inconvenient"

It was absolutely convenient to have sex before you were ready (And that goes for the male as well as the female) and it is absolutely wrong.

For what it is worth, I do not believe he is being nasty to me. If anything, I am probably squarely being a heretic in the eyes of some for supporting the same goal he does, in the name of the same religion he does, while not agreeing on the basic terms. I can understand a degree of confusion and/or cognitive dissonance.

I'm not attacking you personally. There are a lot of people that think about abortion in similar terms as you, and I think if the people that thought like you did were willing to legally vote against abortion, it would be very difficult for those who are actually morally OK with abortion to be able to keep it. I think the instutition would either cease to exist or otherwise exist only in very liberal areas if believing abortion was murder actually led to being willing to vote against it.

For my part, I have to admit to being somewhat bemused by somebody attempting to "force me out" of the pro-life camp when I have spent most of my working life advocating, and ultimately pursuing, adoption. This has not been a selfless action on my part - I have received a son, far more than I have invested.

:goodjob: Naturally being 17 and single and in high school adoption would not even be possible for me ATM, but I'm certainly glad you did it:)

I wouldn't say I'm trying to force you out of the pro-life camp. I'd say I'm trying to force you to decide for yourself what you want to be instead of staying on the fence. Although, obviously, I can't do this.

The thing is, you know the truth in your heart (That abortion is evil and is murder) and you want to see it cease, but you are more than happy to have a government who simply sits by and allows these deaths to happen. That doesn't make sense. Something's got to give.

I don't have much more to add at this point except to point out I am not "on the fence" here. My views are quite well defined. Just as I do not agree with the Catholic church that birth control and masturbation are reproductive sins against life so can I conceptualize that men of good faith can believe early-term abortions are not homicide.

When men and women of good faith disagree about faith, then government is not the right tool to use. The church is. You do not need to actually adopt a child to support the pro-life movement, you can support any number of women's resources that could make the decision to carry a child to term more likely. Women's shelters, financial aid to help cover uninsured medical expenses and prenatal care for low-income women, and more. Any church worth it's salt should be able to point you in the right direction here if you would like to get your hands dirty with volunteerism. =D

I don't think sentience is the point. Humanity is.
Is an arm a person ?
No.

Is someone having lost his four limbs a person ?
Yes.

Both have human DNA. What is the difference between the first and the second case ?
Sentience.

You may "don't think" sentience is the point, but well, you're wrong.

I don't think sentience is the point. Humanity is.
What do you mean by "humanity", and why is it significant for you? (Presumably you're not using a Meleau-Pontian definition of humanity as an "historical idea", for example.)

Humanity= being a biologically independent (Which counts out cancer cells) human life.

A fetus, while connected to its mother, is biologically separate life.

A fetus is precisely not biologically independent! It receives nutrients from its mother after all. That's exactly what separates a fetus from a baby.

So even your totally made up definition that you just created for the sake of your argument without explaining why this is humanity and why it is the deciding factor, fails.

It receives nutrients from the mother, but is independently alive, with its own organs, brain, exc. I'm aware not all of these things are present from concepttion, but certainly long before birth. In any case, the baby does have its own DNA from conception, which does make it independent life.

It makes it distinct, not independent, so I think we should proceed using that term. It amounts to the same thing from your perspective, and it makes discussion clearer.

So,
Humanity= being a biologically independent (Which counts out cancer cells) human life.

A fetus, while connected to its mother, is biologically separate life.
"Humanity", for you, is the state of being a biologically distinct (better term than "independent") specimen of Homo sapiens, yes? But that only answers the first part of my question- its still necessary to explain why "humanity" is ethically significant.

It makes it distinct, not independent, so I think we should proceed using that term. It amounts to the same thing from your perspective, and it makes discussion clearer.

So,

That would be fine.

"Humanity", for you, is the state of being a biologically distinct (better term than "independent") specimen of Homo sapiens, yes? But that only answers the first part of my question- its still necessary to explain why "humanity" is ethically significant, and sentience is not.

Well, my best answer is because they have eternal souls, while animals do not. In addition, they are the children of a species intelligent enough to actually realize the morality of what they do. They will eventually grow up to be their own unique moral individual who can do the same. They have distinct DNA that will grow into an adult person. And they have functioning organs. They are very much human beings. And killing human beings is wrong. For the same reasons its wrong to kill the mentally retarded, its wrong to kill a fetus.

I wouldn't argue that sentience is completely out of the picture, I think animal cruelty is wrong, but I don't think killing becomes murder because of sentience.

Imagine a fat guy is about to accidentally fall off a bridge. You need help to pull him back up, or he will fall and die. People are around. You could approach them. Or you could just argue that you couldn't force them and walk away. Which is morally sound?

personally, I don’t think your hypothetical hits the mark regarding a collective moral obligation, in that the decision to request the help of others/another in itself, does not require any assistance....

However, here is a twist, if you had a gun or another sure fire way to force others to assist you, would you morally justify this use of force to save the fat man?



by extension of this thought process, i would ask to those more religious on the forum, isn't God pro-choice?....i mean, free will and all that? isn't the decision to be "pro-choice" or pro-life" a personal one, between you and your god to judge you when the time comes? sure, you can express your opinion, you can educate others on your opinion, you can warn others about how god will punish them, but to force "god's law" on man sounds like taliban stuff to me.....

The question is then "Why shouldn't murder be allowed" from our side.

Humanity= being a biologically independent (Which counts out cancer cells) human life.

There're quite a few cancers that are biologically independent, actually. The HeLa cell line (the classic cancer cell line) was derived from Henrietta Lacks, and she died decades ago. Meanwhile, her cancer have reproduced thousands of times and has become thousands of separate (independent) organisms.

Really, biology is fuzzy. This is why the black & white stance of hard-core pro-lifers just doesn't work logically (or practically). The stance is based off of an instinctive heuristic.

Well, my best answer is because they have eternal souls, while animals do not.

If you are religious, yes*. If you aren't, then humans having eternal souls isn't a fact.

In addition, they are the children of a species intelligent enough to actually realize the morality of what they do. They will eventually grow up to be their own unique moral individual who can do the same. They have distinct DNA that will grow into an adult person. And they have functioning organs. They are very much human beings. And killing human beings is wrong. For the same reasons its wrong to kill the mentally retarded, its wrong to kill a fetus.

By not allowing women who will die when they give birth abortion, you are also killing human beings.

*I think most major religions believe human souls are eternal, correct me if I'm wrong.

There're quite a few cancers that are biologically independent, actually. The HeLa cell line (the classic cancer cell line) was derived from Henrietta Lacks, and she died decades ago. Meanwhile, her cancer have reproduced thousands of times and has become thousands of separate (independent) organisms.

Really, biology is fuzzy. This is why the black & white stance of hard-core pro-lifers just doesn't work logically (or practically). The stance is based off of an instinctive heuristic.

The cancer is a direct threat to a person's life though. The infant (Usually) isn't, and when it is its a special case.

If you are religious, yes*. If you aren't, then humans having eternal souls isn't a fact.



By not allowing women who will die when they give birth abortion, you are also killing human beings.

*I think most major religions believe human souls are eternal, correct me if I'm wrong.

The above is a unique case.

Humanity= being a biologically independent (Which counts out cancer cells) human life.


Aside from the point that cancer can be independent, if I take mouse stem cells, put them in a petri dish, and grow it into some mouse tissue, does that make it a mouse? It would surely depend on it's environment for nutrients, but so do I.

The cancer is a direct threat to a person's life though. The infant (Usually) isn't, and when it is its a special case.


There are tons of benign cancers. Thus, when they threaten a life, they are a special case. Also, that is completely irrelevant to the point El Mac was making.

We often remove cancers and then choose to kill them when we clearly don't need to. There're many, many, many cancer cell lines that were surgically removed and then nurtured.

personally, I don’t think your hypothetical hits the mark regarding a collective moral obligation, in that the decision to request the help of others/another in itself, does not require any assistance....

However, here is a twist, if you had a gun or another sure fire way to force others to assist you, would you morally justify this use of force to save the fat man?



by extension of this thought process, i would ask to those more religious on the forum, isn't God pro-choice?....i mean, free will and all that? isn't the decision to be "pro-choice" or pro-life" a personal one, between you and your god to judge you when the time comes? sure, you can express your opinion, you can educate others on your opinion, you can warn others about how god will punish them, but to force "god's law" on man sounds like taliban stuff to me.....

I think that God prefers life, but there are a lot of still births and that would seem to imply that even God does not allow every fetus "life". I do not think that any living human can say for sure what goes on from sentience in the womb and even to a certain degree of what happens after birth. That part of memory or "inteligence" gathering is an unknown and there is no ability for one to communicate on one's personal behalf. Saying that a fetus would not survive without nutrients does not go away after birth, the only thing that changes is there is a wider set of cartakers now. A baby is still just as helpless.

I am sure there are those who would prefer to give up offspring to the nearest god if there was no one to stand up for their rights. At what age would a "child" be able to save oneself from such abuse? I would say that as soon as one can start walking would be as good of time as any to just walk away.

When it comes to God's Law though, the last one given was to love others more than yourself. That really was not enforced though. It seems that if you loved your offspring more than your own comfort, 9 months, can be a really long time.

Humanity= being a biologically independent human life.

A fetus, while connected to its mother, is biologically separate life.
But it's not independent, so by your own definition ....

Well, my best answer is because they have eternal souls, while animals do not.

Citation required

Abortion threads are always going to be nasty. We can try to minimize it, but I think its a mistake to say that just because we can beat around the bush means that we should. Abortion is murder, its barbaric, and I have absolutely no fear of pointing this out.

Granted, we should always strive to be nice to individuals, but I don't feel any need to give any concessions to the pro-choice side.

When I first saw the thread, I agreed with you, that "an abortion thread with no personal attacks" would be impossible, but it's certainly not.

You are wasting time shrieking about murder. I am wasting time shrieking about misogyny. We're just going to piss each other off, we're not going to convince each other or anyone else of anything by being jerks. The only thing we need to concede is that we very fundamentally disagree and that we can set aside differences to have a productive conversation.

I agree with that. While my personal opinion is sex outside of marriage is a sin, its just that, a sin. Being pregnant is NOT a sin.

See! We don't have to be nasty.

What are some things you think could be done other than outlawing it that would discourage abortion?

It was absolutely convenient to have sex before you were ready (And that goes for the male as well as the female) and it is absolutely wrong.

That doesn't make sense and doesn't appear to have anything to do with what I said.

When it comes to God's Law though, the last one given was to love others more than yourself. That really was not enforced though. It seems that if you loved your offspring more than your own comfort, 9 months, can be a really long time.

This is one of the first things you have to consider in adoptive cases. The initial temptation is to think that women who give up their children are unprepared/unable/unwilling to be mothers. It's how I initially thought of things. The thing that is easy to overlook is that being pregnant and giving birth is being a mother. These women have chosen to take what is usually an unwelcome pregnancy and to complete it with near a year of their life. Knowing that these women bear the physical pain and social hardship of pregnancy without the subsequent "reward" of raising the child is as near to a selfless act as we generally come.

I think changing the conversation around adoption is going to be one of the best things the pro-life community can do. I think we have hidden allies in the LGBT community here that it's really a shame we do not leverage.

GhostWriter, right from the bat to avoid confusion, this will not be an analogy directed towards the validity of the pro-life argument.

Imagine someone reasoning to ban masturbation because that someone is convinced that sperm is just as much human as an embryo for whatever reason, not important, not the point. The point is that someone sees the unnecessary death of sperm as dreadful and on par with murder.

The point here is that you and I probably have the same mentality towards this position. We'd both agree that banning masturbation because someone sees this as mass murder is just out of the question.

And that guy, in an masturbation debate, will shout mass murder at you. Would that change your opinion? Would the severity of the claim make you stop and rethink your position on masturbation as a more gruesome slaughterhouse scenario with silently screaming sperm cells?

My guess is no.

So. You think abortion is murder. Therefore you think it unacceptable. Completely crystal clear. I get it. Everyone does.

Now. If some response like: "Ha! Nazis didn't believe killing Jews was murder!" to you seems to be a good argument (I hope not), remember that the exact same argument could be used by the pro-sperm person, and he'll use "mass-murder". And he won't make an impact on you, you might even get a little mad for his implication you support mass-murder. Because you don't. You don't consider it mass-murder.

You, as I, would consider it 15 minutes well spent.


edit:
I don't think killing becomes murder because of sentience.
Neither do I. This is a perfect illustration of you lugging the term "murder" around and it interfering with you having a debate where you understand the other person's argument.

The thing is, you know the truth in your heart (That abortion is evil and is murder) and you want to see it cease, but you are more than happy to have a government who simply sits by and allows these deaths to happen. That doesn't make sense. Something's got to give.

Well, I know in my heart that you are a sensible, mature, almost-adult reflecting God's divine love in everything that you think and do. I'm just finding difficult to see that now, especially with these wild sweeping statements of FACT that you keep making about other people.

Imagine someone reasoning to ban masturbation because that someone is convinced that sperm is just as much human as an embryo for whatever reason, not important, not the point. The point is that someone sees the unnecessary death of sperm as dreadful and on par with murder.

The point here is that you and I probably have the same mentality towards this position. We'd both agree that banning masturbation because someone sees this as mass murder is just out of the question.

Yes, we agree here. I have different issues with masturbation, but not that it's murder :lol:

And that guy, in an masturbation debate, will shout mass murder at you. Would that change your opinion? Would the severity of the claim make you stop and rethink your position on masturbation as a more gruesome slaughterhouse scenario with silently screaming sperm cells?

My guess is no.

You guessed correctly.

So. You think abortion is murder. Therefore you think it unacceptable. Completely crystal clear. I get it. Everyone does.

Now. If some response like: "Ha! Nazis didn't believe killing Jews was murder!" to you seems to be a good argument (I hope not), remember that the exact same argument could be used by the pro-sperm person, and he'll use "mass-murder". And he won't make an impact on you, you might even get a little mad for his implication you support mass-murder. Because you don't. You don't consider it mass-murder.

I think it would be a valid argument to a point. However, I'm well aware that pro-choice people THINK that its not mass murder. In any case, sperm just has the same DNA as the male. When combined with the woman's egg, the fetus has its own DNA. That's the difference.

When I first saw the thread, I agreed with you, that "an abortion thread with no personal attacks" would be impossible, but it's certainly not.

Theoretically anything is possible, but it won't necessarily be practical, depending on who participates.


What are some things you think could be done other than outlawing it that would discourage abortion?

Definitely reducing the stigma of giving birth. I think sex outside marriage is immoral, but after its done, at the end of the day, the woman should be applauded for actually making the right decision to carry the woman to term. I wish everyone in the conservative religious community felt the same way about that.

Do the people who are pro-life here prefer situation A over situation B? I suppose so, but asking it anyway:

A:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides not to commit abortion. Because of the child she has to abandon her studies and earns a low wage for the rest of her life, and she can't spend much time and money to raise her kid. Her child is also making it harder for her to find a husband.

B:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides to commit abortion. A few years later, she graduates, finds a man, marries, and gets pregnant. In this situation, there probably is more time and money for the child than in A.

I think these situations aren't that uncommon, and they are one of the reasons I'm pro-choice.

Commit abortion? That's an odd phrasing of the term.

I think it would be a valid argument to a point. However, I'm well aware that pro-choice people THINK that its not mass murder. In any case, sperm just has the same DNA as the male. When combined with the woman's egg, the fetus has its own DNA. That's the difference.You so missed the point :(

Well, I can't make it any clearer than I just did.

edit: Oh and by the way, my intelligence does feel insulted about your explanation what the difference is. If you really think I'm not aware of that, thanks!

Do the people who are pro-life here prefer situation A over situation B? I suppose so, but asking it anyway:

A:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides not to commit abortion. Because of the child she has to abandon her studies and earns a low wage for the rest of her life, and she can't spend much time and money to raise her kid. Her child is also making it harder for her to find a husband.

B:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides to commit abortion. A few years later, she graduates, finds a man, marries, and gets pregnant. In this situation, there probably is more time and money for the child than in A.

I think these situations aren't that uncommon, and they are one of the reasons I'm pro-choice.

There are any number of married and stable couples that would be ecstatic to love and parent an unplanned child. I reject your artificial choice and choose option C. :lol: Please note option C does not preclude the 2nd half of option B.

Then how come there are so many children waiting for adoption?

There are any number of married and stable couples that would be ecstatic to raise and love an unplanned child. I reject your artificial choice and choose option C.


Darn, that's indeed an obvious option I forgot.
EDIT: Apparently there are too few people wanting to adopt a child, looking at Ziggy's post above me.
(Still, if you don't believe a foetus is a full human being, then the pain of the pregnancy and giving birth isn't worth it, but you indeed made a point)

Commit abortion? That's an odd phrasing of the term.


I'm not a native speaker ;) We sometimes say it like that in Dutch.

Do the people who are pro-life here prefer situation A over situation B? I suppose so, but asking it anyway:

A:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides not to commit abortion. Because of the child she has to abandon her studies and earns a low wage for the rest of her life, and she can't spend much time and money to raise her kid. Her child is also making it harder for her to find a husband.

B:
A young woman gets pregnant with her boyfriend. Her friend decides to leave her though, and she decides to commit abortion. A few years later, she graduates, finds a man, marries, and gets pregnant. In this situation, there probably is more time and money for the child than in A.

I think these situations aren't that uncommon, and they are one of the reasons I'm pro-choice.

There are any number of married and stable couples that would be ecstatic to love and parent an unplanned child. I reject your artificial choice and choose option C. :lol: Please note option C does not preclude the 2nd half of option B.

Amen :goodjob:

If you're forced to choose though, option A. You cannot commit homicide no matter how much it hurts you.

Or, ideally, option D and wait until you get married to get pregnant. Total victory:king:

Then how come there are so many children waiting for adoption?

You have to define what sort of children are waiting. Per the abortion debate we are discussing primarily infant adoption. Generally if you are considering whether or not to abort your pregnancy you are also in the timeframe where a corresponding adoption plan would be made before delivery and the prosepective adoptive parents would be involved in the pregnancy to whatever extent the woman is comfortable. At least in the states the are far more waiting couples than available infants.

Practically all children waiting here are waiting for foster-to-adopt parents. These are almost always children who are wards of the state due to forced termination of parental rights. They're older, generally 2 - 16 years old. We could certainly discuss them here if you like, but I don't think they're on-topic to this thread as abortion really isn't an issue.

EDIT: Apparently there are too few people wanting to adopt a child, looking at Ziggy's post above me.
(Still, if you don't believe a foetus is a full human being, then the pain of the pregnancy and giving birth isn't worth it, but you indeed made a point)

I believe Ziggy is mistaken. But yes, the pain of pregnancy is indeed significant. That is why I quite sincerely list birth mothers as having undertaken one of the most selfless actions I can think of. Even ignoring the resultant child, they certainly are doing something wonderful for the adoptive parents.

Theoretically anything is possible, but it won't necessarily be practical, depending on who participates.

Practical? What is this?

Definitely reducing the stigma of giving birth. I think sex outside marriage is immoral, but after its done, at the end of the day, the woman should be applauded for actually making the right decision to carry the woman to term. I wish everyone in the conservative religious community felt the same way about that.

How do you propose doing that?

Is that really all you can think of?

personally, I don’t think your hypothetical hits the mark regarding a collective moral obligation, in that the decision to request the help of others/another in itself, does not require any assistance....

That is a very strange point of view.
Asking a girl "Hey, I think we have a moral obligation to create as much life as possible. Wanne hook up?" does also not require assistance. While just as pulling the fat guy up, sex is a collective effort. I am amazed with what grandeur you just missed the point :p

However, here is a twist, if you had a gun or another sure fire way to force others to assist you, would you morally justify this use of force to save the fat man?

Hm... as long as you only bluffed - I think so. Based on the reasoning, that your moral obligation to save the mans life outweighs the immorality of threatening someone to kill him or her. And this again is based on the reasoning that death - as the ultimate end of all joy - means a greater harm than a trauma for having being threatened by a gun. Choosing the lesser of two evils.

by extension of this thought process, i would ask to those more religious on the forum, isn't God pro-choice?....i mean, free will and all that? isn't the decision to be "pro-choice" or pro-life" a personal one, between you and your god to judge you when the time comes? sure, you can express your opinion, you can educate others on your opinion, you can warn others about how god will punish them, but to force "god's law" on man sounds like taliban stuff to me.....
That strikes me as not very reasonable. Why can I support a law for whatever reason I like except religion? After all, a religious person is in the end also only concerned with what is "right". There are really worse reasons. Like being selfish.

I believe Ziggy is mistaken.
There are around 100.000 in the US alone. edit: Most recent I could find 120.000 for 2010.

There are around 100.000 in the US alone. edit: Most recent I could find 120.000 for 2010.

Read the post above the one you quoted plox! :)

I did.

Does your argument shorten the waitinglist?

If we are discussing abortion, which I believe we are, we are talking about infant adoption rather than wards of the state whose parents have had their rights forcibly terminated. These are two separate samples of children who will be represented on your waiting list. There are not enough prospective parents who are brave/willing/generous enough to dive into the foster system. It breaks my heart, but I was not/am not brave enough or secure enough financially at this point to take in an 8 year old who is waiting for foster-to-adopt parents. These are the children on your waiting list. The amount of infants put up for adoption(the ones we are concerned with in the case of the abortion debate) is much smaller than the pool of couples looking for an infant direct-adoption. So yes, in a way, my argument shortens the waiting list to barely existent.

Ah, I see your point with regard to immediately giving up the baby. And since you suggested that I didn't have a point.

I was arguing about unwanted children who are ending up in foster care at a later age.

I think it would be a valid argument to a point. However, I'm well aware that pro-choice people THINK that its not mass murder. In any case, sperm just has the same DNA as the male. When combined with the woman's egg, the fetus has its own DNA. That's the difference.

So your definition of a person is based on just having a different DNA code than it's parents? Because I'd think it very easy to construct such a thing in the lab, and yet it clearly would not be a person.

Or, ideally, option D and wait until you get married to get pregnant. Total victory:king:

Ah, to be naïve and a virgin...

Well, my best answer is because they have eternal souls, while animals do not.
Why would that be morally significant?

In addition, they are the children of a species intelligent enough to actually realize the morality of what they do. They will eventually grow up to be their own unique moral individual who can do the same. They have distinct DNA that will grow into an adult person. And they have functioning organs. They are very much human beings. And killing human beings is wrong.
That doesn't actually answer my question, it's just a reiteration of your previous assertion. You've made it clear that you think it's immoral to kill any specimen of H. sapiens, but you're not actually explaining why this is the case.

For the same reasons its wrong to kill the mentally retarded, its wrong to kill a fetus.
Mentally disabled people are not non-sentient, so the analogy doesn't make much sense. (And it's not polite to call them "retarded".)

I wouldn't argue that sentience is completely out of the picture, I think animal cruelty is wrong, but I don't think killing becomes murder because of sentience.
Do you think that it would be murder to kill a sentient AI of human-level intelligence?

Ah, I see your point with regard to immediately giving up the baby. And since you suggested that I didn't have a point.

I was arguing about unwanted children who are ending up in foster care at a later age.

Oh, I think you have a point and it's a good one. I'm just not sure it's directly applicable here. :)

As earlier mentioned I would be more than happy to discuss if anyone is interested.

Do you think that it would be murder to kill a sentient AI of human-level intelligence?

Until it happens I don't care to discuss this.

What about the rest of my post?

That doesn't actually answer my question, it's just a reiteration of your previous assertion. You've made it clear that you think it's immoral to kill any specimen of H. sapiens, but you're not actually explaining why this is the

It's almost worthy of it's own thread to get into the philosophy behind rules against killing humans. It can be justified by Egoism, Divine Command, Utilitarianism, Rule Utilitarianism, etc etc etc depending on where you want to go with it. I think GW has made it relatively clear he's coming from divine command at the moment, but he could correct me, of course.

Probably:p

But if your opposition to abortion is derived from a divine command theory of ethics, doesn't that mean that criminalising abortion amounts to legislating religion? :huh:

The mother does not have any right to destroy human life. The fetus' right to life trumps any right to bodily freedom liberals would like to argue she has.

Perhaps, but she certainly ought to have the right to save her own.

(Not talking about early abortions or risk of life situations)
The above is a unique case.

I know you like to wave away these odd exceptions, but they matter, especially when you are talking in absolutist terms.

@GW: I also find it ironic considering where you are politically. I know you're young, but I could easily see you, as an older person, grumbling about the government making a mess of things, how they make all these laws based on their idea of a better future, and however well-intentioned they may be, God bless 'em, they just don't fully appreciate how their rules will affect people in the real world.

But this is exactly what you're doing: you're painting with broad strokes and simply dismissing the inconvenient outliers as irrelevant, when in reality they are people and they do matter. If my aunt became pregnant, she would almost certainly die before delivering the baby; I don't know the details but basically her heart couldn't take the stress. In this scenario, an abortion is the 'pro-life' option. You should be able to recognize this. But instead you are single-mindedly crying about fetuses, fetuses, fetuses. That narrow focus is how bad laws get made. If it were your life on the line you would not want to be the whims of self-righteous, moralizing bureaucrats, who haven't thought through the full implications of their actions, standing in the way of your doctor doing what clearly needs to be done to save your life. Don't be part of the problem.

What are some things you think could be done other than outlawing it that would discourage abortion?

IMHO this is the way to go. That way everybody wins.

Perhaps, but she certainly ought to have the right to save her own.

I agree, although if there is any way possible to save both lives, this should be the first option. If it is NOT possible and you have to pick, I'd agree she has to be able to pick her own, and doubly so if BOTH parties are going to die if an abortion is done.

@GW: I also find it ironic considering where you are politically. I know you're young, but I could easily see you, as an older person, grumbling about the government making a mess of things, how they make all these laws based on their idea of a better future, and however well-intentioned they may be, God bless 'em, they just don't fully appreciate how their rules will affect people in the real world.

But this is exactly what you're doing: you're painting with broad strokes and simply dismissing the inconvenient outliers as irrelevant, when in reality they are people and they do matter. If my aunt became pregnant, she would almost certainly die before delivering the baby; I don't know the details but basically her heart couldn't take the stress. In this scenario, an abortion is the 'pro-life' option. You should be able to recognize this. But instead you are single-mindedly crying about fetuses, fetuses, fetuses. That narrow focus is how bad laws get made. If it were your life on the line you would not want to be the whims of self-righteous, moralizing bureaucrats, who haven't thought through the full implications of their actions, standing in the way of your doctor doing what clearly needs to be done to save your life. Don't be part of the problem.

Its because the idea of banning abortion when the mothers' life is in danger is not really on the table. I think only the most fundamentalist Protestants and perhaps a few Catholics would like to see this happen, but either way, it is not going to happen. When we're dealing with abortion being available on demand, to throw that rare situation out of left-field distracts from where the debate should actually be focused.

So I'm not casually waving it aside. I'm aware of what my position is on those abortions. But until other abortions get banned, its not even going to matter what my position is on those rare abortions that are to save the mothers life.

Why aren't you willing to talk about anything besides how correct your opinion is?

Still, there are bureaucrats and politicians meddling in personal medical decisions. If I was a woman and I was told by my doctor that my baby was not going to be viable, that it might have a brief and painful life before inevitably dying, yeah I'd want to abort, rather than pat myself on the back for this allegedly good deed that I've done. As policy, I'd much rather have fewer unwanted pregnancies and doctors more reluctant to perform abortions that banning it outright.

Still, there are bureaucrats and politicians meddling in personal medical decisions. If I was a woman and I was told by my doctor that my baby was not going to be viable, that it might have a brief and painful life before inevitably dying, yeah I'd want to abort, rather than pat myself on the back for this allegedly good deed that I've done. As policy, I'd much rather have fewer unwanted pregnancies and doctors more reluctant to perform abortions that banning it outright.

I don't think we as humans have any right to make that sort of decision. If the baby has any chance to live, let it live.

See though in that case the baby isnt going to live. It IS going to die young, either it will die in misery or die without pain.

That ethical system prioritizes breathing as long as possible whether you like it or not. If a baby experiences nothing but suffering, it's because god and nobody is allowed to question god.

I don't think the view deserves the slightest respect, but some people are pretty self-righteous about it.

Its an entirely different conversation but the stance on euthanasia in this country is laughable. We show dogs and cats more decency than humans in that regard.

It's related. The euthanasia factor is a significant part of the reason we have to have abortion rights.

Humanity= being a biologically independent (Which counts out cancer cells) human life.

A fetus, while connected to its mother, is biologically separate life.
Seems you ignored the point made, so I'll repeat it :

Is an arm a person ?
No.

Is someone having lost his four limbs a person ?
Yes.

Both have human DNA. What is the difference between the first and the second case ?
Sentience.

You may "don't think" sentience is the point, but well, you're wrong.

What about the rest of my post?
But if your opposition to abortion is derived from a divine command theory of ethics, doesn't that mean that criminalising abortion amounts to legislating religion? :huh:
Am I not getting an answer on any of this?

The thing is that the divine command really doesn't have anything to do with the debate. We all agree that homocide is something we have to be very careful with allowing. None of us want to allow immoral killing.

While the Catholic Church has declared the embryo morally important (so they're trying to legislate religious views), the majority of religions that're "pro-embryo" are that way because of social reasons, not religious reasons. They've thought things through, and decided that their faith believes that embryos are people ... but it's actually their beliefs that they're ascribing to the faith.

That is a very strange point of view.
Asking a girl "Hey, I think we have a moral obligation to create as much life as possible. Wanne hook up?" does also not require assistance. While just as pulling the fat guy up, sex is a collective effort. I am amazed with what grandeur you just missed the point :p

Hm... as long as you only bluffed - I think so. Based on the reasoning, that your moral obligation to save the mans life outweighs the immorality of threatening someone to kill him or her. And this again is based on the reasoning that death - as the ultimate end of all joy - means a greater harm than a trauma for having being threatened by a gun. Choosing the lesser of two evils.

That strikes me as not very reasonable. Why can I support a law for whatever reason I like except religion? After all, a religious person is in the end also only concerned with what is "right". There are really worse reasons. Like being selfish.

well, how about if your fat guy is swinging on a rope and you can only reach him at some point in the future?....

by eliminating your female helper's choice by threat and putting the fat guy's life above other matters, it would seem that your code of "collective moral obligation" and "greater good" morality could be used not only to justify a pro life stance, but also rape :p

well, how about if your fat guy is swinging on a rope and you can only reach him at some point in the future?....

by eliminating your female helper's choice by threat and putting the fat guy's life above other matters, it would seem that your code of "collective moral obligation" and "greater good" morality could be used not only to justify a pro life stance, but also rape :p

Quite a stretch, and no less offensive than somebody screaming baby-killer! :lol:

Quite a stretch, and no less offensive than somebody screaming baby-killer! :lol:

i guess the fat guy could cause the rope to stretch :mischief:, but there was absolutely no personal offence intended..."attack the argument, not the person" :goodjob: to be honest, i would be one to go out of my way to save the fat man and request the assistance of others.

There's one thing that always confused me.

One believes abortion is murder. And 50 million 'persons' have been murdered by abortion. And the action one decides to take against this brutal slaughtering is to complain about it on a message board.

I know that if I believed that this sort of mass murder was going on in my country, I would be a little more pro-active than that. And I believe that every most persons with a moral bone in their body would do more than nag about it on the interwebs. And I do consider those who are pro-life to not be immoral enough to just stand by and allow this to happen.

Therefore I feel it's safe to say that almost no one thinks it's murder. And that's actually a compliment to the pro-life people. Instead of sitting back and allowing the murder of innocent persons, they merely are using a debating tool. Which may be dishonest, but at least it's not as gruesome if they really did believe it to be murder.

So fellers, stick to your guns on the murder charges. And keep fighting the good, but entirely meaningless, fight from behind your keyboard. The silently screaming foetusses will be thankful for your non-intervention into the matter.

Would you really rather we bring the pipe bombers back? The doctor slayings? Speaking for pro-lifers, cynically as you are, demeans so much of the what and why of peaceful efforts they do. You don't think our "internet warriors" support lobbying groups or ever go to protests? You don't think they volunteer their time and money to organizations that provide assistance on linked issues? Would you rather quibble with the wording and call it "homicide" instead of "murder?"

Speak for yourself Ziggy.

Would you really rather we bring the pipe bombers back? The doctor slayings? Speaking for pro-lifers, cynically as you are, demeans so much of the what and why of peaceful efforts they do. You don't think our "internet warriors" support lobbying groups or ever go to protests? You don't think they volunteer their time and money to organizations that provide assistance on linked issues? Would you rather quibble with the wording and call it "homicide" instead of "murder?"

Speak for yourself Ziggy.

As to the bolded question... I doubt it. They certainly aren't helping adoption, and certainly aren't helping with birth control, the two most reliable methods of reducing abortion.

As to the bolded question... I doubt it. They certainly aren't helping adoption, and certainly aren't helping with birth control, the two most reliable methods of reducing abortion.

Then you aren't looking. Not all Christians, for example, who are pro-life are Catholics who oppose birth control. Go find somebody from, say, Lutheran Child and Family Services.

You aren't paying attention to these people because they aren't pissing you off which makes them boring news. There are more of us than you think.

Then you aren't looking. Not all Christians, for example, who are pro-life are Catholics who oppose birth control. Go find somebody from, say, Lutheran Child and Family Services.

You aren't paying attention to these people because they aren't pissing you off which makes them boring news. There are more of us than you think.

Fair point. I really only see the types that make the news.

Farm Boy is quite correct, better charity efforts will help *more* than all the pipe-bombing and internet-outrage even could.

Would you really rather we bring the pipe bombers back? The doctor slayings?Since I don't buy into the nonsense of calling it murder, I do not. But there's the catch. The accusation of murder by the millions is vastly more gruesome than the examples you provided. If you believe these people, abortion is a bigger mass-murder scheme than the holocaust. If I had been alive in Nazi Germany, I would hope I would take the action you described. I would indeed hope that I fought the concentration camps with bombs and nazi (doctor) slaying.

But you did not read my post well. I did compliment them. The fact that the pro-life people shouting murder are not doing those awful things is because they do realise that even in their view abortion is a moral wrong, but not on par with the wrong that murder is. I content that they use that as a debating tool for emotional impact. Which in my view isn't that big of a deal, irritating, but not a big deal. On the other hand, if they truly did believe aborting a foetus is on par with with murder, why aren't they stopping it by slaying doctors and bombing abortion centres? Think of how many lives it would save. Would a resistance fighter think twice to commit a horrible act like killing a Nazi guard to free Jews?

The compliment here is that they are merely trying to obfuscate the debate, instead of standing by while millions are murdered.
Speaking for pro-lifers, cynically as you are, demeans so much of the what and why of peaceful efforts they do. You don't think our "internet warriors" support lobbying groups or ever go to protests? You don't think they volunteer their time and money to organizations that provide assistance on linked issues?I have very little faith in that yes. I do believe that for the majority they stop at shouting "murder" on an internet forum.

But lets give them the benefit of the doubt. Again, I do not demean their peaceful actions. I applaud it. And I applaud the implication of those peaceful action. The implication being that they are capable of more moral relativity than they give themselves credit for. It's not being cynical, it's having a revelation. And I am glad I did, and I will view them more favourably because of it.
Would you rather quibble with the wording and call it "homicide" instead of "murder?"Same thing. Millions of people homicided. Blah.

Speak for yourself Ziggy.
I most certainly did. "I know that if I believed that this sort of mass murder was going on in my country, I would be a little more pro-active than that."

Same thing. Millions of people homicided. Blah.

No, it isn't.

We execute people for murder in much of this country. We don't do so for vehicular homicide. We don't do so for reckless homicide. The culpability of the actor is materially different. If you have had a revelation I would suspect its truth is limited to the fact that most people really don't know the distinction between the two, thus use the word "murder" when they mean "homicide."

But the critics do use the word "murder" which makes it reasonable to assume that they wish to see it treated like "murder", no matter what the legal definition of murder really is. If they just use it as a rhetorical tool, then Ziggy's theory is proven right.

Isn't murder a type of homicide? Not really relevant to the point they make when they say: morally it's murder. So legal implications don't matter. Blah.

But I take it, judging by the detour, you are a little less taken aback by my reasoning.

well, how about if your fat guy is swinging on a rope and you can only reach him at some point in the future?....

by eliminating your female helper's choice by threat and putting the fat guy's life above other matters, it would seem that your code of "collective moral obligation" and "greater good" morality could be used not only to justify a pro life stance, but also rape :p
In deed! But only if you rape without condom, so no risk-free pass for rapers. :nono:

Just goes to show that the desires of merely hypothetical beings are way to inconvenient to bother about. And on the other hand: Who is not can not regret to not be. I'll just go ahead and assume that this makes it morally alright to not care.

Murder is a type of homicide, not all homicide is murder. It isn't really a detour. Legal implications do matter because, at least in this case, they are modeled after moral implications.

You don't have people waging armed conflict over drunk driving fatalities, which would be classified as a type of homicide.

I'm not really taken aback by your reasoning. I'm just asserting that most people use the wrong word to describe how they feel. This error isn't in how they view the unborn, it is an error in how they are defining their views on the culpability of the actors who perform/undergo/enable abortions. Murder is a common-use term, homicide isn't really.

Well, a lot of the debate is on whether abortion is homocide or not.

That said, I greatly welcome the diversions (exemplified usually by Lucy or Farm Boy) that point out that the debate doesn't help reduce the number of abortions very much, even though it's actually a common goal.

Murder is a type of homicide, not all homicide is murder. It isn't really a detour. Legal implications do matter because, at least in this case, they are modeled after moral implications.

You don't have people waging armed conflict over drunk driving fatalities, which would be classified as a type of homicide.

I'm not really taken aback by your reasoning. I'm just asserting that most people use the wrong word to describe how they feel. This error isn't in how they view the unborn, it is an error in how they are defining their views on the culpability of the actors who perform/undergo/enable abortions. Murder is a common-use term, homicide isn't really.
Well, I'm aware of at least one abortion opponent on this board (you have one guess) who actually said that women who have aborted deserve the death sentence, just like murderers.

Is that representative of all abortion opponents? I don't think so, but that's the mindset that dominates the debates.

To Ziggy Stardust:

Your argument, that if they really considered it as homicides, they would do more to stop it than just talking, is erroneus.

There were many mass-murders, genocides and other crimes against life in history when only few people did something to stop it.

For example during WW2, or before that during WW1 (Armenian genocide, etc.). Or after 1945 for example in Africa, in the Balkans, etc., etc.

This happens everyday (various mass crimes against life) and nothing is done.

In China human lifes are not respected - what did the US authorities do about that? They shake hands with Chinese leaders every day. When China occupies Tibet and violates human rights, nothing is done. When Ukraine mistreats Yulia Tymoshenko, everyone boycotts Euro 2012. And nobody has boycotted Sochi 2014 so far, despite much more serious crimes commited by China every day. This reveals deceitfulness of so called "Western democracies" and their leaders.

Abortion cliniques yield considerable profits - just like businesses with strong China (and contrary to businesses with weak Ukraine).

So at the risk of invalidating the pose of empiricism that I adopt above, I'd hazard that "natural rights" isn't simply an idea that is simply wrong, that needs to be abandoned as an error, but rather something that needs to be surpassed, that has functioned as the historically necessary condition of such a paradigm. You could debate when that becomes the case, and in all honesty I'm not entirely sure myself, but I think that it's a point in time that we have either arrived at, or that we will arrive at in the not too distant near future. My rejection of natural rights theory may seem nihilistic, and in a certain sense it is, but it's not an ahistorical nihilism, a claim that "this is objectively bollocks", but an historical one, a claim that the theory is no longer sufficient as the articulation of our emancipatory impulse.

Is the bolded part anything more than wishful thinking? What's your evidence here?

(ps. Sorry I didn't respond sooner. RL's been crazy.)

That would be the first massive killing program in a free and democratic society and without any attempt to hide it though. So quit different.

Well, a lot of the debate is on whether abortion is homocide or not.

There's one thing that always confused me.

One believes abortion is murder. And 50 million 'persons' have been murdered by abortion. And the action one decides to take against this brutal slaughtering is to complain about it on a message board.

I know that if I believed that this sort of mass murder was going on in my country, I would be a little more pro-active than that. And I believe that every most persons with a moral bone in their body would do more than nag about it on the interwebs. And I do consider those who are pro-life to not be immoral enough to just stand by and allow this to happen.

Therefore I feel it's safe to say that almost no one thinks it's murder. And that's actually a compliment to the pro-life people. Instead of sitting back and allowing the murder of innocent persons, they merely are using a debating tool. Which may be dishonest, but at least it's not as gruesome if they really did believe it to be murder.

So fellers, stick to your guns on the murder charges. And keep fighting the good, but entirely meaningless, fight from behind your keyboard. The silently screaming foetusses will be thankful for your non-intervention into the matter.

sorry, but this is not an "argument"...it is one feller just finding a way to call people he doesnt agree with hypocrites.....

If you feel that way, you missed my point

One of reasons why in some countries there is strong pro-abortion lobby, is because abortion cliniques yield considerable profits.

For the same reason internal combustion engines have not yet been replaced by better technology - because of strong pro-oil industry lobby.

If you feel that way, you missed my point

because you did not make one, you only spoke to the thought and actions of others, whom you dont even agree with.....it would be like me saying "I dont believe in justice or human rights, but those that do are a bunch of hypocrites sitting here typing up bs on this forum....they should be taking up arms in some hell hole or feeding babies in africa...

To Ziggy Stardust:

Your argument, that if they really considered it as homicides, they would do more to stop it than just talking, is erroneus."if they consider it worse than the holocaust really". And that has been claimed numerous times. And they do insist on having it on par with murder morally.
There were many mass-murders, genocides and other crimes against life in history when only few people did something to stop it.

For example during WW2, or before that during WW1 (Armenian genocide, etc.). Or after 1945 for example in Africa, in the Balkans, etc., etc.

This happens everyday (various mass crimes against life) and nothing is done.

In China human lifes are not respected - what did the US authorities do about that? They shake hands with Chinese leaders every day. When China occupies Tibet and violates human rights, nothing is done. When Ukraine mistreats Yulia Tymoshenko, everyone boycotts Euro 2012. And nobody has boycotted Sochi 2014 so far, despite much more serious crimes commited by China every day. This reveals deceitfulness of so called "Western democracies" and their leaders.

Abortion cliniques yield considerable profits - just like businesses with strong China (and contrary to businesses with weak Ukraine).I specifically said: "If I knew these things were going on in my country". I am aware we don't really give that much of a crap about people in far away places.

because you did not make oneRiiiiight.

Please explain where you found the accusation of hypocrisy in my post. A quote would be nice.
you only spoke to the thought and actions of others, whom you dont even agree with.....it would be like me saying "I dont believe in justice or human rights, but those that do are a bunch of hypocrites sitting here typing up bs on this forum....they should be taking up arms in some hell hole or feeding babies in africa...And you also didn't read my post very well.

For the same reason internal combustion engines have not yet been replaced by better technology - because of strong pro-oil industry lobby.
So to refer to the most discussed alternative - electronic cars - I take it the expensiveness of those, their short range of operation, the long time it takes to recharge them and the short life-expectancy of the batteries all are not relevant? Or perhaps those are all lies facilitated by you know who?

A small illustration from this thread which has been civil compared to others. Others where I have been accused of supporting mass-murder for instance.
That said, abortion is much, much more evil than slavery. At least slavery wasn't murder
Abortion is murder, its barbaric, and I have absolutely no fear of pointing this out.
The question is then "Why shouldn't murder be allowed" from our side.
If the pro-life argument is right, then abortion is one of the biggest atrocities in the history of mankind.
Now you may disagree with my reasoning all day long, but you can't disagree that "the biggest atrocity in the history of mankind" is a little more severe than a homocide.

Furthermore I may need to point out, unfortunately, that I was not addressing the entirety of the pro-life movement, but specified people who use these specific arguments. And I called them more level-headed than I previously gave them credit for.

I'm so sorry. I'll go back to thinking they're fruit-loopy insane if that's more acceptable.

Please explain where you found the accusation of hypocrisy in my post. A quote would be nice.



Therefore I feel it's safe to say that almost no one thinks it's murder. And that's actually a compliment to the pro-life people. Instead of sitting back and allowing the murder of innocent persons, they merely are using a debating tool. Which may be dishonest, but at least it's not as gruesome if they really did believe it to be murder.

So fellers, stick to your guns on the murder charges. And keep fighting the good, but entirely meaningless, fight from behind your keyboard. The silently screaming foetusses will be thankful for your non-intervention into the matter.

hypocrisy, ad hominen at it's best.. :goodjob:

Well, I'm aware of at least one abortion opponent on this board (you have one guess) who actually said that women who have aborted deserve the death sentence, just like murderers.

Is that representative of all abortion opponents? I don't think so, but that's the mindset that dominates the debates.

It's the most extreme mindset so it is what will be picked out by opponents. Pro-choicers have probably had a significant part in framing pro-lifers this way, because it makes their opposition seem the worst. I think that goes both ways. Late-term intact dilation and extraction abortions and "repeated abortion as birth control" are what pro-lifers are going to pick out from the pro-choice crowd.

The thing we have to keep in mind is the most extreme of us are usually less invested in actual improvement in the human condition than in "being right." Don't drink their Kool-Aid. :lol:

I'm so sorry. I'll go back to thinking they're fruit-loopy insane if that's more acceptable.

Ok, perhaps we can clarify what we mean. I've probably missed some of your meaning.

I'm taking your point to be "I find the actions of the pro-life population to indicate that they actually have gradated views on the personhood/humanity/whatever of the unborn."

If this is correct, I am challenging this point and counter-asserting that pro-lifers who actually use the term "murder" do not generally have a shifting scale in regard to embryos/fetuses/zygotes and instead are improperly using the word murder when it overstates how culpable they think those who enable/undergo/perform abortions are.

Was that a poor read on my part, pretty close to the truth, or me rolling the wrong way with some ambiguity?

hypocrisy, ad hominen at it's best.. :goodjob:
I am not saying they are holding others to standards they do not keep themselves. I am also not saying that because of a personal flaw they have they are wrong. So I'm neither accusing them of hypocrisy nor am I using an ad hominem.

But I do notice how you use those terms to create an emotional impact. Now where have I heard that before ...
Ok, perhaps we can clarify what we mean. I've probably missed some of your meaning.

I'm taking your point to be "I find the actions of the pro-life population to indicate that they actually have gradated views on the personhood/humanity/whatever of the unborn."Nope. I already knew that.

If this is correct, I am challenging this point and counter-asserting that pro-lifers who actually use the term "murder" do not generally have a shifting scale in regard to embryos/fetuses/zygotes and instead are improperly using the word murder when it overstates how culpable they think those who enable/undergo/perform abortions are.But they are adamant about it. I often addressed them on their usage and their reasoning is, sure legally it isn't murder, but morally it is equivalent to it.
Was that a poor read on my part, pretty close to the truth, or me rolling the wrong way with some ambiguity?
After I have just been accused of calling people hypocrites and saying their stupid thus their argument is invalid, I would dearly love to say you're spot on. But I'm afraid I keep failing at getting my point across ;)

Simply put: I believe they are aware they do not think of abortion as murder, but since it helps their case in a debate, they'll use it and stick to it.

hypocrisy, ad hominen at it's best.. :goodjob:
Do you actually know what the term "ad hominem" means? (You certainly can't spell it.)

Have you considered the possibility that they aren't aware of their own distinction between murder and homicide because you, in opposition to them rhetorically, have thought more extensively than they have about the moral ramifications of their position?