Even if a fetus is not a person, abortion is still wrong.

Red Stranger · Sep 23, 2006

A lot of the controversy of whether or not abortion should be legal revolves around the argument whether or not a fetus is a person. If it is a person, then abortion is murder. If it's not, then it's not murder. However even if it's not abortion is still wrong. For example, is an arm a person. Of course not. It's part of a person, but not a person. But does that make it right for someone to stick a coathanger in your arm every time they feel guilty about having sex? I wouldn't want that to happen to me, and I believe a majority of the people wouldn't want that to happen to them either. If someone does stick a coathanger into your arm, I hope they'd be punished for it. I don't think they should be charged with murder, but they shoudn't be let off scott free. Therefore, even if a fetus is not a person, abortion is still wrong.

Please don't talk about how there are other methods of abortion besides the coathanger. That's not the point. The point is that it's still wrong.

ainwood · Sep 23, 2006

If I feel guilty about eating, and someone sticks a coathanger in my arm, does that make eating 'wrong'?

If someone cuts my fingernails, is that wrong?

Sorry, but I don't really understand your point. :confused:

Mr. Dictator · Sep 23, 2006

a tumor just grows naturally...should we just leave it?

not saying that a baby is a tumor but it isnt an arm either.

Adamb0mb · Sep 23, 2006

Having legal abortions is kind of like having a military. In a perfect world you wouldn't need either. The world is not perfect.

G-Force Junkie · Sep 23, 2006

I think he means that the fetus is a part of the woman, which I suppose is true in a way, but it isn't a part that is necessary for day to day life like an arm is (all "a fetus is a person" aside).

On a side note, lopping the arm off would be a more apt analogy for abortion than an arm poke/stab.

Eran of Arcadia · Sep 23, 2006

I don't know if the comparison is apt. What if having legal abortions is like legalizing murder?

It really does depend on whether the fetus can be considered a person, which in turn depends on what a person is. We grant to comatose humans rights that chimpanzees don't have - so the difference must be genetic. But we don't grant these rights to zygotes, so it must not be. Etc.

Red Stranger · Sep 23, 2006

ainwood said:
If I feel guilty about eating, and someone sticks a coathanger in my arm, does that make eating 'wrong'?

That argument is only good if I were to claim that having sex is wrong. Which I didn't. If you feel guilty about eating and someone sticks a coathanger in your arm, it still makes sticking a coathanger in your arm wrong.

If someone cuts my fingernails, is that wrong?

If someone cuts your finger, is that wrong? A fetus, even if it's not a person is much closer to an arm than a fingernail.

Eran of Arcadia · Sep 23, 2006

But it's not illegal to cut off your own finger. It is to cut off someone else's finger, however, which is why we need so desperately to figure out whether a fetus has a right not to be killed.

ainwood · Sep 23, 2006

Red Stranger said:
That argument is only good if I were to claim that having sex is wrong. Which I didn't. If you feel guilty about eating and someone sticks a coathanger in your arm, it still makes sticking a coathanger in your arm wrong.

OK. So you've now clarified that sticking a coathanger into someone's arm is wrong, regardless.

If someone cuts your finger, is that wrong? A fetus, even if it's not a person is much closer to an arm than a fingernail.

Maybe, if you're setting-up a strawman.

Eran of Arcadia · Sep 23, 2006

Yeah, I am as anti-abortion as almost anyone around here and I don't get what you are saying.

Red Stranger · Sep 23, 2006

ainwood said:
Maybe, if you're setting-up a strawman.

If you're accusing me of using a strawman argument, it behooves you to know what a strawman argument is. At no point in my argument did I use any element of a strawman argument. And if you're inquiring whether I'm stuffing hay in my pants, then I have no idea why you would ask that.

Birdjaguar · Sep 23, 2006

Is life sacred? Clearly it is not. Humans destroy life all the time, every day.

Is human life sacred? Sometimes. Individually and collectively, we decide on a case by case basis. There are times when human life is important to save and others when it is not.

How about a fetus? Well, we treat it better than life in general and it seems to have been granted a "sometimes" status. There are times when very effort is made to save one and other times when an effort is made to kill one.

The abortion debate is not about life or death or choice, it is about political power. It is about fundraising. It is about control.

G-Force Junkie · Sep 23, 2006

In regards to posession of the fetus, since half of the material from the father, if the father is willing to raise the kid on his own, it seems a bit harsh to kill the fetus before it can grow into a child. But I suppose this leads to a lack of discussion of paternal rights in the case of abortion because it is within the woman's body.

Eran of Arcadia · Sep 23, 2006

@BJ: Err, no, it stems from inconsistent views as to what constitutes human life, and as to what life is worth saving, or preserving, and at what costs.

ainwood · Sep 23, 2006

Red Stranger said:
If you're accusing me of using a strawman argument, it behooves you to know what a strawman argument is. At no point in my argument did I use any element of a strawman argument.

The position that abortion is 'wrong' because it akin to cutting off an arm relies on people to consider that a foetus is like an arm.

By saying:

A fetus, even if it's not a person is much closer to an arm than a fingernail

you are making a statement of opinion, but presenting it as fact. This is what I don't agree with.

Birdjaguar · Sep 23, 2006

Eran of Arcadia said:
@BJ: Err, no, it stems from inconsistent views as to what constitutes human life, and as to what life is worth saving, or preserving, and at what costs.

The abortion debate is a way for both ends of the political spectrum to raise funds and get candidates elected. Making abortions illegal would be the worst thing to happen to the Republican party since Watergate. There may be some people who would like to see abortions stopped, because they believe any number of inconsistent things, but they are the patsies of the politicians who need the debate to keep the money and votes flowing. If Roe v Wade is overturned a significant number of conservative voters will stop voting or helping to get other conservatives to vote. They will feel they have won a great victory and go back to being apathetic citizens. The Republicans cannot afford to let that happen.

Homie · Sep 23, 2006

Eran, why do you say that you don't know what he is saying when clearly you do.

Eran said:
But it's not illegal to cut off your own finger. It is to cut off someone else's finger, however, which is why we need so desperately to figure out whether a fetus has a right not to be killed.

And might I add you are the only one that actually does seem to understand what he is saying.

Anyway, Red, your analogy only works if cutting off one's own member was illegal, which it is not. Nice try though. Lets just stick with the fact that a fetus is still human life, and taking human life is wrong.

Jawz II · Sep 23, 2006

i honestly dont know. is it wrong or right? i know it shouldnt be done frivolously. which im sure at least 98% of women arent doing.

but i also know i dont think its murder. ive said it before and ill say it again, if you anti abortion people really think its murder, then why dont you actually do something to stop it? i mean beside protesting.

and i dont mean you should bomb the clinics or killing the doctors (pro life huh?), how about adopting a few crack babies? or donating money to orphanages every month?

i know if i thought it was murder of little ones i defenitly do something about it.

HawkeyeGS · Sep 23, 2006

I think the main thing about murder (of people after birth) and cutting off their arms is that it causes pain. Since pain is undesirable we tend to make inflicting it illegal. I believe that since there is no feeling in your babies well before birth that there is essentialy no victim. If abortion is completely banned then the mother may suffer for any number of physical and emotional reasons associated with an unwanted or dangerous pregnancy. Hence I believe that abortion should be made readily availiable to mothers whose babies have not developed feeling (i don't know the age this happens) or at any time during the pregnancy becomes dangerous. I myself would not impose any belief on anyone even partner/friends. I believe that the main reason for the debate is that religious people believe it is against their beliefs. Fine, don't have one. Just as we don't want to go around all the religious women and abort their unborn babies the religious people should not try and influence non-religious people into adopting their ways. Or are we not living in a country of free religion? BTW my opinion is the same on the religious intervention into the gay debate.

brennan · Sep 23, 2006

Grapefruits are not people. Is it still wrong to stick a coathanger in a grapefruit?

If a foetus is not a person then it is not a person. If you want to stick yourself with coathangers then be my guest, but please take your lousy logic elsewhere.

Even if a fetus is not a person, abortion is still wrong.

Emperor

Consultant.

A Chain-Smoking Fox

Lawless

Old Vulcan Guy

Stormin' Mormon

Emperor

Stormin' Mormon

Consultant.

Stormin' Mormon

Emperor

Hanafubuki

Old Vulcan Guy

Stormin' Mormon

Consultant.

Hanafubuki

Anti-Lefty

Oh Dear

Prince

Argumentative Brit

Similar threads