Abortion - What do you think about it?

[Simon Darkshade]

Originally posted by WinstonJen


Phillipe is right. If the mother goes ahead and has the baby, it will be a constant reminder of the rape to her.

Phillipe is most certainly NOT right, and you too fall into the same trap.
The mother can have the baby, and it can be adopted away to have a life of its own. If it is not there, then it is not a reminder.

And even if it is, tough luck. Murder is a greater crime than rape.
His Evilness has made his judgement for the day. Case closed.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
FearlessLeader2:

"Back to the flour mills, Pappy!

I own this debate."

"

*sigh* I am so beset by ignorance. Be-MOAN, be-WAIL, guh-NASH of my teeth. Dramatist. This patheic 'point' has been refuted.
Give it up."

What, I'm not allowed to add snappy comments to my rebuttals? That's half of my charm!

And the last one was in response to my third or fourth savaging of the particularly repugnant sentience argument by the same person. The sentience argument is dead and buried, let it rest in peace.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by philippe
heres my opninion again because i think that some poeple never looked at the first pages
i have this opnion pro-lifepoeple TRY to convince me this is wrong without flaming

I'll see what I can do.

Originally posted by philippe
well i think that abartion should be legal alway during the first 3 months of the pregnacy and after that period the mother must accept that its to late to abort the foetus.

why abortion?
1)by raping that you get pregnant thru it

Adoption.

Originally posted by philippe
2)if the mother is to young like those teenage mothers. a child who gets a child.

Adoption.

Originally posted by philippe
3)if the mother gets the baby by a affair

Adoption, and say, have you ever heard of taking responsibility for your own actions?

Originally posted by philippe
4)if the mother is psychally weak or mentally weak

Adoption.

Originally posted by philippe
5)(this one im against at but i can understand it)
if the foetus has the system of down or is gehandicapt.
(like a mother who doesnt want to care a mongol like they say for people who have the system of down

And last but not least, Adoption.

Originally posted by philippe
6)other reasons i might have forgot

Wow, that kind of leaves the door wide open, huh?

"It's Tuesday. I hate Tuesdays, I'm going to get an abortion."
"It's raining. I hate rain, I'm going to get an abortion."
"Eew, a dog licked my hand!! I'm getting an abortion!"
etc...

 

[allan2]

Philippe: "why abortion?
1)by raping that you get pregnant thru it
2)if the mother is to young like those teenage mothers. a child who gets a child.
3)if the mother gets the baby by a affair
4)if the mother is psychally weak or mentally weak
5)(this one im against at but i can understand it)
if the foetus has the system of down or is gehandicapt.
(like a mother who doesnt want to care a mongol like they say for people who have the system of down
6)other reasons i might have forgot"

The basic debate about abortion stems from the question: when does a group of cells become a living human being? I.e., the questions, "is it murder?" or "when would it become murder?" lie in that first question.

So, if it is murder, then it should only be allowed in cases where killing is allowed--self-defense. I.e. "to save the life of the mother."

If it is not murder, then why have this conditional list of when to allow it and when not to? Something it would take a multibillion-dollar bureaucracy to "enforce" (if that's possible)? If it is not murder, then it should be allowed in any situtation.

Again, like I said before, the jury is still out in me as to whether or not it is murder. I hear and understand arguments on both sides of this, and indeed it is a very weighty moral question.

But it's either all or nothing--why have peripheral considerations that have nothing to do with the act itself?

What I DO oppose is using taxpayer money to fund abortions--not just out of basic libertarian principle, but also because a person who honestly believes this is murder (and they have some good reasons for thinking so), should not be forced to pay for enabling such acts.

 

[allan2]

To be fair, I'll also rebut "the other side" :

FL2: "What, I'm not allowed to add snappy comments to my rebuttals? That's half of my charm!"

You should know though that cockiness is almost a sure indication of lack of self-confidence, and cockiness in an argument is an indication of underlying lack of confidence in your own arguments. Of course I doubt you'd see that in yourself (I've been the "cocky one" too before), but maybe you would....

FL2: "And the last one was in response to my third or fourth savaging of the particularly repugnant sentience argument by the same person. The sentience argument is dead and buried, let it rest in peace."

I don't see it as "dead", let alone you having "killed it" with your overwhelmingly glorious wit....

I'm no moral relativist--like I said, IF it is murder, then it should be treated as such, with no mitigating arguments other than self-defense.

But that's an "if" to me--personally I see some validity to Akka's arguments. The human brain is what defines a human being. The brain is what defines "dead" and "alive". Even coma patients have SOME brain activity while comatose--they are not completely "brain dead". And they retain memories when they come out of a coma, which they wouldn't if the brain "died" in the interim. Supposedly talking to a comatose person helps him toward recovery too--why do you think that is? SOME brain activity makes all the difference from NONE, which is what a fetus has before it gets a brain, and a legally dead person has.

And I think you know that throwing up fancy debate slogans and cliches ("strawman" indeed) won't cow me. They didn't cow anybody else here either.

State your position plain, we're all adults here--and respect goes BOTH ways.

Your argument about potential being important could be a good one, but we won't know it for all the posturing you're doing, will we? As cocky as you've been getting, it doesn't seem like you're all that sure yourself....

 

[WinstonJen]

The difference between murder and killing (IMO).

Murder = premeditated act with a malign intention.

Killing = all acts that consciously end life, including murder, but also including self-defense, killing in wartime, etc.

 

[MrPresident]

A lot of people have stated on these pages that adoption is an alternative to abortion, and it is. However at the moment there are far more children up for adoption than people ready to adopt them. So if all of these babies that were previously aborted now are born and given up for adoption. I think it can safely be said that it is unlikely that they will be adopted. That will not only mean that they grow up without any parent but that it will have to be paid for by the state. That means higher taxes or reallocation of resources. So maybe adoption is a nice easy solution to the problem that pro-life people can tell pro-abortion people. However in practical terms it is hardly the ideal solution. Unless of course all the pro-life people in the world adopted a child but how many people think that is likely?

 

[WinstonJen]

Originally posted by The Troquelet

The only self defense war takes place on your own land.

What about 'civil' wars?

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by FearlessLeader2

Very well, the hair is sufficiently split. By the old by, did you happen to notice how I capitilised 'alone', almost as if I were implying that it was one that did not meet the egg, hmm? That's a mighty fine scarecrow ya got there.

Well, then it will die.
If the embryo fail to catch the uterin wall, it will die too.
If you cared to read the entirety of what I wrote, you would have see that I talked about the situation where the spermatozoid doesn't find any egg.

Oh, so it's not a fact that an embreyo will develop a brain if nothing messes with it?

I will be rich and the master of the world if nothing messes with me. Still, hoping for it won't make it as true as if it's the case.

A coma patient HAD a mind. Currently he is in the coma, a by definition mindless slumber. In that sense, he is identical to the baby in the womb. While neither has a mind yet, both are expected to someday, although the baby's expectation is nigh guaranteed, if nobody kills it first.

False.
A coma patient HAVE a mind. If he was in the situation where he HAD a brain, that would means his mind is destroyed, hence the patient would never be able to recover from the coma. An embryo had no mind and still has not. You're talking about comparing the rights of something that could perhaps get a mind later and someone who already has one.
Being "conscious" is a scarecrow (you seem to love this word, so I felt compelled to please you). When you sleep you're barely conscious, still I suppose you don't think it's okay to kill someone who is sleeping ?

That's a mighty fine scarecrow ya got there.

So mighty that you prefered to avoid it rather than deal with it.

Ah, you are not an American, and are not familiar with our legal history. Roe vs. Wade is the famous abortion legal battle that the Supreme Court of the US used as an excuse to sidetrack the legislature and create a pro-abortion legal climate in the US. In it, the father sued the mother to prevent her from getting an abortion, and lost.

Well, I learned something, which is something never to be neglected.
Still, I don't see the link with the debate : we're talking about the morality of destroying an embryo, not how it's handled by american justice.

*sigh* I am so beset by ignorance. Be-MOAN, be-WAIL, guh-NASH of my teeth. Dramatist. This patheic 'point' has been refuted. Give it up.

Refuted ? Where and when ?
You considering that the hope to develop a mind is as valuable as the fact to already have one is no proof nor refutation. It's basically only your unbacked opinion.

I recommend that you not call God's attention to yourself until your views are more in accordance with His. Just a thought. Pascal's Wager and all, you know?

No, I don't know Pascal's Wager.
And I don't require your permission to call for God's attention. As far as I know, HE is the only one who is able to answer for Himself, and you're not His voice.
Sin of Pride, you know ?

That's a mighty fine scarecrow ya got there. Let's just stick with the ones that women are trying to remove like some stubborn stain, shall we? Leave the straw-men for the farmer's corn patch.

It is your habits to call any fact that is annoying a "scarecrow" ?
Care about the real facts ?
As much as 20-25 % of any pregnancy is a miscarriage.
It can goes up to 50-70 % for the very first days, when there is no way for the woman to know she is pregnant.
But of course it disturb you, because it shows that it's not at all guaranteed that an embryo will develop, hence reducing the power of the "hope" for it to gain a mind.

But currently, he is effectively mindless, n'est ce pas? Just like a baby in the womb.

No.
First he is not mindless. He is just unconscious. He still retains his mind.
Second, the embryo (not the BABY, a BABY is a fetus that has developped to the stage he is a member of humanity) has NEVER had any mind. It's not a human being. The hope that it will become a human being does not make it a human being.

Same argument that I've shot down dozens of times, you mean. It is discrimination based on age, appearance, or mental handicap, your choice. And no matter which one you choose, it is morally repugnant.

You did not shot it down, you just mixed the hope to be a human in the future with the fact to be a human in the present.
It's discrimination based on the fact that :
1) you have a mind or not, nothing to do with age or mental abilities. If you consider that mindless things have as many rights than sentient ones, well I will sue you of murder because you broke a stone.
2) you are member of a race that is able to reach a level of sentience that allows it to grasp metaphysical questions.

I find much more morally repugnant to force a woman to bear a pregnancy she never wanted for nine months just to protect something that is not even a being. I don't even talk about the difficulties for both the parents and the child after the birth.
That's hurting up to three human beings to protect a thing. Great morality.

That's a mighty fine scarecrow ya got there. How do they have less rights? Their wills are enacted after their deaths, they have their own court of law in which those wills are debated, their graves are protected from molestation by all sorts of laws, and many of the wealthier dead retain their property inperpetuity, and the income from it is used to fund charitable contributions in their name for decades after they die.

Oh. So you mean that the dead got out from its grave and enacted its wills ?
Or do you mean that once the person is dead, her wishes that she MADE KNOW WHEN SHE WAS LIVING are applied ? And that the properties retained are the properties FROM THE TIME SHE WAS ALIVE ?

This argument, like all of your previous ones, holds no water, and has no weight. Back to the flour mills, Pappy!

What's sad is that you probably believe it.

I own this debate.

Shows quite clearly your level of maturity and blindness. I hope it was only a kind of joke, or I would be quite sad to have lost so much time just to allow a teen to think he's cool while he was not even able to refute ONE of my arguments.


EDIT : I found an interesting site here which says that abortion is NOT condemned in the Bible, and that an embryo is NOT considered a full human being.
Of course, I'm not an expert in Bible study, so this site can be just a full of crap. But I think our religious folks should have a look anyway, if only to be able to refute it.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by allan2
The basic debate about abortion stems from the question: when does a group of cells become a living human being? I.e., the questions, "is it murder?" or "when would it become murder?" lie in that first question.

So, if it is murder, then it should only be allowed in cases where killing is allowed--self-defense. I.e. "to save the life of the mother."

If it is not murder, then why have this conditional list of when to allow it and when not to? Something it would take a multibillion-dollar bureaucracy to "enforce" (if that's possible)? If it is not murder, then it should be allowed in any situtation.

Again, like I said before, the jury is still out in me as to whether or not it is murder. I hear and understand arguments on both sides of this, and indeed it is a very weighty moral question.

But it's either all or nothing--why have peripheral considerations that have nothing to do with the act itself?

Quite my point here. IF it's murder, then it should not happen. If it's not, then there is no need to justify anything about it.

What I DO oppose is using taxpayer money to fund abortions--not just out of basic libertarian principle, but also because a person who honestly believes this is murder (and they have some good reasons for thinking so), should not be forced to pay for enabling such acts.

I can understand this part. Still, I disagree with it. I consider that abortion is a medical treatment as any other, and should then be paid by the social security.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


Phillipe is most certainly NOT right, and you too fall into the same trap.
The mother can have the baby, and it can be adopted away to have a life of its own. If it is not there, then it is not a reminder.

And even if it is, tough luck. Murder is a greater crime than rape.
His Evilness has made his judgement for the day. Case closed.

I agree. I have numerous relatives that I consider constant reminders of tramatic times past they themselves have caused, but I don't knock them off because of that.

 

[Hurricane]

Originally posted by allan2
What I DO oppose is using taxpayer money to fund abortions--not just out of basic libertarian principle, but also because a person who honestly believes this is murder (and they have some good reasons for thinking so), should not be forced to pay for enabling such acts. [/B]

I think this is where you have to take social considerations. If the mother (and in many cases, there is nobody else around to support her) has to pay for it herself, we come up with the dilemma about what happens when the mother can´t afford the abortion:

1. She uses home-made techniques to force a miscarriage (coat hangers and similar life-threathening stuff).
2. She gives birth to the baby and then a) gives it away or b) leaves it somewhere in the gutter to die.

Alternative 2 also means abortion suddenly becomes a privilege only for the rich, which of course should not be supported.

 

[WinstonJen]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


Phillipe is most certainly NOT right, and you too fall into the same trap.
The mother can have the baby, and it can be adopted away to have a life of its own. If it is not there, then it is not a reminder.

And even if it is, tough luck. Murder is a greater crime than rape.
His Evilness has made his judgement for the day. Case closed.

I feel that rape is worse than murder, because the negative effects can last longer - possibly a lifetime. Murder is over and done with after the act. And there's no more pain for the dead person.

 

[Akka]

Originally posted by WinstonJen


I feel that rape is worse than murder, because the negative effects can last longer - possibly a lifetime. Murder is over and done with after the act. And there's no more pain for the dead person.

No.
You should perhaps think twice about it : rape is a harsh traumatic experience, that can last up to lifetime.
Murder is the END of lifetime.
It's not because the dead can't scream that the one who is alive would not have wished to stay alive a little more.
I would prefer to be traumatised but alive. At least I can choose to die if life become truly unbearable.
I would also prefer to have a girlfriend raped than dead.

 

[philippe]

uhm fearless what are you gonna do with all those children?adoption is not the key.
and think a sec.do you really want that?whats would happen if the child wants to see its real parents?
adopted childh mommy didnt wanted me
adopted child:mommy is glad to get rid of me
fearless i dont want to flame but think a sec.
think about the kids themself.
like the parents would say.oh damn i got pregnant i hmust adopt it now.20 years later.....
young person on the door:mom?
and then starts the big problem that person will be truamatised that his parents didnt want him/her...

 

[CurtSibling]

As my final post here...
I will say that all children should be given a chance in life,
we adults owe them that first and foremost.

There is no one clear answer to this sensitive topic.

 

[WinstonJen]

Originally posted by Akka


No.
You should perhaps think twice about it : rape is a harsh traumatic experience, that can last up to lifetime.
Murder is the END of lifetime.
It's not because the dead can't scream that the one who is alive would not have wished to stay alive a little more.
I would prefer to be traumatised but alive. At least I can choose to die if life become truly unbearable.
I would also prefer to have a girlfriend raped than dead.

But would your girlfriend prefer life after rape to death? Not in all cases. How many rape victims end up commiting suicide? Not to mention the difficulty they have going to court if they want to prosecute the perpetrator.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by philippe
uhm fearless what are you gonna do with all those children?adoption is not the key.
and think a sec.do you really want that?whats would happen if the child wants to see its real parents?
adopted childh mommy didnt wanted me
adopted child:mommy is glad to get rid of me
fearless i dont want to flame but think a sec.
think about the kids themself.
like the parents would say.oh damn i got pregnant i hmust adopt it now.20 years later.....
young person on the door:mom?
and then starts the big problem that person will be truamatised that his parents didnt want him/her...

Don't you think that child should be allowed to grow up and decide whether or not to BE traumatized? I can't believe the logic that you try to use. 'Better to kill someone that hurt their feelings.' Think about THAT.

 

[The Troquelet]

Idiocy on both sides as per usual. Guy would rather have his GF raped than dead. I wonder what the reason for THAT is?

Still don't see application of morals in this argument. Think we can close debate with this question: would you rather have a woman give herself an abortion with a clothes hanger, or have a doctor do it for her? cause no matter how high and moral you are, how good you are at oratory, how convincing you are, no matter if God is on your side or not, no matter if the law is on your side or not, women are ALWAYS going to have abortions. Call them evil or moral-less if you like. Doubt they care. Decision YOU have to make is, what's the best way for them to kill their children. Sound harsh? Life is bad. Get used to it. Nobody's going to bow down before your preaching. Be practical. Go for the lesser evil. People are going to break laws they don't like, and they sure don't like this one.

I want an honest answer to that question in bold.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

Originally posted by Akka
False. A coma patient HAVE a mind. If he was in the situation where he HAD a brain, that would means his mind is destroyed, hence the patient would never be able to recover from the coma. An embryo had no mind and still has not. You're talking about comparing the rights of something that could perhaps get a mind later and someone who already has one.
Being "conscious" is a scarecrow (you seem to love this word, so I felt compelled to please you). When you sleep you're barely conscious, still I suppose you don't think it's okay to kill someone who is sleeping ?

If I recall correctly, that is what I asked you.

Originally posted by Akka
Well, I learned something, which is something never to be neglected. Still, I don't see the link with the debate : we're talking about the morality of destroying an embryo, not how it's handled by american justice.

You spoke of the father having a say-so in the matter. In america he does not.

Originally posted by Akka
Refuted ? Where and when ?
You considering that the hope to develop a mind is as valuable as the fact to already have one is no proof nor refutation. It's basically only your unbacked opinion.

No, I consider that fact that if nature takes its course, this child will be a fully developed human being in less than a year as meaning that he/she has the same rights I do.

Originally posted by Akka
No, I don't know Pascal's Wager.
And I don't require your permission to call for God's attention. As far as I know, HE is the only one who is able to answer for Himself, and you're not His voice.
Sin of Pride, you know ?

Someone covered Pascal's Wager. I wasn't speaking on God's behalf either, I was cautioning you to avoid His notice while you're this far opposed to His views. Once again, you take something I say, and respond to it as if I said somethingelse entirely.

Originally posted by Akka
It is your habits to call any fact that is annoying a "scarecrow" ?
Care about the real facts ?
As much as 20-25 % of any pregnancy is a miscarriage.
It can goes up to 50-70 % for the very first days, when there is no way for the woman to know she is pregnant.
But of course it disturb you, because it shows that it's not at all guaranteed that an embryo will develop, hence reducing the power of the "hope" for it to gain a mind.

Scarecrows, as I refer to straw men, are arguments or facts that support a position contrary to a position that is falsely attributed to the other side in a debate. The usual use for this tactic is to avoid replying to a valid point made by that opposition.
For example, I say (in a debate about whether chocolate is better than vanilla) that chocolate is far more popular. You then respond with something like 'Oh yeah? Well pears taste delicious!' It has nothing to do with what I said, and implies that I don't like pears. It also allows you to avoid responding to my citing of chocolate lovers' statistics.

You do this crap all the time. I say something, and you start talking about something completely tangental, and acting like I have taken some idiotic stance on this tangental material. If you stop doing it, I'll stop pointing out that you are.

As to the miscarriage rate, once again, I'm not talking about miscarriage. I'm talking about the children that women are trying to get rid of like stubborn stains.

Originally posted by Akka
No. First he is not mindless. He is just unconscious. He still retains his mind. Second, the embryo (not the BABY, a BABY is a fetus that has developped to the stage he is a member of humanity) has NEVER had any mind. It's not a human being. The hope that it will become a human being does not make it a human being.

First, comatose is a hell of a lot worse than unconscious. Unconscious people can be roused, sometimes with difficulty, but they can be roused.
As to the second, just because the baby has not yet developed a mind, this does not exclude him from membership in the human race. He has human DNA, human parents, is developing human organs, etc... You are seeking to exclude him from the 'club' based solely on his current level of mental development. This is either age or mental handicap based discrimination, and there are no other ways about it. Pick either age or mental handicap based discrimination, and defend that position. I am not about to let you have your cake and eat it too. You want to discriminate based on one of those two factors, fine, but you WILL bloody well defend it, or you will shut up and concede that abortion is murder.

Originally posted by Akka
You did not shot it down, you just mixed the hope to be a human in the future with the fact to be a human in the present.
It's discrimination based on the fact that :
1) you have a mind or not, nothing to do with age or mental abilities. If you consider that mindless things have as many rights than sentient ones, well I will sue you of murder because you broke a stone.

Let's clear the air here. We're not talking about rocks, we're talking about a human embreyo. You say it doesn't have a mind as if it never will (true enough if you get to kill it before it can), but the truth is, it simply hasn't grown a brain yet. This puts it at a serious disadvantage compared to you or me. It is handicapped, mentally, by the lack of a brain. You can bandy about whatever semantics you care to spout, but that is the crux of the matter. Fetuses and embreyos are mentally handicapped by underdeveloped brains, and you want to treat them as non-human for that reason alone.

This. Is. Wrong. Evil. Morally. Repugnant. Foul. Just. Plain. Bad. Do you understand the words that are coming out of my keyboard?

Originally posted by Akka
2) you are member of a race that is able to reach a level of sentience that allows it to grasp metaphysical questions.

And it is my duty to strive to let my fellow man do the same, even if it means trying to protect him from his fellow man.

Originally posted by Akka
I find much more morally repugnant to force a woman to bear a pregnancy she never wanted for nine months just to protect something that is not even a being. I don't even talk about the difficulties for both the parents and the child after the birth.
That's hurting up to three human beings to protect a thing. Great morality.

If she didn't want the pregnancy, she could have said no to sex. If the father didn't want to be a father, he could have said no to sex. The only one that didn't get a choice in the matter was the child. How is that fair? How is that pro-CHOICE?

Originally posted by Akka
Oh. So you mean that the dead got out from its grave and enacted its wills ?

Tell me, when you say something this facile, does it ever make you wince?

Originally posted by Akka
Or do you mean that once the person is dead, her wishes that she MADE KNOW WHEN SHE WAS LIVING are applied ? And that the properties retained are the properties FROM THE TIME SHE WAS ALIVE ?

No I mean that even though she is dead, and can no longer have any say in the matter, her final wishes are respected, even though she cannot even thank those who so respect them.

Originally posted by Akka
Shows quite clearly your level of maturity and blindness. I hope it was only a kind of joke, or I would be quite sad to have lost so much time just to allow a teen to think he's cool while he was not even able to refute ONE of my arguments.

Teen? I'm 32. I've held babies in my arms. I will never stop fighting to protect them from the likes of you.

Originally posted by Akka
EDIT : I found an interesting site here which says that abortion is NOT condemned in the Bible, and that an embryo is NOT considered a full human being.
Of course, I'm not an expert in Bible study, so this site can be just a full of crap. But I think our religious folks should have a look anyway, if only to be able to refute it.

At the risk of being considered a pretentious teen out to puff up his ego (as if I needed to do it myself...), I can assure you that almost all of the quotes are taken out of text, and that the others have nothing to do with the subject, but bear on questions of obedience, respect, and other virtues.