an abortion thread with no personal attacks

[caketastydelish]

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.

 

[Arwon]

Abortion is definitely a thing.

 

[classical_hero]

There is nothing civil about abortion.

 

[AlpsStranger]

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.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

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.

 

[AlpsStranger]

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.

 

[useless]

There is nothing civil about abortion.

So you would ban it in every and any situation?

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

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.

 

[Agent327]

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.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

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.

 

[BasketCase]

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

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.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

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.

 

[vypernight]

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.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.

 

[JollyRoger]

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

 

[CKS]

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?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

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.

 

[History_Buff]

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.

 

[strijder20]

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.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

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.