An Honest Debate of Abortion

[Patroklos]

Then answer the questions, what are you apprehensive about? If you are confident in your position this should be a walk in the park. You should WANT to answer these questions. These concepts are the backbone of your position and you are ignoring them.

What do you predicate your disagreement with nearly everyone on concerning the deliberate killing of children an hour from birth?

 

[useless]

If the birth poses a danger to the mother, then the mother's health concerns overrides the fetus'.

If the birth does not, then it is up to the mother to decide whether she has a late term abortion, gives birth to it or gives birth and puts it up to adoption.

But I struggle to see this being an actual situation that would occur, given the amount of thought put into deciding whether or not to have a child (or even if the pregnancy should get to such a stage).

 

[Tarquelne]

There are a lot of questions implicit from my statement, none of which he has any interest in answering because he sees the writing on the wall.

A convenient belief. And unless you're telepathic it shouldn't be stated as fact.

No, I have consciously avoided calling him a supporter of such for months now and over many threads.

Well... but we need to change the answer to "Yes" due to that post up the page a bit. I think it's the key.

The benefit of the doubt until he actually stated so unequivocally. He did that this morning.

Actually, he didn't unequivocally say he supports murder. You jumped there. (I'll explain that below.)

Religious beliefs? Have I said anything about religious beliefs?

As much as he said about supporting murder, IMO.

In other words everything I ask him is based on what he has voluntarily stated previously,

Sorry, I didn't realize you called him a murder a lot. (I thought you said you hadn't...?)
Or that he had stated he supports murder. (I took him at his word, too, I guess.)

There is no connection between the methodology of what you are doing and the questions I am asking.

Is that why you want to murder the thread? That's what you volunteered up above. IMO.

However, if you can find a question I have asked him that is unreasonable to you please post it.

Ok: "What is the difference between a child an hour before birth (which you think can be murdered) and one an hour after birth?"

Note the "which you think can be murdered" part. Later you reaffirmed the connection between "murder" and his position.

We have already qualified he supports murder in this instance. He simply is unwilling to accept the logical conclusion of his statements.

"We" - as in he accepts it too, or is it just *your* judgement? I'm suggest it's the latter.

Note also that "supports" is just as fraught a word as "murder". Actively, or passively? Approves, or merely allows?

Which is the reason a am asking questions, to discover what that disconnect is or whether it is just willfully hypocrisy.

If that's really what you want don't pack caustic moral judgements directly - and gratuitously - into the question. That's what I was trying to demonstrate by calling you a religious pervert. There's no way we could be sure of that from your forum posts.

 

[Defiant47]

The "except for rape or incest" hypocrisy is a pro choice problem, not a pro life. This is obvious as it clearly involves allowing a choice.

It is a problem for both. Both can claim personhood occurs at a particular point in the fetus's development, but then make exceptions for terminating this life on insufficient grounds.

I go by the scientifically established point of likely higher brainwave functions and consciousness. Before then, the fetus is just another "clump of cells". After that minimum point, then it starts actually having the brain functions that distinguish a human being from a tumour.

Once we are at that point, I do not support abortions except when the mother's life is in danger.

The problem is that a lot of people don't evaluate their arguments logically. They choose a stance to go on and stand atop its guiding principles - but not necessary its logical consistency. Pro-lifers demand life for babies and scream bloody murder. Pro-choicers demand freedom for women to choose and scream oppression. I find there are few that truly understand the underlying motivations for their positions. And these positions should be of "when does the fetus achieve personhood?".

As such, when "uncomfortable" matters such as rape or incest occur, proponents of both camps usually cave in to their emotional-based arguments or compromise from a "human" perspective rather than logical.

As a pro-choice proponent, I reject the logic behind the determination of a fetus's personhood and real consciousness as conception. I prefer the scientifically determined timeframe, since science has proved itself in the past as a useful truth-gathering tool. Anyone that wants to bring religion or spirituality in their rationale can hear about my "goat God who demands we kill 3 Christians every time a child is born so that 10 lives can be saved - you're not a murderer of 10, are you?"

Unless the rationale for a piece of legislation is based on logic, reason, and science, it cannot be enacted into law. Otherwise, it should be an open decision for each and every citizen, without any power to force others on tenuous grounds simply because of a group's "beliefs".

 

[El_Machinae]

Keep in mind that the super-shrill debate seems to be rather US-centric. A variety of jurisdictions have a rather tame debate and somewhat reasonable restrictions. Not perfectly reasonable, but the science changes much faster than the law can.

 

[Patroklos]

A convenient belief. And unless you're telepathic it shouldn't be stated as fact.

Its a qualified fact, you not accepting this is irrelevant.

Well... but we need to change the answer to "Yes" due to that post up the page a bit. I think it's the key.

What I did in that post has no bearing on what I did previously. So no, I did not call him a supporter or murder previously.

Actually, he didn't unequivocally say he supports murder. You jumped there. (I'll explain that below.)

Yes, he did. No jumping. You being oblivious to this is irrelevant.

As much as he said about supporting murder, IMO.

Your opinion is irrelevant. The facts are he stated he supports murder and I have made no religious argument.

Sorry, I didn't realize you called him a murder a lot. (I thought you said you hadn't...?)
Or that he had stated he supports murder. (I took him at his word, too, I guess.)
I am simply pulling the thread.

Your incomprehensible comment is incomprehensible.

Is that why you want to murder the thread? That's what you volunteered up above. IMO.

Again, your incomprehensible comment is....

Ok: "What is the difference between a child an hour before birth (which you think can be murdered) and one an hour after birth?"

I asked for an example of an unasonable question, you quoted a perfectly reasonable one. Which I guess makes you unreasonable?

Note the "which you think can be murdered" part.

Yes the part that I spent many a thread qualifying and is the factual reality of his position. If he has a problem with that then he has a problem with his own position.

"We" - as in he accepts it too, or is it just *your* judgement? I'm suggest it's the latter.

What he accepts is irrelevant, his position has all the same logical conclusions regardless of his recognition of them.

Note also that "supports" is just as fraught a word as "murder". Actively, or passively? Approves, or merely allows?

If his position bothers him, he should address his position. I didn't take that stance dfor him.

Again, aim not saying he supports murder in a perforative effort, I am using the very position he took.

If that's really what you want don't pack caustic moral judgements directly - and gratuitously - into the question. That's what I was trying to demonstrate by calling you a religious pervert. There's no way we could be sure of that from your forum posts.

the difference is I have made no religious arguement, he has stated he supports killing people. There is no analogous situation.

Now, where your method would yield analogous results is when useless blames everyone who is against abortion wanting to "punish whores" but I will let you address that with him without my third party involvement. This would require you to read the thread though.

 

[Lone Wolf]

With late abortion, the mother surely helped create the scenario that requires dependence, and consciously nurtured a non-person into some type of personhood status.

Good point, you've found an actual analogy break! It still holds in a situation when the mother decides to abort soon after she realizes that she's pregnant.

ETA:
I am actually not sure here how much it's a rebuttal, and how much it's just an "all analogies break" situation. After all, poisoning is a malicious act, while nurturing in itself isn't. Still, my analogy should give the absolute pro-lifers some food for thought, since it points out a case when bodily autonomy does trump a right to live.

 

[Patroklos]

If the birth poses a danger to the mother, then the mother's health concerns overrides the fetus'.

If the birth does not, then it is up to the mother to decide whether she has a late term abortion, gives birth to it or gives birth and puts it up to adoption.

But I struggle to see this being an actual situation that would occur, given the amount of thought put into deciding whether or not to have a child (or even if the pregnancy should get to such a stage).

Interesting.

Now please answer the question.

 

[useless]

I just did.

 

[Defiant47]

Keep in mind that the super-shrill debate seems to be rather US-centric. A variety of jurisdictions have a rather tame debate and somewhat reasonable restrictions. Not perfectly reasonable, but the science changes much faster than the law can.

Doesn't the US have a variety of super-shrill debates?

 

[Cutlass]

Doesn't the US have a variety of super-shrill debates?

Essentially all of them these days. It's a strategic decision to push it that way.

 

[Tarquelne]

never mind

 

[El_Machinae]

Good point, you've found an actual analogy break! It still holds in a situation when the mother decides to abort soon after she realizes that she's pregnant.

Yeah, I'll agree.

 

[Traitorfish]

That's kinda sexist of you. Yes I'm being serious. Nasty truth about biology is that the sexes can never be equal except in society / law.

Does "equality" imply "sameness"? It seems that, if it did, then even social and legal equality would be impossible, for the simple reason that not everyone is the same person. (How would a legal equality predicated on sameness ever produce legal rulings, for example, when doing so would necessarily imply a non-sameness between the individuals concerned?)

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I have finally found a firm basis for my belief! After days of soul-searching, I have decided on when a fetus is a person, according to the Beliefs of IdiotsOpposite, Not Intended to be Factual.

A fetus is a person, and thus killing it is murder, when it can survive outside the womb. If it cannot survive outside the womb, then abortion is not murder. If it can, then abortion is murder.

Now you might disagree with me, but I'm just glad that I found a firm line.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Pro-lifer coming in.

1. Is Snidely a murderer?

Morally? Absolutely, since he knew he could save a life and didn't, even at no real expense to himself. However...

2. Should he be punished by the law (even not as severely as for murder)?

No, you can't force someone to donate blood. The difference here and with abortion is abortion is deliberately ending a life. Snidley didn't really kill anyone. He stood by and did nothing. You can't really make that illegal. However, I think if Snidley ever needs a donation of blood, he should not be allowed to receive it.

3. Did Snidely act in a morally right way?

He did not.

4. Was Snidely's refusal to donate blood morally worse, same or morally better then a woman's decision to do an abortion? (I can see people making different judgements here)

Considering he really did not have to make any real sacrifice to give up the blood, I'd say the same (It would be different if it were, say, a kidney donation, even though donating would be right, there is some level of sacrifice to giving up the kidney.)

 

[Lone Wolf]

is deliberately ending a life.

Keep in mind, however, that it's ending a life that requires donations of the mother's bodily fluids in order to continue living!

 

[GhostWriter16]

I should add another caveat to my above comment: If the child's own parent (Mother or father) could have donated the blood and didn't, they should have been charged with murder, in the same way that refusing to spend money on food for just any child who was starving would be wrong, but refusing to provide for your own child is child neglect.

 

[Lone Wolf]

If the child's own parent (Mother or father) could have donated the blood and didn't, they should have been charged with murder

Interesting option. It gets rid of many problems with pro-life position. Anyone here supports it?

 

[Traitorfish]

Morally? Absolutely, since he knew he could save a life and didn't, even at no real expense to himself.

You support universal healthcare now?