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

[Rossiya]

Abortion is wrong, but sometimes it really is needed.

 

[MamboJoel]

New OT fad : abortion threads are back.
Since the previous fad was girl/love topics, maybe we should've make a stopover contraception first

 

[sysyphus]

Nice one.

So if I understand the argument, abortion is wrong because it is a part of the mother?

Then all the more reason why it is not wrong, since it is the mother who makes the choice.

 

[RedWolf]

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.

Your argument falls apart on the issue of consent. If someone jumps me on the street and sticks a coat hanger in my arm against my will - assault.

If I ask someone to stick a coathanger in my arm because of <insert stupid reason here> it is not assault.

Surgeons cut things off people/into people all the time on the operating table but that's not a crime because the patients give consent.

 

[pboily]

Is getting a tatoo wrong, then?

 

[GinandTonic]

If it is a person, then abortion is murder. If it's not, then it's not murder.

No, murder is illegal killing. If its not illegal, its not murder. Not a question of moral judgement but of the meaning of the word.

For example, is an arm a person. Of course not. It's part of a person, but not a person.

Nor is a fetus part of a woman. It is an entity separated by the placenta with its own DNA etc. Indeed if it were part of the same entity then there would be no abortion debate as it would be no more contentious than having a haircut, a circumcision etc.

But does that make it right for someone to stick a coathanger in your arm every time they feel guilty about having sex?

1 - What on earth does feeling guilty about having sex have to do with anything? Seems to me the Catholics and American religious right have the sexual guilt thing worse than anyone and they are the ones against abortion - to extend the farcical simile, the ones who feel guilty about sex are the ones trying to stop the coat-hanger stabbings. Possibly by posting on the internet

2 - In your instance people are having coat-hangers poked at them against their will. Don't think anyone is suggesting women are aborted against their will.

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.

Indeed if someone forcibly aborts a woman against her will they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Therefore, even if a fetus is not a person, abortion is still wrong.

No. To attempt to put it in the terms of your laughable simile - if someone puts a coat-hanger of their own free will into their hair it is utterly insignificant.

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.

Do you see the irony that if successful your campaign against coat-hanger stabbings would result in a lot of women really being stabbed with coat-hangers?

 

[Red Stranger]

Your argument falls apart on the issue of consent. If someone jumps me on the street and sticks a coat hanger in my arm against my will - assault.

If I ask someone to stick a coathanger in my arm because of <insert stupid reason here> it is not assault.

Surgeons cut things off people/into people all the time on the operating table but that's not a crime because the patients give consent.

Consent isn't the last word and it doesn't apply to everyone. A woman who wants to kill her baby should be considered insane, therefore loses the right to give consent.

 

[GinandTonic]

Consent isn't the last word and it doesn't apply to everyone. A woman who wants to kill her baby should be considered insane, therefore loses the right to give consent.

Even if that were true (which it isnt) you stated that for the sake of your arguement feoteses were not people, therefore not a baby, therefore not something the desire to eliminate would be proof of insanity. Therefore she would be competent to give consent.

QED

 

[Mr. Do]

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.

According to this logic, self-harming is wrong and should be illegal. So is S & M. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you were to say all emo kids and sado-masochists should be thrown in jail, but it's still a stupid argument. Try again

 

[North King]

A women who wants a tumor removed--made up of her own genetic material, after all--is obviously insane, and therefore loses the right to give consent. By your logic, anyway.

 

[RedWolf]

Consent isn't the last word and it doesn't apply to everyone. A woman who wants to kill her baby should be considered insane, therefore loses the right to give consent.

I thought for the sake of this argument a fetus wasn't a baby but a part of the woman?

Wasn't that the point of this debate? You were taking the argument "A fetus isn't a life" and describing why abortion is STILL wrong anyway... And then when I argue under that assumption you turn around and tell me that the woman is killing a baby. Flawed.

So we're really back to the age old debate "Is a fetus a life or not" which is the same question you originally said to be irrelevant.

 

[Mathilda]

Moderator Action: Closed. Red Stranger warned for trolling - for second time today. I advice against a third attempt.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889


Moderator Action: Reopened. I'm keeping my eye on the thread though. I understand this is a controversial topic, so I recommend warmly that if you know your opinions to be on the outside edge of the range you give some serious thought to how you phrase them and some reasonable explanation for your views.

 

[Red Stranger]

Thank you Mathilda,

I'd like to point out that GinandTonic and Red Wolf are correct in pointing out that I shouldn't use this as an argument, since my original premise is that "even if the fetus is not a person...."

Consent isn't the last word and it doesn't apply to everyone. A woman who wants to kill her baby should be considered insane, therefore loses the right to give consent.

But I'd still like to point out that consent does not equal legality. Let's take a case from Germany. The victim gave consent to the canibal to eat him. But the canibal was still charged with a crime. This is one example where consent does not mean legality.

I'd also like to point out that even though the woman may not be considered insane, she could be in a stage where she'd think differently than normal. You can take the example from Roe v Wade. All she wanted at the time was to have an abortion, but after she had her daughter she was glad that she didn't have an abortion. At the time of pregnancy she would've given consent, but after she gave birth and her chemical level returns to normal she became anti-abortion. (I'm not using pro-life for the sake of this argument)

 

[Brighteye]

By that analysis women are always in a stage where they think differently from normal. They have hormone cycles which change how they think.
I'm sure they still use logic the same way, and possibly to the same extent, but emotional decisions are influenced by hormones. After sex both sexes, but women to a greater extent, have a great secretion of oxytocin. A warm, fuzzy lovey feeling. That's why you never agree to anything during or just after sex, and why that's when women always ask.

If she can still think rationally then she should be allowed her decision. By your argument here about hormone levels we should call all women insane for a week every month (some men might advise this, but it's not really workable).

I can't remember the details of the German case, but it's quite possible that cannibalism is illegal, so that consent is irrelevant. It might also be something to do with 'assisted murder' not being recognised as legitimate in Germany. I think that there is far more precedent for my point of view than this.

 

[ParkCungHee]

By that analysis women are always in a stage where they think differently from normal. They have hormone cycles which change how they think.

Indeed by any logic, everyone is always in a stage where they think differently. People will come to different conclusions at different times, sometimes within hours of each other.

 

[Brighteye]

Well said. One's emotional state is not a good way of deciding one's legal rights.

 

[Perfection]

I'd also like to point out that even though the woman may not be considered insane, she could be in a stage where she'd think differently than normal. You can take the example from Roe v Wade. All she wanted at the time was to have an abortion, but after she had her daughter she was glad that she didn't have an abortion. At the time of pregnancy she would've given consent, but after she gave birth and her chemical level returns to normal she became anti-abortion. (I'm not using pro-life for the sake of this argument)

That's just a single case, please demonstrate that is true for everybody!

 

[Tenochtitlan]

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.

Even with his consent?

Not with piercings, hair-cuts, surgical amputations.

 

[GenMarshall]

Abortions are still wrong to me, even if you say a fetus is not a person. I still say that the fetus is still a person regardless.

 

[mdwh]

According to this logic, self-harming is wrong and should be illegal. So is S & M. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you were to say all emo kids and sado-masochists should be thrown in jail, but it's still a stupid argument. Try again

Well, actually now that you mention it, S&M *is* illegal in some countries, including the UK, as you cannot be considered to consent to actual bodily harm. At least for sexual pleasure - it's not clear why this doesn't apply to things like tattoos.

But yes, I think that's barmy, and it's still true that the reason Red Stranger's logic is flawed is the issue of consent. Not being allowed to consent for erotic purposes seems to be a special case for some unknown reason - there are plenty of examples where consent is the significant difference which makes it legal (e.g., tattoos, piercings, surgery).