Abortion challenge

[SoylentGreen]

Good question

Its about promoting a culture of life and supporting and caring for women who have unwanted pregnancies and letting them know there is a real alternative. We must create a society where abortion is seen as what it really is and is not even considered as an option by a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. We don't deny backyard abortions are a problem, what we argue is that legalized Murder isn't the answer.

So i was right your claim to science is nonsense. The best you can do is say your morally right and that gives your view precedence over any other.

You want to deny a person the right to choose for themselves and hypocritically call this giving them a choice.

Please do expand on the idea of "where abortion is seen as what it really is:..
Aside from it being some obscure 18 year old in austraslia who thinks his morality is superior to the woman who has to make a choice on keeping the pregnancy or not.

[Clementine]

You seem to have missed my point entirely.

Who are we to decide viability of anything else other than ourselves? Are you saying that because there is a chance that fetuses might die anyways, it really doesnt change anything? Because infants and people die too, and many of them are just as helpless and dependant.

There are many people that live only because of other people (disabled people depend on wheelchairs, people with respiratory problems depend on machines, infants depend on their mothers, children on their parents) --not on their own--does that mean they do not get the same rights to life as an independent person?

So, because someone, or something is "connected to me" in some way, I control its life. The same arguement people use in their heads to justify things like animal abuse, spousal abuse, child abuse, rape, and probably even murder. Its just a way of justification for doing something morally ambiguous that we know is probably wrong.


Its all an illusion we're spinning with imaginary lines to determine what is right and wrong so we can do what we want without having to feel guilty about it. That, is entirely the truth.

No. Did you not read what I wrote? A fetus cannot live outside it's mother until it reaches full gestation.
And you are dead wrong if you think that choosing to have an abortion for any reason is an easy choice to make or guiltless.
Having control over your reproductive rights is not morally ambiguous or wrong.

[Charlatan]

Abortion is the prevention of life for a foetus. If it is growing while still inside you people may want to kill it. Why do people kill other people? Because of necessity, like in war. Then it is okay to kill someone, but not okay to kill someone that is yet to be born. If you kill a foetus then it is just like pulling a condom on after you have sex, as it is still sperm and foetus linked together. That is if it is right to seperate them before pregnancy, then it must be okay to seperate them after pregnanacy, as that is all you are really doing. By seperating them inside the womb you stop the preganancy from continuing. If you were to stop the baby from growing it would be murder though, but just the same as pulling on a condom after insimination. Babies die every second due to periods by the same logic, so it is naturla to abort babies.

The fuss comes in when people get personal with the foetus, that they care for their own sensations of having children, for their own gratification. There is nothing magical going on here, it is survivla of the species that drives people to demonstarate for the rights of children, but what is the difference between a foeatus unfertilised and fertilised? Is there a point where the sperm is still outside the egg that it could be considered life? Is there a point where a man speaks to a woman that it could be considered life? Is there a point after fertilisation that it could be considered life? At what point is it alive? You may say that after fertilization it is alive, but it is alive before fertilization too, but nobody complains when a foetus comes out in a period.

So I say abotion is okay by me. If there is no room for it in th world then it is a wise move.

[Roger Bartlett]

None of that matters. A woman owns reproductive rights over her body and it is up to her.
Pro Choice all the way!!!!!

You want to abort your own body?

[Clementine]

You want to abort your own body?

What are you talking about?

[Roger Bartlett]

"A woman owns reproductive rights over her body and it is up to her."

Your previous message. Hence the quotes.

[Q-2]

To argue properly you must give reasons why a mothers choice is justified otherwise all your saying. Its right because she thinks it is.

Must be wrong because YOU think it is.

As much as i hate to allude to slavery as i believe it is overused it cant be denied that the same claims were made to evangelicals in the early 1800's. If you don't like slavery then don't own slaves.

Slavery subverts the rights of a separate, sentient human being. It is also something that the slave has the ability to consciously oppose and/or try to run from. Abortion is action against a pre-sentient human attached to a mother's womb.

The examples are not equal.

If Wilberforce had taken your approach then slavery may of never of been abolished. What we must do as a society and do do very well in a democracy is argue and determine what is right and then enforce it

This is why democracy sucks as a government. Not that I really like government in the first place, but pure democracy is mob rule, and tends to subvert the rights of the individuals who disagree through the process you have just claimed here.

That's why Murder is illegal, that's why the we (attempt) to stop atrocities even in other countries.

What? So murder is only stopped by laws and regulations? Wait, isn't the illegality of murder across countries, and in fact the intricate ways that only certain killings might possibly be permitted speak to some idea that all humans hold, that killing is generally wrong?

Imagine if the west had just said we don't approve of killing Jew so we wont do it ourselves however we have to right to stop Hitler.

Going by what I -think- you meant in this convoluted, disformed sentence:

The USA turned a blind eye to what was happening overseas for a long time, at the very least.

Evil deeds happen when good men stand by and do nothing.

Actually, evil deeds happen regardless of what good people do to try to stop them. Brainwashing, as tried by most aspects of our society, schools, or religions, isn't a good enough answer - trying to infuse morals into people by simple repetition and claims that deeds are right or wrong works only to a point.

If desperate, good men will do apparently evil deeds too.

If you believe abortion is wrong then you cant just hand ball the issue, its just as immoral as committing the act itself. And if you believe its right which is a legitimate argumentative stand point then you must give reasons why rather than saying its right because he says it is

If you believe anything other than what is scientifically provable about abortion, you are a moron. If, however, you think about it and determine one way or another on the issue, good for you.

Its about promoting a culture of life and supporting and caring for women who have unwanted pregnancies and letting them know there is a real alternative. We must create a society where abortion is seen as what it really is and is not even considered as an option by a woman with an unwanted pregnancy. We don't deny backyard abortions are a problem, what we argue is that legalized Murder isn't the answer.

How about a society where women are presented with all the options without the moralizing from others and allowed to choose which they want? Or don't you trust that some pregnant women will choose not to abort their children?

Different people hold different morals. It might even seem more moral to certain mothers to abort their fetuses, to help them avoid a long and futile life in a world where many people are either catatonic, braindead, or live in conditions where they will never grow as human beings, learn anything significant, or become enlightened, forget the drudgery of their lives spent just to put food on their table and maintain a few braindead comforts that make their life marginally less bland.

(part 2 coming up, since the character limit sucks)

[Q-2]

A) Fetus is human. It is alive, but not sentient--thinking for itself--although really neither is a newborn honestly.

B) It is not the natural "right" of a mother to kill their children or fetuses---if anything it is something given to us by society under law. Before that it was just something people did in secret.



I admire your resolve on this--especially to the work of social justice. I have a similar veiw, but for different reasons.



One of them is this:



Differentiate, if you will, between a human newborn, and a growing fetus (at any stage). What makes it more "humane" to kill a fetus than a newborn? Neither have any significant intelligence, neither will know what hit them, both are defenseless, both are essentially a life in the making.


However--the difference. One of them we can see, one of them looks cute, one of them makes noise we can hear, one of them moves so we can take videos of it, one of them feels "human". Without ultrasound--whats to say there ever was a baby at all inside the womb? Maybe its just a pile of guts and magically it becomes human, or maybe its a false pregnancy. Its a way for us--as humans--to differentiate subconsciously between the two when there really is little difference.

Actually, the literal difference is that a human newborn is separate from the mother's womb and has the potential to survive, in many very dreary conditions, without the mother. A fetus is dependent in every sense of the word.

Its all based on legal evaluations of what is a "human being" and what is "not a human being" just so we can put it on paper. Once you step into that arena, you can justify almost anything as being a "human being" or "not human being".

Actually, that is another misnomer. You can't justify anything as a "human being" or not: a "human being" has a precise enough definition as a separate living entity of the human species. What human beings tend to do is justify things as "human" or not. For instance, members of this limited species will claim that something is innately "human" - a behavior, an emotion, a way of thinking. Little do you seem to actively realize that humans are not necessarily the pinnacle of sentient life in the universe - how then does being "human" have anything to do with, say, being "humane" (or inhumane) - or if "humaneness" does necessitate being human, all humans don't necessarily hold the same definition of "humane", so it is vague terminology at best.



Anyway, moving on.

Hitler said all non-aryans (as well as cripples, mentally handicapped, homosexuals, etc...) were all sub-human, which was his excuse to get rid of them (secretly, by exterminating them). The same arguement can be applied to any group of people, or any person if you have the right scientific evidence.

His argument was based on genetics, and it was an inherent assumption about many aspects of human character that human beings themselves still don't have a clear picture of. For instance, that human beings are not somehow equal anyway.



You seem to completely mis-state the "pro-abortion" position as being actively in favor of murder, where it is still just an admission of what is already the case: a pregnant woman will, herself, choose one way or another.

True, less people in this day and age are bound to beleive you, but it happened before many times in history, and it could happen again.

Key word: -could-

I think my arguement against abortion stems from a sort of "chain theory" if you will. Once you go there, there's no going back. And once on that road, there are really no barriers to say that in the future, it wont be something else, and then something else...Because history has taught us that is exactly what happens.

It is not wrong to study history to try to determine what the future might hold. It is wrong to study history to determine what the future will hold.



In your study of history, learning that certain patterns are inevitable might actually cause them, in the end, to happen again. Because you will try to stop the patterns by trying to stop people from making the choices that seem to cause them in the first place, not try to determine why those choices lead to those outcomes and moderating the potential outcomes instead.



And you can't ever stop people from making a choice. There will always be mothers who want their children. There will always be mothers who want their children aborted, for one reason or another, especially if the world continues the way it is today - leeched terribly, unable to support even what population is on it, generally through artificial means of making the Earth fester.

Once the general population can justify something once thought of as horrible as humane, then when something worse comes around, we dont really think all that much of it. We are desenstized to violence and killing, and in this case, its not really "killing" in the sense we know of, so we justify it.

The other choice is not to assume you know exactly how other people are thinking, and perhaps to do some research and polling about the topic. What -do- those damn right-to-choicers (lol, this terminology sucks) actually think in this regard? And might each of them think in an individual way to support their opinion?

Ironic how we saw such a massive backlash against partial birth abortions, but not other abortions. Partial birth abortions LOOK evil because we can SEE it before our eyes and something in us says "good god how can we do that to something that looks human", but subconsciously we do not apply the same sympathy to anything else that doesnt look human to us. Utter hypocrisy.

People are that superficial sometimes. Especially if you never teach them otherwise.

Something almost everyone is guilty of, because we are human, but its a barrier our society must get over eventually to make REAL progress.

Society, by the nature people have instilled in it, will never really progress. Opinions will fluctuate. Factions will live and die. Governments will rise and fall. But society will never evolve - unless, of course, we build anew with a completely new way of thinking, which isn't likely to happen given the mass of people unwilling to leave their comfortable old ways of life.

Its all about responsibility. We must be able to live with our actions and consequences. Our society, instead of giving people who make bad decisions a "get out of jail free" card, should instead cater to and help those who make poor decisions so they can ultimately learn something from them, but also have that choice later on.

Many people require space to learn this on their own, rather than being moralized at when their options are taught to them. Our societies, primary schools and religions, these days, rarely ever teach people beyond a simple "good/bad" dichotomy with rewards or punishments; how can anyone truly be taught to live with anything in this way, beyond mindless dronery? Do we even try anymore to help people grow into human beings, or just good workers?

Logistically, yes, there are many children up for adoption that are unclaimed, some have argued they have a higher chance of living "criminal" lives and have a higher chance of living in bad conditions. Again, its our justification. Can WE decide the FUTURE for everyone?

Oh, that's ironic..



Can YOU?

If hypothetically, we had reason to beleive that 99 out of 100 babies will end up growing up to be Hitler-like and evil, does that justify us killing all of them, and the innocent one, just to be on the safe side? What happens to the good ones that died--are they collateral damage?

Human history is riddled with collateral damage. I doubt that's going to change by something as simple-minded as making abortion illegal.

Many people who grow up and are adopted or orphaned or otherwise have good lives, and do good things in the world. So what if some of them dont turn out well in the end--many dont turn out anyways regardless of where they are born. You get jerks and geniuses sometimes, its all random.

That's right, it's all random. Unless, of course, these things work through some pattern or source beyond human comprehension at the present time.



Shrug, what's the difference?

We cant play god in this arena of "statistics". Its a path that leads to the downfall of society, and it will probably lead us on a path of events that will reshape, and possibly even ruin out culture, and the human race forever.



Thats what I beleive, in a nutshell

I've already addressed this, so let's move on.



If you're really concerned about human society, and treating people "inhumanely", turn your attention to inner city poverty both of food and thought, tribes of people kept savage by drug trafficking sanctioned by government agents, black market slavery, mass starvation of populations around the globe. And then, turn your attention to what is causing them all, namely a society which is corrupt by default anyway. What you see as murder, which is abortions - and the fact that certain mothers want them - is only a symptom of a far deeper underlying problem, humanity's own sickness of mind and spirit. And being human, the only thing you can justify doing is taking responsibility for it, as we all must before we can even possibly hope to change things for everyone.



If I were a pregnant mother, without the means to rear and educate my child myself, in a place where I could be relatively alone to do so, I might choose an abortion too. I don't really want to bring any children of mine unsupported into this world.

[Clementine]

"A woman owns reproductive rights over her body and it is up to her."

Your previous message. Hence the quotes.

I read your quotes, but your interpretation makes no sense. I don't understand how you could twist my wording to even think that I was talking about a woman aborting herself. How ridiculous and disrespectful of a woman's rights over her own body.

[Questatement]

I just wish that all people who are pro-choice had been aborted prior to whatever point they believe life (matching post-birth value) began.

[crimethinker]

I just wish that all people who are pro-choice had been aborted prior to whatever point they believe life (matching post-birth value) began.

What is meant by "life"? Fetuses are alive. Sperm are alive. Et cetera.

Ironically, I owe my life to an abortion; my mother had one a few months prior to my conception.

[Chinook]

I just wish that all people who are pro-choice had been aborted prior to whatever point they believe life (matching post-birth value) began.

I believe "life" here began a little over 4 billion years ago. What kind of life are you talking about?

I think most pro-choice advocates believe that "human life" begins at conception - how do you propose any such advocates be aborted? Should people just not do it at all for fear of creating a person who may grow up to be pro-choice?