The Abortion Issue

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Let's back up a second. Ok so please show me the evidence that convinces you of the point where you believe life begins(aka the point where I can't kill my baby anymore).

No evidence is needed. I hold the position that it is a personal choice whether to take life or not. If a person can convince themselves that abortion is the right way to go then that is their decision to make and live with, if not then let them have the baby and deal with whatever issues arise from it.
Not having the disability of considering life in some way sacred I can even take this position to taking any life. I can eat meat without wondering about the cows view point or kill a fly without without worrying about karma, just as easily as I can come up with reasons for taking of a human life without worrying about what god thinks.
Morality does not need a religious view to be workable.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: SoylentGreen No evidence is needed. I hold the position that it is a personal choice whether to take life or not. If a person can convince themselves that abortion is the right way to go then that is their decision to make and live with, if not then let them have the baby and deal with whatever issues arise from it. Not having the disability of considering life in some way sacred I can even take this position to taking any life. I can eat meat without wondering about the cows view point or kill a fly without without worrying about karma, just as easily as I can come up with reasons for taking of a human life without worrying about what god thinks. Morality does not need a religious view to be workable.

Well thanks for proving my argument in the Prostitution thread.

[Morality Games]

I don't know why this is such a tough issue for people.

A being who has no nervous system (or functional equivalent) has no legal rights because they lack the ego to want them, the intellect to make sense of them, and the will to put them to work. Certain animals get rights because they have at least some of one or two of these things, but never all three to a substantial degree. For all intents and purposes, a fetus is a non-entity, no more cognitively (emotionally-mentally) active than my desk. No awareness, no identity, no desire, no capability for social action, nothing.

The reason abortion is legal in progressive Western nations is that we are equality-driven democracies. Here, you need to demonstrate how an action taken by someone else irreparably damages the community as a whole before you outlaw it. Otherwise, you lack the right to claim you deserve to be left alone by other people who think the way you live your life is wrong ... aka, anyone who disagrees with you on anything is free to regulate any action you take on their whim, because they don't need to prove why what you do is wrong, they just need to feel it. That is the democratic maxim: everyone is equal, all will be treated under the same standard.

The only reason abortion hasn't been outlawed is because pro-lifers have never been able to demonstrate how a fetus is a living human being in a significant sense. That's really the only reason.

[LadiesMan217]

Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that the fetus is not a human life. But when you get an abortion you are knowingly and purposely killing something that will be a human if you let it naturally progress. I know and believe that is wrong and I don't think this is an issue of rights. Abortion is disgusting and barbaric and I only see it being necessary in cases when the mother's life is at risk or in cases of rape.

[Maryjane]

Abortion is disgusting and barbaric and I only see it being necessary in cases when the mother's life is at risk or in cases of rape.

Again, you are imposing your morality. Don't have one.

[LadiesMan217]

Again, you are imposing your morality. Don't have one.

Like anyone who gets an abortion imposes their morality on their unborn child.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that the fetus is not a human life. But when you get an abortion you are knowingly and purposely killing something that will be a human if you let it naturally progress. I know and believe that is wrong and I don't think this is an issue of rights. Abortion is disgusting and barbaric and I only see it being necessary in cases when the mother's life is at risk or in cases of rape.

Personal feelings of loathing and dislike (which is all you have been able to provide) are not a basis for illegalizing something.

Like I stated before, in a democracy, we are equal. You can only outlaw something which seems set to cause irreparable damage to the community. If abortion were murder, that is, the termination of a human being, then it would establish a legal precendent where killing other humans because they inconvenienced you was okay. In this case, we would have to illegalize abortion, because validaitng such a loose attitude would cause irreparable damage to the community (through a sharp increase in unpunished murders). No killer could be brought to court, for they will have committed no crime.

However, in spite of decades of trying and putting their best to work on the subject, no pro-lifer has ever proven in any legal challenge that a fetus is a living human being in a significant sense. Even judges sympathetic to their ideas are forced to rule against them just because there is no way a (genuinely) democratic legal entity could recognize their claims as valid. They lack the evidence to give their allegations weight.

If personal feelings are the basis for law, then anyone who feels as though the activity of other factions (races, religions, life stances) should be regulated has the police and judicial branch on their side ... they don't have to show why they deserve to place limits on other people, they just have to demand it, because they want it, and so they get it. Naturally, no society can survive in this state for long, which is why the pro-lifers should give up their illegitimate legal battle. That is, because it would be fair to do so, seeing as how other people who don't approve of how they live their lives allow them to do it all the same.

Also, when you live in a community, everything is a matter of rights. That condition is the price you pay for living with other people with diffferent moral views.

[SoylentGreen]

LadiesMan217 Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that the fetus is not a human life. But when you get an abortion you are knowingly and purposely killing something that will be a human if you let it naturally progress. I know and believe

You know ? Yet apart from giving an unsupported personal position it would seem to be knowledge based only on what you believe not something you know.

Abortion is disgusting and barbaric

Why? apart from a personal view that you have yet to justify.

it being necessary in cases when the mother's life is at risk or in cases of rape.

Thats interesting and part of the ambivalence of your stance.
Why should a child be aborted because it was conceived in rape? Is it's life not sacred because of the cause or because of your opinion about rape?
Again if all life is sacred then why prefer the mothers over the child, shouldn't the mother be forced to take the chance in the case that the child might live?

Well thanks for proving my argument in the Prostitution thread.

And how have I done that?

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Why? apart from a personal view that you have yet to justify.

If you look up the methods of abortion and do not find them barbaric then I do not want to what you do think is barbaric.

Thats interesting and part of the ambivalence of your stance. Why should a child be aborted because it was conceived in rape? Is it's life not sacred because of the cause or because of your opinion about rape? Again if all life is sacred then why prefer the mothers over the child, shouldn't the mother be forced to take the chance in the case that the child might live?

Well, actually I think that ideally it would be best to restrict it just instance's of the mother's endangerment, but I have debated with people on the subject before and we always seem to come to this compromise.

And how have I done that?

If you reread your post and my post in the Prostitution thread and fail to see how your post supports mine, then no amount of me explaining it to you is going to help.

[SoylentGreen]

If you look up the methods of abortion and do not find them barbaric then I do not want to what you do think is barbaric.

The actual method is painless and carried out without any form of barbaric practice that I can see. Often as not chemical abortion is used which is not harmful to the woman.Can you be more specific.

we always seem to come to this compromise.

Why that compromise. It certainly doesn't answer the question:
"If all life is sacred then why prefer the mothers over the child, shouldn't the mother be forced to take the chance in the case that the child might live?"
Could it be that a compromise is necessary when the idea that all life is sacred is used as an axiom? Possibly because it really gets down to whose life is sacred and whose is not.

If you reread your post and my post in the Prostitution thread and fail to see how your post supports mine, then no amount of me explaining it to you is going to help.

Nice way to avoid answering the question. Post on the prostitution thread if you have a comparison to make , don't rely on innuendo to do it for you.

[Morality Games]

If you look up the methods of abortion and do not find them barbaric then I do not want to what you do think is barbaric.

Well, for my part, things happening in third world countries today (Tibet is a good example), events like the holocaust and crusades, etc. Things I know hurt people for reason x.

[Dagda]

[quote][The child in question lacks awareness of existence, how could it consider itself sacred when the concept has never been formed.
/QUOTE]
A little thought experiment.
A man in a deep coma has no awarness of his existence to any credible degree. You know, in exactly 9 months time he will awake again, fully functunal. In the mean time, you have to pay for the hospital bed and care. Does that give you the right to kill him?
Is it not the same with the unborn baby, unaware of its existence, dut will awaken?

[Maryjane]

Not even remotely the same, but in the interest of debate....the state becomes the "womb."

[Morality Games]

[quote=Dagda;502248]

[The child in question lacks awareness of existence, how could it consider itself sacred when the concept has never been formed. /QUOTE] A little thought experiment. A man in a deep coma has no awarness of his existence to any credible degree. You know, in exactly 9 months time he will awake again, fully functunal. In the mean time, you have to pay for the hospital bed and care. Does that give you the right to kill him? Is it not the same with the unborn baby, unaware of its existence, dut will awaken?

The man has a nervous system with the capability (capacity-ability) for human functions, the fetus does not.

I can't express enough that saying a being can be human or even alive in any significant sense without a nervous system is the same as claiming you can turn on my camera when I don't have a camera.

[tommy5x]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that the fetus is not a human life. But when you get an abortion you are knowingly and purposely killing something that will be a human if you let it naturally progress. I know and believe that is wrong and I don't think this is an issue of rights. Abortion is disgusting and barbaric and I only see it being necessary in cases when the mother's life is at risk or in cases of rape.

Theoretically, anything has the potential to beome a human life. How do we proceed with that which has already been created, without destroying or reducing proablilities?

Using spermicide is killing something that has to potential to become human life, and contraception of most kinds deliberately cause the death of potential embryos before they even form.

What about the morning-after pill? That destroys the zygote before it reaches beyond even being a discernable formation of anything but stem cells. How can that be considered barbaric when there is no possible way that it could ever feel pain.

If we were to take a Christian viewpoint, if God has a plan, then how do we know that part of it is not the death of the fetuses in question?

Also, why should rape be considered grounds for abortion? Surely that is no less barbarism than the destruction of any other unwanted pregnancy. Adoption is feasible in this case.

[fastcar]

Quote by: Dagda First of all, I'm not a literalist or fundamentalist of any kind. Also, I'm a social democrat, not a conservitive so don't fall into the traditional pro-life group. There is only 3 reasons abortion should be allowed; little or no chance of the survival of the mother or child; mother to young hence it would do more damage than good to the mother and child and rape. Other than that, it is being used as a form of contraception. This is wrong as it means the unnessasery murder of an innocent child. What right does anyone have of ending the life of any child, let alone one who is still hidding in there mothers womb?

to take a slightly different approach id like to begin by asking you- who do you think gives us rights?god?no.
we give ourselves rights which are largely derived from religion.now religion is something that is very man made.it is a means to control the masses by instilling in the people a fear of god, needless to say, it is a primitive process.but, hey, it still works on a lot of people.
if you ask who gives us the right to kill, you must ask who gives us the right to give birth.nobody asks us to go mate.what is so holy about it?
if you ask who gives us the right to kill you must ask who gives us the right to value the life of a human child more than animal child.if you say abortion should be banned apart from only certain very strict conditions, then well so should non vegetarianism.but its not practical because a lot of us like our big macs and our pork sandwiches .what makes you think a human child is more valuable than any other life form?its rather convenient to pick on the life form that tastes good isnt it?
we made the rights ourselves for ourselves to protect us against ourselves.simple as that.but now some of these rights need a little refreshment.
and again why do you think it is unnecessary?if the mother is having an abortion she sure must have thought it through.maybe she cant support the child, will society pay for her?sure she made a mistake in the first place.but should she suffer for the rest of her life due to it?does she deserve it?
sure the child had no say in the 'mistake'. but you think she/he knows whats going on?an abortion will kill her before she realises it.stop making it look like its torture for him or her.
not every child grows up to be a boon to society.get over it.

i believe that it is the mother who at all times should have full control over her decision as to whether or not she should have the child and not some law set by some blokes at a council.and most certainly not a council of men.

[Dagda]

if the mother is having an abortion she sure must have thought it through.maybe she cant support the child, will society pay for her?

My argument was not particulary against these kind of abortions but against those who use it as a way to get rid of the problem of a child that hampers down there careers.
Also, maybe this is insensitive but what about adoption aginceys?

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: Dagda My argument was not particulary against these kind of abortions but against those who use it as a way to get rid of the problem of a child that hampers down there careers. Also, maybe this is insensitive but what about adoption aginceys?

We all know how bad that can be for the child. There are still kids who aren't adopted. So you want to increase the number of kids up for adoption? Unless a whole bunch of people start adopting theres going to be more hardships for the children.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: tommy5x Theoretically, anything has the potential to beome a human life. How do we proceed with that which has already been created, without destroying or reducing proablilities?

Actually, no, anything does not have the potential to become human life.

Using spermicide is killing something that has to potential to become human life

Actually it is not. A sperm has 0% potential to become a human without an egg to fertilize .

What about the morning-after pill? That destroys the zygote before it reaches beyond even being a discernable formation of anything but stem cells. How can that be considered barbaric when there is no possible way that it could ever feel pain.

True, this is a humane way of killing the zygote, but more often than not the woman finds out she is pregnant long after the morning after. Ideally, use of the morning after pill should outlawed too, and all forms of contraception that kill the egg after it has been fertilized, but I know this is far too much to ask.

If we were to take a Christian viewpoint, if God has a plan, then how do we know that part of it is not the death of the fetuses in question?

Thus far, I have not brought religion into this debate and I intend to keep it that way.

Also, why should rape be considered grounds for abortion? Surely that is no less barbarism than the destruction of any other unwanted pregnancy. Adoption is feasible in this case.

True, very true. I do not truly believe that is a viable excuse for abortion either, but it is a compromise that I would be willing to make.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: LadiesMan217 True, this is a humane way of killing the zygote, but more often than not the woman finds out she is pregnant long after the morning after. Ideally, use of the morning after pill should outlawed too, and all forms of contraception that kill the egg after it has been fertilized, but I know this is far too much to ask.

What if the condom breaks or the spermicide fails? Or some other contraceptive?