Total Posts:96|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I am 'fence-sitting' on the topic of Abortion

DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 4:12:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think it all depends on where you consider the threshold of when an unborn is alive.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
FrackJack
Posts: 1,392
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 4:15:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 4:12:31 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
I think it all depends on where you consider the threshold of when an unborn is alive.

From the start? I want a debate in here.
: At 8/8/2013 6:15:09 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
: The idiots are rebelling.

http://i.imgur.com...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2013 4:30:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The Start" is almost unanimous in literature on this topic.

P1 - Abortion is the killing of a human being
P2 - Killing human beings is wrong
C1 - Therefore, abortion is wrong.

Now, I don't ascribe to it being correct - it is in fact almost universally rejected - but it is how to start these things, so we might as well do it proper.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 1:01:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First, I'd like to sift through all of the pro-life propaganda. Pro-life advocates seem to exclusively focus on late-term abortions for imagery and effect. This is completely ignoring the fact that 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester, while the embryo is still an embryo. This blatant use of propaganda is one of the primary reasons I'm pro-choice - if these people can't argue their position honestly, then I will have no part of their side.

We must also consider the qualities that humans have that distinguish us from other animals. Really, the only thing that sets us apart would be our higher-level thinking. Embryos most certainly don't possess this. These higher-level thinking skills are relevant in this context because they are how we perceive the world around us - they are our lives, the part that we actually experience. If an embryo doesn't have this, what are we taking from it?

Now, a quick-thinking pro-life advocate would respond that this applies to infants, too. However, embryos can't be adopted until they develop fully and are born, while infants can be adopted. An embryo uses the mother's resources, and, depending on the situation, may endanger the mother's life. If the mother doesn't want her resources used, there is only one option. Trust me, if there was an option to transplant embryos, a LOT of pro-choice advocates would endorse it. Pro-lifers would, too. The issue here is that there's no easy answer with this issue with current technologies. Pro-choicers just want the mother to be able to pick her own side, and not be told what she can or can't do.

I also object to arguments stating that women should just not have sex if they don't want to get pregnant, which suggest that pregnancy is some sort of punishment for them having sex. To anyone using this argument: It is quite clear that you haven't been laid in years. This doesn't mean you have to force everyone else to be the same way.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
The_Chaos_Heart
Posts: 404
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 5:59:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The fetus has no right to the mother's womb. The mother has a right to bodily sovereignty. If the mother decides she no longer desires to allow the fetus to use her body, the fetus is now in violation of her bodily sovereignty. Her right to bodily sovereignty overrides the fetus' right to life, rendering any argument about the humanity and rights of the fetus entirely moot.
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 6:37:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
abortion is a truly twisted thing, outside of everything else.

and women don't easily forget having got one.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 10:01:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Although there are many reasons to support pro-choice, I notice that some pro-life supporters tend to think abortions would become common.

Honestly, women oftentimes come away from abortions very emotionally shook-up and some have lasting psychological trauma from what they had done. It's not exactly a fun experience. And further, many women don't go and have an abortion right away, like they're set on it. Many women go through an agonizing process of deciding what they want to do. Again--I don't think it'll become a commonplace thing, at least in quantity.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 10:27:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

As a guy, which presumably you are, the issue of abortion isn't relevant to you. You will never have an abortion. Take comfort in knowing that it's not a problem you have to solve.

But if you want to have an opinion on it, I'd suggest reading the Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey... and adopting Sandra Day O'Conner's view. Aside from being awesome, what she said is literally "the law."
Tsar of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 10:29:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 10:27:44 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

As a guy, which presumably you are, the issue of abortion isn't relevant to you. You will never have an abortion. Take comfort in knowing that it's not a problem you have to solve.

But if you want to have an opinion on it, I'd suggest reading the Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey... and adopting Sandra Day O'Conner's view. Aside from being awesome, what she said is literally "the law."

That reminds me of this video.

I AM THE LAW.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 10:33:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 10:29:48 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 6/18/2013 10:27:44 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

As a guy, which presumably you are, the issue of abortion isn't relevant to you. You will never have an abortion. Take comfort in knowing that it's not a problem you have to solve.

But if you want to have an opinion on it, I'd suggest reading the Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey... and adopting Sandra Day O'Conner's view. Aside from being awesome, what she said is literally "the law."

That reminds me of this video.

I AM THE LAW.



I saw that a while back... it's hellafuckinawesome, lol.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 11:15:36 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 10:27:44 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

As a guy, which presumably you are, the issue of abortion isn't relevant to you. You will never have an abortion. Take comfort in knowing that it's not a problem you have to solve.

That is a bit of a... Welll ... Discriminatory way PDF looking at it. I will never be a judge, buff I can still comment on philosophy of law. I won't become a priest, but I can still comment on theology. One may not become a politician, but one can still comment on politics. Heck, if a celibate pope can comment on sex, I can comment on abortion!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 11:22:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 10:27:44 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

As a guy, which presumably you are, the issue of abortion isn't relevant to you. You will never have an abortion. Take comfort in knowing that it's not a problem you have to solve.

But if you want to have an opinion on it, I'd suggest reading the Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey... and adopting Sandra Day O'Conner's view. Aside from being awesome, what she said is literally "the law."

That's a reason to be pro-choice. It isn't a male issue, so it's better for males to not tell women what they can do with their bodies.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 11:24:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 10:01:20 AM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Although there are many reasons to support pro-choice, I notice that some pro-life supporters tend to think abortions would become common.

Honestly, women oftentimes come away from abortions very emotionally shook-up and some have lasting psychological trauma from what they had done. It's not exactly a fun experience. And further, many women don't go and have an abortion right away, like they're set on it. Many women go through an agonizing process of deciding what they want to do. Again--I don't think it'll become a commonplace thing, at least in quantity.

there have been 50 million abortions carried out in america since 1973, that's a whole lot of fetuses and f*cked up women
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 11:33:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 11:15:36 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/18/2013 10:27:44 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

As a guy, which presumably you are, the issue of abortion isn't relevant to you. You will never have an abortion. Take comfort in knowing that it's not a problem you have to solve.

That is a bit of a... Welll ... Discriminatory way PDF looking at it.

No, it's a pragmatic way of looking at it. You will never carry a child... I assume also that you're a dude too.

I will never be a judge, buff I can still comment on philosophy of law. I won't become a priest, but I can still comment on theology. One may not become a politician, but one can still comment on politics. Heck, if a celibate pope can comment on sex, I can comment on abortion!

Sure, you can have an opinion... lol. No one said that you couldn't. Your analogies don't quite work though. A profession is not the same as being biologically of one sex or the other.
Tsar of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 11:34:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

Here is a summary of common arguments;

The Fetus is not a Human

DNA says otherwise

The Fetus is not fully developed

People don't fully develop until their mid 20's.

Pregnancy should be a choice

You chose to get pregnant when you opened your legs. Pregnancy is the consequence of that choice.

The Mother has a right to evict

If true, this logic should also be applicable to post-birth children. Last I checked, it was illegal to evict your children.

The Fetus is a Parasite

Parasites are not necessarily bad. Many parasites are used in medicine for treatment and diagnosis. The Fetus actually improves the mother's health, so it is a symbiotic relationship. This argument attempts to associate the fetus with a negative connotation, rather than making an actual argument against the fetus. As such, this argument is purely semantics.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 11:35:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 11:22:14 AM, drhead wrote:
At 6/18/2013 10:27:44 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

As a guy, which presumably you are, the issue of abortion isn't relevant to you. You will never have an abortion. Take comfort in knowing that it's not a problem you have to solve.

But if you want to have an opinion on it, I'd suggest reading the Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey... and adopting Sandra Day O'Conner's view. Aside from being awesome, what she said is literally "the law."

That's a reason to be pro-choice. It isn't a male issue, so it's better for males to not tell women what they can do with their bodies.

I agree... but whether a person is pro life or pro choice won't change the fact that women have the right to medical privacy. Although, I think a lot of the recent legislation (like Arkansas's banning abortion after 15 weeks) is reprehensible, unconstitutional and in direct violation of that right to privacy. But that's what stupid people and stupid politicians do... they make "moral" (and I use that word loosely) cases to infringe on others' rights.
Tsar of DDO
PrivateEye
Posts: 972
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 11:37:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
the gays and females wanting abortion band together: "Stay out of our business!! F*ck the children!!"
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 11:44:57 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 11:34:38 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

Here is a summary of common arguments;

The Fetus is not a Human

DNA says otherwise

What if I splice a "glow in the dark" gene with a human embryo, and grow it in a test tube. DNA would differ, then, from that of a human... can we abort the glow in the dark baby?

The Fetus is not fully developed

People don't fully develop until their mid 20's.

Yes... post birth abortion could remain an option. Many republicans call it "the death penalty."

Pregnancy should be a choice

You chose to get pregnant when you opened your legs. Pregnancy is the consequence of that choice.

The Mother has a right to evict

I've always been irritated by this argument. Stupid people will say "well, you're just sh!t out of luck!" and move on... and yet that gets us nowhere.

If true, this logic should also be applicable to post-birth children. Last I checked, it was illegal to evict your children.

Perhaps it should be... although there is always the "post birth abortion" to consider...

The Fetus is a Parasite

This is the most offensive pro-choice argument, imo.

Parasites are not necessarily bad. Many parasites are used in medicine for treatment and diagnosis. The Fetus actually improves the mother's health, so it is a symbiotic relationship. This argument attempts to associate the fetus with a negative connotation, rather than making an actual argument against the fetus. As such, this argument is purely semantics.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 11:45:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 11:37:41 AM, PrivateEye wrote:
the gays and females wanting abortion band together: "Stay out of our business!! F*ck the children!!"

Actually, it's just "keep your bullsh!t to yourself and leave me the fvck alone!"
Tsar of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 12:48:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 11:44:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/18/2013 11:34:38 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

Here is a summary of common arguments;

The Fetus is not a Human

DNA says otherwise

What if I splice a "glow in the dark" gene with a human embryo, and grow it in a test tube. DNA would differ, then, from that of a human... can we abort the glow in the dark baby?

That would be a mutant. Originally it had the same DNA. If I mutate your genetic coding, would that make it morally acceptable to kill you?
The Fetus is not fully developed

People don't fully develop until their mid 20's.

Yes... post birth abortion could remain an option. Many republicans call it "the death penalty."

Not the same thing. You cannot be deprived of the right to life, without due process of law. Those on death row have been convicted and sentence in a court of law. I would not be against abortion in cases where the fetus poses an immediate threat to the life of the mother.

Pregnancy should be a choice

You chose to get pregnant when you opened your legs. Pregnancy is the consequence of that choice.

The Mother has a right to evict

I've always been irritated by this argument. Stupid people will say "well, you're just sh!t out of luck!" and move on... and yet that gets us nowhere.

Wait, so you agree with me or do you disagree?
If true, this logic should also be applicable to post-birth children. Last I checked, it was illegal to evict your children.

Perhaps it should be... although there is always the "post birth abortion" to consider...

The legal term is "Murder", but "Post abortion" has less of a negative connotation.

The Fetus is a Parasite

This is the most offensive pro-choice argument, imo.

Parasites are not necessarily bad. Many parasites are used in medicine for treatment and diagnosis. The Fetus actually improves the mother's health, so it is a symbiotic relationship. This argument attempts to associate the fetus with a negative connotation, rather than making an actual argument against the fetus. As such, this argument is purely semantics.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
YYW
Posts: 36,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 12:55:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 12:48:40 PM, DanT wrote:
At 6/18/2013 11:44:57 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/18/2013 11:34:38 AM, DanT wrote:
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

Here is a summary of common arguments;

The Fetus is not a Human

DNA says otherwise

What if I splice a "glow in the dark" gene with a human embryo, and grow it in a test tube. DNA would differ, then, from that of a human... can we abort the glow in the dark baby?

That would be a mutant. Originally it had the same DNA. If I mutate your genetic coding, would that make it morally acceptable to kill you?

Probably. We don't want mutants walking around.

The Fetus is not fully developed

People don't fully develop until their mid 20's.

Yes... post birth abortion could remain an option. Many republicans call it "the death penalty."

Not the same thing. You cannot be deprived of the right to life, without due process of law. Those on death row have been convicted and sentence in a court of law. I would not be against abortion in cases where the fetus poses an immediate threat to the life of the mother.

If I kill you because you are threatening to kill me, then I have acted in self defense and deprived you of your right to life without due process of law in a justifiable way.

Just sayin'


Pregnancy should be a choice

You chose to get pregnant when you opened your legs. Pregnancy is the consequence of that choice.

The Mother has a right to evict

I've always been irritated by this argument. Stupid people will say "well, you're just sh!t out of luck!" and move on... and yet that gets us nowhere.

Wait, so you agree with me or do you disagree?

I don't have an opinion on abortion... really.

If true, this logic should also be applicable to post-birth children. Last I checked, it was illegal to evict your children.

Perhaps it should be... although there is always the "post birth abortion" to consider...

The legal term is "Murder", but "Post abortion" has less of a negative connotation.

Well... DUH! That's why I said "post birth abortion"! lol

The Fetus is a Parasite

This is the most offensive pro-choice argument, imo.

Parasites are not necessarily bad. Many parasites are used in medicine for treatment and diagnosis. The Fetus actually improves the mother's health, so it is a symbiotic relationship. This argument attempts to associate the fetus with a negative connotation, rather than making an actual argument against the fetus. As such, this argument is purely semantics.
Tsar of DDO
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 1:30:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 11:34:38 AM, DanT wrote:
The Fetus is not a Human

DNA says otherwise

This is like the argument I presented: it's the one almost all ethicists on all sides of the debate point to as one that is wrong. It's commonly used as a "how not to argue for abortion". The general point is that it introduces the question: does genes make you valuable? Most would argue emphatically no.


Pregnancy should be a choice

You chose to get pregnant when you opened your legs. Pregnancy is the consequence of that choice.

"You get the choice when you didn't give me your wallet. Me shooting you is the consequence of that".

Would you argue that the condom, or even the morning after pill, is a choice to use? If so, abortion similarly is a choice. If you want to claim that life is an irrevertible right, you're going to have to go up against those like Anne Warren and Thompson who argue the right of the individual is wholly sovereign, and you cannot be forced to give up your right to do as you wish with yourself.

Oh, and most obviously, if pregnancy is a choice, you can choose to not be pregnant. Just like job choices, shopping choices, and in fact almost all choices in life, you can stop choosing it. Otherwise, it's not a choice.

The argument in fact relies on the reverse of what is being proposed: pregnancy is NOT a choice. If you become pregnant, you MUST REMAIN pregnant.

The Mother has a right to evict

If true, this logic should also be applicable to post-birth children. Last I checked, it was illegal to evict your children.

Ignoring the blatant is/ought here, the point seems to be "If you ought to look after your children, you ought to look after your fetus". The violinist example works easily here: though it'd be nice to, you don't have to. Or, more obviously, a fetus isn't of the moral value of a child.

Here are the actual common arguments for pro-abortion, without needless rhetoric:

1) Sovereignty over the individual.

"I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you"we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,[2] which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago." Judy Jarvis Thompson

2) The Right to Life comes from sentience

(Mary Anne Warren: On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion http://instruct.westvalley.edu...)

3) Actual value trump potential value.

There's a lot on this issue, but I'd summarise it firstly as the view (which I take) that a fetus is a potential life and therefore has value, but an actual fully living person such as a mother has much more value. Then I'd point to Peter Singer and his article: http://www.project-syndicate.org... he gets incredibly bad press because in the eighties he was severely harrassed by a disability activist group in Germany and some other misconstruing of his philosophy leading to views that he is e.g. for extreme population control (stemming from him saying that allowing all potential lives to be born would result in an untenable population, especially as early fetuses have the potential to become millions of children), or killing the disabled (he contended that putting off pregnancy for 3 months to stop a child becoming haemophilic for example was a moral imperative). However, the article itself is a good one and when he writes he usually presents his views most clearly.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 1:37:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 11:33:11 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/18/2013 11:15:36 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/18/2013 10:27:44 AM, YYW wrote:
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

As a guy, which presumably you are, the issue of abortion isn't relevant to you. You will never have an abortion. Take comfort in knowing that it's not a problem you have to solve.

That is a bit of a... Welll ... Discriminatory way PDF looking at it.

No, it's a pragmatic way of looking at it. You will never carry a child... I assume also that you're a dude too.

Oooh, well... :P

I will never be a judge, buff I can still comment on philosophy of law. I won't become a priest, but I can still comment on theology. One may not become a politician, but one can still comment on politics. Heck, if a celibate pope can comment on sex, I can comment on abortion!

Sure, you can have an opinion... lol. No one said that you couldn't. Your analogies don't quite work though. A profession is not the same as being biologically of one sex or the other.

I see your point here, but I don't accept it. "Biological children" (If we say that to be a child under eighteen or eight, we still have children from a biological age) don't get to dictate education policies (though it'd be a step up from Gove). And women certainly should not be able to decide whether we have a women's list and the percentage of parliament to be women, otherwise it'd be set ridiculously high, and both sides would do it. Sure, one side may have emotive interests, but emotive interests aren't valuable. It's rational dispassionate interests that matter in public policy.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 2:46:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/17/2013 4:08:50 PM, FrackJack wrote:
Can you convice me either way?

I, personally, think my argument in favor of abortion is very convincing. First, we have to look at why certain things are immoral in the first place. It is not because of semantical labels. So, labeling a fetus a "human being" just to get people emotional is not sufficient. I believe, there there are many factors at play. Some of these factors include pain, forcing someone to do certain things against their will, taking someone's life against their will, inflicting fear into a person ect..

Lets take a first and second trimester fetus. The fetus cannot feel pain, has no will to live, cannot feel fear, has no consciousness, and does not even knows it exists. There seems to be, on the face of it, absolutely nothing immoral about abortion during the first and second trimester at all. Anti-abortionists just like to use label games to create emotion, but don't actually present a sound case for what makes abortion immoral. Some say that it had the potential for consciousness, to feel pain, and to have a will to live. However, so does sperm. If abortion is murder, then masterbation is genocide according to this logic.

What about the third trimester? Here is where it gets tricky....The neotox develops at the beginning of this stage, which means that the fetus may be able to feel pain if it gets aborted. Due to this gray area, I am totally against third trimester abortions, and find them immoral. However, I truly see no real reason to deem first and second trimester abortions immoral.

I think my position is the most rational one. However, I am sure we all think the same thing with regards to our own position. Basically, first and second trimester abortions are alright. Third trimester abortions are not alright. The woman did not have to wait that long, and the fetus may be able to feel the abortion.

That about sums up my stance on abortion.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 3:12:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 2:46:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Some say that it had the potential for consciousness, to feel pain, and to have a will to live. However, so does sperm. If abortion is murder, then masterbation is genocide according to this logic.

Would you say that pain and consciousness is what is needed to make is just to not kill something? Let's take an example: anencephalic babies. Do they have any rights at all?

I am totally against third trimester abortions, and find them immoral.

I refuse to accept that: the most obvious example is the woman who will die alongside the child if the abortion does not take place.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 3:22:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 3:12:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/18/2013 2:46:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Some say that it had the potential for consciousness, to feel pain, and to have a will to live. However, so does sperm. If abortion is murder, then masterbation is genocide according to this logic.

Would you say that pain and consciousness is what is needed to make is just to not kill something? Let's take an example: anencephalic babies. Do they have any rights at all?

I am totally against third trimester abortions, and find them immoral.

I refuse to accept that: the most obvious example is the woman who will die alongside the child if the abortion does not take place.

"Would you say that pain and consciousness is what is needed to make is just to not kill something? Let's take an example: anencephalic babies. Do they have any rights at all?"

They should be killed, as their life is worthless. They are just taking up space.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2013 3:23:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/18/2013 3:12:26 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/18/2013 2:46:02 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Some say that it had the potential for consciousness, to feel pain, and to have a will to live. However, so does sperm. If abortion is murder, then masterbation is genocide according to this logic.

Would you say that pain and consciousness is what is needed to make is just to not kill something? Let's take an example: anencephalic babies. Do they have any rights at all?

I am totally against third trimester abortions, and find them immoral.

I refuse to accept that: the most obvious example is the woman who will die alongside the child if the abortion does not take place.

Fair enough, then I take back the word "totally". Lets replace that with "generally".