Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An Unapologetic View of Abortion

Fight4Liberty
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 5:37:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I expect to be criticized, ridiculed and demoted in social rank on the DDO site after I post this. Inherently, I will never care, nor take back any word I write, nor apologize for my rawness on this issue.

The opening statement of this issue does not address victims of rape.

Why do people justify abortion?

Because they are selfish bigots who never take responsibility.
But, screams the ignorant, "It's the woman's body and it's her choice!"

The woman made her PHYSICAL CHOICE when SHE willingly lay with a man.
SHE took this risk of a man impregnating her of this supposed 'parasite.'

So if you can scream "Women's body, Women's choice," what's wrong with me advocating "Fetus's Body, Fetus's Choice?"

This 'Fetus' NEVER made the choice to be created, the WOMAN took the risk / CHOICE of its creation.
The fetus has a body, so why is its RIGHT to a choice rejected? Why must a BABY suffer for the 'mistake,' of the generation before it?

I guess the term 'fetus' was developed to numb us to the fact a 'fetus' is a child, a creation, a being.

Undoubtedly, second and third trimester abortions are a 'legal' murder, (though I still argue the first is 'legal' murder.) For gosh sakes people, a 'fetus' can CRY in the second trimester! It can feel!
http://www.hmhbpbc.org...

If any of you care to observe, anyone who favors abortion has already been born!


It's time to remove this veil of 'scientifically' justified ignorance and see abortion as it is, the 'legal' murder of a child.

Good day.
Revoloution
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 5:41:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How do you feel about rape, incest or high risk pregnancy?

You didn't address those three, in my opinion, very legitimate exceptions to your argument. But, asides from that, I agree with your view entirely.
Fight4Liberty
Posts: 23
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 5:52:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 5:41:57 PM, Praesentya wrote:
How do you feel about rape, incest or high risk pregnancy?

You didn't address those three, in my opinion, very legitimate exceptions to your argument. But, asides from that, I agree with your view entirely.

Incest and high risk are, again, their choice. Rape is not the child's fault, and I will be posting on that later. However, this is the baby steps for pro-choice debaters.

Thank you for your support.
Revoloution
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 5:59:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Incest and high risk are, again, their choice.

You make a valid argument there. But, is it worse for the mother to die? Or for the baby to die? Abortions can save the mother's life in some high risk pregnancies.

Rape is not the child's fault, and I will be posting on that later.

Sounds good. But, rape isn't the mother's fault either...
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 6:06:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 5:41:57 PM, Praesentya wrote:
How do you feel about rape, incest or high risk pregnancy?

You didn't address those three, in my opinion, very legitimate exceptions to your argument. But, asides from that, I agree with your view entirely.

I keep hearing about "high-risk" pregnancy, but could you point me to a number as to how many times that actually happens? I want to say that Sweden has had a no-abortion at all stance and they've never lost anyone where an abortion would have saved the woman.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 6:07:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 5:37:34 PM, Fight4Liberty wrote:
I expect to be criticized, ridiculed and demoted in social rank on the DDO site after I post this. Inherently, I will never care, nor take back any word I write, nor apologize for my rawness on this issue.

I kind of think that you're new enough not to have much by way of social rank yet, so I'm not sure how you could be "demoted". Nonetheless, welcome to the site! I'm sure you'll get a pretty spirited reaction from this post. If you don't mind I'd like to note a few things:

The opening statement of this issue does not address victims of rape.

Why do people justify abortion?

Because they are selfish bigots who never take responsibility.

Here what you're doing seems to be creating what's called a strawman.

But, screams the ignorant, "It's the woman's body and it's her choice!"

I'm not clear how that's "ignorant", and I would say that it's a bit unfair of you to make such sweeping generalizations without justifying a foundation.

The woman made her PHYSICAL CHOICE when SHE willingly lay with a man.
SHE took this risk of a man impregnating her of this supposed 'parasite.'

So if you can scream "Women's body, Women's choice," what's wrong with me advocating "Fetus's Body, Fetus's Choice?"

No one questions the ability of the Fetus to make choices regarding their own body. Unfortunately, the problem is that 1, they can't, 2, they aren't people, and 3, they REQUIRE the woman's body, while the reverse is not true.

This 'Fetus' NEVER made the choice to be created, the WOMAN took the risk / CHOICE of its creation.

It's a valid point, but it doesn't address the larger picture.

The fetus has a body, so why is its RIGHT to a choice rejected? Why must a BABY suffer for the 'mistake,' of the generation before it?

Because first, you're begging the question. A fetus is not a "baby", and it is dishonest to equivocate like that.

Second, well, I hope you aren't religious....*cough*Eden*cough*, but that's a bit off-topic.

Third, you haven't demonstrated any "suffering" from the fetus, which is not a person.

I guess the term 'fetus' was developed to numb us to the fact a 'fetus' is a child, a creation, a being.

Not in the slightest. Fetus is a medical term that's been around a Looooooong time. I'm not sure why you'd make such a claim at all

Undoubtedly, second and third trimester abortions are a 'legal' murder, (though I still argue the first is 'legal' murder.) For gosh sakes people, a 'fetus' can CRY in the second trimester! It can feel!

Legal murder is, generally speaking, an oxymoron.

Further: your arguments about the second trimester do not apply to the first trimester. So if you're going to assert that "the first is 'legal' murder", it would be best to focus on that, as using arguments about the second trimester is a form of "shifting the goalposts".

Incidentally, it's 28 weeks that the baby can cry in the womb:

http://www.webmd.com...

If any of you care to observe, anyone who favors abortion has already been born!


To be honest, this argument is utterly and completely irrelevant to the questions raised in the conversation about abortion.

It's time to remove this veil of 'scientifically' justified ignorance and see abortion as it is, the 'legal' murder of a child.

Good day.

Good day to you as well. Unfortunately, I think you need to support your positions a bit better or else they rather lack warrant.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 6:11:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 6:06:04 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 7/9/2014 5:41:57 PM, Praesentya wrote:
How do you feel about rape, incest or high risk pregnancy?

You didn't address those three, in my opinion, very legitimate exceptions to your argument. But, asides from that, I agree with your view entirely.

I keep hearing about "high-risk" pregnancy, but could you point me to a number as to how many times that actually happens? I want to say that Sweden has had a no-abortion at all stance and they've never lost anyone where an abortion would have saved the woman.

Sweden doesn't have a no abortion at all stance...up until the 18th week it's unregulated, after that there's a board, and then in the case of complications it's allowed if the baby can't survive outside the womb, which is often the case in high-risk pregnancies. I haven't found good statistics that aren't in Swedish, though.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2014 6:31:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I keep hearing about "high-risk" pregnancy, but could you point me to a number as to how many times that actually happens? I want to say that Sweden has had a no-abortion at all stance and they've never lost anyone where an abortion would have saved the woman.

No, to be honest, I don't know how many documented cases their are about whether or not an abortion would save the woman. I'm inclined to think that high-risk pregnancies can generally be solved through a cesarian section though...

I do think that, if birthing a child constitutes a legitimate threat to your life or way of life, you should be allowed to abort it, even past the twenty week mark (which I believe is the most widely accepted term when fetuses begin to feel pain).

I did find this... http://thepregnancyfoundation.org...

I'm unsure of how accurate that site is, but it also kicks into play an entirely new argument... Should women with pre-existing medical conditions be allowed to get abortions because they have medical conditions with symptoms that can be amplified through pregnancy.

I'll post my personal opinion on this - no, they should not. They were aware of their medical conditions from the start, they knew the risk, they can accept the consequences.
Juris_Naturalis
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 9:33:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 6:11:12 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/9/2014 6:06:04 PM, Juris_Naturalis wrote:
At 7/9/2014 5:41:57 PM, Praesentya wrote:
How do you feel about rape, incest or high risk pregnancy?

You didn't address those three, in my opinion, very legitimate exceptions to your argument. But, asides from that, I agree with your view entirely.

I keep hearing about "high-risk" pregnancy, but could you point me to a number as to how many times that actually happens? I want to say that Sweden has had a no-abortion at all stance and they've never lost anyone where an abortion would have saved the woman.

Sweden doesn't have a no abortion at all stance...up until the 18th week it's unregulated, after that there's a board, and then in the case of complications it's allowed if the baby can't survive outside the womb, which is often the case in high-risk pregnancies. I haven't found good statistics that aren't in Swedish, though.

My bad.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 10:34:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've never thought much of the abortion debate, but unless its for the life of the mother or rape, its just seemed abhorrent.

I mean, you are killing a baby (and don't give me that semantic BS about fetus vs. person) because you are lazy/lack self-control?

Not sure how this should translate to written laws, and as mentioned above, its not even something I would look at when voting for a candidate. On its face though, it seems like such a practice should be illegal.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:09:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 5:37:34 PM, Fight4Liberty wrote:
I expect to be criticized, ridiculed and demoted in social rank on the DDO site after I post this. Inherently, I will never care, nor take back any word I write, nor apologize for my rawness on this issue.


Criticism should be welcomed, it will help you clarify and refine your argument. There are many here who disagree with abortion, and I don't think you'll be alienated on account of it. I personally am rather torn on the issue.

The opening statement of this issue does not address victims of rape.

Why do people justify abortion?

Because they are selfish bigots who never take responsibility.

This argument is an ad hominem, which is built on a generalization. Not really valid, but seems emotional in nature. Indeed, I would caution you to temper your own bigotry so as you do not appear to be bigoted yourself.

But, screams the ignorant, "It's the woman's body and it's her choice!"


Again, we have the usage of a derogatory classification for those who disagree with you, that they are characterized by ignorance. It's cool to be passionate about your views, but this kind of rhetoric is basically akin to masturbation. It's gross and you should keep it to yourself.

The woman made her PHYSICAL CHOICE when SHE willingly lay with a man.
SHE took this risk of a man impregnating her of this supposed 'parasite.'

So if you can scream "Women's body, Women's choice," what's wrong with me advocating "Fetus's Body, Fetus's Choice?"


You understand the problem here is that we have a cognitive fully developed human being, and one in the fetal stage of development which does not have the capacity to make choices. The fetus then has no capacity to act, while the woman does, and she might go through any means to terminate the babies life.

Criminalizing the practice doesn't seem a deterrent in stopping the practice, but rather driving it underground, which will then result in a couple things. 1) Abortions are a lot more dangerous, and 2) prisons are already full enough without imprisoning women who abort their babies.

Depending on the term in which the abortion takes place, I think the act should be treated and regarded differently. Also, I would say that the promotion of free contraceptives is the best way to end these abortions of convenience.

This 'Fetus' NEVER made the choice to be created, the WOMAN took the risk / CHOICE of its creation.
The fetus has a body, so why is its RIGHT to a choice rejected? Why must a BABY suffer for the 'mistake,' of the generation before it?


Depending on the term of the abortion, it would not suffer at all as the central nervous system would not have been developed. Indeed it would have been prevented from any future suffering whatsoever.

I guess the term 'fetus' was developed to numb us to the fact a 'fetus' is a child, a creation, a being.


The word "fetus" actually comes from the Latin word fētus which means, offspring, bring forth, hatching of young.

Modern dictionaries now do not ascribe meanings, but rather convey how words are generally used today. When it comes to the meaning of a word, usage is king.

Hence here is the common usage of the term today.

an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I would then conclude that the statement that the term is made up, to be false. Calling it a "baby" makes it an emotional argument.

Undoubtedly, second and third trimester abortions are a 'legal' murder, (though I still argue the first is 'legal' murder.) For gosh sakes people, a 'fetus' can CRY in the second trimester! It can feel!
http://www.hmhbpbc.org...

"Legal murder," that's rather an odd statement. However, can you state for us what your position on first trimester abortion is?


If any of you care to observe, anyone who favors abortion has already been born!


It certainly is a capacity of cognitively developed human beings to care, a fetus does not. Does the potential for caring amount to something in your mind?

It's time to remove this veil of 'scientifically' justified ignorance and see abortion as it is, the 'legal' murder of a child.


I think it's time to have an honest discussion about an important issue without framing our language in immature and inflammatory language. You would do well to learn this.

Good day.

Good day to you as well!
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:23:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 10:34:09 AM, HPWKA wrote:
I've never thought much of the abortion debate, but unless its for the life of the mother or rape, its just seemed abhorrent.


Do you think it is abhorrent to abort a zygote? When it is just one cell? At what stage does it become abhorrent to you?

I mean, you are killing a baby (and don't give me that semantic BS about fetus vs. person) because you are lazy/lack self-control?


One of the core issues is the issue of person-hood. What constitutes a person. Can you provide an argument that substantiates that a developing baby/fetus has person-hood?

Not sure how this should translate to written laws, and as mentioned above, its not even something I would look at when voting for a candidate. On its face though, it seems like such a practice should be illegal.

Do you think criminalizing the practice would prevent it? What would it accomplish?

Regards,
TrueScotsman
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 12:12:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So I guess two main question by TrueScotsman.

1.) When do I consider the fetus/zygote/thing a "person"?

As soon as fertilization occurs, and all things being natural, the resulting cluster of cells is guaranteed to grow into a person.

2.) Would criminalizing abortions prevent them?

It could reduce them, but beyond that, we are a society that believes a life shouldn't be taken unless it has committed heinous crimes, or (in some cases) doing so would save more lives. Neither of these stipulations apply to a baby (outside of life of the mother/rape).
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 12:39:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 12:12:22 PM, HPWKA wrote:
So I guess two main question by TrueScotsman.

1.) When do I consider the fetus/zygote/thing a "person"?

As soon as fertilization occurs, and all things being natural, the resulting cluster of cells is guaranteed to grow into a person.


Are you saying that a zygote is a person, or the guaranteed potential to become a person (if there is no miscarriage). If it is just the potential of person-hood, then does this lead us to conclude that Abortion should be criminalized? Also, if this is not when person-hood is acquired, then when does that happen?

2.) Would criminalizing abortions prevent them?

It could reduce them, but beyond that, we are a society that believes a life shouldn't be taken unless it has committed heinous crimes, or (in some cases) doing so would save more lives. Neither of these stipulations apply to a baby (outside of life of the mother/rape).

Can you please classify what you mean by "a life." Also, how would you respond to the point that abortion would simply be driven underground and create a whole host of other crimes in addition to abortion" Much like the prohibition of alcohol.

Also, in the case of criminal justice, mens rea (criminal intent) must be substantiated in a court of law in order to convict. How would you go about proving criminal intent in the case of an abortion?

Regards,
TrueScotsman
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 1:49:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 10:34:09 AM, HPWKA wrote:
I've never thought much of the abortion debate, but unless its for the life of the mother or rape, its just seemed abhorrent.

I mean, you are killing a baby (and don't give me that semantic BS about fetus vs. person) because you are lazy/lack self-control?

Just to be clear, it's not a baby, and it's not a mere semantic distinction--there IS a pretty meaningful difference between a zygote and a person, and fetuses change dramatically as they develop.

Incidentally, it's worth remembering that about 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort develop according to most estimates, before the woman ever knows she's pregnant.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 5:49:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHAHA
(I was not going to do it until you said someone would do it, you can call yourself a prophet now, Congratulations).

btw "So if you can scream 'Women's body, Women's choice,' what's wrong with me advocating 'Fetus's Body, Fetus's Choice?' "

This is a misunderstanding of abortion. Abortion is not about killing the fetus. There is no rights of the fetus being affected, EVEN IF YOU CAN CONSIDER IT A PERSON.

This is important because, you can be sure that the only reason it dies, is because it can't live without the mother. In other words the only one obligating to do something to :respect the rights: of one of them is you. You want the mother to finish the pregnancy. Here is where we advocate "Hey, respect the rights of both" and the fetus dies because it can't live alone.
buddha49er
Posts: 30
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 7:52:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/9/2014 5:37:34 PM, Fight4Liberty wrote:
I expect to be criticized, ridiculed and demoted in social rank on the DDO site after I post this. Inherently, I will never care, nor take back any word I write, nor apologize for my rawness on this issue.

I don't think people are taking issue with your opinion, just how you use a broad brush to paint those who disagree as ignorant, attempting to win the argument by using insults.

The opening statement of this issue does not address victims of rape.

Why do people justify abortion?

Because they are selfish bigots who never take responsibility.

Insult, insult, sweeping generalization. That's not a point to be countered. It means less than nothing intellectually. It's essentially like saying "You suck...because you do!" We can all recognize the inherent childishness of this.

But, screams the ignorant, "It's the woman's body and it's her choice!"

But, screams the arrogant, "Fetuses are babies because I want them to be!"

I can do it too. The broad brush works in the hands of any and all. Women have cognitive faculties, fetuses don't. Fetuses can't make choices, but full grown adult human beings can. Hence why it's her choice.

The woman made her PHYSICAL CHOICE when SHE willingly lay with a man.
SHE took this risk of a man impregnating her of this supposed 'parasite.'

Human beings have always had sex for pleasure. You're basically advocating for abstinence, just in case something goes wrong and the woman gets pregnant. No thanks. Even if you're on birth control, there's a small chance you can become pregnant. That's not making a physical choice to become pregnant any more than getting in a car is choosing to crash.

So if you can scream "Women's body, Women's choice," what's wrong with me advocating "Fetus's Body, Fetus's Choice?"

The fetus can't make choices. So that argument is out the window. If you're going to genuinely argue for the fetus's choice, and then say that you want to make the choice for it (essentially what you are doing), then you're just as bad as the women who do it, from a logical standpoint.

This 'Fetus' NEVER made the choice to be created, the WOMAN took the risk / CHOICE of its creation.

Fetuses don't/can't make choices. Straw man.

The fetus has a body, so why is its RIGHT to a choice rejected? Why must a BABY suffer for the 'mistake,' of the generation before it?

It's not a baby, it's a fetus. It doesn't have rights because it fully depends on the woman to live and has the inability to make choices.

I guess the term 'fetus' was developed to numb us to the fact a 'fetus' is a child, a creation, a being.

Or to differentiate between "not at all developed" and "developed". I don't call a concrete foundation a building for the same reason I don't call a fetus a baby: it may be at the beginning stages of said end goal, but it's not said end goal.

Undoubtedly, second and third trimester abortions are a 'legal' murder, (though I still argue the first is 'legal' murder.) For gosh sakes people, a 'fetus' can CRY in the second trimester! It can feel!
http://www.hmhbpbc.org...

Every other source says the crying thing is 3rd trimester.
http://www.webmd.com...

Third trimester abortions are actually illegal, last I checked, so that's moving the goal posts if I've ever seen it.

Abortions are legal up until 24 weeks in most states (20 in others), although 88% of them occur in the first 12-13 weeks (which you'll recognize as a point at which they can't do squat and feel no pain).
http://www.livescience.com...

If any of you care to observe, anyone who favors abortion has already been born!


Anybody who holds an opinion on anything has been born. This means nothing. "The sky is blue! Trees are alive!" I can bring up the obvious too.

It's time to remove this veil of 'scientifically' justified ignorance and see abortion as it is, the 'legal' murder of a child.

I like how you put "scientifically" in quotes, as if you're arguing from an emotional point instead of a scientif--oh, wait, you ARE arguing from an emotional point and completely ignoring science (except when it tells you that fetuses cry at a certain point; then science is your friend). What you're using is "emotionally justified ignorance". Scientifically justified ignorance doesn't really exist; if it's scientifically justified, it's not ignorance.

Good day.

Don't tell me how to live my life! I'll have a bad day if I want to.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 10:54:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
TrueScotsMan,

Not sure we can analogize the prohibition of alcohol with the potential prohibition of abortion. Illegally procuring alcohol is much safer and easier then procuring an abortion, and was also part of an emerging social scene (clubs/dance/music).. Would abortion exist underground, probably. Would it be anything resembling an industry? Probably not.

Regardless, we can't let such an unfounded threat deter us from proper action. If abortion is outlawed, and we see an alcohol-prohibition-situation arise, we can reevaluate at that time.

Not sure how the legal side of things would work out, I suspect some law about the "rights" of a fetus would have to be articulated.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 10:56:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just to be clear, it's not a baby, and it's not a mere semantic distinction--there IS a pretty meaningful difference between a zygote and a person, and fetuses change dramatically as they develop.

There is a pretty meaningful difference between a baby and an adult, and babies change dramatically as they develop. That doesn't mean recreational killing of newborns can be justified.

Incidentally, it's worth remembering that about 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort develop according to most estimates, before the woman ever knows she's pregnant.

So what?
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:05:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 10:56:24 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Just to be clear, it's not a baby, and it's not a mere semantic distinction--there IS a pretty meaningful difference between a zygote and a person, and fetuses change dramatically as they develop.

There is a pretty meaningful difference between a baby and an adult, and babies change dramatically as they develop. That doesn't mean recreational killing of newborns can be justified.

So?

We aren't talking about newborns. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses. Zygotes, at least, clearly aren't people--I've yet to see an argument that held any water advocating it was so.

Incidentally, it's worth remembering that about 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort develop according to most estimates, before the woman ever knows she's pregnant.

So what?

It's worth noting that the zygote has a 50% chance of failing to survive anyway, regardless of intentional abortion (well, usually lowered to 20% by the time it's known).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
HPWKA
Posts: 401
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:29:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:05:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/10/2014 10:56:24 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Just to be clear, it's not a baby, and it's not a mere semantic distinction--there IS a pretty meaningful difference between a zygote and a person, and fetuses change dramatically as they develop.

There is a pretty meaningful difference between a baby and an adult, and babies change dramatically as they develop. That doesn't mean recreational killing of newborns can be justified.

So?

Just illustrating, that pointing out that there are differences between a zygote and a person doesn't mean anything.

We aren't talking about newborns. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses. Zygotes, at least, clearly aren't people--I've yet to see an argument that held any water advocating it was so.

Zygotes/Fetuses are in the process of maturing into "people", and liquidating them as they mature seems tantamount to murder.

It's worth noting that the zygote has a 50% chance of failing to survive anyway, regardless of intentional abortion (well, usually lowered to 20% by the time it's known).

How is it worth noting? Say 50% of of US males don't live past age 70. Does that make recreational murder of 69-70 year old less reprehensible, because they could have died anyway?

By the way, I am fairly new to the "abortion debate", and don't have a particularly strong position on it. If I'm missing something obvious, or come off as too partisan, don't be alarmed. I'm just trying to find a logical/moral reason why Abortion should be condoned.
Feelings are the fleeting fancy of fools.
The search for truth in a world of lies is the only thing that matters.
LogicalLunatic
Posts: 1,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2014 11:37:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:05:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/10/2014 10:56:24 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Just to be clear, it's not a baby, and it's not a mere semantic distinction--there IS a pretty meaningful difference between a zygote and a person, and fetuses change dramatically as they develop.

There is a pretty meaningful difference between a baby and an adult, and babies change dramatically as they develop. That doesn't mean recreational killing of newborns can be justified.

So?

We aren't talking about newborns. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses. Zygotes, at least, clearly aren't people--I've yet to see an argument that held any water advocating it was so.

Incidentally, it's worth remembering that about 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort develop according to most estimates, before the woman ever knows she's pregnant.

So what?

It's worth noting that the zygote has a 50% chance of failing to survive anyway, regardless of intentional abortion (well, usually lowered to 20% by the time it's known).

You seem to be describing cells prior to conception (I could be wrong though). This is not quite the same thing as abortion, though people may still question morality.
As there is no way of knowing whether or not a fetus has "a soul", one might say that like agnosticism, one does not truly know whether or not a fetus is alive. Since we don't know this, people are required to make a choice to keep or abort the baby depending on what they believe about this. It's a wager, really, and it's something like this...

A. Baby doesn't have Right to Life (RTL). Cost of termination is minimal. Cost of keeping infant is higher, but still temporary (if adoption is an option).
B. Baby has RTL. Cost of termination is high (murder of human being). Cost of keeping is temporary (if adoption is an option).
It's like Pascal's Wager, kind of. It's a safer bet, not counting probability or anything, just to "bet" that the baby is alive.
A True Work of Art: http://www.debate.org...

Atheist Logic: http://www.debate.org...

Bulproof formally admits to being a troll (Post 16):
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 12:21:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:05:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

We aren't talking about newborns. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses. Zygotes, at least, clearly aren't people--I've yet to see an argument that held any water advocating it was so.

I've yet to see an argument that held any water that it isn't.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 2:20:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:21:24 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/10/2014 11:05:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

We aren't talking about newborns. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses. Zygotes, at least, clearly aren't people--I've yet to see an argument that held any water advocating it was so.

I've yet to see an argument that held any water that it isn't.

Well the burden to establish that it is a person would fail on the one claiming it so.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 3:58:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:29:21 PM, HPWKA wrote:
At 7/10/2014 11:05:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/10/2014 10:56:24 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Just to be clear, it's not a baby, and it's not a mere semantic distinction--there IS a pretty meaningful difference between a zygote and a person, and fetuses change dramatically as they develop.

There is a pretty meaningful difference between a baby and an adult, and babies change dramatically as they develop. That doesn't mean recreational killing of newborns can be justified.

So?

Just illustrating, that pointing out that there are differences between a zygote and a person doesn't mean anything.

Again, though--the one advocating that the zygote has rights is the one who has to make a case. If zygotes are not persons, they do not have rights.

We aren't talking about newborns. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses. Zygotes, at least, clearly aren't people--I've yet to see an argument that held any water advocating it was so.

Zygotes/Fetuses are in the process of maturing into "people", and liquidating them as they mature seems tantamount to murder.

It cannot be tantamount to murder.

If they are not persons (And I think it can be asserted that zygotes are not persons pretty easily, since they lack ALL the attributes that we would expect from personhood), then it's not murder, because murder requires that it be a person.

It's worth noting that the zygote has a 50% chance of failing to survive anyway, regardless of intentional abortion (well, usually lowered to 20% by the time it's known).

How is it worth noting? Say 50% of of US males don't live past age 70. Does that make recreational murder of 69-70 year old less reprehensible, because they could have died anyway?

Again: the situations are not analogous. In the 69-70 y/o group you'd be taking away rights that they already have. In the zygotes group, no rights have been established.

The 50% is relevant only inasmuch as, if we concede that it certainly can't be PROVEN that zygotes are persons, we're talking about whether we should err on the side of caution, and protect them anyway. If 50% are going to die anyway, despite the protection, AND we don't know they're persons, it seems to hardly warrant the protection.

By the way, I am fairly new to the "abortion debate", and don't have a particularly strong position on it. If I'm missing something obvious, or come off as too partisan, don't be alarmed. I'm just trying to find a logical/moral reason why Abortion should be condoned.

No worries, you're not being too partisan. Partisanship isn't really a problem, anyway. Honest, relatively respectful discourse can still be had between partisans, and so long as it stays there, I know I certainly have no problem with it.

There are two general arguments: The first is the personhood argument, which we have generally focused on here. That is to say, if they aren't persons, it can't be asserted they have rights, so the question is moot.

The second argument (which, while I take issue with the generalizing manner the OP mentioned it, I recognize that there ARE some whos position IS as simplistic as he presents it, because in most groups there's people who don't think things through) is the "Woman's body" argument. It's the woman's body, the argument goes, and so therefore it's hers to do with as she wishes, regardless of the personhood of the entity growing in her. A common response is one resting on "responsibility", that the woman has to deal with the consequences of her choice to have sex (which is why sometimes there's latitude given for cases of rape). However, I think that there's definitely room for debate on the matter.

On both matters, in fact.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 4:05:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:37:50 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 7/10/2014 11:05:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/10/2014 10:56:24 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Just to be clear, it's not a baby, and it's not a mere semantic distinction--there IS a pretty meaningful difference between a zygote and a person, and fetuses change dramatically as they develop.

There is a pretty meaningful difference between a baby and an adult, and babies change dramatically as they develop. That doesn't mean recreational killing of newborns can be justified.

So?

We aren't talking about newborns. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses. Zygotes, at least, clearly aren't people--I've yet to see an argument that held any water advocating it was so.

Incidentally, it's worth remembering that about 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort develop according to most estimates, before the woman ever knows she's pregnant.

So what?

It's worth noting that the zygote has a 50% chance of failing to survive anyway, regardless of intentional abortion (well, usually lowered to 20% by the time it's known).

You seem to be describing cells prior to conception (I could be wrong though).

Zygotes are by definition the result of the splitting of the fertilized egg. I'm saying that AFTER conception, about 50% of fertilized eggs fail to implant or otherwise "abort".

This is not quite the same thing as abortion, though people may still question morality.

I think an argument could be made that if zygotes are considered persons, then so too would unfertilized eggs or sperm, but that's off the point at hand.

A zygote is the earliest stage after fertilization. Strictly speaking, sometimes people get sloppy with the technical terms, using zygote for what's more properly a morula or an embryo, but the point is that when talking about Zygotes, we're talking about the first few cell divisions after fertilization.

As there is no way of knowing whether or not a fetus has "a soul", one might say that like agnosticism, one does not truly know whether or not a fetus is alive.

Whoa, there, those are two different things. A fetus is clearly "alive". Whether it has a soul or not is a matter of faith. As such, it would be a matter for the individual. If you believe the fetus has a soul, then you can feel it's immoral--but imposing that on others requires support.

Since we don't know this, people are required to make a choice to keep or abort the baby depending on what they believe about this. It's a wager, really, and it's something like this...

A. Baby doesn't have Right to Life (RTL). Cost of termination is minimal. Cost of keeping infant is higher, but still temporary (if adoption is an option).
B. Baby has RTL. Cost of termination is high (murder of human being). Cost of keeping is temporary (if adoption is an option).
It's like Pascal's Wager, kind of. It's a safer bet, not counting probability or anything, just to "bet" that the baby is alive.

Just be careful with the "alive" arguments. Life is separate from ensoulment. Animals are alive. Plants are alive. But few religions consider plants to have souls.

The point is that if you believe A, abortion is fine--the costs are up to the individual, and there's no abrogation of rights. If you believe B, it's not fine. But your own faith can't justify forcing an A believer to adopt the B position. (and there are other problems, too, but that's the main one with this as presented).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 8:24:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 10:54:17 PM, HPWKA wrote:
TrueScotsMan,

Not sure we can analogize the prohibition of alcohol with the potential prohibition of abortion. Illegally procuring alcohol is much safer and easier then procuring an abortion, and was also part of an emerging social scene (clubs/dance/music).. Would abortion exist underground, probably. Would it be anything resembling an industry? Probably not.


This is simply to deny history, during the period of the late 1800s and 1973, abortions were hardly reduced but rather driven underground. Some estimates place the rate of abortion at 1.2 million abortions per year, done in back-alley establishments that sometimes seriously harmed or killed the pregnant women receiving the abortion. To rationalize that this wouldn't continue in an age where medical advancements have far surpassed that of the previous period is simply nonsensical. An abortion is something that can even be performed alone, should the woman be desperate enough. Those self-induced abortions are of course extremely dangerous, but were very prevalent during the prohibition.

I therefore conclude that the criminalization of abortion does not actually reduce the practice by any measure, but creates more issues than it solves. Not only is this type of legislation quite impossible to achieve in this political climate, it doesn't address the issues that really drive a person to desire an abortion.

I believe the most efficient way to stop abortions, is to provide easy access, perhaps even free of charge, the distribution of contraceptives. This I believe is the only course that is achievable in today's political climate, and would actually put a dent in the number of annual abortions.

I don't think anyone desires to have the practice of abortion continue on at it's current rate, and any effort to reduce that number without the threat of force or incarceration should they refuse to obey the state. It is evidence of an imperfect world, and we cannot deal with the world as we wish it were, but rather as it truly is.

Regardless, we can't let such an unfounded threat deter us from proper action. If abortion is outlawed, and we see an alcohol-prohibition-situation arise, we can reevaluate at that time.


The threat is not unfounded, but is well documented in somewhat recent history. It is not a slippery slope argument, but simply an appeal to not repeat our own stupid mistakes.

Not sure how the legal side of things would work out, I suspect some law about the "rights" of a fetus would have to be articulated.

Such hopes on your end are entirely fiction, as there is no hope of abortion being abolished again in the USA. Any belief that it one day will, is simply an article of faith that denies the trajectory of country.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 8:36:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/10/2014 11:37:50 PM, LogicalLunatic wrote:
At 7/10/2014 11:05:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/10/2014 10:56:24 PM, HPWKA wrote:
Just to be clear, it's not a baby, and it's not a mere semantic distinction--there IS a pretty meaningful difference between a zygote and a person, and fetuses change dramatically as they develop.

There is a pretty meaningful difference between a baby and an adult, and babies change dramatically as they develop. That doesn't mean recreational killing of newborns can be justified.

So?

We aren't talking about newborns. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses. Zygotes, at least, clearly aren't people--I've yet to see an argument that held any water advocating it was so.

Incidentally, it's worth remembering that about 50% of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort develop according to most estimates, before the woman ever knows she's pregnant.

So what?

It's worth noting that the zygote has a 50% chance of failing to survive anyway, regardless of intentional abortion (well, usually lowered to 20% by the time it's known).

You seem to be describing cells prior to conception (I could be wrong though). This is not quite the same thing as abortion, though people may still question morality.
As there is no way of knowing whether or not a fetus has "a soul", one might say that like agnosticism, one does not truly know whether or not a fetus is alive. Since we don't know this, people are required to make a choice to keep or abort the baby depending on what they believe about this. It's a wager, really, and it's something like this...

A. Baby doesn't have Right to Life (RTL). Cost of termination is minimal. Cost of keeping infant is higher, but still temporary (if adoption is an option).
B. Baby has RTL. Cost of termination is high (murder of human being). Cost of keeping is temporary (if adoption is an option).
It's like Pascal's Wager, kind of. It's a safer bet, not counting probability or anything, just to "bet" that the baby is alive.

Except Pascal's Wager, much like this argument is logically fallacious. Usually when people throw around the word "rights" it is simply just an appeal to add some power behind our rhetoric, when generally it simply describes what we want. This isn't always the case, but that usually is how things work in the 21st Century.
TrueScotsman
Posts: 515
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 8:37:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 12:21:24 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/10/2014 11:05:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

We aren't talking about newborns. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses. Zygotes, at least, clearly aren't people--I've yet to see an argument that held any water advocating it was so.

I've yet to see an argument that held any water that it isn't.

Perhaps you can provide an argument for the person-hood of a zygote then?
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2014 9:20:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/11/2014 8:37:19 AM, TrueScotsman wrote:
At 7/11/2014 12:21:24 AM, Geogeer wrote:
At 7/10/2014 11:05:10 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

We aren't talking about newborns. We're talking about zygotes and fetuses. Zygotes, at least, clearly aren't people--I've yet to see an argument that held any water advocating it was so.

I've yet to see an argument that held any water that it isn't.

Perhaps you can provide an argument for the person-hood of a zygote then?

Sure, I'm off to work, but I'll write something out tonight.