Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Reason for abortion

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 1:27:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm against abortion, unless it's done in extenuating cicrumstances (like protecting the mother's life).

But I'm thinking, does the reason for abortion really matter that much? Why is "protecting the mother's life" more important than, say, "I don't want the responsibility of raising a child"?

This question came when I found out that rodents have the capability of resorbing embryos into their bodies - that is, self aborting. The reason for this could be overcrowding in a rabbit's warren (valid reason), or a different male rat coming into a pregnant female rat's territory. (trivial reason)

Thus, there's nothing unnatural about abortion, and the reason for it obviously does not matter.

How to solve this dilemma?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 3:21:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 1:27:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
I'm against abortion, unless it's done in extenuating cicrumstances (like protecting the mother's life).

But I'm thinking, does the reason for abortion really matter that much? Why is "protecting the mother's life" more important than, say, "I don't want the responsibility of raising a child"?

This question came when I found out that rodents have the capability of resorbing embryos into their bodies - that is, self aborting. The reason for this could be overcrowding in a rabbit's warren (valid reason), or a different male rat coming into a pregnant female rat's territory. (trivial reason)

Thus, there's nothing unnatural about abortion, and the reason for it obviously does not matter.

How to solve this dilemma?

If I recall correctly, lionesses also self-abort when a new male enters their territory. They do so because they understand that their young, conceived by a previous alpha male, would immediately be killed by the newcomer. Self-aborting conserves their energy and allows them to begin conceiving again.

Assuming a "valid" reason translates to one that is done with the intent of benefiting the individual and/or the group, I'd categorize this as such.
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2011 5:49:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 1:27:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
I'm against abortion, unless it's done in extenuating cicrumstances (like protecting the mother's life).

But I'm thinking, does the reason for abortion really matter that much? Why is "protecting the mother's life" more important than, say, "I don't want the responsibility of raising a child"?

This question came when I found out that rodents have the capability of resorbing embryos into their bodies - that is, self aborting. The reason for this could be overcrowding in a rabbit's warren (valid reason), or a different male rat coming into a pregnant female rat's territory. (trivial reason)

Thus, there's nothing unnatural about abortion, and the reason for it obviously does not matter.

How to solve this dilemma?

In my opinion, you answered your own question in your first line. ("protecting the mothers life")<---Self defense/ preservation.

As for your second point, There is nothing 'un-natural' about rape, either.... But we (society) doesn't allow for it to go un-checked with that as a basis.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 11:59:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/9/2011 1:27:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
Thus, there's nothing unnatural about abortion, and the reason for it obviously does not matter.

The whole point of civilization is freedom from the purely natural. This includes quite a few restrictions on our actions that are not found in nature.

Unlike wolves, elk, lions, sea slugs etc. we do not kill each other competing for mates.

Animals can and do excrete waste anywhere they please. Civilization forces us to manage wastes.

There is nothing natural about living in boxes. There is nothing natural about writing down thoughts in books. There is nothing natural about having laws to govern behaviour. There is very little natural precedent for monogamy, or marriage, or medicine, or music, or art.

The whole point of civilization is to transcend jungle law. Animals can and do kill their young for many reasons. Humans are capable of compassion and self-sacrifice, and human law places value on human life.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 1:49:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 11:59:28 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 12/9/2011 1:27:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
Thus, there's nothing unnatural about abortion, and the reason for it obviously does not matter.

The whole point of civilization is freedom from the purely natural. This includes quite a few restrictions on our actions that are not found in nature.

Unlike wolves, elk, lions, sea slugs etc. we do not kill each other competing for mates.

Animals can and do excrete waste anywhere they please. Civilization forces us to manage wastes.

There is nothing natural about living in boxes. There is nothing natural about writing down thoughts in books. There is nothing natural about having laws to govern behaviour. There is very little natural precedent for monogamy, or marriage, or medicine, or music, or art.

The whole point of civilization is to transcend jungle law. Animals can and do kill their young for many reasons. Humans are capable of compassion and self-sacrifice, and human law places value on human life.

This is a little bit off topic but I'd say culture is pretty natural for humans.

On the other hand, arguing that because something is natural it also is good or right or necessary is fallacious.

As for my opinion,
I have a point until which I find abortion morally acceptable and that point is brain activity. When we talk about a person, we don't talk about fingernails, faces, etc. A person can be missing most parts of their body and still be a person -excepting organs which sustain life, obviously, because their bodies, and therefore brain activity, would cease. However, a heart is still not what makes a person a person. So, a heart is necessary for personhood, but only because it keeps mental activity in tact. A heart without mental activity is still not a person. What makes a person who they are are their memories and, more importantly, their existence as a thinking being. Until a fetus is a thinking being, I'd have to say it is not a person just yet, as it is technically brain-dead, and we cannot honestly call the death of it a "murder."

Even after it is a person, there is still good reason to believe that abortion is necessary in extreme cases.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 7:52:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I agree - culture is natural. Also, it's interesting how Christians rely on naturalism as an argument against homosexuality. However, as we can see, it is also "natural" for animals to seek abortions for evolutionary purposes, yet I doubt a Christian will be making the argument that abortion is therefore moral because it is an evolutionary process and obviously nature dictates moral righteousness...
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 7:56:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
To the OP, I don't think the reason for the abortion matters that much in terms of moral implications, because I don't think the fetus has rights. However, the reason is important to the mother making the choice about whether or not to carry the fetus through pregnancy. That is why it is important. It can affect the decision and how she deals with it. Obviously if her life is being threatened, her decision may be an easier one, for example.

Another thing on that point though - I've seen a lot of people say they are only okay with abortions if the mother's life is being threatened. That doesn't make much sense to me, but meh.
President of DDO
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 8:17:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 11:59:28 AM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 12/9/2011 1:27:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
Thus, there's nothing unnatural about abortion, and the reason for it obviously does not matter.

The whole point of civilization is freedom from the purely natural. This includes quite a few restrictions on our actions that are not found in nature.

Unlike wolves, elk, lions, sea slugs etc. we do not kill each other competing for mates.

Animals can and do excrete waste anywhere they please. Civilization forces us to manage wastes.

There is nothing natural about living in boxes. There is nothing natural about writing down thoughts in books. There is nothing natural about having laws to govern behaviour. There is very little natural precedent for monogamy, or marriage, or medicine, or music, or art.

The whole point of civilization is to transcend jungle law. Animals can and do kill their young for many reasons. Humans are capable of compassion and self-sacrifice, and human law places value on human life.

The point I was trying to make is that anything that comes "natural" cannot be wholly "evil".

And by this, I'm talking about physical processes. Some of them can be homosexuality, anal sex and stuff like that.

One can always argue that such and such is bad for society, but that's a different issue. The way is to build society in such a way that it does not restrict "natural" feelings. If society can only be built upon outlawing all natural impulses, then such a society cannot last long, and even while it lasts, cannot be a good place to live.

What about rape, polygamy, etc. etc. you may ask. I really don't know, how "natural" they are. But you get my drift....I hope.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 8:17:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 7:56:06 PM, Danielle wrote:
To the OP, I don't think the reason for the abortion matters that much in terms of moral implications, because I don't think the fetus has rights. However, the reason is important to the mother making the choice about whether or not to carry the fetus through pregnancy. That is why it is important. It can affect the decision and how she deals with it. Obviously if her life is being threatened, her decision may be an easier one, for example.

Another thing on that point though - I've seen a lot of people say they are only okay with abortions if the mother's life is being threatened. That doesn't make much sense to me, but meh.

Why?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 9:54:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 8:17:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Why?

Well, if I ask them why abortion is immoral, they say because the fetus is a living human being and therefore has a right to life. I don't see how the mother's life being threatened somehow negates the fetus' right to life, so this seems problematic. It seems to be saying that the fetus has a right to life if and only if the mother's life is not being threatened (or it's okay to ignore their right to life if the mother's life is being threatened). It trivializes the right to life to a matter of convenience, so I don't see why the same logic couldn't be applied to a mother seeking an abortion for other matters of convenience.
President of DDO
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:13:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 9:54:09 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/10/2011 8:17:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Why?

Well, if I ask them why abortion is immoral, they say because the fetus is a living human being and therefore has a right to life. I don't see how the mother's life being threatened somehow negates the fetus' right to life, so this seems problematic. It seems to be saying that the fetus has a right to life if and only if the mother's life is not being threatened (or it's okay to ignore their right to life if the mother's life is being threatened). It trivializes the right to life to a matter of convenience, so I don't see why the same logic couldn't be applied to a mother seeking an abortion for other matters of convenience.

Ummm Danielle, it's not that the child's right to their life is negated, when the mother's life is threatened. You are confusing yourself because you have mischaracterized the issue.

We all have an equal "right to our life."

A person coming at you with the intent of killing you or raping you has "a right to their life." Certainly, they are also "innocent until proven guilty" Just like you would be. Correct?

What you don't seem to be taking into consideration is the fact that acts of "self defense" do not require the person who is defending themself to "prove" their rights come before anther's.

If you "reasonably believe" your life is in danger, you have a right to defend yourself.

Whether the person putting you in danger is aware that they are doing so,.. is irrelevant. Whether they are actually "guilty" or have illegal intentions is also irrelevant.

Any person has the right to defend themself against another so long as they "reasonably believe" they have to do so, and they can't remove themselves from danger any other way.... and even then, we can't use excessive force. We have to use only the amount of force "necessary" to oppose the threat.

How much of a right the woman has to her life as opposed to how much of a right the child has is irrelevant.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2011 10:23:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:13:07 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Ummm Danielle, it's not that the child's right to their life is negated, when the mother's life is threatened. You are confusing yourself because you have mischaracterized the issue.

We all have an equal "right to our life."

A person coming at you with the intent of killing you or raping you has "a right to their life." Certainly, they are also "innocent until proven guilty" Just like you would be. Correct?

What you don't seem to be taking into consideration is the fact that acts of "self defense" do not require the person who is defending themself to "prove" their rights come before anther's.

If you "reasonably believe" your life is in danger, you have a right to defend yourself.

Whether the person putting you in danger is aware that they are doing so,.. is irrelevant. Whether they are actually "guilty" or have illegal intentions is also irrelevant.

Any person has the right to defend themself against another so long as they "reasonably believe" they have to do so, and they can't remove themselves from danger any other way.... and even then, we can't use excessive force. We have to use only the amount of force "necessary" to oppose the threat.

How much of a right the woman has to her life as opposed to how much of a right the child has is irrelevant.

So I am mischaracterizing the issue because I bring up the right to life, yet you are not mischaracterizing the issue even though you are comparing an innocent fetus to someone who is reasonable to remove because they are trying to rape/kill you? Your analogy suffers because the individual loses their right to life once it is perceived that they are trying to harm you. A fetus isn't trying to do anything but live. A fetus is not responsible for the potential harm to you, because a fetus didn't ask to be conceived. Even if the fetus were deemed harmful to your person, the mother was (usually) at least partially responsible. If she can remove a threat to her physical well-being, I don't see how it is different than removing a threat to her psychological well-being or social well-being or personal well-being in any way. She can suffer devastating consequences even if they're not (physical) life threatening by carrying the pregnancy to term. Anyway, this ultimately comes down to a a debate about rights and morality in general. Since we likely won't agree on standards for either, this conversation becomes moot.
President of DDO
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,789
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 11:54:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:23:05 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 12/10/2011 10:13:07 PM, Chuz-Life wrote:
Ummm Danielle, it's not that the child's right to their life is negated, when the mother's life is threatened. You are confusing yourself because you have mischaracterized the issue.

We all have an equal "right to our life."

A person coming at you with the intent of killing you or raping you has "a right to their life." Certainly, they are also "innocent until proven guilty" Just like you would be. Correct?

What you don't seem to be taking into consideration is the fact that acts of "self defense" do not require the person who is defending themself to "prove" their rights come before anther's.

If you "reasonably believe" your life is in danger, you have a right to defend yourself.

Whether the person putting you in danger is aware that they are doing so,.. is irrelevant. Whether they are actually "guilty" or have illegal intentions is also irrelevant.

Any person has the right to defend themself against another so long as they "reasonably believe" they have to do so, and they can't remove themselves from danger any other way.... and even then, we can't use excessive force. We have to use only the amount of force "necessary" to oppose the threat.

How much of a right the woman has to her life as opposed to how much of a right the child has is irrelevant.

So I am mischaracterizing the issue because I bring up the right to life, yet you are not mischaracterizing the issue even though you are comparing an innocent fetus to someone who is reasonable to remove because they are trying to rape/kill you? 1. I am not equating the two (a child in the womb and a rapist) when I point out that a woman's right to defend herself is not predicated on her perceived threats value to society, personal rights, guilt or innocence or anything like that.

Our right to defend ourselves exists despite all those things.

2. The thing that a woman has the right to defend herself against (in a medical necessity abortion) is NOT the child at all. It's the condition of being pregnant and the complications that are there with it that she is defending herself against.

If there is a way to rid the woman of those complications without causing the death of the child, then that's what the dr.s would most likely be doing in these cases. Wouldn't they?

Your analogy suffers because the individual loses their right to life once it is perceived that they are trying to harm you.

This is incorrect and it shows that you don't fully understand or appreciate the laws concerning a justifiable homicide or an act of self defense.

A fetus isn't trying to do anything but live.

True

A fetus is not responsible for the potential harm to you, because a fetus didn't ask to be conceived.

True again.

Even if the fetus were deemed harmful to your person, the mother was (usually) at least partially responsible.

That's true as well.

If she can remove a threat to her physical well-being, I don't see how it is different than removing a threat to her psychological well-being or social well-being or personal well-being in any way. She can suffer devastating consequences even if they're not (physical) life threatening by carrying the pregnancy to term. :

All true.

But think about what you just said above (where I underlined your comments).

You can't INVITE someone into a threatening position against yourself and then justifiably claim the right to kill them in an act of "self defense."

Judgements will inevitably have to be made, but you can't invite someone into your home (think consent that results in pregnancy) and then kill the person you invited because you've suddenly changed your mind and now think they are trespassing.

Anyway, this ultimately comes down to a a debate about rights and morality in general. Since we likely won't agree on standards for either, this conversation becomes moot.

Laws have to be written and policies have to be made. The Constitution says what it says and all rights have to be recognized and taken into consideration. You may think the conversation is moot. But so long as these issues remain un-resolved the debates (moot or not in your opinion) will continue.

Thanks for helping me to clarify some of my position.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 12:41:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/10/2011 10:23:05 PM, Danielle wrote:
Your analogy suffers because the individual loses their right to life once it is perceived that they are trying to harm you. A fetus isn't trying to do anything but live. A fetus is not responsible for the potential harm to you, because a fetus didn't ask to be conceived. Even if the fetus were deemed harmful to your person, the mother was (usually) at least partially responsible. If she can remove a threat to her physical well-being, I don't see how it is different than removing a threat to her psychological well-being or social well-being or personal well-being in any way. She can suffer devastating consequences even if they're not (physical) life threatening by carrying the pregnancy to term. Anyway, this ultimately comes down to a a debate about rights and morality in general. Since we likely won't agree on standards for either, this conversation becomes moot.

Regarding the bolded part, can I then take it that you are FOR justifying killing a person because they are causing me psychological damage (by taunting me, or by any such means)? Also, I am justified in killing a person that causes me social discomfort (for example, in the case of honor killing)?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2011 7:26:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Damm nature, you be scary.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12