The Abortion Debate (continued) (2 Viewers)

[banco55]

The silliest thing is that I specifically told him that the argument used allows that it is alive at the point of conception and that it has a right to life.



Why is it that all of a sudden you do not have a right to life if your life is the product of incest/rape?

I'm not saying the product of rape/incest doesn't have a right to life I'm saying that you can outlaw abortion and create an exception for rape/incest as a number of countries have done so if your argument against laws forbidding abortion is "what about women who have been raped?" the law can easily be changed to create an exception while still outlawing abortion in other cases. Shit that's a long sentence.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'm not saying the product of rape/incest doesn't have a right to life I'm saying that you can outlaw abortion and create an exception for rape/incest

But if abortion is wrong because it's a living creature and therefore has a right to life, it seems rather odd to make the exception in the case of rape/incest, as if your right to life has diminished because you are the product of rape/incest. See my question rests on the idea that like Bshoc, your (perhaps hypothetical) reason for believing that it is wrong to abort a fetus is because it has a right to life. I.e. If you're outlawing abortion because fetus's are people and all people have a right to life, it doesn't really sit right with me that because of how you were concieved that your right is diminished.

I'm aware that you can make that exception, but it doesn't really seem too tasteful does it?

 

[banco55]

But if abortion is wrong because it's a living creature and therefore has a right to life, it seems rather odd to make the exception in the case of rape/incest, as if your right to life has diminished because you are the product of rape/incest. See my question rests on the idea that like Bshoc, your (perhaps hypothetical) reason for believing that it is wrong to abort a fetus is because it has a right to life. I.e. If you're outlawing abortion because fetus's are people and all people have a right to life, it doesn't really sit right with me that because of how you were concieved that your right is diminished.

I'm aware that you can make that exception, but it doesn't really seem too tasteful does it?

No but political reality results in a lot of nasty compromises.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

So you're saying that you in fact do not feel an exception should be made for cases of rape/incest, but that the political environment makes it so that such a law is impossible?

I would really like you to read http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

 

[banco55]

So you're saying that you in fact do not feel an exception should be made for cases of rape/incest, but that the political environment makes it so that such a law is impossible?

I would really like you to read http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Yes that's what I'm saying. A law outlawing 99% of abortions is better than the current situation. I've read it and needless to say I don't agree with it but her arguments are clever. There are of course equally clever refutations of her points all over the internet that are much more eloquent than I could ever be. I will say that I'm convinced you could make similarly clever arguments in favour of eugenics and infantcide etc (as certain notorious professors have done). I still think these kinds of hyper-rational, legalistic arguments can be very dangerous.

 

[The Brucemaster]

*sigh*

Ignorant fools, such are the results of The Church meddling in the affairs of The State.


First of all, to my indoctrinated friend Robbie1:

"Scientists are atheists...i do not listen to such people."

So what you're saying is that you judge people and the value of their opinions based on their religious beliefs or lack thereof? St. Peter will have some interesting questions for you upon your arrival at the pearly gates i think.

Also:

"At the moment of conception a new soul is born."

I assume that you have proof to support this statement, if not then don't expect anyone to believe you other than your hardcore christian friends.

To bshoc:

"Firstly I want to admit that 1407 people in the country do not speak for the other 22 000 000."

This has already been dealt with fairly well but I want to throw another spanner in the works:

Would you first of all agree with the system of democracy?

If so then you have to have an understanding of how it works, correct?

Keeping this in mind let us cast our minds back to the recent conscience vote in The Senate on the use of the RU-486 pill.
The Bill was passed meaning (implicitly) a majority of Senators supported women having access to the means of abortion.
Now if I assume that you have answered yes to the first two questions then consider this: Senators are parliamentary representatives elected to speak for the views of their electorate (the state). Thus, considering the quota system used for election to The Senate then THE MINIMUM NUMBER of people that these Senators speak for is 1, 828, 528 people. Mind you, thats based on all the Senators in the Senate not just the ones who voted on the Bill but its also based on the absolute minimum quote being achieved by EVERY SENATOR which is of course impossible.

Now that's some statistical data that i think speaks for a slightly larger portion of the population then some 'statistically inaccurate' survey (which is based on the principles of statistics).

Your arguments in relation to fallacy of composition and impossibility theorem have been shown to be irrelevant/fallacious by numerous individuals so I won't dwell on those. One thing though:
"Arrow's impossibility theorem proves my point."
Yes, marvellous but utlitarian theory also proves NTB's point, the Bible 'proves' God's existence. In short you have simply formulated an argument and then found something that proves it, ignoring its relevance or value.

Also for you bshoc LEARN TO FUCKING SPELL IF YOU WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY!!!



That is all.

 

[withoutaface]

Not That Bright - I couldn't care less what some scientist says about when life begins.

But they know more about life than you do, and have indeed spent at least three years studying human biology (most likely more if they're a senior researcher) in order to make such a statement.

Scientists are atheists (well, the vast majority of them)

Unsubstantiated statement. Evidence?

so I pay no attention to such people.

Then why should the rest of the population pay attention to your ramblings and wish to impose religious law upon them without any substantial evidence.

Just as they pay no attention to the soul that enters this world at the moment of conception.

Scientists pay attention to facts that can be ascertained through observation. That is what science is.

Therefore, whether the baby is breathing or not means nothing. At the moment of conception a new soul is born. Hence, abortion = murder.

Oh, so we should introduce new laws based on your say so, when you actually have nothing to support what you say?

If your not a Christian, I don't expect you to agree with me. But I am and thats the way I see it - and one day you will see that I am right.

Tell you what, if you're right I owe you a case of beer in heaven. But until you can prove you're right, you have no basis to be introducing laws based on a hunch.

Even if you are not religious, I still can't understand how you could do such a thing to your unborn baby. Something so prescious is metaphorically thrown into the bin like its rubbish. Its human life, its prescious, its sacred, and it should be receieved with open arms.

By your definition, yes. You still haven't established that this definition is justified.

What is the world coming to when a baby is considered a burden rather then a special gift...so sad.

Emotive jibberish has no place in this thread.

 

[robbie1]

Yeah, and I care nothing for people like you. You go on about not caring for scientists but it is the scientist who brought technology for you to use. If you cared so much about your all so powerful and gracious God then abandon all technology and go live in the dark ages and start a farm somewhere with all your other communal God loving folk and stop bothering us.

There would be no people without God, hence no scientists to create technology.

And what do you mean if I cared so much about God to go live in the dark ages? Are you aware that there is still today a significant number of religious people?

 

[BradCube]

A foetus is not demonstratably human in its early stages though - it is little better than a cell growth. So if people believe (independent of religion) that terminating a cluster of cells is immoral/unjust, then it seems more of a line in the sand than a logical conclusion if they support termination of other more aware life forms.

It seems that it depends on how you demonstrate what life is human. You suggested that even in the early stages, the feotus displays none of the properties that sets humans apart from other species. I would question this however. Just because many physical characteristics are not in place does not make the life form any less human. For that matter what are the attributes that set humans aside from other life? From the moment of conception human DNA is present and because of this I find it hard to suggest that we are not dealing with human life from even that point.

Even if we grant that a fetus is a human and that it has a right to life, as the mother also has her own freedoms and has not granted the fetus the right to use her body she can then remove the fetus and let it die.

By the mother actually becoming pregneant her body has granted the featus the right to use her body. This may not always be the case conciously but on a purely physical level her body has agreed.

Lets take a look at the violinist example. In it we are given that the mother wakes up like this, so I am assuming from this that the resulted pregnency was unexpected (eg rape). I would suggest that the burden of this problem however lies on the cause of the occurance. So in this case the person who raped the mother is therefore responsible for the fact that she is now supporting the life of another individual. Now continuing with an argument for pro-life it would still be wrong for her to disconnect herself from this since she is of course killing the other life by doing so. To use the old adage, "Two wrongs don't make a right".

This therefore means, that the mother has now had to deal with the pregnancy of a child for nine months (assuming she has put it up for adoption) and this is not fair for the mother when it was not desired in the first place. As stated before, the punishment for this should be placed upon the cause of pregnancy - the person who raped her.

The question becomes more interesting, as the article details further on, when the mothers own life comes into jepardy. Although minute in occurance, it is worth looking at this from all possibilities. In this case, I would still put forward the agrument that the pregnancy should not be terminated, as it is still murdering life (still of course from the assumption that it is human life at this point). If the mother does die however, then the rapist should be charged with murder, or rather, manslaughter.

Keep in mind that I am not suggesting that this is ever feasible to place into real-life law. Rather it seems to me that this is the most logical conclusion when dealing with morality. I'm not sure how much of this makes sense, lol, so by all means ask me to clairfy if need be.

 

[transcendent]

There would be no people without God, hence no scientists to create technology.

And what do you mean if I cared so much about God to go live in the dark ages? Are you aware that there is still today a significant number of religious people?

Only if you're stupid enough to believe in Creationist theory and the majority of religious people aren't stupid enough to denounce science. Again, throw out your computer, your toilet, your television, your microwave, your oven, your stove and every other electrical appliance you science hating God lover.

 

[BradCube]

Only if you're stupid enough to believe in Creationist theory and the majority of religious people aren't stupid enough to denounce science. Again, throw out your computer, your toilet, your television, your microwave, your oven, your stove and every other electrical appliance you science hating God lover.

Just for the record, creationism doesn't neccesarily discount scientific evidence as you seem to imply that it does.

 

[transcendent]

It does when robbie1 says it.

 

[sam04u]

Why do people always attempt to over-complicate things? This issue is as simple as this;
Abortion is not something that some may agree to, and so they shouldn't have their children aborted.

But here are valid reasons people have abortions;

1. They have had previous ceaserian section recently and can't sustain having a baby naturally safely.
2. The baby has severe defects and may not be able survive during the birth and could also kill the mother in the process. (technology can be used to save the mother which is a valid reason since both shouldn't have to die when science can prevent it. )
3. The baby is the event of a rape and there are psychological implications of having the baby.
4. The mother is not in a position to raise the baby and it could bring another 'neglected' baby where the mother would not be able to adequately support the baby.

I don't necessarily like the idea of a women aborting a baby for these reasons;

1. The baby was an accident.
2. I don't know who the father of the baby is and therefore feel insecure about the baby.
3. I wont be able to support the baby. (duh... adoption)

But, that's just my idea and everyone has to understand that your idea does not necessarily decide what should be done. All we can do is try and influence people to understand why we believe what we do and try to perceive their perspective aswell.

I think a baby is a miracle.
I think a mother has a natural link to her baby nothing is more powerful then the maternity which influences a women.
I believe any mother can love her baby and teach it, it's literally comprised of half of you why would you kill a piece of you?(besides the reasons listed)

Then again, some women don't respect their bodies and therefore would be equally as negligent to the baby and not understand why abortion for reasons such as listed is quite unfair. ( This post is 5 lines too long so it will be ignored by 70% of the readers, atleast the avid readers of this thread will be able to get the point iIm making. )

 

[wheredanton]

Why do people always attempt to over-complicate things? This issue is as simple as this;
Abortion is not something that some may agree to, and so they shouldn't have their children aborted.

Like most human issues the issue of abortion cannot be simply solved

But here are valid reasons people have abortions;
1. They have had previous ceaserian section recently and can't sustain having a baby naturally safely.
2. The baby has severe defects and may not be able survive during the birth and could also kill the mother in the process. (technology can be used to save the mother which is a valid reason since both shouldn't have to die when science can prevent it. )
3. The baby is the event of a rape and there are psychological implications of having the baby.
4. The mother is not in a position to raise the baby and it could bring another 'neglected' baby where the mother would not be able to adequately support the baby.

Fair enough on the above.

I don't necessarily like the idea of a women aborting a baby for these reasons;
1. The baby was an accident.
2. I don't know who the father of the baby is and therefore feel insecure about the baby.
3. I wont be able to support the baby. (duh... adoption)

The above 3 reasons, in certain circumstances, easily fit within reason 4 of the first list. Really reason 4 is, in a paraphased way, the same test we currently have for abortion.

 

[transcendent]

sam04u your views are as valid to a person as how proportional they perceive life to be sacred. It is therefore an argument against relative terms. If this is the case, then it is ultimately up to the individual to make the decision, not the 'state'.

 

[sam04u]

sam04u your views are as valid to a person as how proportional they perceive life to be sacred. It is therefore an argument against relative terms. If this is the case, then it is ultimately up to the individual to make the decision, not the 'state'.

Exactly, some people are too quick to cry 'murder, murder' when infact they're not going to 'have' the baby, they're not going to 'raise' the baby and most importantly they're not going to 'deliver the baby'. Ofcourse, we all have our own ideals and all abortions should be justified properly since the mother could regret the abortion herself. (Also, I think there should be a 4-week trial period where the mother is forced to reflect on the situation. )

But, that may never be the case. Many people think their views are right when we're all human. Our views are based on conditioning so therefore the person with the most/least ammount of a particular conditioning can make the fairest judgement. In my opinion Debating is useless, it all has to do with conditioning. I believe that someone like 'wheredanton' has almost the right conditioning to completely solve the questions of abortion which exist.

(Crap, I really should stop releasing my ideas/secrets on this forums... it's so... hard though when it can prove a point.... lol oh well, now you know about conditioning ^.^ )

 

[Not-That-Bright]

By the mother actually becoming pregneant her body has granted the featus the right to use her body. This may not always be the case conciously but on a purely physical level her body has agreed.

That's a bit silly imo. Did you read the full article? Perhaps you missed some of it.If a burgular breaks into a womans house, even tho she has put in place locks/bars on her windows to attempt to prevent them from getting in, if he gets in anyway, does that mean she allowed him access into her home? I doubt anyone would say yes, so I think it's then fair for you to at least conceed perhaps that in the case of a woman whom has used contraceptive abortion would be ok.

Another possible conclusion of your logic is that if a womans body accepts a mans penis (i.e. doesn't reject it) that man has a right to keep his penis in her, this doesn't seem right does it?

rather it seems to me that this is the most logical conclusion when dealing with morality.

So what you're saying brad, is that even if a woman is raped or has her life threatened she still cannot have an abortion? The article explains quite simply why that is wrong and I don't really see an objection from you about the article on this matter. Perhaps you should re-read the section on when a mothers life is at steak and cut a quote from it with your objections to that logic below.

ather it seems to me that this is the most logical conclusion when dealing with morality.

Do you have an argument as to why you don't agree with it? If not your disagreement is purely emotional.

There are of course equally clever refutations of her points all over the internet that are much more eloquent than I could ever be.

Fine, post them here and I will post the counter to those refutations until we reach a point of utter disagreement on the premises of one of our counter-points, i.e. it comes down to some sort of immesurable question, then we will let others decide where on the arguments they sit. To me it would be much better for us to all hash out our arguments to get to the root cause of what exactly it is which we believe and our reasonings for why we do than to simply say 'No, I'm sure you're wrong'.

I will say that I'm convinced you could make similarly clever arguments in favour of eugenics and infantcide etc (as certain notorious professors have done).

Yes ok, but lets hash out the argument some more... even in an argument for/against infantcide I believe it's much better to hear the arguments in full to decide why we are against that idea. It is wrong to say 'no i just know in my heart that is wrong' and not explain why it is that you feel that way.

In my opinion Debating is useless, it all has to do with conditioning.

If it has to do with conditioning and we cannot change our pre-concieved morals then how exactly could I when I joined this forum have been anti-abortion (do a search for earlier threads by me on abortion) to now being pro-choice? There are often reasons behind our madness, most people are generally utilitarian when it comes to crunch time. They want to know which result is going to lead to more happiness for mankind. Now even tho happiness is surely an immeasurable thing, I imagine there will be commonality amongst us because of evolution/social upbringing/etc.

Just for the record, creationism doesn't neccesarily discount scientific evidence as you seem to imply that it does.

Not necessarily, but if it is presented as being the opposite of evolution (which because of the debate in america it now often is) then I'm pretty sure it does discount scientific evidence / the scientific method... unless you're willing to say that it is still an unproven hypothesis, in which case fine, but I can't currently concieve any proof for it.

 

[hiphophooray123]

Pro-abortion

an abortion should be allowed if the fetus hasn't reached the age of viability yet. Between the time of conception and the age of viability the mother has a significant time period in which to make her decision. After the fetus reaches the age of viability abortion should not be an option.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think the article Ive been spamming puts it quite right.

You have a right to not have your life taken from you, unjustly. Is abortion just killing? It could not be said in the circumstances discussed in the article, that the mother has done anything unjustly. Therefore - at least for the circumstances in the article, abortion is fine.

I'm really interested to see what BradCube has to say about contraception with reguards to the mother's body granting the fetus the right to exist inside there. I think most people will come to the conclusion at the very least that in cases where contraceptives have been used, abortion should be fine.

IMO then there is another practical problem, if you accept that but still disagree with abortion in other circumstances - how do you know whether a contraceptive has been used? To me it then seems that the main focus should be on getting the message out there for people to use contraceptives, something I would strongly support.

 

[P_Dilemma]

This reminds me of the debate about the monks and the egg:

Two brother monks go to the old wise monk and say: "We are monks, and thus we abhor all forms of killing. Yet we love to eat eggs. Does the eating of eggs constitute murder?"

And the old wise monk says: "That is for you to decide"

---

Granted, that may have been an attempt to dodge the question, but the old wise monk has a point. Whether or not killing a foetus is murder is, most likely, up to you.

Although i have to say, if the egg had been about to hatch, and then they ate it, that would be murder...

-P_D