• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

for those against abortion

Risen

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,185
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
But again, personhood is an ethical not a biological category.



Sure, we should respect others beliefs. But we are dealing here with issues that concerns elementary issues of human life; and what should take precedence in law - the good or one's rights. You really can't argue rights takes precedence over moral good, since rights themselves are based upon a conception of a moral good.

Even if there is a soul (not necessarily my belief), my reasoning is that it cannot experience the world unless it has the means to do so, and the brain is that means. So in terms of defining what is a human life, that would be my criteria. Still, there is the ethical issue of whether or not we should terminate POTENTIAL human life. But then the argument gets to be too subjective in nature, and not agreeable. One could say you are preventing life by wearing a condom. But I don't wanna go there.
 

simulatedworld

Freshman Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Messages
5,552
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
If you don't agree, don't worry about it. Just don't post. I just want to understand this all better.

So you want to understand the opposing side a little better but people who disagree with you aren't allowed to respond?

That's cool...
 

The Decline

(☞゚∀゚)☞
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
780
MBTI Type
?
Enneagram
5w4
Even if there is a soul (not necessarily my belief), my reasoning is that it cannot experience the world unless it has the means to do so, and the brain is that means. So in terms of defining what is a human life, that would be my criteria. Still, there is the ethical issue of whether or not we should terminate POTENTIAL human life. But then the argument gets to be too subjective in nature, and not agreeable. One could say you are preventing life by wearing a condom. But I don't wanna go there.

Let's not. I would explain how you're preventing fungal life by not letting that serving of soup you just made rot in your kitchen.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Im not suprised no one read my post. Your argument only works if you start with certain assumptions. Again, its not that I'm saying 'your religious views' are wrong. Its whose religious views, would the gov adopt if we are going to make the non-naturalism assumption? If you consider the non-naturalism viewpoint, almost any point could be arbitrarily chosen as "thats when the soul enters! or thats when it becomes a person hood!"

Its not that you are wrong, its "whose religion are we gonna use?"

Hmmmn....interesting, I don't recall making any specific religious references there. If anything I was basing my argument on Aristotle and vaguely Kantian ethics as well. One doesn't necessarily have to be religious in order to be against abortion.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Well, that is an interesting perspective, but it seems to me that there's something important left out of it. It seems to me that since the baby is dependent upon the mother to survive up to birth, that it's essentially engaged in a parasitic relationship with it's host.

The problem is that, whether it's fair to the life going on inside of the mother, it's still their body, and unlike in the case of suicide or mutilation, there are clear ways in which pregnancy can harm the mother's body more than an abotion. It can result in calcium deficiencies, pain, inability to work, and more. In extreme cases, labor can even result in death. The fact is, I think that inherent risks of the birth process balance things out. If pregnancy had absolutely no negative effects on a woman's body, your perspective might be justified, but that's not the case. It's not the same as killing a person in cold blood, considering the parasitic element and health risks carrying a baby involve. The baby is, albeit unconsciously, doing biological harm that it can't necessarily be held blameless for if we're going to regard it as a life.

The fact that it's a "natural process" doesn't mean we have no right to interfere. We already interfere with several natural processes that don't directly affect ourselves (such as killing animals for food, medicine, agriculture, etc), but somehow the ones that do directly affect ourselves are the ones you're going to consider too "sacred" to touch? That strikes me as kind of self-centered and hypocritical, if not ironic. We have the right to decide what other species live and die, but not the life of something that's living your own body? Seriously? Illness and death from illness are also a natural process, and yet I don't see any of you jumping to oppose the use of medicine.

If you adopt a moral system that forbids abortion, by all means don't get one. But... I don't think you have any right to make that decision for others.

I don't think every other civilization that forbade them was wrong. I just don't think forbidding abotion is in keeping with our countries ideals, which we're developing new understandings of all the time (for instance, abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote). For countries founded on different principles, perhaps it is in keeping with their spirit.

Ultimately, my reason for wanting it legal is because I don't think the government should be involved in it, just like I don't want them banning alcohol. Essentially, I believe that we should limit the government's involvement in what people can and can't buy, including abotions. Granted, I don't think the Government should be paying for abotions or creating free abortion clinics either, but it should be legal. It's one thing if you want to protest against and create a social stigma around it, but to create a law regarding it would be unjust, since to do so clearly forces a particular understanding of an issue on which there can be reasonable disagreement upon people unnecessarily. In a religious community, you could reasonably create a stigma around abortion that's as much of a deterrent as any federal law. Shame and upbringing are powerful on their own.

One of the things that's good about our country is that people who have different religious beliefs and conceptions of morality are more free here to live according to their beliefs here than anywhere else. I don't feel that outlawing abotion is in keeping with that. You could choose to put it on the same level as killing people, but there's a huge difference if only in practical terms, because it's not necessary to outlaw abotion to maintain order. Societies have managed to maintain order even when exposing weak children to the elements was considered acceptable... this is still far less brutal than that practice.

Athenian forgive me, but your post will take some considerable time and thought to respond to. So I hope you forgive me for delaying a response for the time being.
 

Grayscale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
1,965
MBTI Type
ISTP
instead of robbing a woman of her right to not raise an unwanted potential child in poverty and go through pregnancy.

Look, I can sprout fungal growth on my arm if I please, and then take a match to it and extinguish its existence. That's a civil right, a right to your property. A woman can also sprout embryonic growth in her womb if she so pleases. Seeing as both these cases are about an extension of your body, I don't see how, suddenly upon conception, an embryo is a self-contained individual. But hey, that's just me, right? And these are just bullshit issues, no?

If a mother has a child, along this line of thinking, why shouldnt she be able to kill the child? Women in poverty do have rights... don't have sex because you can't afford to raise a child. I don't want to pay taxes, it's my money, why should I have to?

What the pro-abortion argument hinges on is isolating the matter to strictly the present moment. If you don't abort the embryo, it will likely grow into a child and eventually an adult. Of course, killing an adult is accepted as wrong, but the only difference between the embryo and the mature adult is time.

Along these lines, here is what I propose... when a woman becomes pregnant, she can file for an abortion until it resembles a baby, but the application process takes a few years to complete. Once she is approved, the child can be killed. Fair?

Right, that won't work, we wanted to kill it when we wouldnt feel guilty about it. Frankly I think all of you are making this too complicated if you aren't considering motives in issues of morality. Tell me I'm wrong here.
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Sure, we should respect others beliefs. But we are dealing here with issues that concerns elementary issues of human life; and what should take precedence in law - the good or one's rights. You really can't argue rights takes precedence over moral good, since rights themselves are based upon a conception of a moral good.

What's good is in the eye of the beholder. Any founder of a country should know this. The law should allow us to make decisions like this based on what WE consider good or bad. It's our right to exercise what we see as morally good in my opinion (as long as it isn't crazy stuff like ritual killings and sacrifice, you know what I mean).

As I said, what's the issue? If you don't believe it, don't practice it. Your belief won't influence anyone else's, if someone is pro abortion then they frankly won't care about your ethical system. So I don't see any purpose to preaching these viewpoints.

The most rational decision to make would be to allow the woman to choose, and that's final. You (the reader) are irrational if you think otherwise in my opinion.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Athenian forgive me, but your post will take some considerable time and thought to respond to. So I hope you forgive me for delaying a response for the time being.

It's okay. :)

I know you're probably going to disagree with me, but that's what makes this interesting.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
First, let me say that yes, religious organizations are indeed the most charitable groups. This is a strawman argument you raise, since I was talking about anti-abortionist groups. If such groups are so concerned about preserving fragile life, they could make a bigger difference in something that actually matters, instead of robbing a woman of her right to not raise an unwanted potential child in poverty and go through pregnancy.

Anti-abortionist groups often are connected to religious charities, so it seems you're hair-splitting here. Concerning raising an unwanted child, there is the option of adoption. Concerning pregnancy, well I guess the argument can be made that women have a right not to open up their legs too. Part of life is dealing with the choices you make.

Look, I can sprout fungal growth on my arm if I please, and then take a match to it and extinguish its existence. That's a civil right, a right to your property. A woman can also sprout embryonic growth in her womb if she so pleases. Seeing as both these cases are about an extension of your body, I don't see how, suddenly upon conception, an embryo is a self-contained individual. But hey, that's just me, right? And these are just bullshit issues, no?

Human life is not property, and issues regarding human life are not bullshit.
 

The Decline

(☞゚∀゚)☞
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
780
MBTI Type
?
Enneagram
5w4
If a mother has a child, along this line of thinking, why shouldnt she be able to kill the child? Women in poverty do have rights... don't have sex because you can't afford to raise a child. I don't want to pay taxes, it's my money, why should I have to?

Because upon birth the child is given rights as a citizen. Don't ask me why, it just is. However, you seem to have not read the idea I posted about infant =! fetus. And why the necessity for an application? You don't need a license to ejaculate and flush it down the toilet or to toss your egg-laden tampon out the window.


Right. Because abstinence education works, right guys? At least in my state we have a wonderful program for impoverished women which grants them free birth control and basic sexual health services. This is incredibly smart of the state, as I'm sure it decreases the resulting child welfare costs.


Anti-abortionist groups often are connected to religious charities, so it seems you're hair-splitting here. Concerning raising an unwanted child, there is the option of adoption. Concerning pregnancy, well I guess the argument can be made that women have a right not to open up their legs too. Part of life is dealing with the choices you make.

You're the one splitting hairs by assuming that all anti-abortionists are religious. Didn't you just say that one can come to anti-abortionists views without religion? All I mean to do is reference those who wish abortion to cease. I dare not generalize by saying they're all religious!

Yes, because we all know that foster homes are the best places. I'd want my children there over my own loving, wealthy home! However, I ultimately believe the idea that you can abort should not fall on justification based on consequence of where this child might end up. A fetus not developing into a human can be the result of god's will to miscarriages, or human will deciding that the time is not right.

Human life is not property, and issues regarding human life are not bullshit.

Unfortunately it appears that you apply the label "human life" to multicellular organisms within a human. Perhaps you should shed a tear the next time a cancerous growth is surgically removed from a human.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
What's good is in the eye of the beholder. Any founder of a country should know this. The law should allow us to make decisions like this based on what WE consider good or bad. It's our right to exercise what we see as morally good in my opinion (as long as it isn't crazy stuff like ritual killings and sacrifice, you know what I mean).

As I said, what's the issue? If you don't believe it, don't practice it. Your belief won't influence anyone else's, if someone is pro abortion then they frankly won't care about your ethical system. So I don't see any purpose to preaching these viewpoints.

The most rational decision to make would be to allow the woman to choose, and that's final. You (the reader) are irrational if you think otherwise in my opinion.

You fail to understand that any society cannot exist unless there's a common practical belief in certain truths. How can you have a democratic society without a common belief in freedom, justice, law, and that they are held to be objectively and unshakeably true? The answer is you can't. We can take this further and argue how you can have a democratic society that doesn't have common respect for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? Answer is, you can't.

Tocquveille noted much about the common temptations in democracies to declare that since all beliefs have equal legal right, that must mean all beliefs are equally morally right.
 

Risen

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,185
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
The most rational decision to make would be to allow the woman to choose, and that's final.

We make judgment calls about everything else, especially in saying that killing is wrong. We limit free speech by saying that you can't slander people and lie, for which you can be prosecuted. Abortion is no different. It is subject to society's value system just like everything else. The question is does society value the life of an unborn child. Apparently that answer is no. Eventually the question will be what human life does have value, and that is the point where order breaks down.

People's behavior and thinking must be limited and constrained to support a functional world, lest their minds wander and manifest all manner of destructive behavior. I will not compare individual people to animals as say a communist or Darwinist would (or like how I'd compare collective intelligence to animal intelligence), but I will compare them to children in that they have infinite ability to create what they want in the world with their free will, but it is up to those who hold power over them to limit their behavior and teach them not to just do whatever they can think of. It is not so that they can't express their free will, it's so that they don't harm themselves and others. A child is not mature enough to make such decisions on his/her own, they need guidance and limitations.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
Right. Because abstinence education works, right guys? At least in my state we have a wonderful program for impoverished women which grants them free birth control and basic sexual health services. This is incredibly smart of the state, as I'm sure it decreases the resulting child welfare costs.
So money is more important than human life?
 

ayoitsStepho

Twerking & Lurking
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
4,838
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
4w3
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
What I meant with my statement is that the woman is in power of making the choice, thus she is the "fittest to survive". It doesn't make it any right or fair but life is not fair.

Ah, my appologize. :doh: I don't know why I thought you were talking about the baby...
 

Grayscale

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
1,965
MBTI Type
ISTP
Because upon birth the child is given rights as a citizen. Don't ask me why, it just is. However, you seem to have not read the idea I posted about infant =! fetus

Right. Because abstinence education works, right guys? At least in my state we have a wonderful program for impoverished women which grants them free birth control and basic sexual health services. This is incredibly smart of the state, as I'm sure it decreases the resulting child welfare costs.

This is why I find the pro-abortion argument ironic in the sense that it focuses on definition, ie, "calling it what it is" ...when we are not willing to identify the real problem as accidental pregnancy and how to avoid it.

Our definition of embryo, fetus, baby, infant, whatever are all just that--our labels--so we cant manipulate those to determine if it is right to what boils down to fundamentally snuffing out a human life, albeit one that is not yet fully actualized. one could say i am doing the same with my definition of what is "life" and what isnt, but I am not. Bacteria is alive and I kill some every day when I use mouthwash, but it is not human life. We kill fully matured animals for food, but they are not human.

Since the rest is semantics, we have to discuss this qualitatively... and in that sense if you want to debunk this argument you would need to somehow show how a human embryo is not human in nature.
 

Nonsensical

New member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
4,006
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
7
I was against abortion for a really long time. From a strong ethical stand point where I thought it an act of murder.

But the more I thought about it and the more I understood it, I realized that it ultimately comes down to one's values and decisions. Who are we to decide if a person should be able to have an abortion or not? They should know the consequences.

I would never ever get an abortion (if I could child-bear). I still find it an act of ethical violence and hostility. But what's greater is the individuality and trust we must give to those in the situation, and that we must pray that they'll have the integrity and respect to make the right choice (the right choice not necessarily being not getting the abortion.)
 

BlackCat

Shaman
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
7,038
MBTI Type
ESFP
Enneagram
9w8
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
You fail to understand that any society cannot exist unless there's a common practical belief in certain truths. How can you have a democratic society without a common belief in freedom, justice, law, and that that they held to be objectively and unshakeably true? The answer is you can't. We can't take this further and argue how you can have a democratic society that doesn't have common respect for "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"?

Well we are divided as a society already when it comes to certain beliefs. The abortion issue will NEVER be objectively and unshakeably true, because it's based on opinion. As I've been saying, the most rational decision is for people to be able to have their opinions and live freely. This is why we have a freedom of religion and political belief. This is also why we should have a freedom to believe whether abortion is "right" or not, and for the people who think it's "right" to be able to get them and for those who think it's not "right" to be able to choose to not get one. Simple as that.

And I'm sure it's easy to draw from my posts here that I don't consider a fetus a "person" until it's done growing. This again adds to my point about opinion, and what someone considers life to respect.

And Risen, I frankly don't even understand what your post is trying to say.
 

Not_Me

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,641
MBTI Type
INTj
so we cant manipulate those to determine if it is right to what boils down to fundamentally snuffing out a human life, albeit one that is not yet fully
Killing human life is not wrong if it's done for a reason. For example, self defense.
 

The Decline

(☞゚∀゚)☞
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
780
MBTI Type
?
Enneagram
5w4
So money is more important than human life?

No, I factored the "smart" part into their decision as a telling reason for why they would ever decide to allow impoverished women the right to basic sexual health services. In this situation, human life and the financial balance of the state's budget works hand in hand.
 
Top