for those against abortion

[Not_Me]

Agreed... but who needs defending here?

I used that argument to show that the killing of human life alone does not qualify as murder.

A self defense argument could be made also. The woman is acting to prevent a being from invading and using her body for 9 months. Even if the being was a full fledged person, does it have the rights to use her body without her consent?

Even our judicial system makes distinctions in accountability, adults are tried differently than juveniles and children because they do not know better.

The crux of the argument is that not everyone accept that a fetus is a child from day one. If it's nothing but a clump of cells, then destroying it has no moral implications.

 

[Not_Me]

It is the manner of your "coexistence" that is determined by what is agreed upon, or not agreed upon. It is that order that creates the world we live in.

Yes, but there is plenty of room for differing opinions before social cooperation becomes impossible.

 

[Athenian200]

along these lines the vast majority of adolescents would not fall into this definition of human life.

Your understanding of what I said was very, very, VERY poor.

Do I need to define "drawing directly on biological resources of another human being?"

Fine, I will. My definition of THAT, would be:

Being unable to survive outside of literally drawing nutrients straight from the other person's body.

Adolescents are not physically hooked into their parent's bodies, last time I checked. Their dependence is INDIRECT, because they are dependent on the parent working to provide them food and shelter, but anyone could provide them food and shelter at this point, and they would still survive.

It's unfair to demand that someone host another person in their bodies against their will. I believe you actually have the right to shoot someone if they trespass on your property and take things that belong to you, so...

 

[Grayscale]

I used that argument to show that the killing of human life alone does not qualify as murder.

A self defense argument could be made also. The woman is acting to prevent a being from invading and using her body for 9 months. Even if the being was a full fledged person, does it have the rights to use her body without her consent?

The crux of the argument is that not everyone accept that a fetus is a child from day one. If it's nothing but a clump of cells, then destroying it has no moral implications.

It would not be self defense if you invited someone into your home and then beat them up for breaking and entering. Again, sex is usually consensual, so I am not seeing how the embryo is "invading" her.

It is a clump of cells, but so is an adult, no? Again, we must consider the implications of the actions over time. Cancer... grows and eventually kills you. Gingivitis gives you cavities.

Embryo eventually grows into a human. the only reason this is even debated is because people dont consider things in their essential form. Because we can't see the embryo, we arent inclined to recognize it as human like we would a child or adult that we can see face to face.

 

[ayoitsStepho]

There seems to be an element of injustice in this viewpoint that I just can't accept, though.

It seems like you're admitting that there are definitely negative consequences for abortion. Which is one reason I think it should be an option, though not one to take lightly. Because honestly, it DOES have consequences. It seems unfair, somehow, to take it off the table completely despite all of what's involved in pregnancy.

Well yes, there are negetive consequences to abortion. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, why should we be allowed to choose the fate of a potential child? I realise that people will say that if they dont abort the child, it'll grow up in a horrible place with horrible parents or some of the likes, but every person has a choice of how they want their life to be. You can choose to take the experiences and make them worth while. So yes, that child COULD grow up in a very not nice enviroment, but that child ultimatley has the choice to better themselves as they grow up.
Heck, lots of people have taken the problems of their past and learned from them, learned from the problems their families had and made themselves better from it. My goodness, look at Oprah! She grew up in some screwed up crap and now she's a freakin star! You take your experiences and better yourself. That includes giving everyone the chance to make those choices. Hey, lets just give everyone a fair chance. Whats it going to hurt?

 

[Sniffles]

Your understanding of what I said was very, very, VERY poor.

Do I need to define "drawing directly on biological resources of another human being?"

Fine, I will. My definition of THAT, would be:

Being unable to survive outside of literally drawing nutrients straight from the other person's body.

Yeah but that not necessarily imply that the mother has the right to commit abortion, only the capacity to do so. As I said earlier, if anything this establishes a greater ethical duty on the part of the mother to keep the fetus alive, because it is so dependent on her for life.

 

[Athenian200]

Yeah but that not necessarily imply that the mother has the right to commit abortion, only the capacity to do so. As I said earlier, if anything this establishes a greater ethical duty on the part of the mother to keep the fetus alive, because it is so dependent on her for life.

But that's not a fair duty to place. Perhaps you would place it on her, but that doesn't make your sense of ethics fair or reasonable.

I'm sorry, I can't deal with this discussion anymore. I can't relate to your perspective at all, I can hardly believe we're capable of seeing the world in the same way. Please don't bother to respond to my previous post. Thank you.

I think this just goes to show that our fundamental senses of ethics are too incompatible for us to reason with one another. Reason only works if we start from the same assumptions, and we aren't.

 

[ayoitsStepho]

A self defense argument could be made also. The woman is acting to prevent a being from invading and using her body for 9 months. Even if the being was a full fledged person, does it have the rights to use her body without her consent?

What? It should be common sence that if you have sex that your going to possibley have a baby. So to say "oh, I didnt give it permission to grow there" doesn't make sence. Once you have sex, your permitting yourself to that chance that a baby will begin forming with in you.

 

[Not_Me]

I've never met a woman who was glad she got an abortion.

I don't think it's accurate to say that most women who got abortions would choose pregnancy if they had to do it again. They might regret it, but they might have regretted pregnancy more.

 

[Grayscale]

I used that argument to show that the killing of human life alone does not qualify as murder.

A self defense argument could be made also. The woman is acting to prevent a being from invading and using her body for 9 months. Even if the being was a full fledged person, does it have the rights to use her body without her consent?

The crux of the argument is that not everyone accept that a fetus is a child from day one. If it's nothing but a clump of cells, then destroying it has no moral implications.

It would not be self defense if you invited someone into your home and then beat them up for breaking and entering. Again, sex is usually consensual, so I am not seeing how the embryo is "invading" her.

It is a clump of cells, but so is an adult, no? Again, we must consider the implications of the actions over time. Cancer... grows and eventually kills you. Gingivitis gives you cavities.

Embryo eventually grows into a human. the only reason this is even debated is because people dont consider things in their essential form. Because we can't see the embryo, we arent inclined to recognize it as human like we would a child or adult that we can see face to face.

Your understanding of what I said was very, very, VERY poor.

Is it really?

It is because of a father's biological and organic resources that he is able to work a job and put food on the table. You are right that any adult could do that, but what I think you are arguing here is dependency, whether that is on the child's biological parents or not.

Think of it in terms of the opposite... neglect. Why does one of the parents in a divorce have to pay child support? Of course a child inconveniences their parents, but that doesn't justify neglecting them, why would it while the child is still an embryo? and we are back at what constitutes human life.

 

[simulatedworld]

How about the fact that evolution wasn't considering the problem of overpopulation when it developed the intense biological desire to mate for purposes of reproduction?

People will always have sex based on powerful biological drives, and the emphasis we've placed on proper parenting through culture alone contradicts the biological drive to be having sex and reproducing all the time.

What you're implicitly asking people to do is to stop having sex if they aren't in a position to raise children, which seems naive and rather idealistic.

 

[Athenian200]

It is because of a father's biological and organic resources that he is able to work a job and put food on the table. You are right that any adult could do that, but what I think you are arguing here is dependency, whether that is on the child's biological parents or not.

No, it's not dependency. It's non-transferrable dependency that I'm against as unreasonable. The mother can't move the child into a test tube, or another woman's womb, for instance. And THAT is unfair.

And again, you fail to note the use of the word DIRECTLY. It's indirect because it goes through labor, into money, into food and shelter.

You're mixing apples and oranges. It's INDIRECT use of resources versus DIRECT use of resources.

I'm saying that the fetus has no right to directly tap the mother's biological resources against her will, irregardless of it's right to life, and that this constitutes trespassing if it's undesired.

 

[ayoitsStepho]

I don't think it's accurate to say that most women who got abortions would choose pregnancy if they had to do it again. They might regret it, but they might have regretted pregnancy more.

Well I think most woman, if they had to do it over, would choose not to put themselves in the situation that GAVE them the baby.

 

[simulatedworld]

Well I think most woman, if they had to do it over, would choose not to put themselves in the situation that GAVE them the baby.

I don't see how this strengthens the anti-abortion position. Obviously they had no way of knowing they'd get pregnant; otherwise they wouldn't have done it in the first place.

 

[Grayscale]

What you're implicitly asking people to do is to stop having sex if they aren't in a position to raise children, which seems naive and rather idealistic.

I doubt it will ever happen, so I wouldn't call it naivety. The only expectation I have is for us to at least identify that unwanted pregnancy is not the problem but a symptom of it. Let's consider the circumstances that lead to most abortions and advise people in those circumstances to hold off on sex so as to not put them in a tough position later on. Actually, I think most people probably have a slight understanding of the risk they are taking but they choose to ignore it, and the advice of their parents who know what having a kid implies. Damn that teen rebellion, wonder where they learned that attitude from? Oops, I got preggers! where's the undo feature for that?

No, it's not dependency. It's non-transferrable dependency that I'm against as unreasonable. The mother can't move the child into a test tube, or another woman's womb, for instance. And THAT is unfair.

And again, you fail to note the use of the word DIRECTLY. It's indirect because it goes through labor, into money, into food and shelter.

You're mixing apples and oranges. It's INDIRECT use of resources versus DIRECT use of resources.

I'm saying that the fetus has no right to directly tap the mother's biological resources against her will, irregardless of it's right to life, and that this constitutes trespassing if it's undesired.

I wouldn't call it unfair, but it is very inconvenient. And I know it is indirect, but I don't see why that makes a difference. I think most parents would even sacrifice their own life to save their children if necessary, how is that for direct use of resources?

I know some people would agree with you though... some mothers do not want to breast feed for similar reasons. I think approaching parenting with a selfish attitude would makes it an uphill battle, though.

 

[Not_Me]

It would not be self defense if you invited someone into your home and then beat them up for breaking and entering. Again, sex is usually consensual, so I am not seeing how the embryo is "invading" her.

Sex can be done for recreation rather than procreation. Just because a woman has sex doesn't mean that she consented to rent her body out for nine months.

It is a clump of cells, but so is an adult, no?

Then would you argue that a carrot is a person? An adult has many qualities which are not present in a fetus.

Embryo eventually grows into a human. the only reason this is even debated is because people dont consider things in their essential form.

At best, it can be argued that a fetus is a potential person. But does it necessarily follow that they have the same rights as a full fledged person?
Everyone is a potential pensioner. But we don't give everyone money until they actually become one.

 

[simulatedworld]

carrots are people too ya'll

 

[Not_Me]

What? It should be common sence that if you have sex that your going to possibley have a baby. So to say "oh, I didnt give it permission to grow there" doesn't make sence.

If you eat at at restaurant, there is the possibility that you will get food poisoning. But does that mean you consented to it?

 

[ayoitsStepho]

I don't see how this strengthens the anti-abortion position. Obviously they had no way of knowing they'd get pregnant; otherwise they wouldn't have done it in the first place.

Exacally my point. If they had to redo it, they wouldnt be put in the situation to begin with. But if you want to talk about whether or not the person would give birth or abort if they had to choose, why not give birth if they already did the abortion thing? If it didn't work for them, why not try something different?
Of coarse I realise they cannot, but if they're regretting the abortion, dont you think they're regretting the ABORTION, for whatever reason? So if they could do it again, why would they choose abortion if they regretted it?
[sorry if that sounded confussing]

 

[nynesneg]

Just because a woman has sex doesn't mean that she consented to rent her body out for nine months.

Yup. Simplest solution would be all females across the world to get the piece of plastic in their arm so they can't have kids for 3 years. 99.99% effective.


The argument against abortion is interesting. While abortion may not be right, how is it morally any different than taking birth control drugs? BC hormones just make the uterus an environment where babies can't survive.