The Abortion Thread

[SalvIsWin]

And the exact same characteristics can be applied to a child born with a severe mental ******ation. They may never attain self-awareness. Never be able to communicate meaningfully. They may never know any better either. I am not talking about a typical level of Down's Syndrome, I am talking about the really, really bad cases. Profound ******ation, not mild. The kind that requires complete care for their entire life, someone who absolutely is incapable of learning even basic motor skills, let alone cognitive skills. Is it wrong to kill them?

If you abort a fetus that can't feel pain, and doesn't know it exists, you're not harming it, it doesn't know any better.

Do you realize just how barbaric you sound? It's not harmful as long as they don't know it's harmful? Really? Really? Is that really the philosophy you want to have? That an action is okay as long as the victim of that action doesn't know that they are a victim? So, as long as the victim doesn't know any better, you can do whatever you want to them, and there is nothing wrong with it. You don't see the problems with that?

OK? The same characteristics can be applied, so what? Are you going to 'abort' a human being that's been born with severe mental handicaps? I don't see what your point is. You're comparing killing a born human being with killing an unborn fetus. The difference is that you're killing the fetus for a reason, because it's inside the mother and the mother has to bear the fetus for gestation, you don't need to bear a severely ******ed human being - it's a completely different scenario. I'm not even saying that killing a fetus isn't bad, but I'm saying it's better than forcing a woman to go through with the gestation. It's minimizing the harm, your example would be killing a severely ******ed person because they're severely ******ed. Not even close to being comparable.

Do you realize just how barbaric you sound? It's not harmful as long as they don't know it's harmful? Really? Really? Is that really the philosophy you want to have? That an action is okay as long as the victim of that action doesn't know that they are a victim? So, as long as the victim doesn't know any better, you can do whatever you want to them, and there is nothing wrong with it. You don't see the problems with that?

In regards to this, yes I do see how it's bad, but I'm saying it's minimizing risk. I'm not suggesting that abortions are awesome and fun for the whole family, but I'm saying that an abortion is better than forcing the mother to bear gestation. Both suck, one sucks more.

 

[Davi323]

In regards to this, yes I do see how it's bad, but I'm saying it's minimizing risk. I'm not suggesting that abortions are awesome and fun for the whole family, but I'm saying that an abortion is better than forcing the mother to bear gestation. Both suck, one sucks more.

I think the alternative sucks even more for the baby.

 

[SalvIsWin]

I think the alternative sucks even more for the baby.

Actually it doesn't because the fetus wouldn't have a cerebral cortex that would enable it to contemplate how bad it sucks - the fetus wouldn't feel or think anything, that's kind of my point.

Further to all of this, to pro-life movement pretty much originated with the Catholic Church who were/are opposed to abortion because the Bible says so. The Bible says that a fetus has a soul, therefore abortion is wrong. That's not exactly a valid answer. Besides appealing to emotion, no one is giving a good reason why the fetus' rights should take precedence over the mother rights to do what she wants with her body - and going through gestation is something happening to her body. There are however good reasons why the rights of the woman over her body should take precedence over the rights of the fetus, such as you're actively doing harm to the woman, whereas no harm is actually being done to the fetus - it doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it just grows until it's developed enough to become intelligent.

 

[Slyfox696]

And your faith in your friends is yours

What friend?

Being inside something does make you that thing. Being attached to that something does not make you that thing. Needing that something in order to survive does not make you that thing.

No, but it does make you PART of that thing. Much like a carburetor is part of a car (though not technically the car itself), a fetus is part of a woman until it is able to survive outside the womb.

Also, while I initially addressed this to SalvIsWin, you may feel free to answer it as well: Why can a criminal be charged with a double murder for killing a pregnant woman if the fetus inside is not a unique human being? If the fetus is just an extension of the mother, and not a separate human being, shouldn't the criminal only be charged once, not twice?

That's begging the question, a logical fallacy. You're trying to make an argument where the evidence you provide assumes to be true what we're discussing.

 

[Davi323]

Actually it doesn't because the fetus wouldn't have a cerebral cortex that would enable it to contemplate how bad it sucks - the fetus wouldn't feel or think anything, that's kind of my point.

Further to all of this, to pro-life movement pretty much originated with the Catholic Church who were/are opposed to abortion because the Bible says so. The Bible says that a fetus has a soul, therefore abortion is wrong. That's not exactly a valid answer. Besides appealing to emotion, no one is giving a good reason why the fetus' rights should take precedence over the mother rights to do what she wants with her body - and going through gestation is something happening to her body. There are however good reasons why the rights of the woman over her body should take precedence over the rights of the fetus, such as you're actively doing harm to the woman, whereas no harm is actually being done to the fetus - it doesn't think, it doesn't feel, it just grows until it's developed enough to become intelligent.

Go back through all of my posts in this thread. Please let me know where I EVER invoked God or the Bible as a reason to be pro-life. In fact, I have deliberately avoided making it a religious issue. Bringing this up in a response to me is a useless gesture, as I have not invoked religion once. I could easily come up with a Christian based argument against abortion...but generally when someone does that, it falls on deaf ears. So, I avoided it entirely.

My entire argument has been presented on whether a fetus should be considered human or not, not whether it has a soul. The core of my argument is that if it is human, then it automatically has the same inalienable rights as other humans, and therefore abortion is wrong.

I consider it a unique human being because it's genetic coding is not the mothers, is not the father's. That DNA contains a complete set of instructions, containing within it the explicit design of that person. All of the information that makes you "you" is already there as a zygote.

That is a scientific, rather than an emotional premise, is it not?

Being uncomfortable with the idea of a child receiving a death sentence for intruding on a woman's privacy is based on legal standing. No one has ever been executed for invading someone's privacy...yet that is exactly what the justification for abortion is. You are arguing that a death penalty is an acceptable punishment for intruding on someone's privacy. In this case, it is the privacy of a mother's body. Even if you completely ignore the fact that by engaging in unprotected sex, she invited that intrusion, a death penalty is a bit harsh for such a "crime".

Now, we do allow people to kill other human beings in the defense of life. Self Defense and defense of a 3rd party are acceptable...both are completely rational justifications to preserve innocent life...What life has a fetus threatened that would justify taking it's life in self-defense? What 3rd party is being threatened?

That is a legal premise, not an emotional premise, is it not?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The right to life I was using in my arguments was based on Thomas Jefferson/John Locke, not the Bible.

What friend?

Seriously? Obvious Return of the Jedi reference. No meaning beyond that.

No, but it does make you PART of that thing. Much like a carburetor is part of a car (though not technically the car itself), a fetus is part of a woman until it is able to survive outside the womb.

False analogy. A heart, brain or liver or something is a more appropriate comparison. A car cannot function without a carburetor. It is essential to the function of the automobile. It's much more analogous to an organ, not a fetus.

That's begging the question, a logical fallacy. You're trying to make an argument where the evidence you provide assumes to be true what we're discussing.

Scott Peterson would disagree with you, considering he was charged and found guilty of it, and is currently sitting on death row for it. I didn't make that up, being charged for a double homicide/murder for killing a pregnant woman and thus the unborn child inside is an actual thing. So, again: is being charged for a double murder appropriate, or is it a gross injustice, and he should have only been charged with a single murder, plus one count of performing an unlicensed abortion?

 

[Slyfox696]

Seriously? Obvious Return of the Jedi reference. No meaning beyond that.

I haven't watched any Star Wars since the God awful Phantom Menace. Ruined the franchise for me. Similar to how Fellowship of the Ring guaranteed I wouldn't watch the other two Lord of the Rings movies. Which is a shame because the books were so damn good.

Scott Peterson would disagree with you, considering he was charged and found guilty of it, and is currently sitting on death row for it.

It wouldn't change the fact the argument is a logical fallacy, and completely irrelevant to our discussion.

I didn't make that up, being charged for a double homicide/murder for killing a pregnant woman and thus the unborn child inside is an actual thing. So, again: is being charged for a double murder appropriate, or a gross injustice?

And again I tell you, your argument is begging the question, a logical fallacy. It is akin to me saying if a fetus is a person like you say, why do we call it a fetus and not a baby? It doesn't matter why, the question itself is inconsequential to the argument.

 

[Davi323]

And again I tell you, your argument is begging the question, a logical fallacy. It is akin to me saying if a fetus is a person like you say, why do we call it a fetus and not a baby? It doesn't matter why, the question itself is inconsequential to the argument.

Because it's just another stage in development. Just like we use the terms infant, toddler, child, pre-adolescent, adolescent, teenager, young adult, adult, senior, etc. And if you noticed, I have been using the terms unborn baby and fetus interchangeably.

It's just a scientific term to describe a human being at a certain developmental stage. You might as well ask why we refer to ourselves as humans, not homo sapiens...as if there is a difference.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Go back through all of my posts in this thread. Please let me know where I EVER invoked God or the Bible as a reason to be pro-life. In fact, I have deliberately avoided making it a religious issue. Bringing this up in a response to me is a useless gesture, as I have not invoked religion once. I could easily come up with a Christian based argument against abortion...but generally when someone does that, it falls on deaf ears. So, I avoided it entirely.

My entire argument has been presented on whether a fetus should be considered human or not, not whether it has a soul. The core of my argument is that if it is human, then it automatically has the same inalienable rights as other humans, and therefore abortion is wrong.

I consider it a unique human being because it's genetic coding is not the mothers, is not the father's. That DNA contains a complete set of instructions, containing within it the explicit design of that person. All of the information that makes you "you" is already there as a zygote.

That is a scientific, rather than an emotional premise, is it not?

Being uncomfortable with the idea of a child receiving a death sentence for intruding on a woman's privacy is based on legal standing. No one has ever been executed for invading someone's privacy...yet that is exactly what the justification for abortion is. You are arguing that a death penalty is an acceptable punishment for intruding on someone's privacy. In this case, it is the privacy of a mother's body. Even if you completely ignore the fact that by engaging in unprotected sex, she invited that intrusion, a death penalty is a bit harsh for such a "crime".

Now, we do allow people to kill other human beings in the defense of life. Self Defense and defense of a 3rd party are acceptable...both are completely rational justifications to preserve innocent life...What life has a fetus threatened that would justify taking it's life in self-defense? What 3rd party is being threatened?

That is a legal premise, not an emotional premise, is it not?



The right to life I was using in my arguments was based on Thomas Jefferson/John Locke, not the Bible.

I was saying my Bible comment as an aside to our conversation, something to add to the whole discussion. It wasn't my intention to make it sound like that was your argument/motivation.

Also, it's not an intrusion into the privacy of the mother, it's that you would be forcing the mother to go through gestation. Going through someones trash is invading their privacy, and I wouldn't kill someone for that, so you're misrepresenting my argument. I would abort a fetus over forcing a woman to carry a child through pregnancy - yes.

The entire argument of responsibility is stupid. You would rather force a woman to go through pregnancy and have an unwanted child rather than abort the fetus - you're doing a lot of harm by forcing the pregnancy as opposed to aborting the fetus and saving everyone, including that child who would grow up unwanted, a lot of hardship.

If you want to talk about self-defense, you could argue that birth isn't a process that is devoid of risk, death from complications of birth is a very real risk, you're forcing that on the woman.

The fetus is a human being, I would agree with that. I am saying that abortion should be legal, the proportion of harm with forcing a pregnancy is higher than the harm sustained aborting a fetus. Tell me why that isn't the case?

 

[Slyfox696]

Because it's just another stage in development. Just like we use the terms infant, toddler, child, pre-adolescent, adolescent, teenager, young adult, adult, senior, etc.

Exactly. And what's the number one difference between fetus and baby? Birth. So you're not a baby until your born.

But that's not even my point. My point is that my argument of what we call something doesn't address our actual discussion, just like your question about being charged with a crime doesn't address our actual discussion.

 

[Davi323]

Exactly. And what's the number one difference between fetus and baby? Birth. So you're not a baby until your born.

But that's not even my point. My point is that my argument of what we call something doesn't address our actual discussion, just like your question about being charged with a crime doesn't address our actual discussion.

But it does...it refers directly to the logical fallacy (one of your favorite terms) in subjectively considering whether an unborn child should be considered human or not. Shouldn't it be OBJECTIVE? It either is, or it isn't. The humanity of the unborn child should not be dependent on the circumstances of it's death. One of the biggest rationales for supporting abortion is that it is not a human being anyway. This is obvious, if everyone considered an unborn child to be a human being, it would MUCH harder to justify killing it, even if it presents a 9 month long invasion of the mother's right to her body. So, you have to call it a fetus (even though I use the term interchangeably with unborn child/baby), a clump of cells, or some other euphemism to avoid calling it "human". The concept of abortion is far easier to digest if you don't refer to it as human, isn't it?

And yet...that same "non-human/fetus/clump of cells" can be the victim of a murder. Not of an abortion, but of an actual, honest to goodness murder. But how can it be so? How can it be human enough to be murdered, to have it's right to life (in the Jeffersonian sense) violated to the point where the offender can be given a death sentence in the court of law, but not be human enough to have that same inherent right to life (in the Jeffersonian sense) as far as abortion is concerned? It's legal hypocrisy, a blatant double standard.

You continue to hem and haw, because you refuse to answer the question. You are deliberately avoiding answering that question not because you think it's irrelevant, but because you don't have a logical defense that can explain why the same unborn child can be both murdered as a human being, and aborted as a non-human being.

If an unborn child can be murdered indirectly because his mother was killed, as collateral damage, what do you call it when that same unborn child can be killed directly with absolute intent to kill it? If it's murder when it's indirect, how in the hell can it not be murder when it's deliberate?

 

[SalvIsWin]

But it does...it refers directly to the logical fallacy (one of your favorite terms) in subjectively considering whether an unborn child should be considered human or not. Shouldn't it be OBJECTIVE? It either is, or it isn't. The humanity of the unborn child should not be dependent on the circumstances of it's death. One of the biggest rationales for supporting abortion is that it is not a human being anyway. This is obvious, if everyone considered an unborn child to be a human being, it would MUCH harder to justify killing it, even if it presents a 9 month long invasion of the mother's right to her body. So, you have to call it a fetus (even though I use the term interchangeably with unborn child/baby), a clump of cells, or some other euphemism to avoid calling it "human". The concept of abortion is far easier to digest if you don't refer to it as human, isn't it?

And yet...that same "non-human/fetus/clump of cells" can be the victim of a murder. Not of an abortion, but of an actual, honest to goodness murder. But how can it be so? How can it be human enough to be murdered, to have it's right to life (in the Jeffersonian sense) violated to the point where the offender can be given a death sentence in the court of law, but not be human enough to have that same inherent right to life (in the Jeffersonian sense) as far as abortion is concerned? It's legal hypocrisy, a blatant double standard.

You continue to hem and haw, because you refuse to answer the question. You are deliberately avoiding answering that question not because you think it's irrelevant, but because you don't have a logical defense that can explain why the same unborn child can be both murdered as a human being, and aborted as a non-human being.

If an unborn child can be murdered indirectly because his mother was killed, as collateral damage, what do you call it when that same unborn child can be killed directly with absolute intent to kill it? If it's murder when it's indirect, how in the hell can it not be murder when it's deliberate?

You're making a lot of semantic arguments. Clump of cells, fetus, baby, child, human being - it doesn't change anything. I'm sure for some people it's easier to digest ending the life of a 'fetus' over ending the life of a 'baby', but that really has no weight to the actual merits of the argument. Call it murder, call it a human being, it matters not to the argument.

Your question about the apparent double standard between double-homicide in the case of killing a pregnant woman and aborting a child is silly. Is a fetus a life? Yes. Does that fetus have a right to it's life? Yes. Are you violating that right to it's life if you murder the mother? Yes. Are you violating that right to it's life if you abort it? Yes. What's your point? Murder is punishable by the law because it was done with malicious intent. Aborting a child isn't done with malicious intent (shouldn't be), it's done with consideration to the different rights at hand and the harm that could be done.

Like I've said plenty of times now, the fetus has the right to life, and the woman has the right over her body - the reason why abortion is a sticky subject is because there's no clear solution, you have to violate one of those rights. You're clearly fine with violating the rights of the mother, so it's not about whether or not violating rights is acceptable (you think it is as long as it's your way), it's about which right should be violated. You don't really have any argument in that regard. You're actively causing harm by forcing gestation and bringing an unwanted life into this world. You're not harming the fetus in any way by aborting it.

You're extrapolating that into different circumstances, saying, 'Oh, so it's fine to infringe on peoples right to life in every scenario?' Which is ridiculous. You tried this argument when you said about ending the life of a severely ******ed person, and then you gave up on it when I said why that's ridiculous.

So basically there is no double standard. Murder nets you a hefty punishment because you're maliciously ending two lives for no good reason. Abortion shouldn't (and in some places, doesn't) because it's not the same thing, you're not doing it maliciously, you're doing it because you have to choose between two regrettable, but undeniably different scenarios, one where you're actively causing harm, and another where you're not causing harm. No one wants to see a fetus aborted, but it's the better option, and a choice that should be left to the mother.

 

[Davi323]

Aborting a child isn't done with malicious intent (shouldn't be)

Umm, what? It's certainly malicious intent as far as the child is concerned.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Umm, what? It's certainly malicious intent as far as the child is concerned.

It's malicious intent in the same way that euthanasia is malicious intent. You're intentionally killing the fetus (or person in the case of euthanasia) but it's not malicious, your intent isn't to cause suffering, your motivation isn't meanness or hostility - it's not even close to the same thing, dude.

EDIT: You're accusing Slyfox of tip-toeing around answering your posts entirely, but you just responded to my large post with a one-liner. What?

EDIT2: Also, it's hard for there to be intent to be malicious when a fetus doesn't even have the cerebral cortex necessary to make a thought or judgement, or the nervous system to feel pain.

 

[Slyfox696]

But it does...it refers directly to the logical fallacy (one of your favorite terms) in subjectively considering whether an unborn child should be considered human or not.

That's not a logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

One of the biggest rationales for supporting abortion is that it is not a human being anyway.

I rarely hear that as for why abortion should be legal. Most arguments are because of woman's choice.

This is obvious, if everyone considered an unborn child to be a human being, it would MUCH harder to justify killing it, even if it presents a 9 month long invasion of the mother's right to her body. So, you have to call it a fetus (even though I use the term interchangeably with unborn child/baby), a clump of cells, or some other euphemism to avoid calling it "human". The concept of abortion is far easier to digest if you don't refer to it as human, isn't it?

You're getting off track. I'm not FOR abortions, I'm FOR choice. They are not the same thing. We call them a fetus for the very reason I mentioned earlier...they are unable to sustain life outside of the mother's womb. We don't call a tadpole a frog, do we? So we call them fetuses because they're not a baby.

And yet...that same "non-human/fetus/clump of cells" can be the victim of a murder.

Now we're getting back to the fallacious argument. Murder is a legal term. We're arguing whether abortion should be legal, and you're trying to claim a legal case to support your argument. You can't say killing a fetus should be against the law, because the law said killing a fetus is against the law.

Does that make sense what I'm saying?

You continue to hem and haw, because you refuse to answer the question.

Not at all. I'm not hemming and hawing, I'm telling your argument regarding Scott Peterson is irrelevant to the discussion because it is a logical fallacy, which carries no weight in this discussion, and thus, I have chosen to ignore it. Just like I would expect you to ignore me if I said aborting a fetus should be legal because all states already allow it.

You are deliberately avoiding answering that question not because you think it's irrelevant, but because you don't have a logical defense

It's kind of hard to have a logical defense to an argument which is not a logical argument. You post it to APPEAR as a logical argument, but it's actually a logical fallacy, you providing evidence in which you assume the premise being debated to be true.