What about abortion?? click dont be afraid

i will attempt to prove that if you realize and confirm that by saying:

"What the hell is the point of life if you can't have complex rational thought, what's the point if you can't relate to others, and why should I have a right to live when I'm not capable of independent thought?"

and, that being your reasoning for abortion being morally okay, you are also permitting killing of comatose, handicapped and infants.

furthermore, as i said earlier, the potential of future value and experiences. that is why we see killing as immoral, because of the loss of our future, and that is why the fetus has a right to its life.

 
I guess I would say that life is intrinsically good, it is its own end. And thus the right to live is inherently good. I'll grant that there are certain situations wherein the preservation of life is not the highest good, but I don't think abortion falls under that categorization.

I also like the distinction someone made between the brain-dead and the unborn. The brain-dead person will almost certainly never regain the ability to live normally (this, I think, would be a situation where it is better to let them go; prolonging such a life is not the highest good). The unborn, on the other hand, will almost certainly develop the ability to live normally. The difference here is potential.

And I know you hate the "slippery slope" arguments, but I think this is one place where it really is applicable. How do we define "complex rational thought"? Self-awareness? Logic? Advanced calculus? I think it is very dangerous to define personhood on such shaky and subjective ground.
 
I'll add this: if there is uncertainty over what constitutes a person deserving the right to live, isn't it better to err on the side of life? I absolutely support any person's ability to control their own body, up to the point where that control infringes on the rights of others. I think if there is uncertainty, it is better to err on the side of unjustly restricting a woman's right to control her body than the side of unjustly permitting the murder of the unborn.
 
Holy John Stuart Mills batman! All that "higher good" talk in my previous post freaks me out a little. I guess it's true that there's a utilitarian lurking inside all of us.

 
sureley you dont actually think that complex rational thought and independent thought are what make you a person?

the second part was a response to: "What makes life worth living, and what gives me or anyone else the right to it?"
 
i was quoting verbatim what someone else had already said, i'm glad you recognize their error

----

so what was my point someone asked?

that you can't use the argument that 'abortion kills millions of people'
 
i'm pretty sure the same rules apply whether you're an pro-life or pro-choice

saying abortion kills millions is just a moot argument that serves no value in our argument.
 
Um, yeah it does, if those millions of fetuses are human beings, then the killing of millions IS actually quite relevant to the discussion.
 
yes but if your prolife you believe that the fetus is a person, therefore you would believe that abortion is killing millions of people.

and it is a moot argument, hence why i said "it has noo umph"
 
this argument sucks.

pro-choice is the only way it should ever be, because honestly this is an unwinable argument, the best answer you can come up with is "if you dont want abortion to happen, dont have one"
 
drew there is a much easier and time tested way

moz-screenshot-1.jpg
http://images.inmagine.com/168nwm/liquidlibrary/vl013/vl013067.jpg[/IMG]
 
Congratulations you're the 1000 person to beg the question

if we are arguing over whether or not fetuses are units of moral concern you can't use that argument as a premise for your conclusion that fetuses are units of moral concern.

and you know that.
 
Sure, but these millions are entirely related to whether or not abortion is a legitimate course of action, which was also a part of the discussion.
 
I asked what your point was because you said that abortion prevented people from dying of old age, which is technically true but patently absurd to try to use as a justification. As I said before, would you say that's the upside to genocide - it's saving people from dying of natural causes? What? Surely you can't be serious.

 
By the same token, you can't say that abortion doesn't kill millions as part of your argument, since that is what we're debating. But this is rapidly devolving into meaningless, circular discussions of semantics. Let's get back to the real issues.

 
And once again I ask, how do we define "complex rational thought" if that's to be the defining characteristic of personhood? And why doesn't anyone see the inherent danger that definition entails?

 
you comprehended the point i was making, i guess you just didn't see that i was trying to make it, so no i wasn't seriously trying to use it as part of an argument.

The real question i have is If you are pro-life, why must your view be applied to everyone, why is it so bad to simply allow the mother to make the decision on there own? I mean you're more than free to provide your pro-life arguments to the mother, but let her ultimately be the one who can decide?

If you were to wake up one morning to find that another person has been attached to your body dependent on you for survival. All you've got to do is stay in the bed in the hospital for the next 9 months, and that person will survive. Would you feel like you're a bad person to say "you know, i'm sorry, but i've got my own life to live" and to detach yourself from the patient?
 
Because simply stating your views and not participating yourself is not enough. Did abolitionists in the 1850s say, "Well, if you don't like slavery, don't own slaves"? Something more needs to be done. This is about defending the rights of those who have no recourse to do so for themselves. Grave social injustices - which I believe this is - have to be ended by action, usually legislative action.

And that's not really how pregnancy works. Like, not at all.

 
ok here's the deal, that well settle this question

why does it bother you personally, what other people do/do not do, with their own bodies. If a women decides to terminate her pregnancy that is HER decision, not anyone else's. So pro-choicers and pro-lifers alike need to stop preaching their personal thoughts on the matter, rather just live and let live.
 
You've completely missed the point of the entire debate.

Yes, I think people should be able to do what they want with their body, as long as what they choose to do does not infringe on the rights of others. The controversy around abortion centers on this: does an unborn human being deserve the right to live that we guarantee everyone else.

 
fuck the debate, i know the point of the debate and it is one that cannot be solved, simply put, because there is no definition of when life begins or what makes a being, human. Unfortunately it is to late to determine that now without uproar from either side, so what I am saying to you is that. IT IS WHAT IT IS, deal with it. Don't like abortion? don't get one, or don't have sex unless you're ready to face the consequences. But do not infringe someone's right to obtain one legally and in a sterile environment, that is their choice to make, not yours.
 
No, it's NOT too late. In 19th century America, people didn't give up trying to abolish slavery because it was too late. In 20th century South Africa, people didn't give up trying to overturn apartheid because it was too late. Hell, in the 1960s, people didn't give up trying to get abortion legalized because it was too late.

What you said is idiotic - if you don't like a policy, deal with it? If you care about something, you try to do something about it. I can't even comprehend your position.
 
Every significant social change will cause uproar. That is by no means a reason not to push for social change. I think even the rational pro-choicers will agree with me here...really, they kind of have to since the roles were reversed 50 years ago.
 
the most you're going to get is having it abolished on the state level and if you live in a red state it's likely do-able, but to say it will be over turned on the nation level is absurd. defining what life is, is actually absurd. but i must ask, why do you care what other people do with their bodies?
 
Getting it abolished on the state level would be a step in the right direction. But it is not absurd to push for more. Defining what life is is not absurd, we've done it repeatedly.

And I care what other people do with their bodies because I believe that in abortion they are taking another life. Others' rights are being infringed on. THAT is why I care. The same reason I would care that an adult human was assaulted or raped or murdered or enslaved - because the actions of the perpetrator do not only affect their body. Your right to control your body ends at the point that you cause your body to hurt others.

 
again, you're back to square one, which makes the debate utterly pointless, because currently there is not a defining point of when life officially begins
 
What are you talking about? We've effectively defined life as beginning at birth by legalizing abortion. For legislative purposes (in regards to abortion anyway), that's how we've defined life.

 
When you can physically have a baby, you can voice your opinions on abortion. Until then, nada.
 
im sure you have never told a man your opinion on a subject that does not affect your body..

lets put it this way, (its a rather vulgar analogy) when you can pee standing, then you can tell me not to spray it all over the wall..
 
PLEASE PLEASE READ

you guys keep saying this but let me make it very, very clear. its not just her own body she is dealing with. that fetus is arguably a HUMAN. she is killing according to one side, another HUMAN BEING. if a fetus is ever proved to be a human then its not just her body, its another person. since the argument is over wether or not a fetus is human, its not enough to just say, its her body, let her do what she wants because, although it is her body, that thing inside her is someone elses body. It is then murder, even if it is in her body. do you not understand this?
 
why shouldn't the solution be, if this is unanswerable, dont have sex till you are ready to face the consequences. seems like thats airing on the side of safety...

 
but since it is purely personal opinion on whether or not a fetus is a living human being shouldn't it be a personal decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy? not something that should be presided over by our government? since the government allows abortion, it merely presents the opportunity for someone to terminate a fetus, it does not force their hand to do so.
 
this is clearly said.

now lets move the discussion forward. since we can all for the most part agree that nobody wil be able to prove in the enar future when life actuallly starts lets look at the basic moral principle which makes abortion such an issue: murderer, why is killing bad?

so it is wrong to kill us. why is it wrong? there are many answers. because then others would loose good experiences with us, or because it makes whoever killed us brutal, or even better, killing is bad because its effect on the victim. the loss of someone's life ends all experiences, activities, enjoyment that would otherwise be ones future. the loss of such experiences and future personal life, which are valuable, or means towards something valuable, to either us or our friends and family. this natural property, that killing is serious wrong because of the loss of ones future, is the best explanation to what makes killing bad. since fetuses have a valuable future ahead of them, they have a right to life, and this right to life makes them human, and therefore bad to kill them.
 
well one of the other kids says only complex rational thoughts make you human. lets say i personally agree. i have justified me killing infants and retarded people
 
OK then. So assuming you're not a southern plantation owner, I take it you wouldn't dare to condemn slavery, right? And you didn't live in the economic hardships of 1920s Germany, so you don't have an opinion on Hitler's aggression and the Holocaust, correct? And not having been brought up according to the Bushido code, you surely can't judge Japan's atrocities in China. Not being a Mexican or an unemployed lower class American, you can't have an opinion on illegal immigration. And seeing as you're not a Malaysian businessman, you really aren't in a position to take issue with child labor. Should I go on here?
 
i never said anything about that, just simply its personal opinion whether the fetus is a human being or not
 
i know. and my personal opinion of what makes a human is complex rational thought. i have then justified killing infants and mentally handicapped on the basis that they aren't human and dont have a right to life as a result
 
To be fair, what Drew said was that the fetus IS a human being, but not a person deserving the same rights as an adult human being. That being said, I disagree strongly with him.
 
That was good but it raises the concern that everyone has an opinion...who's is allowed to be considered valid sources in these situations? The gov't or the mothers? thats the real question here.
 
And the fact that guys are making and passing the laws on this subject is totally wack IMO

 
it doesnt matter at all. if this is my personal opinion i can do as i will. why do you care what i personally do/believe?
 
Have you completely forgotten how we've established there is a big difference between minority peoples and fetuses or can you not come up with any other argument so you resort to beating the same dead horse.

A slave, a Jew, etc all are established as individuals' worth of all the "human rights" where in the case of a fetus you have not established that the fetus has the same rights as a person that is already independently living in this world.

A fetus is a creature dependent on a host, this makes it a different case than a individual who can survive independently of other persons.

you should not go on because you're just being stupid, Drew and I have pointed out why this argument is WRONG yet you continue to try and use it again and again. It is OK to abort a wrong idea, i promise it won't do any harm.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top