Abortion Debate / Discussion Only In This Thread
- Thread starter JayDubya
- Start date
- Status
chaostrophy
Member
Here's another question I have for the anti-abortion/pro-life people here: does your cause offer any benefit for someone who doesn't have an ethical objection to abortion? From what I've seen of your movement, it mainly seems to be about getting people to develop an ethical objection to abortion. Is there anything more to it? Any objective analysis of the benefits to all of society that banning abortion brings? Any case studies of societies that banned abortion and then improved in ways that someone who doesn't think abortion is morally wrong would care about? Or are the moral objections all you've got? Just respectfully curious.
faceless007
Member
Gee I wonder why that could be.Branduil said:
kame-sennin
Member
Branduil said:
Fair enough. Re your original answer:
Branduil said:
Am I to take this to mean that if your wife, mother, girlfriend, or significant other found herself raped, impregnated, and in significant emotional distress, you would advise her not to get an abortion?
If so, what course of action would you take if the woman in question ignored your advice and aborted the fetus?
faceless007
Member
Nice circular logic there. It only applies if fetuses are a "group of people."Branduil said:
RubxQub said:
What the one about abortion being a tragedy is relative?
Well, about as relative as slavery being a tragedy was relative. Relative to the slaveowner, it wasn't. I guess you can't objectively call anything a tragedy if you want to get to particular.
I'd say that factually, legal aggressive homicide is a tragedy and a human rights abuse.
^ Technically, they're not "people."
Which is a legal definition, not a scientific one.
The legal status quo is what we're arguing against.
They're living human beings, but they're not "people." Because like other historical "non-people" they're inconvenient, and / or expendable.
Which is a legal definition, not a scientific one.
The legal status quo is what we're arguing against.
They're living human beings, but they're not "people." Because like other historical "non-people" they're inconvenient, and / or expendable.
faceless007
Member
Out of curiosity, if a fetus is equal to a grown human in every respect, does that mean a woman who miscarries should be criminally investigated to see if she in any way contributed to the miscarriage? Should a woman who miscarries be charged with involuntary manslaughter? Seems to me the logical conclusion.
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
You bringing slavery into this argument muddies it completely, as we're now talking apples and oranges.JayDubya said:
"All men are created equal" was a violation of their unalienable rights, and thus slavery was rightfully ended.
Your argument assumes that a grouping of cells that will eventually turn into a baby is unequivocally human and thus would protect said human, which is a false assumption. Your assumption is your opinion, and not common understanding. This is where your entire argument falls apart.
You can't assume your opinion is correct and someone elses is incorrect if there is no definitive answer. It is clear to me that in your mind there is a definitive answer, but the reality is that there is not.
If there is evidence that a woman attempted to induce an abortion, in this hypothetical society where abortion is outlawed, then obviously you would have to investigate it. If there is no evidence, then there's no reason to treat it as something other than a sad natural tragedy.
faceless007
Member
Police can't investigate after evidence is found; evidence is found in the course of an investigation. So if you really think miscarriages can be criminal acts, you'd have to interrogate every woman who has one.Branduil said:
RubxQub said:
More like red delicious apples and McIntosh apples.
If all men are created equal, why are we having this discussion? Your existence on this planet is "created" prior to birth, God or no.
Clearly, you do not believe that all members of mankind are created equal, so do not cite that for your argument's purposes.
My argument does not make that assumption. My argument states the absolute scientific fact that a living human being is a living human being.
If it is not common understanding, it is due to ignorance of the issue colored by those spreading misinformation. To that end, I argue, and if I reach only a few, great. If I get some fence sitters off the fence, great.
faceless007
Member
You not knowing what something is doesn't mean it doesn't exist.Branduil said:
Fetuses are entirely reliant on their host bodies for sustainment, often against the host's wishes, aren't sentient, and don't physically resemble humans at all. These aren't traits of living, autonomous human beings.
faceless007 said:
Nah. What the so-called pro-lifers fail to understand is that our societies function on the basis of law and such laws function on the idea of personhood. Everything from paying your taxes, being recognized as an individual etc. is based on this idea of personhood. You the Human are not what pays taxes, you the Person does, and you the Person is the one that has rights.
A fetus is not granted personhood, because prior to birth it is part of the personhood of the mother. Just recently as reiterated by Canadian courts, doctors are primarily responsible to the personhood of the mother and as such are required to focus their efforts on assisting women with their health, not on the fetus that they carry. This then makes it a primary responsibility of doctors to ensure that women have access to abortion services.
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
This entire response again asserts that a grouping of cells that will eventually become a human is in fact human itself is 100% factual. This is not the case, and it can't be.JayDubya said:
When something becomes "Human" is not something you can measure. It is always going to be something that is an opinion. No scientist can tell you when a grouping of cells is officially deemed a "human". It's just not possible.
RubxQub said:
Bullshit.
Something is alive or dead and science can tell you that.
There are no human / anything else hybrids, so you know if something is definitively human or not. By the very nature of human pregnancy and the lack of ability to have the aforementioned hybrids or well, anything else, if a human being can get pregnant with it, it's a human. It's certainly not a goddamned rhino.
"Eventually become human" doesn't even make sense. An organism is or is not a member of our species.
wrongJayDubya said:
Main Entry: par·a·site
Pronunciation: \ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
Date: 1539
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
Pronunciation: \ˈper-ə-ˌsīt, ˈpa-rə-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Latin parasitus, from Greek parasitos, from para- + sitos grain, food
Date: 1539
1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
I see what you're saying, but sadly it again comes down to a matter of opinion as to whether or not our Constitutional rights apply to a grouping of cells.JayDubya said:
Branduil said:
My skin cells that flake off of my body by the millions each have my DNA in them, with the code to recreate my entire body. Are they human?
faceless007
Member
So to continue this analogy, you admit that there are innate, immutable biological differences between fetuses and grown humans.JayDubya said:
No one disagrees with that, obviously. But X=X isn't exactly an argument from which others can be derived.
What "misinformation" exactly? You are now accusing the pro-choice side of perpetrating lies and falsehoods. Exactly what falsehoods are you alleging, and prove that they are false.
LuCkymoON said:
Right.
Let me just ignore my education and the definition found in multiple textbooks and cited by multiple professors in favor of the first online dictionary you found that happened to agree with you.
Edit: Wait a second.
In order to be living in biological parasitism, you have to be a member of another species. So your definition works just fine. To be an organism living off another in parasitism...
JayDubya said:
Oh really? Perhaps you can post this standardized definition of life that science has apparently established from which science can absolutely tell if something is alive or not.
Whether something is or is not a living organism is still in much dispute, varying in definitions depending on the field in question.
RubxQub said:
Read the very first post in this thread.
faceless007 said:
That's not continuing the analogy. I was comparing the human rights abuses of slavery and abortion. To continue the analogy, I would admit that there are certain distinct differences between the two scenarios. Certainly, there are. However, the comparison is still apples to apples, and both are terrifically unjust.
faceless007
Member
Right, because no word can ever have more than one correct definition, especially when used in two different fields.JayDubya said:
faceless007
Member
Like a fetus is part of its host.Branduil said:
faceless007 said:
Not in the least.
I am nothing more or less than a great multitude of cells. No living organism is.
A skin cell does not encapsulate all that I am, but it is part of me. I am many cells, but one organism.
A human in utero is in a different life stage. Fetus is as meaningful as "toddler" or "adolescent." There are fewer cells involved - big whoop. It's still a unique organism, not a mere part of its mother.
Again, the notion of treating human beings as subhuman property was supposed to have gone away a long time ago.
Keylime
ÏÎ¯Î»Ï á¼Î¾ÎµÏÎγλοÏÏον καί ÏεÏδολÏγον οá½Îº εἰÏÏν
My skin cell analogy was just pointing out the fact that saying anything that has DNA in it is human is not enough qualification. That is all.
I see, however, that I cannot convince anyone that their beliefs are in fact opinions.
Branduil and JayDub, I can appreciate your point of views. I understand why you feel as you feel, but to me it all boils down to your own personal opinions.
I won't knock you for believing what you believe, as you completely have moral ground to stand on, however again, these are just your opinions.
I'll leave it at that, and I kindly ask that you do not take my departure from this argument as a concession of defeat.
I see, however, that I cannot convince anyone that their beliefs are in fact opinions.
Branduil and JayDub, I can appreciate your point of views. I understand why you feel as you feel, but to me it all boils down to your own personal opinions.
I won't knock you for believing what you believe, as you completely have moral ground to stand on, however again, these are just your opinions.
I'll leave it at that, and I kindly ask that you do not take my departure from this argument as a concession of defeat.
faceless007
Member
JayDubya said:
If so, then from the moment of its creation--conception--it should be able to reproduce and grow on its own, without being physically attached to a host and subject to health changes depending on the health of the host.
- Status