Abortion

Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Sarah, Oct 21, 2003.

?

Is abortion a justified act?

  1. Yes

    44 vote(s)
    53.7%
  2. No

    12 vote(s)
    14.6%
  3. Yes if only the situation threatens the mother and/or child

    26 vote(s)
    31.7%
  1. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    And you have a clinical definition of what a person is? I want to read it.

    Potential for life would be something I disagree with. I already regard it as alive due to its growth.

    Explain for me, please. Why do you consider that it is a double standard? I'm using the same logic for both- it does not matter. It is just a classification of what kind of creature it is.

    If it did become a parasite twin then that's just an example of a human not achieving a full growth. I already regard a growing fetus as a huma. As I said, I do not regard it as a "potential". I already see it there. In my view, the only thing that has a potential for human life would be the sperms and eggs.

    I disagree with abortion to the full. The only circumstances that I believe is okay for an abortion to take place is if the woman carrying the fetus would be in danger. I regard the fetus as a human, just at an earlier stage in its growth. I do not think that a fetus deserves to be killed because it would be an inconvenience its mother. If there is a possibility that the fetus grows up to be born, it should be protected. I do not regard a parasite twin the same way is it has diverged from the human growth cycle.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2009
  2. Warlock Lord

    Warlock Lord I am a Fashion Statement

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,207
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Drunken Isle
    Ratings:
    +94 / 0 / -0
    Herein lies your problem. Yes, I believe you are taking a very ignorant stance in disregarding the simple biological fact that a fetus is a parasite. It cannot live without its host.

    Its quite simple to determine whether or not a fetus is human. Simply put, humans are not parasitic in nature whereas a fetus is.

    In biological terms a fetus is alive and it does grow, however it isnt human.

    Put it this way, a caterpillar isnt a butterfly. It only has the potential to become one.
     
  3. Trueface

    Trueface New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    You have made a change of semantics, here. My claim was potential for human life, a word you delicately excluded. However, the very simple fact that a fetus is incapable of suriving on it's own and is a functioning part of the mother is obviously of heavy importance to the question of wether it is indeed a life of it's own, human or not.
    Are you a vegetarian?
    A parasitic twin not only does not reach full growth; it changes and adapts, becoming a permanent parasite. What are the rights of that parasite, from your perspective? Is it merely undeveloped human life? An early term fetus is still capable of developing into such a parasite. What is the only difference? Potential.
    I am not asserting that a fetus is deserving of termination; rather that the rights of the mother to choose what occurs to something within her and a part of her, potentially changing, or detramental to her life is of notable moral imperative. A fetus is not merely an inconvenience. The supposed 'rights' of an unthinking, unreactionary life form within her arent at all overriding over the rights of a fully functioning human being. Furthermore, you cannot possibly hope that dissalowing abortion will prevent it's occurance. The difference would only be as such; Abortions would still occur, but in less sanitary, unstandardised conditions. It would merely result in higher dangers for all involved.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2009
  4. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    I have not denied that in the least. I said quite clearly in the post you outlined that it does not matter.

    Shall I bring you a chart of a human's growth cycle, where it shows the embryo at the very top?
    It is quite human. Whether or not it is at the stage of its life with two eyes, a nose, and internal body structure does not matter.
    Tell me the last time a butterfly laid butterfly eggs. A butterfly is just a later stage of a caterpillar's growth cycle.

    I didn't realize I had to be so precise when the topic at hand is and has always been about human life. Also, there is no possible way I am making a play at semantics here, as I clarified later in the post, twice, that I regard a growing fetus as human life.

    I don't see any importance in it at all. If the fetus was growing up in a tube getting its nutrients from machinery, I would still regard it has a life of its own.

    Unfortunately not.
    I regard it no different then I regard somebody who has brain death. Potential is a misnomer, as everybody has potential of dying at any stage of their life. Arguing that this is significant for a fetus and not mentioning it for any other stage of development is a double standard.

    I would agree normally, but in this singular case the cost-benefit analysis of what each party would lose, and I consider the developing human as its own party, is an instance where one person suffers for a relatively short period, the other dies and loses all hope of a life. I can not agree with that.

    I'm not deluding myself in thinking that abortion will ever be outlawed to begin with. But if it was, it would certainly make people more responsible to start. I have no concern for somebody's health when they're actively trying to kill somebody else. If they suffer from it, I would not be bothered. If they become sterile from it, I would be at ease. If they die, then that's another dead murderer.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2009
  5. Warlock Lord

    Warlock Lord I am a Fashion Statement

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2006
    Messages:
    3,207
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    The Drunken Isle
    Ratings:
    +94 / 0 / -0
    I would consider this quite ignorant.

    I wasnt comparing the two, I was simply using this example to illustrate the importance of the word 'potential'
     
  6. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    I do consider this refutation a logical fallacy. Congratulations, you can join Mububben in the halls of untenable fools. Before you make your rebuttal, review what an "ad hominem" is so you don't appear to be so vacuous.

    The argument of potentiality is cockamay; an argument that can be applied across the range of the entire human life. You're only arguing that life begins upon birth or in the third trimester, whatever period you make camp, because the human gains other features that it does not previously have. Argue that instead of something that can be so easily waved away.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2009
  7. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0

    What exactly do you consider a "relatively short period (of suffering)?" Unless you're adopting the kid out (very low percentage) having a kid is a lifetime commitment. I don't consider that to be short term.

    If you or I or anyone else here had been aborted, or miscarried, the world would continue without skipping a beat. Apart from the potential parents and direct family who know of it happening who will be emotionally affected, there is no suffering involved.
    From the world I've seen personally, I think the birth of an unwanted child can produce far more suffering in the world than the abortion of a potential life. To me the abortion is the short term suffering.



    Wow man. People accuse me of being cold and heartless with some of my comments. To your above post I say "Welcome to the club!"

    I'm yet to see evidence that outlawing abortion makes experimenting teenagers, drunk people, or "not ready yet" couples any more responsible. Nor would it make the pill more effective, or condoms less likely to break.

    As Trueface said, and HAS been shown concusively, when abortion is outlawed it still happens, but in unsanitary conditions that can harm or kill the mother.
    I've often been labelled cold, heartless, mean etc etc blah blah. However I would not ever feel good about seeing a scared 14 year old being made sterile for the rest of her life because her and her boyfriend got pregnant the first few times they had sex.

    I may have asked you this before, but based on the "another dead murderer" line, do you then support the death penalty?

    p.. if you're going to call me a fool, at least spell my name correctly :)
    Wait, is calling someone an untenable fool considered an ad hominem attack? :confused:
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2009
  8. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    I consider the third trimester and birth a short period compared to a lifetime.
    I'm not advocating that they should be forced to raise the child. Just that they do not kill it out of selfishness. Give it to the state to take care of.

    Abortion does not affect society on a global scale to begin with.

    While you can go on and list how terrible the aborigines have it in Australia like you did last time, I can bring in anecdotes of visits to third world countries where it's not suffering even if the living conditions are mud huts and limited health care (as in the remedy for sting ray venom is Windex and 409). Talking about suffering is a tricky cove that can not be mapped for an argument and can be loosely interpreted as the "slippery slope" fallacy. If they are indeed suffering horribly, they can just kill themselves- nobody has the right to stop them.

    Whether or not they become more responsible is none of my concern. It was speculation modeled around my line of thoughts- I would certainly be more safe when engaging in something as risky as sex. And if those methods of birth control do not sound secure to them, he/her can have his/her vas deferens/fellopian tubes tied. When they deem themselves ready for a pregnancy, they can have the surgery reversed.

    Yes. But lets leave the capital punishment discussion for the proper thread.

    No. An "ad hominem" is when somebody attacks the person and not the argument. If Warlock were to expand on why he considered that "quite ignorant", then I would be out of place in calling that a logical fallacy. Since he didn't, it appeared to be an attempt to belittle me rather than defeat my stance. I called you and Warlock untenable fools because you have both used logical fallacies against me in this thread.
     
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2009
  9. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    What do you mean exactly? A state-run facility like an orphanage? Foster parents?
    Would it last until age 16, or 18?
    How would this work exactly? It would be an enormously expensive undertaking, and history is full of children placed into state care who are abused. No not all, of course, but many. Humanity's dark side always seems to surface when innocent children without a guardian are left in mass care.

    So, who runs it? Where does the funding come from? What government department takes care of placements and follow-ups? Monitoring of health and wellbeing and safeguarding against abuse?

    If you're trying to suggest a better way, you need to convince us that it would indeed be better.

    I don't think it'd make irresponsible people more responsible. Nor do I think it'll stop condoms breaking, or guys from pressuring girls into sex they're not sure about, or passion obscuring rational behaviour.
    If you're likely to use condoms or be on the pill, then you'll do those things anyway. And if you're not, then you're not. I doubt you'd see much of a difference in numbers of people suddenly deciding to use precautions if abortion was outlawed. Perhaps a small jump yes, but I'd wager nothing in double digit percentage.


    That's neither practical nor realistic. Even as a theoretical model, in what world would that ever happen? I sure as hell wouldn't sign up for possibly non-reversible surgery just so I could shag chicks without a condom. Which you should still be wearing to avoid STI's anyway.
    Again, I doubt anyone who is not already on the pill or using condoms is going to sign up for surgery.

    Legalising or outlawing abortion are realistic outcomes. Voluntary surgery (privately funded I'm guessing?) is highly unlikely and would place yet more burdens on an already burdened healthcare system.
    Would it save more money than the current situation of abortions and unplanned pregnancies? I dunno. I just can't see many people jumping at the chance to have it done.



    Yeah well, an insult by any other name would smell the same. I rate using a logical fallacy not a deliberate act if the poster is unaware of your strict debating rules and regulations (which, incidentally, this forum does not have for this section), but calling someone an untenable fool is a direct deliberate insult.

    You don't need to be an English major to use the Books section. You don't need to be a deadly warrior to discuss the Weapons and Armour section. And you don't need to be a member of a "proper" debating club or forum to use the Debating section.
     
  10. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    I'll respond to the rest later, as it is rather late, but there is one thing I want off my mind.


    My method and standard of debate is plain for everybody to see. I ended my last discussion with you a mere two pages ago. I do not need to justify myself when I'm conducting myself the proper way. If my jab at you bothered you so, just ignore it. You do not see me flaming my opponents every post I make, do you? No, it was a response to what I perceived was an insult. The only other time I flamed you was when you said my posts carried no substance, much to my surprise, and I unkindly told you to piss off. Granted, you did nothing to deserve it this time, so I apologize is I did offend you.

    I never said nor implied that he had to pack up and GTFO of the thread or forum. I said review the logical fallacy he made so he does not make the error again. Maybe he'll learn something from the lesson. If he wants to, I wouldn't mind debating with him some more- so long as I'm not faced with more Ad Hominems, the worst and most insulting logical fallacy next to an Appeal to Ridicule. I do not see this as a big deal. Everybody should know what logical fallacies are so they don't make such easy mistakes in future discussions. Also, given your past examples of baiting, I don't see where you get to take the high road here.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2009
  11. Trueface

    Trueface New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    ^Absolutely.
    Perhaps there was a misunderstanding. Lets go over this so we can retrieve the point at hand. I said this;
    To which you responded;
    We arent, or werent, really on the same page. Certainly a fetus is alive, but that was not the issue at hand. I was talking about potential for human cognitive and emotional function, which I deem important to the 'human' question. A fetus or embryo merely has potential for these innately human traits - feeling concious pain, feeling emotion, and a concept of self, among other, much more basic qualities, many of which are boasted by animals. You made a statement about a fetus being alive, due to growth. Growth is important, but it isnt among those traits that seperate humans from quite basic life forms.

    I guess it's a misunderstanding very fitting to what we each deem piviotal to our own seperate outlooks.
    Assuming that the termination in question is indeed selfish. What is the criteria you would attest to define that?
    I suppose this also comes down to the same basic point. If intelligence and capability for complex emotions, among other factors already mentioned, arent foremost, or of most basic importance in your definition of human, then how do you differentiate between the value of an animal and human life? Especially when you indirectly participate in the slaughter of animals more intelligent and capable of pain than a fetus? I know the difference here as much as you do - potential.
    But the fetus has no wants, no feelings, no real notion of desire to live, apart from the biology which drives it. And is there no value, in your mind, over a fully funtioning, grown persons' own body, their genes, and their future?
    Thats good, at least.
    I fail to understand how your opinion on what a person is can or should be enforced upon others, even in your own mind, when that very question is foggy for a variety of reasons. Not only is this issue near inherently grey, murderer is an extremely strong word, one I am surprised you have the audacity to coin here. Once again you avoid what other rights are involved in this situation, which I have already mentioned. But to make this stickier, lets imagine this from the position of a sixteen year old rape victim. Is she a murderer, for destroying an unwanted, life changing and thoughtless life form she was foisted?
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2009
  12. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    This is all irrelevant to the discussion. I pointed out the mother doesn't have to raise the child is she does not want to, anything else after that is a red herring to the debate at hand.


    It does not matter to me whether they're safer or not. It is not my body that they're risking pregnancy nor my life they're putting under pressure.

    Again, it does not matter to our discussion. I pointed out a guaranteed safe method. Whether or not people are wise enough to take it is not my concern. It's theirs. The health care system is another debate entirely.

    Please stay within the confines of this debate, Mubbuban. I do not want to discuss other subjects, as they are all different debates. If I want to discuss them, I'd post in the appropriate threads.
    Given in your first response to me, you said, "terminating an early fetus is merely the prevention of potential life" meaning you did not regard the fetus as alive at its stage of development.

    Babies do not have any of that, except basic instincts like pain and hunger. Killing a baby using painless measures would be no different than killing a fetus then. And I already disagree with the argument of potentiality, but I'll get to that later.

    Every reason pro-abortion is selfish, actually, unless you can name one where it isn't. The only reason I could ever be okay with is if it was threatening to the mother to give birth.

    I regard humans as innately superior and more important than any other animal due to their ability. I do not regard a dolphin as more important than a child, or a baby, or an embryo. All three stages of human life which are all less intelligent and developed than a grown dolphin, yet I see no enhanced value over the humans by the dolphin because of these facts. I know that in time, they will be superior to the dolphin unless an action prevented that. This is your "potential" argument. However, I think stopping that potential from running its natural course is murder- just as I think killing a man in a coma is murder or a baby while it's sleeping is murder, and half-birth abortions are murder.

    Apologies, I do not quite understand your second sentence. Are you asking if I think the pregnant mother has no value, or a lesser value, than the growing fetus?

    What other rights? The right to their body and the right to freedom to make a choice? Those rights? Of course they're present with the mother, but they're also present with the fetus, which seems to evade everybody's thoughts here; I believe the fetus has every fundamental right the mother has. Aborting the fetus goes against its every right, and is infinitely more severe than having the mother give birth.

    She would be a murderer for killing an innocent child. The child did not rape or make her pregnant, it is just caught in the crossfire.



    As another note, Trueface, can you put lines in between each response to me? When I click "Quote" on your post, I get this:
    It is more difficult to pick up where each branch of discussion ends and begins than when there is already a space provided to respond, like with everybody else.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2009
  13. Mububban

    Mububban Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    4,705
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    West Australia
    Ratings:
    +186 / 1 / -0
    Okay, here's another area we disagree on. At TFF we tolerate tangents in threads, if they are still related to the topic at hand. If I went off and started talking about what car I drive, that would not be relevant nor tolerated.

    If you propose a "better way" then surely it must be able to stand up to scrutiny. Just saying "Let the State raise the unwanted children" does not offer a realistic, practical solution to the problem.

    Because right now the current system that allows abortion seems to work just fine. If it's ever to be changed or reversed, it needs to be proven wrong. And to do that, people like yourself need to do some serious convincing, not just throw out one-line non-solutions.

    Can you compromise your usual debating rules to at least throw out some basics of how you see such a system working? If not then I and probably most other people who simply hear "Let the state raise them" will dismiss the notion out of hand. And that's not me being pissy, it's just how people are. Obviously my way of interacting within these debates has shown me incapable of avoiding the debating no-nos you deplore, and thus ignore and don't fully answer my questions. However I do believe you are very capable of extrapolating on your proposed ideas, even if they break your usual guidelines. I'm genuinely sincerely asking and am curious, how could you ever make that system work?
     
  14. Emphyrio

    Emphyrio New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Ok, the thread is 63 pages so I certainly haven't read all of it, I just thought I'd throw in my opinion.

    As a Catholic, I'm technically supposed to be totally opposed to abortion. On a personal level, if my girlfriend got pregnant, I'd want her to keep the child, not out of any religiously influenced idea of morality, but just because it would be my son or daughter.

    However, it finally struck me recently: I think it would be better for a woman to have an abortion, and regret it for the rest of her life, than to have a child and regret THAT for the rest of her life. So now I'm completely pro-choice.
     
  15. KingLuffa

    KingLuffa New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2009
    Messages:
    605
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Ratings:
    +20 / 0 / -0
    ^^ I like your reasoning
     
  16. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    What makes you think I'm being realistic at all, or that I even want to discuss those things? My beliefs are not realistic, I already admitted that in this thread. I'm arguing what I believe, not what's practical. I don't give a shit about that, and do not mold my values to what's convenient. I do not want to argue how the state should run its programs, that is of no interest to me. What is of interest to me are the ethics of abortion. "Morality is not the doctrine of how to make ourselves happy but of how we are to be worthy of happiness."
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2009
  17. Window Bar

    Window Bar "We Read for Light"

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Southern Oregon
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    Those of us on this forum are probably romantics at heart. By "romantics" I mean we are people who look for a reason or for symbolism in most actions and in the world around us; we find meaning and purpose in life.

    Nevertheless, I'm more than willing to admit that there are arguments that defy most of our attempts at understanding. In the argument as to whether abortion means "murder" or "choice," I don't know. My guess is that it is situational, that it comes from deep within the soul of the woman who must choose.

    The government has no business here. The arguments are far too complex and far too personal.
     
  18. clouded_perception

    clouded_perception clouded_perception

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,871
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -0
    The problem with that logic is that when you decide to act on said morals (for example, by voting), your actions have very real effects on the lives of others. So a position chosen based on random feelings with no real-world basis can hurt people, a lot.

    As a utilitarian, I would have to argue that morality IS largely about how to make us happy. If it has positive effects on health, happiness or quality of life that outweight its negative effects, then it's moral. But a discussion of the merits of various moral systems would take us rather far off topic here.
     
  19. ScreenXSurfer

    ScreenXSurfer Better Than You

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Where you want to live
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0
    There was not logic in there; I am making a discussion on abortion. I am not heedless of what negative consequences there are to it- I find them all to be irrelevant in the face of killing an innocent person.

    A discussion on state run programs will derail this thread than a train running on tracks that suddenly end. It won't just be a topic about abortion anymore; it will be a topic about economic systems, how people should receive benefits, what benefits they should receive, how that will effect taxes, etc. etc. etc.

    That does not belong in this thread.


    If people the majority are pleased by it, it is moral? Was Hitlers alienation and degredation of the Jews in the Third Reich moral because it pleased most of the people in central Europe? How about shariah law, and its treatment of women?
     
  20. clouded_perception

    clouded_perception clouded_perception

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2006
    Messages:
    1,871
    Likes Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Australia
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -0
    Nope, not unless that increase in pleasure outweighs the harm it does to existing and future people. In the case of your examples, it very most likely does not; therefore, those positions are immoral. A slight increase in pleasure for many does not usually outweigh a great decrease for the few, especially when the many adopt a position that is easily changeable (that is, their children could go either way and be just as happy), or are merely following a charismatic, bigoted minority and can have their own minds changed, while the negative aspects are less affected by attitude change (eg. abuse or death) and thus accumulate over the generations should the harmful perspective be adopted.
     
Search tags for this page

abortion fantasy