Abortion Controversy

[Michael Archer]

  Doom Shepherd said:

  Rover said:

You'll find that most people who identify themselves as pro-life are social conservatives who, in general, do not have any qualms with going to war or the death penalty.

 

Well, from a certain point of view, being anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty requires less cognitive dissonance than being pro-abortion and anti-death-penalty.

 

Not really. Death penalty is killing a human being. Abortion is not killing a human being, since it does not exist as a separate entity and by definition, has no rights.

 

I'm ambivalent on the death penalty thing though; morally, it's correct but epistemologically, it's too dangerous and we have too much to lose than gain.

 

  Geneaux486 said:

I do think it is acceptable for a government to open up their own facilities that provide free healthcare to those that need it, run by people who choose to work there of their own free will.

 

Workers aren't the only money expense; what about supplies?

 

If they're also provided by free will, you're pretty much describing charity: an institution I have no qualms with.

 

  Quote

The government provides us with a multitude of services, including a postal system, law enforcement and protection, and education.

 

Some people (myself included) would rather see the postal system and education run by the profit-making industry where they compete for our business; rather than the government creating harmful monopolies by outlawing all their competition, getting to decide what's taught to the kids and where the parents can't decide what education is best for their kid. Most people (myself included) don't want their money physically extorted to pay for someone else's kids unearned benefit.

 

  Quote

Beyond that, a man has the right to the fruits and vegetables he grows as well. The animals he raises, however, I do not think he has the moral right to slaughter inhumanely when.

 

Does he have the right to shoot them if they attack his property?

 

  Quote

Fetus ain’t gonna maul its host...I do not see this as less of an attack than the resources it unwittingly has to consume in the previous stage of its life.

 

I disagree. A fetus has no concept of "fair" or for the well-being of its host; it will suck out all the nutrients it needs, even at the expense of its host. Before modern medicine, many mothers died because of child birth and poor nutrition.

 

It's only an attack if the host does not want it.

 

  Quote

I think the ideal government should not just secure freedoms, but work towards the betterment of all who fund it.

 

"The betterment of the people/community" is an undefinable term, since all a "community" is, is just a collection of individuals. Almost no one has a universally common interest except freedom. That's what the government secures.

 

I also don't think I need to remind you that due to the subjective nature of "the betterment of the community", it has been used throughout history as a justification for many of the greatest evils ever brought upon man.

 

  Quote

If rights are about what’s required to sustain life, than naturally that would extend to the fetal stage as well, seeing as how we all must go through that stage, and surviving it is necessary to the continuation of our lives.

 

Human life is the standard for all rights. What's needed to sustain life is good; what destroys it is bad, in a moral sense. If one's life (fetus) destroys other life (mother), then the destroyer has no rights. Even if it wasn't destroying a life i.e. the mother wants to raise a child; it still has no rights, since rights are absolutes and do not exist by permission.

 

  Quote

It’s exploitation to provide them with less than the bare minimum in terms of working environment simply because they have nowhere else to go.

 

You say tomato; I say, "shitty working conditions that should be remedied by more economic freedom and not by the government hindering production which made life livable in the first place."

 

  Quote

It is not what not killing the developing human life is. I see that not as being forced to renounce one’s own well being for others because the process of pregnancy is an unavoidable stage in the continuity of the human race. It isn’t so black and white as “it’s a parasite, it’s okay to terminate it”. All human life has a basic value in common, at all stages. It’s not a simple matter, nor is there a simple solution, but I do not believe abortion is the right solution.

 

Sperm and egg and just as much a stage of human life as the fetus.

 

Just because it's unavoidable fact that fetus needs to be carried, does not a mean a human being is under obligation to see that through. If there was an obligation, that means that a human being does not exist by right for themselves, but exists to serve society.

 

  Quote

Depends on its capacity. Can it feel pain? If so, then we have no right to torture it. If not, then we can’t very well inflict real pain on it.

 

I wouldn't say "humans have the right to torture animals", but I would say "animals have no rights and get no government protection." That's all.

 

  Quote

But these parasitic actions lead to a fully functional human being with its own potential to contribute.

 

Again, you're making the mistake of equating the potential with the actual. There's huge metaphysical difference between between a fetus that may eventually be a full grown adult with rights, then a full grown adult who actually does.

 

Potential is not the actual (for example, two people independently create the exact same thing and they both rush to the patent office at the same time, but Person A trips and falls and doesn't make it to the patent office and Person B gets the patent does not mean Person A is entitled to anything; the fact that Person A could have been first, does not change the fact that he wasn't. Can you imagine if Person A tried to sue B? "I want royalties for this product that I patented after this guy, because I could've invented that!") and nature forces us to treat them differently; even if you don't like that, you can't do anything about it.

 

The same applies to any natural law e.g. even if you don't like gravity, there's nothing you can do about it.

 

Also, that hypothetical scenario I posted is not too far from removed from reality. Ever hear of a guy name Antonio Meucci? Neither has anyone else. He put in the patent for the telephone before Graham Bell, but he was too poor to pay the fee. When Bell put in his patent, Mucci sued him, but died before the trial could finish. That's why Graham Bell gets the credit.

 

  Quote

And yet someone is going to be forced to take care of the baby. Regardless of whether or not they want it, those who adopt the child won’t really have the choice to not take care of the baby. Infant human beings are not capable of taking care of themselves, they need to be protected from themselves and others, and they need to be nourished. We all needed that in the early stages of our lives, and as a species we always will.

 

When you adopt a child, you're voluntarily assuming legal guardianship. It's like a contract held in force, but like all contracts, it's initially agreed to voluntarily.

[Kyon]

Pro-Choice here. There is no need to take away the rights of the people. I'm not getting in more of a debate than that.

[wylmara]

What is the difference between a woman having an abortion and a woman killing her 1 week old baby? In my opinion, there is no difference. Abortion is a selfish act. Pro- Abortion activists love to say that a fetus is not a baby but just because the fetus has not fully formed does not mean it is not a human life.

___________________________

yahoo keyword tool ~ overture ~ traffic estimator ~ adwords traffic estimator

Edited August 6, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Michael Archer]

  wylmara said:

What is the difference between a woman having an abortion and a woman killing her 1 week old baby?

 

Arguments against abortion get stronger as the pregnancy matures, but they can easily be refuted if we start on a fundamental issue:

 

In the first trimester, the fetus is clearly not a human. To call it a baby and ascribe rights to it is ridiculous. For all intents and purposes, it is part of the mother. A fertilized egg is not a person--it's a clump of cells subsisting off of a host; a baby is a physical separate entity. Simply put, the reason why there's a difference between an abortion and a woman killing her baby is that an embryo =/= a baby.

 

  Quote

In my opinion, there is no difference.

 

If you ascribe to notion that "A is A' and "Existence Exists," then by corollary, your consciousness exists independent of reality. Just because you think that an embryo is a baby doesn't matter.

 

  Quote

Abortion is a selfish act.

 

I agree one hundred percent: it is absolutely selfish.

 

But let's sink a little deeper into your accusation. What is selfish? The literal definition of it is concern for one's own interest. That means when you eat, you're being selfish since you're sustaining your own life. When you work and pursue your own values that make you happy, you're being selfish. If evil is that which destroys man's life and good is that which supports and flourish it, how can you condemn selfishness as a bad thing?

 

Or when you said "selfish", did you mean "putting your own wants and needs above other people's wants and needs"? In that case, you just contradicted yourself. Aren't you being selfish because other people aren't doing what you want them to do?

 

The opposite of selfishness is altruism, which holds that your actions are only moral if they benefit someone else. According to this moral code any time you eat or keep something for yourself, you're being evil. Altruism means self-sacrifice; in this case, altruism would involve a pregnant woman setting aside her own values, her own hopes and dreams, in order to benefit something she doesn't want--that's self destruction.

 

If you don't spend every penny on something that you don't want to spend it on, by your logic, you're being "selfish" and therefore "evil".

 

  Quote

Pro- Abortion activists love to say that a fetus is not a baby but just because the fetus has not fully formed does not mean it is not a human life.

 

The fetus is not a baby. I will say this for the one hundredth time: the potential is not the actual. Metaphysically, they're very different things. It doesn't matter if you want them to be the same thing; try to build a log cabin out of an oak seed. No matter how much you think that it's the same thing as an oak tree, you won't be able to build that cabin.

 

By your logic, we're committing murder every time we're not in bed trying to make babies.

[BTGBullseye]

  Michael Archer said:

What is selfish? The literal definition of it is concern for one's own interest. That means when you eat, you're being selfish since you're sustaining your own life. When you work and pursue your own values that make you happy, you're being selfish.

I hate to see people that post wrong definitions.

 

  dictionary.reference.com/browse/selfish said:

self·ish   [sel-fish]

adjective

1.

devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

2.

characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.

The key here being "regardless of others" and "care only for oneself". You aren't being selfish by eating to sustain your life, but you are if you withhold food from another when it wouldn't hurt you not to. Working and pursuing your own goals is not selfish unless it prevents another from doing the same.

 

 

Look up the definitions before you twist the truth to support your statements.

[ProHypster]

Michael Archer is living propaganda whether he admits it or not. His definitions always get twisted for his own purposes. This isn't the first time.

 

Also, there is not going to be an agreement in this thread due to cultural differences, I think I posted that 10-20 pages ago and you cannot simply go on a forum and change a person's culture by telling him how your culture is better than his. There is no evidence or argument that can make people think otherwise here, it all comes down to whether you think abortion is killing or not, and since the word kill is not a well defined word all your arguments are going to be about using the word kill to your advantage. Very primitive.

[Michael Archer]

BTGbullseye, definition two. If you eat, that's concern only for yourself--as opposed to giving the food to someone else. Eating is selfish, since you're only sustaining yourself. Same with working for yourself when it doesn't benefit anyone else. Any action that only benefits you and not others is selfish.

 

I hate seeing you post definitions and ignoring them yourself.

 

  ThatSmartGuy said:

Michael Archer is living propaganda whether he admits it or not. His definitions always get twisted for his own purposes. This isn't the first time.

 

Textbook Argument from Intimidation/Argumentum Ad hominem. Nothing to see here, moving along.

 

  Quote

Also, there is not going to be an agreement in this thread due to cultural differences, I think I posted that 10-20 pages ago and you cannot simply go on a forum and change a person's culture by telling him how your culture is better than his.

 

Look me in the eyes and tell me that Western culture is not objectively superior than the Aztec culture or the tribal culture of the Native Americans or the tribal culture of the Nigerians. I'm not asking for your opinion, I'm asking for your eyes.

 

  Quote

There is no evidence or argument that can make people think otherwise here, it all comes down to whether you think abortion is killing or not, and since the word kill is not a well defined word all your arguments are going to be about using the word kill to your advantage. Very primitive.

 

I can't make people look at things objectively.

[Scorpia]

personal belief: abortion is wrong, your civil rights doesn't mean shit to me if it means killing a person who could've cured cancer, stopped crime altogether, etc. truth be told you're killing potential, and i cannot approve. adoption is always an option. (no rhyme intended)

 

edit: who resurrected this thread?

[Axeldeath]

  Quote

your civil rights don't mean shit to me

 

Luckily you don't have any sort of control over the government, what makes you think you can decide what rights people have?

[BTGBullseye]

  Axeldeath said:

  Quote

your civil rights don't mean shit to me

 

Luckily you don't have any sort of control over the government, what makes you think you can decide what rights people have?

Nobody should ever have the right to take another's life.

[Scorpia]

im just saying it's selfish; yea i was outta line with that "your civil rights doesn't mean shit to me" i'm just saying the aspect of civil rights that dictates you can kill whatever "drunken mistake" you might've made i do not agree with. yea sure if you were raped and every kick of the little guy flashes you back to that horrible time in your life, than im not asking you to put yourself through that mental barbed wire. there are people who cannot afford birth control so they go ahead and abort every pregnancy they get, these people need to be locked up. there are teenagers who decide to hand over their v-card to that "cute guy who's different" and end up getting pregnant, then they decide getting an abortion is "better than being seen as a whore" social pressures piss me off as well, but that's a different topic for a different forum. the fact is the above could've been solved by just showing some mettle and telling mom and dad, dealing with whatever ridicule you may receive, and giving the kid away to adoption. however no ones a pregnant teenager here (one who's not asking for my help anyway) so my words isn't going to mean shit to anyone, senseless killing will continue, and people are going to still continue basking in the comfort of a "pro-choice" security blanket.

 

Edit: thank you BGT my point exactly.^

Edit 2: i believe life begins at conception, those "life begins at birth" people; don't even get me started on them.

[Michael Archer]

  billyludwick said:

personal belief: abortion is wrong, your civil rights doesn't mean shit to me if it means killing a person who could've cured cancer, stopped crime altogether

 

I agree, with the latter about "killing a person who could've cured cancer." That doctrine is called altruism, which I repudiate all together.

 

  Quote

truth be told you're killing potential, and i cannot approve. adoption is always an option. (no rhyme intended)

 

*facepalm*

 

Potential is not the actual; it will never be, no matter how much you think it is. By the same logic, since people are "potential dead people", I can dissect them for the instruction of medical students.

 

  Quote

yea sure if you were raped and every kick of the little guy flashes you back to that horrible time in your life, than im not asking you to put yourself through that mental barbed wire.

 

Your moral standards confuse me. First you say a person's right to her life and happiness does not give her the right to abort, but now you're saying it does? By what standard?

 

  Quote

there are teenagers who decide to hand over their v-card to that "cute guy who's different" and end up getting pregnant, then they decide getting an abortion is "better than being seen as a whore" social pressures piss me off as well, but that's a different topic for a different forum. the fact is the above could've been solved by just showing some mettle and telling mom and dad, dealing with whatever ridicule you may receive, and giving the kid away to adoption. however no ones a pregnant teenager here (one who's not asking for my help anyway) so my words isn't going to mean shit to anyone, senseless killing will continue, and people are going to still continue basking in the comfort of a "pro-choice" security blanket.

 

There's a difference between being "pissed off" at someone course of action and thinking that action should be outlawed. The former is a moral judgement that's proper (even in this case) under some circumstances; the latter, in this case, is treating other people's lives like you own them (slavery)--I find this abhorrent.

 

Which one are you?

 

  Quote

Edit 2: i believe life begins at conception, those "life begins at birth" people; don't even get me started on them.

 

In the extremely literal sense of the word, life does begin at conception. I think the "life begins at birth" people mean that a fetus becomes a human being (and has the same rights as one) at birth; is this what you find evil and if so, why?

 

  BTGbullseye said:

Nobody should ever have the right to take another's life.

 

Your context-dropping skills amazes me.

 

In the first trimester, the fetus is clearly not a human being; this is an issue that we can't just ignore. It is a parasite living off its host. We may not have the right to take another's life, but there's also no such thing as the right to live as a parasite.

 

In fact, I contest your assertion altogether. To kill someone that's threatening your life (self-defense) is a moral requirement. Many women see their unwanted fetus as threatening their life. I see a human being taking moral priority over a piece of protoplasm--only religious dogma equates the two.

[Pinkie Pie]

All I know is, I'd hate to be the doctor having to abort the baby.

 

Edit: Sorry, 'parasite'.

Edited August 19, 2011 by Guest (see edit history)

[Scorpia]

alright Michael...

to your second point: yea i'll reiterate: "personal belief"; i think abortion is killing potential.

say an aborted fetus is going to do something important(i don't know, become a brilliant doctor)...well congratulations hero, it isn't anymore...maybe it was going to accidentally run over a man who was planning to kill someone? i don't know these are just examples.

(btw: in regards to:*facepalm*, i'd appreciate a level of mutual respect, so please don't disrespect me by doing that.)

 

 

 

to your 3rd point: yes abortion is wrong in all forms, for any reason, but if the flash backs are too painful to bear then i'm not going to hate you for whatever you choose to do, also same applies for if making the child was going to kill you, why would i blame you for self-preservation?

 

to your 4th point: i was talking about the social pressures like women who don't have sex are frigid or there's something wrong with them or if they do it too much they're whores. fact is: sex feels good; everyone likes it, no one should be stoned to death for liking it "too much"

secondly my stance on abortion is purely based on my own morals.

 

back on topic 5th point: i find it evil because it allows the aborting party to rationalize that they're killing "something that isn't alive" as soon as its two cells old it's a human being to me, and the option of taking it's life should not exist.

 

which takes me to point 6: you not believing it's a human being is immaterial, the fact is: its growing into a human being, it cannot make it's own choices but when it's able to i'm sure it'll thank you for not killing it.

 

also "no right to live as a parasite"? its doesn't have a choice BUT to live like a parasite!

 

edit: arguing against someone with different beliefs never leads to anyone changing their beliefs, and it certainly is not going to in this instance. I bet nothing i said convinced you of anything, you still think i'm wrong, and i still think you're wrong. if you still wish to attest it; fine. inevitably it well end in an agreement to disagree...

[Michael Archer]

  Quote

i think abortion is killing potential.

say an aborted fetus is going to do something important(i don't know, become a brilliant doctor)...well congratulations hero, it isn't anymore...maybe it was going to accidentally run over a man who was planning to kill someone? i don't know these are just examples.

(btw: in regards to:*facepalm*, i'd appreciate a level of mutual respect, so please don't disrespect me by doing that.)

 

You're right; I never said it wasn't killing potential. I said it was insanity and not consistent with nature to equate the potential and the actual. That's why there's a difference between killing a fetus and killing a brilliant doctor.

 

I apologize for my "facepalm" comment. It's just that it's the thirtieth time I had to say that.

 

  Quote

to your 3rd point: yes abortion is wrong in all forms, for any reason, but if the flash backs are too painful to bear then i'm not going to hate you for whatever you choose to do, also same applies for if making the child was going to kill you, why would i blame you for self-preservation?

 

I think the only reason people get abortions is self-preservation. A young woman doesn't want her pregnancy to hamper her life (which it certainly would), so she gets an abortion. From what I hear, being pregnant is a handicap e.g. it's hard to get in and out of cars. Abortion is always done for a selfish reason and like you said, there's nothing wrong with that.

 

  Quote

back on topic 5th point: i find it evil because it allows the aborting party to rationalize that they're killing "something that isn't alive" as soon as its two cells old it's a human being to me, and the option of taking it's life should not exist.

 

I find anti-abortion evil because it's treating an individual's body like it belongs to the government or society. If you think that an individual has the right to their own life and body, you cannot be anti-abortion.

 

People's bodies belong to themselves--they certainly don't belong to the government to treat them like breeding pigs.

 

  Quote

also "no right to live as a parasite"? its doesn't have a choice BUT to live like a parasite!

 

Yup. That's why a fetus, by its very nature, has no rights. It's similar to the reason why dictatorships have no rights; a government that exists by initiating force on its citizens (and violating their rights) has no rights since there's no such thing as a right to violate rights.

 

Similarly, a fetus has no rights because there's no such thing as the right to live as a parasite.

[Scorpia]

well it seems we both agree abortion is wrong, and we both agree that its understandable doing so under some occurrences. although some people get abortions not because of self-preservation but because they don't want to raise a child. eh and its agreeable that pregnancy is a form of handicap, but you are twisting what i said, i meant if you are literally dying from the pregnancy than there's no reason for me to hate you for aborting it, however there is alot of things wrong with just doing it to be selfish...and yes...self-preservation is a form of selfishness; we don't really need to do that dance. yes i believe in anti-abortion and i believe in rights to your life & body, but i do not believe that fetus is your life or body, it's simply depending on it...so i believe I've explained my reasoning adequately enough. CHECK, its your move Archer.

[Lux Arbuckle]

Pro-Choice. It's part of a woman's body and she is the only person in the world with any say as to what happens to the little scrap of flesh.

 

I dream for a day when abortion goes back to being something that isn't publicly debated because it's honestly no one's fucking business aside from the human who's life could be at risk because of an unwanted or forced pregnancy. When getting pregnant becomes a voluntary act, we can bring abortion back to the limelight.

[Scorpia]

oh new player, awesome. unfortunately poiuyt, i doubt that day is gonna come anytime soon it's probably going to be debated forever..oh well. i understand your views, and there's really no need to debate them.

[Lux Arbuckle]

  billyludwick said:

oh new player, awesome. unfortunately poiuyt, i doubt that day is gonna come anytime soon it's probably going to be debated forever..oh well. i understand your views, and there's really no need to debate them.

 

 

There was a time when women took 'the cure' (which was usually some natural form of abortion) and only kept it quiet. If they shared it with anyone, it was the father and maybe some other close family, other than that, it was never discussed outwardly because no one cared to involve themselves in the privacy of others.

 

Hell, the Romans farmed Silphium to extinction, they used it so much.

[Michael Archer]

  billyludwick said:

some people get abortions not because of self-preservation but because they don't want to raise a child.

 

That's what self-preservation is: taking a course of action that will result in a better life for yourself.

 

  Quote

you are literally dying from the pregnancy than there's no reason for me to hate you for aborting it, however there is alot of things wrong with just doing it to be selfish...and yes...self-preservation is a form of selfishness; we don't really need to do that dance.

 

A human being cannot survive without using reason. Force is the opposite of reason, so I consider someone who's being forced to remain pregnant to be literally dying.

 

  Quote

i believe in rights to your life & body, but i do not believe that fetus is your life or body, it's simply depending on it

 

A "right" is a moral absolute--you either have a right, or you don't. If someone wants to get an abortion and you can morally say "no", then she has no right to her body. This is where I disagree: the fetus is not an independently existing organism on both a physical and metaphysical level. The fetus requires its host's life to be alive; similarly, a parent can legally disown a child so long as they do it through proper legal channels. This is because you have a right to your life and property and can use it in any way you see fit.

 

The anti-abortionists advocate sacrificing an actual individual's life for the sake of a clump of cells; there is no rational justification for this. To dictate that (and possibly force) an individual must use their body in any way is a violation of human rights. Why does a woman not have the right to her own life, but the fetus has the right to it?

 

A parasite can not lay a moral claim against its host.