• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Explain Your Reasoning.

jpwright

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I thought it would be a good idea for those who take a strong stance on either side to briefly explain what their thoughts are on the issue of abortion, their reasoning behind their thoughts, and why they feel this way morally. If anything, this should not be another name-calling debate, this is for debating the pure facts and statistics only... So, I'll start.

I'm prochoice, and for several reasons. For me, the issue of abortion comes down to the question of "Why not?" rather than "Why do it?". After all, a woman has a right to decide whether or not to have a baby, and to take away that right after conception but many months before birth seems rather unreasonable. So as long as I see that the attacks against abortion are untrue, then I will maintain my position on the issue. That being said, there are a few significant problems with the pro-life stance.

First, there's no scientific backing. Many anti-abortionists will speak as if each fetus is capable of deciding whether or not it wants to live, and is crying out in vain to its mother before she aborts the fetus. In reality, human sex cells are really much like simple body cells during the early stages of pregnancy. At that point, you might as well go around arresting people for using condoms since those sperm are each potential babies that have now been illegally murdered. Shock and awe. The question often racks my brain - when will anti-abortionists get it through their heads that fetuses are just cells? They're not babies. A fetus becomes a baby at birth. If I had a dollar for every time someone like this purposely called a 'fetus' a 'baby', I'd be rich. Life begins at birth. Life begins with the baby's first breath. Not when sperm meets egg - that's a scientific process.

Second, there's no moral backing. There is a BIG difference between a mother killing a 7 year old son because he wouldn't clean his room or was late to baseball practice and a mother aborting a fetus that has been in development for only a few weeks. Abortion wouldn't be so easy if it was 'baby-killing'. In many cases, first-time mothers find that their first pregnancy fails, due to either failure of the sperm to penetrate the egg, inability to cross through into the uterus, or failure for the zygote to successfully land in the uterus lining. Why don't anti-abortionists write news articles about the sad death of Mr. and Mrs. Doe's poor child who was killed in the inner linings of the uterus? An abortion is pretty much the same thing. It's not baby-killing, and it's not a crime.

Third, there's no social backing. I highly doubt anyone who goes through the horrible process of pregnancy through rape would enjoy having to be forced to continue with the pregnancy. I know, there are stories of mothers who were raped and kept the child and are quite happy, but that's still no reason to force everyone to live like that. The child might not be happy, the mother might not be happy, and overall pregnancies through rape can lead to dysfunctional families - let's face it, rapists are hardly good fathers. It's a constitutional and human right, not an act of murder on the part of mothers.

Either way, I think it's dumb that we have ivory tower male politicians up there voting for us who have never and never will* go through pregnancy and never will really experience the usefulness of the process of abortion and why so many would-be mothers strive to make that choice.



* Unless you're into male pregnancy, but... that's kind of a different story...
 
A

AdornedImperious

i'll first consider some of the first post's points and then add some more that i think are important.

first, it's correct that there is no "scientific backing"- for EITHER position. it is not the place of science to define what being "alive" (or, more specifically, a "person") is- it is in essence a value judgment, and, at least from a scientific perspective, an arbitrary one. thus, anyone who claims life begins at conception are not making an objective statement.

HOWEVER, the same goes for people that say life begins at the first breath. is it really breathing that makes something human? a beating heart? i don't think so. a fetus is a "live person" in the sense that it is comprised of cells which contain human DNA and which are dividing- but there IS a qualitative difference between a fetus and you and i; as the poster mentioned, a fetus is not autonomous (its survival is dependent on the mother's body) and seems not to "think" for itself (though this point, i think, is also outside the purview of science, and is even debatable philosophically).

That said, there are important moral differences which make terminating a pregnancy different than causing the death of your mother or the drug dealer across the street. The most important of these is the one i mentioned above- it IS objectively true that the fetus depends on the environment of the uterus to develop to the point at which it is viable- on nutrients and immunological protection provided by the mother. it is also true that pregnancy is very taxing and potentially threatening to the life and health of a woman. because of this, i think there is a moral justification for the right of the mother to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.

All of these considerations, however, are really of little importance in deciding what the LEGAL status of abortion should be, except that in a free society one is free to decide for themselves, subjectively of course, what constitutes personhood in the womb and the circumstances under which it is morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy (thus, "choice"). Here i think that the place of law is to ensure that, should someone determine that they would like to terminate pregnancy, safe means are available by which to do it.

The state cannot prevent a woman from wanting an abortion- and the thought that banning abortion will completely stop it is simply naive and false (before our current knowledge developed regarding pregnancy and medicine and general, women took formulations containing lead and arsenic to induce miscarriage, and many died as a result; there are also the "coat-hanger" abortions which are often cited).

Another reason why abortion will not ever be banned based on objective legal reasoning is one i stated above: every pregnancy carries with it health risks. There are many different conditions arising during pregnancy (preeclampsia and gestational diabetes, for instance) which are very often fatal if pregnancy is continued. I don't think that anyone would argue that a woman must keep her pregnancy when doing so will cause death to herself and the fetus. Since it is simply a fact that our medical knowledge is not complete, that is, that there is a finite probablity at any time during pregnancy that a life-threatening condition could develop as a result of it, and in all cases pregnancy is a profound burden on the mother, any attempt to ban abortion except "to save the life of the mother" will draw a line at a point which is arbitrary and which will inevitably result in cases at which medical judgment is incorrect and the mother is seriously injured or dies.

To sum up my feelings on the issue, I don't think that anyone can claim their position on abortion to be morally superior to anyone else's- it is based, essentially, on what one defines subjectively to be a person based on his or her values and convictions. However, I don't think that anyone thinks that abortion is a good thing- nobody gets pregnant for the reason of having an abortion, and the procedure itself does carry some risk and is emotionally taxing on the woman.

The state has an interest in keeping the number of safe abortions low- abortions are expensive, and preventable- if everyone used birth control at every time except when they desire to become pregnant, the abortion rate would be only dependent on the failure rate of contraception plus the rate of development of life-threatening conditions during pregnancy. doctors don't like to perform abortions, and their time is better spent with other matters.

I think that the best way to address the issue of abortion is to address the conditions which lead to the decision to terminate pregnancy- the most important of which are poverty, poor health/sex education, lack of health care access and the availability of contraception. The biggest obstacle to addressing the issue is the fact that most right-to-life people are also against contraception and birth control.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I do not believe it should be a "Right". It's a service that targets teenager girls that have sex early on in life, and continue it with every partner they meet. Why else would the "Pro-Abortion" politicians try to push bills limiting parents to any knowledge that their child has had an Abortion. Also "Pro-Abortion" politicians fail to mention that it is a dangerous procedure. Even though media rarely shines light on the subject, you will see reports of people dieing during an "Abortion" procedure. To conclude my post, I believe it should not be a Right, it should be a privilege to the few. And only certain instances, in which it will save the mothers life. It should not be used for "Teenage Birth Control", but hey I dont make the Laws. :mrgreen:
 

jpwright

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
AdornedImperious said:
i'll first consider some of the first post's points and then add some more that i think are important.

first, it's correct that there is no "scientific backing"- for EITHER position. it is not the place of science to define what being "alive" (or, more specifically, a "person") is- it is in essence a value judgment, and, at least from a scientific perspective, an arbitrary one. thus, anyone who claims life begins at conception are not making an objective statement.

HOWEVER, the same goes for people that say life begins at the first breath. is it really breathing that makes something human? a beating heart? i don't think so. a fetus is a "live person" in the sense that it is comprised of cells which contain human DNA and which are dividing- but there IS a qualitative difference between a fetus and you and i; as the poster mentioned, a fetus is not autonomous (its survival is dependent on the mother's body) and seems not to "think" for itself (though this point, i think, is also outside the purview of science, and is even debatable philosophically).
A valid point. Of course whether or not a fetus is alive is a subject of heavy debate, and there really is no definite truth to the question. So really, as long as we agree that a baby is alive once it comes out of the womb regardless of whether or not it is alive prior to that point, then the only time we KNOW it's probably wrong to kill the baby is after birth. Without scientific backing to extend the "cut-off point" before birth, to me it comes off as another religious leap of faith that I simply don't feel right believing in without factual proof.

AdornedImperious said:
That said, there are important moral differences which make terminating a pregnancy different than causing the death of your mother or the drug dealer across the street. The most important of these is the one i mentioned above- it IS objectively true that the fetus depends on the environment of the uterus to develop to the point at which it is viable- on nutrients and immunological protection provided by the mother. it is also true that pregnancy is very taxing and potentially threatening to the life and health of a woman. because of this, i think there is a moral justification for the right of the mother to decide whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term.
Of course, you could also argue that a young baby is physically dependant and immunologically dependant (medicines, etc) on the mother during the first few months. Because of this, I don't consider physical dependancy a reason to justify abortion.

AdornedImperious said:
All of these considerations, however, are really of little importance in deciding what the LEGAL status of abortion should be, except that in a free society one is free to decide for themselves, subjectively of course, what constitutes personhood in the womb and the circumstances under which it is morally acceptable to terminate a pregnancy (thus, "choice"). Here i think that the place of law is to ensure that, should someone determine that they would like to terminate pregnancy, safe means are available by which to do it.
Sadly in this society it's impossible to decide how far the law should go regarding moral issues. Pro-abortionists often scream that some dangers during pregnancy are reason to ban it while ignoring the dangers of unwanted pregnancy as well, something which abortion can solve for.

AdornedImperious said:
The state cannot prevent a woman from wanting an abortion- and the thought that banning abortion will completely stop it is simply naive and false (before our current knowledge developed regarding pregnancy and medicine and general, women took formulations containing lead and arsenic to induce miscarriage, and many died as a result; there are also the "coat-hanger" abortions which are often cited).

Another reason why abortion will not ever be banned based on objective legal reasoning is one i stated above: every pregnancy carries with it health risks. There are many different conditions arising during pregnancy (preeclampsia and gestational diabetes, for instance) which are very often fatal if pregnancy is continued. I don't think that anyone would argue that a woman must keep her pregnancy when doing so will cause death to herself and the fetus. Since it is simply a fact that our medical knowledge is not complete, that is, that there is a finite probablity at any time during pregnancy that a life-threatening condition could develop as a result of it, and in all cases pregnancy is a profound burden on the mother, any attempt to ban abortion except "to save the life of the mother" will draw a line at a point which is arbitrary and which will inevitably result in cases at which medical judgment is incorrect and the mother is seriously injured or dies.
Exactly. When science proves that the fetus and the mother will die if pregnancy will continue, the sad truth is some feel that the pregnancy should still continue. It comes down to this - either the mom and fetus die due to some fanatacism, or the fetus dies in a process with which the mother has nothing to lose.

AdornedImperious said:
To sum up my feelings on the issue, I don't think that anyone can claim their position on abortion to be morally superior to anyone else's- it is based, essentially, on what one defines subjectively to be a person based on his or her values and convictions. However, I don't think that anyone thinks that abortion is a good thing- nobody gets pregnant for the reason of having an abortion, and the procedure itself does carry some risk and is emotionally taxing on the woman.
Naturally my position in my previous post was to explain why the pro-life stance's claim of moral superiority fails.

AdornedImperious said:
The state has an interest in keeping the number of safe abortions low- abortions are expensive, and preventable- if everyone used birth control at every time except when they desire to become pregnant, the abortion rate would be only dependent on the failure rate of contraception plus the rate of development of life-threatening conditions during pregnancy. doctors don't like to perform abortions, and their time is better spent with other matters.

I think that the best way to address the issue of abortion is to address the conditions which lead to the decision to terminate pregnancy- the most important of which are poverty, poor health/sex education, lack of health care access and the availability of contraception. The biggest obstacle to addressing the issue is the fact that most right-to-life people are also against contraception and birth control.
And of course whether or not to have an abortion depends entirely on the situation and the individual pregnancy. Either way it's still better to allow abortions in the case they are needed rather than blindly ban them without first examining the situation.

Good post, by the way.
 

Connecticutter

Active member
Joined
Jun 25, 2005
Messages
432
Reaction score
0
Location
New Haven, CT
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'd say I'm pro-choice, but I take this in moderation. I think that people need a good degree of soveregnty over what happens in their own body. However, I prefer that abortions occur early, perhaps in limited to the first trimester.

Is this arbitrary? Yes. But I don't see a better way. We can let fetuses get killed right up until birth, that would violate the right to life. If we outlaw abortion altogether, we are not only invading a women's right to choose - but it will lead to a strong black-market abortion industry that will be a menace to our society.

I agreed with Bush, BTW, when he baned foreign aid that goes to abortion. We shouldn't pay for anyone's abortion. Particularly when a solid fracion of taxpayers believe its murder. And for those people who get pregnant because of their own carelessness - is it too much to ask to pay for the abortion yourself?
 

Locke10

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Off Shore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I don't think that us men should even be arguing about this topic. Whether we agree or not, its more of a thing for the women to decide. Let them do what they want with their body.
 

aquapub

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 16, 2005
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
344
Location
America (A.K.A., a red state)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The unborn are provably human by their DNA-as if we really need to pretend we don't know what that is growing inside a woman after conception.

Every excuse liberals use to justify killing these people is inconsistent with every other murder law on our books. There is zero logic to the pro-abortionist side.

Blacks were once enslaved because these same kind of people (the very same kind of people-Democrats-in fact) dehumanized them into having no rights.

Your body your business? BS. Tell that to the FDA. Who you kill IS the government's business.

Kid will grow up unwanted and end up a criminal? We could virtually eliminate all crime by killing all poor people. The ends don't justify the means.

Think about it. There is no actual justification for it. The pro-abortionist's entire argument rests on simply not caring about these people. It is assinine.

"
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
aquapub said:
The unborn are provably human by their DNA-as if we really need to pretend we don't know what that is growing inside a woman after conception.
You might be surprised to know that I agree with you. The DNA tests as human. But that doesn't make it a being.
aquapub said:
Kid will grow up unwanted and end up a criminal? We could virtually eliminate all crime by killing all poor people. The ends don't justify the means.
That is a horrible, horrible comment. I can't say any more than that, except you must be a very bad person to have said that.

I will post my opinion on abortion tomorrow, for now, I am tired and must proceed to enter my cave...I mean bed.
 

GetVictd

New member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Locke10 said:
I don't think that us men should even be arguing about this topic. Whether we agree or not, its more of a thing for the women to decide. Let them do what they want with their body.

So it's only life if the mother chooses it to be? What if my son impregnates his wife and she wants/sneaks off to have an abortion? Won't my son be just as guilty (irresponsible?) or will this woman have just murdered my son's child?
 

jpwright

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
aquapub said:
The unborn are provably human by their DNA-as if we really need to pretend we don't know what that is growing inside a woman after conception.

Every excuse liberals use to justify killing these people is inconsistent with every other murder law on our books. There is zero logic to the pro-abortionist side.
This has been gone over before in other topics on this forum. Here's an article by Ronald Bailey, the scientific correspondent to Reason Magazine, which disproves the DNA "proof" that fetuses are living. An interesting quote from the article:

Ronald Bailey said:
"I cannot see any intrinsic morally significant difference between a mature skin cell, the totipotent stem cell derived from it, and a fertilised egg," writes Savulescu. "They are all cells which could give rise to a person if certain conditions obtained."

"If all our cells could be persons, then we cannot appeal to the fact that an embryo could be a person to justify the special treatment we give it," concludes Savulescu.

The DNA content of a skin cell, a stem cell, and a fertilized egg are exactly the same. The difference between what they are and what they could become is the environment in which their DNA is found. Thus, the mere existence of human DNA in a cell cannot be the source of a relevant moral difference. The differences among these cells are a result of how the genes in each are expressed, and that expression depends largely on which proteins suppress or promote which genes.

So people who oppose stem cell research must logically be committed to the notion that the only difference between your skin cell and your twin are the proteins that decorate their DNA strands. But can moral relevance really be reduced to the presence or absence of certain proteins in a cell?
I couldn't have said it any better myself.

aquapub said:
Blacks were once enslaved because these same kind of people (the very same kind of people-Democrats-in fact) dehumanized them into having no rights.
First, it was not Democrats who first brought the institution of slavery to the United States. Democrats only began to consider the expansion of slavery into the West on the basis of avoiding civil war. The reactionary actions of Republicans is what led to the Civil War. Even then, only a portion of Democrats supported the extension of slavery, while the Northern Democrats opposed this extension. A Wikipedia article proves this further.

Second, that's an entirely unrelated scenario. See, back in the 1800s, slavery was spread based on propaganda and hate messages. Today, pro-abortionists use scientific backing to support their theories. Stop using "dehumanization" as a buzzword when fetuses are debatably non-living.

Third, does it really matter what the Democrats did in the 1800s? Either way, I'm a Northern Democrat, so under that scenario I have the most credibility. Not like any of that matters anyway. I don't form my opinions based on the actions of the Democratic party or do what the Democratic party tells me to do.

aquapub said:
Your body your business? BS. Tell that to the FDA. Who you kill IS the government's business.
See analysis as to why fetuses aren't living to prove that abortion isn't killing anything living independantly, only simple cells. In that case, it is simply the parents' business, it's their cells to begin with living dependantly on the mother.

aquapub said:
Kid will grow up unwanted and end up a criminal? We could virtually eliminate all crime by killing all poor people. The ends don't justify the means.
That was extremely offensive of you to generalize all poor people as criminals. Either way, you'll notice that criminality was not mentioned by any of the pro-abortionists on this topic, including myself. It's great that you're putting words in my mouth to prove a point, really.

aquapub said:
Think about it. There is no actual justification for it. The pro-abortionist's entire argument rests on simply not caring about these people. It is assinine.
And your entire argument rests on simply not caring about the rights of the mother. Of course, I could go on a rant about the dangers of unwanted pregnancies to mothers, but that's for another topic.
 

Locke10

New member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Location
Off Shore
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
GetVictd said:
So it's only life if the mother chooses it to be? What if my son impregnates his wife and she wants/sneaks off to have an abortion? Won't my son be just as guilty (irresponsible?) or will this woman have just murdered my son's child?

Abortion is not murder, it's legal, so stop with the murder argument.

And if your sons wife sneaks off to have an abortion without telling him, then the only he is guilty of is marrying a untrustworthy person.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
This is kinda hard to put into words, but I posted that I would.

My entire belief for when abortion is okay rests on when personhood begins. I realize several things-1.) The tissue that is growing in the woman is human DNA, 2.) The mother has the legal right to do with her body what she wants up until 6 months when the states then receive that right, 3.) It is okay for others to have different views of abortion than me.

With that being said, I believe that abortion is fine and dandy up until the time the fetus can conciously think, at which point it stops being a fetus and becomes a being. That point has been known to happen as early as 5 months but usually happens in the beginning to middle of the 6th month. At this point, I believe that it becomes a human being and thus is entitled to the same rights as any other being.

On the flip side of that, abortion is legal and I will do all I can to ensure that that legality is held up in accordance with Roe v. Wade which I believe is on firm judicial standing. I believe that a woman's right to be secure in her own body is a paramount right and one that men would want if they were in the same situation. I don't see abortion as murder, but merely a woman exercising her right to be secure (privacy which was granted in accordance with the 1st, 5th, 9th and 15th-forgive me if I am off on one of those-amms.). Before you say it, I will say it for you-I believe that even after the fetus becomes a being the woman still has the legal right to have an abortion. As Justice Kennedy once said, "It is not my place to impose my moral views on anyone else."
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ShamMol said:
This is kinda hard to put into words, but I posted that I would.

My entire belief for when abortion is okay rests on when personhood begins. I realize several things-1.) The tissue that is growing in the woman is human DNA, 2.) The mother has the legal right to do with her body what she wants up until 6 months when the states then receive that right, 3.) It is okay for others to have different views of abortion than me.

With that being said, I believe that abortion is fine and dandy up until the time the fetus can conciously think, at which point it stops being a fetus and becomes a being. That point has been known to happen as early as 5 months but usually happens in the beginning to middle of the 6th month. At this point, I believe that it becomes a human being and thus is entitled to the same rights as any other being.

On the flip side of that, abortion is legal and I will do all I can to ensure that that legality is held up in accordance with Roe v. Wade which I believe is on firm judicial standing. I believe that a woman's right to be secure in her own body is a paramount right and one that men would want if they were in the same situation. I don't see abortion as murder, but merely a woman exercising her right to be secure (privacy which was granted in accordance with the 1st, 5th, 9th and 15th-forgive me if I am off on one of those-amms.). Before you say it, I will say it for you-I believe that even after the fetus becomes a being the woman still has the legal right to have an abortion. As Justice Kennedy once said, "It is not my place to impose my moral views on anyone else."
:applaud Great post! It speaks to so many of us who personally wouldn't have an abortion, but still defend the rights of other to obtain one.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jpwright said:
A valid point. Of course whether or not a fetus is alive is a subject of heavy debate, and there really is no definite truth to the question.
And that is absolute garbage. It is alive, there is no denying that the fetus is a living thing. It is not dead it is alive and functioning just as every other human life has function during that paritcular stage of it's own unique life. That is biological fact. Nothing to do with religion or morality, simply biological fact.

So really, as long as we agree that a baby is alive once it comes out of the womb regardless of whether or not it is alive prior to that point, then the only time we KNOW it's probably wrong to kill the baby is after birth.
And as long as we can agree to that then we can agree to anything. We can agree that's it not alive until it has eaten it's first solid food. We can agree it's not alive until it has walked. We can agree that it is not alive until until it has learned it's first word. We can agree that since a child is not alive until it is 12 months old we can harvest organs so that people who need them can live. Don't you believe we should do everything possible to save people who are dying, so why not just agree that these "things" are not alive until they are 12 months old? We agree on anything. But it does not change biological fact.


Without scientific backing to extend the "cut-off point" before birth, to me it comes off as another religious leap of faith that I simply don't feel right believing in without factual proof.
Without scientific backing to extend the "cut-off point" to after birth it is quite the leap in faith that we all just "agree" that a baby in the womb at 8 months is not alive. By the way the 7 month old in my daughters womb, who kick my against my hand this weekend is quite alive.

Sadly in this society it's impossible to decide how far the law should go regarding moral issues.
Then stick with scientific fact, an embryo is alive, just as much as you are alive.

Pro-abortionists often scream that some dangers during pregnancy are reason to ban it while ignoring the dangers of unwanted pregnancy as well, something which abortion can solve for.



When science proves that the fetus and the mother will die if pregnancy will continue, the sad truth is some feel that the pregnancy should still continue.
Who? Name one, other than some radical group, that oppose the life of the mother exception.


ase they are needed rather than blindly ban them without first examining the situation.

Naturally my position in my previous post was to explain why the pro-life stance's claim of moral superiority fails.
The reason for the moral superiority is because the pro-life position can rely on scientific fact rather than what we should all just "agree" on. It's a position that can be defended while the pro-abortion side retaine undefendable positions and must then deny reality and sceintific fact such as say that one is not alive until one is born and out of the womb.
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
And that is absolute garbage. It is alive, there is no denying that the fetus is a living thing. It is not dead it is alive and functioning just as every other human life has function during that paritcular stage of it's own unique life. That is biological fact. Nothing to do with religion or morality, simply biological fact.
Lots of things are living, but that doesn't make it a being. What makes it a being is the ability to conciously think. Your biological fact proves it is alive, but that doesn't make it a being.
Without scientific backing to extend the "cut-off point" to after birth it is quite the leap in faith that we all just "agree" that a baby in the womb at 8 months is not alive. By the way the 7 month old in my daughters womb, who kick my against my hand this weekend is quite alive.
Good, it is a being who is alive.
Then stick with scientific fact, an embryo is alive, just as much as you are alive.
An embryo and fetus are alive, but it doesn't make it a being, a living human being that is entitled to the same rights and priveledges that we are as beings.
Pro-abortionists often scream that some dangers during pregnancy are reason to ban it while ignoring the dangers of unwanted pregnancy as well, something which abortion can solve for.
We aren't pro-abortionists, we are pro-law-and-order, we are pro-choice, we aren't as you said, pro-abortion.
Who? Name one, other than some radical group, that oppose the life of the mother exception.
Dude, there is a thread in this forum that has a guy like that.
The reason for the moral superiority is because the pro-life position can rely on scientific fact rather than what we should all just "agree" on. It's a position that can be defended while the pro-abortion side retaine undefendable positions and must then deny reality and sceintific fact such as say that one is not alive until one is born and out of the womb.
The moral superiority has no place in debate. What does have a place is the legality of a procedure, and that in this case, is purely legal.

And for the last time, we are not pro-abortion, I consider myself pro-choice or pro-law.
 

jpwright

New member
Joined
Jun 11, 2005
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think ShamMol did a good job answering this post, but I'd like to add some thoughts of my own in response as well.

Stinger said:
And that is absolute garbage. It is alive, there is no denying that the fetus is a living thing. It is not dead it is alive and functioning just as every other human life has function during that paritcular stage of it's own unique life. That is biological fact. Nothing to do with religion or morality, simply biological fact.
Care to back up your outrageous claims? See the Bailey article in my previous post for some cited evidence to prove otherwise. Of course, we could argue for hours and neither of us would change our positions considering we're both apparently relying on scientific facts to back up our positions. If you take my words in context, you would see that the only point I was making was that this subject is debatable, and guess what we're doing... debating, proving that there really is no absolute truth to either side.

Stinger said:
And as long as we can agree to that then we can agree to anything. We can agree that's it not alive until it has eaten it's first solid food. We can agree it's not alive until it has walked. We can agree that it is not alive until until it has learned it's first word. We can agree that since a child is not alive until it is 12 months old we can harvest organs so that people who need them can live. Don't you believe we should do everything possible to save people who are dying, so why not just agree that these "things" are not alive until they are 12 months old? We agree on anything. But it does not change biological fact.
Once again, you take my words out of context. I said "we can agree that a baby is alive once it is out of its mother's womb"... so yes, agreeing on something does not make it necessarily true, but in the case of whether a baby is alive once it is out of the mother's womb... I'd like to see you prove me wrong on that one.

Stinger said:
Without scientific backing to extend the "cut-off point" to after birth it is quite the leap in faith that we all just "agree" that a baby in the womb at 8 months is not alive. By the way the 7 month old in my daughters womb, who kick my against my hand this weekend is quite alive.

Then stick with scientific fact, an embryo is alive, just as much as you are alive.
But see, since all of the abortion issue boils down to whether or not a baby is alive in the fetal stage, placing the cut-off point at birth is not a leap of faith, because the only real scientific evidence of proving life comes after birth, as much as I wish Bailey's words were 100% true.

And please. Don't tell me about your daughter's child. I've heard one too many sap stories about how "I loved little Johnny ever since sperm met egg, and I would just die if he were aborted." Good thing abortion isn't mandatory, then.

Stinger said:
Who? Name one, other than some radical group, that oppose the life of the mother exception.
Other than some radical group? Notice that I didn't cite your personal views, nor the vast majority of anti-abortionist views, only the views of "some", and by excluding radical groups from your statement you admit that there is a high probability that these types of views do exist.

Stinger said:
The reason for the moral superiority is because the pro-life position can rely on scientific fact rather than what we should all just "agree" on. It's a position that can be defended while the pro-abortion side retaine undefendable positions and must then deny reality and sceintific fact such as say that one is not alive until one is born and out of the womb.
If you can rely on scientific fact, why even claim moral superiority when there's absolutely no real backing for such a claim? I'd prefer if this debate was conducted using facts and evidence rather than claims that simply contradict the original poster's ideas.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
jpwright said:
Once again, you take my words out of context. I said "we can agree that a baby is alive once it is out of its mother's womb"... so yes, agreeing on something does not make it necessarily true, but in the case of whether a baby is alive once it is out of the mother's womb... I'd like to see you prove me wrong on that one.

But see, since all of the abortion issue boils down to whether or not a baby is alive in the fetal stage, placing the cut-off point at birth is not a leap of faith, because the only real scientific evidence of proving life comes after birth, as much as I wish Bailey's words were 100% true.
To be fair, even though I am pro-choice, I would purpose I more scientifically based cut-off for life. Such as when the baby can live independently of the mother. I dunno when it is like 7 months maybe? Anyway my reasoning is at that point, someone else can take responsibility if the mother doesn't want it, since the baby is no longer dependent on the mother. I mean, seems kind of silly to abort an 8 and a half week baby when it can live perfectly fine on its own.
 

Shye

New member
Joined
May 29, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am not really for abortion since it is murder, but there will always going to be abortions so keep them legal and safe but with restrictions. Like partial bith abortion should be illegal since the child is almost our of the womans womb befor he gets killed. But I think it is BOTH the woman AND males choice, or the fathers choice since it would be his child also.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Shye said:
I am not really for abortion since it is murder, but there will always going to be abortions so keep them legal and safe but with restrictions. Like partial bith abortion should be illegal since the child is almost our of the womans womb befor he gets killed. But I think it is BOTH the woman AND males choice, or the fathers choice since it would be his child also.
I am not inclined to get an abortion myself, but if I was there's no man who is could to tell me what I am going to do with my body. Since he isn't the one who is going to be carrying it around for nine months, it's my problem, not his. I think if the child can live outside of the womb, there is obviously no reason to kill it. There are many people looking to adopt in the US.
 

Shye

New member
Joined
May 29, 2005
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Kelzie said:
I am not inclined to get an abortion myself, but if I was there's no man who is could to tell me what I am going to do with my body. Since he isn't the one who is going to be carrying it around for nine months, it's my problem, not his. I think if the child can live outside of the womb, there is obviously no reason to kill it. There are many people looking to adopt in the US.
true that.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Shye said:
true that.
Wait what? I made two different points. Or are you just so swayed by my mad debate skills that I have convinced you of both? :mrgreen:
 

ShamMol

Only Way Round is Through
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2005
Messages
1,988
Reaction score
10
Location
Pasadena, California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Kelzie said:
Wait what? I made two different points. Or are you just so swayed by my mad debate skills that I have convinced you of both? :mrgreen:
Cmon, you are a master debater.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
ShamMol said:
Cmon, you are a master debater.
It's nice when people recognize my genius. :rofl
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jpwright>> A valid point. Of course whether or not a fetus is alive is a subject of heavy debate, and there really is no definite truth to the question.

Originally Posted by Stinger
And that is absolute garbage. It is alive, there is no denying that the fetus is a living thing. It is not dead it is alive and functioning just as every other human life has function during that particular stage of it's own unique life. That is biological fact. Nothing to do with religion or morality, simply biological fact.


ShamMol said:
Lots of things are living, but that doesn't make it a being.
Which was not what the original poster stated was it.
What makes it a being is the ability to conciously think.
No what makes it a being is the fact it exist and is being.

Your biological fact proves it is alive, but that doesn't make it a being.
If it is alive an being it is a being.

An embryo and fetus are alive, but it doesn't make it a being, a living human being that is entitled to the same rights and priveledges that we are as beings.
why not other than you choose not to entitled it to the same rights and priviliges?
We aren't pro-abortionists
Why not? What do you have against abortion?

, we are pro-law-and-order,
Which has nothing to do with this discussion.

we are pro-choice, we aren't as you said, pro-abortion.
No you are pro-abortion. I am pro-choice. I think women should be able to chose what to wear, to choose what to eat, to choose how to wear thier hair, all kinds of choices. You are in favor of abortion, not simply choosing things. But you do show how those who favor abortion still can't bring themselves to say it, which is very telling to say the least.

Dude, there is a thread in this forum that has a guy like that.
And as I pointed out is in a very small minority.

The moral superiority has no place in debate.
Morality has places in lots of debates my friend and simply declaring it has none in this one does not make it so.

What does have a place is the legality of a procedure, and that in this case, is purely legal.
What is legal is what we choose and you said you are infavor of choice didn't you?

And for the last time, we are not pro-abortion
Why not, what do you object to about abortion?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stinger
And that is absolute garbage. It is alive, there is no denying that the fetus is a living thing. It is not dead it is alive and functioning just as every other human life has function during that particular stage of it's own unique life. That is biological fact. Nothing to do with religion or morality, simply biological fact.




jpwright said:
Care to back up your outrageous claims?
ROFL that a fetus is alive, yes how about any high school biology book. But since it was your claim that is in contention please supply any authoritative source that claims all fetuses are dead and not alive.


See the Bailey article in my previous post for some cited evidence to prove otherwise.

Here is your original statement

A valid point. Of course whether or not a fetus is alive is a subject of heavy debate, and there really is no definite truth to the question. So really, as long as we agree that a baby is alive once it comes out of the womb regardless of whether or not it is alive prior to that point, then the only time we KNOW it's probably wrong to kill the baby is after birth.
That statement is so ignorant, so blantantly false, so completely against any concept of actual biological fact that it is hilarious.

Of course, we could argue for hours and neither of us would change our positions considering we're both apparently relying on scientific facts to back up our positions. If you take my words in context, you would see that the only point I was making was that this subject is debatable
No it is not debatable, fetuses are alive or they are dead. There is no inbetween. They aren't dead and then when born suddenly become alive.



Once again, you take my words out of context.
Since I believe this is the first time I have ever responded to you I hardly see how it could be "once again" and since I quoted you entire statement I don't see how it could be out of context. But please elaborate, how were you taken our of context?

I said "we can agree that a baby is alive once it is out of its mother's womb"...
Not if it is dead. Some baby's are born dead, it's call stillborn. But if what you are really trying to say is that "we can agree" that a baby is never alive until it is born, then why not agree it is not alive until it has been out of the womb until it is 12 months old? Then we can take their organs out and not be killing them. Just think of the lives we could save by doing so? If we can simple agree to when a baby "becomes alive" then whatever we decide is correct and can never be wrong.



so yes, agreeing on something does not make it necessarily true,
Well so far nothing you have proposed has anything to do with truth anyway so why should that matter to you?



but in the case of whether a baby is alive once it is out of the mother's womb... I'd like to see you prove me wrong on that one.
What if it is born dead?



But see, since all of the abortion issue boils down to whether or not a baby is alive in the fetal stage,
No that is not what it all boils down to. What it boils down to is whether a mother should be allowed to kill her baby for convience sake.

placing the cut-off point at birth is not a leap of faith,

Then let's place it 12 months after birth, then she can REALLY decide if she is ready to be a mother.

because the only real scientific evidence of proving life comes after birth, as much as I wish Bailey's words were 100% true.
ROFLMAO, this is really hilarious, I say my daughers unltra-sound the otherday, her baby was kicking and yawning and rubbed it's face, I think that was pretty good evidence that he is alive and well.

And please. Don't tell me about your daughter's child.
sorry you lose

I've heard one too many sap stories about how "I loved little Johnny ever since sperm met egg, and I would just die if he were aborted." Good thing abortion isn't mandatory, then.
go to the mall tomorrow and every pregnant woman you see go up and ask her if that is her baby in there or just a fetus.


I'd prefer if this debate was conducted using facts and evidence rather than claims that simply contradict the original poster's ideas.
Everything I have posted is based solidly in scientific fact, I suggest you post some fact to back up your claim that every fetus growing in the womb is dead.
 
Top Bottom