thatguymd
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 368
- Reaction score
- 93
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I am new and wanted to get some opposing viewpoints on this topic. I myself am prolife. I haven't had too much of a chance to try to see how another side might address this issue because in person debates appear to get heated very quickly and everyone talks past each other. I am hoping maybe a message board gives people more of a chance to think and calmly respond (don't feel put on the spot right away). Hopefully, we can give each other something to consider and think on and respond a few days later.
Anyway, here is my prolife argument:
I start with the baseline assumption that everyone agrees that infantcide is wrong. From here I am mostly curious where the line is drawn for those that are pro-choice. When you work backwards, is it okay right after the child is born? While in the birth canal? While the mom is in labor? Right before labor starts? etc, etc.
Once the line is drawn, why is it drawn in that place? What is different right after that line is crossed? Also, keep in mind that however you answer will be compared to killing regular people (i.e. if you determine that you can't kill the baby once it can feel pain, it will be pointed out that anyone can be killed in a manner so that they won't feel pain).
Most arguments I hear against prolife are the extreme cases. Such as what about rape cases and when the mother's life is in danger?
In the case of rape, I think that it abortion should still not be an option (I would still want to live if I was the product of my mother being raped) and that adoption should be the option given. Also, any court cases involving rape would include awarding the mother to be all the costs of carrying the child.
In the case of the mother's life being in danger, this is the only time when abortion is an option. You are weighing one life against another and you don't have any choice. If I only had time to rescue one of two people from a burning building it doesn't mean I advocate people dieing in burning buildings.
So that's my complete argument for now. At least until I'm given something else to consider.
Anyway, here is my prolife argument:
I start with the baseline assumption that everyone agrees that infantcide is wrong. From here I am mostly curious where the line is drawn for those that are pro-choice. When you work backwards, is it okay right after the child is born? While in the birth canal? While the mom is in labor? Right before labor starts? etc, etc.
Once the line is drawn, why is it drawn in that place? What is different right after that line is crossed? Also, keep in mind that however you answer will be compared to killing regular people (i.e. if you determine that you can't kill the baby once it can feel pain, it will be pointed out that anyone can be killed in a manner so that they won't feel pain).
Most arguments I hear against prolife are the extreme cases. Such as what about rape cases and when the mother's life is in danger?
In the case of rape, I think that it abortion should still not be an option (I would still want to live if I was the product of my mother being raped) and that adoption should be the option given. Also, any court cases involving rape would include awarding the mother to be all the costs of carrying the child.
In the case of the mother's life being in danger, this is the only time when abortion is an option. You are weighing one life against another and you don't have any choice. If I only had time to rescue one of two people from a burning building it doesn't mean I advocate people dieing in burning buildings.
So that's my complete argument for now. At least until I'm given something else to consider.