The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread!

[digsbe]

After participating in many threads, most quickly degenerate to "Baby killer!" and "Sexist anti-women pig!" I want to make a thread that's free from personal attacks, free from appeals to emotion (example, yelling baby killer, saying pro-life people are sexist, labeling fetuses as unborn people/children for emotional appeal, and pulling out examples of the 12 year old girl who was raped by her father and is now pregnant holding a coat hanger in a back alley). Basically, this thread should be free from emotional debate, personal attacks, judgements, and all the other crap that typically makes up a run of the mill abortion thread. Let's please keep it logical, reasonable, respectful, and civil.

Now, I will start by stating my beliefs.

I believe that all humans deserve human rights. A zef is still an individual human life. I believe that we should not strip them of their right to life, and that no one has the right to kill a zef unless the mother's life is at stake. I do not believe that individuals should be allowed to define personhood for themselves and others, and that abortion should only be legal in cases where the mother's life is in danger due to her pregnancy.

 

[drz-400]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

After participating in many threads, most quickly degenerate to "Baby killer!" and "Sexist anti-women pig!" I want to make a thread that's free from personal attacks, free from appeals to emotion (example, yelling baby killer, saying pro-life people are sexist, labeling fetuses as unborn people/children for emotional appeal, and pulling out examples of the 12 year old girl who was raped by her father and is now pregnant holding a coat hanger in a back alley). Basically, this thread should be free from emotional debate, personal attacks, judgements, and all the other crap that typically makes up a run of the mill abortion thread. Let's please keep it logical, reasonable, respectful, and civil.

Now, I will start by stating my beliefs.

I believe that all humans deserve human rights. A zef is still an individual human life. I believe that we should not strip them of their right to life, and that no one has the right to kill a zef unless the mother's life is at stake. I do not believe that individuals should be allowed to define personhood for themselves and others, and that abortion should only be legal in cases where the mother's life is in danger due to her pregnancy.

Here is my opinion on the matter:

In doing so (if abortion were only allowed in such cases) you would be in effect defining 'personhood.' However, I believe personhood is irrelevent, since a fetus has never been regarded as a person protected by our constitution. That is not to say we cannot protect them. That would be incorrect. However, we cannot take away someone elses constitutional rights in order to do so. The court prior to Roe V. Wade ruled that we all have the right to use contraceptives. This can be defended via the 14th or 1st amendment. Taken more liberally, one could say we have the right to procreative autonomy. We have the constitutional right to decide our own role in parenthood, procreation, whatever you want to call it. So we cannot overstep these boundries and not allow a women to decide her role in childbirth. Therefore, we must allow a women to have her time to decide whether or not she wants an abortion. That is not to say that we cannot regulate abortions after a certian point, just as long as that point is long enough for a women to make a good decision about her role in childbirth. I would also regard rape, incest, life in danger, etc. as legitmate reasons at anytime of the pregnancy for an abortion, but outside of those boundaries we just need to ensure the women has time to make her own decision.

 

[bowerbird]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

After participating in many threads, most quickly degenerate to "Baby killer!" and "Sexist anti-women pig!" I want to make a thread that's free from personal attacks, free from appeals to emotion (example, yelling baby killer, saying pro-life people are sexist, labeling fetuses as unborn people/children for emotional appeal, and pulling out examples of the 12 year old girl who was raped by her father and is now pregnant holding a coat hanger in a back alley). Basically, this thread should be free from emotional debate, personal attacks, judgements, and all the other crap that typically makes up a run of the mill abortion thread. Let's please keep it logical, reasonable, respectful, and civil.

Now, I will start by stating my beliefs.

I believe that all humans deserve human rights. A zef is still an individual human life. I believe that we should not strip them of their right to life, and that no one has the right to kill a zef unless the mother's life is at stake. I do not believe that individuals should be allowed to define personhood for themselves and others, and that abortion should only be legal in cases where the mother's life is in danger due to her pregnancy.

So - how define that degree of danger?

Let us say this is someone who has a medical condition - a what level of "danger" does it become acceptable?

Take an example of the girl who while pregnant gets a viral myocarditis and ends with a diminished output from her heart. IF she makes it through the pregnancy she will be a cardiac cripple - she may or may not die. Are you going to force her to have a baby?

How about the woman with the genetic predisposition to clotting - pregnant women are "walking clots" (LOTS of physiological changes with pregnancy) - are you going to ask her to risk a pulmonary embolus (life threatening clot to the lung)

Let us take an even hairier scenario - the young girl with schizophrenia and multiple suicide attempts because the voices have told her to kill herself - after years she has been stabilised on medication - pregnancy will upset that and she will be back to square one. Fair to insist SHE continues the pregnancy?

These are the shades of grey that exist in the real world. There ARE no black and white colours.

This is why, even though abortion is illegal here there are almost as many performed each year as there are in America.

No one can determine the acceptable degree of health risk that another should take

 

[BDBoop]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

No one can determine the acceptable degree of health risk that another should take

Thanks to Digsbe, this is an excellent thread concept.

I agree, exactly with what I've quoted.

I think abortion should be completely legal in the first 16 weeks. I would be interested in knowing what percentage of abortions occur in what month. I'd be surprised if I found out the majority were not happening within the time frame I referenced.

 

[drz-400]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

So - how define that degree of danger?

Let us say this is someone who has a medical condition - a what level of "danger" does it become acceptable?

Take an example of the girl who while pregnant gets a viral myocarditis and ends with a diminished output from her heart. IF she makes it through the pregnancy she will be a cardiac cripple - she may or may not die. Are you going to force her to have a baby?

How about the woman with the genetic predisposition to clotting - pregnant women are "walking clots" (LOTS of physiological changes with pregnancy) - are you going to ask her to risk a pulmonary embolus (life threatening clot to the lung)

Let us take an even hairier scenario - the young girl with schizophrenia and multiple suicide attempts because the voices have told her to kill herself - after years she has been stabilised on medication - pregnancy will upset that and she will be back to square one. Fair to insist SHE continues the pregnancy?

These are the shades of grey that exist in the real world. There ARE no black and white colours.

This is why, even though abortion is illegal here there are almost as many performed each year as there are in America.

No one can determine the acceptable degree of health risk that another should take

I think a good doctor could determine the degree of health risk just fine. It is a question of what risk the women is willing to take. For that we should give them time to decide, early on if they are willing to take such risks.

 

[bowerbird]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

I think a good doctor could determine the degree of health risk just fine. It is a question of what risk the women is willing to take. For that we should give them time to decide, early on if they are willing to take such risks.

And that is what usually happens here - law or no law. I have seen the opposite too where a woman will gladly risk her own life for the chance of having a child. But it is and always remains HER choice

 

[OKgrannie]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Thanks to Digsbe, this is an excellent thread concept.

I agree, exactly with what I've quoted.

I think abortion should be completely legal in the first 16 weeks. I would be interested in knowing what percentage of abortions occur in what month. I'd be surprised if I found out the majority were not happening within the time frame I referenced.

You're right.

Abortion Statistics

In 2000, for women whose weeks of gestation at the time of abortion were adequately reported, 57% of reported legal induced abortions were known to have been obtained at <8 weeks of gestation, and 87% at <13 weeks. Overall, 23% of abortions were known to have been performed at <6 weeks of gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, and 17% at 8 weeks. Few reported abortions occurred after 15 weeks of gestation; 4.3% were at 16--20 weeks, and 1.4% were at >21 weeks.

 

[mac]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Here is my opinion on the matter:

In doing so (if abortion were only allowed in such cases) you would be in effect defining 'personhood.' However, I believe personhood is irrelevent, since a fetus has never been regarded as a person protected by our constitution. That is not to say we cannot protect them. That would be incorrect. However, we cannot take away someone elses constitutional rights in order to do so. The court prior to Roe V. Wade ruled that we all have the right to use contraceptives. This can be defended via the 14th or 1st amendment. Taken more liberally, one could say we have the right to procreative autonomy. We have the constitutional right to decide our own role in parenthood, procreation, whatever you want to call it. So we cannot overstep these boundries and not allow a women to decide her role in childbirth. Therefore, we must allow a women to have her time to decide whether or not she wants an abortion. That is not to say that we cannot regulate abortions after a certian point, just as long as that point is long enough for a women to make a good decision about her role in childbirth. I would also regard rape, incest, life in danger, etc. as legitmate reasons at anytime of the pregnancy for an abortion, but outside of those boundaries we just need to ensure the women has time to make her own decision.

I have to ask you one question: Where is this equal protection for men? You state that everyone has a say in the level they wish to contribute to procreation. If a woman decides to have sex and abort, for whatever reason, why does not that father of the child have the same protections? Does abortion really allow everyone a chance to have a say in if they are going to procreate or not?

 

[prometeus]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

I have to ask you one question: Where is this equal protection for men? You state that everyone has a say in the level they wish to contribute to procreation. If a woman decides to have sex and abort, for whatever reason, why does not that father of the child have the same protections? Does abortion really allow everyone a chance to have a say in if they are going to procreate or not?

Are you asking if the man has a choice at all or oppose abortion (in this context alone) because the man does have choices just different ones?

 

[prometeus]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

I believe that all humans deserve human rights.

It is a noble thought and perhaps sometime in the future a reality. However, since this is your belief, what about those people who do not share the same beliefs? Should they be forced to conform?

A zef is still an individual human life.

I do not believe that is a point of contention.

I believe that we should not strip them of their right to life

A better way would be to state your position as "according" fetuses the same rights. You see stripping them implies they having it, whereas no one has them, but rather they are accorded/recognized based on some qualifications. For instance voting is accorded based on age.

I do not believe that individuals should be allowed to define personhood for themselves and others, and that abortion should only be legal in cases where the mother's life is in danger due to her pregnancy.

But individuals do not decide personhood, society through its laws has done that.

 

[MaggieD]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

I have to ask you one question: Where is this equal protection for men? You state that everyone has a say in the level they wish to contribute to procreation. If a woman decides to have sex and abort, for whatever reason, why does not that father of the child have the same protections? Does abortion really allow everyone a chance to have a say in if they are going to procreate or not?

A man's rights in the matter begin and end with his decision to either use or not use a condom. In other words, he can decide NOT to have a child (even though that's not a sure thing) but cerainly can't override a woman's decision to abort.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Okay, so let me get some clarification here:

I get that the subject of this thread is abortion, because the last three words of the title are, "Abortion debate thread."

The problem I'm having is that everything else in the title comes before the word "free," plus the actual wording is confusing in general, so I need to figure out what this thread is free of:

• Logic-based personal attacks and logic-based appeals to emotion (how do you base appeals to emotion on logic, anyhow)
• Logic-based personal attacks and illogical appeals to emotion
• Logic, personal attacks, and appeals to emotion
• Personal attacks and appeals to emotion
• Personal attacks
• Appeals to emotion

Just trying to make sure I get it right before I go and offend somebody. :lol:

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

This is an excellent thread concept digsbe, hopefully it can actually live up to its ideals.

I believe that elective abortion should be legal up until a certain point in a woman's pregnancy. I'm not entirely sure where that cutoff point should be however. The latest I would find acceptable would be the medically defined point of viability, which is around 22 weeks. I would be comfortable with a cutoff as early as 16 weeks though, since I feel that that gives the woman plenty of time to make a decision. This belief is primarily based on the fact that I feel people have a right to bodily sovereignty (assuming that right does not conflict with another's rights), and a ZEF violates that right if it is unwanted. I believe that before a certain point in the fetus's growth, it has not developed sufficiently (primarily brain development) to be a person, and therefore has no rights that would come into conflict with the mother's right to bodily sovereignty. On another note, I believe that taxpayers should never fund elective abortion.

Beyond medical concerns, I also don't feel that elective abortion should be criminalized at all stages of development because I have serious doubts that criminalizing abortion would be effective in stopping them from happening.

After the that cutoff point, I believe that abortion should be legal for only a very few reasons. The first being if the mother's life or long-term health are in serious danger from the pregnancy. This should be confirmed by at least two qualified doctors for an abortion to be legal. The second case would be if the fetus is afflicted with some sort of condition that would prevent it from surviving outside the womb and the parents want to terminate. This should be confirmed by at least two qualified doctors as well.

On the topic of men's rights, I feel that all people should be able to choose whether or not they wish to be parents. If we are to give women the right to have elective abortions after making the decision to have sex, it is only fair to give men the right to abdicate their parental rights and responsibilities after making the decision to have sex.

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

So - how define that degree of danger?

Let us say this is someone who has a medical condition - a what level of "danger" does it become acceptable?

Take an example of the girl who while pregnant gets a viral myocarditis and ends with a diminished output from her heart. IF she makes it through the pregnancy she will be a cardiac cripple - she may or may not die. Are you going to force her to have a baby?

How about the woman with the genetic predisposition to clotting - pregnant women are "walking clots" (LOTS of physiological changes with pregnancy) - are you going to ask her to risk a pulmonary embolus (life threatening clot to the lung)

Let us take an even hairier scenario - the young girl with schizophrenia and multiple suicide attempts because the voices have told her to kill herself - after years she has been stabilised on medication - pregnancy will upset that and she will be back to square one. Fair to insist SHE continues the pregnancy?

These are the shades of grey that exist in the real world. There ARE no black and white colours.

This is why, even though abortion is illegal here there are almost as many performed each year as there are in America.

No one can determine the acceptable degree of health risk that another should take

This is why I believe that any for laws that legislate abortion based on the health of the mother, what constitutes a serious threat to the mother's health/life should be left up to the mother and qualified medical professionals.

 

[mac]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

A man's rights in the matter begin and end with his decision to either use or not use a condom. In other words, he can decide NOT to have a child (even though that's not a sure thing) but cerainly can't override a woman's decision to abort.

I agree, what I am saying is where is the equal protection we all share as stated in his post? My point is, it's not equal as a function of our biology rather than our law. This equality in deciding the level of our participation in procreation he speaks of doesn't really exist.

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

I do not believe that individuals should be allowed to define personhood for themselves and others, and that abortion should only be legal in cases where the mother's life is in danger due to her pregnancy.

I believe that currently the Constitution defines personhood, in terms of the legal rights and duties the state bestows on an individual, as something an individual acquires at birth.

I believe that if people wish to make abortion illegal then they need to amend the Constitution to legally define a fetus as a person.

I believe that fetuses will have to be defined as citizens if they are to be granted such Constitutional protection.

I believe this will create a whole new set of problems, such as whether the fetus of an illegal immigrant is a US citizen or whether a fetus who was conceived on US soil but who was born in a foriegn country can be considered a US citizen.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Okay, well, since nobody wants to answer my question lol I'll just say this much and be gone:

The real debate, meaning the core of the entire abortion / women's rights / body sovereignty debate is this:

When does life begin?

Once we as a society come up with a definition of when life begins, the discussion becomes a whole lot simpler.

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

When does life begin?

About 3.5 billion years ago. It hasn't stopped yet.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

For the individual, smartass. :lol:

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

For the individual, smartass. :lol:

Your logic is amiss. There is no period of death before conception. It takes a living egg and a living sperm to make an embryo. As such, life is present before a fetus is even concieved.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Oh, brother.

Okay, let's try again: What marks the first instant in the life of any human being? Not human sperm, not human egg, human being? That would be the core of the issue.

 

[BDBoop]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

If we are to give women the right to have elective abortions after making the decision to have sex, it is only fair to give men the right to abdicate their parental rights and responsibilities after making the decision to have sex.

This should be another thread, because I don't want to derail this one and IMO, that is an excellent point to explore.

 

[CriticalThought]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

Oh, brother.

Okay, let's try again: What marks the first instant in the life of any human being? Not human sperm, not human egg, human being? That would be the core of the issue.

That depends on how you define a human being. Is a human being defined purely by genetics? Is it defined by brain function? Is it defined by the abillity to function on its own?

Personally, I think a human stops being a human when it loses its brain function. For example, infants that are born with just a brain stem are not human to me. They are just shells, with no capacity for thought or feeling.

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

When does life begin?

I don't think this really covers the scope of the abortion debate. A ZEF is alive from the second conception happens. A sperm and egg are alive before conception. However, very few pro-lifers argue against contraceptives that can cause a fertilized embryo to be flushed from the body where it will die. Just because something is alive, is not sufficient reason why it should not be killed.

 

[molten_dragon]

Re: The logic based personal attack and appeal to emotion free abortion debate thread

This should be another thread, because I don't want to derail this one and IMO, that is an excellent point to explore.

You're probably right. I threw it in because I saw someone else had mentioned it.