Full Abortion Debate Argument

I've been away from this Debate site for quite a while, mostly because there is so much to say, relevant to the Overall Abortion Debate, that it cannot all fit into a single post. For a literal example of that, see "my blog" here at this link. As a result I decided to take advantage of wordpress.com, where I could create a rather different sort of blog, such that one single posting could be edited and expanded and edited some more, with all sorts of easy internal links, to get ALL the relevant data into one overall place.

At well over 100,000 words, not characters, that post is, in a way, cumbersome. Do even those who agree with my pro-choice position really want to wade through what is technically a book-length post? And so I've written a rather smaller (1/5 as long) but still very thorough article, which you can find here.

It is that article which brings me back here, hoping for feedback. Do note that I've declared it to be Public Domain, so anyone could copy stuff from it, when Debating here. Thanks to all who respond!

I think it's safe to say the majority of people don't think we should make abortion a crime. Try and make it a last resort? Yes. Find it morally troubling? Sure. Criminalize doctors and women? NO!

Dr. Katz said:

I think it's safe to say the majority of people don't think we should make abortion a crime. Try and make it a last resort? Yes. Find it morally troubling? Sure. Criminalize doctors and women? NO!

Click to expand...

Welcome to DP, DK.

And for new persons who find their way into the Abortion Forum I usually advise them to put on their crash helmet and buckle up.

Enjoy...

Removable Mind said:

Welcome to DP, DK.

And for new persons who find their way into the Abortion Forum I usually advise them to put on their crash helmet and buckle up.

Enjoy...

Click to expand...

Thank you for the welcome!

Please be specific about why some people find abortion "morally troubling". Because the data suggests those people are suffering from ignorance, which is not a sin, but still needs to be cured.

I admire your thoroughness.

FutureIncoming said:

Please be specific about why some people find abortion "morally troubling". Because the data suggests those people are suffering from ignorance, which is not a sin, but still needs to be cured.

Click to expand...

Data is (or should be) objective while morals are subjective. Can you please provide an example of data that 'suggests' people's moral positions on abortion are based on a lack of information (ignorance?)

The very first piece of relevant data is that morals are arbitrary, not Objective like verifiable data. For some evidence about the arbitrariness of morals, just go to a bunch of different cultures, and ask whether or not it is moral to eat pork or drink alcohol. You might also note that tribes of cannibals considered themselves to be moral, too. More, if you study the origin of rules called "morals", you will find they were specified "by fiat", and therefore are arbitrary in that way, also. The net result is that things called "moral" don't really deserve any more attention than a low-grade work of fiction. And so anyone claiming that abortion is immoral is not automatically saying something that is Objectively valid.

Meanwhile, there is "ethics", which can be based on an Objectively verifiable foundation-statement. An example of such a statement is, "Persons need to get-along with each other, for maximum mutual benefit." Do you have any doubts regarding the veracity of that statement? Assuming you don't, then all some society needs is a set of social rules that are consistent with the foundation-statement. Many of those rules are likely to be similar to rules called "moral" --note that while murder is not a mutually beneficial thing between persons, assisted suicide could be-- here the ethics-rules will not be arbitrary.

Finally, we can conclude that abortion is ethical as killing a rat, because only an animal-class entity is targeted by abortion, not a person. Anyone who claims an unborn human qualifies as a person cannot support the claim with valid Objective data, in the same way that scientists studying dolphins have data showing how close they are to qualifying as persons, or the way that researchers working toward building a True Artificial Intelligence expect to show how it could qualify as a person.

FutureIncoming said:

The very first piece of relevant data is that morals are arbitrary, not Objective like verifiable data. For some evidence about the arbitrariness of morals, just go to a bunch of different cultures, and ask whether or not it is moral to eat pork or drink alcohol. You might also note that tribes of cannibals considered themselves to be moral, too. More, if you study the origin of rules called "morals", you will find they were specified "by fiat", and therefore are arbitrary in that way, also. The net result is that things called "moral" don't really deserve any more attention than a low-grade work of fiction. And so anyone claiming that abortion is immoral is not saying something that is Objectively valid.

Meanwhile, there is "ethics", which can be based on an Objectively verifiable foundation-statement. An example of such a statement is, "Persons need to get-along with each other, for maximum mutual benefit." Do you have any doubts regarding the veracity of that statement? Assuming you don't, then all some society needs is a set of social rules that are consistent with the foundation-statement. Many of those rules are likely to be similar to rules called "moral" --note that while murder is not a mutually beneficial thing between persons, assisted suicide could be-- here the ethics-rules will not be arbitrary.

Finally, we can conclude that abortion is ethical as killing a rat, because only an animal-class entity is targeted by abortion, not a person. Anyone who claims an unborn human qualifies as a person cannot support the claim with valid Objective data, in the same way that scientists studying dolphins have data showing how close they are to qualifying as persons, or the way that researchers working toward building a True Artificial Intelligence expect to show how it could qualify as a person.

Click to expand...

Was this a response to my post? If so, using the quote feature is helpful.

And I wrote implying much of what you just reiterated re: morals being arbitrary (subjective).

However your reply did not answer my question, .

Can you please provide an example of data that 'suggests' people's moral positions on abortion are based on a lack of information (ignorance?)

Click to expand...

Because you wrote this:

FutureIncoming said:

Please be specific about why some people find abortion "morally troubling". Because the data suggests those people are suffering from ignorance, which is not a sin, but still needs to be cured.

Click to expand...

It implies that some people's moral views of abortion are wrong (created in ignorance and requiring a cure, meaning needing to be fixed).

Is there a single moral position that ethically is not 'arbitrary' for abortion as you seem to imply in post #8? Is that what you are stating?

Abortions will always exist in large numbers whether legal or illegal....so to me...the abortion debate should revolve around prevention of unwanted pregnancy.

To Lursa: I'm out of practice using this site's message-editing features. I did indeed reply to your post, and I presented specific facts, about which those exhibit ignorance, who blather the worthless-because-arbitrary words "moral" and "morals". Note there are two sorts of "ignorance", of which one involves not-knowing (not a sin) and the other involves ignoring (it is always stupid to ignore facts). Those who blather about morals are always ignorant, one way or the other --they either don't know they are spewing arbitrariness, or they don't care. The first case is curable; the second case ...since it is widely believed that stupidity can't be cured, perhaps they should be locked away in padded cells for their own safety. (facetious grin)

Please keep in mind that every argument depends on a foundation. When I Debate, I specialize in showing how the foundation of the opponent's argument is fatally flawed, thereby utterly destroying the argument. Thus an argument that links abortion with morals is destroyed by showing that morals are arbitrary, Objectively worthless for anything --and can be replaced with something better because non-arbitrary (ethics). "Moral views of abortion" are wrong simply because morals are worthless/arbitrary --and abortion opponents blathering about morals either don't know it and need to learn it, or they do know it and exhibit the stupidity of fact-denial.

Therefore I did indeed answer your question in my other post, but perhaps I should have been more obvious about it. Regarding your other and more-recent question, there are NO "moral positions" worth anything, simply because of arbitrariness. If you want to claim there are, then you should back up the claim, not me. Any moral rule that happens to be the same as an ethics rule is STILL an arbitrary rule when it is called a "moral rule". Which is why all of them deserve to be abandoned to the dust-bin of History.

To year2late: Since no form of birth control is perfect (including abstinence, if you believe the story of the Virgin Mary), there will always be unwanted pregnancies. Therefore the Overall Abortion Debate eventually must get resolved.

FutureIncoming said:

To year2late: Since no form of birth control is perfect (including abstinence, if you believe the story of the Virgin Mary), there will always be unwanted pregnancies. Therefore the Overall Abortion Debate eventually must get resolved.

Click to expand...

Nobody is denying that 100% of unwanted births will never be attained. But most all pro-choice believe that advanced birth controls will be the most effective end-game in the future. But it will be a monumental project, worldwide, in order to see any significant improvements.

Obviously no birth control is perfect, but technology is changing. The latest thing in the works is an implantable microchip, which controls hormones that are related to reproduction and will have a lifespan of up to 15 years. It will be programmable. That might pose a problem, but none-the-less it will be able to be turned on and off should a woman "want to get pregnant". Hopefully more similar types of technology is in the works.

And implantable male birth control is still a possibility. Men simply won't do pills with any consistency. They might if they had a uterus, but....

So the goal is (our hope is) that there will be a significant reduction in unwanted births via more effective, accessible, advanced forms of birth control. As of today nothing "yet" 100% failsafe, we all get that, but we have to work toward something that might offer a better solution over the long-term that is the least intrusive for women's reproductive roles and fundamental rights.

And by your saying "including abstinence" I assume that you're saying that there's rarely such a method practiced. That I would agree on. But abstinence in and of itself is about 100% effective when practiced.

But the greatest adversity regarding birth control is "global access". I contend that birth control should be freely distributed (yes, I'm literally saying free of charge) to all women in every nation. The overall social benefits would be substantial. In other words, I believe that a future cost/benefit analysis of free birth control with high accessibility (especially in 3rd world countries) would eventually be shown to be worth the cost to all governments to provide birth control free of charge.

And yes, there are currently nations that won't distribute birth control because of theocratic government control.

Bottom line: Overall humans are still primitive in a number of ways. Guess it's a day at a time sort of thing. :shrug: Until we become more evolved with regarding reproduction and preventative means, then protecting women rights via legal or legislative actions is super important.

Thanks...

To Removable Mind:

I don't object to better methods of contraception, including the installation of Y-shaped valves in the male vas deferens (to emulate a vasectomy, or normal flow). I literally meant what I wrote about abstinence --for anyone who believes a virgin birth is possible, that means that person by-default also believes abstinence is not 100% effective. (A bigger problem is that sex has associated health benefits, and those who abstain don't get the benefits. It means abstinence is not as practical as claimed by those who promote it.)

I do hope you take the time to read (and perhaps comment on) the Full Abortion Debate Argument that I linked in the first post of this Thread. It seriously attempts to explain almost everything wrong with opposing abortion. Thank you.

FutureIncoming said:

Please be specific about why some people find abortion "morally troubling". Because the data suggests those people are suffering from ignorance, which is not a sin, but still needs to be cured.

Click to expand...

What the ****? I find abortion in some cases to be morally troubling, but I'm still pro choice.

Ignorance? Lol, you're hilarious.

Also, theres this little thing under each post that says "reply with quote."

FutureIncoming said:

To Lursa: I'm out of practice using this site's message-editing features. I did indeed reply to your post, and I presented specific facts, about which those exhibit ignorance, who blather the worthless-because-arbitrary words "moral" and "morals". Note there are two sorts of "ignorance", of which one involves not-knowing (not a sin) and the other involves ignoring (it is always stupid to ignore facts). Those who blather about morals are always ignorant, one way or the other --they either don't know they are spewing arbitrariness, or they don't care. The first case is curable; the second case ...since it is widely believed that stupidity can't be cured, perhaps they should be locked away in padded cells for their own safety. (facetious grin)

Please keep in mind that every argument depends on a foundation. When I Debate, I specialize in showing how the foundation of the opponent's argument is fatally flawed, thereby utterly destroying the argument. Thus an argument that links abortion with morals is destroyed by showing that morals are arbitrary, Objectively worthless for anything --and can be replaced with something better because non-arbitrary (ethics). "Moral views of abortion" are wrong simply because morals are worthless/arbitrary --and abortion opponents blathering about morals either don't know it and need to learn it, or they do know it and exhibit the stupidity of fact-denial.

Therefore I did indeed answer your question in my other post, but perhaps I should have been more obvious about it. Regarding your other and more-recent question, there are NO "moral positions" worth anything, simply because of arbitrariness. If you want to claim there are, then you should back up the claim, not me. Any moral rule that happens to be the same as an ethics rule is STILL an arbitrary rule when it is called a "moral rule". Which is why all of them deserve to be abandoned to the dust-bin of History.

Click to expand...

Can you please source the foundation for these definitions or characteristics of morals and ethics that you are using? Is there a reason I should accept any of your very black and white statements on that subject as anything more than your opinion?

We agree that morals are subjective perhaps, but that is the word I have used. You claim they are arbitrary and I dont believe you are using that word properly.

Arbitrary | Definition of Arbitrary by Merriam-Webster

: not planned or chosen for a particular reason : not based on reason or evidence
: done without concern for what is fair or right
1
: depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2
a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government>
b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3
a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard>
b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will

Click to expand...

People's/culture's/society's morals are very often not arbitrary (random) but are indeed based on substance, cause & effect, the word of a higher authority, desire to change specific behavior or results, etc.

So I'd really like to see some foundation for your 'opinions' stated regarding morals and their application to abortion. I think it's fine if they are opinions, but they should be posted as such, or otherwise sourced.

IMO, much of the debate surrounding abortion does rest on the subjective rather than the objective and thus opinions, and personal support thereof, are very much relevant.

FutureIncoming said:

To year2late: Since no form of birth control is perfect (including abstinence, if you believe the story of the Virgin Mary), there will always be unwanted pregnancies. Therefore the Overall Abortion Debate eventually must get resolved.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the best way to stop abortions is to stop unwanted pregnancies. All the rest that can be done is respect women's freedom and right to decide for themselves whether or not motherhood (or another baby on top of the one/ones she already has) through continued pregnancy is something that she wants to. If not the abortion has to take place as early as possible (like it is now) and for the rest it is not the governments or some pro-life groups right to interfere in the life and liberty of that pregnant woman.

Luftwaffe said:

What the ****? I find abortion in some cases to be morally troubling, but I'm still pro choice.

Ignorance? Lol, you're hilarious.

Click to expand...

There is a third sort of ignorance that I didn't previously mention, related to a reasonably well-known saying, "It is not what you don't know that hurts you as much as what you do know that ain't so." A great many folks simply have wrong (and often also incomplete) knowledge about unborn human entities, leading them to erroneous conclusions (from feeling "morally troubled" to feeling hugely outraged) by abortion. The Full Abortion Debate Argument that I linked in the first message of this Thread attempts to present all the relevant data, so that correct conclusions can be reached (most of the unborn in this day-and-age are of no greater importance than rats).

Lursa said:

Can you please source the foundation for these definitions or characteristics of morals and ethics that you are using? Is there a reason I should accept any of your very black and white statements on that subject as anything more than your opinion?

Click to expand...

The particular type of arbitrariness relates to the fact that all sets of morals can be traced to impositions by fiat, such as the Code of Hammurabi. The most-relevant definition that applies is the (3a) that you copied from Merriam-Webster. The declaration that abortion is immoral is itself a declaration that was made by fiat (most likely trace-able to the Catholic Church). It should be obvious that by banning abortion the Church encourages more births of future tithers to get born, which therefore directly (eventually) benefits the Church. Things done for obviously self-interested reasons are most certainly (3a) arbitrary, because so many people have so many wildly different reasons for doing things.

As a "check", consider trying to present an Objective reason for banning abortion (which would then be non-arbitrary). Did you notice the tagline portion of my postings? If there is no Objective/logical reason to ban abortion, then all reasons offered so far are purely arbitrary!

Peter King said:

Yes, and the best way to stop abortions is to stop unwanted pregnancies. All the rest that can be done is respect women's freedom and right to decide for themselves whether or not motherhood (or another baby on top of the one/ones she already has) through continued pregnancy is something that she wants to. If not the abortion has to take place as early as possible (like it is now) and for the rest it is not the governments or some pro-life groups right to interfere in the life and liberty of that pregnant woman.

Click to expand...

You didn't really say anything different from what I wrote. There will always be at least some unwanted pregnancies, and therefore the Overall Abortion Debate must eventually be resolved.

FutureIncoming said:

The particular type of arbitrariness relates to the fact that all sets of morals can be traced to impositions by fiat, such as the Code of Hammurabi. The most-relevant definition that applies is the (3a) that you copied from Merriam-Webster. The declaration that abortion is immoral is itself a declaration that was made by fiat (most likely trace-able to the Catholic Church). It should be obvious that by banning abortion the Church encourages more births of future tithers to get born, which therefore directly (eventually) benefits the Church. Things done for obviously self-interested reasons are most certainly (3a) arbitrary, because so many people have so many wildly different reasons for doing things.

As a "check", consider trying to present an Objective reason for banning abortion (which would then be non-arbitrary). Did you notice the tagline portion of my postings?

Click to expand...

LOL Oh the irony.

Killing a human is wrong, unless it is in self-defense.

FutureIncoming said:

As a "check", consider trying to present an Objective reason for banning abortion (which would then be non-arbitrary). Did you notice the tagline portion of my postings? If there is no Objective/logical reason to ban abortion, then all reasons offered so far are purely arbitrary!

Click to expand...

For clarification, that is what I was presenting in this post, an answer to your challenge.

Lursa said:

LOL Oh the irony.

Killing a human is wrong, unless it is in self-defense.

Click to expand...

year2late said:

Abortions will always exist in large numbers whether legal or illegal....so to me...the abortion debate should revolve around prevention of unwanted pregnancy.

Click to expand...

The abortion debate revolves around rather or not unborn humans should be considered persons or not. If you dont establish any arguments towards the personhood side of the debate, say bye bye to legal abortion on demand since you would be allowing pro lifers to equate species membership directly to personhood. That's the big part of the debate FutureIncoming has been hinting to you guys and most of his data on his site revolves around that. So bringing up about dealing with unwanted pregnancies is fine but it's not going to stop pro lifers from attempting to make abortion illegal so you have to dismantle there argumentswhich FutureIncoming his.

Lursa said:

Killing a human is wrong, unless it is in self-defense.

Click to expand...

Why do we generally find killing humans wrong?