• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

Are you an abortion or anti-abortion zealot, fanatic or 'activist'?

Chuz Life said:
The end result of every successful (human) abortion is a dead child.

It's not a 'moral' opinion,...it's a biological fact.

Will you factor that biological reality into your oppositions as well?

Or will you ignore, dismiss, deny, downplay,... whatever you have to do in order to keep abortion legal?
Click to expand...

Flushed zygote.
 
windovervocalcords said:
Why or why not?

I'm not one because my views on abortion are nuanced and subtle, and because I 'don't have a pony' in the race.:2wave:

My apologies for the title. It's kind of inflammatory. (well, now that I have your attention, ahem)

What I'm trying to understand is what makes some people so single minded and strident in their positions. I could easily argue one side or the other of this debate in good conscience.

I could say life begins at conception. But then I have to define what I mean by 'life' and whether there is scientific evidence that supports my view or whether my view is metaphysical or philosophical.

And I'm not a scientist.
Click to expand...

I would say i am an anti-abortion totalist; in that I completely oppose abortion in all its' forms; to include incest, rape, and etc.

as far as i have ever been able to figure, there is no logically consistent middle ground with abortion. the central question to this debate is "is that a human child". If your answer is yes, then that human child has the right not to be deprived of its' life; irregardless of the sins of others. to kill it is murder. if your answer is no, then society has no right interfering with the medical decisions of the "mother" (though in such a case she's not a mother, since she has no child, only a "growth").

I believe that an unborn child remains Human life, and therefore has intrinsic to its' nature the birthrights of all mankind. Hence I cannot justify any attempt to remove those rights in order to secure the convenience of others.
 
cpwill said:
I would say i am an anti-abortion totalist; in that I completely oppose abortion in all its' forms; to include incest, rape, and etc.

as far as i have ever been able to figure, there is no logically consistent middle ground with abortion. the central question to this debate is "is that a human child". If your answer is yes, then that human child has the right not to be deprived of its' life; irregardless of the sins of others. to kill it is murder. if your answer is no, then society has no right interfering with the medical decisions of the "mother" (though in such a case she's not a mother, since she has no child, only a "growth").

I believe that an unborn child remains Human life, and therefore has intrinsic to its' nature the birthrights of all mankind. Hence I cannot justify any attempt to remove those rights in order to secure the convenience of others.
Click to expand...


I take it you're against the morning after pill too? The law is not on your side, will.
 
molten_dragon said:
As usual, you're misrepresenting the truth Chuz. The end result
of a successful abortion is an aborted fetus, not a dead child. It can't be a dead child, because it
was never a child in the first place.
Click to expand...

Really?

You should notify these sources of your findings immediately.

Medical Dictionary

1: A person between birth and puberty.

2: An unborn infant; a fetus.

3: An infant; a baby.

4: One who is childish or immature.

5: A son or daughter; an offspring.-- Stedman's Medical Dictionary

CHILD

1 : an unborn or recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth —with child
: PREGNANT -- Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary


Science Dictionary

The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a
human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are
present. -The American Heritage Science Dictionary

Medical Dictionary

The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic
structural resemblance to the adult animal.

In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the
moment of birth.- Stedman's Medical Dictionary

FETUS

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its
kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth
- Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Really?

You should notify these sources of your findings immediately.

Medical Dictionary

1: A person between birth and puberty.

2: An unborn infant; a fetus.

3: An infant; a baby.

4: One who is childish or immature.

5: A son or daughter; an offspring.-- Stedman's Medical Dictionary

CHILD

1 : an unborn or recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth —with child
: PREGNANT -- Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary


Science Dictionary

The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a
human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are
present. -The American Heritage Science Dictionary

Medical Dictionary

The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic
structural resemblance to the adult animal.

In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the
moment of birth.- Stedman's Medical Dictionary

FETUS

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its
kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth
- Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary
Click to expand...

Like I've already said Chuz, you can call a fetus whatever you want. Call it an unborn innocent baby Jesus, or a precious snowflake, or a potential Einstein. Emotional appeals and logical fallacies don't change a damn thing. You only betray yourself because it demonstrates the dishonesty and disingenuous nature of your arguments. And that demonstration isn't just to those participating in this thread, it includes other readers who are on the fence about the issue.
 
Last edited:
windovervocalcords said:
Why or why not?

I'm not one because my views on abortion are nuanced and subtle, and because I 'don't have a pony' in the race.:2wave:

My apologies for the title. It's kind of inflammatory. (well, now that I have your attention, ahem)

What I'm trying to understand is what makes some people so single minded and strident in their positions. I could easily argue one side or the other of this debate in good conscience.

I could say life begins at conception. But then I have to define what I mean by 'life' and whether there is scientific evidence that supports my view or whether my view is metaphysical or philosophical.

And I'm not a scientist.
Click to expand...

I am neither. I believe that this is an issue that should be decided, one way or the other, by the people of their respective states, and that the Federal government should keep it's nose out of something that, from a Constitutional standpoint, is none of their business.
 
danarhea said:
I am neither. I believe that this is an issue that should be decided, one way or the other, by the people of their respective states, and that the Federal government should keep it's nose out of something that, from a Constitutional standpoint, is none of their business.
Click to expand...

This is not a matter that is up for popular vote. You are correct that this is an issue that is not the business of the Federal government, but it is also not the business of state government, county government, or the people next door. We're talking about something INSIDE a woman's body, and it's nobody's business but hers (and whoever she consults). That's not a fanatical or zealous idea, it's just reasonable.
 
OKgrannie said:
This is not a matter that is up for popular vote. You are correct that this is an issue that is not the business of the Federal government, but it is also not the business of state government, county government, or the people next door. We're talking about something INSIDE a woman's body, and it's nobody's business but hers (and whoever she consults). That's not a fanatical or zealous idea, it's just reasonable.
Click to expand...

The alternative is government or church owned wombs.
 
danarhea said:
I am neither. I believe that this is an issue that should be decided, one way or the other, by the people of their respective states, and that the Federal government should keep it's nose out of something that, from a Constitutional standpoint, is none of their business.
Click to expand...

How do you figure?

The right that a person has to their life is a Constitutional (federal) / civil right.

Murder is a federal crime not a state and local minor offense.
 
Chuz said:
Really?

You should notify these sources of your findings immediately.
Click to expand...
Fallacy!

Just because 'child' can refer to a foetus does not mean that all foetus' are children. This is a basic logical principle, and can be proven by substitution of other terms - for example: "Just because 'swan' can refer to a bird does not mean that all birds are swans".

'Foetus' refers, as you say, to a 'developing human from conception to birth'. 'Child', as you also say, refers to 'a born or unborn person'. Following this logically (I could even draw a Venn diagram!), we can deduce that what is needed for a foetus to warrent the term 'child' is for it to be a 'person'. And that is an old argument, but not one that ends in your favour, what with 'personhood' being tied very closely to cognitive function and/or awareness.
 
I'm not a fanatic or activist, but I think it is wrong to have abortions for birth control. Only if the mother's life is in serious danger would I support it's use if no other remedy is available.
 
American said:
I'm not a fanatic or activist, but I think it is wrong to have abortions for birth control. Only if the mother's life is in serious danger would I support it's use if no other remedy is available.
Click to expand...


If you think somethings wrong does everyone else have to comply with your ethics? Do you feel as though you own a woman's womb? Do women only exist to be breeders?

My feeling is that abortion is wrong for me and for those I love. I don't have the right to impose my ethics on another woman, even someone I love. The law gives women the right to choose. I support choice.

Most unplanned pregnancies are caused by failed contraception. If a couple uses birth control, clearly, they intend to not get pregnant. If the method fails it is not because she or her partner is irresponsible. Some people are self- deluded and although most contraceptive methods are 99% effective they bargain that they won't fall into that 1%.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
How do you figure?

The right that a person has to their life is a Constitutional (federal) / civil right.
Click to expand...
You are correct that rights that apply are constitutionally guaranteed and under one constitution there can be no disparity between states as there would be if the matter was reverted back to the states.
Of course you are incorrect about the right to life, even thoug this has bee repeatedly pointed out to you yet you still failed to learn that important fact.

Murder is a federal crime not a state and local minor offense.
Click to expand...
No it is not. It is tried in state court unless it happens on federal property.
 
Chuz Life said:
Really?

You should notify these sources of your findings immediately.

Medical Dictionary

1: A person between birth and puberty.

2: An unborn infant; a fetus.

3: An infant; a baby.

4: One who is childish or immature.

5: A son or daughter; an offspring.-- Stedman's Medical Dictionary

CHILD

1 : an unborn or recently born person
2 : a young person especially between infancy and youth —with child
: PREGNANT -- Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary


Science Dictionary

The unborn offspring of a mammal at the later stages of its development, especially a
human from eight weeks after fertilization to its birth. In a fetus, all major body organs are
present. -The American Heritage Science Dictionary

Medical Dictionary

The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic
structural resemblance to the adult animal.

In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the
moment of birth.- Stedman's Medical Dictionary

FETUS

: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its
kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth
- Merriam-Websters Medical Dictionary
Click to expand...

More misrepresentations. We've been over your use of dictionary definitions again and again, and you've been shown why they're invalid many. Give it up Chuz. You're not going to convince anyone of anything with dictionary definitions. They are not valid sources for this kind of debate.
 
Most of these debates come down to whether you recognize an unborn baby as a human being, deserving of the right to life just like any other innocent human; or whether you believe it to be somehow a nonhuman or nonperson who lacks the right to such consideration.

It is rare that anyone who holds strongly to one of these viewpoints, is persuaded to change his mind by someone of the other viewpoint.

I've been mostly staying out of abortion threads for months for that reason.

But, hope springs eternal, so I'll try once more...

Virtually nobody disputes that a normal six-month old baby is a human being, worthy of having its life protected. Indeed we are, as a society, very protective of our babies (and rightfully so).

What then are the differences between an unborn baby ("fetus") in the 12th week of pregnancy, and a six-month old post-birth baby? There are five main points of difference:

1. Size. The 6mo old is larger than the 12wk unborn. Size is clearly not an indicator of humanity or personhood. Is a 6'6" adult more of a person than a 5'5" adult? No. Is a 4' tall ten-year old more worthy of protection than a 2' tall toddler? No. We can dismiss this one quickly.
2. Location. The 6mo is outside the mother; the unborn is inside. Location is not an indicator of personhood. Am I more of a person when I am in my own home, and less of a person when I am in your house? No...especially not if you left the door wide open while I was standing on the porch, appearing to invite me in (bit of allegory there). :mrgreen:
If I am a guest in your home, and a blizzard blows in outside while we are talking, and I am not dressed for the weather and have no vehicle on hand...would it be fair and just for you to force me to leave, for your own convenience, at risk to my life? Most people would call that pretty heartless.
We can dismiss location.
3. Intelligence. The 6mo is more intelligent than the 12wk unborn. While the 12wk unborn has a brain and exhibits various responses, the 6mo is far more intelligent. Is intelligence a line of demarcation, dividing person from non-person within the human species? No. Granted that the eugenics practices of a certain Reich used that argument to euthanize the retarded, but most of humanity has rejected that standard. If your IQ is 115, and mine is 125, does that make me more of a person than you? Does that mean I should be allowed to kill you, if I find you inconvenient? No.
4. Development. The 6mo is far more developed than the 12wk unborn. Much like intelligence, this is not the measure of personhood. I know an adult male who was born with a birth defect: his left arm did not develop and ends in something of a stump. He is less developed than I. Does that make him less of a person? Can I kill him for being in my way, because he is less developed? No.
5. Dependence. Ah, now we come to the one most frequently cited as the justification for abortion: the unborn is dependent on the mother's body, and the mother must be allowed to control her body.
Well, the 6mo is almost equally dependent. If the 6mo is nursing, then the 6mo is dependent on the mother's body. If the parents didn't take care of the 6mo it would die within 3 days. It is just as dependent on someone else's care as the 12wk unborn...so if the 6mo baby's caregiver doesn't want to care for it anymore, should infanticide be permitted? No.
If I am in the hospital, my life dependent on machines and medicines, but I am expected to recover in a few months, am I a non-person? May I be killed with impunity for being inconvenient? No.
Should you be able to execute your elderly parent for being dependent on others, without due process of law or even consulting with anyone else concerned? No.
Dependence is not a measure of personhood.

For these reasons and many more, I hold that the unborn is a human person and deserves to have his or life protected and respected. I don't expect to convince anyone who is strongly committed to the other side of the argument, but there's my two bits.
 
Last edited:
windovervocalcords said:
I take it you're against the morning after pill too? The law is not on your side, will.
Click to expand...

this wasn't a question over what i thought the law was; law as currently interpreted is wrong, i think in many many areas. this is just the worst.
 
Goshin said:
5. Dependence. Ah, now we come to the one most frequently cited as the justification for abortion: the unborn is dependent on the mother's body, and the mother must be allowed to control her body.
Well, the 6mo is almost equally dependent. If the 6mo is nursing, then the 6mo is dependent on the mother's body. If the parents didn't take care of the 6mo it would die within 3 days. It is just as dependent on someone else's care as the 12wk unborn...so if the 6mo baby's caregiver doesn't want to care for it anymore, should infanticide be permitted? No.
If I am in the hospital, my life dependent on machines and medicines, but I am expected to recover in a few months, am I a non-person? May I be killed with impunity for being inconvenient? No.
Should you be able to execute your elderly parent for being dependent on others, without due process of law or even consulting with anyone else concerned? No.
Dependence is not a measure of personhood.
Click to expand...
There are some essential details that you left out. It is not so much the dependence that is the determining factor as mush as the reason for that dependence and what it means, not only to the fetus, but the woman carrying it too.

The fetus at 12 weeks gestation does not have functioning organs that can sustain its life. That is why it is dependent. To satisfy that dependency the body of a specific recognized person has to be used. By contrast if your kidney fails you can go to any number of hospitals and be hooked up to any number of available machines. Moreover if one machine malfunctions another machine can be used. Try replacing the body of a pregnant woman with another woman's body. The pregnant woman MUST use her body and her approval and choice would be negated is aborting would be denied.
But lets step back to the hospital and a person being hooked up to a dialysis machine. Now lets assume that one by one other organs shut down. How long do you believe it will be before the plug is pulled?
So, why should one life be disconnected when its own organs can not keep it alive but another one not?

What is the justification for forcing a person to use her body and organs, to her detriment, to keep another life going?

If a person needs a liver transplant and the person's life depends on it, no one can be forced to supply that liver. Not even a convicted and executed criminal. They do that in China by the way.

For these reasons and many more, I hold that the unborn is a human person and deserves to have his or life protected and respected. I don't expect to convince anyone who is strongly committed to the other side of the argument, but there's my two bits.
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with holding a set of beliefs, although I disagree with the premise(s) you so far presented. My objection to to force those beliefs on the rest of society, something many opponents of abortion advocate, even if you do not.

There is no single reason for which abortion should be keep legal, but a myriad of reasons, that when taken together form an overwhelming argument for keeping abortions legal.
 
prometeus said:
There are some essential details that you left out. It is not so much the dependence that is the determining factor as mush as the reason for that dependence and what it means, not only to the fetus, but the woman carrying it too.

The fetus at 12 weeks gestation does not have functioning organs that can sustain its life. That is why it is dependent. To satisfy that dependency the body of a specific recognized person has to be used. By contrast if your kidney fails you can go to any number of hospitals and be hooked up to any number of available machines. Moreover if one machine malfunctions another machine can be used. Try replacing the body of a pregnant woman with another woman's body. The pregnant woman MUST use her body and her approval and choice would be negated is aborting would be denied.
But lets step back to the hospital and a person being hooked up to a dialysis machine. Now lets assume that one by one other organs shut down. How long do you believe it will be before the plug is pulled?
So, why should one life be disconnected when its own organs can not keep it alive but another one not?
Click to expand...

Because in your example, you are talking about someone who is clearly at the end of their life, and is not going to improve. In the case of the unborn baby, we are talking about the beginning of life...if you leave the baby alone for just a few more months, it will be able to live on its own.

What is the justification for forcing a person to use her body and organs, to her detriment, to keep another life going?
Click to expand...

Because she chose to engage in actions likely to result in pregnancy, and is therefore responsible for that life. We use the same justification to force an accidental "father" to pay child support, from the resources of his body and mind (ie his work), for 18 years.

If a person needs a liver transplant and the person's life depends on it, no one can be forced to supply that liver. Not even a convicted and executed criminal. They do that in China by the way.
Click to expand...

I would have to consider this an erroneous analogy, because the prospective liver-doner did not engage in activity likely to cause the need for a liver transplant in the other person. We're talking about sex and pregnancy, which is a cause and effect that everyone over the age of consent should be able to appreciate. It is a matter of taking responsibility for what you do to others... if my negligence in driving causes you injury, I will be held liable for your medical bills and lost wages. If my negligence in sexual activity results in a woman getting pregnant, I can be held liable for 18 years of child support, whether I wanted the baby or not... I think an unwilling mother can put up with 9 months of pregnancy if an unwilling father can be forced to pay 18 years of child support! :mrgreen:

There is nothing wrong with holding a set of beliefs, although I disagree with the premise(s) you so far presented. My objection to to force those beliefs on the rest of society, something many opponents of abortion advocate, even if you do not.
Click to expand...

Again: murder is illegal. Making murder illegal is a moral choice, a value judgement, a belief that taking human life without very good reason is wrong. We impose such beliefs on society by force of law every day. To imply that abortion is an exception, a "forcing of beliefs on society" that is fundamentally more intrusive somehow than, for instance, laws requiring unwilling fathers to pay child support for 18 years, is fallacious.

If a taxpayer can be forced to pay for "entitlements" for the poor all his working life, and an unwilling father can be forced to share the labor of his body in child support for 18 years, and someone who evades taxes or doesn't pay child support can be locked up in prison, how then is requiring an unwilling mother to spend scarcely 9 months fulfilling her obligation to the life her actions brought into being, so much more heinous? I don't see why unwilling mothers should be treated with so much more consideration than unwilling fathers.



There is no single reason for which abortion should be keep legal, but a myriad of reasons, that when taken together form an overwhelming argument for keeping abortions legal.
Click to expand...

As I said, those who strongly believe in one viewpoint or the other, as we both apparently are, are unlikely to be convinced. However, perhaps someone else whose view is not fully determined will find the debate enlightening.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Most of these debates come down to whether you recognize an unborn baby as a human being
Click to expand...
Goshin said:
or whether you believe it to be somehow a nonhuman
Click to expand...
The most coherent and strongest pro-choice arguments all recognize a fetus as the species homo sapien sapien, A.K.A. human. There is no debate on that.

Goshin said:
deserving of the right to life just like any other innocent human;
Click to expand...
We revoke humans right to life all the time. Self defense, war, heinous crimes, birth control....

Rights are granted and taken by the society we live in. There are no inherent rights anymore than we individually and collectively decide. That is, your notion of "deserved rights" is purely subjective and personal, not absolute and objective.

This doesn't mean I do not believe rights should be established and protected . It merely demonstrates the subjectivity of the discussion on rights, based on your statements thus far, seems to escape you.

Goshin said:
2. Location. The 6mo is outside the mother; the unborn is inside. Location is not an indicator of personhood. Am I more of a person when I am in my own home, and less of a person when I am in your house? No...especially not if you left the door wide open while I was standing on the porch, appearing to invite me in (bit of allegory there). :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I don't believe its EVER been argued that the earthly location of a fetus is important. Abortion has been argued based on the fact that the fetus' location is within a person and therefore it is dependent and a burden on that person. Do you understand the difference? I can elaborate further if necessary.

You address the dependence issue later but no the burden issue

Goshin said:
If I am a guest in your home, and a blizzard blows in outside while we are talking, and I am not dressed for the weather and have no vehicle on hand...would it be fair and just for you to force me to leave, for your own convenience, at risk to my life? Most people would call that pretty heartless.
Click to expand...
You assume that the guest was invited. If the guest (more aptly named "intruder" in this case) wasn't invited then there is no requirement that you house the intruder.

I've noticed in your throughout your post that rely almost entirely on examples. Anyone can twist and turn a metaphor or example to say whatever they want. I would hope in future arguments that you can DIRECTLY explain why you disagree rather than solely explaining by example.

Furthermore, an example alone is an insufficient explanation. Examples are fine and dandy as a means of elaborating on your response but they shouldn't be your whole argument. I'm not saying this is true for you but examples are often used by those who don't understand the overarching concept.

Goshin said:
3. Intelligence. The 6mo is more intelligent than the 12wk unborn. While the 12wk unborn has a brain and exhibits various responses, the 6mo is far more intelligent. Is intelligence a line of demarcation, dividing person from non-person within the human species? No.
Click to expand...
You go on to talk about Hitler and eugenics, but that doesn't address why intelligence isn't a valid dividing line.

For the record, I agree that the mentally handicapped should have rights. But there is a point where intelligence is so low (or non-existent) that rights are no longer granted. E.G., rocks, most organisms, and fetuses. All these things have such low intelligence or completely lack intelligence that granting rights are nonsensical.

Goshin said:
Granted that the eugenics practices of a certain Reich used that argument to euthanize the retarded, but most of humanity has rejected that standard.
Click to expand...
I agree that forced eugenics programs such as what the third Reich did are unethical. However, abortion in America is not eugenics and its most definitely not FORCED Eugenics.

Goshin said:
4. Development. The 6mo is far more developed than the 12wk unborn. Much like intelligence, this is not the measure of personhood. I know an adult male who was born with a birth defect: his left arm did not develop and ends in something of a stump. He is less developed than I. Does that make him less of a person? Can I kill him for being in my way, because he is less developed? No.
Click to expand...
Its never been argued that the body is or isn't developed. Its always been about the mind/brain.

If your adult male friend somehow developed without a brain then that absolutely makes him less of a person, if you dare to call him a person at all. Likewise, if a rock inexplicably developed all the cognitive abilities of an adult human then I would feel it justified to grant it particular rights as well. Would you deny them?

Goshin said:
5. Dependence. Ah, now we come to the one most frequently cited as the justification for abortion: the unborn is dependent on the mother's body, and the mother must be allowed to control her body.
Well, the 6mo is almost equally dependent. If the 6mo is nursing, then the 6mo is dependent on the mother's body. If the parents didn't take care of the 6mo it would die within 3 days. It is just as dependent on someone else's care as the 12wk unborn...so if the 6mo baby's caregiver doesn't want to care for it anymore, should infanticide be permitted? No.
If I am in the hospital, my life dependent on machines and medicines, but I am expected to recover in a few months, am I a non-person? May I be killed with impunity for being inconvenient? No.
Should you be able to execute your elderly parent for being dependent on others, without due process of law or even consulting with anyone else concerned? No.
Dependence is not a measure of personhood.
Click to expand...
Personally, I'm not pro-choice on purely the dependence issue. I find the dependence issue important only in that it justifies the mother's right to choose to abort as opposed to the choice being the father's or parents.

My abortion views are based on mental faculties, thus dependence is irrelevant except in the manner discussed. I will leave it to others to debate this point if they wish.

Goshin said:
I've been mostly staying out of abortion threads for months for that reason.

But, hope springs eternal, so I'll try once more...
Click to expand...
I'd recommend catching up on your opponent's arguments and learning to comprehend them in their strongest form. Based on your strawman throughout this post it doesn't appear you understand your opponents stronger arguments and have instead chosen to pick out the weak, silly, and incoherent one's. You did a good job knocking those down and perhaps a few people out there were enlightened. But, I'd rather see you address a genuine pro-choice argument in its strongest form. I've presented the snippets of what I believe are a few in my responses.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
Because in your example, you are talking about someone who is clearly at the end of their life, and is not going to improve. In the case of the unborn baby, we are talking about the beginning of life...if you leave the baby alone for just a few more months, it will be able to live on its own.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear here, you're not talking about leaving the fetus ALONE for a few more months, you're talking about leaving the fetus ATTACHED to the woman and sucking its life sustenance from HER.



Because she chose to engage in actions likely to result in pregnancy, and is therefore responsible for that life. We use the same justification to force an accidental "father" to pay child support, from the resources of his body and mind (ie his work), for 18 years.
Click to expand...

Punishment thinking. And you're implying that a father supporting a child financially for 18 years is somehow hugely unfair because a woman gets off with only 9 months punishment, you're not considering that the woman ALSO contributes financially and in addition provides most of the physical care.


I would have to consider this an erroneous analogy, because the prospective liver-doner did not engage in activity likely to cause the need for a liver transplant in the other person. We're talking about sex and pregnancy, which is a cause and effect that everyone over the age of consent should be able to appreciate. It is a matter of taking responsibility for what you do to others... if my negligence in driving causes you injury, I will be held liable for your medical bills and lost wages. If my negligence in sexual activity results in a woman getting pregnant, I can be held liable for 18 years of child support, whether I wanted the baby or not... I think an unwilling mother can put up with 9 months of pregnancy if an unwilling father can be forced to pay 18 years of child support! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Punishment thinking again, and how unfair it is to men to have to write a check.


Again: murder is illegal. Making murder illegal is a moral choice, a value judgement, a belief that taking human life without very good reason is wrong. We impose such beliefs on society by force of law every day. To imply that abortion is an exception, a "forcing of beliefs on society" that is fundamentally more intrusive somehow than, for instance, laws requiring unwilling fathers to pay child support for 18 years, is fallacious.
Click to expand...

Making murder illegal is a pragmatic choice, society would cease to function and dissolve in chaos without a few rules to live by. Abortion, OTOH, causes no disruption to society, and its rightness or wrongness is simply a matter of opinion or beliefs.

If a taxpayer can be forced to pay for "entitlements" for the poor all his working life, and an unwilling father can be forced to share the labor of his body in child support for 18 years, and someone who evades taxes or doesn't pay child support can be locked up in prison, how then is requiring an unwilling mother to spend scarcely 9 months fulfilling her obligation to the life her actions brought into being, so much more heinous? I don't see why unwilling mothers should be treated with so much more consideration than unwilling fathers.
Click to expand...

Because writing a check seldom, if ever, causes risks to a person's health and life, and damages a person's body forever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom