• 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!

Why is abortion acceptable?

Bucky

Bucky

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2015
Messages
28,602
Reaction score
6,367
Location
Washington
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Isn't it morally hypocritical to say abortion is simply a health issue/procedure and has zero ethical implications?

I just find it odd how some people can morally justify aborting a pre-birth baby that could live outside the womb, yet find aborting a baby after birth murder. That fetus pre-birth has exactly the same prospect, future and life as a baby just newborn.

The central argument against abortion may be put like this:

It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human foetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.

Defenders of abortion usually deny the second premiss of this argument.
Click to expand...

Abortion, by Peter Singer

So the moral line between good and bad is simply birth? That does not seem correct IMO. I am no pro-life nut. I do not believe once an egg is fertilized that doesn't constitute a human being with rights. That's a silly argument. But to say a fetus that is viable is not deserving of rights is equally silly.

IMO if you morally can justify aborting a fetus that is 9-months old, viable to be born, you most likely justify some form of infanticide and killing a human in some circumstances, which IMO is still morally reprehnsible.

I definitely think this is worth discussing. I have received pm's here that said I shouldn't be discussing abortion because I am a man. That is BS. This is a moral issue. Just because I am a man should not disqualify me from discussing abortion!
 
Last edited:
I am a man and I support pro-abortion. If you are poor with a poor education: you should not have the right to have children.
 
I am a man, and sure as hell would not want a bunch of women in DC telling me what I can do with my body. So why should a bunch of old white guys in DC be allowed to tell a woman what she can do with hers.

No one is pro abortion, it should be a womens last option not the first. But I am pro choice, and it should remain so.
 
Bucky said:
Isn't it morally hypocritical to say abortion is simply a health issue/procedure and has zero ethical implications?

I just find it odd how some people can morally justify aborting a pre-birth baby that could live outside the womb, yet find aborting a baby after birth murder. That fetus pre-birth has exactly the same prospect, future and life as a baby just newborn.



Abortion, by Peter Singer

So the moral line between good and bad is simply birth? That does not seem correct IMO. I am no pro-life nut. I do not believe once an egg is fertilized that doesn't constitute a human being with rights. That's a silly argument. But to say a fetus that is viable is not deserving of rights is equally silly.

IMO if you morally can justify aborting a fetus that is 9-months old, viable to be born, you most likely justify some form of infanticide and killing a human in some circumstances, which IMO is still morally reprehnsible.

I definitely think this is worth discussing. I have received pm's here that said I shouldn't be discussing abortion because I am a man. That is BS. This is a moral issue. Just because I am a man should not disqualify me from discussing abortion!
Click to expand...

You guys are all the same. You don't want to stop abortion, you just want it to be illegal. It's typically conservative- try to engineer society with legislation. Abortion was made legal because women were suffering and dying from back-alley procedures but that doesn't matter. Make it illegal again and walk away, job done.
Problem is (another problem) the measures that would be successful in limiting abortion or even stopping it are in the liberal camp so don't bear consideration. Much abortion happens because single motherhood is a condemnation to a life of poverty. Example- how is a single mother supposed to get off welfare if child-care costs would eat up half or more of her income? Government subsidised child care would go a long way to helping the problem but God forbid such socialism be allowed to creep into society. Why, that's what they do in Europe fergawdsakes.
But maybe I should go easier on you. This being a moral issue and all, I bet you've adopted two at least low-income newborns to prevent them being aborted.
 
Bucky said:
Isn't it morally hypocritical to say abortion is simply a health issue/procedure and has zero ethical implications?
Click to expand...

Isnt it morally hypocritical to take away the bodily sovereignty & self-determination of women to give the exact same things to the unborn? How is the unborn 'more' deserving?

How is it 'more' moral to force women to remain pregnant against their will?
 
Lursa said:
Isnt it morally hypocritical to take away the bodily sovereignty & self-determination of women to give the exact same things to the unborn? How is the unborn 'more' deserving?

How is it 'more' moral to force women to remain pregnant against their will?
Click to expand...

You are looking at this issue in a black and white sense, which I find disturbing.

I already stated an egg that was just fertilized is not considered a human. We have to look at things incrementally. Life evolves.

But your comment is exactly what I find problematic. A fetus pre-born is deserving of no rights but once it is born (which apparently is your red line) means a fetus is a human deserving of rights.

So how much different is a fetus pre-born 1 day to a newborn? Morally, I don't find much of a difference, legally yes.

It would be like an adult male engaging in sex for example with an 18-year old girl vs an adult male engaging in sex with a 17-year old whose birthday is a month away. So just waiting 1 month all of a sudden makes it right?
 
Bucky said:
You are looking at this issue in a black and white sense, which I find disturbing.

I already stated an egg that was just fertilized is not considered a human. We have to look at things incrementally. Life evolves.

But your comment is exactly what I find problematic. A fetus pre-born is deserving of no rights but once it is born (which apparently is your red line) means a fetus is a human deserving of rights.

So how much different is a fetus pre-born 1 day to a newborn? Morally, I don't find much of a difference, legally yes.

It would be like an adult male engaging in sex for example with an 18-year old girl vs an adult male engaging in sex with a 17-year old whose birthday is a month away. So just waiting 1 month all of a sudden makes it right?
Click to expand...

No one can act on the unborn without violating a woman's bodily sovereignty or many of her Constitutional rights. That would be immoral.

After, anyone may do so.

I'll skip the list of physiological differences, which is long, because you are focusing on the moral aspects.
 
Bucky said:
Isn't it morally hypocritical to say abortion is simply a health issue/procedure and has zero ethical implications?

I just find it odd how some people can morally justify aborting a pre-birth baby that could live outside the womb, yet find aborting a baby after birth murder. That fetus pre-birth has exactly the same prospect, future and life as a baby just newborn.



Abortion, by Peter Singer

So the moral line between good and bad is simply birth? That does not seem correct IMO. I am no pro-life nut. I do not believe once an egg is fertilized that doesn't constitute a human being with rights. That's a silly argument. But to say a fetus that is viable is not deserving of rights is equally silly.

IMO if you morally can justify aborting a fetus that is 9-months old, viable to be born, you most likely justify some form of infanticide and killing a human in some circumstances, which IMO is still morally reprehnsible.

I definitely think this is worth discussing. I have received pm's here that said I shouldn't be discussing abortion because I am a man. That is BS. This is a moral issue. Just because I am a man should not disqualify me from discussing abortion!
Click to expand...

How "moral" is it to give a woman fewer bodily autonomy rights than we give a corpse?

Bucky said:
You are looking at this issue in a black and white sense, which I find disturbing.
Click to expand...

irony-meter.jpg
 
Because abortion law hadn't kept up with medical advances

Bucky said:
Isn't it morally hypocritical to say abortion is simply a health issue/procedure and has zero ethical implications?

I just find it odd how some people can morally justify aborting a pre-birth baby that could live outside the womb, yet find aborting a baby after birth murder. That fetus pre-birth has exactly the same prospect, future and life as a baby just newborn.

Abortion, by Peter Singer

So the moral line between good and bad is simply birth? That does not seem correct IMO. I am no pro-life nut. I do not believe once an egg is fertilized that doesn't constitute a human being with rights. That's a silly argument. But to say a fetus that is viable is not deserving of rights is equally silly.

IMO if you morally can justify aborting a fetus that is 9-months old, viable to be born, you most likely justify some form of infanticide and killing a human in some circumstances, which IMO is still morally reprehnsible.

I definitely think this is worth discussing. I have received pm's here that said I shouldn't be discussing abortion because I am a man. That is BS. This is a moral issue. Just because I am a man should not disqualify me from discussing abortion!
Click to expand...

Roe v. Wade is a ruling to balance the woman's right to a medical procedure (under privacy) with the state's concern for the next generation of citizens. That's why the viability of the fetus is the measure of when the fetus can be freely aborted, when the state can begin to legislate, & when the state can forbid abortion (except for the health/life of the woman).

moral line between good and bad is simply birth? - No, it's not a moral issue in Roe. The viability of the fetus marks when the fetus goes from fetus to person, from the legal point of view. A viable fetus is a person, per Roe, & is therefore entitled to certain rights.

I haven't looked @ Singer's take on abortion.
 
We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do know

Atheist 2020 said:
I am a man and I support pro-abortion. If you are poor with a poor education: you should not have the right to have children.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that - both relative poverty & poor education are conditions that can be overcome. With some assistance from the state - good K-12 public education, public libraries, decent nutrition & public health efforts - both conditions are reversible - or @ least amenable to change.

Denying people the right to reproduce, based on external criteria? In the US, we already tried that in the 1920s CE. See War against the weak : eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race / Edwin Black, c2003, Four Walls Eight Windows, 363.97 Blac. It was a very ugly chapter in US history.
 
Re: We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do k

Abortion is the easy way out in shirking one's personal responsibility for one's actions...
 
"Human" is the wrong issue, it's "person"

Bucky said:
…

But your comment is exactly what I find problematic. A fetus pre-born is deserving of no rights but once it is born (which apparently is your red line) means a fetus is a human deserving of rights.

So how much different is a fetus pre-born 1 day to a newborn? Morally, I don't find much of a difference, legally yes.

It would be like an adult male engaging in sex for example with an 18-year old girl vs an adult male engaging in sex with a 17-year old whose birthday is a month away. So just waiting 1 month all of a sudden makes it right?
Click to expand...

Roe v. Wade recognizes the fetus as a person legally, once the fetus is viable - meaning that it can be born safely. The human status of the fetus is irrelevant to Roe - that was never in question, & has nothing to do with the application of Roe.

Typical abortions take place early in the first trimester. Late third-trimester abortions are rare - because they're dangerous & difficult - they're typically therapeutic - the fetus is badly damaged, dying or dead, & the abortion is for the health/life of the woman. Minnie616 I believe put up information that only four pediatric surgeons were trained & certified to perform late third-term abortions in the US, & that number may have decreased by now.

The example is ludicrous. Depending on the age of majority in the state where the sex occurred, the young woman in question may be unable to legally consent to sex - which makes it rape. States may treat that situation differently - the most draconian will prosecute.
 
Re: We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do k

Why is forcing a woman to be an incubator acceptable?
 
Re: We don't know enough to choose wisely; it may be beyond us politically/socially, even if we do k

southwest88 said:
I disagree with that - both relative poverty & poor education are conditions that can be overcome. With some assistance from the state - good K-12 public education, public libraries, decent nutrition & public health efforts - both conditions are reversible - or @ least amenable to change.
Click to expand...

I on average purchase over 100 books each and every year. Since 2014, I have been reading nonfiction books dealing with history or biography. I have become and accepted a education you do not get from a local library. True, I do check the new books at the local library, and maybe 5% are books I get from Barns and Nobel. Libraries, on average do not order books in nonfiction with book dealing with the political left. If I was in poverty, and had a poor education, and was 18 years old -- the public library books would be telling me to stay in the same station in my life. True, there are some libraries within a urban society with over 250,000 copies of different books. They are not around me or the average library reader.
 
There are lots of resources available, & that's a good thing

Originally Posted by southwest88
I disagree with that - both relative poverty & poor education are conditions that can be overcome. With some assistance from the state - good K-12 public education, public libraries, decent nutrition & public health efforts - both conditions are reversible - or @ least amenable to change.

Atheist 2020 said:
I on average purchase over 100 books each and every year. Since 2014, I have been reading nonfiction books dealing with history or biography. I have become and accepted a education you do not get from a local library. True, I do check the new books at the local library, and maybe 5% are books I get from Barns and Nobel. Libraries, on average do not order books in nonfiction with book dealing with the political left. If I was in poverty, and had a poor education, and was 18 years old -- the public library books would be telling me to stay in the same station in my life. True, there are some libraries within a urban society with over 250,000 copies of different books. They are not around me or the average library reader.
Click to expand...

Good for you, you're well over the adult average number of books per year read - in the US, I believe it's 1 - an astoundingly low number, IMO.

I was in poverty, and had a poor education, and was 18 years old -- the public library books - @ age 18? That's too old - my point was that the state can ameliorate educational deficiencies - but that effort starts in K or even pre-K in the US, typically. (& maybe even programs like Head Start - a pre-K program for children who need the intervention.)

& of course, in the US, public libraries are often the most accessible Internet portal for the public - often with access to state educational portals - non-fiction, history, science, technology, downloadable books, magazine & newspaper articles, etc. People with home PCs, Internet access & library privileges can also avail themselves of these services. There are also the public college libraries, which often extend library privileges to anyone living within the state.
 
Re: There are lots of resources available, & that's a good thing

southwest88 said:
I was in poverty, and had a poor education, and was 18 years old -- the public library books - @ age 18?
Click to expand...

I said "If I was in poverty ..." not I was in poverty
 
Bucky said:
Isn't it morally hypocritical to say abortion is simply a health issue/procedure and has zero ethical implications?

I just find it odd how some people can morally justify aborting a pre-birth baby that could live outside the womb, yet find aborting a baby after birth murder. That fetus pre-birth has exactly the same prospect, future and life as a baby just newborn.



Abortion, by Peter Singer

So the moral line between good and bad is simply birth? That does not seem correct IMO. I am no pro-life nut. I do not believe once an egg is fertilized that doesn't constitute a human being with rights. That's a silly argument. But to say a fetus that is viable is not deserving of rights is equally silly.

IMO if you morally can justify aborting a fetus that is 9-months old, viable to be born, you most likely justify some form of infanticide and killing a human in some circumstances, which IMO is still morally reprehnsible.

I definitely think this is worth discussing. I have received pm's here that said I shouldn't be discussing abortion because I am a man. That is BS. This is a moral issue. Just because I am a man should not disqualify me from discussing abortion!
Click to expand...

They could also get a C-section too.
 
Bucky said:
Isn't it morally hypocritical to say abortion is simply a health issue/procedure and has zero ethical implications?

I just find it odd how some people can morally justify aborting a pre-birth baby that could live outside the womb, yet find aborting a baby after birth murder. That fetus pre-birth has exactly the same prospect, future and life as a baby just newborn.



Abortion, by Peter Singer

So the moral line between good and bad is simply birth? That does not seem correct IMO. I am no pro-life nut. I do not believe once an egg is fertilized that doesn't constitute a human being with rights. That's a silly argument. But to say a fetus that is viable is not deserving of rights is equally silly.

IMO if you morally can justify aborting a fetus that is 9-months old, viable to be born, you most likely justify some form of infanticide and killing a human in some circumstances, which IMO is still morally reprehnsible.

I definitely think this is worth discussing. I have received pm's here that said I shouldn't be discussing abortion because I am a man. That is BS. This is a moral issue. Just because I am a man should not disqualify me from discussing abortion!
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as aborting a baby after birth.
 
Atheist 2020 said:
I am a man and I support pro-abortion. If you are poor with a poor education: you should not have the right to have children.
Click to expand...


This post makes it look like you are in favour of forced abortion as was (is?) the case in China. I do hope this is not so.

For me abortion is the last option for the prevention of unwanted children being born.
 
Bucky said:
Isn't it morally hypocritical to say abortion is simply a health issue/procedure and has zero ethical implications?

I just find it odd how some people can morally justify aborting a pre-birth baby that could live outside the womb, yet find aborting a baby after birth murder. That fetus pre-birth has exactly the same prospect, future and life as a baby just newborn.



Abortion, by Peter Singer

So the moral line between good and bad is simply birth? That does not seem correct IMO. I am no pro-life nut. I do not believe once an egg is fertilized that doesn't constitute a human being with rights. That's a silly argument. But to say a fetus that is viable is not deserving of rights is equally silly.

IMO if you morally can justify aborting a fetus that is 9-months old, viable to be born, you most likely justify some form of infanticide and killing a human in some circumstances, which IMO is still morally reprehnsible.

I definitely think this is worth discussing. I have received pm's here that said I shouldn't be discussing abortion because I am a man. That is BS. This is a moral issue. Just because I am a man should not disqualify me from discussing abortion!
Click to expand...

Why not share your experiences that you had working at Planned Parenthood........
 
Bucky said:
You are looking at this issue in a black and white sense, which I find disturbing.

I already stated an egg that was just fertilized is not considered a human. We have to look at things incrementally. Life evolves.

But your comment is exactly what I find problematic. A fetus pre-born is deserving of no rights but once it is born (which apparently is your red line) means a fetus is a human deserving of rights.

So how much different is a fetus pre-born 1 day to a newborn? Morally, I don't find much of a difference, legally yes.

It would be like an adult male engaging in sex for example with an 18-year old girl vs an adult male engaging in sex with a 17-year old whose birthday is a month away. So just waiting 1 month all of a sudden makes it right?
Click to expand...

The part that is disturbing is you think as a man (using the term loosely), you have the right to tell a woman she should be FORCED to go through physical and emotional changes while you as a man do not. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.
 
Praxas said:
The part that is disturbing is you think as a man (using the term loosely), you have the right to tell a woman she should be FORCED to go through physical and emotional changes while you as a man do not. That is the very definition of hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
Not quite "the very definition of hypocrisy," and the argument from sexual identity, although popular, is somewhat weak inasmuch as the right involved in the pr-choice postion is a right that inheres in persons, not in sexual identities.

In short, every person, whatever his sexual identity, has a right to decide his/her own physical destiny.
 
Sweden said:
This post makes it look like you are in favour of forced abortion as was (is?) the case in China. I do hope this is not so.

For me abortion is the last option for the prevention of unwanted children being born.
Click to expand...

It's nice to see someone finally admit they are children...:)
 
Elvira said:
It's nice to see someone finally admit they are children...:)
Click to expand...

They are when born. Fetuses no one wants in their belly and are not aborted become unwanted children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom