• 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!

Question for pro-lifers

F

Flaetan

New member
Joined
Mar 25, 2020
Messages
10
Reaction score
2
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
My understanding is that at the time an abortion is performed, the embryo/fetus isn't conscious, but the reason we would apply moral principles to it is because it has the potential to become a human and form complex thoughts. (And if it is at all conscious, it would still be at a lower level than what society seems to deem okay for killing other small animals/creatures.) But the issue I have with this reasoning is the following: this potential exists just as much before conception as it does after; in other words, sure, it would suck to be the kid who was denied existence because your parents decided to have an abortion, but it would suck just as much to be denied existence because your parents chose not to conceive you in the first place. Yet, it would be morally absurd to enforce some rule mandating pregnancy, so why would abortion be any less moral than simply not having children by means of abstinence or contraception?
 
Flaetan said:
My understanding is that at the time an abortion is performed, the embryo/fetus isn't conscious, but the reason we would apply moral principles to it is because it has the potential to become a human and form complex thoughts. (And if it is at all conscious, it would still be at a lower level than what society seems to deem okay for killing other small animals/creatures.) But the issue I have with this reasoning is the following: this potential exists just as much before conception as it does after; in other words, sure, it would suck to be the kid who was denied existence because your parents decided to have an abortion, but it would suck just as much to be denied existence because your parents chose not to conceive you in the first place. Yet, it would be morally absurd to enforce some rule mandating pregnancy, so why would abortion be any less moral than simply not having children by means of abstinence or contraception?
Click to expand...

You've just posted the Catholic dogma on sex and marriage.
 
weaver2 said:
You've just posted the Catholic dogma on sex and marriage.
Click to expand...

If you're saying the Catholic dogma on sex and marriage is that women should be required to have children, I find it genuinely hard to comprehend how anybody could find that at all ethical. But even so, when a someone has a child there is still potential for her to have another; so, if we were to follow the same reasoning, it would seem that they should be obligated to have as many children as physically possible. But given that the size of most Catholic families is far below that limit, that is clearly not the case.
 
Last edited:
Flaetan said:
If you're saying the Catholic dogma on sex and marriage is that women should be required to have children, I find it genuinely hard to comprehend how anybody could find that at all ethical. But even so, when a someone has a child there is still potential for her to have another; so, if we were to follow the same reasoning, it would seem that they should be obligated to have as many children as physically possible. But given that the size of most Catholic families is far below that limit, that is clearly not the case.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much the Catholic position. Catholic families just don't observe it. Catholic women do observe the strict ban on abortion. They get abortions at a slightly higher rate then pro-choice women.
 
Flaetan said:
My understanding is that at the time an abortion is performed, the embryo/fetus isn't conscious, but the reason we would apply moral principles to it is because it has the potential to become a human and form complex thoughts. (And if it is at all conscious, it would still be at a lower level than what society seems to deem okay for killing other small animals/creatures.) But the issue I have with this reasoning is the following: this potential exists just as much before conception as it does after; in other words, sure, it would suck to be the kid who was denied existence because your parents decided to have an abortion, but it would suck just as much to be denied existence because your parents chose not to conceive you in the first place. Yet, it would be morally absurd to enforce some rule mandating pregnancy, so why would abortion be any less moral than simply not having children by means of abstinence or contraception?
Click to expand...

First of all, thank you for registering as a liberal. DP needs more people like you.

Second, beware of nasty responses from anti-choicers (who IMO are not always pro-life). They usually struggle with understanding the points we pro-choicers make and don't know how to respond, to put it nicely.

Now, here is the meat of it: "Pro-lifers" believe zygotes are human beings, not just "human" even though one cell is nothing more than that - a new human. They can't tell the difference between an embryo and a baby, likely because pregnant girls and women call it a baby for emotional reasons. So there is always a "word game" argument about the definitions of "baby" and "infant" based on nothing but the conservative Christian belief that zygotes are much more than just singular human cells. Don't fall for it. Embyology rules on this specific aspect of pregnancy and abortion, not psychology.

So what is the difference between a potential and actual human being? There is no simple, arbitrary answer to this question. Religion plays a huge role in the responses, but it should not. I refuse to accept the Catholic position for many reasons including the fact it is hypocritica to oppose abstinence and abortions at the same time. That is just ridiculous. But it is what the Catholic Catechism and dogma require of all Church members who get married.
 
The fetus lives inside and of the pregnant and no being has the right to do that to another being without consent. Crude as it may sound, the unwanted fetus is a trespasser.

I am not saying abortion is good. I doubt anyone has ever made that claim. However, it is insane to seriously advocate for illegalisation since the true problem most Pro Lifers have is not abortion per se, but rather what leads to it; namely, extramarital sex.

And.extramarital.sex is a matter of culture and culture should only change organically and not via the pen of the government.
 
Pro-lifers have a lot of problems. They are hypocrites, saying all a woman needs to do is refrain from having sex or use contraception when she does, despite knowing the legal and dictionary definitions of rape. Many abortion opponents are married so they know why couples have sex and that abstinence only for life is unrealistic. They also know the only 100% effective contraception methods are spaying and neutering, which would not be covered by health insurance without a medical reason like cancer. But they still insist there is no excuse for getting pregnant despite having mandatory sex education starting at age 10.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Pro-lifers have a lot of problems. They are hypocrites, saying all a woman needs to do is refrain from having sex or use contraception when she does, despite knowing the legal and dictionary definitions of rape. Many abortion opponents are married so they know why couples have sex and that abstinence only for life is unrealistic. They also know the only 100% effective contraception methods are spaying and neutering, which would not be covered by health insurance without a medical reason like cancer. But they still insist there is no excuse for getting pregnant despite having mandatory sex education starting at age 10.
Click to expand...
Pro Lifers are Anti-Happiness and by that also Anti-Life. Their problem with abortion is not the act of abortion per she, but rahter that it is the result of an orgasm without the parties involved having rings on their fingers. Their problem is sex and they are people with serious OCD who want the State to step in to satisfy their unhealthy demand for perceived control.

Pro Choicers are not much better, but at least they are being principled since they tend to be Pro-Government in general.

I really do not like that the premise of the whole abortion debate is one of "life vs non-life". The premise should rather be what can be done to have an abortion rate as low as possible? since it is clear to both sides that no one desires to have an abortion. And the only answer to this question is self-responsibility.

But, sometimes people make mistakes and no one would want to see a black market for abortions which is why it should be kept legal.
 
Dacke said:
Pro Lifers are Anti-Happiness and by that also Anti-Life. Their problem with abortion is not the act of abortion per se, but rather that it is the result of an orgasm without the parties involved having rings on their fingers. Their problem is sex and they are people with serious OCD who want the State to step in to satisfy their unhealthy demand for perceived control.

Pro Choicers are not much better, but at least they are being principled since they tend to be Pro-Government in general.

I really do not like that the premise of the whole abortion debate is one of "life vs non-life." The premise should rather be what can be done to have an abortion rate as low as possible? since it is clear to both sides that no one desires to have an abortion. And the only answer to this question is self-responsibility.

But, sometimes people make mistakes and no one would want to see a black market for abortions which is why it should be kept legal.
Click to expand...

Pro-choicers are often accused of just wanting abortions to increase. That is completely false. Of course we all want girls and women to be responsible. No argument there. But they can't do it all themselves. Anti-choicers want poor single women to be locked up just because they had unwanted pregnancies. This is hypocrisy. What the anti-abortion crowd should favor is federal and state government programs that solve all of hte problems which can lead to abortions.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Pro-choicers are often accused of just wanting abortions to increase. That is completely false.
Click to expand...
The whole abortion debate is nothing but one gigantic pile of strawmen. Both sides are guilty of this with their "you is a murderers!" and "you hatings womyns!" That is the reason each and every thread in this sub is filled with the exact same posts and the reason why nothing productive has ever come out of an abortion debate.

The more sane and serious voices are quickly shut down by the more loud and empty aggressors.

Of course we all want girls and women to be responsible. No argument there. But they can't do it all themselves. Anti-choicers want poor single women to be locked up just because they had unwanted pregnancies. This is hypocrisy. What the anti-abortion crowd should favor is federal and state government programs that solve all of hte problems which can lead to abortions.
Click to expand...
I do not think the solution is to be found in more government programs, we have enough of those already. A "Responsibility Program" would only serve to disincentivise responsibility.

In the West we already have easy access to contraceptives and birth control; the individuals who wish to engage in sexual activities without causing pregnancies have all the opportunities to achieve those goals.

Adults are adults and really do not need some pompous bureaucrat miles and miles away from home to tell them how to be responsible. If you allow someone else to dictate your responsibility, you are - by definition - not being responsibile.
 
That is what health teachers are for. All middle and high school students learn how to beb responsible about sex. The problem is they don't want to be responsible. Kids have to choose responsiblity. How can we trust teenage girls to use contraception just by hearing all about it in ninth grade? I am all for increasing mandatory sex education, but we need to solve the "don't want to" problem. What is your plan for that?
 
Blue Donkey said:
That is what health teachers are for. All middle and high school students learn how to beb responsible about sex. The problem is they don't want to be responsible. Kids have to choose responsiblity. How can we trust teenage girls to use contraception just by hearing all about it in ninth grade? I am all for increasing mandatory sex education, but we need to solve the "don't want to" problem. What is your plan for that?
Click to expand...
No, it is not - and should not - be the responsibility of schools to teach children moral values. That should come from home whereas school should focus solely on education. Sex ed is a big joke and there is not one student who takes it seriously and not one teacher who does not find it awkward to teach.

If a parent teaches their child(ren) that their actions do have consequences and encouraging them to have respect for their own bodies and adapting a long term perspective on their actions, unwanted pregnancies would go down.

The problem of today is that we live in a culture of high time preferences and a society where parents have let schools take over the role of parenting. We live in a ridiculous "carpe diem" paradigm and in a culture that is overly-sexualised to the point that the value of love and sex have come to be inflated to the point that it is no longer worth more than a swipe with the finger (literally speaking).
 
Dacke said:
No, it is not - and should not - be the responsibility of schools to teach children moral values. That should come from home whereas school should focus solely on education. Sex ed is a big joke and there is not one student who takes it seriously and not one teacher who does not find it awkward to teach.

If a parent teaches their child(ren) that their actions do have consequences and encouraging them to have respect for their own bodies and adapting a long term perspective on their actions, unwanted pregnancies would go down.

The problem of today is that we live in a culture of high time preferences and a society where parents have let schools take over the role of parenting. We live in a ridiculous "carpe diem" paradigm and in a culture that is overly-sexualised to the point that the value of love and sex have come to be inflated to the point that it is no longer worth more than a swipe with the finger (literally speaking).
Click to expand...

Are you a Catholic? That belief is nothing but Catholic dogma.
 
Dacke said:
Certainly not.

What makes common sense something exclusive to Catholicism?
Click to expand...

Catholics support all couples having sex and oppose abstinance-only sex education based on the Catechism while evangelicals are the loudest "don't have sex or use contraception" pro-lifers. The latter is what schools always teach.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Catholics support all couples having sex and oppose abstinance-only sex education based on the Catechism while evangelicals are the loudest "don't have sex or use contraception" pro-lifers. The latter is what schools always teach.
Click to expand...
I don't oppose extramarital sex at all. Thought I had made that clear in my posts already. I do not really oppose sex-ed either, I only question its validity a school subject.
 
Dacke said:
I don't oppose extramarital sex at all. Thought I had made that clear in my posts already. I do not really oppose sex-ed either, I only question its validity a school subject.
Click to expand...

Sex education is not a separate school subject. It is a required part of health class curriculums.

Extramarital sex is always bad for the girl or woman if she ends up pregnant.
 
Blue Donkey said:
First of all, thank you for registering as a liberal. DP needs more people like you.

Second, beware of nasty responses from anti-choicers (who IMO are not always pro-life). They usually struggle with understanding the points we pro-choicers make and don't know how to respond, to put it nicely.

Now, here is the meat of it: "Pro-lifers" believe zygotes are human beings, not just "human" even though one cell is nothing more than that - a new human. They can't tell the difference between an embryo and a baby, likely because pregnant girls and women call it a baby for emotional reasons. So there is always a "word game" argument about the definitions of "baby" and "infant" based on nothing but the conservative Christian belief that zygotes are much more than just singular human cells. Don't fall for it. Embyology rules on this specific aspect of pregnancy and abortion, not psychology.

So what is the difference between a potential and actual human being? There is no simple, arbitrary answer to this question. Religion plays a huge role in the responses, but it should not. I refuse to accept the Catholic position for many reasons including the fact it is hypocritica to oppose abstinence and abortions at the same time. That is just ridiculous. But it is what the Catholic Catechism and dogma require of all Church members who get married.
Click to expand...

Blue Donkey said:
Catholics support all couples having sex and oppose abstinance-only sex education based on the Catechism while evangelicals are the loudest "don't have sex or use contraception" pro-lifers. The latter is what schools always teach.
Click to expand...


You must have pulled the above bolded out of the southern end of your northbound Blue Donkey because it is a flaming load of ****. Yes, yes, I understand your Protestant mentors have brainwashed you into this hard-on you have for Catholicism. But your spreading their stale lies only demonstrates your ignorance. Yes, Catholics oppose abortion and yes, they support married couples to "be fruitful and multiply" as God commanded (Genesis 1:28). But they support abstinence outside marriage and they do NOT oppose it within marriage. They believe Joseph and Mary were married and she was a virgin when Jesus was conceived. So obviously they practiced abstinence. (Catholics revere Mary as the mother of Christ but as I previously explained to you, they do not worship her as a goddess. Yet you continue to spread that lie as well. But I digress.) NFP, which can involve abstinence, is acceptable for Catholics. As you likely are unfamiliar with that, google it (hint: it's not an insurance brokerage).

I will not debate the worthiness of Catholic beliefs, nor their historical or scientific accuracy, with you. Whether or not you accept them is your prerogative. My purpose is to educate you about them so you can discuss them without looking foolish. But I am not optimistic regarding that outcome. I expect you will continue to just pull your posts out of your ass, errr...donkey.
 
Flaetan said:
My understanding is that at the time an abortion is performed, the embryo/fetus isn't conscious, but the reason we would apply moral principles to it is because it has the potential to become a human and form complex thoughts. (And if it is at all conscious, it would still be at a lower level than what society seems to deem okay for killing other small animals/creatures.)
Click to expand...

No. At the time of the abortion, the child is already human. Our humanity is not determined by how smart we are, or how complex our "thoughts" are.

For example, were you to walk into a hospital ward full of patients in comas and start blasting away, you would be charged with murder, not "animal abuse".
 
cpwill said:
No. At the time of the abortion, the child is already human. Our humanity is not determined by how smart we are, or how complex our "thoughts" are.

For example, were you to walk into a hospital ward full of patients in comas and start blasting away, you would be charged with murder, not "animal abuse."
Click to expand...

Consciousness and thought are required for an embryo to suffer when it is killed. If the mom is forced to carry her unwanted embryo to term, she suffers; if she is given the choice to abort her pregnancy, the little human never will.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Consciousness and thought are required for an embryo to suffer when it is killed.
Click to expand...

....no, the ability to feel pain is all that is required to suffer it.
 
Blue Donkey said:
Do you know if embryos can feel pain by Week 8?
Click to expand...
:shrug: It wouldn't astonish me, but, no, I'm sorry to admit, I'm not up on the latest research regarding that question.
 
cpwill said:
No. At the time of the abortion, the child is already human. Our humanity is not determined by how smart we are, or how complex our "thoughts" are.

For example, were you to walk into a hospital ward full of patients in comas and start blasting away, you would be charged with murder, not "animal abuse".
Click to expand...

You're making the assumption that whether or not we should apply morals depends on some quality of being "human", but if you're defining human simply as being a member Homo sapien species, then this is not necessarily true. The application of morals should only be dependent on the ability to perceive pain, or the ability to have thoughts complex enough to comprehend mortality; otherwise, a natural death would be no less cruel than an artificial one. Embryos have neither of these things.

As for the "killing patients in comas" analogy, they generally would also have loved ones who do not want them to die, and so this would be more analogous to someone forcing a woman to have an abortion, rather than making the choice on their own. This is also why family members can make the decision to "pull the plug".
 
Last edited:
Flaetan said:
You're making the assumption that whether or not we should apply morals depends on some quality of being "human", but if you're defining human simply as being a member Homo sapien species, then this is not necessarily true. The application of morals should only be dependent on the ability to perceive pain, or the ability to have thoughts complex enough to comprehend mortality; otherwise, a natural death would be no less cruel than an artificial one. Embryos have neither of these things.
Click to expand...

...no. Being a moral person depends on you, not the individual you acting upon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom