Abortion Apologetics

[Angel]

Abortion Apologetics

​

Definition of Terms

1. Abortion Apologetics is the defense and promotion of abortion.
2. Abortion Apologetics has given rise to Abortion Culture.
3. Abortion Culture is a cultural climate conducive to unnecessary abortions, abortions of convenience.
4. Abortion Culture here in the United States has cut short over 50 million human lives in fifty years.

Anti-Abortion Argument

4. The value of human life is grounded in biology, in the survival instinct, the drive to self-preservation.
5. Taking human life is wrong unless done in defense of life.
6. Abortion is the taking of human life.
7. Therefore, unless done to save the pregnant woman's life, abortion is wrong.

Pro-Choice Argument

8. Every human being is a free moral agent.
9. Every free moral agent is free to choose to act morally or immorally.
10. A woman is a human being and therefore a free moral agent.
11. A woman is free to choose to act morally or immorally.

Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion
The only reasonable point of view​

Comments?
Counter-arguments?
Conversions?

 

[vegas giants]

Abortion Apologetics

​

Definition of Terms

1. Abortion Apologetics is the defense and promotion of abortion.
2. Abortion Apologetics has given rise to Abortion Culture.
3. Abortion Culture is a cultural climate conducive to unnecessary abortions, abortions of convenience.
4. Abortion Culture here in the United States has cut short over 50 million human lives in fifty years.

Anti-Abortion Argument

4. The value of human life is grounded in biology, in the survival instinct, the drive to self-preservation.
5. Taking human life is wrong unless done in defense of life.
6. Abortion is the taking of human life.
7. Therefore, unless done to save the pregnant woman's life, abortion is wrong.

Pro-Choice Argument

8. Every human being is a free moral agent.
9. Every free moral agent is free to choose to act morally or immorally.
10. A woman is a human being and therefore a free moral agent.
11. A woman is free to choose to act morally or immorally.

Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion
The only reasonable point of view​

Comments?
Counter-arguments?
Conversions?

Pro choice is the only reasonable view. Unless you want to force women to risk their life agsinst their will

 

[Angel]

Pro choice is the only reasonable view. Unless you want to force women to risk their life agsinst their will

You felt justified in quoting the entire Original Post at post #2 just in order to agree with it, did you? Not a very reasonable thing to do, it seems to me.

 

[vegas giants]

You felt justified in quoting the entire Original Post at post #2 just in order to agree with it, did you? Not a very reasonable thing to do, it seems to me.

Your op is full of false premises by the way

 

[Angel]

Your op is full of false premises by the way

Well, post #2 was your opportunity to point them out and discredit them, wasn't it?

 

[vegas giants]

Well, post #2 was your opportunity to point them out and discredit them, wasn't it?

You claim throughout that there are unnecessary abortions. That is a oxymoron. There is no such thing as an unnecessary abortion

 

[Irredentist]

4. The value of human life is grounded in biology, in the survival instinct, the drive to self-preservation.

It's interesting to me that you base the value of human life on our drive for self preservation. Unborn fetuses do not have any drive for self preservation. Women do, on the other hand. It makes complete sense why a pregnant woman might sacrifice her unborn child for her own sake. It's not an immoral choice.

 

[Angel]

It's interesting to me that you base the value of human life on our drive for self preservation. Unborn fetuses do not have any drive for self preservation. Women do, on the other hand. It makes complete sense why a pregnant woman might sacrifice her unborn child for her own sake. It's not an immoral choice.

Unborn fetuses are not making moral decisions; the women who carry unborn fetuses are.
The OP is Pro-Choice in case you hadn't noticed.

 

[HonestJoe]

1. Abortion Apologetics is the defense and promotion of abortion.

If you're talking about an active promotion of abortion, you're referring to an infinitesimally tiny number of people. Normal people aren't pro-abortion just like normal people aren't pro-amputation.

3. Abortion Culture is a cultural climate conducive to unnecessary abortions, abortions of convenience.

Nobody wants unnecessary abortions by definition. The difference of opinion is over what is actually necessary.

4. The value of human life is grounded in biology, in the survival instinct, the drive to self-preservation.

Wouldn't that true of all life? Are you vegan? The value of human life specifically must be something more than that.

5. Taking human life is wrong unless done in defense of life.

Do you consider quality of life in any way at all? Are you really arguing for life or just of any kind of existence? (please note those are questions, not statements). Do you oppose someone who is terminally ill and suffering great pain being given pain relief, even if will likely hasten their death?

11. A woman is free to choose to act morally or immorally.

That entire section is false. If someone considers abortion necessary or acceptable in given circumstances, they clearly don't consider it immoral in those circumstances. The actual arguments for allowing abortion are generally about protecting health (physical and mental) and reducing suffering (of both mother and child). You're free to disagree but such flagrant misrepresentation is indefensible (and immoral ).

 

[weaver2]

Unborn fetuses are not making moral decisions; the women who carry unborn fetuses are.
The OP is Pro-Choice in case you hadn't noticed.

It'a just philosophical bull**** to claim that pro-choice means women have only one choice you get to say what it is. . You've tried this argument before and it didn't fly.

 

[weaver2]

It's interesting to me that you base the value of human life on our drive for self preservation. Unborn fetuses do not have any drive for self preservation. Women do, on the other hand. It makes complete sense why a pregnant woman might sacrifice her unborn child for her own sake. It's not an immoral choice.

In nature the drive for self preservation means that a fetus is aborted in times of disease, starvation or dehydration in order to preserve the life of the female and the young currently dependent on her. The only animal group that sacrifices the born for the unborn are conservative Christian males. Conservative Christian women are more sensible. They get abortions at exactly the same rate as all those immoral pro-choice women they picket against. Unfortunately they lie about their abortions. Hypocrisy is generally not one of the beatitudes.

 

[Angel]

...

11. A woman is free to choose to act morally or immorally.

That entire section is false. If someone considers abortion necessary or acceptable in given circumstances, they clearly don't consider it immoral in those circumstances. The actual arguments for allowing abortion are generally about protecting health (physical and mental) and reducing suffering (of both mother and child). You're free to disagree but such flagrant misrepresentation is indefensible (and immoral ).

Misrepresentation," you say? Misrepresentation of what? My own argument?
Your assertion that "If someone considers abortion necessary or acceptable in given circumstances, they clearly don't consider it immoral in those circumstances" applies equally to serial killers. That is no counterargument to my argument.

 

[Angel]

It'a just philosophical bull**** to claim that pro-choice means women have only one choice you get to say what it is. . You've tried this argument before and it didn't fly.

No, say rather that your post is unphilosophical bull****. Your Abortion apologetical spin, that my argument doesn't give women a choice, isn't going to get by me. Read the OP, not your biased translation of the OP. Women, like every moral agent, have a choice to act rightly or wrongly.
Yes, I've presented this argument before, and it not only flew, it soared. Abortion apologists were confused and dazed for months after.

 

[vegas giants]

No, say rather that your post is unphilosophical bull****. Your Abortion apologetical spin, that my argument doesn't give women a choice, isn't going to get by me. Read the OP, not your biased translation of the OP. Women, like every moral agent, have a choice to act rightly or wrongly.
Yes, I've presented this argument before, and it not only flew, it soared. Abortion apologists were confused and dazed for months after.

Abortion is moral.


/endthread

 

[Angel]

Abortion is moral.


/endthread

You need an argument for that assertion, sir.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Abortion Apologetics

​

Definition of Terms

1. Abortion Apologetics is the defense and promotion of abortion.
2. Abortion Apologetics has given rise to Abortion Culture.
3. Abortion Culture is a cultural climate conducive to unnecessary abortions, abortions of convenience.
4. Abortion Culture here in the United States has cut short over 50 million human lives in fifty years.

Anti-Abortion Argument

4. The value of human life is grounded in biology, in the survival instinct, the drive to self-preservation.
5. Taking human life is wrong unless done in defense of life.
6. Abortion is the taking of human life.
7. Therefore, unless done to save the pregnant woman's life, abortion is wrong.

Pro-Choice Argument

8. Every human being is a free moral agent.
9. Every free moral agent is free to choose to act morally or immorally.
10. A woman is a human being and therefore a free moral agent.
11. A woman is free to choose to act morally or immorally.

Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Anti-Abortion
The only reasonable point of view​

Comments?
Counter-arguments?
Conversions?

Huh. Capital A "Abortion Apologetics" and "Abortion Culture". Two more completely imaginary stalking horses straight out of thin air that don't actually exist.

WHAT a surprise!

 

[Angel]

In nature the drive for self preservation means that a fetus is aborted in times of disease, starvation or dehydration in order to preserve the life of the female and the young currently dependent on her. The only animal group that sacrifices the born for the unborn are conservative Christian males. Conservative Christian women are more sensible. They get abortions at exactly the same rate as all those immoral pro-choice women they picket against. Unfortunately they lie about their abortions. Hypocrisy is generally not one of the beatitudes.

Spin, spin, spin. Is that all Abortion Apologists can do? The OP says no such thing as sacrificing the born for the unborn; the OP says the very opposite in fact. Yours is the polemical spin of Abortion Apologetics..

 

[HonestJoe]

Misrepresentation," you say? Misrepresentation of what? My own argument?

A misrepresentation that what you presented is any kind of rational argument for choice on abortion. You're presenting a bad argument to try to make the conclusion look bad regardless.

Your assertion that "If someone considers abortion necessary or acceptable in given circumstances, they clearly don't consider it immoral in those circumstances" applies equally to serial killers. That is no counterargument to my argument.

It does because it demonstrates the problem of a presumed objective morality which everyone understands and accepts, to then consciously choose whether to act immorally. You can't really define right and wrong on the basis of an abstract concept of morality alone. You're basically just saying "It's wrong to do things that are wrong to do". In the real world, right and wrong (plus the massive fuzzy grey area in between) are determined by practical consequences and real outcomes, not just abstract philosophy.

 

[Angel]

A misrepresentation that what you presented is any kind of rational argument for choice on abortion. You're presenting a bad argument to try to make the conclusion look bad regardless.

Either I don't follow you here or you're saying what I said you were saying, that I'm misrepresenting my own argument. Please clarify this. You may be saying something interesting -- I just can't tell what it is.

It does because it demonstrates the problem of a presumed objective morality which everyone understands and accepts, to then consciously choose whether to act immorally. You can't really define right and wrong on the basis of an abstract concept of morality alone. You're basically just saying "It's wrong to do things that are wrong to do". In the real world, right and wrong (plus the massive fuzzy grey area in between) are determined by practical consequences and real outcomes, not just abstract philosophy.

The value of life is derived from biology in the OP argument. The OP defines right and wrong based on that objective value. And so I am not saying, as you suggest I am "just saying," that "It's wrong to do things that are wrong to do" -- I'm saying it's wrong to choose against life, the primary value, an objective value derived from objective science. What people actually do "in the real world" is the business of the people doing it.

 

[vegas giants]

The op is just full of false premises and made up terms.

 

[Angel]

Huh. Capital A "Abortion Apologetics" and "Abortion Culture". Two more completely imaginary stalking horses straight out of thin air that don't actually exist.

WHAT a surprise!

Are the capitalizations confusing you? I don't get your point. Please clarify it, if you can.

 

[vegas giants]

Huh. Capital A "Abortion Apologetics" and "Abortion Culture". Two more completely imaginary stalking horses straight out of thin air that don't actually exist.

WHAT a surprise!

It's just made up nonsense words. Nothing to debate here

 

[Tanngrisnir]

It's just made up nonsense words. Nothing to debate here

He apparently is compelled into pretending that he doesn't understand what capitalizing letters does to words. Trying to pass the inventions of his fantasies off as proper nouns is just, well, pathetic.

 

[Angel]

It's just made up nonsense words. Nothing to debate here

He apparently is compelled into pretending that he doesn't understand what capitalizing letters does to words. Trying to pass the inventions of his fantasies off as proper nouns is just, well, pathetic.

A sidebar expressing futility in the face of capital letters. This is fresh.

 

[vegas giants]

A sidebar expressing futility in the face of capital letters. This is fresh.

Nothing to debate here