Real debate: morality of pro-life v. prochoice? (the thread to agree upon parameters only)

[rickc]

That old bible saying. Really a copout but...

Free Choice!

 

[Scrabaholic]

The abortion debate begins and ends around the humanity of the fetus. If it's a human being, then the question is what justifies deliberately killing it. If it isn't then by all means kill it - the debate is resolved instantly.

It is not a human being. FACT.

 

[Conaeolos]

It is not a human being. FACT.

By strict definitions, the class "human being" is distinguished only by one's species. A fetus is of our species, so no that is not a fact. Of course, I am not "autistic" so I get that wasn't what your post was intended to highlight. May I suggest, spending time answering the 12 questions or similar ones you feel express your moral position. A person reading such statements than can more likely contextualize you're intended meaning and you can avoid the annoyances of a meaningless semantic tangent.

 

[weaver2]

By strict definitions, the class "human being" is distinguished only by one's species. A fetus is of our species, so no that is not a fact. Of course, I am not "autistic" so I get that wasn't what your post was intended to highlight. May I suggest, spending time answering the 12 questions or similar ones you feel express your moral position. A person reading such statements than can more likely contextualize you're intended meaning and you can avoid the annoyances of a meaningless semantic tangent.

Translation: A human being is a being that is human. Answer the 12 question so we can pick them apart.

 

[Conaeolos]

Translation: A human being is a being that is human. Answer the 12 question so we can pick them apart.

Pick them apart? One is limited to one rebuttal and on condition of answering the exact same 12 questions themselves for context. The format is designed to avoid the typical issues. There is no trick here.

 

[weaver2]

The abortion debate begins and ends around the humanity of the fetus. If it's a human being, then the question is what justifies deliberately killing it. If it isn't then by all means kill it - the debate is resolved instantly.

It isn't. End of debate.

 

[Scrabaholic]

By strict definitions, the class "human being" is distinguished only by one's species. A fetus is of our species, so no that is not a fact. Of course, I am not "autistic" so I get that wasn't what your post was intended to highlight. May I suggest, spending time answering the 12 questions or similar ones you feel express your moral position. A person reading such statements than can more likely contextualize you're intended meaning and you can avoid the annoyances of a meaningless semantic tangent.

I already told you - too many questions for one thread.

And yes, it is a FACT that a fetus is not a human being. It becomes one upon live birth.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I'll follow to see where it goes, but generally I stay out of the abortion forum. This simply isn't one that can be discussed civilly. Not here, anyway.

The Ignore List feature comes in very handy with certain posters who will do anything to avoid civility on purpose. If you spend more time around here you will quickly figure out who at least three of them are.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The abortion debate begins and ends around the humanity of the fetus. If it's a human being, then the question is what justifies deliberately killing it. If it isn't then by all means kill it - the debate is resolved instantly.

You know very little about the abortion debate for someone who regularly participates here. Everyone knows fetuses are human. They also know there are four prenatal stages. Some pro-choicers call an unborn offspring "part of the mother" because of its direct attachment to the endometrium via the umbilical cord. That is not denying a fetus is human in any way.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

I started an abortion debate thread to fix what is wrong with this one. Instead of one post to answer all 12 questions, everyone is allowed to write a different post for each question.

 

[OlNate]

The Ignore List feature comes in very handy with certain posters who will do anything to avoid civility on purpose. If you spend more time around here you will quickly figure out who at least three of them are.

hehe...thanks for the advice. But I never ignore people, what fun would that be?

Honestly, I rarely debate abortion, because as a man I don't think my voice is all that important on this one.

 

[HonestJoe]

This entire topic is full of so many posts skipping each others arguments, ignoring points and overall talking past one another.
I would love to see, a real discussion to learn some things and possibly improve my position. I thus propose a simple format to avoid these normal pitfalls.

Your plan wouldn't work because you've misidentified the cause of those problems and your approach would only serve to feed them.

The core problem is that the issue is presented as a simple binary question of "pro-choice" or "pro-life". The problem is that abortion isn't a simple binary issue and neither of those labels actually refer to a singular answer to it anyway. There is the related issue of focusing exclusively on morality as the driver, which generally ignores all of the practical complications to implementing any pure moral principle.

The sad reality is that abortion is raised in a vast range of different circumstances, typically multi-faceted, emotional, involving lots of different people with all sorts of different motives, preferences and intentions. There will also be a whole load of other questions and considerations, both related to and just in addition to that of abortion. There is rarely (if ever) a simple "right" answer and the least worst answer can be completely different in each individual scenario.

With that in mind, asking a single generic question which essentially boils down to "Abortion: Yay or Nay?" seems exactly as ridiculous as it should.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

Thanks for the advice. But I never ignore people; what fun would that be?

Honestly, I rarely debate abortion, because as a man I don't think my voice is all that important on this one.

Your voice is very important here if you support women's rights under all circumstances. Without more male pro-choicers, all I can do is call every anti-choicer a mysoginyst when discussions break down into personal attacks.

 

[weaver2]

as a man I don't think my voice is all that important on this one.

Why not? Almost all the voices on the pro-life side are men. The posters most eager to share their knowledge and and instruct women about pregnancy and child rearing are all men.

 

[weaver2]

Your plan wouldn't work because you've misidentified the cause of those problems and your approach would only serve to feed them.

The core problem is that the issue is presented as a simple binary question of "pro-choice" or "pro-life". The problem is that abortion isn't a simple binary issue and neither of those labels actually refer to a singular answer to it anyway. There is the related issue of focusing exclusively on morality as the driver, which generally ignores all of the practical complications to implementing any pure moral principle.

The sad reality is that abortion is raised in a vast range of different circumstances, typically multi-faceted, emotional, involving lots of different people with all sorts of different motives, preferences and intentions. There will also be a whole load of other questions and considerations, both related to and just in addition to that of abortion. There is rarely (if ever) a simple "right" answer and the least worst answer can be completely different in each individual scenario.

With that in mind, asking a single generic question which essentially boils down to "Abortion: Yay or Nay?" seems exactly as ridiculous as it should.

Abortion is intended to be a binary issue...... are you Christian, American, patriotic, moral and with us or against us, God, the Constitution and a killer of little babies..

In the 1970s conservative Christian leaders desperately needed an issue to distract the public from their members racist pursuit of separate, tax free, all white, religious schools. They needed a uniting banner flying in the political breeze to keep their members voting as a bloc for ultra-conservative issues. Abortion was the distraction they chose specifically because it would appeal to men and women, on many emotional and intellectual levels.

Pro-choice people understand the complexity of abortion. Pro-life has to deny it to stay in business.

H.L. Mencken said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income (or religious tenants) depends on his not understanding it.

 

[Noodlegawd]

1. Do you identify yourself more pro-life or pro-choice? Why?

More pro-choice, because the arguments to the contrary are not compelling.

2. Do you ever consider a fetus(et al) a life, under what conditions? Why or why not?

Yes, but a lettuce plant is also "a life," so this is a stupid question.

3. What is a fair level of input by the mother verses the law on the issue of abortion? Why?

This question is incoherent. The law should be involved in making sure abortions can be done safely. The decision of whether or not to have one should be entirely in the hands of the mother.

4. Do you only consider abortion a women's only issue? Why?

No. Because there's no reason to think that it is.

5. Do you consider the act of abortion morally wrong? Under what standard? Why?

No. There's no rational standard that would make it so.

6. Do you consider laws which restrict access to abortion morally wrong? Under what standard? Why?
7. Do you consider people who discourage abortion morally wrong? Under what standard? Why?
8. Do you consider people who encoruge abortion morally wrong? Under what standard? Why?
9. What do you view as the core moral failing of the opposite moral argument? I.E. Why do you not hold it?
10. Is most killing a form of murder? Why or why not?
11. What is the greater moral good, what's in the best interests of the 'individual' or what is in the best interests of 'society'?
12. What is the greater moral good, what's in the best interests of the above choice or what is in the best interests of the 'family'?

Ok, these questions are just getting dumber and dumber. I have better things to do. Perhaps you could get to the point faster.

 

[Atreus21]

You know very little about the abortion debate for someone who regularly participates here. Everyone knows fetuses are human. They also know there are four prenatal stages. Some pro-choicers call an unborn offspring "part of the mother" because of its direct attachment to the endometrium via the umbilical cord. That is not denying a fetus is human in any way.

So deliberately killing innocent human beings is acceptable to you?

 

[Patriotic Voter]

So deliberately killing innocent human beings is acceptable to you?

I was pointing out whether a pro-choicer considers fetuses "human beings" or not makes no difference in how he or she wants abortions to be done.