A civil debate on the abortion issue

We need to begin having a real "point-counterpoint" debate abortion in which posters on both sides (pro-choice and pro-life) only state opinions that are based on proven facts. Of course there is nothing wrong with having opinions, but only the fact-based ones are legitimate rebuttals. Whenever possible, if you say something is a fact, a website link must be included to support your claim. That is how true debates work and so far has never happened smoothly on the Abortion Forum. I want to correct the problem now and see if we can avoid getting out of control by arguing formal debate style.

To begin, we must first establish the purposes of supporting or opposing abortion restrictions. Do you believe abortion is only a women's rights issue? Why or why not?

practical people like facts and links. philosophers don't, they use pure reason. a philosopher prides himself on his ability to entertain either side of any issue, and his ability to change his mind to the winning side, in his quest for the ultimate truth.

the two main arguments for abortion are:

pro-life:
a fetus is a person and it's wrong to kill a person for your convenience
pro-choice:
a fetus is not a person therefore its ok to kill a fetus for your convenience

now this can argument can go on forever because the truth is a fetus is more like 50% person, and therefore people just pick one side or the other and both sides are equally true

pro-choice side could agree that a fetus is a person and still say that its immoral for a person to grow inside another persons body without their permission. but they pro-life could say having sex is giving permission. to which the pro-choice has to say having sex is not giving permission. and this argument can also go on forever.

end result is what we already have: some abortion is allowed. the left wants to make it easier to get and the right wants to make it harder to get. and both have their equally valid reasons. outlawing it altogether is impractical and allowing it past the first trimester is harsh

Ocean, why do you consider a fetus "50% person" instead of 100 or zero percent?

Blue Donkey said:

Ocean, why do you consider a fetus "50% person" instead of 100 or zero percent?

Click to expand...

a fetus is 0.37% more a person each day.

according to the math

but feelings dont like cold hard math

The word "person" is only black and white to me. Either it is or it isn't a person at any time in gestation. Fetal growth is the same as infant/toddler growth where tissues and organs are just growing, not coming into existence.

Blue Donkey said:

The word "person" is only black and white to me. Either it is or it isn't a person at any time in gestation.

Click to expand...

persons dont exist. its a made up term by the human mind. its a word.

reality exists beyond language, and beyond the mind

Omniscient said:

Reality exists beyond language, and beyond the mind.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with this statement.

Blue Donkey said:

I totally agree with this statement.

Click to expand...

so if you reduce fetus to a false dichotomy of person or not person then you will create arguments

actually a fetus is both, yet neither.

Blue Donkey said:

Do you believe abortion is only a women's rights issue? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

No, it's the right of the people to keep the government out of medical, personal, family, decisions.

dave8383 said:

No, it's the right of the people to keep the government out of medical, personal, family, decisions.

Click to expand...

you want to abolish the law, go with anarchism? because pro-life would say your personal or family decisions are not allowed to commit murder. and if you agree murder should be against the law and that the government should enforce the law then your position is contradictory.

dave8383 said:

No, it's the right of the people to keep the government out of medical, personal, family, decisions.

Click to expand...

The government has an obligation to protect the privacy, health, and security of pregnant women within its self-written powers and limitations. Without government, the rights to privacy, bodily autonomy, and motherhood decisions would not exist. This is where pregnant women have all the rights they need, while the human lives growing inside them have none.

Omniscient said:

practical people like facts and links. philosophers don't, they use pure reason. a philosopher prides himself on his ability to entertain either side of any issue, and his ability to change his mind to the winning side, in his quest for the ultimate truth.

the two main arguments for abortion are:

pro-life:
a fetus is a person and it's wrong to kill a person for your convenience
pro-choice:
a fetus is not a person therefore its ok to kill a fetus for your convenience

now this can argument can go on forever because the truth is a fetus is more like 50% person, and therefore people just pick one side or the other and both sides are equally true

Click to expand...

Sorry...you have an odd definition of 'convenience.' Unless you believe convenience includes your life, your health, your education, your responsibilities to safely provide for your dependents (kids, elderly, disabled), your ability to uphold your obligations and commitments to employer, church, community, society, etc.

If you believe all those things are 'conveniences' in your own life, well...I cant argue that. But I'd argue they are more than just 'conveniences' in most peoples' lives. They are the very substance of a life itself.

Also, the unborn are 100% 'not' persons.

1 U.S. Code SS 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a)In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b)As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

Click to expand...

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

Click to expand...

Omniscient said:

you want to abolish the law, go with anarchism? because pro-life would say your personal or family decisions are not allowed to commit murder. and if you agree murder should be against the law and that the government should enforce the law then your position is contradictory.

Click to expand...

A politically motivated special interest group (pro-life) does not create law.

Abortion is factually not murder, murder is a legal term.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

Click to expand...

Omniscient said:

you want to abolish the law, go with anarchism? because pro-life would say your personal or family decisions are not allowed to commit murder. and if you agree murder should be against the law and that the government should enforce the law then your position is contradictory.

Click to expand...

Not at all. The decision my girlfriend, wife, daughter, etc., makes concerning their pregnancy is none of your business or the government's business. The idea that is the government's business runs contrary to every instinct that made America what it became the moment it became a nation unto itself.

Lursa said:

Sorry...you have an odd definition of 'convenience.' Unless you believe convenience includes your life, your health, your education, your responsibilities to safely provide for your dependents (kids, elderly, disabled), your ability to uphold your obligations and commitments to employer, church, community, society, etc.

Click to expand...

if society provides welfare to survive then you can have a child without imminent threat to your survival, which means abortion doesn't need to be done for your survival, which makes the abortion more of a convenience so to speak.

republicans tend to also want to remove all welfare. which would then allow some mothers to get abortions and plead self defense.

but republicans could offer loans to mothers, so they can survive through pregnancy. and pay it back later.

dave8383 said:

Not at all. The decision my girlfriend, wife, daughter, etc., makes concerning their pregnancy is none of your business or the government's business. The idea that is the government's business runs contrary to every instinct that made America what it became the moment it became a nation unto itself.

Click to expand...

your missing the point that pro-lifers consider abortion murder. therefore your argument is invalid to them

Omniscient said:

your missing the point that pro-lifers consider abortion murder. therefore your argument is invalid to them

Click to expand...

I could care less. The southern evangelicals, who started all this, don't control America. Separation of church and state and all that says otherwise.

Omniscient said:

if society provides welfare to survive then you can have a child without imminent threat to your survival, which means abortion doesn't need to be done for your survival, which makes the abortion more of a convenience so to speak.

republicans tend to also want to remove all welfare. which would then allow mothers to get abortions and plead self defense.

but republicans could offer loans to mothers, so they can survive through pregnancy. and pay it back later.

Click to expand...

That's not remotely sufficient to uphold the responsibilities and obligations I posted. It barely puts food on a table and in less-than secure neighborhoods. It's not just $$, it's time and effort and overcoming sickness and pain and exhaustion to do those things. No one mentioned survival....YOU appeared to reduce everything in a pregnant woman's life to 'convenience.' I demonstrated that most people value the entirety of their lives and responsibilities more. Many value quality of life over quantity.

And republicans are the ones that more often revile single mothers AND resent every penny that goes to their welfare. So I have no idea what skirt you are trying to blow sunshine up.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

Click to expand...

dave8383 said:

I could care less. The southern evangelicals, who started all this, don't control America. Separation of church and state and all that says otherwise.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Pro-life women are wholly capable of living their beliefs if pregnant.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

Click to expand...

Blue Donkey said:

Do you believe abortion is only a women's rights issue? Why or why not?

Click to expand...

Generally no, but there are specific situations which would qualify.

Women's rights issues are strictly situations where women are not recognized in their full personhood/citizenship/etc.

I think for the sake of ease in casual discussion one may at times expand this term to view issues important to women(e.g. abortion), or predominately related to women(e.g. childcare in the workplace), or gender-specific (e.g. women's sports); but, to actually classify with such broad circumstances, promotes one to under-account for the many stakeholders involved in all those broader, perhaps better termed: 'women's issues'.

A women's rights issue really comes down to if something meets a threshold of 'equality before the law'. So for example, and as related to this topic. In Roe v Wade. The laws at issue: Articles 1191-1194 and 1196 of the Texas Penal Code (1961). Provided only one exception to giving birth: "procured or attempted by medical advice".

I think 'abortion restriction' in that narrow context meets the threshold of not viewing women as equal before the law.
No person should require a doctor to be of the "purpose of saving the life(inc quality) of the mother."
It thus seems to me, this law diminished a women's capacity to known when these purposes fit her circumstances, which is plainly a women's rights issue.

In that narrow case, I can be seen as pro-choice. As I do acknowledge a fundamental injustice and sexism.

Enter, a more common example of questions surrounding abortion & abortion restrictions. Planned Parenthood v. Casey / Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. Law at issue: Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act(1982) & Texas House Bill 2.

Neither was well-written legislation or "good laws" in opinion as both are examples of big government, unenforceable[with consistency], sounding arbitrary and overly punitive. That said, most laws are drafted terribly IMHO. To get back to the point, and skipping the legal argument, is the fundamental argument made by the court: "these laws create an undue burden on the constitutionally protected right of women to abort based on viability" a win on a women's rights issues?

Not in the slightest! Most people do not by law get to unilaterally issue decrees involving many parties (e.g. parents, husbands, community) just because they are at the centre, especially when those choices which have deep moral consequences and far-reaching impacts(e.g. killing the next Steve jobs); including societal (e.g. due to disproportionate black abortion, black are significantly lower in our population directly due to higher abortion). The counter-argument here, of course, being: "her body, her choice."

A nice saying to be sure, but an oversimplified one. The sentiment here is an example of a privilege(legally promised) being upheld at the cost of equal rights of all the other stakeholders. It is by my view the exact opposite of what 'women's rights' seeks; violating the moral arguments of which that noble principle stands.

Thus I say broadly, no abortion and abortion restrictions involve many considerations and are far too broad a topic to simply be mostly about woman's rights. That said: certain laws, opinions and contexts are directly women's rights. Women have the capacity and responsibility to make moral health choices, wherein the considerations and protections for potential life dismiss that inherit truth, so in does abortion becomes as simple as giving back women their god-given rights and recognizing them as equal before the law.

dave8383 said:

I could care less. The southern evangelicals, who started all this, don't control America. Separation of church and state and all that says otherwise.

Click to expand...

You're right. The abortion question is 100% a 1st amendment issue and nothing else.

Two strong religious organizations have tenets that require women give birth if they get pregnant whether they want to be pregnant or not. The Constitution protects the right of the Catholics and the sects that fall under the evangelical heading to believe what ever suits them and their God. Nobody is trying to take away their rights or their freedom to believe. They are not victims.

There isn't actually problem about what these two churches believe.

Until the Church and the evangelicals start start getting Congress or the states to pass laws that force their religious beliefs on all women not just their own. Every law they pass restricting abortion violates the command that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". They are clearly asking government establish their religious laws above all other. They keep the focus on the fetus and the personhood of the fetus to deflect from their church and state violation.

The issue is; does a church have the right to make those outside their religious group honor follow their religious dogma.

Our fragile democracy rests on that 1st Amendment . Without it we would be a theocracy of which ever church wielded the most political power. And as long as they can keep us talking about the fetus they are getting away with murdering the Constitution.

So, there are 2 main issues here:
1) Is the unborn "child" a child/human/person? That is, is it sufficiently equivalent to a mature, born human that the termination of its life is equivalent morally to the killing of a mature human adult or child?
2) Regardless of what you identify the zygote/foetus/embryo as, does the woman's right to choose what happens to her body and the proto-child that is inside her body trump everything else?

Marrybore said:

So, there are 2 main issues here:
1) Is the unborn "child" a child/human/person? That is, is it sufficiently equivalent to a mature, born human that the termination of its life is equivalent morally to the killing of a mature human adult or child?
2) Regardless of what you identify the zygote/foetus/embryo as, does the woman's right to choose what happens to her body and the proto-child that is inside her body trump everything else?

Click to expand...

There is no fetal issue. The Church and evangelicals are completely free to believe what ever they want to about a fetus. They can declare it a person, give it rights, and prohibit abortion. They just can't make those outside their honor their beliefs and follow them.

Marrybore said:

So, there are 2 main issues here:
1) Is the unborn "child" a child/human/person? That is, is it sufficiently equivalent to a mature, born human that the termination of its life is equivalent morally to the killing of a mature human adult or child?

Click to expand...

Science (human development) is objective and applies no value. The unborn human, a born human, and a wolf are equal when categorized scientifically.

What authority recognizes a right to life for the unborn? The Const recognizes that for all born people.

2) Regardless of what you identify the zygote/foetus/embryo as, does the woman's right to choose what happens to her body and the proto-child that is inside her body trump everything else?

Click to expand...

Yes she does. The Constitution protects her rights, all of them, and the unborn has none.

If you want to use moral considerations, the horrific use of force necessary by a govt or state to make women remain pregnant against our will..aware, suffering, in pain, humiliated, disrespected and controlled...even up to death (as all pregnancies carry a significant risk of death that cannot be predicted) would be unconscionable and prehistoric. The unborn suffer and are aware of nothing. How can it be 'more' moral to impose such pain and suffering and indignity on women?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

Click to expand...