Is abortion really wrong?

That's correct, babies don't qualify either, which is why we don't let them vote, drink or operate heavy machinery....why do we have the right to deny them that?.....Because we arbitrarily assign these rights as they get closer to becoming a complete adult member of the species. Life is the right we arbitrarily assign at birth, when one's life is not 100% reliant on that of another. The aim of your campaign is to change that arbitrary point for your own reasons, but to pretend there is an objective right and wrong about this is where we won't ever agree. As you've seen, even the bible can be used to justify both positions.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Forget about feelings. Let's use our brains for a moment, shall we?

Do you have any medical evidence that the unborn is not a living human being?

0 Replies

echi, it's a trick question that pre-supposes that we all agree on what a human being is. The available evidence depends entirely on the definition.

I have no available medical evidence that a foetus cannot walk upright or use tools. Do you really need it?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

That's correct, babies don't qualify either, which is why we don't let them vote, drink or operate heavy machinery....why do we have the right to deny them that?.....Because we arbitrarily assign these rights as they get closer to becoming a complete adult member of the species. Life is the right we arbitrarily assign at birth, when one's life is not 100% reliant on that of another. The aim of your campaign is to change that arbitrary point for your own reasons, but to pretend there is an objective right and wrong about this is where we won't ever agree. As you've seen, even the bible can be used to justify both positions.

We were talking about the definition of 'human' that you referred to from wiki.

Are you really saying that newborns do not qualify as human?

echi wrote:

echi, it's a trick question that pre-supposes that we all agree on what a human being is. The available evidence depends entirely on the definition.

I have no available medical evidence that a foetus cannot walk upright or use tools. Do you really need it?

So one must walk upright and use tools to be considered as meeting the definition of 'human'?

At what age, then, do you consider one to be 'human'?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

echi, it's a trick question that pre-supposes that we all agree on what a human being is. The available evidence depends entirely on the definition.

I have no available medical evidence that a foetus cannot walk upright or use tools. Do you really need it?

Okay. I guess I haven't been around this circle as many times as you guys.
The question, I think, is not "Is it a real, live human?". That's too obvious. It is hard to prove, and that's why you guys like to use it. But, even most "pro-choice" supporters understand that an unborn human is, nonetheless, human. Otherwise, why would so many want to see the number of abortions reduced? The real question is real simple: "Is it the mother's right to kill her unborn child?"
The fact that so many seem to believe that it is, I think goes right to the root of people's motivations for wanting to have kids. They do it because they want that lifestyle; they want to be parents. By the same token, if a pregnancy threatens to interfere with your other plans, well... you can just get rid of it. Problem solved.

0 Replies

echi,

Another way of seeing this debate is to think about how far you want to go to police abortion laws (once you've established that you feel you have the right to do so). How do you do it?

To my mind, it's easy to see unsafe, illegal, dangerous, late abortions as being much worse than safe legal early ones.

The morning after pill seems like an even better idea.

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

echi,

Another way of seeing this debate is to think about how far you want to go to police abortion laws (once you've established that you feel you have the right to do so). How do you do it?

To my mind, it's easy to see unsafe, illegal, dangerous, late abortions as being much worse than safe legal early ones.

The morning after pill seems like an even better idea.

It's not much different from the unborn's standpoint.

He/she dies either way.

But sometimes, the procedure is not successful.

Eorl, should the survivor of a failed abortion have the right to sue the abortionist for damages?

If you really want a different way of looking at this debate, look into the faces of those who survived.

http://joseromia.tripod.com/survivors.html

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1194.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892696,00.html

0 Replies

Oh here we go again. insert rolled eyes.

If only there existed people who wished they hadn't been born.

0 Replies

I see you took all of three minutes to view the links.

Obviously not an open mind there.

Apparently you can't look at this debate in any different way.

0 Replies

I skipped thru the first one only ....Rosa with one arm etc.

You've used this silly circular argument before.

Does the life of someone whose parents met in Auschwitz justify the Holocaust?

0 Replies

Eorl wrote:

echi,

Another way of seeing this debate is to think about how far you want to go to police abortion laws (once you've established that you feel you have the right to do so). How do you do it?

To my mind, it's easy to see unsafe, illegal, dangerous, late abortions as being much worse than safe legal early ones.

The morning after pill seems like an even better idea.

I know we can't stop someone from having an abortion. I just want society to stop telling people that it's okay. Very often, it's kids who get themselves in the situation of having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. They see that abortion is legal and, therefore, it must be an acceptable thing to do. "It's only the evolution-deniers who have a problem with it."

The morning after pill? Maybe. I don't know if it would help or hurt, but I don't see anything implicitly wrong with it.
One thing that would help, a lot, is good sex education.

I have deep convictions about this, but I am not involved in this debate (outside of a2k). I don't keep up with all the political details. I understand that the two sides help define each other's positions, and it may, in fact, be disastrous to outlaw abortion because of the overzealous intentions of the "pro-lifers". I have to say, hangin' out on this side, I almost feel like a traitor. I agree with them on this and other issues, but usually for very different reasons.

Hmmm. That leaves me with a question for real life (kinda the same question you asked me!):

RL--
If we were to succeed in making abortion illegal, how should we then deal with people who would seek out or perform an abortion?

0 Replies

That's very open and honest of you echi, and I respect your position a great deal. Indeed, I also see the danger being in either extreme position.

0 Replies

This has been my point from the beginning. Making abortion illegal is just moving the problem. Our culture faces a serious challenge to validate all human life.

If abortion became illegal, the next target would be adoption etc. Because it would be "wrong" for a mother to abandon her child. Then Pro choice and pro-life would mean something completely different. basically, the same issue would remain and the approach of cultural anihilation would continue until voila: Facism.

Real Life - "If all abortion was illegal. Would we as a culture be able to take care of all of the children?"

I imagine that to be consistant you'd say that we could. I'd bet that a two parent home with heterosexual parents would also be optimal? In a christian home? Sound familiar?

Pro-life people always find the biggest assholes when they quote testimonies about people getting abortions and regretting it or just to make an example of them; to normalize the scum of the earth as the people who are choosing to have them. This simply isn't true.

I know people who have had abortions, and they arent' the scum of the earth. The decision wasn't as quick and unthoughtout as pro-life people portray these things to be.

These decisions are very personal and are absolutly unique to each person who makes them. Being so general about it is ignorant.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

I understand that the two sides help define each other's positions, and it may, in fact, be disastrous to outlaw abortion because of the overzealous intentions of the "pro-lifers".

That is exactly my thinking and feelings, too.

I can understand both positions, and honestly I do not see myself on either side when it comes down to it.

However, I choose to speak for choice bc of the dangers I see in outlawing abortion.

0 Replies

Quote:

These decisions are very personal and are absolutly unique to each person who makes them. Being so general about it is ignorant.

My thought's exactly. Very Happy

Abortion is, and will always be, a VERY personal choice.

An extract from the first link about the surviver, Heidi Huffman.

Quote:

Heidi herself says, "I believe that all young people are survivors of abortion, just like I am, because they too could have been killed under the current policy of our government, which declared us "non-persons" when we were in the womb."

What the hell is a person? Is a placenta covered fleshy compound attached to the mothers uterus considered a person? Confused

I am not a surviver of abortion, because my parents didnt try and kill me.
But in saying that, if they had, obviously I wouldnt have any say in the matter, considering I couldnt talk, had minimal brain function, and no capacity of self sufficiency.

The government didnt think you were a "non-person", your mother and father did. Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

echi wrote:

......it may, in fact, be disastrous to outlaw abortion because of the overzealous intentions of the "pro-lifers".

Such as?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

echi wrote:
......it may, in fact, be disastrous to outlaw abortion because of the overzealous intentions of the "pro-lifers".

Such as?

Geez... I don't know. I'm just speculating, here. Did you miss my question to you at the top of this page?

0 Replies

Real life doesn't answer questions.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

real life wrote:
echi wrote:
......it may, in fact, be disastrous to outlaw abortion because of the overzealous intentions of the "pro-lifers".

Such as?

Geez... I don't know. I'm just speculating, here. Did you miss my question to you at the top of this page?

Diest TKO wrote:

Real life doesn't answer questions.

Actually I do.

Echi, I have answered this one before, but in case you missed it.....

The question was:

echi wrote:

RL--
If we were to succeed in making abortion illegal, how should we then deal with people who would seek out or perform an abortion?

I favor reinstating the state laws that were struck down by Roe v Wade and allowing each state to prosecute abortionists according to their own local law. Long sentences hopefully would follow, but since I am a realist, I don't expect that to happen since we can't even seem to convict celebrity slashers.

0 Replies

RL--
I can get with that, assuming that by "abortionists" you only mean those who perform abortions and not the pregnant women, themselves. I see no need to punish them, although they obviously need some kind of help.

0 Replies

Is abortion really wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know