Ukraine flag Armor Games stands with Ukraine Ukraine flag
If you’d like to help, please consider giving to Ukraine Crisis Fund

ForumsWEPRJustify Abortion

138 43783
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

I am a staunch opponent of abortion, it being the murder of an unborn baby; so I challenge whoever supports it, to debate with me how it can possibly be right.

-A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body, even when in her mother's womb.

-Abortion is discrimation in the worst form, because it murders a child who came "at an inconvenient time."

-Women regret abortions.

  • 138 Replies
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

-Women regret abortions.

They do not. Abortion is a difficult process, both physically and psychologically. In places where abortion is legal, women are told exactly what will happen, that it is not a trivial nor even an easy thing, and they are accompanied throughout the whole decision process and the actual abortion. Thit is precisely the reason why countries that legalize abortion have much lower abortion rates; women are taken care of, and often times realize that abortion is not the best option. In those cases where the woman decides to go through it, she has a very good reason to do so, and will usually not regret it.
It also effectively eliminates illegal abortions, which happen all the time in places that criminalize it and are very dangerous and unsanitary processes.

-A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body, even when in her mother's womb.
-Abortion is discrimation in the worst form, because it murders a child who came "at an inconvenient time."

That "child" is not a person at the usual time of abortion and thus cannot be discriminated against.
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Hahiha


They do not.

I can point out to you tons of women who regret their abortions. Go to the March for Life, or Google it.


That "child" is not a person at the usual time of abortion and thus cannot be discriminated against.

That child has a beating heart, can feel pain, has cognitive capabilities, can move, etc. Look at an ultrasound, or Google an ultrasound.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

By the way, for the reasons I explained above, the most efficient way to reduce abortion rates is to legalize abortions. I know you as an anti-abortion-ist(?) cannot support this without compromising yourself, but the numbers are there.

I can point out to you tons of women who regret their abortions. Go to the March for Life,

Obviously there are sometimes some that do regret it, and if you put them all together it may look like a big bunch. But they're by far a minority.

That child has a beating heart, can feel pain, has cognitive capabilities, can move, etc. Look at an ultrasound, or Google an ultrasound.

I know what it looks like. Looks are deceiving. It is not yet a person by biological standards.
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Hahiha


By the way, for the reasons I explained above, the most efficient way to reduce abortion rates is to legalize abortions. I know you as an anti-abortion-ist(?) cannot support this without compromising yourself, but the numbers are there.

The end does not justify the means, at least for me.


I know what it looks like. Looks are deceiving. It is not yet a person by biological standards.

At that period, babies are fully conscious.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

The end does not justify the means, at least for me.

I assumed so. I just wanted to state that from a realistic point of view, legalizing abortion is the better thing to do. It's not a sufficient, but a valid argument.

At that period, babies are fully conscious.

Muscle reflexes and semi-random neurological activity do not constitute sufficient signs of consciousness, neither full nor partial.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,173 posts
Duke

[...] it being the murder of an unborn baby
Where did you hear that nonsense? Do you even understand what murder is?

A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body, even when in her mother's womb.
1 An unborn fetus has no desire to do anything.
2 "Whatever she wants with her own body" includes ending a pregnancy. You just justified abortion.

Abortion is discrimation in the worst form, [...]
No, it isn't.

Women regret abortions.
Sure, they can also regret becoming pregnant and giving birth. And that's in addition to all the other things people regret (purchases, food choices, clothing choices, voting choices, social faux pas, forgetfulness, naïveté, marriages, divorces, past failures, misunderstandings, family reunions and such). The fact that some people regret some of those decisions does not make any of them inherently wrong.

That child has a beating heart, can feel pain, has cognitive capabilities, can move, etc.
Uh, no.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Blastula_%28PSF%29.jpg
Here we have a blastula; a hollow ball of cells that possesses no heart, no feeling, no cognitive ability, and no motor functions. This is all a human enbryo is at about four days.

The end does not justify the means, at least for me.
Then don't get one. Problem solved.

At that period, babies are fully conscious.
Not if they happen to be sleeping at the time. Ha, got you there. But, seriously, what babies? I thought you wanted to talk about abortion, not children.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,024 posts
Templar

What you are pointing out is AFTER a certain stage of development. The unborn child is simply not alive for much of the time it is still developing. Abortion, if done at that stage or before that, is not taking a life. It is intervening on something that does not yet live. Like preventing a cell from multiplying.

Now whether it could grow to be alive, if you let it, is another story

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

Here we have a blastula; a hollow ball of cells that possesses no heart, no feeling, no cognitive ability, and no motor functions. This is all a human enbryo is at about four days.

Yeah, except that abortions can be made way later than that stage. That's the problem; the later stages look human enough for the opponents to make emotional appeals.

@Doombreed Please define 'alive'. To me, it definitely is alive, just like any cell is alive. There is no 'dead' stage in development; it's a continuous line of reproductive cells passed on from generation to generation. I feel like it is too loose a term for this debate. I think we need to concentrate on the concept of personhood/consciousness.
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,024 posts
Templar

Please define 'alive'. To me, it definitely is alive, just like any cell is alive. There is no 'dead' stage in development; it's a continuous line of reproductive cells passed on from generation to generation. I feel like it is too loose a term for this debate. I think we need to concentrate on the concept of personhood/consciousness.

Well, with the broader term of being alive, you are right, it is. Even a single cell is. Viruses are one of the few things that are " probably" alive but not easy to classify But it's not a person yet

Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Hahiha


Muscle reflexes and semi-random neurological activity do not constitute sufficient signs of consciousness, neither full nor partial.

A human being can be classified too as a being that posesses "muscle reflexes and remi-random nerological activity," and thus, your consciousness could too be questioned.

@Fishpreferred


Where did you hear that nonsense? Do you even understand what murder is?

Murder is unjustly causing the death of a human being.


1 An unborn fetus has no desire to do anything.
2 "Whatever she wants with her own body" includes ending a pregnancy. You just justified abortion.

1. Your assumption that an unborn fetus has no desire to do anything has no basis. I could argue that it is present because it wants to be born.

2. I did not justify abortion for I do not consider a fetus to be part of a woman's body.


No, it isn't.

Abortion is discrimination against a human being.


The fact that some people regret some of those decisions does not make any of them inherently wrong.

I did not use that as proof of abortion's wrongness, but to discourage women to do that.


Here we have a blastula; a hollow ball of cells that possesses no heart, no feeling, no cognitive ability, and no motor functions. This is all a human enbryo is at about four days.

That child is a living being, because it has all the essential functions of a life-form. You forget that you too are made up of cells, and if your cells (which you do not consider alive) were systimatically killed, you would cease to be.


Then don't get one. Problem solved.

No, it does not end there. I consider every abortion to be a murder, and as such, every mother who aborts her child is liable in a court of law.


Not if they happen to be sleeping at the time. Ha, got you there. But, seriously, what babies? I thought you wanted to talk about abortion, not children.

A fetus is a baby.

@Doombreed


What you are pointing out is AFTER a certain stage of development.

No, even at conception, the fetus is a viable life-form.

@Hahiha


I think we need to concentrate on the concept of personhood/consciousness.

If you are sleeping and thus showing no apparent signs of consciousness, does that make it morally or legally permissible to kill you?

@Doombreed


But it's not a person yet

If we begin to define a person according to our own standards, then we get into dangerous territory. I could say "doombreed is not a person because people understand the wrongness of abortion," and thus justify killing you.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
8,212 posts
Regent

A human being can be classified too as a being that posesses "muscle reflexes and remi-random nerological activity," and thus, your consciousness could too be questioned.

This is fallacious reasoning. As I said, those do not constitute sufficient signs of consciousness. They are part of being human, but they are not enough to constitute a person

A fetus is a baby.

Fetus is prenatal, baby is post-natal.

No, even at conception, the fetus is a viable life-form.

It is not. It is entirely dependent on the mother.

If you are sleeping and thus showing no apparent signs of consciousness, does that make it morally or legally permissible to kill you?

That is beside the point. My brain always remains active even during sleep; I never stop being a person, even if I was knocked out. Apparent signs of consciousness are not the issue here. The point is that the fetus has not yet developed into a person.
Ntech
offline
Ntech
258 posts
Shepherd

@Hahiha


This is fallacious reasoning. As I said, those do not constitute sufficient signs of consciousness. They are part of being human, but they are not enough to constitute a person

As I said, once you start to have a private definition of what constitutes a person, everybody is in danger. Besides, what do you have that a unborn baby does not?


Fetus is prenatal, baby is post-natal.

BUT both are the same object. Does the removal of the umbilical cord somehow bestow personhood upon an inanimate object? You need to reconsider your reasoning.


It is not. It is entirely dependent on the mother.

Independence does not impart personhood anymore than having a name.


That is beside the point. My brain always remains active even during sleep; I never stop being a person, even if I was knocked out. Apparent signs of consciousness are not the issue here. The point is that the fetus has not yet developed into a person.

Babies have brains too, and what is a brain besides a mass of cells?

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,024 posts
Templar

As I said, once you start to have a private definition of what constitutes a person, everybody is in danger. Besides, what do you have that a unborn baby does not?

Consciousness, Higher and general thought processing really, senses, motor functions. You know, all those things and more.

So yeah, why does something that lacks all of those things constitute a person?

Babies have brains too, and what is a brain besides a mass of cells?

There are stages of development, you do realize this right? If not, humans would be born as adults. A brain can be more than a mass of cells in the sense of development of its higher functions.

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
7,024 posts
Templar

Ran out of time to edit my post

If we begin to define a person according to our own standards, then we get into dangerous territory. I could say "doombreed is not a person because people understand the wrongness of abortion," and thus justify killing you.

Except there is a legal, literal and metaphorical definition of a person and, at least before a certain stage of development, the fetus does not fit in any of those. You could justify it personally, it wouldn't make it any more legal. Because, as much as I might disagree, I do possess the characteristics of a person, namely, higher thought processes, conscience, morality, intelligence, etc. So do extremists, like ISIS, white supremacists, and the like. They are people. Their actions aren't really human, but they are people for all intents and purposes.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,822 posts
Duke

Consciousness, Higher and general thought processing really, senses, motor functions. You know, all those things and more.

I realise you're saying that you have these things that a fetus doesn't. That's all well and good. But I'm guessing that this ties into the personhood debate. If so, this is similar to the problem Michael Tooley ran into when he put together 'Abortion and Infancticide'. As you might've guess from the title, infants did not meet his personhood criteria and, as such, were not persons. He ended up getting ripped apart for this view--especially after he doubled down after some strong criticism.

That was back in the 1970s, but the landscape still has the same core issue:
There's no meaningful, non-question-begging account of personhood that in neither too broad or too narrow.

So I'd like to pressure on the idea that a fetus hasn't developed into a person. We don't need a bright, shining line--morality can admit of vagueness. But what's doing the work here? Higher brain function would exclude infants from counting as persons (severely mentally handicapped people might also fail this criterion). So it must be something else.

Showing 1-15 of 138

We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing analytics and serving ads.
Learn More