Abortion

[Ambulance Y]

And the barrier between both sides is the question of whether or not the fetus is a person.

So why not legalize murder?

Eh...I'm not a big fan of when people generalize what I say like this, but when I create and post in a thread about such a difficult topic, I should be able to deal with argument techniques like this. You know my opinion, I don't have much more to say.

[BP]

Well, in some early stages of development, the human fetus heavily resembles the fetus of a pig... but that's irrelevant.

[ShadowBrain]

I dissected a fetal pig in biology last week... FYI.

Final stance: Abortion as a form of birth control = Bad. Abortion as a form of putting a baby that cannot be properly cared for or was brought about by rape/some other horrible circumstances out of its impending misery = Acceptable. Notice how I didn't say "Yes" or "No" to anything. Things aren't as black-and-white as some people think.

Oh, and the population is already causing starvation. Everyone here just happens to live in better-off countries (otherwise, we probably wouldn't be on the FF, but that's besides the point).

[Turtlekid1]

My objection to some of the points raised by the pro-choice posters:

DISCLAIMER:
I take nothing here personally. I do not hate you, I am not mad at you, but I simply disagree with your view.


1) Rape: After having been raped, the victim has already been subject to enough trauma, so she should not be forced to bear a child which will always remind her of the heinous crime committed against her.
~Objections: The child is not responsible for how he or she was created. Having not been the baby's fault that it was the result of a violent crime by a sick, perverted man, it has the right to be born. If the woman does not wish to keep the child, she certainly may give it up for adoption. Of course, as the apt pro-choicer would point out, the woman would have to go through labor and the gestation period, perhaps to the chagrin of her friends and family. This, however, is a yolk that the woman has a responsibility to fulfill. What regard to human life do we have if we cannot allow a child to live because he or she was the result of a horrid crime? If we simply end the crime with more violence, it shows that we, as a society, cannot overcome violence. Violence should lead to peace, not to more violence and hate.

2)"Special" Births: Because a child will be born with a mental illness or a physical deformity, it is in some way charitable to kill it so that it will not have to suffer.
~Objections: Again, this undermines the absolute dignity of each human person by virtue of his or her humanity. If we allow parents to kill their unborn babies so that they "will not suffer," should we not also be able to kill the mentally or physically handicapped so as to rescue them as well from their skum-sucking, bottom-feeding position in society? By killing those who may be at risk of a mental or physical disability before birth, we are becoming Hitler; we are trying to make a master race. Eugenics, anyone?
     ~Furthermore, it cannot be morally acceptable to kill the handicapped before birth because we assume that their lives will be bad simply because they will be different, a word we don't like to use much in our society. We'd rather have everyone be the same. Of all the mentally or physically disabled people I have ever met, I have never met a single one who was unhappy or ungrateful for what he or she has. They do not focus on the negative, but rather on the positive. They, being human, can live a life filled with joy, peace, and love.
     ~Last time I checked, the mortality rate for human beings was 100%. If people will die, why should be torture them and let them live in this wicked, war-torn world? Wouldn't it just be easier and more loving if we killed them and saves them from the pain and toil that they will surely face at some point in their lives?

3) ~Objection: I'm not quite sure what this means, because abortion is already totally legal.

4)Men: I'm a man, so I can't have an opinion.
Objection: I'm white, so I can't have an opinion on minority rights. I'm a natural citizen of the USA, so I can't have an opinion on immigration. Human solidarity is key in solving this issue. Simply because I am not able to do something is not reason enough for me not to make my opinion matter. Men are just as responsible as women for creating babies, so they should have just as much say in deciding whether or not a child should live. It is absurd to take a "bye" on this issue, which affects men and women, both as parents and as children.

5)Dangerous Pregnancy: If a woman is in danger of death while in the gestation period, the fetus should be aborted.
Objection: We should, of course, do our best to save both lives. This is the only circumstance in which abortion may be a viable option, however, the situation must mandate that the woman will die if she does not abort the fetus.

6)Common Ground: Yes, you are correct, Luigison. The home has the primary responsibility when educating children about sexuality. I also agree that sex-ed in schools is of paramount importance. This is not a cure-all, however. Teenagers will often rebel against what they hear in school, or disregard it altogether and make errors in judgment while they are filled with hormones. In a back-seat situation, the first thing on a teenage guy's mind is not Mr. Thomas's Sex-Ed class.

EDIT 1: Fixed some code errors (italics and bolds).

Koopaslaya is my hero.

[CrossEyed7]

I wasn't trying to generalize, I think it's just a result of our difference of opinion. Both drinking alcohol and murder will happen anyway, but one involves another person's life and one doesn't. Since you don't think a fetus is fully a person, you think alcohol is a better analogy for abortion; since I do, I think murder is a better analogy (and also what I think it actually is).

And the question of what the fetus is is really where the debate should always be centered. If it's a person, killing it can never be fully justified (and incidentally, adoption needs to be simplified; there are already more than enough families willing to take in unwanted children, but it's so much work for both sides that it doesn't happen nearly as often as it should); if it's not a person, kill away (I don't buy the "potential for life" thing. The potential for life exists as soon as you have a guy and a girl in the same room. Once the egg is fertilized and there's a thing that's eating, growing, responding to external stimuli, and has its own unique DNA, it's alive. The only question is whether it's a person. That probably amounts to the same thing, but at least it's more accurate and honest terminology. I think I'm starting to make less sense and get more tangential now, so I'll stop. Parentheticals shouldn't be this long.).

[TEM]

I completely support abortion at any time for any reason, IF what is inside the womb is not a person.

This made me lol because I thought you were going to start talking about how abortion is okay if it is a demon baby or something.

[Ambulance Y]

[Insane Steve]

Wait, there's actually 9 people on this forum that are pro-choice?

I'm not going to argue this, because both sides are arguing for completely different reasons (personal freedoms vs. moral issues) and absolutely nothing that I say, at all, will ever convince a pro-lifer to switch sides. I personally think that if a woman is raped, there's no reason she should ever have to rear a child that's going to be raised by herself and have half the genes of a violent felon. I'd probably change my views on this somewhat if the adoption process wasn't a complete farce.

I will say that abortion is -NOT- murder if the faetus would not have survived outside of the mother.

[Koopaslaya]

I'm not going to argue this, because both sides are arguing for completely different reasons (personal freedoms vs. moral issues)

Thinkers such as Locke and Kant (along with me) would tend to disagree with your assessment of freedom. Personal freedom is not a license, that is, an empty freedom that allows you to do whatever you want. Rather, freedom requires an active use of reason in accordance to the natural law.

When assessing your observation from this point of view, personal freedom (liberty -- acting in accord with the natural law) and moral issues cannot ever be separated because they are intrinsically linked and are inseparable.

I will say that abortion is -NOT- murder if the faetus would not have survived outside of the mother.

Then you can both accurately, 100% of the time, predict the future and recognize the faetus as a living human because it would be murder otherwise.

[goodie]

It's never right to do wrong. It's never wrong to do right.

[CrossEyed7]

I will say that abortion is -NOT- murder if the faetus would not have survived outside of the mother.

As medical science advances, fetuses become viable earlier. So a 23-week abortion wouldn't have been murder in 1973, but the same one would be murder today. Doesn't it at least seem a little weird to base morality on technology? Was the 23-week-old fetus in 1973 not a person? Did fetuses start becoming ensouled or whatever earlier as technology improved?

Also, why do pro-choicers have any apprehension at all about abortion? If it's not a person, it's no different that getting a mole removed. The fact that most pro-choicers want to limit abortion seems to imply that they have a feeling that the fetus is at least somewhat a person, and the idea that they support it despite that feeling is more than a little frightening.

[Glorb]

This made me lol because I thought you were going to start talking about how abortion is okay if it is a demon baby or something.

Well, obviously, if the prognosis is Rosemary's Baby Syndrome, the best option is abortion.

[BP]

the idea that they support it despite that feeling is more than a little frightening.

Once again, no one "supports" abortion.

[The Chef]

In that sense, abortion could probably be somewhat compared to joining the army. Do you really think they want to shoot the other country's people dead just because their home country says they have to? Abortion is kind of a similar principal. There are just some things that have to be done, regardless of how gruesome it may seem. That's the way life works. I know that at some point, I'm gonna end up in such a situation myself...

[CrossEyed7]

But it doesn't have to be done. Less than 1% of all abortions are a result of incest or rape. The other 99% wouldn't have been necessary if they had used a condom or just not had sex at all (and if someone is so adverse to the idea of children that they would rather kill than go through 9 months of discomfort and then put the child up for adoption, maybe it would be a good idea to avoid engaging in the activity that produces children). Of course, as for the 1% that are, it's still wrong. If the baby is a person, then the argument just doesn't work. War can be justifiable in some cases because the enemy nation has done something wrong and the people being killed either had a part in it or put themselves on the line to defend those who did. If a fetus is a person, nothing can justify killing them (except in the extremely rare cases where the mother's life is at risk). Is it ever right to kill an innocent victim to avoid temporary inconvenience?