Indisputable Abortion FACTS:

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Ah ha... but you've missed the key to the point... WE have sentience. There is a difference to us between life and non-life.

To something that does not have sentience, there is no such distinction.

If then were are to say that it has been robbed of the potential to have sentience, well, then we can say every child that was never even conceived was denied such a privilege as well.

If we follow that logic, then we must do away with birth control, and boy, won't that be fun on the population? And masturbation! Back to the old Catholic church we go so that we ensure every possible being that can exist does...

ur point is irrelevant. since the crux of ur argument works w/ or w/o sentience. a person doesn't know its dead nemore than a fetus doesn't know its dead. so while WE HAD sentience its all but irrelevant in the argument.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not ignoring that at all. The soundest pro-life position I can think of is that the right to life cannot be abrogated. That position dispenses with all sorts of balancing tests. But it also precludes the consideration of death penalty period.

I just have a few comments on Imran's position.

To conclude that we protect innocent human persons is a perfectly philosophically sound prolife position. I favour a 'no-holds-barred' position, that allows me to make easy decisions on this issue, and tougher ones when we have to deal with those who are not innocent.

Francis Beckwith is a big proponent of the 'innocenct human life position,' specifically designed to seperate the two issues of abortion and capital punishment.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This is you will note, a much weaker pro-life position than the "sanctity of life" variety. Granted, the weaker position is logically consistent.

You admit it IS consistent. Weaker, perhaps, but definetly not incompatable, like you said earlier.

LOGICALLY consistent, i.e. it does not entail a contradiction. So don't get too excited. 'The sky is red, therefore the sky is green' is logically consistent in any form of classical logic.

Morally consistent is a whole other ball of wax. Morally consistent would require a moral theory in which an anti-abortion position and a pro-death penality position can coexist. This can be tricky. (But if you really are a moral relativist, then you have no problems here). Now, I have never seen a moral theory that accomodates these two positions well. But then again, I have not seen every possible moral theory.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by The Templar


LOGICALLY consistent, i.e. it does not entail a contradiction. So don't get too excited. 'The sky is red, therefore the sky is green' is logically consistent in any form of classical logic.

Morally consistent is a whole other ball of wax. Morally consistent would require a moral theory in which an anti-abortion position and a pro-death penality position can coexist. This can be tricky. (But if you really are a moral relativist, then you have no problems here). Now, I have never seen a moral theory that accomodates these two positions well. But then again, I have not seen every possible moral theory.

maybe u need to look around more.

[Dom Pedro II]

And you are still missing my point....

You cannot rob it of something that it does not have... you can take a person's sentience from them... but you cannot take the sentience from something that does not have it.

The immorality comes from the stealing of that sentience... if its not there, it cannot be stolen. The only thing that can be stolen is the POTENTIAL for sentience...

[Dom Pedro II]

Something that knows it exists can place value on its existence. Something that does not, cannot.

[Rasbelin]

Okay, let's tackle this issue more seriously so that we get a more fair and on-topic conversation.

Originally posted by Spiffor

The only big argument of theirs is that "abortion is murder".

Undoubtely that seems to be the case quite frequently and thus eliminates the possibilites from any sociological viewpoints on this whole issue, as it's brought down only to one moral issue; murder or not (manslaughter can be ruled out as abortions don't happen "accidentally".

They are also extremely dismissive as to what will happen to the unwanted child after birth, as well as to its other innocent family members.

Which makes their case very narrow as they only look at the issue and concequences from the fetus' point of views, thus excluding many other persons who maybe in a more vulnerable position and also the society in general terms.

You'll also notice his only argument on the matter was "unwanted children will continued to be loved".

Which very much excludes the facts about how "unwanted" children have to live in misery in many countries, as they don't have a family, no one wants to raise them and the society can't afford to have good foster homes for them (just look at many Latin American or other low BNP countries which are mainly Catholic). In Asia we have the Philippines with a large problem with such homeless children which are abandoned as they can't be kept (okay, now you can argue with preventing pregnancies, but you have to remember that abortions would also help there).

You'll also notice nearly no anti-choicer seems to think about the unwanted kid's future and suffering. Some way to "think of the children"

There's indeed many cases which prove that the life of unwanted children can be like hell. I.e. just start counting if all orphans which were born due to unwanted pregnancies ever get a home, while they're in an orphanage in e.g. China, Thailand, the Philipines. Or if the life of a child of a drug addicted mother is sweet as syrup. I doubt that because the child's life will be quite bad right from the beginning, especially in a case if the baby is already e.g. a heroin addict due to the mother.

In other threads, someone gives a great deal of importance to the suffering of women. Or rather one kind of women's suffering: the post abortion psychologic trauma (Obiwan).

Which can be anyway turned around into vice versa and asked: Could raising an unwanted baby cause similar or even worse traumas? Maybe Dr. Strangelove would like to comment, but I would say that the depression can be even worse (many mothers of "wanted" children already feel depressed after the labour, so I doubt the situation is better for the mother of an "unwanted" baby).

We are stupid enough to enter their little games. They successfully shift the focus from what abortion is really about (preventing whole lifes of being ruined) to their pet issue, that is whether destroying foetuses is murder or not.

I agree on that and do see it as kind of cheap, as then we are not debating at the same level, leaving them using arguements which arouse emotional reactions when speaking with such buzzwords as "murder of unborn babies", etc.

I find myself to be in favour for giving women the right to decide if they want or do not want an abortion, giving the state or other parties no right to affect that decision. As for any restrictions, I would suggest that a consenting adult would have full rights to do the decision, while leaving requiring parental consent from persons under consentiual age. That would mean the anti-abortion campaigners could pretty much stick their heads in their buttholes, while giving the woman herself the right to decide about her own body and the destiny of the fetus. Thus excluding the interference of outside parties.

That wasn't the point with this thread, but just making clear what my personal vision is. Which is actually reality here in Finland (if I recall right the abortion rights of minors).

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Something that knows it exists can place value on its existence. Something that does not, cannot.

yes, but can it place value on its death? u can say "omg I hope I don't die." but will u EVER realize anything negative from ur death? U won't. cuz as the point still stands, and as u have not refuted. an adult doesn't know its dead ANYMORE than a fetus doesn't know its dead.

[Rasbelin]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Down the gutter? How would adoption cause any of these things?

So you assume a woman is capable of full-time studying and/or working during the ~9 month pregnancy? Even if she would be, it could be even dangerous or fatal to the fetus (e.g. miscarriage) and the mother (e.g. depression, fever), so is that also something what you anti-abortionists find fully acceptable and such be put aside, while struggling to be so, ack, morally correct?

Gimme a break.

[Ben Kenobi]

Answer that question clearly, concisely, and there's something to debate. Without the answer to that question, you're just p*ssing vinegar.

And here I wanted to ask that same question of you, Velociryx.

I'll wait for Zylka, but somebody has to go first.

[Dom Pedro II]

But ultimately we all die regardless of whether its deliberate or not, so let's not go into the realm of death but rather stay in the realm of the living. You place a value on your life... you don't want to die regardless of the fact that one day YOU WILL. It is the only guarantee in life. If you kill someone, you took away the most valuable thing to them... their life (or maybe second most valuable if they have kids). Regardless, thats the immoral act.

But if you kill some living tissue that does not know its alive and therefore can place no value on how much its life is worth to them.

But that isn't even the point of all this! The point of all this is that I was saying that the life of a child who is aware of its existence and lives in misery is worse than the experience of a child that does not know it exists and will never know it exists. And I feel that I've argued that point fairly well...

If you want to debate with me on the issue of whether or not taking that life is immoral or not is another ball game... I'd find it immoral to burn down a rainforest, and it is full of non-sentient life. The trees don't know... I still think its wrong though. If I impregnated a woman, I would want to have the baby. To tell you the truth, I don't like abortion. So then what is the difference between burning down a rainforest and aborting a child? Well, omitting the number of lifeforms killed in the act, nothing. Because what makes both things inherently wrong is that there is someone there to witness it. There is someone there to miss the thing that never was a child even if its not the mother.

If a comet strikes a planet and wipes out a civilization, its a castrophe, if a comet strikes an uninhabited planet, its an astronomical light show... the difference? Perception... the perception of a sentient being to give it weight, to give it value...

That stuff about the pro-abortion, nuke the world stuff.... was being facetious. Although I do feel sometimes that we'd all be better off dead, but I can't think of a person in the world who has a right to actually do it. And its only if everyone dies... everybody, or no one... unfortunately, humanity has no intention of going with no one.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you assume a woman is capable of full-time studying and/or working during the ~9 month pregnancy?

It's difficult, but I'm sure the school would accomodate her, as would her workplace to reduce her load while she was pregnant.

Even if she would be, it could be even dangerous or fatal to the fetus (e.g. miscarriage) and the mother (e.g. depression, fever), so is that also something what you anti-abortionists find fully acceptable and such be put aside, while struggling to be so, ack, morally correct?

So I must advocate the morally correct position that all women should be strapped to bed while pregnant

I have no problems with women who work while pregnant.
How about you?

There are plenty of folks willing to help a pregnant woman with her pregnancy. It's just a matter of wanting to find them.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
But ultimately we all die regardless of whether its deliberate or not, so let's not go into the realm of death but rather stay in the realm of the living. You place a value on your life... you don't want to die regardless of the fact that one day YOU WILL. It is the only guarantee in life. If you kill someone, you took away the most valuable thing to them... their life (or maybe second most valuable if they have kids). Regardless, thats the immoral act.

But if you kill some living tissue that does not know its alive and therefore can place no value on how much its life is worth to them.

But that isn't even the point of all this! The point of all this is that I was saying that the life of a child who is aware of its existence and lives in misery is worse than the experience of a child that does not know it exists and will never know it exists. And I feel that I've argued that point fairly well...

If you want to debate with me on the issue of whether or not taking that life is immoral or not is another ball game... I'd find it immoral to burn down a rainforest, and it is full of non-sentient life. The trees don't know... I still think its wrong though. If I impregnated a woman, I would want to have the baby. To tell you the truth, I don't like abortion. So then what is the difference between burning down a rainforest and aborting a child? Well, omitting the number of lifeforms killed in the act, nothing. Because what makes both things inherently wrong is that there is someone there to witness it. There is someone there to miss the thing that never was a child even if its not the mother.

If a comet strikes a planet and wipes out a civilization, its a castrophe, if a comet strikes an uninhabited planet, its an astronomical light show... the difference? Perception... the perception of a sentient being to give it weight, to give it value...

That stuff about the pro-abortion, nuke the world stuff.... was being facetious. Although I do feel sometimes that we'd all be better off dead, but I can't think of a person in the world who has a right to actually do it. And its only if everyone dies... everybody, or no one... unfortunately, humanity has no intention of going with no one.

u still haven't refuted my point. so instead of the classic trap of me simply responding ad infinitum and our argument digressing into inane avenues. I will simply point out that yet again, a person, no matter how intelligent or sentient DOES NOT KNOW ITS DEAD. so if u use the argument that "a fetus doesn't know its been killed, or what its lost," or anything involving that concept. then its perfectly valid to point out that neither does an adult.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They successfully shift the focus from what abortion is really about (preventing whole lifes of being ruined) to their pet issue, that is whether destroying foetuses is murder or not.

Um... if the person believes abortion is murder because the fetus is a person and deserves rights, ISN'T THAT MORE IMPORTANT than a silly 'whole life being ruined' rational? I mean, really.

[Ben Kenobi]

Or rather one kind of women's suffering: the post abortion psychologic trauma (Obiwan).

Asuka:

I don't discount that women can be depressed after pregnancy. I just have facts to compare the two forms of depression, with post-abortion seeming a greater problem for most woman than post-natal depression, at least when looking at suicide.