NOT Another Abortion Thread

[1000 Cats]

-Is there anything that would make you change your stance?
Not much, unless someone can demonstrate that an embryo is living (besides the classic, "science liez!")

http://www.amazon.com/Developing-Human- ... pd_vtp_b_3

This is a reputable medical textbook that defines a zygote as "the beginning of a new human being."

Yeah, it's not disputed by anyone that cells are alive.

Your sort of argument, I can't really go against, because you simply have a different set of morals than I do. I don't value humans any more than I do animals - that is, both can be greatly valued for many different reasons, but not simply because they are alive.

[Ceannairceach]

I fail to see what is off topic. The topic, as I understand it, is the arguments behind why we support abortion. I asked him if he at any point was influenced to believe, as I read it, that the fetus is more important than the mother, how I perceive his argument. What, precisely, is off topic?

You are actively questioning the motivations behind his argument/his argument.

This thread is a place to make statements on the nature on arguments, not make debate on the arguments themselves.

So we can't discuss the second question of the OP? I'm still not buying the idea that I am going off topic.

[Auralia]

2. Many of those in favour of abortion argue that a child would, in many cases, be better off dead due to societal problems like poverty and crime. Others argue that it is ultimately the choice of the mother whether she wants to raise her child or not. Personally, I think both arguments become irrelevant if one accepts that a fetus is a human being; nobody can choose to kill someone else, except in self-defense, because otherwise it would be murder.

You are forgetting, purposely or on accident, the argument of bodily sovereignty, my reason for supporting the right to choice; the woman has the absolute right to control her own body, and with that control comes permission of use. Contrary to apparent belief amongst pro-life advocates, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, as those women who pursue abortions or use birth control methods show quite clearly. Thus, it is unethical and against the right of women to control their own body to force them into a situation where they can't, ie, not allowing them to get an abortion.

That is my argument, not some silly thing about society.

I think that a fetus's right to life ranks above the bodily sovereignty of a woman, for a number of reasons. Pregnancy and giving birth rarely causes any permanent harm (the cases where it does, for me, represent the only potential allowable use of abortion - self-defense) but refusing access to the womb will kill the fetus.

[Ceannairceach]

You are forgetting, purposely or on accident, the argument of bodily sovereignty, my reason for supporting the right to choice; the woman has the absolute right to control her own body, and with that control comes permission of use. Contrary to apparent belief amongst pro-life advocates, consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, as those women who pursue abortions or use birth control methods show quite clearly. Thus, it is unethical and against the right of women to control their own body to force them into a situation where they can't, ie, not allowing them to get an abortion.

That is my argument, not some silly thing about society.

I think that a fetus's right to life ranks above the bodily sovereignty of a woman, for a number of reasons. Pregnancy and giving birth rarely causes any permanent harm (the cases where it does, for me, represent the only potential allowable use of abortion - self-defense) but refusing access to the womb will kill the fetus.

The immediate effects are more than enough to justify self defense.

The killing is a mere side effect of the expulsion. If the fetus wasn't there in the first place, then it wouldn't need to be expunged. And, to combat the "but it didn't choose to be there" argument before it arises, no, it didn't, and for that reason it doesn't have any rights to begin with, let alone the right to life.

[Saint Jade IV]

I'd just like to state, before we begin, that this is NOT ABOUT ABORTION. Rather, it's about the political debate SURROUNDING abortion as an issue. If you want to rant about "dem ebil gawdlesh bebbeh killersh", go make your own thread. And obviously, if this deteriorates into flaming, I'll call it a failed attempt and ask for a lock. That's all.

Now, I'm sure most of you want to know why I'm beating this dead horse. "It must be because he's an F7er, and he's got no sense in his head.", some will say. Others will ignore the above warning and simply start flaming me. That's not what I'm doing here, though. I want to talk about the POLITICAL side of abortion exclusively. You see, I approach this as a very odd individual, with some political views that, while they're not radical, depart severely from the "Party Lines". I am a social liberal, so one might expect that I would vote Democrat. But I'm also a Minarchist, and because I place economic issues far above social issues, I tend to vote Republican because of the asinine two-party system. As such, I find myself a Republican (of sorts...) who is pro-choice. And it leaves me thinking: why does the Republican Party fight against abortion? Why does ANYONE?

So, with that, I pose my question. And keep in mind, this is THE ONLY POINT OF DISCUSSION THAT IS RELEVANT IN THIS THREAD. My question for NSG is this:
-Why do you take your stance on abortion?
-What do you think is the motivation behind the various views on abortion?
-Is there anything that would make you change your stance?

I will add my own opinion later, but I've omitted it right now to prevent the coloring of the debate before it begins.

I'm not trying to be nasty, but you will find that the majority of people against abortion are so because they see abortion as killing babies. Or because they believe it's a divine mandate. Not for political reasons.

-Why do you take your stance on abortion?

Because I believe that the rights of people who are born are more important than the rights of those who are not yet born.

-What do you think is the motivation behind the various views on abortion?

Partly a lack of clarity on when life begins. And partly the result of different views on whose rights are most important. Also, some see that by taking reproductive control away from women, it's a way to control them.

-Is there anything that would make you change your stance?

Not really.

[Auralia]

Your sort of argument, I can't really go against, because you simply have a different set of morals than I do. I don't value humans any more than I do animals - that is, both can be greatly valued for many different reasons, but not simply because they are alive.

Fair point. The key issue for me is that if one doesn't value humans simply because they are human, one can pick any arbitrary criteria. Some of the more common ones seem reasonable, like sentience, consciousness or a functioning brain. But really, you can pick anything, even something horrible like skin colour, gender, or the presence of physical disabilities.

Also, as a Catholic, there is a religious component for me as well, but I think the argument stands well enough on its own without bringing the concept of a soul or anything like that into it.

[Auralia]

And, to combat the "but it didn't choose to be there" argument before it arises, no, it didn't, and for that reason it doesn't have any rights to begin with, let alone the right to life.

You'll have to clarify that for me...

[Ceannairceach]

And, to combat the "but it didn't choose to be there" argument before it arises, no, it didn't, and for that reason it doesn't have any rights to begin with, let alone the right to life.

You'll have to clarify that for me...

It did not choose. Therefore, it is not a person, as it cannot make a choice, because it cannot think. If it cannot think, if it is not a self aware, self conscious being, I feel that it isn't deserving of the rights of a human being.

[Saint Jade IV]

Your sort of argument, I can't really go against, because you simply have a different set of morals than I do. I don't value humans any more than I do animals - that is, both can be greatly valued for many different reasons, but not simply because they are alive.

Fair point. The key issue for me is that if one doesn't value humans simply because they are human, one can pick any arbitrary criteria. Some of the more common ones seem reasonable, like sentience, consciousness or a functioning brain. But really, you can pick anything, even something horrible like skin colour, gender, or the presence of physical disabilities.

Also, as a Catholic, there is a religious component for me as well, but I think the argument stands well enough on its own without bringing the concept of a soul or anything like that into it.

The issue for me is not one of valuing humans or not. It's about the fact that not permitting abortion gives foetuses more rights than actual born children and people.

[Auralia]

You'll have to clarify that for me...

It did not choose. Therefore, it is not a person, as it cannot make a choice, because it cannot think. If it cannot think, if it is not a self aware, self conscious being, I feel that it isn't deserving of the rights of a human being.

I think that the ability to make choices is a dangerous criteria for rights. Infants, who are considered human, can't really make choices either. Neither can someone in a coma, or with a significant mental disability.

[Supremastan]

You are actively questioning the motivations behind his argument/his argument.

This thread is a place to make statements on the nature on arguments, not make debate on the arguments themselves.

So we can't discuss the second question of the OP? I'm still not buying the idea that I am going off topic.

Yes, that's what I said.

EDIT: Although perhaps I'm being too strict in my interpretation of the OP's request for now until we get further info from OP, carry on, sir.

[Auralia]

permitting abortion gives foetuses more rights than actual born children and people.

I think it gives equal rights, not more rights...?

[Saint Jade IV]

permitting abortion gives foetuses more rights than actual born children and people.

I think it gives equal rights, not more rights...?

A child who requires a kidney transplant or blood transfusion to live cannot legally compel a parent to give it to them, even if they will die otherwise. Outlawing abortion means that we are allowing unborn people to compel a woman to relinquish her womb to further their life. We would allow them more rights than a born child.

The pro life movement is extremely against forcing parents to donate blood or organs for post-birth children. Which is why I believe they care more about pre-birth children than post-birth ones.

[Ceannairceach]

It did not choose. Therefore, it is not a person, as it cannot make a choice, because it cannot think. If it cannot think, if it is not a self aware, self conscious being, I feel that it isn't deserving of the rights of a human being.

I think that the ability to make choices is a dangerous criteria for rights. Infants, who are considered human, can't really make choices either. Neither can someone in a coma, or with a significant mental disability.

They meet a different criteria for rights. Namely, self-consciousness. Amongst other things.

permitting abortion gives foetuses more rights than actual born children and people.

I think it gives equal rights, not more rights...?

And therein lies the flaw in your argument. Your argument would give fetuses the right to use the woman's body without her permission, as I mentioned, something person has the right to do, something that is almost always illegal, as cases of rape and torture apply. Your argument favors the rights of fetuses, which in my opinion need to be marginalized, and tramples on the rights of the woman.

[Auralia]

I think it gives equal rights, not more rights...?

A child who requires a kidney transplant or blood transfusion to live cannot legally compel a parent to give it to them, even if they will die otherwise. Outlawing abortion means that we are allowing unborn people to compel a woman to relinquish her womb to further their life. We would allow them more rights than a born child.

The pro life movement is extremely against forcing parents to donate blood or organs for post-birth children. Which is why I believe they care more about pre-birth children than post-birth ones.

If, say, someone stole a kidney from you (and keep in mind that living with a fetus is not nearly as damaging or as serious) and transplanted it in their body, would you be allowed to kill them by taking it back?

[Auralia]

I think that the ability to make choices is a dangerous criteria for rights. Infants, who are considered human, can't really make choices either. Neither can someone in a coma, or with a significant mental disability.

They meet a different criteria for rights. Namely, self-consciousness. Amongst other things.

I think it gives equal rights, not more rights...?

And therein lies the flaw in your argument. Your argument would give fetuses the right to use the woman's body without her permission, as I mentioned, something person has the right to do, something that is almost always illegal, as cases of rape and torture apply. Your argument favors the rights of fetuses, which in my opinion need to be marginalized, and tramples on the rights of the woman.

See my above comment.

[The Runic Inquisition]

I take my stance because a single human life that cannot even think for itself is of no importance to the world at large, and because a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body.

Religious brainwashing by the ignorant and the stupid on one side, and rabid feminism on the other.
[For the two extremes].

Not unless someone can demonstrate without a doubt that the unborn child is capable of independant thought [which has already been proved not to be the case].

[Uncle Sam]

My stance on abortion is "FOR". I'm pro-women's choice, it is their body after all and they should be given the right to have a child or not have a child. I'm also for abortion because I can imagine scores of would-be mother dying from back-alley abortions because they don't want to go through the immense struggle of bearing an unwanted child. Making it illegal would be in a sense killing more people than saving.

[1000 Cats]

Your sort of argument, I can't really go against, because you simply have a different set of morals than I do. I don't value humans any more than I do animals - that is, both can be greatly valued for many different reasons, but not simply because they are alive.

Fair point. The key issue for me is that if one doesn't value humans simply because they are human, one can pick any arbitrary criteria. Some of the more common ones seem reasonable, like sentience, consciousness or a functioning brain. But really, you can pick anything, even something horrible like skin colour, gender, or the presence of physical disabilities.

Also, as a Catholic, there is a religious component for me as well, but I think the argument stands well enough on its own without bringing the concept of a soul or anything like that into it.

That is a valid fear, and I will admit that it is subjective. I value things based on subjectivity itself: an individual is valued if there are other individuals who specifically place value on them. In the case of nearly every human from the time they are born, there are others who love them, then individuals who feel that the world is a better place with them in it, etc. Even in the case of animals in the wild, other animals can place value upon them even if they cannot express this linguistically. I place value on any pure carnivore I meet in the wild just because I believe their existence is important. In the case of an unwanted fetus, though, by its very definition there is no one who values it.

Now, you may value it simply for it being alive, but that is a more impersonal value, a value that can be applied to any living thing and thus is very small indeed when compared to valuing someone for a more personal reason, such as that they have been a good friend, are an excellent writer, or comprise a unique beauty and fill an important niche in the natural world. When hearing about an abortion, you will react less than if I were to hear about a wolf being shot and killed, and even less than if a close relative or personal hero had died. The value you place is more on the preservation of your ideals than upon the individual fetus itself.

[Saint Jade IV]

A child who requires a kidney transplant or blood transfusion to live cannot legally compel a parent to give it to them, even if they will die otherwise. Outlawing abortion means that we are allowing unborn people to compel a woman to relinquish her womb to further their life. We would allow them more rights than a born child.

The pro life movement is extremely against forcing parents to donate blood or organs for post-birth children. Which is why I believe they care more about pre-birth children than post-birth ones.

If, say, someone stole a kidney from you (and keep in mind that living with a fetus is not nearly as damaging or as serious) and transplanted it in their body, would you be allowed to kill them by taking it back?

What does that have to do with the situation?

The pro-life movement claims that a woman has a responsibility to the life created within her. However, the pro-life movement seems to agree that this responsibility seems to end at birth. That is why they do not argue for mandatory blood donations from parents to children, even if they will die otherwise.

If you argue that a foetus has a right to life at the expense of the mother's bodily sovereignty, you must also argue that this relinquishing of bodily sovereignty extends post-birth.

Furthermore, the risks of pregnancy-related illnesses include:

Diabetes
Blood disorders (such as anaemia)
infertility
kidney problems
Some forms of cancer

And a range of other things. All serious, and/or life-threatening conditions. Pregnancy is a very dangerous enterprise for a woman to embark on.

[Ceannairceach]

A child who requires a kidney transplant or blood transfusion to live cannot legally compel a parent to give it to them, even if they will die otherwise. Outlawing abortion means that we are allowing unborn people to compel a woman to relinquish her womb to further their life. We would allow them more rights than a born child.

The pro life movement is extremely against forcing parents to donate blood or organs for post-birth children. Which is why I believe they care more about pre-birth children than post-birth ones.

If, say, someone stole a kidney from you (and keep in mind that living with a fetus is not nearly as damaging or as serious) and transplanted it in their body, would you be allowed to kill them by taking it back?

Do site how many times that happens in a given decade.

Rather, they would be tried, likely, and fined, and you would be compensated for your loss. We couldn't quite kill them, because vigilantism is not legal, at least not in the United States, and the threat is no longer immediate. Rather, due process of the law would take over.q

[Auralia]

Fair point. The key issue for me is that if one doesn't value humans simply because they are human, one can pick any arbitrary criteria. Some of the more common ones seem reasonable, like sentience, consciousness or a functioning brain. But really, you can pick anything, even something horrible like skin colour, gender, or the presence of physical disabilities.

Also, as a Catholic, there is a religious component for me as well, but I think the argument stands well enough on its own without bringing the concept of a soul or anything like that into it.

That is a valid fear, and I will admit that it is subjective. I value things based on subjectivity itself: an individual is valued if there are other individuals who specifically place value on them. In the case of nearly every human from the time they are born, there are others who love them, then individuals who feel that the world is a better place with them in it, etc. Even in the case of animals in the wild, other animals can place value upon them even if they cannot express this linguistically. I place value on any pure carnivore I meet in the wild just because I believe their existence is important. In the case of an unwanted fetus, though, by its very definition there is no one who values it.

Now, you may value it simply for it being alive, but that is a more impersonal value, a value that can be applied to any living thing and thus is very small indeed when compared to valuing someone for a more personal reason, such as that they have been a good friend, are an excellent writer, or comprise a unique beauty and fill an important niche in the natural world. When hearing about an abortion, you will react less than if I were to hear about a wolf being shot and killed, and even less than if a close relative or personal hero had died. The value you place is more on the preservation of your ideals than upon the individual fetus itself.

Well, then, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. I fully disagree with your last paragraph, by the way, but I need to go study for an exam now.

[Auralia]

If, say, someone stole a kidney from you (and keep in mind that living with a fetus is not nearly as damaging or as serious) and transplanted it in their body, would you be allowed to kill them by taking it back?

Do site how many times that happens in a given decade.

Rather, they would be tried, likely, and fined, and you would be compensated for your loss. We couldn't quite kill them, because vigilantism is not legal, at least not in the United States, and the threat is no longer immediate. Rather, due process of the law would take over.q

My point was not that this happens often, but that supporting a fetus against one's will is very similar to the above example.

[Saint Jade IV]

Do site how many times that happens in a given decade.

Rather, they would be tried, likely, and fined, and you would be compensated for your loss. We couldn't quite kill them, because vigilantism is not legal, at least not in the United States, and the threat is no longer immediate. Rather, due process of the law would take over.q

My point was not that this happens often, but that supporting a fetus against one's will is very similar to the above example.

Are you going to allow the mother to sue the foetus for loss of income, medical expenses, emotional trauma, health risks etc etc, and have the foetus charged and thrown in jail, like we would with the person in your example?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'd just like to state, before we begin, that this is NOT ABOUT ABORTION. Rather, it's about the political debate SURROUNDING abortion as an issue. If you want to rant about "dem ebil gawdlesh bebbeh killersh", go make your own thread. And obviously, if this deteriorates into flaming, I'll call it a failed attempt and ask for a lock. That's all.

Now, I'm sure most of you want to know why I'm beating this dead horse. "It must be because he's an F7er, and he's got no sense in his head.", some will say. Others will ignore the above warning and simply start flaming me. That's not what I'm doing here, though.

Blah blah, needless filler. Just get to the point already.

So, with that, I pose my question. And keep in mind, this is THE ONLY POINT OF DISCUSSION THAT IS RELEVANT IN THIS THREAD. My question for NSG is this:
-Why do you take your stance on abortion?
-What do you think is the motivation behind the various views on abortion?
-Is there anything that would make you change your stance?

-Because I fervently believe that a woman's body is hers alone and she should have the liberty to choose what goes on in it, without anyone else's interference. She alone knows what's best for her and her family, if she has one.

-Ignorance, for one, seems to me to be a big motivator. A misguided sense of religious zeal is another one. And, of course, there's the people who can't let others decide for themselves.

-No. Not when it comes to rights others posses. I may change my views on the subject when it pertains to me. Whatever others choose regarding their health and what they wish to do with their bodies, it's their right, and I don't have the right to dictate what they choose.