Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

PLEASE READ THE OP BEFORE POSTING

Since the last one was locked, and this debate will continue on for a while, one would think to restart the thread. That I did, and if the mods deem that inappropriate, then lock it.

This topic is about the debate between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. Where do you fall on the spectrum? What do you think about the topic? What are your concerns about what the other side is proposing?

Please not that abortion is not murder.

Abortion does not meet the criteria to be murder.
For it to be murder, it would have to fulfill all the following criteria:
1: It has to be illegal.
2: A person has to be killed.
3: It had to be done with malice aforethought.

Personally, I'm pro-choice, and that a woman has bodily sovereignty to do as such.

---

And now, at Godular's request, I'm going to copy and paste his side of the argument.

Abortion, mayhap one of the greatest hot-button issues of modern society, generates more debate and name-calling than even the evolution/creationism argument (I refuse to call it a debate as such implies that creationism is worthy of equivalent respect compared to the Theory of Evolution, but that’s all for another thread).

Short version:

No person has the right to control another person’s body against their will.

Long Version:

It is my position that a woman has the right to control her own body. She has the right to determine how it is used and whether anyone else can interact with that body by any means. This right includes the ability to determine when and how she becomes a parent. This position is typically summarized as ‘Nobody has the right to control another person’s body against their will’, as stated above. It is a major point in my position on the right of one human to kill another in self-defense, and also in my position that a woman should not be restricted from access to abortion.

If a woman becomes subject to an undesired pregnancy, despite any safeguards that might have been taken (though I do not consider this a crucial factor), she should have the capacity to terminate that pregnancy. It is not my business to ask why she might not desire to carry the pregnancy to term, nor is it my business to ask how the pregnancy came about. The only thing that matters to me is that the woman has the option available if she should have need of it.

The desires of the fetus are irrelevant to this consideration for two reasons:

One, it is not a conscious entity. By the time it reaches the capacity to feel pain, it will have attained a property known as ‘viability’ (at approximately 24 weeks into the pregnancy) at which point other restrictions come into play. Typically (and by typically I mean ‘damn near always’) a woman that has gone this long without terminating the pregnancy has done so because she fully wishes to carry the pregnancy to term. The only reason to terminate a pregnancy past this point is because of medical emergency.

Two, it has no rights as long as it is physically connected to another human being and is reliant upon that other human being for its continued existence. If the woman is forced to carry a pregnancy against her will, that is preventing the woman from being able to control her own body and to allow another entity to use that body for its own purposes. Some might say that the fetus is innocent. This is irrelevant, as the intent to do harm is not required for harm to be done.

A person is allowed to defend themselves from something that means them harm whether it has any direct malice or not. We can defend ourselves from a person meaning us harm, or a mountain lion thinking us a hearty meal. What if it were a caveman, genetically human but for all intents and purposes acting on instinct itself? Would we still be able to defend ourselves from this noble savage should it attack us?

Now, it is important for me to state at this juncture that though I feel it is critical for abortion to be available on demand in order to be a truly equal society, I do not ‘like’ abortion. I consider it a billion tiny tragedies that abortion HAS to be available (an abhorrent necessity, if you will). I feel that the best way to proceed is to make contraception free and freely available and to provide comprehensive sexual education and training in how to properly employ contraceptives of various forms and potential risks of sexual intercourse.

This will serve to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Attacking a problem by dealing with its root cause, without denying a woman the right to control her own body. Simple enough, no?

Now, throughout my own presence on these boards, I’ve noted a wide variety of arguments against the concept of abortion (which as Abortion is presently legal in the United States, is the side that I will focus on here), though in the end they all end up summarizing into a handful of fundamental positions. I shall present them here, along with the points arguing against each, as well as arguments against specific sub-arguments.

Please keep in mind, these are utilizing my own positions on the matter as a pro-choice individual. Other pro-choicers may differ from my own position, though I have found that the position I have reached is the most consistent and sustainable of those available. I ascribe to a philosophical version of Occam’s Razor in this situation: The less you have to present exceptions or justifications to your argument, the higher the probability that your position is the logically correct one. This is the logical aspect, not necessarily the moral aspect.

It is also important that this position is focused on the United States and the rights granted to citizens by the US Constitution. Those from other countries might have different legal situations. I would be interested in hearing about the position in other countries.

Without further ado, the basic pro-life arguments:

”1. ABORTION IS MURDER!”

--Disregarding the appeal to emotion this argument exemplifies, this is legally incorrect.

murder [mur-der]
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)

In summary, in order for an act to be murder, the following two properties must be present:
--It must be illegal
--There must be malice.
--Some would say a third property must be present, that a person must be killed, but part of my own position notes that personhood is fundamentally irrelevant to the argument.

Claiming that a woman is killing the fetus out of malice does a grave injustice to the reasons that a woman would have for electing to terminate a pregnancy. You do not know the woman’s situation, so what right do you have to pass judgement? Also, abortion is legal and supported by the US constitution.

Thus, on both properties, abortion does not fall under the criteria for murder. Attempts to place it as such are effectively spouting hyperbole and do neither side any favors.

”2. If the woman did not want to get pregnant, she shouldn’t have had sex!"

--This claim does a grave disservice to women in general and also passes an inherently subjective judgement upon the woman. This claim essentially states that pregnancy is a punishment for the woman not being sufficiently careful, which is inherently misogynistic in nature because it assumes that the woman was not already trying to be careful or is a ‘slut getting her just rewards’. Some cultures feel that sex is only for procreation, but humanity is one of the few species on Earth that derive physical and emotional pleasure from the act of copulation. Sex feels good and is also a superb aid to emotional bonding.

In short: Sex is NOT just for procreation. In modern society, the concept of casual and recreational sex has become more and more accepted in society, especially as women become more and more capable of controlling the probability of unanticipated pregnancies. Men enjoy sex, women enjoy sex, and though it has serious ramifications this should not be cause for any restriction on having sex unless the woman chooses such of her own volition (I.E. saving oneself for marriage. Totally fine to choose that path, but don’t judge others for not choosing the same).

This is best summarized as: Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Consent can also be revoked. To say that a woman must keep a pregnancy whether she wanted it or not implies that once she has given consent she cannot later remove it. Using this logic, should a woman who wishes to stop having sex be obligated to ‘let him finish’? My answer, and the answer of many people, would be a resounding no. The instant consent is revoked, sex becomes rape. Should she be obligated to carry the fetus to term then?

Even many pro-lifers insert exceptions to their restrictions in regards to rape. Curious, that.

”3. Every human has a right to life!”

--The right to life only extends as far as it does not abridge the rights of another. There is a reason that we do not have government squads roaming the streets swiping people off the sidewalk and removing kidneys and lungs to transplant into others who might die if they do not receive such organs. The right to control one’s own body supersedes the right of someone else to use it, even if their life depends on the support provided by that body.

A fetus’ existence is automatically abridging the rights of the woman within which it resides. If the woman wishes to be pregnant and is intent on becoming a parent, she is consenting to this state and all the ramifications presented thereto. If she does not wish to be pregnant, she should not be prevented from severing support if she so chooses. That this severing of support will result in the death of the fetus is unfortunate, but unavoidable.

An extension to this position is the claim that all children have an inherent right to the resources of their parents. Were this true, we would not have options such as adoption available. Claims regarding adoption will be discussed further in regards to argument 5. The point as it stands here however is that a woman is not required to provide a fetus with anything.
Another extension to this is that some pro-life individuals add a caveat in their abortion restrictions to consider when the mother’s life is threatened. It is important to note that pregnancy is in itself a life-threatening condition. There are a wide variety of complications that can take place during a pregnancy that can have dire ramifications for the mother-to-be. If a woman does not wish to assume the risks of such a life-threatening condition, the ‘life-threatening’ caveat makes any actual restriction meaningless.

”4. The man helped create the life, he should have a say in whether it ends!”

--This one is somewhat indirect. In some cases it is a veiled accusation that a woman is unable to make her own decisions. In others it is a claim that the man has equal stock in the pregnancy even though he’s not the one saddled with the fetus.

The primary counter to this position is that nobody should be able to tell a woman what she does with her body. “Her body, her choice” is the paraphrased statement in this regard. To require the man’s input in order for an abortion to go through abridges the right of the woman to control her own body. The man may have helped cause the pregnancy, but he should only have a say in the matter of whether the woman proceeds with the pregnancy only if she chooses to allow it.

Now, this does indeed seem a one-sided decision. The woman is the only one who can decide whether to carry the fetus to term? What if the woman chooses to carry it to term and raise the resultant child, but the MAN does not wish to become a parent? Should he not also have some recourse? The current situation is that if the woman carries the pregnancy to term, the man is financially responsible for helping take care of that child, whether he wishes it or not.

It is my position that equality goes both ways. As Osteoeuropa has asked me no less than three times (once in TG), I support a concept known as ‘Legal Paternal Surrender’ or ‘Legal Parental Surrender’ (seems both are used with equal frequency), which is the process by which one parent severs all obligation to care for a child, financial or otherwise. This would allow a father that is not ready for parenthood the capacity to terminate his own connection to the impending child, irrespective of the wishes of the mother. Presently, this concept in its current form (when present at all) requires the mother to sign off on the surrender. I do not support this restriction. If the right to terminate a pregnancy can be done unilaterally by the mother, the right to legal parental surrender should be available to the father on a similar basis.

”5. She should just put it up for adoption!”

--This argument presents a severe mischaracterization of the ramifications of pregnancy as a whole, claiming in some situations that pregnancy is ‘just a little discomfort’ or ‘a temporary condition’, and that the woman should just carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and allow the child to be remitted into the foster system. Adoption is not the solution to an unwanted pregnancy. The woman does not wish to be pregnant, forcing her to carry it to term ignores the primary objection to the situation and again removes from the woman the right to control her own body.

This argument also crosses a very rarely considered line: that the woman should not be permitted to control her body for a certain period of time simply because it is ‘only an inconvenience’. By this logic, a woman should not be able to defend herself from a rapist because it is only a ‘temporary inconvenience’. Some will respond to this statement in a very knee-jerk manner, but I would ask in turn how it is that one is different from the other. Both cases are life-threatening, and if the woman does not consent to either case she is having her body used against her will. Why does one situation have a different response than the other?

My claim: they do not, nor should they.

When one boils all of the debate down to its most fundamental basis, the argument is rendered into the following question: Does the right of a person to control their own body supersede the right of another person to live? This to me is a matter of opinion. Does one defend themselves from attackers with deadly force or not? It is a personal choice, one that has no right or wrong answer.

So NS, hopefully you have read the long version and can understand the context of the following questions. What say you?

1. Do you believe that all humans should be held as equals? Why or why not?

2. Do you believe that the right to bodily sovereignty should supercede the right of another to live? Why or why not?

I have already stated my own answers in the wall of text provided above, but to summarize my specific position:

1. All humans should be treated as equal. No person has the right to use another person's body against their will, and a fetus should be no exception to this rule.

2. Bodily sovereignty is one of the most basic human rights, and forcing a person to give that up for any reason strikes me as... criminal.

---

Mod Edit: Here's a link to the first one. It got to 500 pages.
Mod edit: Restore the title after a topic merge.

[Godular]

Continuing the ongoing discussion from the previous thread, but with different questions. If this OP seems too bloggish, I will modify as necessary.

Abortion, mayhap one of the greatest hot-button issues of modern society, generates more debate and name-calling than even the evolution/creationism argument (I refuse to call it a debate as such implies that creationism is worthy of equivalent respect compared to the Theory of Evolution, but that’s all for another thread).

Short version:

No person has the right to control another person’s body against their will.

Long Version:

It is my position that a woman has the right to control her own body. She has the right to determine how it is used and whether anyone else can interact with that body by any means. This right includes the ability to determine when and how she becomes a parent. This position is typically summarized as ‘Nobody has the right to control another person’s body against their will’, as stated above. It is a major point in my position on the right of one human to kill another in self-defense, and also in my position that a woman should not be restricted from access to abortion.

If a woman becomes subject to an undesired pregnancy, despite any safeguards that might have been taken (though I do not consider this a crucial factor), she should have the capacity to terminate that pregnancy. It is not my business to ask why she might not desire to carry the pregnancy to term, nor is it my business to ask how the pregnancy came about. The only thing that matters to me is that the woman has the option available if she should have need of it.

The desires of the fetus are irrelevant to this consideration for two reasons:

One, it is not a conscious entity. By the time it reaches the capacity to feel pain, it will have attained a property known as ‘viability’ (at approximately 24 weeks into the pregnancy) at which point other restrictions come into play. Typically (and by typically I mean ‘damn near always’) a woman that has gone this long without terminating the pregnancy has done so because she fully wishes to carry the pregnancy to term. The only reason to terminate a pregnancy past this point is because of medical emergency.

Two, it has no rights as long as it is physically connected to another human being and is reliant upon that other human being for its continued existence. If the woman is forced to carry a pregnancy against her will, that is preventing the woman from being able to control her own body and to allow another entity to use that body for its own purposes. Some might say that the fetus is innocent. This is irrelevant, as the intent to do harm is not required for harm to be done.

A person is allowed to defend themselves from something that means them harm whether it has any direct malice or not. We can defend ourselves from a person meaning us harm, or a mountain lion thinking us a hearty meal. What if it were a caveman, genetically human but for all intents and purposes acting on instinct itself? Would we still be able to defend ourselves from this noble savage should it attack us?

Now, it is important for me to state at this juncture that though I feel it is critical for abortion to be available on demand in order to be a truly equal society, I do not ‘like’ abortion. I consider it a billion tiny tragedies that abortion HAS to be available (an abhorrent necessity, if you will). I feel that the best way to proceed is to make contraception free and freely available and to provide comprehensive sexual education and training in how to properly employ contraceptives of various forms and potential risks of sexual intercourse.

This will serve to reduce the number of abortions by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies. Attacking a problem by dealing with its root cause, without denying a woman the right to control her own body. Simple enough, no?

Now, throughout my own presence on these boards, I’ve noted a wide variety of arguments against the concept of abortion (which as Abortion is presently legal in the United States, is the side that I will focus on here), though in the end they all end up summarizing into a handful of fundamental positions. I shall present them here, along with the points arguing against each, as well as arguments against specific sub-arguments.

Please keep in mind, these are utilizing my own positions on the matter as a pro-choice individual. Other pro-choicers may differ from my own position, though I have found that the position I have reached is the most consistent and sustainable of those available. I ascribe to a philosophical version of Occam’s Razor in this situation: The less you have to present exceptions or justifications to your argument, the higher the probability that your position is the logically correct one. This is the logical aspect, not necessarily the moral aspect.

It is also important that this position is focused on the United States and the rights granted to citizens by the US Constitution. Those from other countries might have different legal situations. I would be interested in hearing about the position in other countries.

Without further ado, the basic pro-life arguments:

”1. ABORTION IS MURDER!”

--Disregarding the appeal to emotion this argument exemplifies, this is legally incorrect.

murder [mur-der]
Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder) and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)

In summary, in order for an act to be murder, the following two properties must be present:
--It must be illegal
--There must be malice.
--Some would say a third property must be present, that a person must be killed, but part of my own position notes that personhood is fundamentally irrelevant to the argument.

Claiming that a woman is killing the fetus out of malice does a grave injustice to the reasons that a woman would have for electing to terminate a pregnancy. You do not know the woman’s situation, so what right do you have to pass judgement? Also, abortion is legal and supported by the US constitution.

Thus, on both properties, abortion does not fall under the criteria for murder. Attempts to place it as such are effectively spouting hyperbole and do neither side any favors.

”2. If the woman did not want to get pregnant, she shouldn’t have had sex!"

--This claim does a grave disservice to women in general and also passes an inherently subjective judgement upon the woman. This claim essentially states that pregnancy is a punishment for the woman not being sufficiently careful, which is inherently misogynistic in nature because it assumes that the woman was not already trying to be careful or is a ‘slut getting her just rewards’. Some cultures feel that sex is only for procreation, but humanity is one of the few species on Earth that derive physical and emotional pleasure from the act of copulation. Sex feels good and is also a superb aid to emotional bonding.

In short: Sex is NOT just for procreation. In modern society, the concept of casual and recreational sex has become more and more accepted in society, especially as women become more and more capable of controlling the probability of unanticipated pregnancies. Men enjoy sex, women enjoy sex, and though it has serious ramifications this should not be cause for any restriction on having sex unless the woman chooses such of her own volition (I.E. saving oneself for marriage. Totally fine to choose that path, but don’t judge others for not choosing the same).

This is best summarized as: Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Consent can also be revoked. To say that a woman must keep a pregnancy whether she wanted it or not implies that once she has given consent she cannot later remove it. Using this logic, should a woman who wishes to stop having sex be obligated to ‘let him finish’? My answer, and the answer of many people, would be a resounding no. The instant consent is revoked, sex becomes rape. Should she be obligated to carry the fetus to term then?

Even many pro-lifers insert exceptions to their restrictions in regards to rape. Curious, that.

”3. Every human has a right to life!”

--The right to life only extends as far as it does not abridge the rights of another. There is a reason that we do not have government squads roaming the streets swiping people off the sidewalk and removing kidneys and lungs to transplant into others who might die if they do not receive such organs. The right to control one’s own body supersedes the right of someone else to use it, even if their life depends on the support provided by that body.

A fetus’ existence is automatically abridging the rights of the woman within which it resides. If the woman wishes to be pregnant and is intent on becoming a parent, she is consenting to this state and all the ramifications presented thereto. If she does not wish to be pregnant, she should not be prevented from severing support if she so chooses. That this severing of support will result in the death of the fetus is unfortunate, but unavoidable.

An extension to this position is the claim that all children have an inherent right to the resources of their parents. Were this true, we would not have options such as adoption available. Claims regarding adoption will be discussed further in regards to argument 5. The point as it stands here however is that a woman is not required to provide a fetus with anything.
Another extension to this is that some pro-life individuals add a caveat in their abortion restrictions to consider when the mother’s life is threatened. It is important to note that pregnancy is in itself a life-threatening condition. There are a wide variety of complications that can take place during a pregnancy that can have dire ramifications for the mother-to-be. If a woman does not wish to assume the risks of such a life-threatening condition, the ‘life-threatening’ caveat makes any actual restriction meaningless.

”4. The man helped create the life, he should have a say in whether it ends!”

--This one is somewhat indirect. In some cases it is a veiled accusation that a woman is unable to make her own decisions. In others it is a claim that the man has equal stock in the pregnancy even though he’s not the one saddled with the fetus.

The primary counter to this position is that nobody should be able to tell a woman what she does with her body. “Her body, her choice” is the paraphrased statement in this regard. To require the man’s input in order for an abortion to go through abridges the right of the woman to control her own body. The man may have helped cause the pregnancy, but he should only have a say in the matter of whether the woman proceeds with the pregnancy only if she chooses to allow it.

Now, this does indeed seem a one-sided decision. The woman is the only one who can decide whether to carry the fetus to term? What if the woman chooses to carry it to term and raise the resultant child, but the MAN does not wish to become a parent? Should he not also have some recourse? The current situation is that if the woman carries the pregnancy to term, the man is financially responsible for helping take care of that child, whether he wishes it or not.

It is my position that equality goes both ways. As Osteoeuropa has asked me no less than three times (once in TG), I support a concept known as ‘Legal Paternal Surrender’ or ‘Legal Parental Surrender’ (seems both are used with equal frequency), which is the process by which one parent severs all obligation to care for a child, financial or otherwise. This would allow a father that is not ready for parenthood the capacity to terminate his own connection to the impending child, irrespective of the wishes of the mother. Presently, this concept in its current form (when present at all) requires the mother to sign off on the surrender. I do not support this restriction. If the right to terminate a pregnancy can be done unilaterally by the mother, the right to legal parental surrender should be available to the father on a similar basis.

”5. She should just put it up for adoption!”

--This argument presents a severe mischaracterization of the ramifications of pregnancy as a whole, claiming in some situations that pregnancy is ‘just a little discomfort’ or ‘a temporary condition’, and that the woman should just carry an unwanted pregnancy to term and allow the child to be remitted into the foster system. Adoption is not the solution to an unwanted pregnancy. The woman does not wish to be pregnant, forcing her to carry it to term ignores the primary objection to the situation and again removes from the woman the right to control her own body.

This argument also crosses a very rarely considered line: that the woman should not be permitted to control her body for a certain period of time simply because it is ‘only an inconvenience’. By this logic, a woman should not be able to defend herself from a rapist because it is only a ‘temporary inconvenience’. Some will respond to this statement in a very knee-jerk manner, but I would ask in turn how it is that one is different from the other. Both cases are life-threatening, and if the woman does not consent to either case she is having her body used against her will. Why does one situation have a different response than the other?

My claim: they do not, nor should they.

When one boils all of the debate down to its most fundamental basis, the argument is rendered into the following question: Does the right of a person to control their own body supersede the right of another person to live? This to me is a matter of opinion. Does one defend themselves from attackers with deadly force or not? It is a personal choice, one that has no right or wrong answer.

So NS, hopefully you have read the long version and can understand the context of the following questions. What say you?

1. Do you believe that all humans should be held as equals? Why or why not?

2. Do you believe that the right to bodily sovereignty should supercede the right of another to live? Why or why not?

I have already stated my own answers in the wall of text provided above, but to summarize my specific position:

1. All humans should be treated as equal. No person has the right to use another person's body against their will, and a fetus should be no exception to this rule.

2. Bodily sovereignty is one of the most basic human rights, and forcing a person to give that up for any reason strikes me as... criminal.

Edited: was gonna spoilerfy to cut down on wall of text, but apparently fractalspoilers aren't allowed in the formatting. Oh well, thanks Hobbes!

[Godular]

Since the last one was locked, and this debate will continue on for a while, one would think to restart the thread. That I did, and if the mods deem that inappropriate, then lock it.

This topic is about the debate between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. Where do you fall on the spectrum? What do you think about the topic? What are your concerns about what the other side is proposing?

Please not that abortion is not murder.

Abortion does not meet the criteria to be murder.
For it to be murder, it would have to fulfill all the following criteria:
1: It has to be illegal.
2: A person has to be killed.
3: It had to be done with malice aforethought.

Personally, I'm pro-choice, and that a woman has bodily sovereignty to do as such.

Noooooooo... I went to so much trouble for my post...

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Always getting the better of me I see. Everyone does that.

Well anyway, to put it bluntly, I'm pro-choice. A woman has bodily sovereignty, and a fetus does not triumph those rights. Simply a clump of cells that is.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Since the last one was locked, and this debate will continue on for a while, one would think to restart the thread. That I did, and if the mods deem that inappropriate, then lock it.

This topic is about the debate between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. Where do you fall on the spectrum? What do you think about the topic? What are your concerns about what the other side is proposing?

Please not that abortion is not murder.



Personally, I'm pro-choice, and that a woman has bodily sovereignty to do as such.

Noooooooo... I went to so much trouble for my post...

Trust me, I saw that.

I'm going to ask for this one to be locked away.

[Godular]

Well phooey. Was hoping my post would be first but ya beat me by a minute.

If ya wanna copy pasta my post into the OP that'd be awesome. >insert puppy dog eyes here<

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

Well phooey. Was hoping my post would be first but ya beat me by a minute.

If ya wanna copy pasta my post into the OP that'd be awesome. >insert puppy dog eyes here<

Looks like it merged. All's well that ends well, I guess.

[Godular]

Well phooey. Was hoping my post would be first but ya beat me by a minute.

If ya wanna copy pasta my post into the OP that'd be awesome. >insert puppy dog eyes here<

Looks like it merged. All's well that ends well, I guess.

Sigh. Was gonna put up a poll and everything.

Ah well.

[Othelos]

I wonder if anyone will actually read the beginning posts :/

[Sanctissima]

Since the last one was locked, and this debate will continue on for a while, one would think to restart the thread. That I did, and if the mods deem that inappropriate, then lock it.

This topic is about the debate between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. Where do you fall on the spectrum? What do you think about the topic? What are your concerns about what the other side is proposing?

Please not that abortion is not murder.

Abortion does not meet the criteria to be murder.
For it to be murder, it would have to fulfill all the following criteria:
1: It has to be illegal.
2: A person has to be killed.
3: It had to be done with malice aforethought.

Personally, I'm pro-choice, and that a woman has bodily sovereignty to do as such.

Whether or not it's murder is by no means a solved issue. For starters, the legality of abortion varies by country, as does the definition of a person.

If malice is or is not involved depends on the individual scenario (wherein admittedly, it usually isn't), but again, that's a legal definition. And there are few universal laws.

[Razgriskm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI#t=1284

Well. Thought provoking.

[Godular]

I wonder if anyone will actually read the beginning posts :/

That's why I wanted FAA to copy paste my post in with the OP, so it'd be consolidated into one post and proactively counter pretty much every pro-life argument that pops up, including sanc's attempt to rebut FAA's commentary on the murder argument.

If only for something different than that which forces the use of the same rebuttals every time.

That and I worked really hard on that post, and having it relegated to secondsies due to me not getting the post up two minutes earlier is just... iSigh.

[Othelos]

I wonder if anyone will actually read the beginning posts :/

That's why I wanted FAA to copy paste my post in with the OP, so it'd be consolidated into one post and proactively counter pretty much every pro-life argument that pops up, including sanc's attempt to rebut FAA's commentary on the murder argument.

If only for something different than that which forces the use of the same rebuttals every time.

That and I worked really hard on that post, and having it relegated to secondsies due to me not getting the post up two minutes earlier is just... iSigh.

he should

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI#t=1284

Well. Thought provoking.

The holocaust has nothing to do with abortion. Abortion has nothing to do with the holocaust. Comparing millions of living, thinking, feeling people being starved, tortured, and put to death for their race is not in any way comparable to a woman not being forced against her will to remain pregnant or give birth.

[Wallenburg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y2KsU_dhwI#t=1284

Well. Thought provoking.

Not even one page and we already have an instance of Godwin's law. Amazing.

It is also amazing that you can't realize that the Jews, Poles, and other groups killed in the Holocaust were alive, born human beings, while fetuses are not.

[BK117B2]

I feel that the phrasing itself is biased. Nearly everyone is pro-life.

The abortion debate generally falls to the opposing camps of pro-choice and anti-choice.

I'm pro-choice, because I lack the necessary arrogance to think I should be in charge of telling other people what they can do with their bodies.

[Razgriskm]

Based on the responses to my video link I can tell that people onł watched the first five minutes. It really does make you look foolish when you comment on a source you don't understand and it can be seen you don't understand based on what you said. What both of the responses amounted to was "Yeah I downloaded more RAM for my PC last night"

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

Based on the responses to my video link I can tell that people onł watched the first five minutes. It really does make you look foolish when you comment on a source you don't understand and it can be seen you don't understand based on what you said. What both of the responses amounted to was "Yeah I downloaded more RAM for my PC last night"

I, first of all, know what the 180 movie is about. If you didn't want us to watch the section you linked us to, don't link that section.
And second, if you want to make a point, make a point and don't link a 30 minute video, because we aren't going to watch Comfort be a cocksucker for that long.

[The Alma Mater]

I feel that the phrasing itself is biased. Nearly everyone is pro-life.

Ironically, as we established in the previous topic, that in practice boils down to 'pro-birth'. Very few people who identify as 'pro-life' are actively helping the unwanted kids to have an actual life. The overwhelming majority does not adopt, does not donate any money, does not offer to babysit etc. etc - in fact does not care at all about anything what happens after the actual birth.

[Wallenburg]

Based on the responses to my video link I can tell that people onl watched the first five minutes.

No, I watched five minutes from the middle of the video, where you sent me. The "people off the street" weren't even acting well. A one-sentence false analogy won't inspire anyone with a brain to completely reverse their opinions within seconds. Based on the segment you linked us to, I could only assume that was the video's strongest point and that the rest was even more ridiculous. I'm not wasting half an hour watching an opinionated man say random shit to amateur actors.

It really does make you look foolish when you comment on a source you don't understand

I understand it perfectly. Your "source" doesn't know how to make a rational argument. He plays the Nazi card without even thinking of the striking differences between a fully-developed adult human and a clump of cells that looks more like a fish than a human.

and it can be seen you don't understand based on what you said.

Redundant, much redundant?

What both of the responses amounted to was "Yeah I downloaded more RAM for my PC last night"

1) How the fuck did my analysis of the false analogy in the video amount to comments about the status of my computer?
2) You can't download RAM.

[White Chrobatia]

For me, personally, abortion should be up to the woman. If she wants to kill her own child, then that's what she can and should be able to do.

[Dyakovo]

Since the last one was locked, and this debate will continue on for a while, one would think to restart the thread. That I did, and if the mods deem that inappropriate, then lock it.

This topic is about the debate between those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice. Where do you fall on the spectrum? What do you think about the topic? What are your concerns about what the other side is proposing?

Please not that abortion is not murder.



Personally, I'm pro-choice, and that a woman has bodily sovereignty to do as such.

Whether or not it's murder is by no means a solved issue.

Yes it is. For it to be murder, it has to meet all three criteria. Abortion does not do that.

[Razgriskm]

Based on the responses to my video link I can tell that people onl watched the first five minutes.

No, I watched five minutes from the middle of the video, where you sent me. The "people off the street" weren't even acting well. A one-sentence false analogy won't inspire anyone with a brain to completely reverse their opinions within seconds. Based on the segment you linked us to, I could only assume that was the video's strongest point and that the rest was even more ridiculous. I'm not wasting half an hour watching an opinionated man say random shit to amateur actors.

It really does make you look foolish when you comment on a source you don't understand

I understand it perfectly. Your "source" doesn't know how to make a rational argument. He plays the Nazi card without even thinking of the striking differences between a fully-developed adult human and a clump of cells that looks more like a fish than a human.

and it can be seen you don't understand based on what you said.

Redundant, much redundant?

What both of the responses amounted to was "Yeah I downloaded more RAM for my PC last night"

1) How the fuck did my analysis of the false analogy in the video amount to comments about the status of my computer?
2) You can't download RAM.

*Deep breath*


The linked moment in the video was not intended, the video was linked for the whole source material to be seen. Reguardless of how much as some one put it thy don't want to watch "comfort be a cocksucker" (and that on its own broke a forum rule anyway)

Your statement on the difference between the holocaust and the situation today does not by any means disprove a message made, especially when later in said video they admitted that it was an extreme example.

Yes, I'm fully aware you cannot download ram. That's why I used it as an example of how stupid the people I was refering to were. It was wit, something that's apparently the highly inteligent and respectful people in nation states seem to not get.

[Godular]

No, I watched five minutes from the middle of the video, where you sent me. The "people off the street" weren't even acting well. A one-sentence false analogy won't inspire anyone with a brain to completely reverse their opinions within seconds. Based on the segment you linked us to, I could only assume that was the video's strongest point and that the rest was even more ridiculous. I'm not wasting half an hour watching an opinionated man say random shit to amateur actors.

I understand it perfectly. Your "source" doesn't know how to make a rational argument. He plays the Nazi card without even thinking of the striking differences between a fully-developed adult human and a clump of cells that looks more like a fish than a human.

Redundant, much redundant?

1) How the fuck did my analysis of the false analogy in the video amount to comments about the status of my computer?
2) You can't download RAM.

*Deep breath*


The linked moment in the video was not intended, the video was linked for the whole source material to be seen. Reguardless of how much as some one put it thy don't want to watch "comfort be a cocksucker" (and that on its own broke a forum rule anyway)

No it didn't. Implying that you might report somebody to bolster your own argument though? Yeah, THAT does.

Your statement on the difference between the holocaust and the situation today does not by any means disprove a message made, especially when later in said video they admitted that it was an extreme example.

Extremely incorrect. It is still trying to pull the abortion is murder card, in this case by going straight to the logical extreme of an already fallacious argument.

Yes, I'm fully aware you cannot download ram. That's why I used it as an example of how stupid the people I was refering to were. It was wit, something that's apparently the highly inteligent and respectful people in nation states seem to not get.

Glass houses and stones and such.

[Ifreann]

If God didn't want us to have abortions then why did he make us smart enough to do them so easily?