NationStates Jolt Archive

How about an experiment? Try and argue for or against outlawing abortion, but take a position in the other camp. If you're pro-life, argue pro-choice. If you're pro-choice, argue pro-life.

Don't troll or try to be absurd, but honestly attempt to argue for the other side and see the other point of view. Should be a fun intellectual exercise.

Yes, I know many of us already do it in our own heads to solidify our views.

Those little babies will all go to hell if they're aborted.

I proposed something similar before but my idea was shot down, plus some people will not deviate and insist that they are arguing from the other side even when they are not.

If i'm pro choice for early abortion, but mostly against late term abortions (depending on the circumstance), do I know have to be for late term abortions bug against early abortions?

I proposed something similar before but my idea was shot down, plus some people will not deviate and insist that they are arguing from the other side even when they are not.

Or we'll get some posters like the above who is obviously mildly flamebaiting.

I propose we simply ignore those things, and simply try to have a reasoned debate.

My attempt:

Let's start with the basics of what abortion is really about -

When does life begin.

There has NEVER been set an objective point for the origin of personhood. It's never been established. We've shift left and right and center for pretty much always.

It seems to me that one must err on the side of caution when ending what might be a person. That it's not is not an objective position.

We have a history in the US of changing our definition of personhood to protect whatever is popular. Don't want to end slavery? Then they're not people. Want to nuke Japan? Oh, they're just a bunch of evil monkeys. We deny personhood and argue for that denial simply to protect the practices we cherish.

/feeble attempt

I need someone to argue before I can get into this, I think.

If i'm pro choice for early abortion, but mostly against late term abortions (depending on the circumstance), do I know have to be for late term abortions bug against early abortions?

I think you'd just be pro-life. Most people who are pro-choice would deny late-term abortions on some level or another. I wonder how many pro-lifers will make an honest effort at this. I would find that terribly interesting.

Abortion is a horrid practice focussed only on ending life. Someone who does not want a child should not have sex, as reproduction is the main purpose of sexual intercourse. If a woman simply cannot refrain from sex, there is always the option of adoption. Her convenience should not keep a child from having a chance at life.

OOC: wow, that was much better than my effort. Generally, though, I think it wouldn't say "a woman cannot refrain" but "people cannot refrain".

Abortion is a horrid practice focussed only on ending life. Someone who does not want a child should not have sex, as reproduction is the main purpose of sexual intercourse. If a woman simply cannot refrain from sex, there is always the option of adoption. Her convenience should not keep a child from having a chance at life.

There has NEVER been set an objective point for the origin of personhood. It's never been established. We've shift left and right and center for pretty much always.

It seems to me that one must err on the side of caution when ending what might be a person. That it's not is not an objective position.

Even without science showing that life begins with the first signs of brain activity, which does not begin until some time into pregnancy, there is a life we know exists objectively; the woman's. Her right to protect her body is something that should be held above the right of something which, as you concede yourself, cannot even be shown to exist as a person.

I'll give it a try a bit later this evening.

Abortion is a horrid practice focussed only on ending life. Someone who does not want a child should not have sex, as reproduction is the main purpose of sexual intercourse. If a woman simply cannot refrain from sex, there is always the option of adoption. Her convenience should not keep a child from having a chance at life.

This isn't the 19th Century; woman aren't expected to stay at home, cook the dinner, and put up with sex as a chore. They are allowed to enjoy their bodies. If, by some accident, a women becomes pregnant, then the right to continue enjoying her own body does not cease.

Let's start with the basics of what abortion is really about -

When does life begin.

There has NEVER been set an objective point for the origin of personhood. It's never been established. We've shift left and right and center for pretty much always.

It seems to me that one must err on the side of caution when ending what might be a person. That it's not is not an objective position.

We have a history in the US of changing our definition of personhood to protect whatever is popular. Don't want to end slavery? Then they're not people. Want to nuke Japan? Oh, they're just a bunch of evil monkeys. We deny personhood and argue for that denial simply to protect the practices we cherish.

/feeble attempt

ah, but we know the mother is alive, shouldn't we err on the side of caution concerning her rights over that of something we can't scientifically ascertain whether or not it is in fact living?

Even without science showing that life begins with the first signs of brain activity, which does not begin until some time into pregnancy, there is a life we know exists objectively; the woman's. Her right to protect her body is something that should be held above the right of something which, as you concede yourself, cannot even be shown to exist as a person.

Sure, but if we're going to err to one side or another, only one of those sides has a person on it that chose to engage in acts with that potential outcome. The parents chose to take part in an act with consequences. If abortion did not exist the consequences would be the same as if abortion was outlawed. With the existence of abortion and the legalization of it, we err on the side of taking life. I know of no other case where we do so.

Brain activity starts at the beginning of the third trimester, but self-awareness doesn't occur until long after birth. Should we allow people to kill infants as well?

The only justification that pro choicers have is this arbitury idea of "humanism". With out any legitimate proof, they make the assumption that being inside the womb negates you of your humanhood, not to be mixed up with personhood.

ah, but we know the mother is alive, shouldn't we err on the side of caution concerning her rights over that of something we can't scientifically ascertain whether or not it is in fact living?

Answered above.

OOC: I didn't know you were pro-life. Interesting.

I can't really think of a valid biological/moral reason why abortion should not be permitted, so I'll attempt an alternative angle.

Abortion is a very, very emotionally damaging procedure. A woman who has become pregnant, and who obviously didn't intend on doing so, is already emotionally fragile. Adding to this fragility through occasionally invasive/distressing medical procedures, and often causing severe guilt, is probably not a good idea. Though putting the child up for adoption may cause similar guilt, at least nothing had to die in the process.

I can't really think of a valid biological/moral reason why abortion should not be permitted, so I'll attempt an alternative angle.

Abortion is a very, very emotionally damaging procedure. A woman who has become pregnant, and who obviously didn't intend on doing so, is already emotionally fragile. Adding to this fragility through occasionally invasive/distressing medical procedures, and therefore often causing severe guilt, is probably not a good idea. Though putting the child up for adoption may cause similar guilt, at least nothing had to die in the process.

OOC: Interesting take. I tried to take the approach I most often argue against. This is a very good argument though. I think you could have solidified it more, but you'll have a chance if people take up against it.

The only justification that pro choicers have is this arbitury idea of "humanism". With out any legitimate proof, they make the assumption that being inside the womb negates you of your humanhood, not to be mixed up with personhood.

You've got that backwards, but it's not on topic so I won't continue it further.

OOC: Interesting take. I tried to take the approach I most often argue against. This is a very good argument though. I think you could have solidified it more, but you'll have a chance if people take up against it.

Yeah, my wording probably isn't great.

You've got that backwards, but it's not on topic so I won't continue it further.

ooc: in what way?

ooc: in what way?

I don't deny it its humanity, I deny it's personhood. You claimed the opposite was true.

I don't deny it its humanity, I deny it's personhood. You claimed the opposite was true.

ooc: meh, many people (including I sometimes) argue that the foetus is not human i.e without it's humanhood. Personhood is just another argument for abortion.

Sure, but if we're going to err to one side or another, only one of those sides has a person on it that chose to engage in acts with that potential outcome. The parents chose to take part in an act with consequences.
I chose to engage in many acts that have a potential outcome. What we can do, however, is massively reduce the risk of that outcome occurring. And, if by no one's fault an accident does happen, then we shouldn't be forced to live with the dramatic consequences because we have decided a clump of cells is 'human'.

If abortion did not exist the consequences would be the same as if abortion was outlawed.
Abortion does exist, and it will not cease to exist because of legislation. All you would get is legal abortions becoming dangerous back street abortions.

With the existence of abortion and the legalization of it, we err on the side of taking life. I know of no other case where we do so.
You must show there is human life before it is possible to accept this.

Brain activity starts at the beginning of the third trimester, but self-awareness doesn't occur until long after birth. Should we allow people to kill infants as well?
An infant is indisputably alive. A foetus is not. There is a world of difference between the two.

Answered above.

OOC: I didn't know you were pro-life. Interesting.

OOC: I am actually pro-choice only in that I don't think it should be illegal, I still find the whole thing unnecessary in most cases, and morally wrong. I am not great at arguing a pro-choice stance though, since my only real reason for having it is.....I don't think it's a government issue.

Abortion is a very, very emotionally damaging procedure. A woman who has become pregnant, and who obviously didn't intend on doing so, is already emotionally fragile. Adding to this fragility through occasionally invasive/distressing medical procedures, and often causing severe guilt, is probably not a good idea. Though putting the child up for adoption may cause similar guilt, at least nothing had to die in the process.

To say that a woman is 'fragile' because she has become pregnant is to relegate woman back to some Victorian status, unable to care for themselves or deal with their emotions. Woman are perfectly capable of making logical, reasoned decisions, and understand the consequences of those decisions.

If, therefore, the woman in question decides to have an abortion, then that is her choice entirely; it is not up to you to tell her that she is too 'fragile' to come to that conclusion.

OOC: I didn't know you were pro-life. Interesting.
OOC: I'm not really 'pro-life' either, in that I don't think all abortions should be banned. But then I'm also anti-abortion, in that I really don't like them.

OOC: I am actually pro-choice only in that I don't think it should be illegal, I still find the whole thing unnecessary in most cases, and morally wrong.
Exactly.

ooc: meh, many people (including I sometimes) argue that the foetus is not human i.e without it's humanhood. Personhood is just another argument for abortion.

Nah, you've still got it backwards, I think. It's human because it has human DNA. It's not a person because it's not sapient. There's a huge difference.

To say that a woman is 'fragile' because she has become pregnant is to relegate woman back to some Victorian status, unable to care for themselves or deal with their emotions. Woman are perfectly capable of making logical, reasoned decisions, and understand the consequences of those decisions.

If, therefore, the woman in question decides to have an abortion, then that is her choice entirely; it is not up to you to tell her that she is too 'fragile' to come to that conclusion.

The emotional toil may well be so great that she would no longer be of sound mind. She may be highly distressed at finding she is pregnant. Do we allow mentally ill people, who are not entirely lucid in their thinking, to decide whether to take their medication? No. To do so would be irresponsible, as it may ultimately result in harm to the patient or people they encounter. If her distress is so great that she is no longer clearly thinking through her actions, should we trust that her judgment is sound? If her decision would ultimately cause greater harm to her and the unborn child, would it not be morally reprehensible to allow her to choose abortion?

I chose to engage in many acts that have a potential outcome. What we can do, however, is massively reduce the risk of that outcome occurring. And, if by no one's fault an accident does happen, then we shouldn't be forced to live with the dramatic consequences because we have decided a clump of cells is 'human'.

It's undoubtedly human, of course. I don't think you intend to say otherwise, or, at least, I hope you don't. We're questioning whether it's a person and since we've not established a line that can be agreed upon, an objective line, then positive action does not make sense. If you can't objectively defend abortion then we should err on non-action. You want us to err on the side of ending the life. You've got work to do there, bub.


Abortion does exist, and it will not cease to exist because of legislation. All you would get is legal abortions becoming dangerous back street abortions.

Murder also occurs in back alleys. We could legalize murder just to make it more humane and protect the murderer, but that would hardly make sense now would it. We don't legalize crime to protect criminals.


You must show there is human life before it is possible to accept this.

So I have to justify non-action? That's a pretty absurd request. The fact is that if we don't interfere in most cases a child will be born, and in any others it doesn't matter. When it becomes a person is debateable. You're arguing for interfering so you have to show an objective reason why we should permit this risk.


An infant is indisputably alive. A foetus is not. There is a world of difference between the two.

A fetus is alive by the biological definition. It's also human. I think you should realize that the only question here is whether it's a person. Otherwise, a pig is alive.

Now, are you saying that what defines personhood is being outside of the womb? My, oh, my, that's convenient and really of little more arbitrary value than defining personhood at conception.

OOC: I am actually pro-choice only in that I don't think it should be illegal, I still find the whole thing unnecessary in most cases, and morally wrong. I am not great at arguing a pro-choice stance though, since my only real reason for having it is.....I don't think it's a government issue.

OOC: Well, we need some pro-choicers so I'll take it. This should be interesting.

Nah, you've still got it backwards, I think. It's human because it has human DNA. It's not a person because it's not sapient. There's a huge difference.


OOC: I thought humanhood meant the same physical make up (not genetic) as a normal human being, and personhood is the same mental abillity or at least the same level of consciousness as a normal human being.

OOC: I thought humanhood meant the same physical make up (not genetic) as a normal human being, and personhood is the same mental abillity or at least the same level of consciousness as a normal human being.

Well, physical makeup IS just DNA, no?

To say that a woman is 'fragile' because she has become pregnant is to relegate woman back to some Victorian status, unable to care for themselves or deal with their emotions. Woman are perfectly capable of making logical, reasoned decisions, and understand the consequences of those decisions.

If, therefore, the woman in question decides to have an abortion, then that is her choice entirely; it is not up to you to tell her that she is too 'fragile' to come to that conclusion.

It's pretty easy to establish that abortion tends to be psychologically invasive. The risk, especially as it gets past the very early pregnancy, quickly outstrips the reward, provided your goal is more than a dead baby. There are huge physical burdens and when coupled with the psychological burden it's not difficult to make the case that abortions are merely the medical establishment taking advantage of vulnerable women. This puts doctors in a position of being peddlers instead of healers.

Nah, you've still got it backwards, I think. It's human because it has human DNA. It's not a person because it's not sapient. There's a huge difference.



The emotional toil may well be so great that she would no longer be of sound mind. She may be highly distressed at finding she is pregnant. Do we allow mentally ill people, who are not entirely lucid in their thinking, to decide whether to take their medication? No. To do so would be irresponsible, as it may ultimately result in harm to the patient or people they encounter. If her distress is so great that she is no longer clearly thinking through her actions, should we trust that her judgment is sound? If her decision would ultimately cause greater harm to her and the unborn child, would it not be morally reprehensible to allow her to choose abortion?


To be precise, we would allow a mentally-ill person to make their own decisions provided it offered no risk to anyone else. However, we've already established there is a potential risk as we have no objective way to say it could not possible be a person. As such, it's totally acceptable to protect others from someone not making sound decisions. How do we measure sound? Is it potentially damaging to her and/or others?

Abortion has to be controlled for many reasons:

1) All to often people take the easy road to solving mistakes rather then dealing with what they have done. Why do you deserve a "do over" Our ancestors didn't have the right(granted they lacked the knowledge). Why do we deserve it now.

2) Women argue it's their bodies. It is true to a degree. However, when they agree to marry a man and agreed to someday have children with him; she has allowed him to have some say in the process and the outcome. Her choice does not eliminate his "rights."

3) Abortion is used for escape children with issues. Retardation and autism for example. Why should you get away from your responcibilities becase they just became invconvient? How long before we start aborting other issues?


Ahhh hell that looks wimpy to me.

Abortion has to be controlled for many reasons:

1) All to often people take the easy road to solving mistakes rather then dealing with what they have done. Why do you deserve a "do over" Our ancestors didn't have the right(granted they lacked the knowledge). Why do we deserve it now.

2) Women argue it's their bodies. It is true to a degree. However, when they agree to marry a man and agreed to someday have children with him; she has allowed him to have some say in the process and the outcome. Her choice does not eliminate his "rights."

3) Abortion is used for escape children with issues. Retardation and autism for example. Why should you get away from your responcibilities becase they just became invconvient? How long before we start aborting other issues?


Ahhh hell that looks wimpy to me.


OOC: I have faith. I know you can do better.

The emotional toil may well be so great that she would no longer be of sound mind. She may be highly distressed at finding she is pregnant. Do we allow mentally ill people, who are not entirely lucid in their thinking, to decide whether to take their medication? No. To do so would be irresponsible, as it may ultimately result in harm to the patient or people they encounter. If her distress is so great that she is no longer clearly thinking through her actions, should we trust that her judgment is sound?
A pregnant woman is in no way comparable to a mentally ill person, and to think so is to continue to belittle the status of woman in society.
If her decision would ultimately cause greater harm to her and the unborn child, would it not be morally reprehensible to allow her to choose abortion?
What 'harm' an abortion would do to a woman isn't set in stone; it is something that can only be decided on a case by case basis. For some women, a pregnancy will do far more harm to them, whether emotionally or physically, than an abortion ever would. Choice is therefore essential; it must be left to the individual to weigh up the decision they are faced with.

'Morals' have no place in this. The foetus is not a person, and so what happens to it is irrelevant.

It's undoubtedly human, of course. I don't think you intend to say otherwise, or, at least, I hope you don't. We're questioning whether it's a person and since we've not established a line that can be agreed upon, an objective line, then positive action does not make sense. If you can't objectively defend abortion then we should err on non-action. You want us to err on the side of ending the life. You've got work to do there, bub.
It is a clump of cells, and you have been provided with an objective line. Unless you can come up with a valid reason why that line is not sufficient, then it is one we should follow. If you want to talk 'caution', then do so, by all means; but do not extend 'caution' to mean complete inaction.

Murder also occurs in back alleys. We could legalize murder just to make it more humane and protect the murderer, but that would hardly make sense now would it. We don't legalize crime to protect criminals.
The removal of cancerous growth is a medical procedure with many benefits. If it had been decided in the past that this was a 'crime', would we continue to ban it today because legalising it would 'protect criminals'?

It is wrong to deny women a choice in their own lives simply because of some misguided and outdated sense of what is 'right'.

So I have to justify non-action? That's a pretty absurd request. The fact is that if we don't interfere in most cases a child will be born, and in any others it doesn't matter. When it becomes a person is debateable. You're arguing for interfering so you have to show an objective reason why we should permit this risk.
If you don't 'interfere' and use contraceptives, in most cases a child will be born. Does that make the 'interference' of using a condom unacceptable, because of all the potential children that will never be?

Until the clump of cells is an actual human being, at the scientifically objective point of the start of life, then 'maybe one days' should have no baring on the desicion.

Now, are you saying that what defines personhood is being outside of the womb? My, oh, my, that's convenient and really of little more arbitrary value than defining personhood at conception.

What defines 'personhood' is the objective and scientific standard of brain activity. As much as you try to wriggle and twist this fact, it remains static. On the one side, you have your 'person'. On the other, you have a clump of cells.

OOC: This is exceptionally difficult; if I had ready answers to some of these questions, I wouldn't believe the things I do. It's also quarter to midnight, so someone else will have to pick up the baton soon.

A pregnant woman is in no way comparable to a mentally ill person, and to think so is to continue to belittle the status of woman in society.

It's a question of whether or not the decision is sound. Given the apparent harm of the decision it's certainly adequate to assume there is an underlying issue that might make it necessary to step in an protect them. It's the same reasoning why we see more women murdering their children just after birth as every other time in their lives combined. There hormones are irregular and it causes all sorts of issue with making reasoned choices.


What 'harm' an abortion would do to a woman isn't set in stone; it is something that can only be decided on a case by case basis. For some women, a pregnancy will do far more harm to them, whether emotionally or physically, than an abortion ever would. Choice is therefore essential; it must be left to the individual to weigh up the decision they are faced with.

But if we're drawing lines, we can certainly see that some forms of harm are common enough as to be an issue we must address. You've ignored them completely.



'Morals' have no place in this. The foetus is not a human, and so what happens to it is irrelevant.

It most certainly is human. I would love to see you support that it's not. My heart is certainly human and has no more qualifying factors than a fetus has.



It is a clump of cells, and you have been provided with an objective line. Unless you can come up with a valid reason why that line is not sufficient, then it is one we should follow. If you want to talk 'caution', then do so, by all means; but do not extend 'caution' to mean complete inaction.

No, we haven't. You've not suggested any objective line and you've suggested that since it's not objective that it's our obligation to prove that some other line exists objectively. Absent an objective line is an argument for making NO positive action. Abortion is a positive action.




The removal of cancerous growth is a medical procedure with many benefits. If it had been decided in the past that this was a 'crime', would we continue to ban it today because legalising it would 'protect criminals'?

It is wrong to deny women a choice in their own lives simply because of some misguided and outdated sense of what is 'right'.

A) Source. I would love to see when cancer removal was a crime.

B) This is your argument, so stop acting like I made it. You've argued that a reason to legalize it is to prevent it from happening illegally. That puts the burden on you to show why this should matter when we don't do this for other illegal activities like murder. You've not actually supported your claim, but simply attacked my rebuttal. I'll wait for you to provide support for your positive claim.



If you don't 'interfere' and use contraceptives, in most cases a child will be born. Does that make the 'interference' of using a condom unacceptable, because of all the potential children that will never be?

Sure, if the you want to argue that there is a possibility of every sperm and egg being a person. I'd love to see you support such an argument. I'll wait.


Until the clump of cells is an actual human being, at the scientifically objective point of the start of life, then 'maybe one days' should have no baring on the desicion.

You've not said when it becomes an actual human being. In fact, you appear to be intentionally vague. If you wish to argue that there is an objective point that you can support, feel free. I'll wait.


What defines 'personhood' is the objective and scientific standard of brain activity. As much as you try to wriggle and twist this fact, it remains static. On the one side, you have your 'person'. On the other, you have a clump of cells.

Brain activity is not what defines personhood. If this were true then we would consider pigs persons. We don't. I'll wait for you to set an objective line that doesn't include pigs.

OOC: This is exceptionally difficult; if I had ready answers to some of these questions, I wouldn't believe the things I do. It's also quarter to midnight, so someone else will have to pick up the baton soon.

OOC: First, that's actually the point. Think of how much stronger your arguments will be when you have actually tried to argue both sides. Second, you're doing really well, I think. The only thing I would avoid is that pro-choicers don't argue that human is the line, but that person is the line. It's not a subtle difference. I've not seen many pro-choice people say the fetus is not human. They may say it's not "a human" or it's not "a person", but it's provably human.

OOC: wow, that was much better than my effort. Generally, though, I think it wouldn't say "a woman cannot refrain" but "people cannot refrain".

OOC: Well, I was thinking along the lines of the "only women have abortions" thing. =)

This isn't the 19th Century; woman aren't expected to stay at home, cook the dinner, and put up with sex as a chore. They are allowed to enjoy their bodies. If, by some accident, a women becomes pregnant, then the right to continue enjoying her own body does not cease.

Sex isn't a chore, but it should be confined to being between a man and a woman in marriage. A husband and wife should certainly enjoy sex, as it is God's gift. Children are also God's gift, and one should not reject that gift - especially not with a practice so brutal as abortion.

It's a question of whether or not the decision is sound. Given the apparent harm of the decision it's certainly adequate to assume there is an underlying issue that might make it necessary to step in an protect them. It's the same reasoning why we see more women murdering their children just after birth as every other time in their lives combined. There hormones are irregular and it causes all sorts of issue with making reasoned choices.
A simple refusal to believe that woman are more than primaeval creatures, incapable of controlling their emotions, does not actually change the reality that they can. And, if you are so certain that the moment a pregnancy hormone is released a woman loses all control of her senses, what of those woman who decide in advance that they wish to have an abortion if needs be?

But if we're drawing lines, we can certainly see that some forms of harm are common enough as to be an issue we must address. You've ignored them completely.
I have not ignored them; it is you who have decided arbitrarily that this is an absolute. Until you can show that in each and every case this results in harm to a person, then this is an issue that requires flexibility.

It most certainly is human. I would love to see you support that it's not. My heart is certainly human and has no more qualifying factors than a fetus has.
And so, if your heart was a danger to you, you would decline a transplant because it would result in your heart dying?

The heart is human, but it is not a human. The same goes for the foetus. And, like any unwanted clump of cells, it can be removed.

No, we haven't. You've not suggested any objective line and you've suggested that since it's not objective that it's our obligation to prove that some other line exists objectively. Absent an objective line is an argument for making NO positive action. Abortion is a positive action.
If a scientific and medical definition is not an objective thing, then what exactly is?

A) Source. I would love to see when cancer removal was a crime.

B) This is your argument, so stop acting like I made it. You've argued that a reason to legalize it is to prevent it from happening illegally. That puts the burden on you to show why this should matter when we don't do this for other illegal activities like murder. You've not actually supported your claim, but simply attacked my rebuttal. I'll wait for you to provide support for your positive claim.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. It is something that society accepts as unacceptable. The crime follows the harm.

If there is no harm, then there is no cause for interference.

Sure, if the you want to argue that there is a possibility of every sperm and egg being a person. I'd love to see you support such an argument. I'll wait.
Each sperm, and each egg, contains identical genetic information. There is as much chance of one sperm fertilising an egg as any other. Every period is a failure to make a potential person. The simple fact is that genetic material with the potential to be a human given time is wasted with every period or ejaculation.

You've not said when it becomes an actual human being. In fact, you appear to be intentionally vague. If you wish to argue that there is an objective point that you can support, feel free. I'll wait.

Brain activity is not what defines personhood. If this were true then we would consider pigs persons. We don't. I'll wait for you to set an objective line that doesn't include pigs.
The fact that your argument for why we should ignore science is little more than 'a pig is not a human' is evidence of the absurdity of the position.

Sex isn't a chore, but it should be confined to being between a man and a woman in marriage. A husband and wife should certainly enjoy sex, as it is God's gift. Children are also God's gift, and one should not reject that gift - especially not with a practice so brutal as abortion.

If your beliefs are correct, then it is a matter between them and God, when the time comes; not something for you to interfere with. If your beliefs are not correct, then they should not bind those who do not share them.

OOC: First, that's actually the point. Think of how much stronger your arguments will be when you have actually tried to argue both sides.
OOC: I didn't mean I've never thought about these arguments. I have, and they simply don't seem satisfactory to me. It makes it hard to come up with an answer, as I have to keep changing it until I think it sounds at least vaguely right.

Second, you're doing really well, I think. The only thing I would avoid is that pro-choicers don't argue that human is the line, but that person is the line. It's not a subtle difference. I've not seen many pro-choice people say the fetus is not human. They may say it's not "a human" or it's not "a person", but it's provably human.

Thank you, and I shall remember that. For now, however, I really must be off to bed. I have 1,500 more words for my dissertation to write tomorrow morning!

To say that a woman is 'fragile' because she has become pregnant is to relegate woman back to some Victorian status, unable to care for themselves or deal with their emotions. Woman are perfectly capable of making logical, reasoned decisions, and understand the consequences of those decisions.

If, therefore, the woman in question decides to have an abortion, then that is her choice entirely; it is not up to you to tell her that she is too 'fragile' to come to that conclusion.

What is the government for if not to protect us (and those we might harm) from decisions we may make in the heat of the moment? How can one call the decision to kill one's child sane? How can the government refrain from stopping it?

A pregnant woman is in no way comparable to a mentally ill person, and to think so is to continue to belittle the status of woman in society.

Any person under a great deal of stress can make decisions they will later regret. An unplanned pregnancy could certainly represent such stress.

If you don't 'interfere' and use contraceptives, in most cases a child will be born. Does that make the 'interference' of using a condom unacceptable, because of all the potential children that will never be?

Of course. It is God who determines when sex will result in a child. Human beings should not interfere with that plan.

What defines 'personhood' is the objective and scientific standard of brain activity. As much as you try to wriggle and twist this fact, it remains static. On the one side, you have your 'person'. On the other, you have a clump of cells.

Doesn't it seem rather inhuman to refer to a baby as a "clump of cells"?

If your beliefs are correct, then it is a matter between them and God, when the time comes; not something for you to interfere with. If your beliefs are not correct, then they should not bind those who do not share them.

But my beliefs are correct, and we should take steps to make sure that the most innocent of humans are not brutally killed.

OOC: I'm not really 'pro-life' either, in that I don't think all abortions should be banned. But then I'm also anti-abortion, in that I really don't like them.

Smunkeeville View Post
OOC: I am actually pro-choice only in that I don't think it should be illegal, I still find the whole thing unnecessary in most cases, and morally wrong.

OOC: Yeah, I don't think many of us can take the exact opposite opinion from our own, because we all tend to fall somewhere in between. I could just as easily have taken the "Abortion is perfectly fine any time, for any reason" argument and been arguing something I don't believe. In fact, maybe I'll do that later in the thread. =)

But not tonight. Time for me to go home.

When does life begin.
Life begins at conception. The zygote displays all five charactaristics of life. Brain activity has been detected 40 days after concetpion. At this point it is a human, capable of thoughts and feelings. It knows what's going on around him or her. By four months its nerve fibars have developed, the baby can now feel pain. Also at 11 weeks the baby can also produce complex facial expressions and will even smile.



OOC: This is tough. I tried.

If your beliefs are correct, then it is a matter between them and God, when the time comes; not something for you to interfere with. If your beliefs are not correct, then they should not bind those who do not share them.

What about the baby? Surely he/she get a choice in the matter? Of all the people that have survived abortion, you don't see any that don't thank God everyday they survived (that's even with the horrible birth defects they have from the procedure).

What about the baby? Surely he/she get a choice in the matter? Of all the people that have survived abortion, you don't see any that don't thank God everyday they survived (that's even with the horrible birth defects they have from the procedure).

Exactly. Are we really willing to abrogate the right to life of potential human beings, potential human beings who are already well on their way to becoming human beings (in other words, not gametes)? I understand that pregnancy is significantly more than an "inconvenience," and that adoption isn't always an option for those that simply do not wish to carry the baby to term, but on that note, should there not be consequences of actions we make, when understanding what the risks entail?

Edit: This is bloody difficult. I roleplay, and I still have trouble getting into the pro-life mindset.

ah, but we know the mother is alive, shouldn't we err on the side of caution concerning her rights over that of something we can't scientifically ascertain whether or not it is in fact living?

And we have no way of knowing it's not. Why can't a woman just carry it for 9 months then give it up for adoption. No one's forcing her to keep it. She can do an Open Adoption (http://openadoption.org). That way she can choose the level of contact she has, she can pick the birth parents that have the same values as herself, she always knows her baby is okay and is taken care of. 9 months is a small amount of time to give up in the scheme of things. And pregnancy is a known side effect of sex.

I am Pro-Choice.

IN:
Late-term abortion should be banned, because honestly, if you haven't gotten your act together by now....


OOC: actually most late-term abortions (the ones not for health reasons) are due to either or both the mother being in denial until later in the term, or the mother being unable to raise enough funds for prevention, or for an earlier abortion.

I am Pro-Choice.

IN:
Late-term abortion should be banned, because honestly, if you haven't gotten your act together by now....


Why is that morally reprehensible, but not the rest of them?

And we have no way of knowing it's not. Why can't a woman just carry it for 9 months then give it up for adoption. No one's forcing her to keep it. She can do an Open Adoption (http://openadoption.org). That way she can choose the level of contact she has, she can pick the birth parents that have the same values as herself, she always knows her baby is okay and is taken care of. 9 months is a small amount of time to give up in the scheme of things. And pregnancy is a known side effect of sex.

but, she will have to go through with the pregnancy which is not only physically trying but often dangerous.

but, she will have to go through with the pregnancy which is not only physically trying but often dangerous.

There's no denying that pregancy is physically demanding. Maybe she should have done a better job of using birth control if she didn't want to have one?

It's a known risk, and it's not the baby's fault. Harming a completely innocent third part isn't right. It's a violation of that baby's civil rights.

Edit: OOC: I have to leave now. Damn. This is fun.

I'm all for the legalization of abortion, but I'm confused on it morally. What do I do? :confused:

but, she will have to go through with the pregnancy which is not only physically trying but often dangerous.

And yet she is going through the pregnancy due to her own, (I'm hoping in this discussion) consensual actions. Why should a life be snuffed out because she decides it was a bad idea?
I can't argue, even in the sake of roleplay, argue that medically necessary abortions should not be performed, but in a situation where it is merely a decision of the potential mother to have the abortion, why should we allow her, and the medical profession, to kill a baby* because she doesn't want to carry it to term, or raise it?

*Yes, I know it's a fetus. But it's a nuance of the pro-life movement to use baby instead of fetus.

I'm all for the legalization of abortion, but I'm confused on it morally. What do I do? :confused:

Change your morals :D

Let me give 'er a go.

Abortions in cases of non-medical nessisity and/or rape should be outlawed. for a number of reasns, both legal, moral and pratical.

Legally, where in the Consitution does it claim the right to both privacy and abortions? Yes, yes, I know, Article 9 and 10, but surely a dcument that deal with political rights was not ment to be streched to cover medical issues such as this. SCOTUS stepped far beyond its bounds when it decided Roe, a decision that should be left up to individual states who are reacting to local cultural norms of the people, not what folks in Washington DC think should be the case out on the West Coast or the Mid-West.

Morally, yes, we don't have a good working definition of life itself. How can we make any determination about when it begins then? What is life? Define it for me please. If we cannot actually say, with scientific certainty what life is, how on Earth can we state, again with certainty, where its begining is? We talk about brain funtions, but I can tell you that the child currently being nurchured by my wife is alive at 17 weeks. At 5 weeks we could detect his/her heartbeat on ultrasound, we could see it and hear the beating of his/her heart and know that a new life was growing. 5 weeks is well within the normal time of an abortion, so it would be killing a life, not a clump of cells.

Pro-choice argues that a fertilized egg is no more than a clump of cells, the same as a tumor, but the difference is that the zygot (sp?) has the potential to be fully human whereas the tumor does not.

Finally, practically, I look at it this way. A woman may choose to abort for a number of reasons, she doesn't feel like being pregnant, she is scared of it, or she has found out that the baby may have diabilities. All of these are very selfish reasons to abort (and as someone who lives with a disability, I find very insulting). It removes living with the results of her actions and removes having to take responcbility for her actions; which is a hallmark of adulthood after all. But beyond that, you cannot undo an abortion. Once its done, that's it. The life that was to be has been lost forever. You can't, after a week of thinking about it, decide that your spur-of-the-moment-oh-shit-I'm-pregant decision cannot be taken back. As pointed out, many of these decisions are made in the heat of things without counciling about other options that would allow the baby to be cared for and survive. There are many options after all, so why shouldn't they be used instead of killing?

OOC: Ok, that's my attempt.

And yet she is going through the pregnancy due to her own, (I'm hoping in this discussion) consensual actions. Why should a life be snuffed out because she decides it was a bad idea?
I can't argue, even in the sake of roleplay, argue that medically necessary abortions should not be performed, but in a situation where it is merely a decision of the potential mother to have the abortion, why should we allow her, and the medical profession, to kill a baby* because she doesn't want to carry it to term, or raise it?

*Yes, I know it's a fetus. But it's a nuance of the pro-life movement to use baby instead of fetus.

consent to sex is in no way consent to pregnancy, any more than it's consent to getting an STD, if you got the clap wouldn't you seek medical help to rid you of the inconvenience?

OOC: yeah, I know, it's a terrible comparison, I stole it from someone else, and when they said it I almost puked and now that I said it, I feel....green.

consent to sex is in no way consent to pregnancy, any more than it's consent to getting an STD, if you got the clap wouldn't you seek medical help to rid you of the inconvenience?

OOC: yeah, I know, it's a terrible comparison, I stole it from someone else, and when they said it I almost puked and now that I said it, I feel....green.

OOC: You tried, and my argument isn't exactly a shiny paragon of pro-life arguments either.

IC: This is true. However, STDs would fall under "medical necessity" in that they can have life-threatening effects. And I'm not advocating preventing abortion in the situation of a life-threatening pregnancy.

IC: This is true. However, STDs would fall under "medical necessity" in that they can have life-threatening effects. And I'm not advocating preventing abortion in the situation of a life-threatening pregnancy.

Haven't you ever heard of Postpartum depression? it affects about 10% of pregnancies and some of those women become suicidal, not to mention the hardship carrying an unwanted child, emotionally, physically, socially, economically, people have to drop out of school, quit jobs, they become depressed, and even worse are the very real physical consequences, it's difficult to function normally during bouts of hormonal flux and morning sickness, and what about the single women who can't take off work for bed rest etc.?

OOC: I am starting to annoy myself.

OOC: You guys are doing great. Make sure if you choose to switch sides in order to round the debate, that you make everyone aware of it. Any confusion that can be avoided, yeah?\

As to the specific points, I've not got the time to reply, but I'll get to them.

but, she will have to go through with the pregnancy which is not only physically trying but often dangerous.

More dangerous than the abortion is to the baby?

consent to sex is in no way consent to pregnancy, any more than it's consent to getting an STD, if you got the clap wouldn't you seek medical help to rid you of the inconvenience?

OOC: yeah, I know, it's a terrible comparison, I stole it from someone else, and when they said it I almost puked and now that I said it, I feel....green.

Yeah, and if an STD was a potential person, we'd be upset about you killing an STD as well.

Haven't you ever heard of Postpartum depression? it affects about 10% of pregnancies and some of those women become suicidal, not to mention the hardship carrying an unwanted child, emotionally, physically, socially, economically, people have to drop out of school, quit jobs, they become depressed, and even worse are the very real physical consequences, it's difficult to function normally during bouts of hormonal flux and morning sickness, and what about the single women who can't take off work for bed rest etc.?

OOC: I am starting to annoy myself.

Yes, you mention a plethora of reasons that women in this situation become unable to safely make decisions as an argument for why the decisions should be left to only them? Doesn't that seem backwards to you?

Normally I, like Smunkee, think that while abortion is generally morally troublesome, it is a decision outside the proper authority of the government, but here I'll be arguing against both the moral and legal permissability of abortion, with a couple of enumerated exceptional cases.

Let's begin with a discussion of why killing is wrong in general, because unless we know what makes it wrong, we're going to have seriously difficulties determining whether abortion is wrong or not.

So is it the case that, similar to what a utilitarian might say, that killing you or I is wrong because it deprives others of positive interactions with us? I'm reluctant to endorse that position, because it presumes that interacting with us is positive, and that simply may not be the case for many people who could be killed. Even killing a complete asshole whom no one likes would be prima facie immoral. But why? What is it about the reality of killing that makes it immoral independent of the person's value to society? What is so special about killing that we only allow people to kill another person in defense of their own life or the lives of others?

I propose that killing us is simply wrong because it deprives us of our future life, our experiences and accomplishments and joys and personal growth. It removes from us everything of value to us about having a full life, cuts off before its natural end that which we are entitled to by the very fact of our existence. In destroying my life or your life, we destroy a person's future.

So how does this apply to abortion? Does a fetus have a future of experiences and accomplishments and joys and personal growth (unless of course like a more developed being it has medical diffculties and dies of natural causes or is killed by another being)? It certainly does. In killing a fetus, we would destroy a person's future. The fact that the fetus is not a person yet is largely irrelevant to the prima facie immorality of abortion (though it could be relevant in exceptional cases), because even if it is not a person now, it will be unless we kill it and it will have a future just as we would, so in destroying this person-to-be, we destroy a person's future, the same as if we killed you or I. As such, the killing of a fetus is prima facie as strongly immoral as killing a grown person.

But there are legitimate reasons for thinking that there are exceptional cases in which killing a fetus is the lesser of many wrongs that could be perpetrated. The exceptional cases are those in which either the life of the mother is at significant risk, or cases in which the pregnancy was brought about by a non-consensual sexual act such as rape.

The aforementioned exceptional cases of a legitimate reason for abortion are different in critical ways from the more common cases. First, let us note that in cases of consensual activity, even risky consensual activity like driving a car, it is considered appropriate to hold a person both morally and legally responsible for handling the results of that situation in a mature manner that does not cause serious harm to others or to one's self, and that it is considered inappropriate to hold a person responsible for the results of an act they did not consent to. Thus cases of non-consensual sex are not cases in which a person can be held responsible, either legally or morally, for a resulting pregnancy.

Second, let us look at cases in which the life of the mother are at risk. In these cases, as in cases of defending one’s self from a life-threatening attack by a person one invited into one’s home, it is considered morally justifiable to kill the person threatening one’s life and health. It should be noted that there is a notion of proportional response in defending one’s self, that one should avoid killing the other person unless they do pose a significant threat to one’s life, and that lesser attacks should be met with a lesser response. It should also be noted that in cases where the attacker did not have the full capacity to consent to the attack (and a fetus, like a mentally defective human, certainly does not), they generally cannot be held morally responsible to the same degree as a willful attacker for the threat to one’s life. Thus only cases of abortion in which a proportional response to the pregnancy’s threat to one’s self is killing the fetus are morally and legally justifiable.

In conclusion, abortion, like killing in general, is not morally permissable, with the exception of cases where the other being is a threat to one's life or cases in which the pregnancy was a result of a non-consensual act.

Maybe the line could be when a foetus has the ability to live on its own. Abortions could be allowed as long as the foetus still needs a womb to survive. Once the foetus has the aforementioned ability to live on its own, an abortion of said foetus should not be allowed.

A simple refusal to believe that woman are more than primaeval creatures, incapable of controlling their emotions, does not actually change the reality that they can. And, if you are so certain that the moment a pregnancy hormone is released a woman loses all control of her senses, what of those woman who decide in advance that they wish to have an abortion if needs be?

If we can demonstrate the decision is damaging to both the woman and the fetus, and we undoubtedly can, then it's not a healthy decision. Provided there are families that want healthy children, there is no excuse for aborting healthy children.

Women are capable of controlling their emotions. However, that doesn't cause me to excuse those women who choose to kill their children after birth. Why would that be the case before birth?



I have not ignored them; it is you who have decided arbitrarily that this is an absolute. Until you can show that in each and every case this results in harm to a person, then this is an issue that requires flexibility.

No. I have decided it's not. You're asking to be permitted to do this. As such, the burden on you is to show that it's necessarily harmless. I am not flexible with potential murder.


And so, if your heart was a danger to you, you would decline a transplant because it would result in your heart dying?

I didn't say A human. You said human. If you meant A human, you should have said so.


The heart is human, but it is not a human. The same goes for the foetus. And, like any unwanted clump of cells, it can be removed.

Prove it. This is an assertion. If you can't provide objective proof then the default is a lack of action.


If a scientific and medical definition is not an objective thing, then what exactly is?

You've not given a scientific or medical definition.




Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being. It is something that society accepts as unacceptable. The crime follows the harm.

If there is no harm, then there is no cause for interference.

You've not shown there is no harm. You want us to assume it, but all evidence we have suggests the opposite. You've already accepted that women are often harmed and we know for sure the fetus is.

Certainly, if there is no harm, there is no cause for interference. Who's debating that? Not I. You've not shown there is no harm.



Each sperm, and each egg, contains identical genetic information. There is as much chance of one sperm fertilising an egg as any other. Every period is a failure to make a potential person. The simple fact is that genetic material with the potential to be a human given time is wasted with every period or ejaculation.

So your argument is that every possible combination is a potential human. Fine. Then please show how using a condom is objectively any different than them not hooking up at all? I can show how a pregnancy is objectively different. By a far site. You show. Then I'll show.


The fact that your argument for why we should ignore science is little more than 'a pig is not a human' is evidence of the absurdity of the position.

I'm not ignoring science. You are. You've not addressed the argument. Brain activity occurs in pigs. Again, if your definition includes pigs, it's a poor definition. Please provide a better one. If you can't, simply admit that.

Maybe the line could be when a foetus has the ability to live on its own. Abortions could be allowed as long as the foetus still needs a womb to survive. Once the foetus has the aforementioned ability to live on its own, an abortion of said foetus should not be allowed.

At what point do you mean live on it's own. A "micropreemie" can SURVIVE at 24 weeks gestation...BUT, it takes alot of medical intervention, and tremendous physical side effects possible. Do you mean living outside the womb unassisted, or outside the womb with medical intervention?

OOC:

Oh, I should probably say my normal stance.

1. I've always been torn on abortion. I'm very comfortable with the idea of early term abortions on demand. First two trimesters.

2. I find late-term abortions for medical reasons to be perfectly acceptable. I don't care how gruesome, I don't find it upsetting. I support the medical protection of women and such decisions being made by a woman and her doctor.

3. I think brain activity coupled with viability to be an objective line for denying abortion on demand.

4. I find a line of "it's left the womb now it's a person" to be arbitrary.

5. Some would argue that brain activity is not enough as it's really self-awareness that matters. I don't know how I feel about this, but I do think that self-awareness is not an arbitrary line. As such, and, yes, I know this is harsh, but I don't equate a 1-week-old child with a 5-year-old child. Yes, I actually consider a bottle-nosed dolphin to have more value than a 1-week-old. (Ask me again when it's my 1-week-old).

So I'm left with a very consistent line of I think killing anything that is self-aware should be avoided at all costs. I'm left with a very consistent line of aborting or killing anything absent forebrain activity is completely acceptable. I find it to be a gray area once there is forebrain activity, and at the very least any killing at that time (and again in this I include animals) should be done as humanely as possible.

As such I don't value human life above that of animals.

How about an experiment? Try and argue for or against outlawing abortion, but take a position in the other camp. If you're pro-life, argue pro-choice. If you're pro-choice, argue pro-life.

Don't troll or try to be absurd, but honestly attempt to argue for the other side and see the other point of view. Should be a fun intellectual exercise.

Yes, I know many of us already do it in our own heads to solidify our views.
The only argument that I think could hold water would be an argument based on the idea that a society has a vested interest in outlawing abortion which outweighs its interest in protecting the right to bodily autonomy. Law is about balancing the needs/wants of the individual with the needs/wants of the society.

You'd have to take a series of sexist notions on faith for this to work, of course, since you'd be requiring 51% of the population to give up their most fundamental right and yet somehow still be acting in the interests of "society" (perhaps that 51% are not actually considered members of society?), but you could certainly make it work with the right set of pre-assumptions.

The only argument that I think could hold water would be an argument based on the idea that a society has a vested interest in outlawing abortion which outweighs its interest in protecting the right to bodily autonomy. Law is about balancing the needs/wants of the individual with the needs/wants of the society.

You'd have to take a series of sexist notions on faith for this to work, of course, since you'd be requiring 51% of the population to give up their most fundamental right and yet somehow still be acting in the interests of "society" (perhaps that 51% are not actually considered members of society?), but you could certainly make it work with the right set of pre-assumptions.

OOC: Oh, come on, Bottle. I actually thought of you with this thread. Stretch your chops. I know you can.

OOC: Oh, come on, Bottle. I actually thought of you with this thread. Stretch your chops. I know you can.
Here's the problem:

It's all about which angle you're arguing from. WHY should abortion be banned?

If you argue that abortion should be banned because it's wrong to kill human beings and fetuses are human beings, then you're in trouble because banning abortion doesn't actually solve the problem you're worried about. It's not anywhere near the best way to actually reduce the number of fetuses that die. If your priority is to reduce the number of fetuses that die, banning abortion should be at the bottom of your To Do list.

Now, if you argue that banning abortion is, itself, beneficial to society because society has a vested interest in making abortion taboo, dangerous, and illegal, THEN you can make a case. You just have to explain what those benefits are, and why they outweigh the costs. There are many possible ways to go about this.

EDIT: Here's a For Example.

You can reference the economic costs to the society that are incurred due to abortion. We've seen people do this in the news recently, when they point out that aborted pregnancies might otherwise have produced workers, soldiers, or other persons of value to the society. You could calculate the rough value of the work-hours that those individuals might have provided to the society. You would need to subtract the loss in work-hours on the parts of the mothers, of course, but it might still work out that you'd have gained more work-hours for the society if the pregnancies were carried to term instead of aborted.

You can also compare what the medical costs of performing abortions are, and compare those to the costs of enforcing an abortion ban.

This is very similar to discussions about drug prohibition. Drug addiction costs society, in terms of public health and work-hours and so forth, and it is often argued that the costs of maintaining drug prohibition are far less than the costs of having a society where drugs are more accessible.

Here's the problem:

It's all about which angle you're arguing from. WHY should abortion be banned?

If you argue that abortion should be banned because it's wrong to kill human beings and fetuses are human beings, then you're in trouble because banning abortion doesn't actually solve the problem you're worried about. It's not anywhere near the best way to actually reduce the number of fetuses that die. If your priority is to reduce the number of fetuses that die, banning abortion should be at the bottom of your To Do list.

Now, if you argue that banning abortion is, itself, beneficial to society because society has a vested interest in making abortion taboo, dangerous, and illegal, THEN you can make a case. You just have to explain what those benefits are, and why they outweigh the costs. There are many possible ways to go about this.

EDIT: Here's a For Example.

You can reference the economic costs to the society that are incurred due to abortion. We've seen people do this in the news recently, when they point out that aborted pregnancies might otherwise have produced workers, soldiers, or other persons of value to the society. You could calculate the rough value of the work-hours that those individuals might have provided to the society. You would need to subtract the loss in work-hours on the parts of the mothers, of course, but it might still work out that you'd have gained more work-hours for the society if the pregnancies were carried to term instead of aborted.

You can also compare what the medical costs of performing abortions are, and compare those to the costs of enforcing an abortion ban.

This is very similar to discussions about drug prohibition. Drug addiction costs society, in terms of public health and work-hours and so forth, and it is often argued that the costs of maintaining drug prohibition are far less than the costs of having a society where drugs are more accessible.

Yeah, I've always struggled with that justification (both for abortions and for drugs), because you'd immediately have to examine what other things would need to be banned. Television. Video games. Email. Blogs. Forums. Alcohol.

Fine, though. You'd prefer not to argue from that angle. Go ahead and be a pro-choicer, then. Go ahead. See if I care. (Quite frankly, we need some pro-choice people to round out the debate. Feel free to argue straight then.)

Fine, though. You'd prefer not to argue from that angle. Go ahead and be a pro-choicer, then. Go ahead. See if I care. (Quite frankly, we need some pro-choice people to round out the debate. Feel free to argue straight then.)
Ooooh, wait, I just thought of one!

Believe it or not, it's a "feminist" argument in favor of banning abortion!

I read this article by a woman who pointed out that if abortion is illegal, and women are forced to carry pregnancies to term, then it becomes much easier to compel better treatment of pregnant women and mothers. For instance, employers who try to weasel out of providing good maternity leave policies are given a lot more shite about it. You also can't point at a married woman who chooses to have a baby and say, "Well, you should have chosen not to have the baby if you wanted the promotion," when you've already established that she didn't have any alternative choice.

It works with medical care, too. If women have no choice but to carry a pregnancy to term, and if a fetus' needs are legally recognized as so important that they over-ride another person's right to bodily autonomy, then it's much easier to argue that born children are likewise entitled to extreme protections. People will start wondering why the government cares enough about babies to ban abortion, but doesn't care enough to ensure healthcare for pregnant women and born children.

I don't visit this forum often, and when I do I studiously avoid abortion debates, but I'll give this one a try, picking a position in the pro-life camp (though not the exact opposite to my own views...sorry if this appears to be weaselling, but I'm not a good enough debater to capably defend anything more extreme).

The cut-off point for abortion should be around 14 days. This is where the primitive streak develops: before that, the embryo can form into distinct twins; afterwards, it cannot. Hence at this stage it is an individual potential person and should be protected as such under the law.

If someone changes their mind about pregnancy, is carrying the child of a rape, or has a change in circumstances during the pregnancy (such as their partner unexpectedly dying or leaving them, or a financial crisis) they retain the option of giving the child up for adoption. This is admittedly not always an ideal situation, but is certainly preferable to having the child die.

Whether abortion should be prohibited is more tricky. However, the government does have the moral authority to do so. The termination of life is murder, and restricting the ability to do so is no more an intrusion of privacy than is prohibiting a mother from smothering her newborn baby. Furthermore, this is not regulating what goes on in the bedroom: only what goes on afterwards, in the clinic or pharmacy. People can have sex all they want.

Clearly, prohibiting abortion will only work if we also improve access to comprehensive sex education and contraception; this includes the morning-after pill (which is not abortion, as the primitive streak has not yet developed). Further, adoption needs greater state support: this should include allowing homosexual couples to adopt, because we need people to take these children in. Other measures could also be adopted, such as more rigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws, allowances for paid maternity and paternity leave, and state support for childcare.

Yeah, I've always struggled with that justification (both for abortions and for drugs), because you'd immediately have to examine what other things would need to be banned. Television. Video games. Email. Blogs. Forums. Alcohol.

Fine, though. You'd prefer not to argue from that angle. Go ahead and be a pro-choicer, then. Go ahead. See if I care. (Quite frankly, we need some pro-choice people to round out the debate. Feel free to argue straight then.)

I'd welcome Bottle to debate me on the pro-life stance I posted earlier. I have yet to find anyone who can respond to it effectively, but perhaps she or someone else here could manage it.

Normally I, like Smunkee, think that while abortion is generally morally troublesome, it is a decision outside the proper authority of the government, but here I'll be arguing against both the moral and legal permissability of abortion, with a couple of enumerated exceptional cases.

Let's begin with a discussion of why killing is wrong in general, because unless we know what makes it wrong, we're going to have seriously difficulties determining whether abortion is wrong or not.

So is it the case that, similar to what a utilitarian might say, that killing you or I is wrong because it deprives others of positive interactions with us? I'm reluctant to endorse that position, because it presumes that interacting with us is positive, and that simply may not be the case for many people who could be killed. Even killing a complete asshole whom no one likes would be prima facie immoral. But why? What is it about the reality of killing that makes it immoral independent of the person's value to society? What is so special about killing that we only allow people to kill another person in defense of their own life or the lives of others?

I propose that killing us is simply wrong because it deprives us of our future life, our experiences and accomplishments and joys and personal growth. It removes from us everything of value to us about having a full life, cuts off before its natural end that which we are entitled to by the very fact of our existence.


OOC: Because WE don't exist when abortions occur and thus anything we are entitled to because of our existence doesn't apply.


In destroying my life or your life, we destroy a person's future.

So how does this apply to abortion? Does a fetus have a future of experiences and accomplishments and joys and personal growth (unless of course like a more developed being it has medical diffculties and dies of natural causes or is killed by another being)? It certainly does. In killing a fetus, we would destroy a person's future. The fact that the fetus is not a person yet is largely irrelevant to the prima facie immorality of abortion (though it could be relevant in exceptional cases), because even if it is not a person now, it will be unless we kill it and it will have a future just as we would, so in destroying this person-to-be, we destroy a person's future, the same as if we killed you or I. As such, the killing of a fetus is prima facie as strongly immoral as killing a grown person.

OOC: However, I could make an equal argument for forcing women to allow me to impregnate them, because saying no will endanger a person's future. So what if that person is unlikely and does not yet exist, right?



But there are legitimate reasons for thinking that there are exceptional cases in which killing a fetus is the lesser of many wrongs that could be perpetrated. The exceptional cases are those in which either the life of the mother is at significant risk, or cases in which the pregnancy was brought about by a non-consensual sexual act such as rape.

OOC: Why? Is a child of rape not also a potential person with a future? Either you buy your own argument or you don't? The only reason rape matters is if you consider pregnancy to be a punishment for sex. If it's about fault, then rape matters. From the child's perspective there is no difference between a raped mother and a mother that consented.


The aforementioned exceptional cases of a legitimate reason for abortion are different in critical ways from the more common cases. First, let us note that in cases of consensual activity, even risky consensual activity like driving a car, it is considered appropriate to hold a person both morally and legally responsible for handling the results of that situation in a mature manner that does not cause serious harm to others or to one's self, and that it is considered inappropriate to hold a person responsible for the results of an act they did not consent to. Thus cases of non-consensual sex are not cases in which a person can be held responsible, either legally or morally, for a resulting pregnancy.

OOC: You've not shown an "other" exists to be held responsible to. If I did accidentally kill someone in a car accident, I would be responsible for that, but not for their potential children, children's children and so on for eternity. We don't hold people responsible for potential people in any case you've mentioned.


Second, let us look at cases in which the life of the mother are at risk. In these cases, as in cases of defending one’s self from a life-threatening attack by a person one invited into one’s home, it is considered morally justifiable to kill the person threatening one’s life and health. It should be noted that there is a notion of proportional response in defending one’s self, that one should avoid killing the other person unless they do pose a significant threat to one’s life, and that lesser attacks should be met with a lesser response. It should also be noted that in cases where the attacker did not have the full capacity to consent to the attack (and a fetus, like a mentally defective human, certainly does not), they generally cannot be held morally responsible to the same degree as a willful attacker for the threat to one’s life. Thus only cases of abortion in which a proportional response to the pregnancy’s threat to one’s self is killing the fetus are morally and legally justifiable.

In conclusion, abortion, like killing in general, is not morally permissable, with the exception of cases where the other being is a threat to one's life or cases in which the pregnancy was a result of a non-consensual act.

OOC: Yep. You've still got a lot more work to do here.

Sorry, Bottle, did you want to do this?

Ok - now before I begin, I will say that I personally am pro-choice - I believe abortion should continue to be legal, and that the decision on whether or not to have one can only be made by the woman in question.

There are also some other issues I have to make clear:

1. The pro-life movement, while having a lot of political clout, has also done itself a great dis-service and damaged it's credibility by resorting to such extreme measures. I don't mean just protesting outside abortion clinics - everyone has the right to peaceful protest. I mean sending death threats to doctors who have performed legal abortions, and occasionally carrying out such threats. Plus continually terrorising women who want abortion. Because of the extremist and violent behaviour of the pro-life movement, 80% of abortion clinics in the USA have shut down.
The political clout they wield is no small matter either - politicians who take a pro-choice stance invariably end up as electoral roadkill. Also, and this is one of the most sickening consequences, the USA denies any foreign aid to countries where abortion is legal.

2. Much of the pro-life movement is motivated not by the desire to "save the unborn children", but in fact to deny choice to women. It seems rather bizarre to me that many people who take a pro-life stance also have rather reprehensible views on social security, childcare issues, healthcare etc. - IE. that benefits of this nature should be denied to anyone. It would seem that they are only interested in ensuring the pregnancy isn't terminated, and don't want to accept any responsibility whatsoever for what happens afterwards.

Anyway, on with the show. I will attempt to argue in a pro-life manner from now on.

Many people have said that a foetus is not a human (or words to that effect), or that we shouldn't consider a "clump of cells" to be a life.
Well, there are some subtle but important distinctions to be drawn here. A foetus, from conception (a clump of cells) right up to full term, is not quite a person yet. Why? Because it hasn't been born. It is still dependent on the mother for food, oxygen etc - it is not an individual. Once birth has happened (or a caesarean section, for that matter), the foetus is separated from the mother, it then becomes a baby, an individual, a person.
However, up until that point, the foetus is nevertheless still very much alive, and has every potential to become a human being. So to remove and destroy it at any stage from conception to birth does indeed qualify as killing it. It's not "murder" - because murder is usually defined as killing a person. But you are still removing and killing something that can potentially become a human - and I can fully understand why pro-lifers consider that to be reprehensible.

So does an egg or a sperm count as something that can potentially become a human? No. You need both to come together first (conception) to form an embryo. Then it becomes a potential human. Not before. Therefore using condoms to prevent pregnancy does not have the same ramifications as abortion - you might as well say that masturbation is murder.

To take an extreme viewpoint, you could say that any sex that isn't purely for procreative purposes is a sin - that we should only ever have sex in order to reproduce. If I was a practising catholic, I might go along with that - from a religious standpoint, it's a reasonable argument.

Pro-lifers might also argue that you shouldn't be having an abortion, because if you didn't want a baby, you should have taken more care to not get pregnant in the first place. That's a valid argument, but relies entirely on 20/20 hindsight, which doesn't really do anyone any favours. Besides, this makes the resulting pregnancy into a "punishment" for having had careless sex.
Nevertheless, to a certain extent I agree - the majority of abortions are necessary only because people haven't taken enough care to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. There really isn't any excuse for an unwanted pregnancy except carelessness - which can and should be avoided. The only exception is if a woman is made pregnant as a result of being raped - in that case, the pregancy was forced upon her, which is a perfectly valid excuse to terminate it.

What I don't want to do here is start moralising on whether abortion is "right" or "wrong" - because that is entirely dependent on what you base your morality on. Religion, atheism, scientific fact, whatever your viewpoint, there will be other people who oppose it. What is certain is that abortion is still legal, and that being the case, it will continue to happen whether you like it or not.

As requested:

Normally I, like Smunkee, think that while abortion is generally morally troublesome, it is a decision outside the proper authority of the government, but here I'll be arguing against both the moral and legal permissability of abortion, with a couple of enumerated exceptional cases.

Let's begin with a discussion of why killing is wrong in general, because unless we know what makes it wrong, we're going to have seriously difficulties determining whether abortion is wrong or not.

Okay, fair enough. Since the objections to abortion tend to revolve around the killing of the fetus, this is definitely a good place to start.


Even killing a complete asshole whom no one likes would be prima facie immoral. But why?

More importantly, sez who?

You may believe that "killing a complete asshole whom no one likes would be prima facie immoral," but not everybody shares your belief. Why should your belief be used to set the law, and somebody else's should not?


What is it about the reality of killing that makes it immoral independent of the person's value to society? What is so special about killing that we only allow people to kill another person in defense of their own life or the lives of others?

In my opinion? Morality is 100% subjective. Law is about ensuring stability and success of a society. It is about taking all the different people, each with their subjective moral codes, and figuring out the best way to get them all to live and work together for mutual gain.


I propose that killing us is simply wrong because it deprives us of our future life, our experiences and accomplishments and joys and personal growth. It removes from us everything of value to us about having a full life, cuts off before its natural end that which we are entitled to by the very fact of our existence. In destroying my life or your life, we destroy a person's future.

Of course, by not having an abortion you are also destroying a potential future.

I always love to bring up that buddy of mine who only exists today because his mother had an abortion when she was young. Had she not aborted that pregnancy, she never would have met the man who fathered my buddy.

Every choice we make destroys some potential futures, while creating others. Every interaction you have with any human being alters their future in some tiny way. This is unavoidable.

I don't think you can successfully argue that anything which destroys a person's future is inherently wrong in and of itself.


So how does this apply to abortion? Does a fetus have a future of experiences and accomplishments and joys and personal growth (unless of course like a more developed being it has medical diffculties and dies of natural causes or is killed by another being)? It certainly does.

No, it doesn't. Nobody "has" their future. It doesn't exist yet.


In killing a fetus, we would destroy a person's future.

In keeping a fetus, we would destroy another person's future. Possibly multiple peoples' futures. We cannot avoid destroying futures.


The fact that the fetus is not a person yet is largely irrelevant to the prima facie immorality of abortion

How so? We accept that killing non-human life forms is acceptable, even though we are destroying the futures of all those life forms. If we accept your reasoning, then clearly we place some value on human futures which we do not place on non-human futures.


(though it could be relevant in exceptional cases), because even if it is not a person now, it will be unless we kill it and it will have a future just as we would, so in destroying this person-to-be, we destroy a person's future, the same as if we killed you or I.

Potential =/= actual.


As such, the killing of a fetus is prima facie as strongly immoral as killing a grown person.

Potential =/= actual. At what stage do we decide that personhood begins? Why at that particular stage, as opposed to any of the other stages?


But there are legitimate reasons for thinking that there are exceptional cases in which killing a fetus is the lesser of many wrongs that could be perpetrated. The exceptional cases are those in which either the life of the mother is at significant risk, or cases in which the pregnancy was brought about by a non-consensual sexual act such as rape.

Why? Why is destroying the future of a human person (if that's what a fetus is viewed to be) acceptable simply because of what may happen to another person?

Should a woman who has been raped be permitted to kill the resulting infant AFTER birth? If not, then why should she be permitted to kill it before birth?

You have argued that a fetus' life is worth as much as a grown persons, so why are you not keeping up that standard?


The aforementioned exceptional cases of a legitimate reason for abortion are different in critical ways from the more common cases. First, let us note that in cases of consensual activity, even risky consensual activity like driving a car, it is considered appropriate to hold a person both morally and legally responsible for handling the results of that situation in a mature manner that does not cause serious harm to others or to one's self, and that it is considered inappropriate to hold a person responsible for the results of an act they did not consent to. Thus cases of non-consensual sex are not cases in which a person can be held responsible, either legally or morally, for a resulting pregnancy.

Now you've completely shifted from talking about the fetus' rights to talking about the woman's responsibilities. That's odd.

Is the life of a fetus conceived in rape somehow less valuable than the life of a fetus conceived through consensual sex? Does such a fetus lack a "future" that is worth protecting?

Again, should a woman who has been raped be legally permitted to kill her born infant, because we recognize that she wasn't responsible for the initial act that led to the pregnancy? If not, then why should she be permitted to kill that infant before it was born?


Second, let us look at cases in which the life of the mother are at risk. In these cases, as in cases of defending one’s self from a life-threatening attack by a person one invited into one’s home, it is considered morally justifiable to kill the person threatening one’s life and health. It should be noted that there is a notion of proportional response in defending one’s self, that one should avoid killing the other person unless they do pose a significant threat to one’s life, and that lesser attacks should be met with a lesser response.

No argument here.


It should also be noted that in cases where the attacker did not have the full capacity to consent to the attack (and a fetus, like a mentally defective human, certainly does not), they generally cannot be held morally responsible to the same degree as a willful attacker for the threat to one’s life. Thus only cases of abortion in which a proportional response to the pregnancy’s threat to one’s self is killing the fetus are morally and legally justifiable.

I believe this is consistent with our system of law, in which individuals are permitted to kill if it is established that they needed to do so in order to protect their own life.


In conclusion, abortion, like killing in general, is not morally permissable, with the exception of cases where the other being is a threat to one's life or cases in which the pregnancy was a result of a non-consensual act.
I did my best to respond. Nice post, on your part!

Of course, by not having an abortion you are also destroying a potential future.

I always love to bring up that buddy of mine who only exists today because his mother had an abortion when she was young. Had she not aborted that pregnancy, she never would have met the man who fathered my buddy.

Every choice we make destroys some potential futures, while creating others. Every interaction you have with any human being alters their future in some tiny way. This is unavoidable.

I don't think you can successfully argue that anything which destroys a person's future is inherently wrong in and of itself.

OOC: Marry me. I love this angle.

OOC: Because WE don't exist when abortions occur and thus anything we are entitled to because of our existence doesn't apply.

Oh? When does one's life begin? I leave it at conception because it's the least arbitrary and most sensible. If you want to try for a standard of when life begins based on personhood or viability instead, feel free, but I wouldn't recommend it. I've tried to run the personhood argument, and it just gets really problematic really quickly. The viability argument has a much better chance, though it's not perfect.

OOC: However, I could make an equal argument for forcing women to allow me to impregnate them, because saying no will endanger a person's future. So what if that person is unlikely and does not yet exist, right?

Sorry, but I'm also using the principle of consent in the argument, so it would be quite consistent for me to deny forcibly impregnating women. Take the argument as a whole, not piecemeal.

OOC: Why? Is a child of rape not also a potential person with a future? Either you buy your own argument or you don't? The only reason rape matters is if you consider pregnancy to be a punishment for sex. If it's about fault, then rape matters. From the child's perspective there is no difference between a raped mother and a mother that consented.

Same as above.

OOC: You've not shown an "other" exists to be held responsible to. If I did accidentally kill someone in a car accident, I would be responsible for that, but not for their potential children, children's children and so on for eternity. We don't hold people responsible for potential people in any case you've mentioned.

This is just begging the question. In advocating a stronger pro-life position, I am indeed running counter to current practice in the respect you've outlined, so...no shit.

OOC: Yep. You've still got a lot more work to do here.

In the sense that I will probably get to waste my time replying to a lot of crap arguments, yes. I sure do. Fortunately, there will be the occasional good argument, so it works out.

I'm aware of several problems with my argument, and you are close to one, but aren't hitting any of the others.

Oh? When does one's life begin? I leave it at conception because it's the least arbitrary and most sensible. If you want to try for a standard of when life begins based on personhood or viability instead, feel free, but I wouldn't recommend it. I've tried to run the personhood argument, and it just gets really problematic really quickly. The viability argument has a much better chance, though it's not perfect.

OOC: It's really very simply. When does your personhood end? When do we consider you dead as a person? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with whether or not you can function on your own or when you go back into the womb or when you unconceived. There is one line that defines your life medically. What is it?


Sorry, but I'm also using the principle of consent in the argument, so it would be quite consistent for me to deny forcibly impregnating women. Take the argument as a whole, not piecemeal.

OOC: Yes, and as a whole, applying consent as an issue is inconsistent. It's problematic, because you've said that the potential person is equal to a grown person as pointed out by Bottle. So according to this argument you simply can't argue that consent matters. If this were true then children of rape victims could be executed at any time, since this mitigating factor, according to you, makes them less worthy than those of consenting mothers.


Same as above.

OOC: And still equally flawed.


This is just begging the question. In advocating a stronger pro-life position, I am indeed running counter to current practice in the respect you've outlined, so...no shit.

OOC: And? You've got work to do here. So if I were to get an accident with you, would I be held responsible for your non-existent descendents into eternity? How exactly would that work? You're arguing to change the way we view potential. I'm pointing out what you'll have to defend in doing so. You accept this. So defend it. I'll wait.


In the sense that I will probably get to waste my time replying to a lot of crap arguments, yes. I sure do. Fortunately, there will be the occasional good argument, so it works out.

I'm aware of several problems with my argument, and you are close to one, but aren't hitting any of the others.

OOC: I'm hitting several.

First, you've argued that potential lives and actual lives are equial. You said so explicitly. It creates two problems, you can no longer consider consent at all, or it says that if you allow abortion in rape cases then you must allow that same mother to commit executions of those children later. Anything else admits that the potential life and actual life are NOT equal. Yep, that's right. You've defeated your argument. It's really a shame you didn't see it. You really have to drop consent in order to have a workable argument.

Second, if we value potential as equal to actual, then you do have defend making a person who gets in an accident absolutely beholden to the family of the victim for the rest of their life. Specifically, this would be the case since their descendents, descendents that could potentially aid the family would never exist and would be equal to murdering all of them according to your argument. This is wildly problematic.

Third, without consent, which cannot stand with an argument that says that potential and actual are equal, you must allow for the damage of a woman turning me down and ending potential.

These flaws are not subtle or little.

Oh? When does one's life begin? I leave it at conception because it's the least arbitrary and most sensible.

Are you kidding me?

Using conception is completely arbitrary and not remotely sensible when you actually know a bit about human development.

A sperm and egg are each alive, and there is no point during human development where non-living material magically becomes living material. There is no point in human development when non-human material magically becomes human.

And, of course, if personhood begins at conception, then monozygotic twins are one person split in half! If "life" begins at conception, then identical twins each possess half of a "life."


If you want to try for a standard of when life begins based on personhood or viability instead, feel free, but I wouldn't recommend it. I've tried to run the personhood argument, and it just gets really problematic really quickly. The viability argument has a much better chance, though it's not perfect.

Depends on what you are arguing for, I suppose.

OOC: It's really very simply. When does your personhood end? When do we consider you dead as a person? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with whether or not you can function on your own or when you go back into the womb or when you unconceived. There is one line that defines your life medically. What is it?

Marry me. I love this angle.

As requested:

Thanks. :)

More importantly, sez who?

You may believe that "killing a complete asshole whom no one likes would be prima facie immoral," but not everybody shares your belief. Why should your belief be used to set the law, and somebody else's should not?

Um...it's not just my belief. It's a social norm. Most people don't go around killing folks because the folks are assholes. They generally wait until folks are threatening them with death or serious harm. Our society just doesn't regularly legitimize killings unless it's a case of self-defense (or maybe just what a theoretical reasonable person would decide is self-defense).

Of course, by not having an abortion you are also destroying a potential future.

I always love to bring up that buddy of mine who only exists today because his mother had an abortion when she was young. Had she not aborted that pregnancy, she never would have met the man who fathered my buddy.

Every choice we make destroys some potential futures, while creating others. Every interaction you have with any human being alters their future in some tiny way. This is unavoidable.

I don't think you can successfully argue that anything which destroys a person's future is inherently wrong in and of itself.

w00t! I'm glad you brought this one up. It's a good one.

My response is that preventing a being from existing by, for example, not conceiving it in the first place because you chose to take another path (as in your example about your buddy) does not destroy a future. Why? Well if you look to the earlier part of my argument, having a future was predicated on being in existence, and your buddy wouldn't have existed in the first place, so I don't think your buddy works as a counter-example to my argument.

Here's the quote where I mentioned the existence requirement:

I propose that killing us is simply wrong because it deprives us of our future life, our experiences and accomplishments and joys and personal growth. It removes from us everything of value to us about having a full life, cuts off before its natural end that which we are entitled to by the very fact of our existence. In destroying my life or your life, we destroy a person's future.

Ok, after snipping some redundancies...

How so? We accept that killing non-human life forms is acceptable, even though we are destroying the futures of all those life forms. If we accept your reasoning, then clearly we place some value on human futures which we do not place on non-human futures.

Yes, a person using this argument has to advocate for stronger animal rights than are currently granted to all animals (though abusing pets does have serious social stigma attached to it, so maybe we're moving in the direction of animal rights). I have no problems with that.

Potential =/= actual.


Potential =/= actual. At what stage do we decide that personhood begins? Why at that particular stage, as opposed to any of the other stages?

When personhood begins is irrelevant under the argument I'm using, because it's dealing with the destruction of a future as the key wrong-making feature. It's that we can reasonably expect you to have a future as a person if we don't kill you.

Why? Why is destroying the future of a human person (if that's what a fetus is viewed to be) acceptable simply because of what may happen to another person?

Should a woman who has been raped be permitted to kill the resulting infant AFTER birth? If not, then why should she be permitted to kill it before birth?

You have argued that a fetus' life is worth as much as a grown persons, so why are you not keeping up that standard?

To argue the rape exception against your points, I'll use what will probably be a familiar-sounding analogy, though I'll try to rearrange some details.

Let's say that as a result of being good-looking, you're kidnapped by fans of Justin Timberlake, and you're hooked up back to back (so no lovin' ;)) with Justin and your body is being for nine months used to help Justin stay alive. Unfortunately, you can't set yourself free without letting him die.

You have no legal or moral obligation to sustain the life of Justin when you did not consent to the actions that led you to being in a position of sustaining his life. It would be very nice if you did, of course, but it's not obligatory. It would also certainly be very sad for him if you did let him die. But still you're under no obligation to stay with him.

I did my best to respond. Nice post, on your part!

Why thank you. I enjoyed yours as well.

Um...it's not just my belief. It's a social norm. Most people don't go around killing folks because the folks are assholes. They generally wait until folks are threatening them with death or serious harm. Our society just doesn't regularly legitimize killings unless it's a case of self-defense (or maybe just what a theoretical reasonable person would decide is self-defense).

Most people don't go around killing others because they simply don't want to. I know I've never actually wanted to kill another human being (not for real, though I curse about it sometimes).

The question of when killing is justified is one that has been debated throughout human history, and is still hotly debated today. Some people think you should have the right to shoot a man who breaks into your home, even if he is unarmed and not threatening to do anything other than steal your DVD player. Other people believe this is completely wrong.

It's a much more complicated topic than you are crediting.


w00t! I'm glad you brought this one up. It's a good one.

My response is that preventing a being from existing by, for example, not conceiving it in the first place because you chose to take another path (as in your example about your buddy) does not destroy a future. Why? Well if you look to the earlier part of my argument, having a future was predicated on being in existence, and your buddy wouldn't have existed in the first place, so I don't think your buddy works as a counter-example to my argument.

There is absolutely no possible way to assert that choosing to not conceive doesn't destroy a future. OF COURSE it does. The problem is that you are trying to assign ownership of "futures," as if they exist independent of one another and are owned by specific individuals. That is obviously not the case. (Unless you want to go down a very confusing line of philosophical thought in which each of us exists entirely within our own reality and there is no objective world shared by all people...but frankly, I've already got a bit of a headache, and I just don't think I've got the strength.)

The future of the mother is obviously going to be changed. One of her possible "futures" will be destroyed, regardless. If she aborts the pregnancy, she destroys the future she might have had if she continued it. She also destroys any possible futures that the child might have had. If she continues the pregnancy, she destroys the possible futures that might have been if she had aborted, and she also destroys the possible futures of all the children she might have conceived if she hadn't been pregnant during that time period.


Yes, a person using this argument has to advocate for stronger animal rights than are currently granted to all animals (though abusing pets does have serious social stigma attached to it, so maybe we're moving in the direction of animal rights). I have no problems with that.

Ok, so this means we can ditch all the talk about "life," because LIFE isn't really what you're talking about. Lots of things have life but are not human, and you've agreed that non-human life is a whole other story.

So what we are talking about is human personhood. I use "personhood" because even using "human life" doesn't really work. Your appendix is both human and alive, yet you aren't going to argue that your appendix deserves to be regarded as an individual being that is entitled to an individual "future" of its own.


When personhood begins is irrelevant under the argument I'm using, because it's dealing with the destruction of a future as the key wrong-making feature. It's that we can reasonably expect you to have a future as a person if we don't kill you.

And we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that my friend (call him Dale) would not have had any future at all if his mother had continued her previous pregnancy. So we have unequivocal proof that choosing to have an abortion can allow future human persons to enjoy futures that would otherwise have been denied to them. There is absolutely no doubt that this occurs. Dale is just one of a great many examples.

The fact that these future people have not yet been conceived is beside the point. The conceptus that you are focused on has not yet reached any of the developmental stages that are essential to form a human person. You've simply picked one arbitrary point in the human reproductive cycle at which something has "a future." (Never mind that at this particular point it is possible that you are actually assigning ONE future to what will become TWO individual human persons...)


To argue the rape exception against your points, I'll use what will probably be a familiar-sounding analogy, though I'll try to rearrange some details.

Let's say that as a result of being good-looking, you're kidnapped by fans of Justin Timberlake, and you're hooked up back to back (so no lovin' ;)) with Justin and your body is being for nine months used to help Justin stay alive. Unfortunately, you can't set yourself free without letting him die.

You have no legal or moral obligation to sustain the life of Justin when you did not consent to the actions that led you to being in a position of sustaining his life. It would be very nice if you did, of course, but it's not obligatory. It would also certainly be very sad for him if you did let him die. But still you're under no obligation to stay with him.

None of this is consistent with your previous statements. Justin has a future of his own, doesn't he? Killing him would be wrong because "it's dealing with the destruction of a future as the key wrong-making feature." If the destruction of a future is what determines whether the killing is wrong or not, then why should a born human being (who we know really does exist!) be considered LESS protected than a conceptus (which statistically is most likely to be miscarried rather than carried to term)?

Furthermore, let's try putting choice into this situation.

If this fictional story is a parallel to pregnancy, exactly what scenario would you use for consensual sex? Rape is the kidnapping etc, so what would consensual sex be? Volunteering to be hooked up to Justin? That doesn't work, because most women don't consciously choose to become pregnant in the first place. Lots of women do intentionally try to become pregnant, sure, but plenty of women don't want to be pregnant at all and they still end up that way after consensual sex. My good friend got knocked up when she was on the Pill and her partner had used a condom!

Here's a link to a study that found "Sixty-one percent of women [seeking abortions] were using a contraceptive method in the month of conception." That kind of suggests that at least some of these women were specifically trying NOT to get pregnant. It just didn't work. So at least a number of them did not "volunteer" to be hooked up to "Justin" at all.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8196861&dopt=Abstract

So what then? What's your parallel in the Justin situation? Somebody asks to be kidnapped, but not specifically to be hooked up to Justin? Since they asked to be kidnapped by Justin fans, they should have expected that they would end up hooked up to him for 9 months? They should have to stay there because they should have known better than to hang around with Timberlake fans?


Why thank you. I enjoyed yours as well.
Whee! Fun topic!

Thanks. :)My response is that preventing a being from existing by, for example, not conceiving it in the first place because you chose to take another path (as in your example about your buddy) does not destroy a future. Why? Well if you look to the earlier part of my argument, having a future was predicated on being in existence, and your buddy wouldn't have existed in the first place, so I don't think your buddy works as a counter-example to my argument.
Here's the quote where I mentioned the existence requirement:

Ok, so you're entire argument is that if a person never exists it doesn't matter, but once a person exists then they must be protected. Accepted. It crushes your argument that personhood doesn't matter.

When personhood begins is irrelevant under the argument I'm using, because it's dealing with the destruction of a future as the key wrong-making feature. It's that we can reasonably expect you to have a future as a person if we don't kill you.

Except you've stated that a person that never exists does not matter. As such, whether personhood has yet happened is very much a feature of that person will ever exist, no? In other words, if there is not yet a person, then if I stop their potential right now, no person will ever exist and as bolded above, that which does not exist does not matter.

Also, you've not established that any "you" is "killed", so the "if we don't kill you" does not apply as well. You're attempting to make this argument stand by ignoring it's flaws.

You can't have it both ways. I'm surprised you don't notice this flaw in your argument.

To argue the rape exception against your points, I'll use what will probably be a familiar-sounding analogy, though I'll try to rearrange some details.

Let's say that as a result of being good-looking, you're kidnapped by fans of Justin Timberlake, and you're hooked up back to back (so no lovin' ;)) with Justin and your body is being for nine months used to help Justin stay alive. Unfortunately, you can't set yourself free without letting him die.

You have no legal or moral obligation to sustain the life of Justin when you did not consent to the actions that led you to being in a position of sustaining his life. It would be very nice if you did, of course, but it's not obligatory. It would also certainly be very sad for him if you did let him die. But still you're under no obligation to stay with him.

So are you saying that if I entered a room with Justin Timberlake and he said "if you enter this room you are consenting to the very slim possibility of being tied to my body for nine months to sustain me, with all kinds of medical consequences up to and including your own death, even though you are actually entering this room for an entirely unrelated purpose" that I would be required to follow through with those nine months? I think you'll find that this has been found to be a form of slavery. You have heard of indentured servants, no? Certain agreements, particularly tacit agreements, as you are discussing here, are not binding nor legal.

You're also arguing from the point that there is a legal and moral obligation to the non-person created by having consensual sex, but you've not established that such an obligation exists. Again, you've still got work to do here.

Marry me. I love this angle.

By the way, I would not mind if you took a stab at my pro-life arguments as well. Obviously, I'm not really anti-choice, so I don't agree with them, and in some cases I see the holes in the arguments already, but I'm curious if I'll be able to handle them.

I love this as an intellectual excercise. Thanks for letting us cut our teeth on you, so to speak.

I love this as an intellectual excercise. Thanks for letting us cut our teeth on you, so to speak.
I enjoy it, too! I'm just not creative enough to play the opposition, I guess, but my entire reason for coming to NS General is because I love to test myself and my ideas against other people. I "cut my teeth" against y'all time and time again!

I enjoy it, too! I'm just not creative enough to play the opposition, I guess, but my entire reason for coming to NS General is because I love to test myself and my ideas against other people. I "cut my teeth" against y'all time and time again!

Grave and I talk about this all the time. In some areas it seems like it's getting pretty hard to find good debaters on the other side. I won't say which areas because it isn't my intent to insult anyone, but it's less fun that way. I always find the argument that I have a personal issue with the people who disagree with me, because as fact would have it, they're the people who make it fun to be here.

Grave's mad at me because in his mind I switched sides. I don't think I have, but he commonly yells at me for it.

I propose we simply ignore those things, and simply try to have a reasoned debate.

My attempt:

Let's start with the basics of what abortion is really about -

When does life begin.

Impossible. It's called "the Human Life Cycle" for a reason. There is no point at which non-living material becomes living. There is no point at which dead material suddenly becomes a living person.

There are many, many stages of development that all must occur if we are to reach the final product of a mature (physically ;)) adult human being. Every stage is important. You can't pull one stage out of the picture and say, "This is when human life begins!"


There has NEVER been set an objective point for the origin of personhood. It's never been established. We've shift left and right and center for pretty much always.

It seems to me that one must err on the side of caution when ending what might be a person. That it's not is not an objective position.

I tend to agree, based largely on what you say next:


We have a history in the US of changing our definition of personhood to protect whatever is popular. Don't want to end slavery? Then they're not people. Want to nuke Japan? Oh, they're just a bunch of evil monkeys. We deny personhood and argue for that denial simply to protect the practices we cherish.

It is absolutely true that narrow definitions of who is or is not a person have been very dangerous and ugly throughout history. This is why I personally believe that our stance on abortion should NOT be based on the possible personhood of fetuses/embryos/etc.

For the sake of argument, we should regard all human individuals as equal in value, and entitled to the same fundamental rights. Fetus, baby, teenager, adult, senior citizen, all equal in value, all entitled to the same fundamental rights.

In my opinion, each individual should have the right to ownership of their own individual body. No individual should be considered entitled to use another individual's body without that person's consent. EVEN IF THEY REQUIRE IT TO LIVE.

If I am dying because I need a kidney, I do not get to use your kidney over your objections. No matter how much I need your body to survive, it is still your body and I may not use it without your consent. It doesn't matter if you hit me with your car and put me in the hospital to begin with. It doesn't matter if you shot me in the kidney. It doesn't matter how I got in this fix. I still do not get to use your body without your consent.

We're both persons. This is not up for debate. Our personhood does not carry any right to another person's body.

This is why I don't believe fetal personhood is relevant to the subject of abortion. I am willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a human person. I am willing to grant all the fundamental rights of personhood upon that fetus. And I still conclude that the fetus does not have any right to use another human person's body against their wishes. A fetus may only use another human person's body if they give consent. They are free to withdraw their consent at any time, if they decide they do not want to further allow use of their body.

It's like how a girl can consent to make out with you, but she still gets to say "stop" if you try to get to second base. She may have consented to one act, but that doesn't mean she's consenting to go along with anything and everything that may or may not follow.

Impossible. It's called "the Human Life Cycle" for a reason. There is no point at which non-living material becomes living. There is no point at which dead material suddenly becomes a living person.

There are many, many stages of development that all must occur if we are to reach the final product of a mature (physically ;)) adult human being. Every stage is important. You can't pull one stage out of the picture and say, "This is when human life begins!"


I tend to agree, based largely on what you say next:


It is absolutely true that narrow definitions of who is or is not a person have been very dangerous and ugly throughout history. This is why I personally believe that our stance on abortion should NOT be based on the possible personhood of fetuses/embryos/etc.

For the sake of argument, we should regard all human individuals as equal in value, and entitled to the same fundamental rights. Fetus, baby, teenager, adult, senior citizen, all equal in value, all entitled to the same fundamental rights.

In my opinion, each individual should have the right to ownership of their own individual body. No individual should be considered entitled to use another individual's body without that person's consent. EVEN IF THEY REQUIRE IT TO LIVE.

If I am dying because I need a kidney, I do not get to use your kidney over your objections. No matter how much I need your body to survive, it is still your body and I may not use it without your consent. It doesn't matter if you hit me with your car and put me in the hospital to begin with. It doesn't matter if you shot me in the kidney. It doesn't matter how I got in this fix. I still do not get to use your body without your consent.

We're both persons. This is not up for debate. Our personhood does not carry any right to another person's body.

This is why I don't believe fetal personhood is relevant to the subject of abortion. I am willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that a fetus is a human person. I am willing to grant all the fundamental rights of personhood upon that fetus. And I still conclude that the fetus does not have any right to use another human person's body against their wishes. A fetus may only use another human person's body if they give consent. They are free to withdraw their consent at any time, if they decide they do not want to further allow use of their body.

It's like how a girl can consent to make out with you, but she still gets to say "stop" if you try to get to second base. She may have consented to one act, but that doesn't mean she's consenting to go along with anything and everything that may or may not follow.

This creates a problem however. I can't legally and intentionally take the life of another person to save my own if that person is not actively threatening my life. In other words, if you were sleeping in a doorway and the only way me to survive was to go to the other side of that doorway I couldn't kill you intentionally to get there. It wouldn't be legal.

As such, if you give rights to the fetus, then you would have to outlaw late-term abortions, since you'd be obligated to remove the fetus from your person with the least possible damage to said fetus and allow the medical personal to provide any possible life-saving measures.

As far as withdrawing consent, add "you gave the person permission to go to sleep in the doorway" to the scenario.

OOC: Nice. I admit, I didn't entirely see that one coming.

This creates a problem however. I can't legally and intentionally take the life of another person to save my own if that person is not actively threatening my life. In other words, if you were sleeping in a doorway and the only way me to survive was to go to the other side of that doorway I couldn't kill you intentionally to get there. It wouldn't be legal.

As such, if you give rights to the fetus, then you would have to outlaw late-term abortions, since you'd be obligated to remove the fetus from your person with the least possible damage to said fetus and allow the medical personal to provide any possible life-saving measures.

Why would you have to outlaw late-term abortions in that case? Remember, the fetus has had full personhood rights all along. It does not gain any additional rights as it matures.

Perhaps the confusion is with the term "abortion." Grammatically, you do not abort a fetus. You abort a pregnancy. The importance of this distinction becomes apparent when we look at your second paragraph. The woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy at any time. It's an "abortion" regardless of whether or not the fetus survives.

Technically speaking, inducing labor is an "abortion" because it is a means of terminating pregnancy!

Oh, and in your example...I actually think it would be considered legal to kill somebody who was blocking your exit in that kind of situation. If you actually had to get through the door to live, and the only way you could achieve that would be to kill somebody in your way, then I don't think you'd be convicted of murder.

Why would you have to outlaw late-term abortions in that case? Remember, the fetus has had full personhood rights all along. It does not gain any additional rights as it matures.

Of course. It's not because they gain rights. It's because at that point that have to actually be killed, rather than simply seperating them.


Perhaps the confusion is with the term "abortion." Grammatically, you do not abort a fetus. You abort a pregnancy. The importance of this distinction becomes apparent when we look at your second paragraph. The woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy at any time. It's an "abortion" regardless of whether or not the fetus survives.

Technically speaking, inducing labor is an "abortion" because it is a means of terminating pregnancy!

Fair enough. Again, late term abortions, in the format we are discussing, only differ from premature births in that the fetus is killed. Now, this is almost always done to preserve the life or heath of the mother, but again, it still means they've actively killed the fetus rather than simply removing it from relying on her in the least traumatic way possible.

Of course. It's not because they gain rights. It's because at that point that have to actually be killed, rather than simply seperating them.

I think you have that backwards.

Pre-viability, there is no possible way to remove a fetus without killing it. Post-viability, it is at least nominally possible for it to be removed and still survive.


Fair enough. Again, late term abortions, in the format we are discussing, only differ from premature births in that the fetus is killed.

WHOA THERE.

Please, let us not forget the woman in whom all this action is occurring. Please allow me to personally assure you that there is a huge difference between undergoing a late-term abortion and giving birth prematurely, regardless of whether or not the fetus survives.

Physically speaking, having a late term abortion is very different from giving birth. The physical aftermath is very different. The lasting physical and psychological consequences are very different. Regardless of whether or not the child survives.


Now, this is almost always done to preserve the life or heath of the mother, but again, it still means they've actively killed the fetus rather than simply removing it from relying on her in the least traumatic way possible.
Least traumatic for whom?

In the US, we've just seen our Supreme Court decide that doctors should not be permitted to use a particular method of removal when getting a fetus out of a woman's body. This is a method that is used SPECIFICALLY because in some situations it is the least traumatic and risky method when it comes to ensuring the woman's health. The Court didn't ban all abortions, they just banned a method that is intended to reduce trauma to women's bodies.

Keep in mind, also, that a great many late-term abortions are performed when the fetus is already dead or will definitely not survive.

Removing a fetus from a woman's body is always traumatic, for both parties. Even when we're talking about natural childbirth. The question is simply about what levels of trauma are considered "acceptable" in which situations.

I think you have that backwards.

Pre-viability, there is no possible way to remove a fetus without killing it. Post-viability, it is at least nominally possible for it to be removed and still survive.

Wait, isn't that what I said.
You: "Why would you have to outlaw late-term abortions in that case? Remember, the fetus has had full personhood rights all along. It does not gain any additional rights as it matures."
Me: It's because at that point [referring to late-term] that have to actually be killed, rather than simply seperating them.

I was saying that a late-term abortion requires more than seperation. I don't think you ever disagreed, but you did suggest I was arguing that they someone garner rights. I was saying viability was the difference.


WHOA THERE.

Please, let us not forget the woman in whom all this action is occurring. Please allow me to personally assure you that there is a huge difference between undergoing a late-term abortion and giving birth prematurely, regardless of whether or not the fetus survives.

Never denied there was a difference. You'll notice that the scenario I gave had the woman's life in danger, the woman who need to exit through the doorway in order to survive. Your life being in danger only excuses killing me if I am intentionally threatening to you. You cannot intentionally kill me because because I happen to be between you and survival.




People don't just have late term abortions for fun. In virtually every case, they have a late-term abortion specifically because giving birth is no longer a viable option. Perhaps the fetus is already dead and is becoming an infection risk. Perhaps the fetus is so catastrophically malformed that it will not possibly survive. Perhaps there is a complication that puts the woman's life at risk should the pregnancy continue, or should she try to deliver the child. You get the idea.

Yes, I already acknowledged this.


You cannot separate late-term abortion from these realities.

Never tried. However, I speaking specifically of the case where the fetus is viable and can survive and the woman's life or health are threatened.


Least traumatic for whom?

In the US, we've just seen our Supreme Court decide that doctors should not be permitted to use a particular method of removal when getting a fetus out of a woman's body. This is a method that is used SPECIFICALLY because in some situations it is the least traumatic and risky method when it comes to ensuring the woman's health.

Again, who's arguing this? What is least threatening to the woman is really not of issue. Because killing me gives a woman the best chance of survival does not allow that woman to kill me unless I am actively committing a crime. Simply being in the way is not enough.


Keep in mind, also, that a great many late-term abortions are performed when the fetus is already dead or will definitely not survive.

And those are not what I'm discussing as they really aren't worthy of debating. If it's already dead you grind it up and feed it to horses for all I care.


Removing a fetus from a woman's body is always traumatic, for both parties. Even when we're talking about natural childbirth. The question is simply about what levels of trauma are considered "acceptable" in which situations.

My point is that late-term abortions are designed around sacrificing the fetus in order to protect the mother. In many cases it's not even a balance of a life for a life, but of health for a life. I'm asking you to justify this. For example, you could not legally shoot me in your home unless I am committing a crime. You couldn't do it if you invited me in and for whatever reason you felt that killing me protected you. That's a reason to ask me or even force me to leave, but it is not an excuse for lethal force.

Since I'm having trouble keeping up with both of you (perhaps because I'm also trying to write several papers on two hours of sleep), and going to class and stopping a virus from screwing up my computer have been sapping my time, I'll try to combine and condense some parts of the debate.

The first thing I want to address is the issue of consent. I'll try a different tack to keep the debate fresh.

OOC: Yes, and as a whole, applying consent as an issue is inconsistent. It's problematic, because you've said that the potential person is equal to a grown person as pointed out by Bottle. So according to this argument you simply can't argue that consent matters. If this were true then children of rape victims could be executed at any time, since this mitigating factor, according to you, makes them less worthy than those of consenting mothers.

You do realize that we're discussing abortions, right? In an abortion case, the woman has rather sharply limited options because she's pregnant. She can either cause the fetus to die or allow it to live.

After the child has been born, the non-consensual sexual act doesn't automatically affect her via pregnancy anymore because the pregnancy is over. Hence the life/death dilemma posed by a possible abortion situation is over along with the affects of the non-consensual act that were relevant to the child's life.

Why would you expect me to apply the principle of consent to a situation after it's no longer relevant?

_______________________

Next, I'd like to look at the futures issue again, because I think I stated it much less clearly than I should have, and it's causing confusion. I'll try to put it more plainly. Please read the whole section before replying.

If a thing exists, then we can kill it. If a thing doesn't exist, then we can't kill it.

If the thing exists temporally, it has a future. If the thing doesn't exist temporally, then it doesn't have a future.

So if a thing exists temporally, then it has a future which we can destroy by killing it. If a thing does not even exist, let alone exist temporally, then it has no future because there is no "it" to have a future.

It may seem odd to you that I would suggest that a thing has a future of its own by virtue of it having an existence. Granted, that's my position because I'm assuming determinism (only one possible future per person) for the purposes of this debate, due to the fact that I figured most of y'all would at least be alright with that assumption. Perhaps I was very, very wrong about that. If so, we may need to give up on the futures argument because we're holding very different starting assumptions.

But in any case, what puzzles me is that either of you could think that someone who doesn't even exist in any form (at least at the time the relevant situation was occuring) could have the temporal existence necessary to have a future that we would need to take into account in that situation. That just seems astoundingly illogical.
_______________________

Where the hell are we again? I'm not sure, but I think we're on the ever-nebulous and problematic "Where does life begin" question, so I'll try to respond to that and at least give some food for thought even if I can't do a full debate.

OOC: It's really very simply. When does your personhood end? When do we consider you dead as a person? I'll give you a hint, it has nothing to do with whether or not you can function on your own or when you go back into the womb or when you unconceived. There is one line that defines your life medically. What is it?

Are you really getting the impression that I'm letting the medical community define when my life or personhood begins? It's a philosophical question, because as Bottle points out...

A sperm and egg are each alive, and there is no point during human development where non-living material magically becomes living material. There is no point in human development when non-human material magically becomes human.

It seems that from an empirical standpoint, there aren't any clear markers to let us know when we actually exist. There may not even be an empirical point at which we exist. So we're back to where we started. Trying to pick an arbitrary point for practical and moral purposes.

And, of course, if personhood begins at conception, then monozygotic twins are one person split in half! If "life" begins at conception, then identical twins each possess half of a "life."

I don't think that interpretation holds up. At least in my non-expert understanding, conception is what we call the formation of a zygote. If a single zygote goes on to form two zygotes, that's just a dual conception. It's still a conception, where "life" begins from my perspective.

_______________________

I have to admit that my brain is starting to crash. Maybe I'll have time to pick this up later, maybe I won't. Either way, it's certainly tiring arguing for something you don't believe. Thanks to both Jocabia and Bottle for an entertaining discussion.

Below are some good objections I think any person willing to take a thoughtful pro-life stance needs to address.

So what then? What's your parallel in the Justin situation? Somebody asks to be kidnapped, but not specifically to be hooked up to Justin? Since they asked to be kidnapped by Justin fans, they should have expected that they would end up hooked up to him for 9 months? They should have to stay there because they should have known better than to hang around with Timberlake fans?

So are you saying that if I entered a room with Justin Timberlake and he said "if you enter this room you are consenting to the very slim possibility of being tied to my body for nine months to sustain me, with all kinds of medical consequences up to and including your own death, even though you are actually entering this room for an entirely unrelated purpose" that I would be required to follow through with those nine months? I think you'll find that this has been found to be a form of slavery. You have heard of indentured servants, no? Certain agreements, particularly tacit agreements, as you are discussing here, are not binding nor legal.

These are always tricky situations to handle, because on the one hand the person was taking a calculated risk and we generally think that in taking a calculated risk one is responsible for dealing with what happens when a possible consequence becomes a real consequence, but on the other hand it doesn't seem fair to effectively penalize people for taking a risk when they were also taking reasonable precautions.

Since I'm having trouble keeping up with both of you (perhaps because I'm also trying to write several papers on two hours of sleep), and going to class and stopping a virus from screwing up my computer have been sapping my time, I'll try to combine and condense some parts of the debate.

The first thing I want to address is the issue of consent. I'll try a different tack to keep the debate fresh.



You do realize that we're discussing abortions, right? In an abortion case, the woman has rather sharply limited options because she's pregnant. She can either cause the fetus to die or allow it to live.

After the child has been born, the non-consensual sexual act doesn't automatically affect her via pregnancy anymore because the pregnancy is over. Hence the life/death dilemma posed by a possible abortion situation is over along with the affects of the non-consensual act that were relevant to the child's life.

Why would you expect me to apply the principle of consent to a situation after it's no longer relevant?

1) the options are exactly the same. She can either cause the child to die or allow it live. In fact, when simplified my two options are to cause you to die or allow you to live. Please name an option that doesn't fall into these categories. I think maybe you should reword.

2) According to you the fetus and child are equivalent. As such, she must, must be allowed to treat the fetus and the child similarly or you are admitting that a difference exists. You've not established any relevant difference that would allow her to murder the child.


_______________________

Next, I'd like to look at the futures issue again, because I think I stated it much less clearly than I should have, and it's causing confusion. I'll try to put it more plainly. Please read the whole section before replying.

If a thing exists, then we can kill it. If a thing doesn't exist, then we can't kill it.

At the time of most abortions, no thing that can be killed exists. The cells are alive, like my skin is. The embryo does not meet the qualities of life. You keep trying to skip over this point, but it's not a given. And when pressed you've refused to actually discuss the relevant issues.

If you read this whole big part and boil it down you basically declare something exists and thus it matters but never actually establish we must accept that it exists or dealt with the problems of declaring that line. It's all very circular.


If the thing exists temporally, it has a future. If the thing doesn't exist temporally, then it doesn't have a future.

So if a thing exists temporally, then it has a future which we can destroy by killing it. If a thing does not even exist, let alone exist temporally, then it has no future because there is no "it" to have a future.

Great. Since we are talking about persons, and you've refused to discuss personhood, then we have no issue here since the only position on personhood that's been supported is one that runs counter to your claims.


It may seem odd to you that I would suggest that a thing has a future of its own by virtue of it having an existence. Granted, that's my position because I'm assuming determinism (only one possible future per person) for the purposes of this debate, due to the fact that I figured most of y'all would at least be alright with that assumption. Perhaps I was very, very wrong about that. If so, we may need to give up on the futures argument because we're holding very different starting assumptions.

But in any case, what puzzles me is that either of you could think that someone who doesn't even exist in any form (at least at the time the relevant situation was occuring) could have the temporal existence necessary to have a future that we would need to take into account in that situation. That just seems astoundingly illogical.

Of course, we're not actually arguing that. We're arguing that your non-person is no more relevant than our non-person. In fact, Bottle's "non-person" is in fact an actual person that would surely have been prevented from occurring if abortion was illegal, so that makes her actual person certainly more relevant than your "non-person" that would never exist under the current circumstances and may not exist even if abortion was illegal.



_______________________

Where the hell are we again? I'm not sure, but I think we're on the ever-nebulous and problematic "Where does life begin" question, so I'll try to respond to that and at least give some food for thought even if I can't do a full debate.

Are you really getting the impression that I'm letting the medical community define when my life or personhood begins? It's a philosophical question, because as Bottle points out...

You claimed you had a non-arbitrary line. The medical community defines when personhood ends. Any line you choose for begining personhood should obviously match the line that defines personhood at every other stage or it's arbitrary. The only non-arbitrary definition of personhood that is agreed upon across the board is brain activity. Are you arguing that if I were brain dead that I should still have all of the rights of a person?


It seems that from an empirical standpoint, there aren't any clear markers to let us know when we actually exist. There may not even be an empirical point at which we exist. So we're back to where we started. Trying to pick an arbitrary point for practical and moral purposes.

Nope. Arbitrary isn't necessary unless you choose to ignore that line already exists for you and for me and for Bottle. When they declare her to have stopped existing as a person? They being the community (a funeral), the government (no longer votes, owns property, pays taxes, etc.), the doctor. Everyone declares any one of us to stop being a living person when our brain activity stops. There has only rarely and ludicrously ever been argued for there to be an exception to this.

What is arbitrary is declaring that from the womb there should be a "special" line that is different from EVERY other stage of life.


I don't think that interpretation holds up. At least in my non-expert understanding, conception is what we call the formation of a zygote. If a single zygote goes on to form two zygotes, that's just a dual conception. It's still a conception, where "life" begins from my perspective.

You should read a bit more about this, because it's woefully incorrect. If you're going to define the beginning of life you better be able to define life, and personhood in a way that actually fits that beginning. So far you've not offered such a definition.


_______________________

I have to admit that my brain is starting to crash. Maybe I'll have time to pick this up later, maybe I won't. Either way, it's certainly tiring arguing for something you don't believe. Thanks to both Jocabia and Bottle for an entertaining discussion.

Below are some good objections I think any person willing to take a thoughtful pro-life stance needs to address.


Thank you as well.



These are always tricky situations to handle, because on the one hand the person was taking a calculated risk and we generally think that in taking a calculated risk one is responsible for dealing with what happens when a possible consequence becomes a real consequence, but on the other hand it doesn't seem fair to effectively penalize people for taking a risk when they were also taking reasonable precautions.

Yes, that's the issue. The calculate risk is low but the responsibility is high and much longer than we would ever willing enslave the body of a person.

Aborting a pregnancy is alright, so long as it is only evicting the fetus from the womb. No one has the right to trespass on another's property, and if the fetus is trespassing then the mother should have the right to evict it. However, this should be limited entirely to evictionism and not be any sort of direct killing of the fetus.

My attempt to argue for the anti-choice side:

Women are clearly inferior to men and as such should be kept barefoot and pregnant. They should be willing to sacrifice life and limb to give birth because every time a woman has an abortion (or more accurately, murders a helpless little baby), Jesus dies a little inside. Et cetera.


Why wasn't this a good argument?

Because anti-choicers do not have any good arguments.

My attempt to argue for the anti-choice side:

Women are clearly inferior to men and as such should be kept barefoot and pregnant. They should be willing to sacrifice life and limb to give birth because every time a woman has an abortion (or more accurately, murders a helpless little baby), Jesus dies a little inside. Et cetera.


Why wasn't this a good argument?

Because anti-choicers do not have any good arguments.

Didn't the OP say something about trolling?

Didn't the OP say something about trolling?
I was just parroting what so many anti-choicers have said in the many abortion threads.

I was just parroting what so many anti-choicers have said in the many abortion threads.

Would you be terribly surprised if I told you that "I hate women" hasn't been a talking point of any "anti-choicer" I've ever encountered?

I was just parroting what so many anti-choicers have said in the many abortion threads.

If it's parroting then you can link to a post that says what you said explicitly, no? Otherwise, it was an attempt to be inflamatory. Please take it seriously and if you cannot make a reasonable argument, then don't. We don't mind. Just take up your normal position. I've picked up the pro-life argument and I assure you it's not "women are inferior".

The Pro-life argument is wrong because a woman should have control of her body, even when there is a completely separately living being inside her. There are very few cases in which the woman had no choice to engege in sexual activity, but her well-being and comfort is more important than a potential new human. Abortion should always be legal so that she can make these crucial mistakes and still be able to cover them up with a subtle murder.

The Pro-life argument is wrong because a woman should have control of her body, even when there is a completely separately living being inside her. There are very few cases in which the woman had no choice to engege in sexual activity, but her well-being and comfort is more important than a potential new human. Abortion should always be legal so that she can make these crucial mistakes and still be able to cover them up with a subtle murder.

Well, let's see, mostly misinformed and not so subtle trolling. Sad, really.

It is unethical to to abort a healthy fetus that is developed enough to survive outside of the mother when neither the life nor health of the mother is in danger.

Would you be terribly surprised if I told you that "I hate women" hasn't been a talking point of any "anti-choicer" I've ever encountered?
Of course not. Because these days you have to at least pretend that you think women are human beings, or else average people become uncomfortable.

But don't worry, you can still hold to the obviously anti-woman beliefs of the anti-choice side! All you have to do is mask your clearly anti-woman beliefs in concern. For instance, express your concern that evil abortionists are only out to make a profit and they dupe poor, unsuspecting women into having abortions. Most people won't even notice that you basically just said women are too stupid to make their own choices and need men to tell them which doctors to trust!

You also can't just come right out and say that pregnancy is punishment for the dirty sluts who deserve it. But what you can say is that rape victims and victims of incest deserve the right to choose, while women who had consensual sex do not. Most people won't put together the fact that you basically just admitted that the "right to life" has fuckall to do with the fetus (which is still a fetus and still alive if inside a rape victim) and everything to do with punishing women who dare to have consenting sex as if they had the right or something.

Seriously, give me an obviously anti-woman argument and I'll bet I can give you the anti-choicer's spin on it. I bet they've already got a nice tidy way to make anti-woman seem palatable and sweet.

Backlash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backlash:_The_Undeclared_War_Against_American_Women), anyone?
It is truly scary how a book about 80's culture published in 1991 can remain so relevant today.

Of course not. Because these days you have to at least pretend that you think women are human beings, or else average people become uncomfortable.

But don't worry, you can still hold to the obviously anti-woman beliefs of the anti-choice side! All you have to do is mask your clearly anti-woman beliefs in concern. For instance, express your concern that evil abortionists are only out to make a profit and they dupe poor, unsuspecting women into having abortions. Most people won't even notice that you basically just said women are too stupid to make their own choices and need men to tell them which doctors to trust!

You also can't just come right out and say that pregnancy is punishment for the dirty sluts who deserve it. But what you can say is that rape victims and victims of incest deserve the right to choose, while women who had consensual sex do not. Most people won't put together the fact that you basically just admitted that the "right to life" has fuckall to do with the fetus (which is still a fetus and still alive if inside a rape victim) and everything to do with punishing women who dare to have consenting sex as if they had the right or something.

Seriously, give me an obviously anti-woman argument and I'll bet I can give you the anti-choicer's spin on it. I bet they've already got a nice tidy way to make anti-woman seem palatable and sweet.

A man ran into a restaurant the other day and cut off his penis and stabbed himself in the groin. If I say that was a poor decision we shouldn't allow him to make am I anti-man?

A man ran into a restaurant the other day and cut off his penis and stabbed himself in the groin. If I say that was a poor decision we shouldn't allow him to make am I anti-man?
No. But then, I'm not aware of any women running into restaurants and stabbing themselves in the abdomen. I'm not aware of any abortion rights activists who support self-performed abortions in restaurants. I can think of several health-code-related reasons to oppose the opening of bodily wounds in public places, particularly eateries.

A better comparison would be a man who chooses to have a medical professional perform a circumcision upon him. We recognize that this is a choice best left up to the man and his physician. Indeed, we recognize that a man has the right to remove his penis entirely, if that is what he wants (see: sexual reassignment surgery) and his doctors consent to perform the procedure.

A man ran into a restaurant the other day and cut off his penis and stabbed himself in the groin. If I say that was a poor decision we shouldn't allow him to make am I anti-man?No, but the fact that you see this a valid analogy shows that you are anti-woman.

No. But then, I'm not aware of any women running into restaurants and stabbing themselves in the abdomen. I'm not aware of any abortion rights activists who support self-performed abortions in restaurants. I can think of several health-code-related reasons to oppose the opening of bodily wounds in public places, particularly eateries.

A better comparison would be a man who chooses to have a medical professional perform a circumcision upon him. We recognize that this is a choice best left up to the man and his physician. Indeed, we recognize that a man has the right to remove his penis entirely, if that is what he wants (see: sexual reassignment surgery) and his doctors consent to perform the procedure.

I would certainly call that a bad decision, actually. I would support it if it were medically-indicated. I would prefer that such dangerous cosmetic procedures be outlawed as well.

Meanwhile, we've already established that most women who would get legal abortions today would still get them if they were illegal even though they would be much more dangerous and quite comparable to simply trying to cut off your penis yourself. It's an act of desperation not a careful rational decision.

Or are you going to argue that abortions go away if we take them out of doctor's offices?

No, but the fact that you see this a valid analogy shows that you are anti-woman.

Amusing, but you've made an assertion you've not supported. Are you telling me there is no such thing as a back alley abortion that is wildly dangerous and illegal? Are you saying that absent a legal means for doing this procedure that women haven't ended up doing all kinds of wild and dangerous things including but not limited to poisoning themselves or stabbing themselves in the belly?

I would certainly call that a bad decision, actually. I would support it if it were medically-indicated. I would prefer that such dangerous cosmetic procedures be outlawed as well.Outlaw dangerous lifestyle choices, eh? Do you think that boxing should be outlawed? What about driving a taxi cab in New York? Drinking the booze? Smoking tobacco? Eating fatty foods?

Amusing, but you've made an assertion you've not supported. Are you telling me there is no such thing as a back alley abortion that is wildly dangerous and illegal? Are you saying that absent a legal means for doing this procedure that women haven't ended up doing all kinds of wild and dangerous things including but not limited to poisoning themselves or stabbing themselves in the belly?If removing a malignant tumor were illegal, those unable to go overseas for the operation would be forced to get back ally operations too:rolleyes:

Outlaw dangerous lifestyle choices, eh? Do you think that boxing should be outlawed? What about driving a taxi cab in New York? Drinking the booze? Smoking tobacco? Eating fatty foods?

Actually, I would outlaw tobacco, legalize mj, make restaurants and suppliers be more honest about the content and addictiveness of their food, especially soda, and require that doctors not at all affiliated with boxing test boxers and be present at boxing events. Boxing is a poor example as it's not as dangerous as elective surgery on any level.

I would certainly call that a bad decision, actually. I would support it if it were medically-indicated. I would prefer that such dangerous cosmetic procedures be outlawed as well.

Here's the thing:

I think wearing high heels is a bad decision. The benefits are exclusively cosmetic, while the costs are actually pretty medically significant. Lasting damage to muscles, nerves, and joints can result. The chance of breaking a bone increases by a huge amount. Etc.

The thing is, I don't think all bad decisions should be legally prohibited.

This is why arguing that abortion is wrong is very different from arguing that abortion should be banned. I know lots of people who think it is a lousy choice to have an abortion, but who also agree that banning abortion isn't a good idea either.


Meanwhile, we've already established that most women who would get legal abortions today would still get them if they were illegal even though they would be much more dangerous and quite comparable to simply trying to cut off your penis yourself. It's an act of desperation not a careful rational decision.

I'd say those statistics show the opposite. Women are so convinced that having an abortion is the right choice that they will stick to it even if they face the risk of imprisonment and/or serious personal injury.

The very notion that women's determination must stem from irrational desperation is an unfounded assumption. Women so strongly disagree with you that they are prepared to risk their lives, and you assume that this must mean they are irrational! But men who put their lives on the line because of what they believe is right, they are championed as heroes for refusing to back down. It's all in how you choose to spin it.


Or are you going to argue that abortions go away if we take them out of doctor's offices?
Absolutely not. Indeed, banning abortions will simply ensure that wealthy women still get to go to the doctor's office, while a poor woman will turn to drinking drain cleaner or grinding broken glass into her cervix in an attempt to induce abortion.

The extreme measures people take are horrible, sure, but they're not really irrational given the situation.

I once read this book about Union soldiers who were held in the Andersonville prison camp during the American Civil War. This place was a nightmare. The prisoners literally starved to death. One passage was about the things they would try to eat to survive. They basically tried to eat anything that was remotely organic.

Is it hideous to think of human beings eating their own waste? Absolutely. But in a situation where they are starving to death and are not given any alternative whatsoever, it's not really irrational for them to do something that extreme. If you rob people of all the healthy options to resolve their situation, they'll start looking at the less healthy options.

Boxing is a poor example as it's not as dangerous as elective surgery on any level.You should cross reference the fatality statistics of NYC cab drivers with those of people who undergo legal and competent sex change operations and/or abortions.

If removing a malignant tumor were illegal, those unable to go overseas for the operation would be forced to get back ally operations too:rolleyes:

That doesn't make it a rational decision. If the surgery is more dangerous than the tumor than the decision is not rational. Even on solely a physical basis abortion is pretty comparable to pregnancy in terms of how dangerous it is. Then you have to address how damaging it is to the psyche.

If you ask most women who have had abortions they won't tell you they simply had a "malignant tumor" removed. You attack my comparison despite my being able to show that desperate women DO in fact stab themselves in the abdomen or do equally crazy things to stop a pregnancy. However, can you show me what percentage of people who have a malignant tumor removed regret not keeping it? How many have psychological trauma afterward because they miss the tumor and wish they'd allow it to grow? How many are traumatized that they might have made a bad decision? I'll wait.

You should cross reference the fatality statistics of NYC cab drivers with those of people who undergo legal and compotent sex change operations.

What do sex changes have to do with this? A sex change isn't related to a person who desperated cut off their penis and stabbed themselves in the abdomen. You've not shown that it is.

What do sex changes have to do with this? A sex change isn't related to a person who desperated cut off their penis and stabbed themselves in the abdomen. You've not shown that it is.It has everything to do with it when these surgical procedures are not accessible. There is a strong statistical correlation with an astronomical rise in back alley sex changes and abortions and the unavailability of safe medically sanctioned forms of these procedures. If you believe that the government needs to legislate with public safety and health in mind, then it has been shown that making such procedures illegal does much more harm then good.

Your objections seem to be based more on some ideal of enforcing 'right' and 'rational' behavior then they do on actually lowering the incense of negative outcomes from such procedures.

That doesn't make it a rational decision. If the surgery is more dangerous than the tumor than the decision is not rational. Even on solely a physical basis abortion is pretty comparable to pregnancy in terms of how dangerous it is. Then you have to address how damaging it is to the psyche.

Actually, if you compare safe, legal abortion to safe, legal medically-assisted childbirth, you'll find that having an abortion is about seven times safer than giving birth.

In terms of the psychological after effects, post-abortion depression is not a recognized psychological condition. Postpartum depression, on the other hand, is.


If you ask most women who have had abortions they won't tell you they simply had a "malignant tumor" removed. You attack my comparison despite my being able to show that desperate women DO in fact stab themselves in the abdomen or do equally crazy things to stop a pregnancy. However, can you show me what percentage of people who have a malignant tumor removed regret not keeping it? How many have psychological trauma afterward because they miss the tumor and wish they'd allow it to grow? How many are traumatized that they might have made a bad decision? I'll wait.
And how many people who've had tumors removed are called "baby killers"? How many of them face harassment at the hospital when they go in to get their tumor removed? How many national organizations to ban tumor removal are there? How many times do you see people hold parades to "stop the murder of innocent tumors"?

Gee whiz. I wonder why women who have abortions might be a little bit bummed out...

Here's the thing:

I think wearing high heels is a bad decision. The benefits are exclusively cosmetic, while the costs are actually pretty medically significant. Lasting damage to muscles, nerves, and joints can result. The chance of breaking a bone increases by a huge amount. Etc.

The thing is, I don't think all bad decisions should be legally prohibited.

This is why arguing that abortion is wrong is very different from arguing that abortion should be banned. I know lots of people who think it is a lousy choice to have an abortion, but who also agree that banning abortion isn't a good idea either.

Fine. And you're entitled. However, I don't agree. I don't think government has to stay out of our lives if we're making poor decisions, particularly if those decisions can potentially affect others, which brings us back to the argument about abortion.

What is a fact is that if I consistently deny people the "right" to make poor decisions I can't be considered "anti-woman" unless you have some new definition of what a woman is.

Meanwhile, that it's irrational is not my only problem with abortion, obviously and clearly. However, you made the claim that arguing against an irrational decision people make is claiming they are somehow lesser, which is bizarre and untrue.



I'd say those statistics show the opposite. Women are so convinced that having an abortion is the right choice that they will stick to it even if they face the risk of imprisonment and/or serious personal injury.

And that's pretty desperate. We also find this to be true with addictive and dangerous substances. Drag-racing. Base-jumping. Drunk drivers. Etc. Does this make them all rational decisions or would you like to amend that argument?



The very notion that women's determination must stem from irrational desperation is an unfounded assumption. Women so strongly disagree with you that they are prepared to risk their lives, and you assume that this must mean they are irrational! But men who put their lives on the line because of what they believe is right, they are championed as heroes for refusing to back down. It's all in how you choose to spin it.

Again, being willing to risk their lives to prevent a condition that is less dangerous and can have the exact same outcome if they put the child up for adoption without the significant danger to their lives, health and liberty. That's not a rational decision. It simply isn't. To claim that I should take the MORE dangerous path as an out to a situation that has a less intrusive and dangerous path simply isn't rationally justifiable. Unless, of course, your sole goal is to prevent a child from entering the world alive.



Absolutely not. Indeed, banning abortions will simply ensure that wealthy women still get to go to the doctor's office, while a poor woman will turn to drinking drain cleaner or grinding broken glass into her cervix in an attempt to induce abortion.

Honestly, that is one of the issues I have with outlawed abortion or most other procedures or dangerous acts. Our system is so flawed that it means a completely different treatment for the rich and the poor. Although, that's not particularly different from the legalized procedures. Wealthy people will always be more protected and this, in my mind, is a completely different problem and not inherent to the abortion debate.

The extreme measures people take are horrible, sure, but they're not really irrational given the situation.

I once read this book about Union soldiers who were held in the Andersonville prison camp during the American Civil War. This place was a nightmare. The prisoners literally starved to death. One passage was about the things they would try to eat to survive. They basically tried to eat anything that was remotely organic.

These people are in mortal danger and trying to act in ways that mitigate that danger. That's not a defense for someone who is increasing the danger to their life, liberty and health. The situations aren't comparable by your own description of them.



Is it hideous to think of human beings eating their own waste? Absolutely. But in a situation where they are starving to death and are not given any alternative whatsoever, it's not really irrational for them to do something that extreme. If you rob people of all the healthy options to resolve their situation, they'll start looking at the less healthy options.

Which is rational provided the less healthy options aren't even more dangerous than the option of ignoring the problem. In the soldier's case, it wasn't. They were already dying. In the case of back-alley abortions women were putting their lives at risk when, generally, they were not already at risk. Pregnancy mortality is very low these days. That's not true of back-alley abortions. Back-alley abortions CANNOT rationally be called an attempt to preserve the health and life of a woman.

Fine. And you're entitled. However, I don't agree. I don't think government has to stay out of our lives if we're making poor decisions, particularly if those decisions can potentially affect others,

Well, then that's kind of an ideological opinion area. That's okay. We could agree to disagree about the role that government should play.


...which brings us back to the argument about abortion.

What is a fact is that if I consistently deny people the "right" to make poor decisions I can't be considered "anti-woman" unless you have some new definition of what a woman is.

That would be true. If you simply deny all people the right to make what you consider to be bad decisions, then that in and of itself would not be "anti-woman." It is, however, entirely possible for you to deny all people the right to make "bad" decisions while ALSO being anti-woman. We would have to hear more about your specific views to be able to determine if this is the case.


Meanwhile, that it's irrational is not my only problem with abortion, obviously and clearly. However, you made the claim that arguing against an irrational decision people make is claiming they are somehow lesser, which is bizarre and untrue.

No, I make the claim that assuming women's personal decisions to be irrational is anti-woman. If you can provide a cogent reason why we should assume that a woman's choice to abort her pregnancy is always irrational, then I'd be happy to hear it.

Personally, I've encountered countless situations in which women choose to have abortions for completely rational reasons. I cannot think of any reason or any justification for assuming that the choice to terminate a pregnancy is inherently irrational.


And that's pretty desperate. We also find this to be true with addictive and dangerous substances. Drag-racing. Base-jumping. Drunk drivers. Etc. Does this make them all rational decisions or would you like to amend that argument?

The fact that something is dangerous does not automatically make it rational OR irrational. Some rational choices lead to dangerous actions, but some dangerous actions are the result of irrational choices.

And rational doesn't always equal GOOD, and irrational doesn't always equal BAD.

For instance, it is perfectly rational for a mob boss to decide to have his competition murdered to advance his own power and wealth. Particularly if he has a very good chance of never being caught or prosecuted for the crime. Personally, I still don't think murder is a GOOD choice, even if it was rational.

Indeed, in our society we actually often hand down lesser punishments when people do irrational things. For instance, "crimes of passion" are usually regarded as LESS wrong than cold-blooded premeditated murder.


Again, being willing to risk their lives to prevent a condition that is less dangerous and can have the exact same outcome if they put the child up for adoption without the significant danger to their lives, health and liberty.

But, as I've pointed out, having an abortion is safer than giving birth (all other things being equal). It's perfectly rational for a human being to desire to maintain the safety of their physical body.


That's not a rational decision. It simply isn't. To claim that I should take the MORE dangerous path as an out to a situation that has a less intrusive and dangerous path simply isn't rationally justifiable.

And if abortion were actually more intrusive or more dangerous, you might have a point. But it's not.

Indeed, I can't really think of anything more intrusive than having another being reside inside your body for 9 months. And the idea of passing something the size of a watermelon through an opening the size of a lemon...I register that as at least moderately dangerous. For the majority of human history, the average woman could expect to die during childbirth. That gives me plenty of reason to rationally consider childbirth as a risky process. Perhaps it is a risk worth taking in some situations, but I think individuals should be free to choose if they want to take that risk.


Honestly, that is one of the issues I have with outlawed abortion or most other procedures or dangerous acts. Our system is so flawed that it means a completely different treatment for the rich and the poor. Although, that's not particularly different from the legalized procedures. Wealthy people will always be more protected and this, in my mind, is a completely different problem and not inherent to the abortion debate.

Sure it's inherent. Show me a law banning abortion that won't disproportionately impact poor women.


These people are in mortal danger and trying to act in ways that mitigate that danger. That's not a defense for someone who is increasing the danger to their life, liberty and health. The situations aren't comparable by your own description of them.

Women who self-induce abortion ARE trying to protect their lives and liberty, and are prepared to risk their bodies to do it. Many of them also have not been informed about the real risk they are taking. In the context of what they know about their bodies and about abortion, they are making a rational (though ill-informed) choice.


Which is rational provided the less healthy options aren't even more dangerous than the option of ignoring the problem. In the soldier's case, it wasn't. They were already dying. In the case of back-alley abortions women were putting their lives at risk when, generally, they were not already at risk.

Sure they were.

How about a 13-year-old girl who will be disowned by her parents if they find out she's pregnant?

How about a woman who already has 3 children she can't feed?

How about a woman in an abusive relationship who is aware that pregnancy actually tends to INCREASE the severity of abuse that a woman endures at the hands of a violent partner?

How about a woman who is told by her doctors that she will go blind if she continues the pregnancy? Or a woman who is told that continuing this pregnancy is likely to leave her paralyzed?

There are countless situations in which a woman is in direct danger if she continues a pregnancy.

You may not personally think that it's enough danger to justify the risk they choose to take, but I'm still not clear on why your opinion should be regarded as more important than the decision of the person actually taking the risk.


Pregnancy mortality is very low these days. That's not true of back-alley abortions. Back-alley abortions CANNOT rationally be called an attempt to preserve the health and life of a woman.
So you want to compare the safe, legal medical care that pregnant women receive, to illegal, unsafe back-alley abortions? Hmm.

People risk their lives and health for rational reasons all the time. Think of all the people with boob implants. Hell, I risked my life and health when I had my wisdom teeth removed. Doesn't mean it was irrational to do so.

Actually, if you compare safe, legal abortion to safe, legal medically-assisted childbirth, you'll find that having an abortion is about seven times safer than giving birth.

In terms of the psychological after effects, post-abortion depression is not a recognized psychological condition. Postpartum depression, on the other hand, is.

Depends on who you ask.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abriskeditorial.html

There is evidence for your claims, but it requires us to ignore things like age and health in these factors. Unhealthy and younger women are more likely to get abortions. Younger women tend to get them later when they are more dangerous. Older women tend to have less abortions and have them earlier. Older women have far greater risks in childbirth. The result is a skewing of the data.

If you compare all legal abortions among the early twenties with all pregnancies without obvious complications that would defend the use of medically-indicated abortion rather than elective. I'm not arguing about medically-indicated abortion. Only elective. And for pregnancies where there is no advanced risk the risk of abortion versus the risk of pregnancy is nothing like what you describe.

As far as post-abortion depression, hmmm... I wonder why that might be. It's not the first time that a politically-charged debate altered the way we discuss issues. Or do you think that being gay was a psychological disorder and now it isn't?


And how many people who've had tumors removed are called "baby killers"? How many of them face harassment at the hospital when they go in to get their tumor removed? How many national organizations to ban tumor removal are there? How many times do you see people hold parades to "stop the murder of innocent tumors"?

Gee whiz. I wonder why women who have abortions might be a little bit bummed out...
Man, is that ever a stretch? No, I wouldn't be bummed out at all. At all. Call me a babykiller all day long and I'll still remove the tumor and laugh at you. The only reason it would bother me if I was worried it were true.

It has everything to do with it when these surgical procedures are not accessible. There is a strong statistical correlation with an astronomical rise in back alley sex changes and abortions and the unavailability of safe medically sanctioned forms of these procedures. If you believe that the government needs to legislate with public safety and health in mind, then it has been shown that making such procedures illegal does much more harm then good.

Your objections seem to be based more on some ideal of enforcing 'right' and 'rational' behavior then they do on actually lowering the incense of negative outcomes from such procedures.

Ok, I'm going to do you a favor. I'm going to remind you what assertion I made and what you're arguing against so that you won't look any more silly.

See, I said that abortions decisions are not the result of rational decision making. If that were true we would see them virtually disappear when the procedures become wildly dangerous. The fact that you see an "astronomical rise" is evidence FOR my assertion and not evidence that it's a rational decision which is what we're arguing about. I know you've forgotten this, but perhaps this friendly reminder will help. You're welcome.

Meanwhile, I could care less about what harm making them illegal causes. It's much more dangerous to illegally rob someone than if I let you go on a shopping spree in their home. It's much more dangerous to your friends and family if I "force" you to attempt suicide on your own than if I help you.

That it's more dangerous to people committing crimes because we call them crimes doesn't really sway me. I'm funny that way. It's much more likely I'll be injured in the act of murder than I will be if I'm an executioner.

*snip*

Damn. I think I messed up. Does anyone remember if my character is anti-late-term procedures. I've been cheating and simply attempting to create a consistent argument on the fly when I should have mapped it out to begin with. I had it mapped out in my head yesterday, but today I was so busy and you guys started that aside so I didn't really worry about it. Now, I'm not sure what I "believe". Let me check it out and I'll start up again in a bit.

Depends on who you ask.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abriskeditorial.html

Hint: don't cite sources that still are trying to repeat the myth of "an increased risk of breast cancer associated with abortion."


There is evidence for your claims, but it requires us to ignore things like age and health in these factors. Unhealthy and younger women are more likely to get abortions. Younger women tend to get them later when they are more dangerous. Older women tend to have less abortions and have them earlier. Older women have far greater risks in childbirth. The result is a skewing of the data.

All of these problems are easily solved by programs that advance education and availability of reproductive health care. Indeed, abortion bans and additional restrictions on access to abortion are one of the main reasons why women don't get abortions early, and (of course) why they experience unwanted pregnancies in the first place. In particular, states which refuse to protect medical confidentiality for teen girls tend to see these girls waiting longer and longer into the pregnancy before seeking any kind of care (including prenatal care), because they are worried about their parents being told that they are pregnant.

I'm still not seeing any argument or explanation of how banning abortion is the most effective means of dealing with these problems.

If you compare all legal abortions among the early twenties with all pregnancies without obvious complications that would defend the use of medically-indicated abortion rather than elective. I'm not arguing about medically-indicated abortion. Only elective. And for pregnancies where there is no advanced risk the risk of abortion versus the risk of pregnancy is nothing like what you describe.

Well, yes. If you exclude from your sample all of the cases where pregnancy is dangerous, and include all the cases where abortion is dangerous, then that's the result you'd expect to get.


As far as post-abortion depression, hmmm... I wonder why that might be. It's not the first time that a politically-charged debate altered the way we discuss issues. Or do you think that being gay was a psychological disorder and now it isn't?

You are the one arguing that it's irrational for women to want abortions in the first place, and that choosing to abort is an irrational, bad choice. Isn't it perfectly rational to experience regret if one notices that one has made an irrational, bad choice? So where's the psychological disorder in that? If it is rational to view abortion as an irrational and bad choice, wouldn't post-abortion depression simply be called...sanity?


Man, is that ever a stretch? No, I wouldn't be bummed out at all. At all. Call me a babykiller all day long and I'll still remove the tumor and laugh at you. The only reason it would bother me if I was worried it were true.
Then you are a very fortunate exception to the rule. The overwhelming majority of human beings will report feelings of depression or unhappiness if they are subjected to piles of insults and personal attacks. Most humans will report negative feelings if they receive threatening phone calls, letters, or emails, as many women do after they receive abortions.

And many women who have abortions are genuinely sad about it. Sometimes we have to make a decision that is sad, because we know it's the best choice in a bad situation. I've met women who had abortions because they knew they simply could not afford to feed their family if they remained pregnant. I've met women who desperately wanted to have their baby, but were told it was congenitally malformed or that they would risk serious health effects if they tried to carry to term. There are women who wish they could keep their baby, but must make the painful--and rational--decision to end their pregnancy instead. How could they NOT be depressed about that?

Damn. I think I messed up. Does anyone remember if my character is anti-late-term procedures. I've been cheating and simply attempting to create a consistent argument on the fly when I should have mapped it out to begin with. I had it mapped out in my head yesterday, but today I was so busy and you guys started that aside so I didn't really worry about it. Now, I'm not sure what I "believe". Let me check it out and I'll start up again in a bit.
I'm freaked out by how good you are at this. I don't think I've encountered an actual anti-choicer around the forum who's done as good a job with their arguments as you have.

Remind me never to try to go up against you for reelz...whew!

Hint: don't cite sources that still are trying to repeat the myth of "an increased risk of breast cancer associated with abortion."


All of these problems are easily solved by programs that advance education and availability of reproductive health care. Indeed, abortion bans and additional restrictions on access to abortion are one of the main reasons why women don't get abortions early, and (of course) why they experience unwanted pregnancies in the first place. In particular, states which refuse to protect medical confidentiality for teen girls tend to see these girls waiting longer and longer into the pregnancy before seeking any kind of care (including prenatal care), because they are worried about their parents being told that they are pregnant.

I'm still not seeing any argument or explanation of how banning abortion is the most effective means of dealing with these problems.

Well, yes. If you exclude from your sample all of the cases where pregnancy is dangerous, and include all the cases where abortion is dangerous, then that's the result you'd expect to get.


You are the one arguing that it's irrational for women to want abortions in the first place, and that choosing to abort is an irrational, bad choice. Isn't it perfectly rational to experience regret if one notices that one has made an irrational, bad choice? So where's the psychological disorder in that? If it is rational to view abortion as an irrational and bad choice, wouldn't post-abortion depression simply be called...sanity?


Then you are a very fortunate exception to the rule. The overwhelming majority of human beings will report feelings of depression or unhappiness if they are subjected to piles of insults and personal attacks. Most humans will report negative feelings if they receive threatening phone calls, letters, or emails, as many women do after they receive abortions.

And many women who have abortions are genuinely sad about it. Sometimes we have to make a decision that is sad, because we know it's the best choice in a bad situation. I've met women who had abortions because they knew they simply could not afford to feed their family if they remained pregnant. I've met women who desperately wanted to have their baby, but were told it was congenitally malformed or that they would risk serious health effects if they tried to carry to term. There are women who wish they could keep their baby, but must make the painful--and rational--decision to end their pregnancy instead. How could they NOT be depressed about that?


OOC: Keep in mind, that my argument is not and never was that abortion should be banned because it is dangerous. It was that it's an irrational decision among the many other reasons I gave. The evidence for the irrational decision is obvious since the incidence of abortion does not increase all that significantly when we make the procedure wildly more dangerous. That a link can be made between the irrational and lack of effect of make the procedure more dangerous and less effective is pretty clear, regardless of what one believes. I don't want us to get so far from the point that we forget what the point is.

I'm freaked out by how good you are at this. I don't think I've encountered an actual anti-choicer around the forum who's done as good a job with their arguments as you have.

Remind me never to try to go up against you for reelz...whew!

I checked and I was mixing up my anti-late-term argument with you yesterday (the one where you declared rights for the fetus and then defended abortion) with my actual stance.

To be clear, at that point I was arguing against your stance not presenting my own. An if X then Y argument. So it's not inconsistent with an argument that medically-indicated abortions are defensible while elective abortions are not, so apparently I didn't lose my consistency.

However, for the record, this is part of the reason why I think people who are caught being inconsistent are full of it. Because when you're serious your argument necessarily should match what you believe which doesn't change minute by minute. When you're just playing a character you have to keep that character straight.

By the way, Bottle, I actually do acting where we read a character sheet before we go into a party and that is all the direction you have. You, literally, have to be believably become that person. It's actually really fun and more easy than you would think provided you never leave character, which I've been doing throughout this argument.

As you might imagine, many of the characters I play are incredibly snarky. I've more than once had to go up to a waiter or bartender at the end of the party and apologize and give them a huge tip.

OOC: Keep in mind, that my argument is not and never was that abortion should be banned because it is dangerous. It was that it's an irrational decision among the many other reasons I gave.

Right, but the "danger" factor comes in because it is generally agreed that choosing the less dangerous option in a given situation TENDS to be "rational." It's not always the case, but it's a bit of support.

In other words, if (just for example) a woman will probably die if she carries to term, but will not die if she aborts the pregnancy, most people will agree that it is RATIONAL for her to choose to have an abortion. The direct dangers are weighed, and it is rational to choose the less-dangerous option.

It becomes more complicated when you are weighing options that are apples and oranges, however. For instance, women who seek illegal abortions are often choosing a more physically dangerous option, because they are weighing it against OTHER factors (like whether they can afford to be pregnant, whether they will be disowned, etc).


The evidence for the irrational decision is obvious since the incidence of abortion does not increase all that significantly when we make the procedure wildly more dangerous.

Not at all.

I really, really, really don't want to have a baby. I want to NOT have a baby so much that I would be prepared to endure a self-administered unsafe abortion just to stop being pregnant (if, heaven forfend, I got preggers).

However, happily, I live in a society where I have access to safe, legal abortion procedures. I probably will never HAVE to choose the dangerous, illegal option, even though I know that I would make that choice if it were my only option.

If you made abortion illegal, I would still feel the same way I do right now. You haven't changed my feelings on the subject at all. But you've changed my OPTIONS. Now, I must actually take the most dangerous path.

Women are willing to do dangerous things to stop being pregnant, but they (quite rationally) choose less dangerous options whenever they are available.

It's like how if I were hiking with some friends and somebody got bitten on the ass by a snake, I would suck out the venom or whatever. I'd prefer not to suck venom out of somebody's ass. I'd prefer to have medical professionals treat the injury with anti-venoms and all that fancy stuff. But if I don't have any other options, I'm willing to suck venom.

I'm sorry to have to go, but I've got a seminar this afternoon. Hope somebody keeps Joc going...this is an awesome read!

Hint: don't cite sources that still are trying to repeat the myth of "an increased risk of breast cancer associated with abortion."

Oh, well, if you call it a myth then it must be a myth. Much like it was a myth when all those silly "gays" were claiming homosexuality was not a psychological disorder.


All of these problems are easily solved by programs that advance education and availability of reproductive health care. Indeed, abortion bans and additional restrictions on access to abortion are one of the main reasons why women don't get abortions early, and (of course) why they experience unwanted pregnancies in the first place. In particular, states which refuse to protect medical confidentiality for teen girls tend to see these girls waiting longer and longer into the pregnancy before seeking any kind of care (including prenatal care), because they are worried about their parents being told that they are pregnant.

I'm still not seeing any argument or explanation of how banning abortion is the most effective means of dealing with these problems.

I didn't say it was. I said that the fact that we see it occurring and continuing to occur even when illegal is evidence it is an irrational decision. I have never said it was the only reason for outlawing it. That is irrational makes it less defensible.


Well, yes. If you exclude from your sample all of the cases where pregnancy is dangerous, and include all the cases where abortion is dangerous, then that's the result you'd expect to get.

If we allow for medically-indicated abortions, we would necessarily exclude the more dangerous cases. Ectopic pregnancies increase your statistics significantly and given that they have such a low chance of coming to term and such a high chance of death, the medical indications for abortion are obvious.

Keep in mind that in the case of a medically-indicated abortion, I would have significant issues with any measures being taken with the intent of ending the life of the fetus.



You are the one arguing that it's irrational for women to want abortions in the first place, and that choosing to abort is an irrational, bad choice. Isn't it perfectly rational to experience regret if one notices that one has made an irrational, bad choice? So where's the psychological disorder in that? If it is rational to view abortion as an irrational and bad choice, wouldn't post-abortion depression simply be called...sanity?

So which way to you want to play this. It's a rational reaction to a irrational decision or it's a disorder. I wasn't really arguing that it was a disorder just pointing out the flaw in your argument. But, yay, let's go with they are rational after the fact and they are right to regret their decision. I totally agree.



Then you are a very fortunate exception to the rule. The overwhelming majority of human beings will report feelings of depression or unhappiness if they are subjected to piles of insults and personal attacks. Most humans will report negative feelings if they receive threatening phone calls, letters, or emails, as many women do after they receive abortions.

Hmmmm... even when it's a back-alley abortion that no one knows about? Are you sure? I think we both know some people that have never had anyone other than the doctor who was aware of their abortion that still regret it today. Be honest. Do you not know anyone?


And many women who have abortions are genuinely sad about it. Sometimes we have to make a decision that is sad, because we know it's the best choice in a bad situation. I've met women who had abortions because they knew they simply could not afford to feed their family if they remained pregnant. I've met women who desperately wanted to have their baby, but were told it was congenitally malformed or that they would risk serious health effects if they tried to carry to term. There are women who wish they could keep their baby, but must make the painful--and rational--decision to end their pregnancy instead. How could they NOT be depressed about that?

You pointed out that sometimes we are looking at problems too simply. This is a perfect example. I am all for better support of pregnant women and more open adoption couple with illegal elective abortion. All would and should occur together. If we are going to defend pregnancy and childbirth, then we have to actually defend it.

There are significant ways where we can make it so women are not so desperate to want abortions at any cost. Much like we should address the problems that encourage people to want to end it all. Much like we should address the problems that make people want to hide from the world in addiction. The options are not simply outlaw it or let it happen, but to actually make it less accessable WHILE making it less desirable. I'm also for better sexual education and readily available birth control at all ages.

From the moment of conception a foetus is a separate, if dependent for a time, living being with it's own unique DNA structure. Therefore, the mother has no more right to terminate the life of said living being 3 weeks after conception than she does 10 years after conception.

Right, but the "danger" factor comes in because it is generally agreed that choosing the less dangerous option in a given situation TENDS to be "rational." It's not always the case, but it's a bit of support.

In other words, if (just for example) a woman will probably die if she carries to term, but will not die if she aborts the pregnancy, most people will agree that it is RATIONAL for her to choose to have an abortion. The direct dangers are weighed, and it is rational to choose the less-dangerous option.

Not necessarily. Certainly, there is the factor that she might also wish to have the baby, to actually have a child. This would rationally be weighed in. It doesn't work the other way, because preventing the child from existing is not the only way she can avoid having to deal with the living child.


It becomes more complicated when you are weighing options that are apples and oranges, however. For instance, women who seek illegal abortions are often choosing a more physically dangerous option, because they are weighing it against OTHER factors (like whether they can afford to be pregnant, whether they will be disowned, etc).

I addressed this already. I think such things should be addressed.


Not at all.

I really, really, really don't want to have a baby. I want to NOT have a baby so much that I would be prepared to endure a self-administered unsafe abortion just to stop being pregnant (if, heaven forfend, I got preggers).

OOC: In RL, that idea to me is so sad. Literally sad. I kind of feel a bit sick arguing for illegal abortions when I hear that. As a religious person or just a caring person, the idea that I could have any part in putting you into such a position is unfathomable. I pray that such an event never becomes a part of your life.

IC: There are ways to not have a baby that don't present you with a likelihood of death. If the danger to your physically is less with pregnancy and the outcome is the same, that you are without child, then carrying out the pregnancy is the rational decision. You, Bottle, are a rational person, no?


However, happily, I live in a society where I have access to safe, legal abortion procedures. I probably will never HAVE to choose the dangerous, illegal option, even though I know that I would make that choice if it were my only option.

If you made abortion illegal, I would still feel the same way I do right now. You haven't changed my feelings on the subject at all. But you've changed my OPTIONS. Now, I must actually take the most dangerous path.

Women are willing to do dangerous things to stop being pregnant, but they (quite rationally) choose less dangerous options whenever they are available.

It's like how if I were hiking with some friends and somebody got bitten on the ass by a snake, I would suck out the venom or whatever. I'd prefer not to suck venom out of somebody's ass. I'd prefer to have medical professionals treat the injury with anti-venoms and all that fancy stuff. But if I don't have any other options, I'm willing to suck venom.

Oh, come on, you expect me to believe you're not hoping this happens. That's just to much of a stretch of my suspension of disbelief.

I'm sorry to have to go, but I've got a seminar this afternoon. Hope somebody keeps Joc going...this is an awesome read!

OOC: For the record, I just lobbed a softball. If you guys hit that one, I'm done. It wasn't on purpose. I got so excited that I was actually making a cogent argument that I made a mistake and put a HUGE hole in my argument. It's perfectly unrecoverable. Well, it was nice while it lasted. Who wants the first homer?

From the moment of conception a foetus is a separate, if dependent for a time, living being with it's own unique DNA structure. Therefore, the mother has no more right to terminate the life of said living being 3 weeks after conception than she does 10 years after conception.

OOC: Want me to switch back to anti-abortion so you can cut your teeth on this argument. I'm happy to help, if you like.

OOC: Want me to switch back to anti-abortion so you can cut your teeth on this argument. I'm happy to help, if you like.

See how it goes, if nobody picks it up then that would be pretty cool :) I remember one time debating with some new guy for about 20 pages with me opposed to gay marriage. He didn't know my real position on it, so it was all the more interesting. Devil's advocating is fun.

How about an experiment? Try and argue for or against outlawing abortion, but take a position in the other camp. If you're pro-life, argue pro-choice. If you're pro-choice, argue pro-life.

Don't troll or try to be absurd, but honestly attempt to argue for the other side and see the other point of view. Should be a fun intellectual exercise.

Yes, I know many of us already do it in our own heads to solidify our views.

Give me one reason, outside loosely defined terms of "morality," why abortion should be banned.

Give me one reason, outside loosely defined terms of "morality," why abortion should be banned.

Amusing, but it would be easier if you first read the thread, since many have been presented.

See how it goes, if nobody picks it up then that would be pretty cool :) I remember one time debating with some new guy for about 20 pages with me opposed to gay marriage. He didn't know my real position on it, so it was all the more interesting. Devil's advocating is fun.

Okay, in case people re-enter to discuss my other abortion arguments, I'm going to lead my statements with PL: or PC: from here on out. Still might be confusing, but what can you do?

PC: I'm happy to discuss, but I need a little more background. What's your position on the rape exception? How about medical exceptions? I just want to know where you're coming from rather than assuming.

OOC: For the record, I just lobbed a softball. If you guys hit that one, I'm done. It wasn't on purpose. I got so excited that I was actually making a cogent argument that I made a mistake and put a HUGE hole in my argument. It's perfectly unrecoverable. Well, it was nice while it lasted. Who wants the first homer?

Was it the idea that Bottle is a rational person? ;)

Okay, in case people re-enter to discuss my other abortion arguments, I'm going to lead my statements with PL: or PC: from here on out. Still might be confusing, but what can you do?

PC: I'm happy to discuss, but I need a little more background. What's your position on the rape exception? How about medical exceptions? I just want to know where you're coming from rather than assuming.

Which one's OOC and which one's IC?

Which one's OOC and which one's IC?

I'm pro-choice, of course. So my character is pro-life. You didn't know that? However, I can see how the OOC and IC can get confusing, so I figured I use a clearer method.

Anyhow, I'd like to hear the opinions of the two exceptions as attached to the argument you presented (rape and medical).

No one wants to argue my character? I don't think I was being strawman-ish or anything...

No one wants to argue my character? I don't think I was being strawman-ish or anything...

It wasn't strawman-ish at all. It's just not new. I think you'd do better to go ahead and look at the PL arguments already made and combat them, because arguing against your character would be repetitive for me. I'm happy to argue with you, but see if any of the arguments already made apply. Do you mind doing that?

It wasn't strawman-ish at all. It's just not new. I think you'd do better to go ahead and look at the PL arguments already made and combat them, because arguing against your character would be repetitive for me. I'm happy to argue with you, but see if any of the arguments already made apply. Do you mind doing that?

OK, sure, I just haven't had the time so far to do so.

Edit: I'll quickly argue with this one quote by Nadkor.

From the moment of conception a foetus is a separate, if dependent for a time, living being with it's own unique DNA structure. Therefore, the mother has no more right to terminate the life of said living being 3 weeks after conception than she does 10 years after conception.

But what if the fetus is trespassing upon the mother's property, her body. It would up to her whether she should be able to eject it just like you should be able to eject an unwanted person from your house. You can always eject anyone, regardless of age, from your house, since they have no right to be there. Why should it be any different with the body?

I'm pro-choice, of course. So my character is pro-life. You didn't know that? However, I can see how the OOC and IC can get confusing, so I figured I use a clearer method.

Oh, I knew what your opinion was. PC and PL just didn't click, that's all

Anyhow, I'd like to hear the opinions of the two exceptions as attached to the argument you presented (rape and medical).

In the case of rape the mother is perfectly free to have the child adopted once it is born. The one exception I can find is if the child and mother are both at risk. On those occasions the life of the mother takes precedence, but only after all has been done to preserve the life of the child.

But what if the fetus is trespassing upon the mother's property, her body. It would up to her whether she should be able to eject it just like you should be able to eject an unwanted person from your house. You can always eject anyone, regardless of age, from your house, since they have no right to be there. Why should it be any different with the body?

As a general rule, throwing somebody out of your house doesn't give them a near 100% certainty of death as a result of your actions.

On the other hand, "ejecting" a developing child from a mother's womb is, at the very least, manslaughter, as you are guaranteeing its death.

Oh, I knew what your opinion was. PC and PL just didn't click, that's all



In the case of rape the mother is perfectly free to have the child adopted once it is born. The one exception I can find is if the child and mother are both at risk. On those occasions the life of the mother takes precedence, but only after all has been done to preserve the life of the child.

OOC: Good. You didn't fall into the same traps some people did earlier.

PC: So, to be clear, you support outlawing abortion outside of cases where it is medically indicated and in those cases you expect the doctor to treat both the woman and the "child" as patients, yes?

What, in your mind, justifies taking over the woman's right to control her body during that 9-month period or do you feel a woman's body is always a slave to the wishes of society?

OOC: Good. You didn't fall into the same traps some people did earlier.

What were they?

PC: So, to be clear, you support outlawing abortion outside of cases where it is medically indicated and in those cases you expect the doctor to treat both the woman and the "child" as patients, yes?

Correct. The safety of the mother is most important, but the health of the child should always be preserved as far as possible.

What, in your mind, justifies taking over the woman's right to control her body during that 9-month period or do you feel a woman's body is always a slave to the wishes of society?

Any woman has every right to control her own body, but the fact stands that a child in her womb has a distinct DNA structure and is not her own body. This is nothing to do with the wishes of society, it's about the fact she has no right to deliberate on the life of another human being, even if the existence of that human being has effects upon her body for a relatively short time period.

What were they?

The rape exception is a big problem if you consider the child and the fetus equal for obvious reasons. It means I could pretty much wantonly slaughter children of rape victims. And pretty clearly moves your argument from being about the child to about the mother.

The medical exception is less of an issue but you definitely took the more consistant route.


Correct. The safety of the mother is most important, but the health of the child should always be preserved as far as possible.

Any woman has every right to control her own body, but the fact stands that a child in her womb has a distinct DNA structure and is not her own body. This is nothing to do with the wishes of society, it's about the fact she has no right to deliberate on the life of another human being, even if the existence of that human being has effects upon her body for a relatively short time period.

So if I were to attach a person to my sick child in a way that would require that their health and life was in danger to the extent of almost sure permanent damage and about a 1 in 1000 chance of death (and the sick child still has about 50/50 chance of survival), would that person be required to remain hooked up for 9 months, in your opinion?

I'm normally quite interested in these types of activity... but not for abortion.

I feel I have so thoroughly demolished the idea of pro-life in my mind that I do not think I could ever form a pro-life argument that I couldn't dismis instantly.

Maybe this has something to do with just how radically pro-choice I am, which is probably due to my views on human nature and human interaction.

As a general rule, throwing somebody out of your house doesn't give them a near 100% certainty of death as a result of your actions.

On the other hand, "ejecting" a developing child from a mother's womb is, at the very least, manslaughter, as you are guaranteeing its death.

If someone breaks into my house, I am entitled to use lethal force to eject that person, should it be necessary. The same principle should apply to the fetus, the invader, that lethal force may be used if necessary. Directly killing the fetus is impermissible, but if it is an indirect consequence then it is OK.

If someone breaks into my house, I am entitled to use lethal force to eject that person, should it be necessary. The same principle should apply to the fetus, the invader, that lethal force may be used if necessary. Directly killing the fetus is impermissible, but if it is an indirect consequence then it is OK.

Sorry, but that is a flawed argument. You can use lethal force because they are actively committing a crime. If I carry someone into your house, you can shoot me. You cannot shoot the person I carried in. They didn't choose to enter your house. Your analogy is flawed. In fact, you could shoot the person I dragged in if they refuse to leave and present any threat whatsoever. You could not shoot them if they were forced in and are incapable of leaving. You'd be guilty of murder.

The rape exception is a big problem if you consider the child and the fetus equal for obvious reasons. It means I could pretty much wantonly slaughter children of rape victims. And pretty clearly moves your argument from being about the child to about the mother.

The medical exception is less of an issue but you definitely took the more consistant route.

Ah ok, yeah I get you.


So if I were to attach a person to my sick child in a way that would require that their health and life was in danger to the extent of almost sure permanent damage and about a 1 in 1000 chance of death (and the sick child still has about 50/50 chance of survival), would that person be required to remain hooked up for 9 months, in your opinion?

Sorry, I'm not sure I completely get you. Just to be sure, could you rephrase it?

I'm normally quite interested in these types of activity... but not for abortion.

I feel I have so thoroughly demolished the idea of pro-life in my mind that I do not think I could ever form a pro-life argument that I couldn't dismis instantly.

Maybe this has something to do with just how radically pro-choice I am, which is probably due to my views on human nature and human interaction.

If you dismiss pro-life arguments instantly, you do yourself, the pro-choice movement and your argument a disservice.

If someone breaks into my house, I am entitled to use lethal force to eject that person, should it be necessary. The same principle should apply to the fetus, the invader, that lethal force may be used if necessary. Directly killing the fetus is impermissible, but if it is an indirect consequence then it is OK.

Not so. If you create them in your house, or force them into your house, and they are in a situation where they are incapable of leaving your house because the only way they survive is to remain within your house then shooting them for not leaving is most definitely not legal.

And forcing them to leave would probably be illegal, as you are indirectly causing their death. It's akin to forcing somebody into a position where only you can give them food and sustenance to survive, then taking away both that food and the sustenance and then claiming you aren't responsible for their death. Whatever way you put it, you are responsible for their death; through starvation and neglect.

And don't forget that the right to use lethal force on an intruder isn't something shared across all jurisdictions.

I'm normally quite interested in these types of activity... but not for abortion.

I feel I have so thoroughly demolished the idea of pro-life in my mind that I do not think I could ever form a pro-life argument that I couldn't dismis instantly.

Maybe this has something to do with just how radically pro-choice I am, which is probably due to my views on human nature and human interaction.

I thought that as well. I don't even really give much time to pro-life arguments usually. Now I'm having to think one up as I go along. Bottom line; pay attention to your opponents, you never know when you might need their argument.

Ah ok, yeah I get you.




Sorry, I'm not sure I completely get you. Just to be sure, could you rephrase it?

I take your sister. I forcibly attach her to a sick child. Your sister is physically in danger as a result. She'll almost certainly have some damage to her internal organs and some permanent and negative effects. She could possibly die from my attaching her to this sick child.

Follow so far.

Now your sister says, I didn't choose this. How dare you do this to me. And tries to detach herself from the child.

If she detaches the child it will certainly die.

So far comparable, no?

Should I legally be allowed to require to remain attached to the child for as much as nine months until it either passes away or survives. It's odds are around 50/50.

Savvy?

I take your sister. I forcibly attach her to a sick child. Your sister is physically in danger as a result. She'll almost certainly have some damage to her internal organs and some permanent and negative effects. She could possibly die from my attaching her to this sick child.

Follow so far.

Now your sister says, I didn't choose this. How dare you do this to me. And tries to detach herself from the child.

If she detaches the child it will certainly die.

So far comparable, no?

Of course not. You forcing that child upon my sister is an act against her wishes, and without her ever consenting in any form to the possibility of it happening.

However, my sister ending up pregnant after unprotected sex with you would be an occurrence she was fully aware would be a possible and likely outcome of her actions.

Should I legally be allowed to require to remain attached to the child for as much as nine months until it either passes away or survives. It's odds are around 50/50.

Not unless she consented in the first place.

Think of it like this: you sign a contract to allow potentially harmful medical tests on your body over a 9 month trial. These tests will have far reaching consequences; diseases could be cured, and millions of people could be helped. You get paid, say, $10k for this. At the time you think it's a great idea, $10 for a few tests, great.

After 3 months you're beginning to notice one or two side effects and you decide you want to back out.

You made the commitment, you consented at the start, you have people relying on you for your help, you should see it through to the end.

Savvy?

Yeah, thanks :)

I thought that as well. I don't even really give much time to pro-life arguments usually. Now I'm having to think one up as I go along. Bottom line; pay attention to your opponents, you never know when you might need their argument.

It's a wonderful excercise. If you can anticipate the methods of your opposition then you can draw them into debating themselves into a corner. Many debaters are trying to handle their argument and yours at the same time, and barely accomplishing it. If you're really interested in reaching a point where one side stands as correct (and in this debate almost everyone feels strongly toware their own side HAVING to win), then the best way to accomplish that is to force people to expose the weaknesses in their argument. To do that, you have to know what path they're traveling in order to lay the traps.

To extend the analogy, what good would it do for me to lay a tripwire if you never walk along that path?

It's much easier to do that if you've walked in their shoes so to speak. For me, I get to play characters all the time for a charity project I'm involved in, and it makes me really be able to put myself into the minds of people with completely different motivations.

And yes, pro-life has been one of the hardest ones I've ever had to do.

Of course not. You forcing that child upon my sister is an act against her wishes, and without her ever consenting in any form to the possibility of it happening.

Ah, I see. You mean like rape? So you approve of a rape exception for forcibly attaching children to your sister, no?

EDIT: And see, that was the kind of trap I was talking about. Made much easier by having just argued Pro-Life over the last day.

Ah, I see. You mean like rape? So you approve of a rape exception for forcibly attaching children to your sister, no?

EDIT: And see, that was the kind of trap I was talking about. Made much easier by having just argued Pro-Life over the last day.

I suppose that's what I get for making it up as I go along.

Let me think...


It's not entirely like rape. I was replying to your analogy where the chances of survival were 50/50 at, apparently, any stage of the scenario.

The chances of survival of a child removed from its mother's womb at any stage before about 6/7 months are significantly less than 50/50. In fact, BLISS, a premature birth charity, states that for a premature child to have a 50/50 chance of survival it needs to have spent 25 weeks in gestation (http://www.bliss.org.uk/pagebuild.php?texttype=about_factsandfigures) (about half way down that page).

Sorry, but that is a flawed argument. You can use lethal force because they are actively committing a crime. If I carry someone into your house, you can shoot me. You cannot shoot the person I carried in. They didn't choose to enter your house. Your analogy is flawed. In fact, you could shoot the person I dragged in if they refuse to leave and present any threat whatsoever. You could not shoot them if they were forced in and are incapable of leaving. You'd be guilty of murder.

Well, I knew while I was typing that argument that it was rather flawed and it would be rather easy to beat, since it's not a trespassing since it lacks A.) Knowledge, and B.) Consent. Another analogy you could have used would be if someone leaves a baby on my doorstep while it's raining outside, I can't just dump it in the street and leave it to be exposed (I think it's also tied to the principle of double-effect. I do have a right to my bodily integrity, but that doesn't mean I can shoot a two-year old that's about to step on my foot.) Therefore, I humbly surrender to you.

I suppose that's what I get for making it up as I go along.

Let me think...


It's not entirely like rape. I was replying to your analogy where the chances of survival were 50/50 at, apparently, any stage of the scenario.

The chances of survival of a child removed from its mother's womb at any stage before about 6/7 months are significantly less than 50/50. In fact, BLISS, a premature birth charity, states that for a premature child to have a 50/50 chance of survival it needs to have spent 25 weeks in gestation (http://www.bliss.org.uk/pagebuild.php?texttype=about_factsandfigures) (about half way down that page).

I'm sorry if I was unclear. The chances of survival in my scenario were this.

50/50 if you sister remains attached.

0 if she detaches.

That's the scenario. We are assuming the choice of detaching or not is occuring at the beginning of the scenario for the purposes of the argument.

And if you'd detach her because she didn't choose it, that's very much a rape exception.

Jutifying abortion also justfies killing lesser developed human beings outside the womb. The womb is not a shield from human rights.

Well, I knew while I was typing that argument that it was rather flawed and it would be rather easy to beat, since it's not a trespassing since it lacks A.) Knowledge, and B.) Consent. Another analogy you could have used would be if someone leaves a baby on my doorstep while it's raining outside, I can't just dump it in the street and leave it to be exposed (I think it's also tied to the principle of double-effect. I do have a right to my bodily integrity, but that doesn't mean I can shoot a two-year old that's about to step on my foot.) Therefore, I humbly surrender to you.

Hmmm... surrender. I like surrender.

What should we do with him/her, Nadkor?

Jutifying abortion also justfies killing lesser developed human beings outside the womb. The womb is not a shield from human rights.

Accepted.

Is there even anyone being pro choice on here right now?

Hmmm... surrender. I like surrender.

What should we do with him/her, Nadkor?

Oh, I'm a dude. Don't let the delicate tones of my name trick you. ;)

I'm sorry if I was unclear. The chances of survival in my scenario were this.

50/50 if you sister remains attached.

0 if she detaches.

That's the scenario. We are assuming the choice of detaching or not is occuring at the beginning of the scenario for the purposes of the argument.

And if you'd detach her because she didn't choose it, that's very much a rape exception.

I'm sorry, I don't see it to be a relevant scenario.

Removing the sick child from my sister gives it a 50% chance of death.

Aborting a child conceived as a result of rape gives it a 100% chance of death.

While I could see why my sister could have a point that she wished to remove the child from her, I would strongly encourage her not to. However, even if she ignored my best advice and had the child removed there would still be a fighting chance of its survival.

The child, of course, may live. That would be a good result, although I would still be disappointed that she took that risk.

On the other hand, the child may die, but not as a direct result of her actions, and she bears no responsibility to the child other than that which is brought on by normal human compassion.

Now, if she was raped and wanted to abort her child, that's different. She is knowingly ending the life of another human being as a direct result of her actions. She is responsible not just for that child as its mother, but to that child as its mother, regardless of how that child came into being. She would carry out an abortion in the full knowledge that she is killing her child, leaving it with no chance of survival.

That is very much the differnce:
In one case she leaves a child she is not responsible for with a diminished chance of survival, but still a chance.

In the other she is knowingly and willingly killing her own child.

Hmmm... surrender. I like surrender.

What should we do with him/her, Nadkor?

I think we should abort him, just to keep it relevant.

I think we should abort him, just to keep it relevant.

What, are you going to put me back in?

I'm sorry, I don't see it to be a relevant scenario.

Removing the sick child from my sister gives it a 50% chance of death.

You're not following. Read it again. It has a 50% chance if she stays attached. That's comparable to comparing a pregnancy. It certainly dies if she detaches.

The chances of survival in my scenario were this.

50/50 if you sister remains attached.

0 if she detaches.

Read that again. 0 chance of survival if she detaches. That matches up with what you're saying.


Aborting a child conceived as a result of rape gives it a 100% chance of death.

Same with my scenario.


While I could see why my sister could have a point that she wished to remove the child from her, I would strongly encourage her not to. However, even if she ignored my best advice and had the child removed there would still be a fighting chance of its survival.

The child, of course, may live. That would be a good result, although I would still be disappointed that she took that risk.

On the other hand, the child may die, but not as a direct result of her actions, and she bears no responsibility to the child other than that which is brought on by normal human compassion.

Now, if she was raped and wanted to abort her child, that's different. She is knowingly ending the life of another human being as a direct result of her actions. She is responsible not just for that child as its mother, but to that child as its mother, regardless of how that child came into being. She would carry out an abortion in the full knowledge that she is killing her child, leaving it with no chance of survival.

That is very much the differnce:
In one case she leaves a child she is not responsible for with a diminished chance of survival, but still a chance.

In the other she is knowingly and willingly killing her own child.

OOC: Are you doing that deliberately so you can get out of that corner or did you really misread my scenario?

If not, I'm hurt. Give me some credit. I know that a scenario would have to be certain death in order for it to make sense.

I think we should abort him, just to keep it relevant.

Now that is a late-term abortion. When will these children learn that if they aren't perfect we're going to abort them?

What, are you going to put me back in?

Yeah, and then abort you.

OOC: Are you doing that deliberately so you can get out of that corner or did you really misread my scenario?

If not, I'm hurt. Give me some credit. I know that a scenario would have to be certain death in order for it to make sense.

Deliberately. I honestly can't come up with a legitimate way out of the corner, so I'm going for what I know pro-lifers would do and I'm starting to misrepresent and twist your points. I suppose I'll give a go properly though...


You're not following. Read it again. It has a 50% chance if she stays attached. That's comparable to comparing a pregnancy. It certainly dies if she detaches.

The chances of survival in my scenario were this.

50/50 if you sister remains attached.

0 if she detaches.

Read that again. 0 chance of survival if she detaches. That matches up with what you're saying.




Same with my scenario.

What illness is it? Is it any result of the actions of the child?

Yeah, and then abort you.

That sounds uncomfortable for both parties. You could almost certainly get teenagers to download the video, however.

In real life, I'm pro life.

Alright, first. The argument is really about what constitutes a person. I could take this one direction and try to argue that humans do not get rights, or that morality really is relative.

Instead, I think I'll try to argue that banning abortion is actually more harmful than keeping it legal.

There are several problems caused by banning abortion.
First, it can be seen as a victory for those who promote more extreme points of view on sexual freedoms. If allowing abortion is a gateway to euthanasia, racial killings, and the deprivation of rights to the disabled, how much more easily could banning abortion be the gateway to the elimination of barrier contraceptives, and government supported abstinence only education. Some people say that having access to abortion creates a cavalier attitude about sex. This is simply not true. I have known strict Catholics who 'slipped up' and had sex... but didn't use a contraceptive because premeditated sex would be a worse sin. I realize this a slippery slope argument, but there is some validity to it. It's not that banning abortion will cause the banning of contraceptives, but that once the abortion debate is settled in their favour, religious nuts will turn their attentions to other 'sexual sins'.

Second, most abortions are not the result of rapes and incest. There are a lot of reasons people get abortions... and none of them are 'I felt like it'. Carol Gilligan's book, "In a Different Voice," has anecdotes of reasons why women got abortions. Some of them feel that it is the right thing to do for the growing child because they are incapable of supporting the chlid. Regardless of whether or not it's a better fate to die before knowing life, or to live a difficult life, these women feel they are doing the responsible thing. Unless there is a concious effort made by society to change this perception, banning abortion will cause a cognitive dissonance that will only lead to women getting illegal, unsafe abortions. If people really want to end abortion, make it so no woman could possibly construe getting an abortion as the responsible thing to do. Create support programs. Let women who get pregnant early finish their schooling and advance their education. (This is actually a point that I agree with, and while I think abortion is ALWAYS wrong, I also think banning it would be a mistake.)

Finally, the world has a quickly growing population. No matter what we do, people are going to have sex. Even with the miniscule failure rates of contraception, if everyone remembered to use contraception, there wouldn't be a real problem with respect to population dynamics. The problem is... uneducated people are typically the ones who fail to use contraception. Abortion is a way out for them. If we cut off that escape route, what will happen? An even faster population growth for the poor and uneducated. This is not good. (I feel a little dirty making that argument)

Deliberately. I honestly can't come up with a legitimate way out of the corner, so I'm going for what I know pro-lifers would do and I'm starting to misrepresent and twist your points. I suppose I'll give a go properly though...

Oh, good. At first I was looking at it and going "what the hell?" And then I thought about it and how it might be deliberate. Woof, that makes me feel better. I thought you'd lost your mind. If it helps, that's really, really funny.

If you like I'll let you start over. I don't mind.

What illness is it? Is it any result of the actions of the child?

Shoedropitis. A shoe was dropped on the child through not fault of the child and the only known cure is 9 months attached to your sister. And it's still only 50% likely.

That sounds uncomfortable for both parties. You could almost certainly get teenagers to download the video, however.

And after that, we'd be hard-pressed to find a new low for the internet.

Oh, good. At first I was looking at it and going "what the hell?" And then I thought about it and how it might be deliberate. Woof, that makes me feel better. I thought you'd lost your mind. If it helps, that's really, really funny.

If you like I'll let you start over. I don't mind.

No, I fancy seeing if I can work my way around it...

Although I can think of two different arguments. I'll pick one and maybe come back to the other later.

Shoedropitis. A shoe was dropped on the child through not fault of the child and the only known cure is 9 months attached to your sister. And it's still only 50% likely.

The child, like every other human being, has a right to life. Or, at the very least, a fair shot at life.

That right to life trumps all, for without life a person can not have any other rights. This child has that very same to life (or, again, a fair chance) as any other person. As such, my sister's right to consent is annulled for the 9 months.

That sounds uncomfortable for both parties. You could almost certainly get teenagers to download the video, however.

I'm convinced people would pay to watch.

That's an interesting take. So you have no problem encouraging desperate people to enslave others in order to save their loved ones?

Not if, as you say, it is the only known cure.

No, I fancy seeing if I can work my way around it...

Although I can think of two different arguments. I'll pick one and maybe come back to the other later.



The child, like every other human being, has a right to life. Or, at the very least, a fair shot at life.

That right to life trumps all, for without life a person can not have any other rights. This child has that very same to life (or, again, a fair chance) as any other person. As such, my sister's right to consent is annulled for the 9 months.

That's an interesting take. So you have no problem encouraging desperate people to enslave others in order to save their loved ones?

Not if, as you say, it is the only known cure.

More the reason it would encourage enslavement.

So how far does this enslavement go. If I find you're a matching bone marrow donor, can we take it from you? A kidney? To what extent does your obligation to people you have no affiliation to extend?

More the reason it would encourage enslavement.

So how far does this enslavement go. If I find you're a matching bone marrow donor, can we take it from you? A kidney? To what extent does your obligation to people you have no affiliation to extend?

It begins when you are their very last chance at life and you have the capability to provide life for them. It ends when that help is no longer needed to keep them alive, or if that helps goes so far as to put your life at significant risk.

It begins when you are their very last chance at life and you have the capability to provide life for them. It ends when that help is no longer needed to keep them alive, or if that helps goes so far as to put your life at significant risk.

So you would allow me to force people to give up bone marrow? Kidneys? How much is "significant" risk? Be specific.

So you would allow me to force people to give up bone marrow? Kidneys? How much is "significant" risk? Be specific.

On the rare occasion that you were the only person in the world with a match, yes. It seems a reasonable thing to ask somebody to do to save the life of a fellow human being.

As for significant risk; if a doctor determined that to do so would carry what s/he considered to be a significant risk to your life then I would give the person the choice, but would still advocate doing everything in the doctor's power to save the individual short of forcing a person to donate.

And I think that ties in quite nicely with the idea that I would only allow abortions if the life of the mother was determined to be at risk. Here I would only allow the dependent person to die if the donor's life was determined to be at risk.

On the rare occasion that you were the only person in the world with a match, yes. It seems a reasonable thing to ask somebody to do to save the life of a fellow human being.

As for significant risk; if a doctor determined that to do so would carry what s/he considered to be a significant risk to your life then I would give the person the choice, but would still advocate doing everything in the doctor's power to save the individual short of forcing a person to donate.

And I think that ties in quite nicely with the idea that I would only allow abortions if the life of the mother was determined to be at risk. Here I would only allow the dependent person to die if the donor's life was determined to be at risk.

Her life is always at risk. The question is how much risk would allow a "disconnect".

Meanwhile, donors are rarely put at considerable risk by donating marrow and people die every day from not getting marrow, so we should be able to start forcing. Then there are the rare blood types. Then livers, which regrow. Then kidney which we have two of. Then there is forced organ donation at death.

You support all of these things, no?

From what I've seen, most people that argue Pro-Life are Christian, or at least some deviant of the faith. (I'm Christian as well, just extremely open to other views)
What many of these Pro-Life grievances believe is that 'aborted babies go to Hell'.
While it's exactly the opposite.
What sin has a newborn (or not born, sadly) baby committed?
Can you call crying or breathing or any of the things a newborn does a 'sin'?
Of course not.
From a religious prospective (mine and many of my friends, particularly), aborted babies do not go to Hell, they go the other way, because they have done nothing wrong to merit them condemnation.
But, IMHO, do your damned best to not get pregnant if you don't want kids, and if you're unfortunate enough to have an 'accident', at least put the poor thing up for adoption... Even if childbirth is a real pain in the [___].

--Sorry for the rant.

Her life is always at risk. The question is how much risk would allow a "disconnect".

Well, that would be something that only a doctor could discern. If it was a doctor's professional opinion that to carry on with a "connection" would put the helper's life at a risk where he considers it outweighs the benefits then that would be enough to allow a "disconnect". Remember; we're not trying to kill two people, we're trying to save one with the help of another who shouldn't have their lives then put in any significant danger as a result.

Meanwhile, donors are rarely put at considerable risk by donating marrow and people die every day from not getting marrow, so we should be able to start forcing. Then there are the rare blood types. Then livers, which regrow. Then kidney which we have two of. Then there is forced organ donation at death.

As I have stated quite clearly already, I support mandatory procedures where the help of that individual is the last chance for the patient's survival. There was a story a few weeks ago where a man had a rare form of, I think, leukaemia. His sister was the only person who had a match for his marrow, and she refused to help. She has basically sentenced this man to death; not even the highest court in the land can sentence an individual to death, yet this power was placed in her hands. The man has two children, and they're going to lose their father.

If we can avoid situations like this through forced donations then I can't see a reason against them.

I also have no problem with an opt-out post-mortem donor scheme.

You support all of these things, no?

To some extent, yes.

From a religious prospective (mine and many of my friends, particularly), aborted babies do not go to Hell, they go the other way, because they have done nothing wrong to merit them condemnation.

Surely original sin says differently?

If humans are sinful from the moment they are conceived(Psalm 51:5), and only make it to heaven by accepting Jesus as their saviour and worshipping their God, how can a newborn ever get to heaven? They can't conceive of other individuals let alone pick one to worship.

Surely original sin says differently?

If humans are sinful from the moment they are conceived(Psalm 51:5), and only make it to heaven by accepting Jesus as their saviour and worshipping their God, how can a newborn ever get to heaven? They can't conceive of other individuals let alone pick one to worship.

So you believe children are condemned to hell and adults aren't? Isn't that a reason to force adults to help children even if the adult will assuredly die? The adult had a chance at heaven, the child never did.

So you believe children are condemned to hell and adults aren't? Isn't that a reason to force adults to help children even if the adult will assuredly die? The adult had a chance at heaven, the child never did.

All are condemned from the moment of conception, Psalm 51:5 says that quite clearly. Those who live longer just have more of a chance of rescuing themselves by accepting the Lord. That was a religious reason for being against abortion (aborted children don't have a chance to accept the Lord and are condemned to hell by their parents), but I decided I would leave it out for now.

All are condemned from the moment of conception, Psalm 51:5 says that quite clearly. Those who live longer just have more of a chance of rescuing themselves by accepting the Lord. That was a religious reason for being against abortion (aborted children don't have a chance to accept the Lord and are condemned to hell by their parents), but I decided I would leave it out for now.

Depends on what you believe.

Deut 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:19 "Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

Sin is mentioned in some ways as being the reason we die and we are all born with original sin and as such bear physical death. We do not bear the guilt of these sins according to the Bible and as such are righteous until we turn away.

Depends on what you believe.

Deut 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

Well, that is clearly talking about the death penalty.

Had it said "each is to die with his own sin" I could have accepted that it was to do with original sin. However, it does not and I can not.

Well, that is clearly talking about the death penalty.

Had it said "each is to die with his own sin" I could have accepted that it was to do with original sin. However, it does not and I can not.

I added to that. Ezekiel 18 talks about guilt and the soul specifically.

It is pretty long held that original sin is a differnt type of sin, the sin that created the world we inhereted and the death and suffering we all face. We all suffer for that sin. Personal sin is of a different type and it requires sinful action. And sinful action requires sinful knowledge.

From what I've seen, most people that argue Pro-Life are Christian, or at least some deviant of the faith. (I'm Christian as well, just extremely open to other views)
What many of these Pro-Life grievances believe is that 'aborted babies go to Hell'.
While it's exactly the opposite.
What sin has a newborn (or not born, sadly) baby committed?
Can you call crying or breathing or any of the things a newborn does a 'sin'?
Of course not.
From a religious prospective (mine and many of my friends, particularly), aborted babies do not go to Hell, they go the other way, because they have done nothing wrong to merit them condemnation.
But, IMHO, do your damned best to not get pregnant if you don't want kids, and if you're unfortunate enough to have an 'accident', at least put the poor thing up for adoption... Even if childbirth is a real pain in the [___].

Well, I'm pro-life, and I'm hardly Christian (I think there is an 'unmoved mover', as Aquinas posited, since otherwise there would be no beginning to existence and it would just loop around infinitely. That unmoved mover creates other natures to serve its own nature- to think otherwise is irrational- but I'm not sure if it's anything at all like the Judeo-Christian God. It could just be Nature with a capital N, operating in an orderly fashion like anything you'd find in physics etc.) Anyway, I don't think that aborted babies go to Hell or anything. I'm just hard-pressed to find a way to justify abortion on demand anywhere in my hylopomorphic ethics, as Jocabia's handy destruction of my pro-choice argument demonstrated.

I added to that. Ezekiel 18 talks about guilt and the soul specifically.

Again, it talks about a son inheriting sin for his father's sins. About a son never being punished for his father's sins.

However, original sin is different. Original sin is something given from God to the first mother, and something that he has said will follow mankind for eternity. As such, it is clearly a different 'type' of sin

It is pretty long held that original sin is a differnt type of sin, the sin that created the world we inhereted and the death and suffering we all face. We all suffer for that sin. Personal sin is of a different type and it requires sinful action. And sinful action requires sinful knowledge.

Yeah, to be honest, I wasn't planning on getting into a debate on original sin, I just wanted to know what the guy I responded too thought of it :p

In reality I am pro-abortion. I believe that a woman has a right to abort a baby and a man has the right to not pay child support or have any contact with a child as long as he lets his partner know about his decision while she is still able to have a lawful abortion.

The best counter argument to abortion rights is to say that a fetus is a human and nobody should be able to kill a human unless it is for a worthy cause such as defense, war, personal honor, or what have you.

I cannot think of any intelligent argument against a man's right to seperate himself from a child that he does not want to bring into the world. I am so offended by the radical feminist responses that I honestly do not believe that they are "intelligent."

In reality I am pro-abortion. I believe that a woman has a right to abort a baby and a man has the right to not pay child support or have any contact with a child as long as he lets his partner know about his decision while she is still able to have a lawful abortion.

The best counter argument to abortion rights is to say that a fetus is a human and nobody should be able to kill a human unless it is for a worthy cause such as defense, war, personal honor, or what have you.

I cannot think of any intelligent argument against a man's right to seperate himself from a child that he does not want to bring into the world. I am so offended by the radical feminist responses that I honestly do not believe that they are "intelligent."

You mean the radical feminist responses like the child has a right to being supported by his father and had no choice in the matter? You mean like that one. Yeah, radical the idea of taking care of a child you're responsible for.

OOC: For the record, I just lobbed a softball. If you guys hit that one, I'm done. It wasn't on purpose. I got so excited that I was actually making a cogent argument that I made a mistake and put a HUGE hole in my argument. It's perfectly unrecoverable. Well, it was nice while it lasted. Who wants the first homer?

Bottle, I reread this argument and I can't find that hole anymore. I'm not sure what it was, but I remember at the time it seemed a perfect way to destroy my argument.

Rereading I was very impressed with the arguments everyone made. That was really fun.

OOC:

It was fun indeed. I have a couple of things to mention to my fellow pro-choicers though.

Bottle: Your counter to the futures argument was well-played, but as a pro-choice person I'm reluctant to endorse it.

If it is indeed the case that we are constantly affecting and destroying the futures of others, possibly altering their bodily existence significantly through our actions, then why are we so worried about women's bodily integrity? isn't her choice about what to do with her own body just as moot as the future of a fetus if we're constantly destroying and altering futures through every action?

I just think that argument bites as hard against us as it does against them.

Jocabia: When a pro-life person is respecting the principle of consent at least to some extent, that's a good thing. We want to draw them to respect it more, not less so by hounding them about it not being consistent with their other views. We already know it's not consistent with their other views, and we want to encourage them in the direction of allowing for more autonomy because that's the stance we hold, and refrain from pushing them to a more hard-line stance that they may be willing to go to and we don't want them to go to.

Winning the debate takes more than beating up an opponent's arguments. It takes moving them towards seeing your views as the better option.

Also, on the subject of when life begins/personhood.

The arbitrariness is a problem regardless of which position you take. Whether you advocate life or personhood as the point at which we are sufficiently valuable to protect legally, you're going to have to make an arbitrary judgement about where they begin, and defining either of them is a pain in the ass to do objectively, for reasons Bottle mentioned regarding the life issue. It's inherently an abitrary philosophical decision to pick a point in a continuous process of life changing and growing and say, "That's it, that's what we'll protect."

That's why I tend to avoid the personhood issue in my own views, and argue for choice on practical and legal grounds rather than on philosophical grounds.

OOC:

It was fun indeed. I have a couple of things to mention to my fellow pro-choicers though.

Bottle: Your counter to the futures argument was well-played, but as a pro-choice person I'm reluctant to endorse it.

If it is indeed the case that we are constantly affecting and destroying the futures of others, possibly altering their bodily existence significantly through our actions, then why are we so worried about women's bodily integrity? isn't her choice about what to do with her own body just as moot as the future of a fetus if we're constantly destroying and altering futures through every action?

I just think that argument bites as hard against us as it does against them.

Only if you don't consider freedom a virtue. It doesn't bite against us because we rest at allowing people to determine their own futures, that they be permitted to choose one, not that they are entitled a particular future, but that they are entitled to make their own choices.

Honestly, I don't know how you can possibly not see the obvious and unrecoverable flaw in your claims. I really don't.

Jocabia: When a pro-life person is respecting the principle of consent at least to some extent, that's a good thing. We want to draw them to respect it more, not less so by hounding them about it not being consistent with their other views. We already know it's not consistent with their other views, and we want to encourage them in the direction of allowing for more autonomy because that's the stance we hold, and refrain from pushing them to a more hard-line stance that they may be willing to go to and we don't want them to go to.

I don't buy that. We want to push them towards reason, not away from it. By your argument, all I should care about is if they ever agree with me. What I care about is that reason lead us to freedom. Your argument doesn't. Your argument is flawed. Telling me not to point that out because I should just be happy they aren't 100% wrong is absurd and a cop out.

Their stance is flawed. I will point out that it is flawed. You suggest that pointing this out will cause them to fix it in the wrong way, but they will, by fixing it that way, move further away from reason, not closer to it. Because they most certainly require their own consent.


Winning the debate takes more than beating up an opponent's arguments. It takes moving them towards seeing your views as the better option.

Amusing, but nonsensical. On here we seek to win debates and that is about destroying their argument. No more, no less. Yours is destroyed and now you're complaining that I shouldn't have done it. IRL, we seek to move them towards our side, but that also requires destroying their argument. They are inconsistent and pointing out shows not only why they should abandon it, but why others should see the flaw in their argument. I'm speaking to more than you and pro-lifers. I'm speaking to those who have not yet decided and they most often will be swayed by the argument that makes the most sense. That argument was not yours.


Also, on the subject of when life begins/personhood.

The arbitrariness is a problem regardless of which position you take. Whether you advocate life or personhood as the point at which we are sufficiently valuable to protect legally, you're going to have to make an arbitrary judgement about where they begin, and defining either of them is a pain in the ass to do objectively, for reasons Bottle mentioned regarding the life issue. It's inherently an abitrary philosophical decision to pick a point in a continuous process of life changing and growing and say, "That's it, that's what we'll protect."

Amusing. You claimed a position you said wasn't arbitrary. In fact, you claimed that you'd never seen any flaw in it being presented. Arbitrary means that it's not based on anything other than individual preference, but I referenced a measurement we use for life at every stage. You referenced a measurement that doesn't apply ever except if you ARBITRARILY decide it should apply to the beginning of life. Conception is a point event. However, what happens at conception wouldn't qualify you for life at any stage. Minus forebrain activity you are scientifically and medically considered dead. There is nothing arbitrary about that. That's intrinsic to the function of us as human beings. You simply CANNOT function without forebrain activity. However, you want us to pretend, arbitrarily pretend, that we should measure life differently. I'm sorry, friend, but the burden is on you to show why.


That's why I tend to avoid the personhood issue in my own views, and argue for choice on practical and legal grounds rather than on philosophical grounds.

Except you didn't. You chose to protect personhood from conception. Personhood is inherent to the debate because absent personhood there is nothing to debate. If you're not a person, you have no rights.

Honestly, this argument is so far from reason that I question whether it's genuine at all. Are you seriously claiming that changing the way we measure life and personhood to include the fetus and embryo absent forebrain activity is the LESS arbitrary or even equally arbitrary? Again, the burden is on you to show this to be true. Are you seriously claiming that the changing futures argument somehow negates our freedoms? Again, the burden is on you. Are you seriously claiming that we should ignore the flaws in the anti-choice argument because it might upset them and cause them to become more militant? On that one, there is no burden. It's just seriously ridiculous.

You realize we're OOC, yes? Might as well put the summary up front.

Honestly, this argument is so far from reason that I question whether it's genuine at all. Are you seriously claiming that changing the way we measure life and personhood to include the fetus and embryo absent forebrain activity is the LESS arbitrary or even equally arbitrary? Again, the burden is on you to show this to be true. Are you seriously claiming that the changing futures argument somehow negates our freedoms? Again, the burden is on you. Are you seriously claiming that we should ignore the flaws in the anti-choice argument because it might upset them and cause them to become more militant? On that one, there is no burden. It's just seriously ridiculous.

Sigh. Yes, I'm suggesting that using brain activity as a measure is equally arbitrary. I'm not claiming that the changing futures argument negates our freedoms, but I am concerned that it devalues them to the point where it would be difficult for us to maintain the importance of a pro-choice position based on a woman's right to her own body.

I'm also suggesting that there be more to your pro-choice debating tactic than smashing your opponent's arguments. Ignoring flaws in their arguments isn't part of it, but strategically addressing the ones where you can gain more ground certainly is. I dunno, I guess I just see more to good debating than "RAWR Hulk SMASH argument".

You apparently disagree. I can live with that. I'm not going to bother to respond to your lengthier comments on the matter because it's pretty apparent from your response that you didn't fully comprehend what I was getting at.

Only if you don't consider freedom a virtue. It doesn't bite against us because we rest at allowing people to determine their own futures, that they be permitted to choose one, not that they are entitled a particular future, but that they are entitled to make their own choices.

Why would we protect the freedom of bodily integrity when anyone can affect our bodily future dramatically at any time? If another person's decision can completely destroy any future we might have without our consent, why would it be such a problem when someone affects our bodily future dramatically by preventing a pregnancy from being terminated? If someone can destroy someone else's future entirely, and we needn't worry about that because futures are being changed and destroyed all the time, then why do we need to worry when someone changes our bodily future by forcing us to carry a pregnancy to term? It's just a normal natural process to have one's future altered, and sometimes in the process of your future being altered you will endure it against your will.

Honestly, I don't know how you can possibly not see the obvious and unrecoverable flaw in your claims. I really don't.

I'm pretty sure I know how you can not see the obvious flaws in yours, so I guess we're not even yet.

Amusing. You claimed a position you said wasn't arbitrary.

Actually, if you go back to the original post I said "least arbitrary and most sensible". You repeatedly asserted that I claimed non-arbitrariness, rather than truthfully representing me as claiming a lesser degree of arbitrariness. Granted, I knew that argument was badly flawed, but you could have been fair to it.

But you weren't. You spent your time whacking away at a straw man.

In fact, you claimed that you'd never seen any flaw in it being presented. Arbitrary means that it's not based on anything other than individual preference, but I referenced a measurement we use for life at every stage. You referenced a measurement that doesn't apply ever except if you ARBITRARILY decide it should apply to the beginning of life. Conception is a point event. However, what happens at conception wouldn't qualify you for life at any stage. Minus forebrain activity you are scientifically and medically considered dead. There is nothing arbitrary about that. That's intrinsic to the function of us as human beings. You simply CANNOT function without forebrain activity. However, you want us to pretend, arbitrarily pretend, that we should measure life differently. I'm sorry, friend, but the burden is on you to show why.

You can't function without DNA either. So what?

And are you seriously suggesting that appealing to a community of experts rather than going with personal preference is non-arbitrary? If I go to a community of expert theologians and they say godhood begins at the point where you have all the capacities of the Christian God, that's not arbitrary because I'm agreeing with the people who have studied it a lot?

And even if it's not arbitrary simply because of the social legitimacy conferred upon the belief by the expert community, then how is it more likely to be accurate? Is accuracy a product of lots of people in the field agreeing? A correlate of it?

Except you didn't. You chose to protect personhood from conception.

You do realize that I took that particular IC pro-life position to illustrate points about these issues, yes? That it wasn't because I necessarily thought they were all good arguments?

Personhood is inherent to the debate because absent personhood there is nothing to debate. If you're not a person, you have no rights.

If you don't exist, you have no rights. So what?

You realize we're OOC, yes? Might as well put the summary up front.

I do recognize that you're OOC. The problem is that IC or OOC your arguments should be geniune in terms of your understanding of the topic and the other person's argument. Worse, you started this whole thing saying that no one could find a flaw in an argument that begins with a flaw so big it has its own weather.


Sigh. Yes, I'm suggesting that using brain activity as a measure is equally arbitrary.

Good then you of course, think that dead people have rights, no? Since using brain activity is arbitrary and all? And of course we could equally decide that if a person's heart stops they no longer have rights, because of course, saying that a stopped heart doesn't mean not alive is arbitrary. The only line we've EVER drawn consistently is brain activity. It's the only line drawn on the function of the body. By definition, by the very definition of the word, that's the opposite of arbitrary.

Amusingly, later you point out exactly why it's not arbitrary. But, hey, don't let the definition of the word arbitrary get in your way.




I'm not claiming that the changing futures argument negates our freedoms, but I am concerned that it devalues them to the point where it would be difficult for us to maintain the importance of a pro-choice position based on a woman's right to her own body.

It has nothing to do with our freedoms. Consequences for actions is an understood part of action and freedom. Pretending that accepting this would somehow affect whether or not a freedom should be recognized is simply ludicrous.

You're the one who brought futures into it and you did it in a flawed way. Bottle simply rounded out your very limited view. It's that rounded out view that we recognize when talking about freedom and the responsibility that comes with it.


I'm also suggesting that there be more to your pro-choice debating tactic than smashing your opponent's arguments. Ignoring flaws in their arguments isn't part of it, but strategically addressing the ones where you can gain more ground certainly is. I dunno, I guess I just see more to good debating than "RAWR Hulk SMASH argument".

There is no need to not address ALL of the flaws in their arguments. There is more to my argument than just flaws in the opponents' arguments. In this case you asked us to find a flaw in your argument. I did. Complaining about that is silly.


You apparently disagree. I can live with that. I'm not going to bother to respond to your lengthier comments on the matter because it's pretty apparent from your response that you didn't fully comprehend what I was getting at.

Ha. Gosh, I sure do wish I could understand all those complicated arguments you're making. They are oh so hard to understand and my brain is starting to go hurty. /slow speech. That good old weak debating tactic of "I'm sorry I would try to explain this but you don't understand." Based on your arguments, I think it's pretty clear which one of us is having trouble following along, my friend. It ain't me.


Why would we protect the freedom of bodily integrity when anyone can affect our bodily future dramatically at any time?

That's precisely why we would protect it. We prevent people from doing that unless there is a case of competing rights. You want to avoid the topic of personhood, but that's precisely why it matters. It's not about protecting future rights, but current rights that affect one's future.


If another person's decision can completely destroy any future we might have without our consent, why would it be such a problem when someone affects our bodily future dramatically by preventing a pregnancy from being terminated?

The problem is we can't destroy one's future without one's consent. That's the point. You're claiming that we can't destroy a person who doesn't exist and will never exist's future and when you extend it to that, then we are constantly doing that. I know you don't see it but it's not a small difference. Again, it has its own weather.


If someone can destroy someone else's future entirely, and we needn't worry about that because futures are being changed and destroyed all the time, then why do we need to worry when someone changes our bodily future by forcing us to carry a pregnancy to term? It's just a normal natural process to have one's future altered, and sometimes in the process of your future being altered you will endure it against your will.

Again, this is the argument against you. You see you were arguing that non-existent people are having their futures affected and that we should protect them. The problem is the extension of this argument is endless and we'd be limited to doing nothing. Bottle simply pointed this out to you. You want to limit the rights of the existing to protect the non-existing and it's impossible for precisely the reasons Bottle and I outlined. This has no bearing on the existing since our rights are limited where we affect others. You don't have a right to your future. You have a right to control the you present within reason. You've not used reason to show any reason to limit the rights of the women. In fact in invoking reason you established why it should not happen. So thanks for that.


I'm pretty sure I know how you can not see the obvious flaws in yours, so I guess we're not even yet.

Ha. Feel free to point out the flaws in my argument instead of making weak references to them. Make a list. I'll be happy to show you the problem with your claims.


Actually, if you go back to the original post I said "least arbitrary and most sensible". You repeatedly asserted that I claimed non-arbitrariness, rather than truthfully representing me as claiming a lesser degree of arbitrariness. Granted, I knew that argument was badly flawed, but you could have been fair to it.

The problem is that it does not rely on sense and it's the much more arbitrary. It's not a necessary function. In fact, function is precisely why it's arbitrary. Your "line' doesn't address twins. It doesn't address when one twin is absorbed by the other. It doesn't address that every other stage of life is measured differently than the line you want to assert. That makes it MORE arbitrary than brain activity. Not less.


But you weren't. You spent your time whacking away at a straw man.

Amusing. Because I said that you're claiming it's not arbitrary instead of the least arbitrary is somehow different. The point is that you claimed initially it was LEAST arbitrary and then later said they were all equally arbitrary. A word's difference doesn't change the argument even though you'd really like it to. Your line is more arbitrary that than many other lines since it requires all kinds of special rules to deal with the actuality of the situation. It positively doesn't work.


You can't function without DNA either. So what?

Seriously, does this pass for an argument, where you're from? At my line there is both DNA and brain activity. At your line, this isn't true. Establishing more qualifications for life that are all met at the time of brain activity really doesn't help your argument. But you knew this, right?



And are you seriously suggesting that appealing to a community of experts rather than going with personal preference is non-arbitrary?

Do you know the definition of arbitrary? Arbitrary specifically reference personal preference. I pointed to a community of experts in the field we're discussing. Yes, that's much less arbitrary than drawing a line where no one in that field accepts it as it gives a non-life, life.


If I go to a community of expert theologians and they say godhood begins at the point where you have all the capacities of the Christian God, that's not arbitrary because I'm agreeing with the people who have studied it a lot?

No, it wouldn't be arbitrary, by definition. Again, seriously, do you know what this word means?

Meanwhile, I didn't appeal to A community of experts. I appealed to the entirety of people who have expertise in this area, not a limited group that happens to agree with me. The concensus on lack of brain activity meaning a lack of human life is overwhelmingly against you. The definition of the charteristics to qualify as a living organism are overwhelmingly against you. So far against you as to make any disagreement negligible. That hardly compares to your example of a select group of theologians, who likely wouldn't agree with one another.


And even if it's not arbitrary simply because of the social legitimacy conferred upon the belief by the expert community, then how is it more likely to be accurate? Is accuracy a product of lots of people in the field agreeing? A correlate of it?

Speaking of strawmans, we weren't discussing accuracy. We were discussing arbitrariness. If you'd like to discuss accuracy then it's a completely different argument but still one that doesn't land anywhere near conception. Wanna make that argument? It should be amusing.



You do realize that I took that particular IC pro-life position to illustrate points about these issues, yes? That it wasn't because I necessarily thought they were all good arguments?

Actually, out of character you stated that no one could find any flaws in the arguments. That actually says that you do believe they are good arguments. The fact that you don't necessiarly agree with their conclusions is not the same as claiming they were good arguments.




If you don't exist, you have no rights. So what?

Again, if you don't see the flaw in claiming that rights are reliant on existing and earlier arguing that pointing out that disrespecting the rights of the non-existent would somehow hurt the rights of the existant, then I don't know what to tell you. Again, I know you don't realize how badly this hurts your argument but pointing out a requirement inclusive of my argument isn't harmful to my argument. It supports it.

If you don't exist, you don't have rights. You claimed the opposite and dared us to prove it wrong. We did and now you're complaining that I shouldn't have pointed out the obvious flaws in your argument.

Then you claimed that using the methods by which we define human life as a means of *gasp* defining human life is arbitrary even if it doesn't include personal preference. Honesly, this argument is laughable.

I hate to say I am pro choice but I do see how the other side of the argument functions. I do not think anyone has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body but then doesn't the fetus have rights too? It is like stem cell research. who has the rights? :confused: I hope our generation will be able to solve this. Temporarily my argument stans as this: Until the foster child situation is taken care of, banning abortion is basically out of the question. where will all these unwanted children go otherwise? If we can solve this crisis, then permentally stopping abortion is a logical path to follow.