The debate "Is abortion wrong" was started by
March 17, 2015, 11:52 am.
24 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 16 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
PathwayHomeFan posted 1 argument, Jake posted 12 arguments to the agreers part.
PsychDave posted 3 arguments, I_Voyager posted 5 arguments, kidcisco posted 1 argument, Getmurked posted 3 arguments to the disagreers part.
PathwayHomeFan, Redapples, Jake, wmd, ItsMateo, cocobb, Hollister_boy, Mufti, gtomk, Mrcmck, YoanaPetrova, debateer, dominic, Untamed, blakelovesjesus, Thejw and 8 visitors agree.
I_Voyager, PsychDave, kidcisco, Getmurked, Bodaciouslady16, transfanboy, SwaggerPoptart and 9 visitors disagree.
That is an interesting argument. I am not an expert in American legal perspective, although I have some knowledge of the conversations of your founding fathers, and the political dialogue hense. Although many of them saw some of the problems which could arise given certain movements in the American democracy, they failed to prevent for example, the rise of political parties, centralized banks controlling currency, and the rise of international market entities. If the constitution of the American government, and other democracies as variables on the theme, have failed to stop the growth of cancerous giant entities which can buy and sell laws, I question the ability of those legal systems to produce healthy governing systems or systems of human interaction. Furthermore, those systems could not foretell the state of science or technology or account for a variety of concepts. I think it's folly to trust in the political systems of the day and they need to be wholly reinvented to fit the science.
Few achieve happiness, many are slaves, and only by bending language like light can we see the world in any other way. The laws and politics of today are the barrier which preaches "We can go no further."
In regards to the violence of pro life activists, i was unaware of those acts - though I don't doubt they happened. Sensitive topics breed radicals of all kinds and you are right in that passion spurs the passionate. I don't advocate violent protest in regards to any issue.
I agree that religion is a faulty source to justify a pro life stance. Your argument should presented to those people because I am not one of them.
My previous argument stems particularly to the Constitution. The combination of my belief that a fetus is a human life and my belief in the morality of the Constitution lead me to no other conclusion that a fetus has the same right to life and the pursuit of happiness as every other citizen in the US. The reason this topic will never be settled is because you cannot scientifically prove whether or not a fetus is a human life or should be treated as a growth, tumor, or abnormality until birth. It's a matter of opinion, not science.
I would like to add one more part to the conversation if you don't mind, for your re-evaluation.
I understand the drive upon the religious (and those otherwise in your party of view) is to save a life. Just as a point of contrast, I want to point out those religious families who believe they have a moral right not to save their child's life with medicine on a religious ground. I imagine there will be a strong sense in those parents that abortion is bad - and they have adopted that view from their connection to religion. Just as they believe they have a right not to give their child medicine, which also stems from their religious method.
In my observation, the religious have a tendency to be less concerned for an objective and representative series of laws, so much as laws which respect their religious perspective. But the respective of a religious perspective, if it is a right, must be evenly spaced in a society for anyone to have that right at all. If you can take away my actions despite my philosophy of religion, because of your philosophy of religion, then there is nothing stopping someone else from doing the same to your philosophy of religion.
In order for moral premises which are believed in, and sourced from religion - and let's face it, this mostly homes down to whether or not a fetus is a human with a soul (in general, I'm sure there are anomalous opposition out there) - then it cannot push out from the boundary of its own belief and establish premises from its belief, as lawfully factual, if the greater premise of law is to provide a series of rights that protects the freedom to express religious belief or disbelief into one's moral code.
I would like to add that anti-abortionist violence has been a continuous problem for decades and the harm is done to more than the women. Many doctors have been murdered in the belief that they are saving many, many lives. Passion spurs the passionate. For the good to do evil, that requires religion.
I look forward to revisiting the topic once I've had a chance to reevaluate everything presented here
I appreciate your response. I too denounce those who harass women on their decision to get an abortion based on medical reasons. I am not so quick to defend those who got an abortion when there was no harm present. In that sense, I see the situation as black and white.
Perhaps I have no room in even talking on the matter, because I'm not a woman. And yet, I feel strangely passionate about it. My sister had an abortion performed to terminate her pregnancy 6 months ago. After she saw the result, even she became a pro life activist. She too was scolded and verbally harassed. It's an ugly situation any way that you look at it and I still believe that the capability of terminating a pregnancy should never have been available to man in the first place. That said, this is not the case. If we are truly keen on working this out, we must participate in intellectual conversations such as this in an objective way- even though it is a sensitive and emotional topic.
Your responses have definitely given me some food for thought and for that, I thank you
I did read your post and I understand that you agreed that there were times when abortion was the best of bad options. What I wanted to try to explain was the damage that people can do because they believe the fetus has the right to live without knowing what went into the decision. If you see the world in black and white, it is hard to put yourself in another's shoes and understand where they are coming from, which leads to intolerance.
I recognize that you have not shown that at all, and this is in no way meant to be an attack towards you, but many people who see abortion in black and white will judge someone who has had an abortion no matter what the reason. I can respect your moral boundaries on this and my comment is more toward others who share your sentiment, but not your understanding or empathy.
"pro birth activists are horrible"... I'm sorry for interpreting that statement exactly as how you said it.
All social/political protesters will have some radicals who are violent. As a pro life supporter, I don't believe in the actions you speak of. I have personally never heard of those stories, although I believe some may be true.
As for the second part of your response, I'm not sure that you understand a single point I was trying to make.
of course not all pro birth activists are hateful and violent, but some have been prone to violent outbursts, that were highly damaging, so no, my comment is not irrevelant since its true, i simply state people like that should fimd other means instead of violence to get thier point across. my scenario is to tell you what it is like, not that you will feel it. im the end, it a comes down to the individual.and thier.circumstances. we should all work towards pro life goals, so pro birth CAN happen. we should support womrn who csnt support a baby, so that they can raise it.
I'm not sure if you had a chance to read my earlier posts but I expressed that same idea. I agree that if a woman cannot safely carry a fetus to term, (safe for either the mother or the fetus), due to a medical condition, then the termination of that fetus is justified.
But when there is no harm present to either the mother or the fetus, we have an obligation to protect that fetus' life.
I am not a fan of grey areas. I do happen to see everything as black and white, right and wrong, life and death. If the pregnancy will result in death for either the mother or fetus (or both), then termination is necessary. However, if there is no credible threat to either life, that fetus has the right to life.
That is why I don't feel that abortion is wrong. I don't agree that it should be used as a form of birth control, and it should never become common, but if we stigmatized all abortion, if we make it so shameful that it becomes illegal, then we are also punishing those women who get an abortion for medical reasons, or we are condemning them to death.
I feel strongly about this because I knew a young woman at university who got an abortion because she had a medical condition that meant she could not safely carry a baby to term. Afterwards, one of the other women on the floor put a sign that said "murderer" on her door while she was in class. She was still dealing with how she felt, and the added stigma made it far worse.
I understand wanting to give every child a chance at life, and I understand the religious reasons to be opposed to abortion, but to say it is wrong is to remove the grey areas and paint it all black and that is not fair.
You say that we will never understand what they are going through and yet you attempt to get me to put myself in their shoes. In regards to your scenario you presented, how is it justified for the baby to bear the full weight of consequence for its mother getting knocked at 18 by some douchebag? You also made it seem as though putting a child up for adoption is a hit and miss situation, which it is not.
The murder of an unborn baby should never be a "choice" at all.
As for your comment that "pro birth activists are horrible", I couldn't disagree more. The fact that you so eagerly grouped pro birth activists as hateful, destructive people automatically destroys any merit your that your argument may have had.
understand the diff between pro birth and pro life. pro birth is just a birth. pro life is actually growing up in a stable house and family. pro life should be strived for. if the women can provide thst great. if not, cam she put it in an adoption clinic? if the answer is still no, certain risks are tol great, it ends there. its her choice, just know its an extremely tough one for them. pro birth activists are horrible and some hurt women and burn down abortion clinkcs, which is hypocritical of thier true aim. they neeed to fund adoption clinics and foster homes instead of violence and yelling at women
it is not your choice, and you will never be confronted by the likes of such a choice. put yourself in the mothers shoes. perhaps 18, whole life ahead of you, planning om going to college, dad knocks you up, tells you it will be ok. next thing you know hes gone. your alone with a baby, your parenrs tell you that you dont have thier support. you cant raise the baby. many women deal with similar, or worse situations. such as rape babies. i do, however, feel like they should be put in adoption clinics instead of aborted but again its not my choice and you cant begin to understand how they feel, its probaly one of thier worsr situations they will ever go through
That's undeniably a shit situation. If there is no doubt that the fetus will not make it and will ultimately die, there is no point in trying to protect it, especially if it will inflict harm to the mother. However, if there is any chance that the fetus may live, I feel we have an obligation to protect it.
That proposal only partially solves the problem. The ones who are convinced a fetus is a human life aren't concerned only with their personal lives; they're concerned with the well being of all those they see as being human. Pro life supporters believe that (what we consider to be) murder should not be a decision any woman can make freely as it infringes on the rights of the fetus.
To put it short, pro life supporters will never be satisfied with turning the other cheek when human life is being wrongfully destroyed.
I think it should be up to the person. I don't think it's right to have a law force one perspective when we are all so divided. Instead, the law should not enforce one view; and socially we should be free to influence people towards, or away from, those actions. After all, all women who see as you do are free not to abort their pregnancy. And every man is free to ask his potential wife whether or not she agrees with, or would, have an abortion, and to only be in a relationship with women who won't, who agree it's immoral, who agree that the fetus is independently alive.
I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on that aspect of abortion. The fetus is, in fact, completely reliant on its mother so I see what you're saying. It's really just a growth until birth. However, the development of a human life should not be stopped if you truly see it as a person.
It's exactly what it is; an undeveloped human, with the potential to be human. But the potential to be isn't yet being.
I understand not wanting to dehumanize the unborn. I need to argue though for ot being what it is - a part of the mother, and less human than the mother.
I realize that it's a sensitive topic and that we clearly have a difference of opinion. My entire argument is based solely on my belief that a fetus is indeed a human life. If we can't agree there, we won't agree at all. I believe that a fetus is a person and ultimately protected by the Constitution in that he/she has the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. It may be your right to treat your body however you choose, but not when it infringes on the rights of others. Again, this is irrefutable if you believe a fetus is a human life, which we clearly don't agree on.
I think that a woman has the right to choose but I don't like that we act like the fetus is anything but human
Freedom of the person over their body, Jake. You don't get to tell me how to treat my body. The fetus is an organ until born, and is especially in its earliest stages, not human. Morality is a quality of actions taken between two or more humans capable of knowledgeable perception.
If both mother and child will die if the mother tries to carry the child to term, is it wrong to perform an abortion so that one of them lives?
I'm not sure that there is a single benefit of abortion that couldn't easily be refuted by a morally sound person.
How is abortion OK?