This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Adamsm
/sigh I said that wrong: I meant to say, you are big on people not insulting you.
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Adamsm
Hey now, don't drag that portion up; we know we know, there religious folks that are both for and against abortion, same as the atheists.
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
woohaa
Technically if the law allows abortion it falls on the pro-life side to provide scientific proof that life starts at conception and that it is considered murder to abort the fertilized egg.
My question is for those that think life starts at conception. Why is that? There's no brain, no heart, and no scientific proof of self or soul. If your debate is that it's a living thing then technically masterbating would be considered mass murder.
honestly, i'm pro-choice...why? because i don't feel it's my place to tell anyone what they can and can't do UNLESS it's against the law. Which it's not currently. If it was my baby then i'd be against the abortion but since it's not my decision to make i won't make it for someone. Just because i'm pro-choice it doesn't necessarily mean i'm for abortion.
I am against abortion once the baby becomes a living breathing human being with brain activity and a beating heart. however i don't believe life starts at conception, because LIFE is a general term. If by life you mean something that EXIST? then humans murder living things everyday insects, animals, and plants. The question is what makes us human and also what makes it wrong to murder a human over any other living thing? Murdering another human being is considered wrong by society and religion. Which technically makes it a opinion of ethics. Animals have no problem killing one of their own; if it means their own, the pack or herds survival.
The point i'm making is that the law allows abortion. In MyTie's case he's pro-life and would not budge in the other direction no matter what type of argument you used against him. However, many pro-choice people would budge and become pro-life if the right proof was provided and i don't agree with him that it's the pro-choice side that needs to provide proof it's the people that are wanting change.
unfortunately this is one of those issues where both sides will always use the extremes for examples to debate the issue. There will always be exceptions and there will be no agree to disagree...
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
865056
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Patty
That would be quite clearly child destruction - for example if all evidence pointed towards the baby being born healthy. But that's a very, very iffy term to use and I'm uncertain about it.
If you are "iffy" then perhaps the responsible thing to do would be to oppose something that could be
murdering babies
. That seems so obvious to me. And you have to be "iffy". There are ifs that remain about the person-hood of zygotes. As long as those "ifs" remain, I'm going to be against abortion. And, finally, those "ifs" will always be there.
No, I'm iffy about the use of child destruction outside of very, very, very glaringly obvious examples. For example, a guy in the UK (I can't remember the life of me anything too specific, or I'd link an article) raped a heavily pregnant woman, stabbed her in the womb and then set her house on fire. He got sent down for child destruction along with his other charges. That's quite clearly premeditated murder.
You ignored the second point in my post - killing a child just before it is due to be born is very, very different to an abortion several months before that point.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Genocide has a definition according to wikipedia of systematic slaughter according to race, religion, ethnicity or national group. I don't think abortion qualifies as that, though it would be the leading cause of death worldwide (apart, perhaps, from autoabortion, where the zygote fails to implant in the endometrium). The systematic abortion and post-birth murder of girls in India and China has been termed "gendercide" though.
The Nazi comparison works best in reference to Malthus' theory of population and Marie Stope's attendance of fascist rallies.
It's not a "lesser" crime to kill a child if it's younger, and so, to someone who is pro-life, there is no substantive difference between performing an abortion and killing a toddler.
Except some people that define themselves as pro-life view contraceptives with almost as leery an eye as abortion. They'd say that using a condom is anti-life, because it deprives the human that results from natural copulation from the life that it deserves. Just as a pro-life person could classify someone that says that a foetus that is incapable of feeling pain can be aborted as anti-life, because they deprive the foetus from the pleasure that would naturally follow given its unimpeded development.
Do you note the contiguity?
Post by
MyTie
I can find all the insulting things MyTie has said to anyone in this thread if he's interested. Doesn't have a lot of relevance to the topic though.This is like, the fourth time I've been accused of being so insulting to people. I don't recall insulting anyone.
Maybe this is just me, but I'd rather have a religious fanatic in power, who doesn't want to kill people, than a religious atheist who approves of abortion.
Nothing was being said about atheism until you said this. So you were either using the "appealing to extremes" fallacy or making the generalization that atheists approve of abortion. There are many atheists who are "pro-life."Is my argument here saying that "atheists are not pro-life", or was my comment directed at an atheist who is not pro life, and saying I'm happy with my view points and not his? When you pull my comments out of context, I'm sure you can find loads of things to nit pic at.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
MyTie, a bit out of left field here, but can i ask your thoughts on Euthanasia?
Before this goes nuts:
Do you mean Euthanasia, or Assisted Suicide? The latter is at the request of the patient, while the former is someone else deciding to kill someone "to end their pain." I don't know a whole lot of people who would agree that someone else should be able to end their life without their permission, if this outside person had made a judgement that they would be better off dead. Using the wrong terminology will make this debate twice as long and complicated, as people try to figure out what the other side means.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Ok- just wanted to make sure that everyone is on the same page for this one.
...Although I can't imagine many people who are pro-euthanasia in the sense that the person being killed isn't making the decision.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.