• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?

That is true I never understand that contradiction of killing someone who had an abortion since you are against them for what you see as them killing a child. Both sides have their extremists each just as bad as the other and once both sides extremists get involved things go down hill so fast that no real debates can happen.
Sure, there's extremism on both sides, but one side's extremism wants complete freedom for women and their bodies and the other has domestic terrorism.

The clinic bombers see any abortion as a murder, and as such think the utilitarian thing to do would be to kill the "murderer" and save innocent "human lives". It doesn't contradict what they stand for, in that case.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
There are plenty of contradictions about it.

Like why states that pass tough abortion laws, also pass laws denying aid to single mothers, oppose the food stamp program, oppose sex education, and as a result, have large numbers of teen pregnancies and children living in poverty. They claim they want to protect the lives of babies by outlawing abortion, but once they're born, they can starve for all they care.

Also, for as far back as I can remember, the same people who oppose abortion tend to be the ones who support the death penalty. "All life is precious" they say, except when they scream for someone's blood and call her a killer before the trial even starts. (And sometimes after she's acquitted.) It just doesn't make sense.

While this is probably true, you are generalizing this.
Yes states that "pass tough abortion laws" may also pass ones that deny rights to the single mother, but that doesnt make it right, and that is not (to the best of my knowledge) what most of the people who are pro-life are fighting for.
The ideal situation for pro-life includes laws that would help the mother out, or at least help with the adoption of the child.

As to the people who are pro-life are also for the death penalty?
While It would not supprise me if some people are, but I find it unlikely...I know I am Pro-life and am also against the death penalty so....
Sure, there's extremism on both sides, but one side's extremism wants complete freedom for women and their bodies and the other has domestic terrorism.

But that freedom has a cost, the possibility of existence for millions of humans each year. Let me state this again for emphasis Millions of potential humans a year. If you want a link that shows that, take a look at my big post above (the one that took me an hour to write and got only one reply to say that one part of it was poorly written *slight humor*).

The clinic bombers see any abortion as a murder, and as such think the utilitarian thing to do would be to kill the "murderer" and save innocent "human lives". It doesn't contradict what they stand for, in that case.

Yet, that is also a example of extremism.

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/0...-reportedly-arrested-by-fbi-for-threats-to-p/

See? I can do it too. Discussing the extremities of each side doesn't do either side any good, and has no place in the debate.
 
Yet, that is also a example of extremism.
I said it was. Why does it being an example of extremism have anything to do with the point?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/0...-reportedly-arrested-by-fbi-for-threats-to-p/
See? I can do it too. Discussing the extremities of each side doesn't do either side any good, and has no place in the debate.
You link to a guy who has never killed anyone, just threatened them. Why is this comparable to people who have killed whoever happened to be in the clinic in multiple cases?

And yes, extremism has a place in debate. It is the position anti-choice advocates (lol) when the position is reduced to the absurd.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
I said it was. Why does it being an example of extremism have anything to do with the point?


You link to a guy who has never killed anyone, just threatened them. Why is this comparable to people who have killed whoever happened to be in the clinic in multiple cases?

And yes, extremism has a place in debate. It is the position anti-choice advocates (lol) when the position is reduced to the absurd.

I linked that one because I was too lazy to look further.

And it matters because that the only reasons that you can use that argument of "bombing abortion clinics" are these:
Anti-Abortioners have a target, other than attacking the government for not getting their way, the Pro-Abortioners have nothing to strike at.
And the people who have attacked abortion clinics are not clear representatives of the pro-life movement, and should not be lumped in with the rational members.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-abortion-vs.-pro-life-extremism-which-is-more-extreme/
^...Idk, just felt like posting it.
 
I linked that one because I was too lazy to look further.
Yeah, I feel you.

And the people who have attacked abortion clinics are not clear representatives of the pro-life movement, and should not be lumped in with the rational members.
I agree, and I never intended to lump them in with anyone who is willing to sit and argue a point rationally. The issue deserves discussion because it is a reductio ad absurdum of the pro-life position, a "side effects calculus", if you will. It doesn't deserve to be evidence for either side, but it deserves mention. I guess I was too vague last time when I said it deserves discussion.
 

Eterna

Well-Known Member
That is true I never understand that contradiction of killing someone who had an abortion since you are against them for what you see as them killing a child. Both sides have their extremists each just as bad as the other and once both sides extremists get involved things go down hill so fast that no real debates can happen.

It isn't a child yet. It is certainly human, but it is not a person.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
I agree, and I never intended to lump them in with anyone who is willing to sit and argue a point rationally. The issue deserves discussion because it is a reductio ad absurdum of the pro-life position, a "side effects calculus", if you will. It doesn't deserve to be evidence for either side, but it deserves mention. I guess I was too vague last time when I said it deserves discussion.
I think I see what you are saying. While yes the Pro-Life side has done things like bomb abortion clinics, the only reasons the other side has not done the same are:
1) Anti-Abortioners have a target, other than attacking the government for not getting their way, the Pro-Abortioners have nothing to strike at. (as I said earlier)
2) There is no need for them to strike out at the government in the US because abortion is legal in some us states, so it isn't impossible for women to get an abortion if they really want one.
3) They ARE getting ready to strike out against the goverment in some places where it is illegal, such as Ireland(I think it was Ireland but it might have been somewhere else).


It isn't a child yet. It is certainly human, but it is not a person.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child
an unborn or recently born person
 

Maedar

Banned
You referenced the Full Definition, not the regular definition that would appear in most versions of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (In other words, like most Republicans do, you're using a technicality to prove your point.)
 

Jazzy-Strings

Aggression
(sorry for butting in)
Question, does this apply to any country? if so then here are my own veiws on something on the news in ENGLAND recentl, if not, then just completely ignore me >.<
Basically, in England, the most recent preposal that the government has made is that doctors who destroy foeteses PURELY because the child will be a female will no longer be put on charge/punished, HOWEVER the doctors that do that because the unborn child would be MALE WILL be punished. what are your opinions on this?
My veiws
-It's sexist, VERY sexist
-Its 'old fasioned'
-As the reporter on the news said 'we now, basically, have abortion on demand'
- i mean, i get its because some ethenic groups want a boy and not a girl but really, REALLY?!
- both males AND females should have equality and rights, even when unborn

these are just some veiws of mine, and if this thread doesnt apply to the UK then please ignore this post >.<
~EJF
 

Maedar

Banned
True, that is VERY sexist, and much, much, MUCH worse. I would have expected it from a place like Iran, but NOT Britain, and whoever is proposing it should be ashamed of himself.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
(sorry for butting in)
Question, does this apply to any country? if so then here are my own veiws on something on the news in ENGLAND recentl, if not, then just completely ignore me >.<
Basically, in England, the most recent preposal that the government has made is that doctors who destroy foeteses PURELY because the child will be a female will no longer be put on charge/punished, HOWEVER the doctors that do that because the unborn child would be MALE WILL be punished. what are your opinions on this?
My veiws
-It's sexist, VERY sexist
-Its 'old fasioned'
-As the reporter on the news said 'we now, basically, have abortion on demand'
- i mean, i get its because some ethenic groups want a boy and not a girl but really, REALLY?!
- both males AND females should have equality and rights, even when unborn

these are just some veiws of mine, and if this thread doesnt apply to the UK then please ignore this post >.<
~EJF

I would have to agree there. While I am against abortion of either gender, making one gender legal for abortion and another non-legal is just wrong. And I may point out that by the time one could tell which gender the child is going to be, we are already entering the period that even some people who are Pro-Choice consider the cut-off point.
 

The Admiral

solid state survivor
I'd love to hear the reasoning behind how this could be considered acceptable. Aside from just "good" ol'-fashioned sexism.
 

Maedar

Banned
And I may point out that by the time one could tell which gender the child is going to be, we are already entering the period that even some people who are Pro-Choice consider the cut-off point.

For once, the guy has a point. I don't even think it's legal in this country. That would fall very close to partial-birth abortion, something that very few pro-choice advocates approve of.
 

Search_Ops_TeamD

ShaggySmurf
Honestly, at this point, it shouldn't even be an option, it should be mandatory. Assuming abortion is stopping the fetus, or embryo or whatever, from developing further; because a fully formed baby would just be pure homicide. With that in mind, is abortion inhumane? Sure. Is it immoral? Of course. But you have to get past that, and start seeing the bigger picture. Once you transcend the boundaries of human emotion, you will see that saving that one unwanted baby is not actually the best thing for the entire planet. Overpopulation, people, that's where I'm going. Yes, one baby won't make a difference, but we are talking millions of unwanted babies a year. Some that will, unfortunately, not make it anyways. Some will be a bad addition to society. I'm heartless, I know. But there is a work around abortion. Let's call it baby control. Put a limit on the amount of children any one person can have. I'm sure they're doing this somewhere. Ok now, come at me bro.........just go easy on me, it's my first debate post.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Honestly, at this point, it shouldn't even be an option, it should be mandatory. Assuming abortion is stopping the fetus, or embryo or whatever, from developing further; because a fully formed baby would just be pure homicide. With that in mind, is abortion inhumane? Sure. Is it immoral? Of course. But you have to get past that, and start seeing the bigger picture. Once you transcend the boundaries of human emotion, you will see that saving that one unwanted baby is not actually the best thing for the entire planet. Overpopulation, people, that's where I'm going. Yes, one baby won't make a difference, but we are talking millions of unwanted babies a year. Some that will, unfortunately, not make it anyways. Some will be a bad addition to society. I'm heartless, I know. But there is a work around abortion. Let's call it baby control. Put a limit on the amount of children any one person can have. I'm sure they're doing this somewhere. Ok now, come at me bro.........just go easy on me, it's my first debate post.

Ok, I have several arguments that I would like to bring out.

1) We would have to be 100% sure that killing off the fetus's would be the best thing for the world as a whole, and there is no concrete evidence of that yet.
2) As you said yourself, it is immoral and inhumane. Once we decide to destroy life (or for those who are Pro-Choice, the POSSIBILITY of life) for the "Greater good of Man", then then would open the floodgates as it were to slaughter other humans for the "Greater good of Man".
3) Yes, some will be a bad addition to society, but we simply do not know which fetus will become a human that could help humankind, or one that could harm it.
4) Yes, some babies will not make it anyways, but once again, we do not know which is which.
5) They have put a limit on how many babies a person can have in some countries (I think China is one but I cant remember). And they get around that by putting the children up for adoption in OTHER countries, so you would have to have the entire planet in on this, and that is simply not going to happen.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I'm just stating the facts.
 

~Spacial_Rendation~

De Ibwis Twigga!
I find it funny that the countries with the lowest rates of abortion in the world - countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Belgium - All have abortion legal (making the practice regulated), Family Planning, Good sex education systems and contraception available cheaply and without needing prescription at local chemists or drug stores.

On the other hand, countries in which the abortion rate is higher from your less extremes such as England, France and the US, to your total extremes like many African and Middle Eastern/Central Asian countries, are countries in which many of these are either hard to come by, not well distributed, has a bunch of loop or check-holes to receive, don't exist, have social stigmatization against receiving or are illegal.

It shows to me that the abortion debate is less about "saving the lives of unborn children" and more about "controlling women's sex drive". Even if this insidious underbelly isn't apparent to some pro-lifers.
 
Last edited:

Search_Ops_TeamD

ShaggySmurf
Ok, I have several arguments that I would like to bring out.

1) We would have to be 100% sure that killing off the fetus's would be the best thing for the world as a whole, and there is no concrete evidence of that yet.
2) As you said yourself, it is immoral and inhumane. Once we decide to destroy life (or for those who are Pro-Choice, the POSSIBILITY of life) for the "Greater good of Man", then then would open the floodgates as it were to slaughter other humans for the "Greater good of Man".
3) Yes, some will be a bad addition to society, but we simply do not know which fetus will become a human that could help humankind, or one that could harm it.
4) Yes, some babies will not make it anyways, but once again, we do not know which is which.
5) They have put a limit on how many babies a person can have in some countries (I think China is one but I cant remember). And they get around that by putting the children up for adoption in OTHER countries, so you would have to have the entire planet in on this, and that is simply not going to happen.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I'm just stating the facts.

It wasn't that harsh. Although, someone else did take it too personally.
Ok, so you somehow see my point. But I can't help seeing other opinions as close minded, only thinking about our own species. Let me put it this way. We lost our right to give life. We were irresponsible, and now we have 7 billion people in this planet consuming resources like there's no hell. I don't think we have the right to save our unfortunate anymore. You said it would be hard for the whole world to get in on it. Indeed, only a few people would share my opinion. But there's a good reason why abortion was even considered in the first place. Not so little teenage girls could have the option to deny an unwanted baby, but because it sounded like a solution to the ever-growing problem of overpopulation. I probably went to far when I said it should be mandatory. Maybe something else could be made mandatory after having maybe 2 - 3 children, like sterilization. But abortion should also be made an option anyway.
 

Maedar

Banned

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
We lost our right to give life. We were irresponsible, and now we have 7 billion people in this planet consuming resources like there's no hell. I don't think we have the right to save our unfortunate anymore.
That's a very slippery slope.

You said it would be hard for the whole world to get in on it. Indeed, only a few people would share my opinion.
And that seems to be the problem. This specific idea would have to be agreed on by almost everyone for it to work, and I just can't see that happening.


But there's a good reason why abortion was even considered in the first place. Not so little teenage girls could have the option to deny an unwanted baby, but because it sounded like a solution to the ever-growing problem of overpopulation.
Eeeh. I don't really agree with that. This idea, while it may in essence be true, was not and(most likely) will not be accepted widely.

I probably went to far when I said it should be mandatory. Maybe something else could be made mandatory after having maybe 2 - 3 children, like sterilization.
Like I said, countries have done this, and they get around it by allowing adoption to other countries, and that is why all countries would have to be in on it if it were to succeed.
To celebrate:

A song to honor the occasion, which I suggest retitling, "Rick Perry's Lament"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPXnoLAEUSQ
. . . a little immature, but whatever floats your boat.
 

Maedar

Banned
. . . a little immature, but whatever floats your boat.

Well, Ansem, not to name any names (not you), but some people have been rubbing the pro-choice supporters' noses in it all this time too, okay? I was tired of them mocking Wendy Davis, tired of them praising this law that claimed was done with women's safety in mind (but would have caused the exact opposite) tired of them saying it followed the guidelines set by Roe v. Wade (when that was a blatant lie), tired of them saying "God will not look kindly on those who judge against this man" (referring to Perry) and much worse, tired of all the GOP-BS these past few months, okay?
 
Top