1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Your views on abortion

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by Shiny hunter Reece, Dec 14, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ShinySandshrew

    ShinySandshrew †God Follower†

    Wait a minute, Deku_Link! A rock is not alive! A fetus most certainly is. And yes, the innocence of the fetus is important. Is it acceptable to just go out and kill an animal (say a stray cat or a dog) for no reason? No! It most likely would be considered animal cruelty. The only thing that fetuses have done "wrong" is existing or maybe not being wanted.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2010
  2. Tim the turtle

    Tim the turtle Happy Mudkip

    But abortions are done for a reason. We don't kill animals just because they've done something wrong. The chicken I ate for dinner last night hadn't done anything wrong, it was wholly innocent, but it was still killed. Foetuses are not destroyed because they have done something wrong, they are destroyed because they are endangering the mother or for some other reason. Deku Link is correct, the fact that a foetus is innocent is besides any point.
     
  3. Mandi.

    Mandi. 3:

    it's not a child, and has never seen the light, therefore can't be consider innocent nor not innocent.

    People die everyday. Do you sit around crying your eyes out whenever somebody dies every second? Those people dying are more important than a fetus, a bunch of cells 'dying'. They lived a life, they know and most likely felt a little of their death. The fetus ..won't feel a thing.

    Actually ..at this point, it's less than a hand. Hands help us complete tasks. Hands help abortion!* sorry I had to ):It's attached to the mother INSIDE. If the mother doesn't want the freaking child, then she chooses if the thing lives or dies. Simple as that. it's her's, it is her. And I basically say, anything on someone's body ..or even more, IN their body is their's, and they can do whatever they please with it. What makes you think you have a right telling a woman that she needs to keep this fetus inside her and have it? Who are you.

    I'm not heartless. It's not like I find the thought of abortion a pretty thing. I just believe all women should be able to choose for themselves, and not be harassed for it.
     
  4. Deku_Link

    Deku_Link ,,|,,

    i'm pretty sure what you just did there is considered shifting the goalposts

    whether or not something is alive has no bearing on the concept of innocence, the importance of innocence is based on the subject's capability for guilt, and neither a fetus nor a rock have that


    you seem to like injecting "but it's alive!" into side-arguments that don't pertain to its state of living at all, if i had said "a fetus is innocent in the same way a fire ant is" i have feeling you'd retort with "but fire ants aren't human"
     
  5. ShinySandshrew

    ShinySandshrew †God Follower†

    Well, let me start off by saying that I misunderstood your statement about fetuses and rocks. But the matter of life is important to innocence. A rock is not alive and thus cannot commit acts. When someone throws a rock at someone else that is the person acting not the rock. You have to be alive to have the capacity for innocence or guilt.

    But the matter of innocence is very important. Tim the Turtle, you said abortions are done for a reason. How many of those are done for a helpful reason and how many are done just because the woman doesn't want the child? Until you can find me reliable data on that (and I don't think you should just take Planned Parenthood's word on it) all reply boils down to is a rationalization.

    But's let's assume that 75% of abortions are done for a good cause like saving the mother's life. How can the other 25% percent be justified? If the other 25% of abortions are done for no reason at all how can that be anything less than cruelty? And why should we allow cruelty in the name of choice?
     
  6. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    You still misunderstood the point. You called the fetus innocent. She said the fetus was innocent in the same way a rock was. Life has nothing to do with innocence being compared in this fashion. You are merely stating a non sequitor.

    What's a fetus done to anybody that a rock hasn't done as well? If I threw a fetus at someone else, that person is acting not the fetus.

    See the problem yet? Being alive has nothing to do with their innocence. Both can't do anything, and both can't claim responsibility to anything as are subject to whatever controls them. Unless you can prove that the fetus' life is significantly different from the rock in terms of claiming innocence, then you are simply stating a non sequitor.

    Here's some rationalization for you:

    1) Abortion rates barely change through legalities. This rarely happens in most things that become illegal, and why would that be? These women are clearly desperate and are probably in situations that may even REQUIRE them to have an abortion in spite of the law.

    2) Abortion is deadlier than childbirth.

    Combine these two simple factors together (there's probably more) and you get desperate women who feel like these risks are worth taking and thus they aren't just doing them for shits and giggles. Rational yet?

    I'm sorry, but you need to stop this sentimental stuff. It is not an argument.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2010
  7. 7 tyranitars

    7 tyranitars Well-Known Member


    wow this basicly says how I feel about it I would like to thank you for this and ask all the pro-life debaters to look at this and actualy think about it because I notice that whenever someon says something like this they don't respond kinda odd don't you think...
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2010
  8. Aquanova

    Aquanova Well-Known Member

    I think abortion is one option. The other is giving a baby up for adoption if you dont want it. I dont really have anything against abortion. It really isnt anybody elses business if a woman has an abortion except her partner, but it still is her decision.Abortons need to remail illegal so that desperate women will not seek out back ally illegal abortions and other dangerous ways of making the fetus be misscaried
     
  9. Megaton666

    Megaton666 Swampert Trainer

    true. if abortion is illegalized, women would just find other ways to get abortions. the same thing with drugs; they're illegal so people just make or harvest their own drugs
     
  10. Generic Pokemon Trainer

    Generic Pokemon Trainer Bible Thumper

    Abortion is wrong, we where all a fetus in our mothers womb. How would you feel if your mom didn't want and love you and opted to have you brutally killed? You guys wouldn't like it to happen to you, so why do you think it is acceptable for others?
     
  11. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    I wouldn't feel anything because.. I wouldn't exist.
     
  12. J.T.

    J.T. ಠ_ಠ

    If your parents had used birth control, you wouldn't exist. You wouldn't like it to happen to you, so why do you think it is acceptable for others? (I'm assuming here you're a reasonable person who's for birth control)

    If your parents had decided to remain abstinent, you wouldn't exist. You wouldn't like it to happen to you, so why do you think it is acceptable for others?

    See where this logic takes you?
     
  13. Tim the turtle

    Tim the turtle Happy Mudkip

    And whilst we're beating this fine dead horse...

    I'm pretty damn willing to bet that you wouldn't like to be raped and then forced to bear a child for nine months, or forced to carry a child to term knowing that there's a good chance it will kill you during childbirth. Heck, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it even if your sixteen year old female self (just roll with it) were simply unlucky and the condom your boyfriend was using broke and you accidentally became pregnant and had go through the trauma of pregnancy, become a social pariah, quit school and be forced to then go through the pain of childbirth. And if you wouldn't like it happening to you, how can you let it happen to other people?
     
  14. Murky_Night

    Murky_Night Jirafa

    I am just going to plain put my views on this table.

    A woman should not have an abortion if she is over 7 1/5 months, because thats when the fetus starts to have brain waves. And the argument that the woman can not afford to take care of a child is stupid because then should wouldn't be able to afford an
    abortion.

    there are some excuses to have an abortion though.
    The woman is under the age of 15.
    The parents are drug addicts and they know not to bring there child into there world.
    A parent has a genetic disease or something like aids and the parents don't want there child to suffer.
    And rape victims obviously shouldn't have to keep and child that was created by a monster

    those are the only excuses i could accept (that is could think of)
    and giving a child up for adoption is not a better choice than abortion, i know a lot of foster kids and they are f***** up, and suffer every day because there parents didn't care that they weren't able to take care of them.
     
  15. TheFightingPikachu

    TheFightingPikachu Smashing!

    Justifiable Homicide?

    Sorry to be gone so long, but I'm back now. I won't make any excuses (even though I was chased by a Tyrannosaurus).
    Let the record also show that Mr. Pot is, in fact, a racist. See, I am a navy blue, Teflon kettle. Production slurs will get you nowhere.

    But to the serious part, here are three reasons why I'm not the pot calling the kettle black (or being called black):

    (1) The supreme court justices who ruled in favor of abortion in Roe v. Wade made a crucial mistake. Here is what they said: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

    Now you and I both agree that this is an inaccurate statement about when life begins. similarly inaccurate was their reference to medicine, philosophy, and theology, because even we can tell when life begins as a matter of simple biology. (Remember--they said "life," not "personhood.") Didn't they do some research into what medical scientists, philosophers, or thologians said? This looks like either a case of intellectual laziness, or perhaps outright deception.

    (2) Since I'm not the first one to bring religion into this debate since I've been here (despite actually having a religion), I think...it's time to bring religion into the debate! Only here's the funny part: It's...not my religion I'm bringing into the debate!

    It's the Hippocratic Oath!

    "I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
    To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.

    I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.

    I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

    But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.

    I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.

    In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.

    All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.

    If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."


    Note carefully the reference to abortion in there. That's right, modern conservatives are not alone. We aren't arguing against the tide of history or reason itself.

    Another interesting thing I want to point out is that second fellow mentioned, the Greek god Asclepius. The Wikipedia page on him contained a great quote:
    "He was the son of Apollo and Coronis. His mother was killed for being unfaithful to Apollo and was laid out on a funeral pyre to be consumed, but the unborn child was rescued from her womb. From this he received the name Asklepios "to cut open". Apollo carried the baby to the centaur Chiron who raised Asclepius and instructed him in the art of medicine."

    They could've just left him there. "Don't let the world get overpopulated with divine beings!" But noooo. Why? Could it be that the value of a life is more important than people's whims?

    (3) The Fourteenth Ammendment of the Constitution has an interesting passage to which we should all direct our attention:

    "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    I bet you thought I was gonna talk about that "not depriving persons of life" bit, didn't you? No, that's not what I'm gonna talk about. Notice the opening statement, the one about persons. I freely admit that as this stands, it is a difficulty to some aspects of the pro life position (because it acknowledges nothing before birth).

    However, the law recognizes you as a person at birth! The funny thing, Tim, is that you listed rational and empathic qualities as defining charcteristics of personhood. I don't doubt that those are reasonably good criteria for personhood. But 18-month-olds are not known for their rationality (or empathy for that matter). By your logic, they cannot be considered persons. Yet the law correctly recognizes their personhood. Why?

    Could it be that personhood is inherent to human beings despite whether they happen to have these characteristics in fully exercised form?

    I hereby submit to you the modest proposition that personhood is inherent to human beings. It matters not how much rational interaction we can see. For that matter, unborn humans display exactly the amount of rationality that we would expect of a rational being under those circumstances. Otherwise, it is possible to gain and lose personhood, which would take away all rights of personhood from already born humans up to...what? 2 years old?

    On the other hand, consider the following, Tim:
    Actually, let's replace that with: "A fetus is innocent in the same sense that a baby dolphin is innocent," or "a fetus is innocent in the same sense a baby whale is innocent." See the difference? I think we all do.

    Also, not that this runs counter to the whole parasite argument, which holds that unborn children have done something wrong ("stealing" energy from the mother).

    Oh, and get ready 7 tyranitars:
    This also runs counter to the parasite argument, because no definition of parasite will allow something that is truly part of you to be called a parasite of you. Anyway, this is just plain wrong. An unborn human is not part of the mother, nor can it be described as the mother. It has a separate (though related) genetic code. I don't deny that it depends on the mother, but that doesn't make it part of her--it is a separate human.

    BTW, GhostAnime, please provide a case where your definition of "parasite' applies. Aside from this (disputed) instance, has anyone ever called one organism a parasite of another same-species organism?

    It is now time for a unique twist, Tim. One thing that occurred to me was that the personhood argument is not technically necessary to the pro life case. Do you know what "homicide" means? Homicide means the killing of...wait for it... a human being! Homicide can be justifiable or it can be unjustifiable. For example, homicide can be considered justifiable in the case of self-defense. This absolutely argues that not all abortions are acceptable.

    Some homicides are even considered murder. Let's give a final example to make this really stick in your mind: Have you ever seen a crime movie or TV show in which a criminal was just found out by a friend who didn't know of his lawbreaking ways? Sometimes, the criminal feels he must get rid of the friend, even if he is a good friend.

    "I'm sorry you got involved in this, kid. But I have to do this."

    Justifiable homicide, or murder? You make the call.
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2010
  16. Generic Pokemon Trainer

    Generic Pokemon Trainer Bible Thumper

    How immoral can you guys be? A fetus is alive! It can feel, it kicks out in the womb when it feels uncomfortable, it moves its arms. I believe life starts at contraception. IT Astounds me why you think it is ok to kill babies in under ANY circumstances. Adoption is a wonderful thing, foster care is a brilliant thing. Give all children a chance!
     
  17. Mewtwo_soul

    Mewtwo_soul Servant of Mewtwo #1

    I'm against abortion for multiple reasons.


    The starting factor is that in general it's a waste in most instances of the tax payers money here in America. Most mothers who don't want the child they are carrying can go to a doctor and get some random government approved coverage to waste a ton of tax payers money on something I could pay a man ten dollars to do... What I mean by this is:

    Most of the time, women feel depressed after abortions even if they aren't fully harmed by the process in question. Let's say they are harmed which also happens quite a bit... Disregard that, let's bring up most of the time it's a waste either way. Not to be offensive by this distasteful joke or attempt therefore on my part (not meant to be funny but more satirical or more of an exaggeration) I could pay a man in anger management 10$ to go out and punch a lady in the general area of where the fetus is, kill the unborn child and have multiple benefits compared to general abortion:

    1) No depression, it isn't the ladies fault in this case.
    2) No spending a decent amount of Tax-payers money.
    3)No probable permanent damage on either person (s) part.

    Sure, abortions are stated in many clinical analysis to cause less death or PD unlike prior years, but still overall... It just seems less practical to the exaggerated "satire" idea.


    Another problem I have is the wasted potential. Don't get me wrong, not every kid will be a genius, or live a "worthy" life. However, had Albert Einstein's parents had an abortion before he had been born, well let's just say we'd be further back on current technologies and, or general progression of almost anything you can think of.

    What if millions of those Albert's waiting to be born have already been killed off and potentially it already has happened. Sure we have scientist and brilliant people today, but you never know when a figure will appear to jump our progression through a huge state.

    ---

    Truthfully, I was almost aborted by my original mother (later my grand parents adopted me) so I can understand this potential factor.
    ---

    In other ways I also find it used as a scapegoat or a way for the parent (s) to avoid responsibility. "Hey, I didn't take care of myself and ended up getting pregnated or ferting another woman let's just abort no skin off my shoulder" The male in most cases ends up with a "responsibility free card." The lady could end up safe without damages just to do it again without learning a lesson ("Those who forget the past are doomed ot repeat it"). Why should they get out of said problem in such a manner? When someone gets an STD or something else they end up with an effect which even with medication still remains in most cases. Abortion is just an easy way to cut corners on being a selfish person outright. People just throw fancy arguments ot cover it in my honest opinion.
    --

    Although over population is bad in some parts of the world, I think "birth control" is becoming a more noticable option and as such it doesn't make sense why most people don't feel the need to pay attention.

    ---
    A major argument I commonly seen is: "What if the lady was drunk and then was raped, or another member of the family committed an incest act on them."

    Both are very valid, but really how would the lady feel any better in such a case? "Hey guys, I'm going to have a living being grounded down into chunks in my body and possibly damage myself or my mind" Quite frankly, I know someone who was victim of something similar and they did the same thing, the outcome was not good on their mentality.

    ---
    My final word: (To not take up too much space) Truthfully it is an option, and people will believe it is justified because (at least as far as America is concerned) it is our right to preform such acts. However, those who defend it in such a cause would do well to remember just because it is a right doesn't make it good. I have the right to jump off a balcony in my house to my death if I so wish it, nothing in the law (despite arguments on this) can really stop me from committing suicide on my lawn, but with way better options out there or fear of some scenarios... Why does it recieve such heightened support? In my personal beliefs, I think it is just to go against religious groups in a "I'm against you, so I spite you" sort of way.

    Just my 2C.
     
  18. Generic Pokemon Trainer

    Generic Pokemon Trainer Bible Thumper

    ^^^ That is a very well rounded answer well done!

    Exactly what would happen if Einstein was aborted, or Barrack Obama or mnay other great minds? Not only is it a crime against the aborted fetus it is also a crime against the world for denying it a person who very well might heal cancer (which I may add many of us here have a massive chance of getting). Human Life is a wonderful thing, every person has the potential to do great things! Heck a future President of the USA in a few decades very well might be reading this thread!
     
  19. Mewtwo_soul

    Mewtwo_soul Servant of Mewtwo #1

    Thanks. I think the problem is when arguing abortion, people try to boil it down on both sides to The Fetus Factor, forgetting that all variables should be taken into account. (Potential, outside of fetus, and the fetus.)

    When you argue whether to use nuclear technologies for a country you don't just base it off of the product itself. "Wow, that's powerful, VERY VERY powerful." No, you base it on the cup and whether it is more negative on using it. (Cup is half empty)
     
  20. Tim the turtle

    Tim the turtle Happy Mudkip

    I was beginning to wonder where you'd gotten to in this debate. Good to see you back :)

    You are correct, we do both agree that in this instance Roe vs Wade made an error in judgement. However the error in judgement would be present even if the case made the opposite conclusion. Roe vs Wade could have concluded that since they do not know where life begins, they should err on the side of caution and thus not allow abortion just in case. Even though this possible interpretation supports your overall view we would still be forced to conclude that it was made due to an error in judgement and should not be taken as read. Really your bringing up of Roe vs Wade does nothing for this debate. Also, just as an aside, don't forget that as I'm not American Roe vs Wade means very little to me. It's not my fault your countrymen made a mistake :p

    Just as an aside I've actually visited the Asclepion on Kos. It's a remarkable place, I'd suggest a visit :)

    This is true, but largely irrelevant. Hippocrates was a great man, no question, but he was not infallile when it comes to matters of philosophy. Indeed, Hippocrates was a doctor, not a philosopher so to take his word on what constitutes a person seems a little unfair really.

    Question: Does this also extend to the death penalty that conservatives are so fond of? How about the heavy emphasis on military force? Whims? Perhaps.

    Hang on. You've just arbitrarily stated that the law is correct in its assumption. That need not be the case. It could just as easily be the case that the law is incorrect in its assumption that:
    Indeed you admit that my criteria for personhood are "reasonable", and you admit that by my logic 18 month olds are not people. Then you randomly say I'm wrong, then you base your conclusion:
    on that random assumption that you pulled out of nowhere. You don't offer any reasons for personhood being inherant, but conclude it must be anyway.

    Also there are a few thngs to bear in mind.
    1) The constitutional quote you gave me does not say that personhood begins at birth. It simply says that people who are born in the US are citizens.
    2) Person has different definitions in the contexts of law and philosophy. I actually agree with the law that babies should be treated as legal persons. This is not because I think they are persons in the moral and philosophical sense. This is because babies are going to reach the stage where they may be declared persons at different rates and ages based on differing physical development. There is no way that we could base the law on something like that, it would be far too difficult and expensive to measure so many babies for something that could be fixed with a simply blanket coverage. In this case the law is being practical, not moral.

    I hereby submit to you the modest proposition that personhood is inherent to human beings. It matters not how much rational interaction we can see.

    I hereby submit to you the modest proposition that personhood is inherent to human beings.For that matter, unborn humans display exactly the amount of rationality that we would expect of a rational being under those circumstances.[/QUOTE] You mean none, right? They are not rational, they are not rational human beings. It is simply chauvenism to assume that personhood is inherant to humanity. Why? A baby and a squirrel might have the same level of rationality (a full grown squirrel actually probably has a bit more) and yet you would treat one as a person and not the other. Why? Potential should not come into it, a squirrel could undergo experimental surgery to become hyper-intelligent. It would still be a genetic squirrel, but surely you would be forced to conclude that non-personhood is inherant in squirrels and thus the hyper-intelligent squirrel is not a person. Seems horrendously unfair to me.

    That is what I'm arguing for, yes. However I think you're underestimating just how quickly babies develop once they are born. I did a course on language development in children and it's surprising just how aware they are at early ages.

    Surely that absolutely argues that not all abortions are unacceptable. The mothers life and mental health being under attack by a foetus surely admits cases of justifiable self-defense.

    Now TFP I would like to expand upon my squirrel point. If personhood is inherant to humanity, surely non-personhood is inherant to non-human species (or at least species that generally do not have higher order thoughts). Now if this is the case, are you going to deny personhood to my hyper-intelligent squirrel? It is fully rational, it even speaks English and has friends and a family of other hyper-intelligent squirrels (I'm a workaholic mad scientist) and yet you are suggesting that it is not a person. Admittedly it would have no rights under law, but the law wasn't thinking of Dr. Mad McNugget when it was written. Are you going to deny my squirrel friend his obvious moral rights of personhood just because the rest of his species is not as intelligent as he is?

    Another point I would like to make is that there are literally billions of human beings that cannot possibly be counted as persons. Dead humans. Dead human beings retain their genetic information. They are human. If personhood is something that is inherant to things that are genetically human then surely dead humans must be people too. Except that is rediculous. Dead humans aren't people, because they are dead. And why are they not people? Because being dead means that they lack the higher order thoughts that are so necessary to personhood. It's got nothing to do with anything else. It's not because their buried, because you would class people living underground as people. It's not because their heart has stopped, because you would class people with artificial hearts as people. It's not because they don't talk to anyone because you would class people who live alone with no contact to be people. The only thing stopping them from being people is their lack of higher functions.

    So are you saying that with hindsight it would have been a-ok to abort Joseph Fritzl?
     
    Last edited: Sep 2, 2010
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page