When Does Abortion Become Wrong?

[thaiboxerken]

Without the mother a baby would die unable to survive on it's own.

This is false, other members of society can raise the baby. There are plenty of cases of abandoned babies that survived with the help of people that are not the mother. The baby is getting indirect help to eat and stay warm and protected. A fetus is directly dependant upon the mother to have the same things. A fetus is part of the mother, it grows inside the mother and is directly connected to the mother.

Those are facts, not opinions.

You deny there is a difference between a man and woman and their view on rape.

It doesn't matter, gender does not validate or invalidate an argument. Differences come from genders, religious values, education and many other sources. Believe it or not, two people of the opposite genders can have the same view on rape and abortion.

Why is a physical attatchment so important? What difference does it make? So the fetus becomes a baby the moment the cord is cut?

It's important to make a distinction of what an individual is. Yes, once the cord is cut the fetus becomes an individual.

You want to punish the fetus?

If the fetus was an individual, I might consider it punishment. It is, however, not an individual. But let's suppose that it is, you want the option to punish the fetus if it was concieved by rape?

Not if it is used irresponsibly.

Begs the question, you think abortion itself is inherently irresponsible.

I think human is a good term. Is it not?

No, it's not. It totally ignores what we are actually talking about. A dead person is still a human, but I don't think dead people should have rights either.

Fetus is a stage in development.

Yes, and it's important to note that a fetus is not a person, not an individual.

I've already defined my stance on the issue. My view can't be any worse than you thinking it is ok to kill a human because someone has a "responsible choice"

Better or worse is simpy a value judgement. Your view, however, is inconsistent. You want to convince me that a fetus has moral value, unless it was concieved by rape. That is just silly.


If I believed a fetus was a person or an individual, I would think it has a right to life no matter what the circumstances of it's conception is. I don't value people less for the crimes of their parents, apparently, you do.

 

[shanek]

You have a funny way of debating. Not a very convincing way, but still....funny.

To you, the only convincing people are those you already agree with.

 

[CFLarsen]

To you, the only convincing people are those you already agree with.

To me, the only convincing people are those with facts.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What

It's the difference we have in opinion on the matter. You definitionseems to be that a fetus doesn't become a person until a certain point. I don't have a time table.

Okay.

I am. I see you logic as falwed because no one died in your example.

That was the example to deal with the position that a fetus is not a person. Okay, you feel a fetus is always a person even when it's an invisible blob. Great. What's your response to the other example, the one that assumes (as you do) that the fetus is a person? Don't answer just yet, I break it down for you in detail in just a minute.

[/quote]
Emotional trauma can have disasterous effects on a person's health. I think in case of rape the suffering of the woman is a big issue. So for the health of the woman an allowance should be made.

Killing babies and adults? In what circumstances? I don't understand what you are talking about.

I don't see fetus as a second class anything. They are human.
[/QUOTE]

You would not kill an innocent adult human just because doing so would avert someone's emotional trauma, right?

You would not kill an innocent baby just because doing so would avert someone's emotional trauma, right?

You claim to think fetuses have the same status as every other human, right? That's what you just claimed.

But you would kill an innocent fetus just because doing so would avert someone's emotional trauma, right?

You can't logically reconcile those positions. You cannot be consistent on this issue unless you are either willing to kill innocent people to avoid some suffering, or you are willing to declare fetuses second-class citizens with a lesser right to life than regular humans.

 

[evildave]

I'll go on out on a ledge and say abortion is always wrong, but only because people (both sexes) should be infertile until both consenting adults in the equation decide to have a child together. Ideally, they will get some extra counseling and training before they're ever allowed to have a baby.

A simple enough fix: Make sure all humans are infertile unless they take a drug (or eat something specific, or have a specific procedure done) to become fertile.

This will eliminate virtually all unwanted pregnancies, and virtually all abortion.

Of course, the same folks who claim they fight abortion because it is 'evil' almost never seem to want to go for this.

About 20 to 30 years of dedicated research should produce the exact thing you'd want with almost perfect reversibility.

Actually it can be done surgically right now, but not at a high enough success rate.

Microsurgical reversal of female mechanical sterilization techniques
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=3168447&dopt=Abstract

Sterilization Reversal
http://www.engenderhealth.org/wh/fp/csterrev.html

Apparently, 'tubal occlusion' that does not sever or excessively damage the relevant anatomy is generally reversible. Surgery designed to be reversible would make the success rate higher. Collecting samples of reproductive material before a sterilization would also help. Better R&D into this could make a simple "OFF" switch for fertility possible that can be switched back "ON" again. Orthroscopic doohicky through her navel, and vasectomy like thing through his scrotum. Both cases, a pair of simple clips are 'installed'.

A simple one-time chemical sterilization could eventually be devised that (Pay attention fundies!) could even postpone sexual desire until people are a legal adult and take another course to activate it (if they want to). So you moms and dads that can't stand the thought of your son or daughter humping (or even masturbating) can exercise even more control over them. Why force women to take prescription drugs NOT to become pregnant? Make sure man AND woman take prescription drugs in order to BECOME pregnant. Safer, simpler, more effective. Son won't jack off. Daughter won't 'bleed'. I could see a lot of women not wanting to have a period until they want a baby.

If you truly despise abortion, then make sure nobody will have children before they want to, and there will almost never be a need for abortion.

Problem solved.

 

[Cain]

I haven't been reading this thread. Abortion is cool; a good idea in general, but especially for women looking to lose five or ten pounds fast.

Edit to add:

Peter Singer's entry in the _Oxford Companion to Philosophy_ on abortion is worth quoting. In a short blurb he clarifies (I think) how participants should conduct this debate.

Those who defend women's rights to abortion often refer to themselves as 'pro-choice' rather than as 'pro-abortion'. In this way they seek to bypass the issue of the moral status of the foetus, and instead make the right to abortion a question of individual liberty. But it cannot simply be assumed that a woman's right to have an abortion is a question of individual liberty, for it must first be established that the aborted foetus is not a being worthy of protection. If the foetus is worthy of protection, then laws against abortion do not create 'victimless crimes' as laws against homosexual relations between consenting adults do. So the question of the moral status of the foetus cannot be avoided.

The central argument against abortion may be put like this:

It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
A human foetus is an innocent human being.
Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.

Defenders of abortion usually deny the second premiss of this argument. The dispute about abortion then becomes a dispute about whether a foetus is a human being, or, in other words, when a human life begins. Opponents of abortion challenge others to point to any stage in the gradual process of human development that marks a morally significant dividing-line. Unless there is such a line, they say, we must either upgrade the status of the earliest embryo to that of the child, or downgrade the status of the child to that of the foetus; and no one advocates the latter course.

The most commonly suggested dividing-lines between the fertilized egg and the child are birth and viability. Both are open to objection. A prematurely born infant may well be less developed in these respects than a foetus nearing the end of its normal term, and it seems peculiar to hold that we may not kill the premature infant, but may kill the more developed foetus. The point of viability varies according to the state of medical technology, and, again, it is odd to hold that a foetus has a right to life if the pregnant woman lives in London, but not if she lives in New Guinea.

Those who wish to deny the foetus a right to life may be on stronger ground if they challenge the first, rather than the second, premiss of the argument set out above. To describe a being as 'human' is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions: membership of the species Homo sapiens, and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being. If 'human' is taken as equivalent to 'person', the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious. If, on the other hand, 'human' is taken to mean no more than 'member of the species Homo sapiens', then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life. Rather, the defender of abortion may wish to argue, we should look at the foetus for what it is - the actual characteristics it possesses - and value its life accordingly.

 

[Donks]

A simple enough fix: Make sure all humans are infertile unless they take a drug (or eat something specific, or have a specific procedure done) to become fertile.

So your solution is to give control to someone else (who, the government?) over who can and can't reproduce? Yes, that'll solve everything.

 

[merphie]

This is false, other members of society can raise the baby. There are plenty of cases of abandoned babies that survived with the help of people that are not the mother. The baby is getting indirect help to eat and stay warm and protected. A fetus is directly dependant upon the mother to have the same things. A fetus is part of the mother, it grows inside the mother and is directly connected to the mother.

Technology has been able to save a fetus six months or older. So today it would be wrong to abort a baby older than 6 months.

Those are facts, not opinions.

It's your opinion they make a difference.

It doesn't matter, gender does not validate or invalidate an argument. Differences come from genders, religious values, education and many other sources. Believe it or not, two people of the opposite genders can have the same view on rape and abortion.

You could have. I doubt very seriously you have the same view on rape and pregnancy from rape as a women would. You are the potential rapist.

You just assume everyone would agree with you. When they don't you call them names and say their ignorant. In this situation the right and wrong of abortion is purely an opinion.

It's important to make a distinction of what an individual is. Yes, once the cord is cut the fetus becomes an individual.

Interesting. So you would be for killing the fetus up until the cord was cut?

If the fetus was an individual, I might consider it punishment. It is, however, not an individual. But let's suppose that it is, you want the option to punish the fetus if it was concieved by rape?

Begs the question, you think abortion itself is inherently irresponsible.

I don't agree with your statement. If you think I am trying to punish the fetus for being conceived in rape then I could say you would want to punish the fetus for being conceived at all.

No, I don't think it is inherently irresponsible. I perfer to put responsibilty on the person doing the action. In some circumstances abortion would be an irresponsible choice.

No, it's not. It totally ignores what we are actually talking about. A dead person is still a human, but I don't think dead people should have rights either.

Yes, and it's important to note that a fetus is not a person, not an individual.

That is obviously your opinion on the matter.

Better or worse is simpy a value judgement. Your view, however, is inconsistent. You want to convince me that a fetus has moral value, unless it was concieved by rape. That is just silly.

Only in your opinion. I view your view the same way as you view mine.

If I believed a fetus was a person or an individual, I would think it has a right to life no matter what the circumstances of it's conception is. I don't value people less for the crimes of their parents, apparently, you do.

What difference would it make to you? You will kill the fetus no matter the method of conception. Your Ad-hominem attack is completely without any merit.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That was the example to deal with the position that a fetus is not a person. Okay, you feel a fetus is always a person even when it's an invisible blob. Great. What's your response to the other example, the one that assumes (as you do) that the fetus is a person? Don't answer just yet, I break it down for you in detail in just a minute.

You would not kill an innocent adult human just because doing so would avert someone's emotional trauma, right?

You would not kill an innocent baby just because doing so would avert someone's emotional trauma, right?

What are we talking about here?

You claim to think fetuses have the same status as every other human, right? That's what you just claimed.

But you would kill an innocent fetus just because doing so would avert someone's emotional trauma, right?

You can't logically reconcile those positions. You cannot be consistent on this issue unless you are either willing to kill innocent people to avoid some suffering, or you are willing to declare fetuses second-class citizens with a lesser right to life than regular humans.

I consider it an exception in the case of crime. According to you, I have to support all abortions or no abortions. What difference does my opinion make to you when you would kill any fetus no matter what the circumstance?

I am consistent in my position. The main difference is in rape the woman never made a choice by her own free will. In everything else she made the choice. I don't think abortions should be used as birth control.

The problem is when you consider emotional trauma. How exactly do you define it? In a simple definition if a woman gets cold feet then should could have an abortion. I don't agree with associating a baby or fetus as something with no more value than a used pair of socks.

All this being said I don't believe abortions should be outlawed. As a society I think we should come up with some alternative in the situation.

 

[Darat]

Thread moved by request.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[thaiboxerken]

Technology has been able to save a fetus six months or older. So today it would be wrong to abort a baby older than 6 months.

Ok, let's go with this. A woman does not want a child, so she should be allowed to abort before the 6 month time. If it's past the 6 month period, she should be allowed to immediately have the baby removed from her womb and placed in an incubator. How's that for a compromise?

You could have. I doubt very seriously you have the same view on rape and pregnancy from rape as a women would. You are the potential rapist.

Eat fecal matter, twit. I am of the same opinion of most people about rape, in that it is WRONG. Many people agree that a pregnancy resulting from rape should be allowed to abort, including you, where we differ is that I think any pregnancy should be allowed to abort. However, the my big problem with your logic is that you think a fetus is a morally valued human life as long as it wasn't concieved by rape. Sorry, but that's just retarded. Would you think an adult has less value if he was concieved by rape? Why make an exception for a younger human, one that is in the fetus? You are not consistent with your "morality". If I'm a potential rapist, you are a potential murderer, one that kills people concieved by rape.

So you would be for killing the fetus up until the cord was cut?

Yes.

I don't agree with your statement. If you think I am trying to punish the fetus for being conceived in rape then I could say you would want to punish the fetus for being conceived at all.

Yes, you can say this and it is somewhat true. However, i place no moral valud on a fetus and you do, unless the fetus was concieved by rape. Do you have something against people that were concieved by rape?

 

[merphie]

Ok, let's go with this. A woman does not want a child, so she should be allowed to abort before the 6 month time. If it's past the 6 month period, she should be allowed to immediately have the baby removed from her womb and placed in an incubator. How's that for a compromise?

Wow! Your journey to the dark side is almost complete. It doesn't fit in your definition. Who's inconsistent now? Since we are not making law I thank you for the idea but it's irrelevant.

I am of the same opinion of most people about rape, in that it is WRONG. Many people agree that a pregnancy resulting from rape should be allowed to abort, including you, where we differ is that I think any pregnancy should be allowed to abort. However, the my big problem with your logic is that you think a fetus is a morally valued human life as long as it wasn't concieved by rape. Sorry, but that's just retarded. Would you think an adult has less value if he was concieved by rape? Why make an exception for a younger human, one that is in the fetus? You are not consistent with your "morality". If I'm a potential rapist, you are a potential murderer, one that kills people concieved by rape.

Tsk. tsk. I didn't mean to say that you think rape is right or that you would even do so. Honestly it was not an attack. My point is that I don't believe it is possible in any way for you to know what rape is like to a woman. You are hung on this one idea because you don't agree with my position.

I wouldn't look down on someone who was a child resulting from rape. Now you are putting words in my mouth. I have been consistent with my idea, but you don't agree. What gets me is you seem to be arguing that abortion should not be allowed for rape. If I am a potential murderer then so are you. You would kill any baby no matter what. So you are a potential murderer as well. Welcome to the club. You whole argument is based on Ad-hominem. You say I am morally inconsistent and therefor my opinion is wrong.

I do not agree with your position because I don't believe abortion should be used as birth control.

Perhaps we should end it here and just agree to disagree?

Yes, you can say this and it is somewhat true. However, i place no moral valud on a fetus and you do, unless the fetus was concieved by rape. Do you have something against people that were concieved by rape? [/B]

I've already answered this many times. We just keep going in circles.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

What are we talking about here?

It's becoming obvious that you aren't even trying to respond to the specific things I say. You're just reiterating your position over and over again and ignoring what everybody else says.

I'm not interested in chasing you. So I'm putting you on notice. I won't reply further unless you actually engage with what I'm saying. I'll just let the discussion up to this point stand.

I consider it an exception in the case of crime.

You have not explained why this makes a difference, given that you think all fetuses are humans with moral value.

According to you, I have to support all abortions or no abortions.

According to me you have to support a consistent position, otherwise you are just talking nonsense.

Allow me to provide an example of a consistent position that allows some abortions but not others: "It is best for society if we save every life we can consistent with a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, so it is wrong to abort independently viable fetuses but not wrong to abort fetuses that are not yet viable". A lot of people subscribe to that notion. I don't, but I can't accuse them of being inconsistent.

In blunter language, you're once again attacking a straw man.

What difference does my opinion make to you when you would kill any fetus no matter what the circumstance?

This is for your benefit, not mine.

I am consistent in my position. The main difference is in rape the woman never made a choice by her own free will. In everything else she made the choice. I don't think abortions should be used as birth control.

Once again you are failing to explain how this distinction overrides the fetus' (claimed) right to life. I'll ask you one more time: If a given entity has a right to live, what possible difference do the circumstances of its conception, or the feelings of some other person, make to whether or not it is okay to kill it?

You keep dodging that question.

The problem is when you consider emotional trauma. How exactly do you define it? In a simple definition if a woman gets cold feet then should could have an abortion. I don't agree with associating a baby or fetus as something with no more value than a used pair of socks.

You're the one using emotional trauma as a factor in decision making. It's not up to us to define your terms for you. If you want to argue that emotional trauma makes a difference the onus is on you to specify (when called upon to do so) precisely what the heck you mean by that, and why it matters.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I do not agree with your position because I don't believe abortion should be used as birth control.


...snip...

But this isn't what you’ve been posting. Your position (according to what you've already posted) can be summed up as:

I believe abortion may be used as birth control.

or

I believe that a Mother has the right to decide to abort a foetus.

You'll probably disagree with my summary of your position by saying that it depends on the circumstances. However that does not remove the fact that you consider abortion has a legitimate use as a form of birth control.

If you did not think it is a legitimate form of birth control then you could not condone its use under any circumstances. Preventing a birth of a baby through abortion even though it was conceived through rape is still birth control.

I'm not trying to play word-games here since using abortion as a form of birth control (i.e. allowing abortion under some circumstances) is intrinsic to your stated position on abortion.

I'm curious what you do base your position on. I can see it is not that you believe a foetus has any fundamental right to life (otherwise you wouldn't think that abortion is OK in the case of conception by rape) nor does it seem to be based on any fundamental right a woman has to decide if a foetus is aborted (else a woman would be able to decide to abort in other circumstances then just conception through rape).

I just can't (from what you've posted) understand what are the underlying premises for your stated position.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Wow! Your journey to the dark side is almost complete. It doesn't fit in your definition. Who's inconsistent now? Since we are not making law I thank you for the idea but it's irrelevant.

I am hardly being inconsistent here, my position doesn't depend on when a fetus can survive outside of the womb, it depends on when the fetus becomes an individual. As long as the fetus is in the womb, it it not an individual. My "compromise" was merely an illustration to show you (censored) absolutely retarded your argument is.

You say that a fetus can live outside the womb after the 6-month perioud. Ok, then let mothers who don't want the baby anymore have the fetus removed and placed for adoption at that point. Oh, I'm sure you probably wouldn't want that option available to mothers either, would you?

Tsk. tsk. I didn't mean to say that you think rape is right or that you would even do so. Honestly it was not an attack.

You called me a potential rapist, it was an attack no matter how you try to spin it now. "F" you, biatch, you are scum.

My point is that I don't believe it is possible in any way for you to know what rape is like to a woman. You are hung on this one idea because you don't agree with my position.

Men can, and are often victim to rape. STFU. It also is irrelevant to the topic. Rape is bad, it's wrong. However, you think a fetus ok human, as long as it wasn't concieved by rape. That's inconsistency not based on reality. No matter how the fetus was concieved, it is still a fetus.

I wouldn't look down on someone who was a child resulting from rape.

But you'd allow them to be killed. After all, your position is that a fetus is a child.

Now you are putting words in my mouth.

Ok, you won't look down upon them, but you give them no moral value.

I have been consistent with my idea, but you don't agree.

Your premise, in itself, is inconsistent with your other premise. That's where your problem is.

Your basic argument against abortion is:

All fetus are human.
Abortion is killing a human.
Killing a human is wrong.
Abortion is wrong.

However, you say that abortion should be allowed in the case of rape. So, now I can draw a new statement from your statements. Here is what you are now saying.

Killing a human is wrong, unless it was concieved by rape.

What gets me is you seem to be arguing that abortion should not be allowed for rape.

No, I'm saying that if you were to be consistent, you would be fighting against abortion no matter how the conception occured.

If I am a potential murderer then so are you. You would kill any baby no matter what.

Hardly, a fetus is not a baby or a person. You, however, think that a fetus is a person or individual, unless it was concieved by rape. For you to be consistent, that premise should carry over from fetus, to baby, to adult. You think it's ok to kill a person that was concieved by rape.

You are not just morally inconsistent, you are logically inconsistent as well.

I do not agree with your position because I don't believe abortion should be used as birth control.

Unless it's pregnancy from a crime, right?

Perhaps we should end it here and just agree to disagree?

Sure, you can concede.

I've already answered this many times. We just keep going in circles.

Yes. Here is what I can conclude.

You think a fetus is a valuable asset unless that fetus was concieved by rape. Somehow, the conception by rape produced something that wasn't valuable, but will become human if birthed.

My position is that no fetus is a valuable asset, unless the mother wants to give birth to it.

 

[merphie]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's becoming obvious that you aren't even trying to respond to the specific things I say. You're just reiterating your position over and over again and ignoring what everybody else says.

I'm not interested in chasing you. So I'm putting you on notice. I won't reply further unless you actually engage with what I'm saying. I'll just let the discussion up to this point stand.

I am not interested in running. I am not intentionally ignoring anything. That is why I asked what you were talking about. In the statement you jumped from fetus/baby to adults. Am I not allowed to ask for clarification?

You have not explained why this makes a difference, given that you think all fetuses are humans with moral value.

I don't know how to explain it. You guys seem to make some distinction of a baby in the womb and a baby outside of the womb. I personal do not make such a distinction.

According to me you have to support a consistent position, otherwise you are just talking nonsense.

I do support a consistent position. You make a distinction I do not and therefor you do not see my reasoning. I do not agree with your reasoning either, but that doesn't mean my position is any less valuable than yours. Otherwise this is just Ad-Hominem.

Allow me to provide an example of a consistent position that allows some abortions but not others: "It is best for society if we save every life we can consistent with a woman's right to choose what happens to her body, so it is wrong to abort independently viable fetuses but not wrong to abort fetuses that are not yet viable". A lot of people subscribe to that notion. I don't, but I can't accuse them of being inconsistent.

So there are no exceptions? You believe you should support all abortions or none at all?

In blunter language, you're once again attacking a straw man.

With your Ad-Hominem we are just having fun.

This is for your benefit, not mine.

My benefit? So I should believe exactly as you do?

Once again you are failing to explain how this distinction overrides the fetus' (claimed) right to life. I'll ask you one more time: If a given entity has a right to live, what possible difference do the circumstances of its conception, or the feelings of some other person, make to whether or not it is okay to kill it?

I have answered this. I see it as a question of the woman's health. (Mental or physical) Now are you going to argue that I am inconsistent because I believe abortions should be allowed when the pregnancy has serious health consequences to the mother? Why should we care if the mother dies or not.

You keep dodging that question.

I am not dodging the question. I have answered many times over. I have had to repeat myself and give an explaination the best I know how. You won't agree with any answer I give unless it agrees with your opinion.

You're the one using emotional trauma as a factor in decision making. It's not up to us to define your terms for you. If you want to argue that emotional trauma makes a difference the onus is on you to specify (when called upon to do so) precisely what the heck you mean by that, and why it matters.

I already have. Emotional trauma from rape could affect the mothers health and therefor abortion should be an option for that woman. I have explained this so many times. The problem is you believe a fetus is nothing of importance so my definition will never be acceptible to you no matter how many times I explain it. Do you not know what emotional trauma is? Do you not understand what kind of experience it is for the woman?

 

[KingMerv00]

Let's say life begins at conception. It doesn't but let's pretend.

Right now there are thousands and thousands of frozen human beings in fertility clinics all over the world. You can't imprison fully grown humans in ice. The same rights need to apply here too. Seems to me that the only logical conclusion would be to find the mothers and FORCE them to carry these "humans" until birth. This of course would be multiple children for one parent in most cases.

Can you imagine the fertility police coming to your neighborhood?

I can't see why more religions don't take this point of view.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: R

. Emotional trauma from rape could affect the mothers health and therefor abortion should be an option for that woman.

How does this emotional trauma differ from the emotional trauma of giving birth to ANY fetus that the mother does not want to give birth to?

 

[merphie]

But this isn't what you’ve been posting. Your position (according to what you've already posted) can be summed up as:

I believe abortion may be used as birth control.

or

I believe that a Mother has the right to decide to abort a foetus.
You'll probably disagree with my summary of your position by saying that it depends on the circumstances. However that does not remove the fact that you consider abortion has a legitimate use as a form of birth control.

If you did not think it is a legitimate form of birth control then you could not condone its use under any circumstances. Preventing a birth of a baby through abortion even though it was conceived through rape is still birth control.

I'm not trying to play word-games here since using abortion as a form of birth control (i.e. allowing abortion under some circumstances) is intrinsic to your stated position on abortion.

So you think that is ok to support abortion or not support it? Anything else is stupid and illlogical? That's Ad-Hominem at it's best.

I'm curious what you do base your position on. I can see it is not that you believe a foetus has any fundamental right to life (otherwise you wouldn't think that abortion is OK in the case of conception by rape) nor does it seem to be based on any fundamental right a woman has to decide if a foetus is aborted (else a woman would be able to decide to abort in other circumstances then just conception through rape).

I just can't (from what you've posted) understand what are the underlying premises for your stated position.

I have said it so many times I have lost count. The only exception I make is consideration for the woman's health. I include rape under that because of the lasting effects it can have on the woman. I don't agree that we should trivialize such an events on the woman. I think it is wrong for a woman to have an abortion just because. This doesn't mean I would support a law to ban all abortions nor support a law with restrictions I believe in. I have stated my person belief.

 

[merphie]

I am hardly being inconsistent here, my position doesn't depend on when a fetus can survive outside of the womb, it depends on when the fetus becomes an individual. As long as the fetus is in the womb, it it not an individual. My "compromise" was merely an illustration to show you (censored) absolutely retarded your argument is.

I made the example of how lose and arbitrary your definition is.

So anyone who doesn't agree with your position is retarded or stupid? Nice.

You say that a fetus can live outside the womb after the 6-month perioud. Ok, then let mothers who don't want the baby anymore have the fetus removed and placed for adoption at that point. Oh, I'm sure you probably wouldn't want that option available to mothers either, would you?

You just said the fetus is not a individual until it is outside the womb. So it's all a matter of how the baby is born. Why should you change you position now? You consider my position illogical and retarded.

Does your definition just natural birth or does it include c-Section? If the fetus is so worthless why put it up for adoption at all? Just throw it in the trash. If the parents decide at birth (before the cord is cut) they don't want it, just cut the cord without tying it off. You said killing the fetus before the cord is cut would be accceptible. So it would not matter how the fetus is killed because it has no rights.

You called me a potential rapist, it was an attack no matter how you try to spin it now. "F" you, biatch, you are scum.

You can take it however you want. My intention was to illustrate you couldn't possible know what rape is like to a woman. I know a woman who was raped and have seen the effects. My comment was to illustrate that you are male and therefor could not know. I would be a potential rapist as well. There's no spin to it.

Men can, and are often victim to rape. STFU. It also is irrelevant to the topic. Rape is bad, it's wrong. However, you think a fetus ok human, as long as it wasn't concieved by rape. That's inconsistency not based on reality. No matter how the fetus was concieved, it is still a fetus.

Yes they can, but men are not subjected to rape as often. Since men and women are not the same the rape would not have the same effect.

A fetus is trash to you anyway so what difference would it make to you?

But you'd allow them to be killed. After all, your position is that a fetus is a child.

To you a fetus is an inconvience to the woman. You would kill them all on a whim. At least I value the majority of children.

Ok, you won't look down upon them, but you give them no moral value.

And you give no morale value to any of them under any circumstance. So you must look down on all humans. We are all fetus that slipped through the crack.

Your premise, in itself, is inconsistent with your other premise. That's where your problem is.

Your basic argument against abortion is:

All fetus are human.
Abortion is killing a human.
Killing a human is wrong.
Abortion is wrong.

However, you say that abortion should be allowed in the case of rape. So, now I can draw a new statement from your statements. Here is what you are now saying.

Killing a human is wrong, unless it was concieved by rape.

Again you believe that your either have to support your side or you are retarded?

So for you killing a human is wrong unless it's less than 9 months old.

No, I'm saying that if you were to be consistent, you would be fighting against abortion no matter how the conception occured.

You're saying that anyone who doesn't agree with your view is retarded or illogical.

Hardly, a fetus is not a baby or a person. You, however, think that a fetus is a person or individual, unless it was concieved by rape. For you to be consistent, that premise should carry over from fetus, to baby, to adult. You think it's ok to kill a person that was concieved by rape.

To you a fetus is worthless. What do you care? You would kill it if the mood hit you.

You are not just morally inconsistent, you are logically inconsistent as well.

Only because I don't agree with you.

Sure, you can concede.

I don't concede anything. You won't ever agree with anything unless it fit into your beliefs. We are just going in circles because everyone who disagrees with you is illogical or retarded.

Yes. Here is what I can conclude.

You think a fetus is a valuable asset unless that fetus was concieved by rape. Somehow, the conception by rape produced something that wasn't valuable, but will become human if birthed.

My position is that no fetus is a valuable asset, unless the mother wants to give birth to it.

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it just as I am entitled to my opinion. You would kill any fetus for any reason. I believe You said you would advocate killing retarded people as well. I don't agree with you. I've tried to explain my reaoning but you will never accept anything that doesn't follow your belief system.