ForumsWEPRis abortion ok?

869 82016
toemas
offline
toemas
340 posts
2,325

Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree

Please debate

  • 869 Replies
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,645

So you're saying that 7 months is when a fetus becomes a person that you don't kill? How do you prove that it has been exactly 7 months?


you're arguing the wrong point. fetus is a living being, but they doesn't sport a fully conscious mind, one less trait of a human being. so a fetus is more or less a human being, more so than just a bunch of cells, but still less than a fully developed human. so killing a fetus isn't the same as killing a person

Anyway on the strawman thing, your squabbling seems easy to counter-refute or whatever. BTY, Moe's response is much more appropriate than yours.


My squabbling may seem easy to counter, but yours are more so. Also you haven't even try countering it, how do you know it was easy? Prove your point that my squabbling is easy to counter refute, tough guy. Also, how do you know Moe's response are much more appropriate than mine? How subjective you are planning to be huh?
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,395

so killing a fetus isn't the same as killing a person

Yes, but your still depriving it from becoming a person, so it's the same thing as murder technically (taking away its potential life).

but they doesn't sport a fully conscious mind

But them doesn't not too, for they will soon.

Prove your point that my squabbling is easy to counter refute, tough guy.
That's what I is a doing now to, grammar expert.

Also, how do you know Moe's response are much more appropriate than mine
I read it. That's how. ;D

How subjective you are planning to be huh?
As much as is necessary.

Anything else?
Dang, I am good

Moegreche
online
Moegreche
3,299 posts
16,940

fetus is a living being, but they doesn't sport a fully conscious mind, one less trait of a human being.


So we have a possible criterion for personhood: consciousness. Unfortunately, personhood and consciousness can come apart in both directions. So we can have consciousness without personhood, and personhood without consciousness.
On the first point, we can find many animals that would be considered conscious. Granted, it depends on how we define 'consciousness', but if we try to strengthen the notion (say, by making sentience rather than consciousness the necessary condition) we risk excluding infants as people.
On the second point, there are persons who are not conscious. Every time you go to sleep, for example, you wouldn't be considered a person. People in comas also wouldn't qualify.
So consciousness as a criterion for personhood doesn't work.

Yes, but your still depriving it from becoming a person, so it's the same thing as murder technically (taking away its potential life).


This is called a potentiality argument and, unfortunately, it doesn't work either. To see this, let's get the argument on offer clear. We're saying that a foetus has the potential to become a person. But it's only persons that have rights. So what we need is to claim that something with the potential to have those rights does, in fact, have those rights. But this isn't right at all. A U.S. citizen has the potential right, when they turn 18, to vote. But that doesn't mean that a 12-year old - who has the potential for this right - thereby has the right to vote.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,819 posts
18,300

Like i said, it was NOT a child or a baby before 7 months. it is a fetus. a fetus IS alive, but had no consciousness, quite akin to a baby chicken in an egg only aging before 20 days. So, i dare you to prove that i was strawmanning using your facts, tough guy.


(Ahem). Chicken foetus.

Yes, but your still depriving it from becoming a person, so it's the same thing as murder technically (taking away its potential life).


Sure, why not. Incdidentally, this means that you kill ~ten billion potential human beings approximately every week through criminal negligence. If you use a contraceptive, you are murdering at least one potential human being.

On the first point, we can find many animals that would be considered conscious. Granted, it depends on how we define 'consciousness', but if we try to strengthen the notion (say, by making sentience rather than consciousness the necessary condition) we risk excluding infants as people.


You'd also have to argue with me on non-human sentience.

But this isn't right at all. A U.S. citizen has the potential right, when they turn 18, to vote. But that doesn't mean that a 12-year old - who has the potential for this right - thereby has the right to vote.


That analogy falls apart, however, because they aren't being denied the eventual opportunity to vote.
09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

Yes, but your still depriving it from becoming a person, so it's the same thing as murder technically (taking away its potential life).


It needs to be a human before it can be murder.

But them doesn't not too, for they will soon.


And I will, in the future, be an adult, but I don't have the rights of an adult.

Dang, I am good.
Moegreche
online
Moegreche
3,299 posts
16,940

That analogy falls apart, however, because they aren't being denied the eventual opportunity to vote.

Let me make the argument a bit more clear. Here is (a simplified version of) the potentiality argument:

1) Persons have a right to life.
2) A foetus has the potential to be a person.
3) Therefore, a foetus has the right to life.

Now, obviously this argument is invalid. The missing premise(s), however, is(are) complicated. We need to say something like the following:

P: If some x has the potential to become some y, and y has the property p, then x has the property p.

But let's just stick with our original argument, without P. Note that we could include P and still run this counterargument:

1) U.S. citizens aged 18 and up have the right to vote.
2) A 12-year old (U.S. citizen) has the potential to become an 18-year old U.S. citizen.
3) Therefore, a 12-year old (U.S. citizen) has the right to vote.

So it's not about denying them some potential right. The potentiality argument needs the conclusion that the foetus does, in fact, already have a right to life because it's a potential person.
Here's another way of putting it. The argument isn't that they have the potential right to life, which is being denied. The argument is that they are potential members of a class which do have that right, so - in virtue of this potential - the foetus has that right as well.

@09philj put this point much more succinctly:

And I will, in the future, be an adult, but I don't have the rights of an adult.

Dang, you are good!

pangtongshu
offline
pangtongshu
9,995 posts
3,285

So you're saying it's only alright to kill a baby inside the womb but not outside of the womb?


Holy mother of a loaded question.

During the time that an abortion may be performed, what is inside the mother can best be described as a mass of cells acting as a parasite upon the mother....it's a beautiful mass of parasitic cells, though, because maybe, hopefully, one day it could achieve its potential for human life.

Also, not sure if this argument has been brought up yet..probably has with how many times we've gone in circles in this thread..

So, let's do a hypothetical situation. Your brother was in a car accident, and in order to survive needs an organ of yours. I don't really care which one, so you can think of one yourself. If you do not give him this organ, he WILL die. His life is in your hands, and by giving him your organ you allow him to continue his life.
But guess what, you don't have to give him your organ! Because it is your body, you have no obligations to give up anything to save his life bar any moral principles you may have.
Now we look back to the mass of cells, it has yet to reach a point where it may survive outside of its body, and at its current state has nothing more than the -potential- to become human. But in order to survive, it needs -your- body. So here we find ourselves at the same spot we were with your brother. Someone/something needs your body in order to fulfill its potential of life
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,395

You have a point, but let me go on to say that I am very wary of agreeing with you, pang. After all, you like the movie A Serbian Film. Proof:. I know this is a bit off topic, but I'm not surprised that you are pro-abortion since you like a movie in which newborn babies are raped and tortured.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,544 posts
2,210

but I'm not surprised that you are pro-abortion since you like a movie in which newborn babies are raped and tortured.


It's not being pro-abortion, its being pro-choice. One can be against the idea of having an abortion in many if not all cases but still be for allowing others to decide whether they want to go through the procedure or not.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,562 posts
4,140

I know this is a bit off topic, but I'm not surprised that you are pro-abortion since you like a movie in which newborn babies are raped and tortured.


Not to mention that this post was so Ad Hominem it made me spit out my tea.
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,645

but I'm not surprised that you are pro-abortion since you like a movie in which newborn babies are raped and tortured.


How subjective, just because he liked a movie where newborn babies are raped and tortured doesn't mean He likes torturing and raping babies / aborting one. If you like watching the movie Iron Man 3, does that meant you like blasting people's home to pieces?
Kennethhartanto
offline
Kennethhartanto
248 posts
7,645

Yes, but your still depriving it from becoming a person, so it's the same thing as murder technically (taking away its potential life).


Using your logic, i can say that you are unconsciously murdering almost 3.5 million Humans everytime you had sexual intercourse, because every time you did that, only one sperm ( a potential human) survived, the rest killed by the acid environment and various environmental effects on the womb. So, the mother murdered 3.5 million "humans", right?

But them doesn't not too, for they will soon.


using your logic, that would imply that every sexual cells that man and woman produced should all be fertilized, because if they are not fertilized they would be dead and that would be similar to killing a "potential human".

That's what I is a doing now to, grammar expert.


Not good enough, run it again.

I read it. That's how. ;D


provide your evidence and opinion as to why you agree to it. you can't just read it and say it was better.

Dang, I am good
SportShark
offline
SportShark
2,869 posts
4,395

Using selfish logic to suit your nit picking on a subject that people with a conscious and common sense know is wrong, is wrong. And by nit picking I mean singling out insignificant details and making them the focal point to make me look bad as if I represent all pro-life people.

provide your evidence and opinion as to why you agree to it. you can't just read it and say it was better.

Ok, read it and compare it with this:
Using your logic, i can say that you are unconsciously murdering almost 3.5 million Humans everytime you had sexual intercourse, because every time you did that, only one sperm ( a potential human) survived, the rest killed by the acid environment and various environmental effects on the womb. So, the mother murdered 3.5 million "humans", right?

Contraception and killing a fetus are two entirely different things. Yes, technically you do arrive at this conclusion when using logic, but you are blind to the facts that first must be assumed to be true before you can proceed with the logical method and hope to come to the correct answer. In a nutshell, your logic will continue to be irreparably flawed until you wake up to the facts.

Dang, I am good.

Kisses,

/// Mastaplaya ///

Kasic
offline
Kasic
5,602 posts
3,605

on a subject that people with a conscious and common sense know is wrong


It's always unproductive to make these kinds of claims. People have different views and it's just not the case that everyone who doesn't share yours is an amoral monster.

My question to you themastaplaya is how is it justifiable to abort in cases of rape and incest if you think it's unquestionably wrong to do so in other situations? Or do you believe that all abortion is murder and wrong?
EmperorPalpatine
online
EmperorPalpatine
9,407 posts
2,680

Yes, technically you do arrive at this conclusion when using logic, but

How is there a "but" if his conclusion was logical?

Premise 1: Willfully or negligently killing potential humans is (wrong/bad/evil/murder).
Premise 2: Human gametes are potential humans.
Conclusion: Willfully or negligently killing human gametes is (wrong/bad/evil/murder).

Which part(s) do you disagree with?

sidenote: I added "negligently" to include possible things that pregnant women do that increase their risk of miscarriage, such as heavily smoking.

Showing 826-840 of 869