ForumsWEPRJustify Abortion

98 1325
Ntech
offline
Ntech
193 posts
Shepherd

I am a staunch opponent of abortion, it being the murder of an unborn baby; so I challenge whoever supports it, to debate with me how it can possibly be right.

-A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body, even when in her mother's womb.

-Abortion is discrimation in the worst form, because it murders a child who came "at an inconvenient time."

-Women regret abortions.

  • 98 Replies
Ntech
offline
Ntech
193 posts
Shepherd

@nichodemus


Why is it better for a woman who has been raped to suffer? She is wholly innocent as well in the entire process. And since she's going to be the one presumably who has to take care of the child, she should have the authority to decide whether she wants to go ahead with that burden or not. Just as people have the power to decide whether they should have a child, they should have the power to decide whether or not they want not to have a child in the situation of rape.

She could give the child up for adoption.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,955 posts
Viceroy

That to me is still severely limiting her choices over her own life. The presence of the child might still be an emotional scar on her for life, not to mention the trauma that the woman has to go through for nine months carrying an unwanted child.

Reproduction should fundamentally be a matter of consent. Anything outside of that seems to be just trying to salvage a bad situation in an unsatisfying manner.

FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
3,123 posts
Archduke

A fetus' will is its good. Or why is it there?
What is this line even supposed to mean? What is a fetus' "good" supposed to be?

If a fetus is indeed a human, than abortion is murder.
No, it isn't. That's still a false equivalence, as I explained.

A fetus' object is life for it grows into a adult.
And a tumor's object is life for it grows into a larger tumor.

1 No.
Humans are primates. They fit all the requirements of being primates. Nothing about humans excludes them from being primates. This is factual. Primates are of the order Mammalia, which is of the phylum Chordata, which is of the kingdom Animalia, which is what defines all animals. This is also factual. Therefore, by virtue of being human, humans are necessarily animals. Any personal objection to this fact is irrelevant.

2 Animals are not sentient. They are instinctive.
Sentience and instinct are not mutually exclusive. Unless you happen to be a very well programmed AI, you yourself have both instincts and sentience. Sentience is the capacity for sensation or feeling. Therefore, anything that has an active and functional brain and nervous system is sentient by definition.

What is a standard definition?
"the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc." -dictionary.com

Evolution is impossible. I prove it by this link proving that evolution is impossible, to say the least.
https://files.sharenator.com/Facepalm_Infinite_Picdump_22-s576x768-133073.jpg

You do not prove anything. You only demonstrate your ignorance by citing a misinformed creationist rant. Take a look at their article on Catholicism and then tell me if these people should be trusted.

1 Your position is one of ignorance too. There is no proof that a baby is not conscious at that period.
1 You've missed the point entirely. I did not assert that your inability to prove your claim is proof of my claim.
2 There is no proof that your own head exists. All you can do is infer from your perceptions that it's there. Is it therefore resonable to conclude that you have no head? [ou :ɹəʍsuɐ]

2 Did they talk to a fetus? If not, how can they be sure? Fallacious reasoning.
You're actually trying to argue that a clump of undifferentiated cells should be able to talk? And it's MY reasoning that's in question?

In that case, murder, and homicide can never be proven wrong either.
Correct.

They can restrict their activity and stay in places where they won't get raped. It's not that hard to avoid the slums.
That's an extreme trivialization of the issue, and I daresay you know it.

It is better for a mother to suffer than for a baby to die.
Why? What makes assuring the eventual suffering of at least one human being better than reducing the suffering of another?

Less than 2% of abortions occur from rape or incest, matter of factly.
I'll take your word for it, but ... so? If children were being roasted and eaten alive by a satanic cult, should we just accept it because it's only happening to less than 0.002% of all children? [ou :ɹəʍsuɐ]
Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,909 posts
Justiciar

It is better for a mother to suffer than for a baby to die.

Less than 2% of abortions occur from rape or incest, matter of factly.

In that case we can bring back the death penalty too. Only a fraction of the people killed are innocents. We can surely apply the cold logic of numbers and say that statistically their death does not matter comparatively.

Your argument is similar to the above, in logic, but not intensity.

They can restrict their activity and stay in places where they won't get raped. It's not that hard to avoid the slums

Yeah right. That's also shifting the blame on the victims because "they could avoid it". Don't do that. They had no sort of blame there at all.

Ntech
offline
Ntech
193 posts
Shepherd

@Fishpreferred


What is this line even supposed to mean? What is a fetus' "good" supposed to be?

A fetus' good is its object, which is to be born.


No, it isn't. That's still a false equivalence, as I explained.

You did not explain.


And a tumor's object is life for it grows into a larger tumor.

A tumor's object is not consciousness, a fetus' is.


Humans are primates.

That does not make them creatures of instinct.


Sentience and instinct are not mutually exclusive.

I should say otherwise. Instinct implies acting upon pre-defined scenarios alone, whereas sentience impliese the ability to think in the abstract.


"the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc."

And a fetus does not posess all that?


Take a look at their article on Catholicism and then tell me if these people should be trusted.

They are not a reliable source, but they even mentioned that they were not the authors of that treatise but merely copied it off a bulletin board; besides, they cite reliable sources.


All you can do is infer from your perceptions that it's there.

No, I can prove it.


You're actually trying to argue that a clump of undifferentiated cells should be able to talk? And it's MY reasoning that's in question?

No, that is not my point. Yes, your reasoning is in question


Why? What makes assuring the eventual suffering of at least one human being better than reducing the suffering of another?

I am not argueing that, but that evil does not justify another evil. Suffering does not justify murder.

@Doombreed


In that case we can bring back the death penalty too. Only a fraction of the people killed are innocents. We can surely apply the cold logic of numbers and say that statistically their death does not matter comparatively.

No. Evil never justifies evil, crime does not justify death. Never.

Boofuss
offline
Boofuss
192 posts
Shepherd

No. Evil never justifies evil, crime does not justify death. Never.

But to you, what DOES justify death is falling pregnant and that pregnancy resulting in the death of the mother, even if that mother was raped and fell pregnant AS a result of that. "Just don't get raped" is such an odd stance to take I'm not even going to touch that, other people have said enough there. I genuinely fail to see how you can justify your stance on this with "but abortion is wrong" even with the POPE allowing people to be pardoned for it.

Ntech
offline
Ntech
193 posts
Shepherd

@Boofuss


But to you, what DOES justify death is falling pregnant and that pregnancy resulting in the death of the mother, even if that mother was raped and fell pregnant AS a result of that. "Just don't get raped" is such an odd stance to take I'm not even going to touch that, other people have said enough there. I genuinely fail to see how you can justify your stance on this with "but abortion is wrong" even with the POPE allowing people to be pardoned for it.

1. Nobody is causing the death of the mother.
2. Everybody can be pardoned for any sin, because God will forgive them, but He will still hold them responsible for every terrible crime they commit.

Boofuss
offline
Boofuss
192 posts
Shepherd

1. Nobody is causing the death of the mother.
2. Everybody can be pardoned for any sin, because God will forgive them, but He will still hold them responsible for every terrible crime they commit.

1- Anti abortionists in your scenario are causing the death of the mother.
2 - If God is the ultimate judge, why does it matter to you what someone chooses to do? God's got final say.

Boofuss
offline
Boofuss
192 posts
Shepherd

Also 2 - if you're repentant you can be granted forgiveness, if you're not, you won't be. At least according to Catholicism. Even mortal sins like murder, can be forgiven IF you are repentant. So if you abort, for whatever reason and are repentant of the decision, you can make a decision and be sorry for it, even though it must be done, what happens then? Forgiveness from God?

Ntech
offline
Ntech
193 posts
Shepherd

@Boofuss


1- Anti abortionists in your scenario are causing the death of the mother.
2 - If God is the ultimate judge, why does it matter to you what someone chooses to do? God's got final say.

1 Inaction does not impart guilt.
2 Because abortionists might have to go to hell for what they did, and I can't stand that.


Also 2 - if you're repentant you can be granted forgiveness, if you're not, you won't be. At least according to Catholicism. Even mortal sins like murder, can be forgiven IF you are repentant. So if you abort, for whatever reason and are repentant of the decision, you can make a decision and be sorry for it, even though it must be done, what happens then? Forgiveness from God?

Yes, but you shouldn't have done it in the first place, and confession requires the resignation never to commit the sin again. Furthermore, one who supports abortion is excommunicated automatically and cannot receive the Sacraments, except Penance.

Boofuss
offline
Boofuss
192 posts
Shepherd

1 - It's not inaction if your stance is actively working towards stopping something happening.
2 - People go to hell for lots of things, they sin in lots of ways, wearing mixed fabrics, having tattoos, eating meat on a Friday, trimming their beard, why choose this particular sin, out of all of the others, to get bent out of shape over?

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Those rape victims you've condemned to a living hell didn't have a choice but to "do it in the first place" did they?

Ntech
offline
Ntech
193 posts
Shepherd

@Boofuss


1 - It's not inaction if your stance is actively working towards stopping something happening.

Yet it is not action, either.


2 - People go to hell for lots of things, they sin in lots of ways, wearing mixed fabrics, having tattoos, eating meat on a Friday, trimming their beard, why choose this particular sin, out of all of the others, to get bent out of shape over?

People do not go to hell for wearing mixed fabrics, having tattoos, eating meat on a Friday, trimming their beard, etc. In fact, only eating meat on a Friday is a sin, and a venial one at that.

Boofuss
offline
Boofuss
192 posts
Shepherd

1 - I'm sorry, what? How is it not action?

2 - Which version of the Bible are you working from?
I can find some more examples of why choosing ONE particular sin vs the others makes no sense to me.

I'm curious as to why THIS particular sin, out of all of the other sins?

Doombreed
offline
Doombreed
6,909 posts
Justiciar

People do not go to hell for wearing mixed fabrics, having tattoos, eating meat on a Friday, trimming their beard, etc. In fact, only eating meat on a Friday is a sin, and a venial one at that.

Yet all of those things are sins according to the Bible. What does it matter how trivial they are? If all sinners go to hell, (at least the unrepentant ones)

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,937 posts
Viceroy

Inaction does not impart guilt.

Whether you are active or not, in both cases you make a choice. Said choice has consequences, and you share responsibility for those consequences.

Because abortionists might have to go to hell for what they did, and I can't stand that.

That is their decision, not yours. If God exists, He will judge us as He sees fit. I am pretty certain that wanting to do so in His stead is considered very bad by Christian standards.
Showing 46-60 of 98

We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing analytics and serving ads.
Learn More