Forums → WEPR → Justify Abortion
| 136 | 55555 |
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.
- 136 Replies
1. You're a collection of cells that are growing.No, you're conflating a person with the human body, but you know those aren't the same.
2. What exactly is a person?Person.
We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population...Nice emphasis. Please add relevance at the earliest convenience.
--Margaret Sanger, Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2. (emphasis added)
the campaign for birth control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically identical with the final aims of eugenics. Birth control propaganda is thus the entering wedge for the eugenic educator.Yes, eugenics was a big thing in the twenties. So?
- Margaret Sanger. “The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5. (emphasis added)
1. We call the pro-abortionists "Pro-Choice." Why do they refuse to call us "Pro-Life?" We could call them "Pro-Infanticide," but we don't. It's a measure of one's decency.What people choose to label other people is of no consequense to me, so I wouldn't have the answer to that.
2. There is no proof underlying your statement.Yet we're both well aware that it's true.
So if there wasn't a law against murder, the evil of murder would only be a belief?Uh, what? "The evil of [whatever]" is just a social construct. Murder is intentionally killing someone for amoral reasons; it doesn't have to be evil.
Exactly. Pro-lifers view the fetus as an individual human person, the killing of whom to be murder.
Once again, I will point out that not all acts of killing humans are acts of murder. In another words, you can kill a human person without it thereby being murder. This is simply a statement of your position and not an argument. I have yet to see an argument for your claim throughout this thread.
Are you acknowledging that it is permissible for a mother to choose to kill her "child?"
Calling an individual a child carries the implication that it is a born human. You have to be careful with the language you use. The appropriate term for an unborn entity is 'fetus' as that is neutral and avoids begging the question either way.
We call the pro-abortionists "Pro-Choice." Why do they refuse to call us "Pro-Life?" We could call them "Pro-Infanticide," but we don't. It's a measure of one's decency.
We must have radically different experiences. I've literally never heard a pro-life advocate called anything other than a "Pro-Lifer". What term have you heard being used besides this?
On the contrary, I hear pro-abortion and pro-infanticide thrown around by pro-lifers constantly. The frustrating things are:
1) No one is pro-abortion. That's not a position anyone would hold. That would be advocating for women to get abortions, regardless of what they want to do. That's as opposed to pro-choice as the pro-life position is.
2) Calling it pro-infanticide is just idiotic. Infanticide is the killing of a recently-born human (an infant or toddler). Again, no one is in favour of that view.
Thus, as a measure of decency, I submit that the pro-choice camp is far more decent along this measure. But I'm genuinely curious--what terms have you heard to refer to pro-life besides that term? I've heard pro-abortion and pro-infanticide used to demean pro-choice sides. But I've never heard a term that cuts the other way.
I deem the statement that a mother has the right to choose to commit infanticide as not only ridiculous, but insane.
Again, be more precise with your language and provide arguments for your position. But, yeah, stumping for infanticide a pretty ridiculous position. But it's not insane. Michael Tooley was pretty (in)famous for advocating for this position; but it was a logical consequence of his view of personhood.
2) Calling it pro-infanticide is just idiotic. Infanticide is the killing of a recently-born human (an infant or toddler). Again, no one is in favour of that view.
Pro-lifers skew the language of the debate in their favour all the time, to move it away from a medical and informed debate and towards the emotional or the plain lie. Like when they speak of a heart in stages where there is no such organ present; or how they redefine the term "late-term" 20 weeks earlier than it really is.
No, you're conflating a person with the human body, but you know those aren't the same.
That which performs all that is proper to a thing is that thing. A human body, while not a person, is part of a person. A fetus is a human body. It is part of a new person, who has the Constitutional right to life, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness.
Person.
That article is a bunch of rubbish. It does not clarify what a person is:
The concept of a person can be very challenging to define... Personhood is the status of being a person. (Circular reasoning!)
Nice emphasis. Please add relevance at the earliest convenience.
Margaret Sanger founded Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of legal abortions in America, and she was clearly a racist, and wanted to exterminate the negro population in the interests of the "fit." Abortion is a means for that achievement. 36% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2014 were performed on Black women, however, only about 13.3% of the total population is Black . For every 1,000 live births, non-Hispanic Black women had 391 abortions. Non-Hispanic White women had 120 abortions per 1,000 live births. More than 19 million Black babies have been aborted since the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in our country. It appears she is succeeding.
Yes, eugenics was a big thing in the twenties. So?
Margaret Sanger viewed abortion as eugenics. That should disturb us. If a horrible person views abortion as eugenics, but we "good" people don't, there's obviously a disconnect.
Yet we're both well aware that it's true.
Exactly. We're both well aware that there is no proof underlying your statement. Please don't make unsubstantiated premises.
I have yet to see an argument for your claim throughout this thread.
Abortion is the intentional taking of the life of an unborn child, who has the right to live, without his consent.
Calling an individual a child carries the implication that it is a born human.
So if a baby is aborted 1 minute before it would have been born (known as Third Trimester Abortion) it isn't a human? It is the act of exiting a mother that confers humanity upon an "individual?"
Infanticide is the killing of a recently-born human (an infant or toddler).
Gov. Northam apparently does; "If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother..."
Aside from that: Infanticide is the intentional killing of infants. An infant is not conferred with infancy the moment it exists its mother's womb, is it?
what terms have you heard to refer to pro-life besides that term?
I've heard pro-lifers called "anti-choice," and "anti-abortion."
but it was a logical consequence of his view of personhood.
His view is not sane; it is not logical/sane in the sense that it did not come to a correct conclusion, rather, it is an error built upon previous errors.
towards the emotional or the plain lie.
Firstly, this is an ad hominem attack on prolifers in general.
Secondly, as to emotionality, it is the pro-choicers who I see screaming and accosting pro-life senators.
Thirdly, it is not pro-lifers who stir up such terms as "atriarchal oppression," nor is it they who dress up as characters from THe Handsmaid's Tale.
Finally, I've been to many pro-life rallys. Sometimes we've been pelted with condoms (we have a police report to prove it), a couple guys have been dragged out and hit with soap bars inside of towels (some have sustained grievious injuries); there was a case recently where a young man took a sign from an elderly pro-lifer, knocked him down, and kicked him repeatedly.
Prolifers never did that.
Firstly, this is an ad hominem attack on prolifers in general.
Then prove me wrong and start using medically correct and informed arguments.
A human body, while not a person, is part of a person. A fetus is a human body.A tumor is a part of a human body, and thus, by your reasoning, is part of a person. You can't justify fetal personhood in this way without justifying tumor personhood.
It is part of a new person, who has the Constitutional right to life, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness.No, it isn't. You can't make things into constitutional rights by just pretending that the constitution applies to them.
Personhood is the status of being a person. (Circular reasoning!)It's an exact definition of the term. It can't be circular reasoning.
[...] and she was clearly a racist, and wanted to exterminate the negro population in the interests of the "fit."1 No, she didn't. You're just fabricating context from nothing to justify a nonsensical genetic fallacy.
2 Why are you doing that anyway? You do know she was an outspoken "Pro-lifer", right?
36% of all abortions in the U.S. in 2014 were performed on Black women, however, only about 13.3% of the total population is Black . For every 1,000 live births, non-Hispanic Black women had 391 abortions. Non-Hispanic White women had 120 abortions per 1,000 live births. More than 19 million Black babies have been aborted since the 1973 Roe v. Wade U.S. Supreme Court decision legalized abortion in our country.Yes. Poor people who can't afford to raise children do tend to have greater need for abortions. Imagine that.
Exactly. We're both well aware that there is no proof underlying your statement.And we're both well aware that no proof is needed of a statement that we both know to be definitively true: Abortion is not murder. Therefore, you are wrong, and it's about time you admitted it; to yourself if no one else.
Abortion is the intentional taking of the life of an unborn child, who has the right to live, without his consent.No. As you already know, it isn't.
So if a baby is aborted 1 minute before it would have been born (known as Third Trimester Abortion) it isn't a human?No, it means that this wouldn't be a born human, so by referring to it as "a baby", you are already equivocating.
Gov. Northam apparently does; "If a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother...". . . He does what, now? What is this about?
An infant is not conferred with infancy the moment it exists its mother's womb, is it?Being born is the lower limit of what we define infancy.
His view is not sane; it is not logical/sane in the sense that it did not come to a correct conclusion, rather, it is an error built upon previous errors.1 Sanity is not required to reach the correct conclusions.
2 Reaching the wrong conclusions is not indicative of insanity.
Firstly, this is an ad hominem attack on prolifers in general.No it isn't. At no point did he attempt to justify his position by attacking your character.
Thirdly, it is not pro-lifers who stir up such terms as "atriarchal oppression," nor is it they who dress up as characters from THe Handsmaid's Tale.So?
Finally, I've been to many pro-life rallys. Sometimes we've been pelted with condoms (we have a police report to prove it), a couple guys have been dragged out and hit with soap bars inside of towels (some have sustained grievious injuries); there was a case recently where a young man took a sign from an elderly pro-lifer, knocked him down, and kicked him repeatedly.Unless they've also been assassinating them, you have no chance of taking the moral high ground here. Violent extremists exist, and they tend to have differing opinions much like anyone else.
Prolifers never did that.
So if a baby is aborted 1 minute before it would have been born (known as Third Trimester Abortion) it isn't a human? It is the act of exiting a mother that confers humanity upon an "individual?"
You're doing it again--you keep switching up the language here. You've effectively just strawmanned my point by using imprecise language, which is another reason why we need to be precise in our language. This is particularly important because my exact point that you're responding to was about how we need to be precise in our language.
Here's what I said, just to remind you: Calling an individual a child carries the implication that it's a born human.
In other words, children are born humans. Just like kittens are born cats and kits are born ferrets. But in your response, you dropped the 'born' part of this. But obviously a fetus is a human. It's not a raccoon or a potato or a pizza--it's a human. But that is a biological distinction; not a moral one.
An infant is not conferred with infancy the moment it exists its mother's womb, is it?
It is the act of exiting a mother that confers humanity upon an "individual?"
Notice what you're doing here. You talk about some act conferring a status on a fetus. But both infancy and humanness (you use the word humanity, but this isn't quite right for this situation) are language-based distinctions--not metaphysical or ethical ones. My whole point here is that we need to make sure we're precise in our language so as not to have to keep backtracking like I'm doing here. There's no way a debate can even get off the ground if we have to keep backtracking to correct language usage.
A tumor is a part of a human body, and thus, by your reasoning, is part of a person.
So? Are you suggesting that a tumor is neither produced nor aided in its development from
that which constitutes the person afflicted by it?
It's an exact definition of the term. It can't be circular reasoning.
Personhood is the status of being a person, which is the quality of having personhood, which
is the status of being a person... [to infinity, and, beyond]
2 Why are you doing that anyway? You do know she was an outspoken "Pro-lifer", right?
Please don't claim the absurd.
Poor people who can't afford to raise children do tend to have greater need for abortions. Imagine that.
You do know that while Black and Hispanic mean incomes are nearly equal, the Black abortion
rate is disproportionally greater?
Abortion is not murder.
1. Abortion is the killing of a person.
2. The killing was not consented to.
3. The killing was forced upon that person.
If that's not murder, what is?
No. As you already know, it isn't.
No. As you already know, it is. Please stop that.
No, it means that this wouldn't be a born human, so by referring to it as "a baby", you are already equivocating.
You didn't answer my question, regardless of terminology. If it is aborted 1 minute before it
would have been born, it isn't a human?
What is this about?
You claimed that nobody believes in infanticide.
So?
You dismiss the very thing which you have ascribed to and attacked in Pro-Lifers with "so?"
But obviously a fetus is a human.
Thankyou, yes it is.
From your perspective, it appears that you justify the taking of the life of a fetus
based on the line that not all killing is murder.
However, may I ask how you propose to answer the challenges that a) that human didn't
agree to be aborted and b) if a mother may kill a human in her womb (even in cases where
it can survive without), why can't she kill her born children?
@FishPreffered
So murder isn't evil? I think you need to be careful what you say because it sounds like you are justifying murder there. I'm sure you wouldn't support it...?
@n1njachikin FishPreferred is not justifying murder at all. He is arguing (as I am) that abortion is not murder, because no person is killed in the process. This is why correct terminology, proper use of words and informed arguments are so important here. We are arguing over whether abortion is murder or not; that's the point of contention right now. We are not arguing over whether murder is morally wrong or not; I think we all agree that it is wrong, so that's not relevant right now.
From your perspective, it appears that you justify the taking of the life of a fetus
based on the line that not all killing is murder.
No, that's not my argument or justification for the permissibility of abortion. My only point, which I'll restate (again) here is that we need to be precise in our language. The bit that you quoted there was part of a broader point about how you changed my claim about 'born humans' to simply 'humans' and why using precise language is so important. We don't want to end up talking past one another.
Unlike HahiHa and Fish, I'm happy to grant personhood (and the implied right to life) to a fetus. I've never seen a successful argument--on either side of the abortion debate--that relies on personhood to demonstrate the permissibility or impermissibility of abortion. I'm not saying that there isn't one, but my moral reasoning cannot allow for the notion of personhood to enter into the debate since I'm not aware of any successful arguments on this front.
Basically, what I've seen are accounts of personhood that are either too broad or too narrow. Pro-life advocates tend to adopt a very broad notion of personhood which ends up including non-human animals as persons. Pro-choice advocates tend to use very narrow notions of personhood which exclude infants and toddlers as persons. Both results are no palatable as far as I'm concerned.
As such, I'm fine acknowledging the personhood of the fetus and its right to life. It's as this point that we have a balancing of rights (or of interests, if you like that term--I don't) between the right to life of the fetus and the rights of bodily autonomy, avoiding unnecessary harm, and moral autonomy (among others) of the pregnant woman.
As a very important aside, however, we have the following claim:
That which performs all that is proper to a thing is that thing
This sounds kind of Aristotelian, but I wasn't sure. Can you explain what you mean here?
Basically, what I've seen are accounts of personhood that are either too broad or too narrow. Pro-life advocates tend to adopt a very broad notion of personhood which ends up including non-human animals as persons. Pro-choice advocates tend to use very narrow notions of personhood which exclude infants and toddlers as persons. Both results are no palatable as far as I'm concerned.
Granted, the development within and without the womb is a continuous process, and premature births may be straining definitions even more. In a way, infants and toddlers really aren't fully formed persons yet. But they are born, so they're not part of the debate, because abortion only covers pregnancies. Another argument that does not rely on definitions of personhood is to say that as long as the woman is pregnant, the fetus is part of her body and tributary to it, therefore she has the right to decide.
So? Are you suggesting that a tumor is neither produced nor aided in its development fromNo. Why would that matter? If a fetus has a moral right to live because it's part of a person, a tumor has a moral right to live because it's also part of a person.
that which constitutes the person afflicted by it?
Personhood is the status of being a person, which is the quality of having personhood, whichThat's a circular definition of your own making.
is the status of being a person... [to infinity, and, beyond]
Oh look: Happiness is the status of being happy, which is the quality of having happiness. Circular reasoning!!1! Clearly happiness has no recognizable definition, so I can just declare this lifeless rock to be happy and nobody can say otherwise. No.
Please don't claim the absurd.Next time, do your research.
You do know that while Black and Hispanic mean incomes are nearly equal, the Black abortionLet's assume that you have any viable source for that. Do you realize that you're grasping at straws here?
rate is disproportionally greater?
1. Abortion is the killing of a person.Wrong. It's the killing of a fetus, which is at most a 'part of a person', like a tumor.
2. The killing was not consented to.Wrong again. The sole party who would be affected (i.e. the pregnant woman) provides consent.
3. The killing was forced upon that person.GOTO 1.
No. As you already know, it is. Please stop that.For reasons we've already discussed at length, abortion is not "the intentional taking of the life of an unborn child, who has the right to live, without his [his, really?] consent". If you cannot accept that fact, you have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
You didn't answer my question, regardless of terminology.1 I did, in fact.
2 Your question is an obvious straw man. A born human ≠ A human.
You claimed that nobody believes in infanticide.1 Did I, now? And where, exactly, was that? The quote that preceeded your excerpt was "Infanticide is the killing of a recently-born human (an infant or toddler).", which would imply that you were responding to Moegreche, but his point was that nobody is pro-infanticide; not that nobody believes in it.
2 Your excerpt makes no mention of infanticide, so I don't see the relevance.
You dismiss the very thing which you have ascribed to and attacked in Pro-Lifers with "so?"No, I dismiss the idiotic behaviour of certain members of both parties as irrelevant to this discussion, because they're irrelevant to this discussion.
@n1njachikin
Evil isn't a real thing. Evil is what people call things they don't want to think about on a moralistic basis.
As such, I'm fine acknowledging the personhood of the fetus and its right to life. It's as this point that we have a balancing of rights (or of interests, if you like that term--I don't) between the right to life of the fetus and the rights of bodily autonomy, avoiding unnecessary harm, and moral autonomy (among others) of the pregnant woman.
I couldn't have said it better.
This sounds kind of Aristotelian, but I wasn't sure. Can you explain what you mean here?
Yes, it is Aristotelean. Every thing has functions. Those functions which manifest themselves in one thing alone are called proper; those which manifest themselves in many things are called common. Thus, if one thing performs all that is proper to another, it is necessarily that thing. This doesn't have much to do with our discussion, but rather, the proving to FishPreferred and HahiHa the personhood of the fetus.
If a fetus has a moral right to live because it's part of a person, a tumor has a moral right to live because it's also part of a person.
Yes. However, a person may decide to remove his tumor, and that is just and right. However, may a mother dispose of a fetus, without its consent? The fetus is not a part of her, it is constituent of a totally different person.
Happiness is the status of being happy, which is the quality of having happiness. Circular reasoning!
Happiness is the status of being happy. Being happy is the fulfillment of oneself. a) Please don't put words in my mouth to avoid answering a question b) especially when those words have nothing to do with the present discussion.
Next time, do your research.
To claim that one who supports abortion is Pro-Life, or the absolute opposition to abortion in any form at any time, is absurd.
A born human ≠ A human.
A born human = a human who has happened to be born.
@n1njachikin
Evil isn't a real thing. Evil is what people call things they don't want to think about on a moralistic basis.
Evil is the opposite of good. Good is fulfillment. A man is happy when he is fulfilled, it is his functions which are fulfilled; that which composes man functions.
FishPreferred:
If a fetus has a moral right to live because it's part of a person, a tumor has a moral right to live because it's also part of a person.
Ntech:
Yes. However, a person may decide to remove his tumor, and that is just and right.
Notice the contradiction. You begin by agreeing that a tumor has a moral right to live only to imply the exact opposite in the very next sentence.
However, may a mother dispose of a fetus, without its consent?
Consent is not an option. A fetus is incapable of giving consent to anything, because it is incapable of reasoning. It cannot consent to abortion, but cannot consent to being kept alive either. Consent on the fetus' part is not an option, it cannot influence the decision either way.
A born human = a human who has happened to be born.
Yes, and both children and infants are humans that are born, and therefore not part of this debate.
You must be logged in to post a reply!