Forums → WEPR → Abortion
| 1508 | 314912 |
What my peers here think?
I would like to try and avoid a buch of rabid Catholics and Christians falling back only on the religious reasons and what have you. However, I do not see how that can be dodged.
My view? I'm for it. If a woman wants to get one, it is her choice. Some people seem to act like if one woman gets an abortion, it means that all the rest have to. If the child in question is not yours, butt out.
Also, on a lighter note, I say that abortions should be allowed when kids are up to 18 years old. That would solve a lot of headaches, eh?
- 1,508 Replies
Just sharing this.
Pro-choice here. Hating discussions about this because of people who think their morals should be law, love discussions like these because some arguments (for either side) get so dumb they're funny to tear apart.
Pro-choice here. Hating discussions about this because of people who think their morals should be law, love discussions like these because some arguments (for either side) get so dumb they're funny to tear apart.
You do realize that's what the law is correct? A compilation of the majority of societies morals. Why do we oppose murder, theft, rape, assault; because we believe these things to be wrong; in short because of our morals.
I believe abortion is murder and therefore should be illegal. My next statement may appear ignorant but I honestly could care less about your definitions of life from the moment those gametes become diploid it's alive.
I may be more of a centrist now but I stand firmly conservative on this issue.
You do realize that's what the law is correct? A compilation of the majority of societies morals. Why do we oppose murder, theft, ****, assault; because we believe these things to be wrong; in short because of our morals.Yes, I do realize that. I should have highlighted their.
There is so much continuous discussion about this subject that it should be obvious there is no good agreement about the morals concerning this. Unlike the general agreement on murder and thievery being bad. (Possibly worth pointing out how those two would disrupt the way our society works, while abortion is more of a convenience issue?)
My point: You think abortion is wrong and goes against morality codes. Keep that view, do not make it a law that someone who disagrees have to abide.
You can't use that logic on laws about stealing, because stealing always affect someone else. Abortion affect the family, and the doctor who performs it, and does not harm anyone who thinks it is morally wrong.
I believe abortion is murder and therefore should be illegal. My next statement may appear ignorant but I honestly could care less about your definitions of life from the moment those gametes become diploid it's alive.I disagree on it being murder. Odds are neither of us are gonna be able to convince the other they're wrong. I agree on it being alive, though. But plants are alive too. That it is a tiny alive lump of human cells capable of growing into another hairless ape doesn't make me value it higher than the cactus in my windowsill.
I eat meat, pro-life isn't for animals, that's PETA.I do believe you missed the point. Or that you're just pro-human-life and care infinitely more about a blob of cells than a live and functioning creature.
Ah great, more moronic hippies.
I do believe you missed the point. Or that you're just pro-human-life and care infinitely more about a blob of cells than a live and functioning creature
That blob of cells can grow up to do great things, animals were meant to be eaten, or would you rather have them eat us? Cause guess what happens when the become too over-populated. What do animals contribute to society, and there are so many dear, ducks, whatever you hunt it's not that big a deal. Chill out.
Ah great, more ignorance on the internet.
That blob of cells can grow up to do great things,It can also grow up to become a horrible mass murderer. In my opinion, its potential has no value in the discussion as there is no way to know if it will be good, bad or indifferent.
It can grow and become a sentient fellow human. It isn't one yet.
animals were meant to be eatenAnimals exist. Humans are omnivorous and often find animals tasty, so they eat them. Do you think that means the animals are there because they are meant to be eaten?
or would you rather have them eat us? Cause guess what happens when the become too over-populated.Amusing stance. Overpopulation does not cause animals to eat us, though, so I don't really know what you meant to say there.
What do animals contribute to society, and there are so many dear, ducks, whatever you hunt it's not that big a deal.Contribute? Food and company, mostly.
As for the "there are so many", well... If certain species (notably cattle, fowls, swine) weren't mass-bred in captivity and humans still consumed the same amount of meat, wildlife would decline pretty quickly.
If you're saying an animal isn't a big deal compared to an embryo because there are so many of them, well... There's already so many children lacking a good home. Why add more where they're not wanted?
Missed this:
Chill out.
This is, in my opinion, not a heated argument. I'm enjoying this discussion. It's a nice mental exercise to share some viewpoints that others will challenge/disagree with, it gives a good chance to reflect and possibly re-evaluate opinions.
Until the blob of embryonic stem cells that constitutes of the targets of abortion develops a nervous system and brain cells, it can't be considered alive. Biologically speaking, the blob of cells possesses the same amount of conscious as a plant.
My point: You think abortion is wrong and goes against morality codes. Keep that view, do not make it a law that someone who disagrees have to abide.
On a much smaller scale I don't believe that shooting fire works off harms anyone but it's the law and it's being forced upon me. My belief is that it's killing the unborn child and is therefore wrong, seeing as how it's impossible to argue morals and what morals should be law (as we have established that law is morals) it's very difficult to argue this point. "Sigh".
Abortion affect the family, and the doctor who performs it, and does not harm anyone who thinks it is morally wrong
Yet murder only affects a select amount of people as well; the family, the murder, and their friends. I think murder is morally wrong yet someones murder that I do not know will no affect me, yes?
On a much smaller scale I don't believe that shooting fire works off harms anyone but it's the law and it's being forced upon me. My belief is that it's killing the unborn child and is therefore wrong, seeing as how it's impossible to argue morals and what morals should be law (as we have established that law is morals) it's very difficult to argue this point. "Sigh".
This is a very nice analogy, but let's keep in mind that laws still need justification. Maritime law or fireworks regulations don't necessarily have a moral justification, but they have a justification nonetheless.
Ultimately, though, if abortion is going to be illegal, it seems prima facie necessary to have a law that is morally justified. Everything surrounding the debate is (mostly) moral considerations. Just like women's suffrage or civil rights - the main arguments for these concepts is simply that they're the right thing to do.
Naturally, there will be pragmatic and consequentialist considerations as well, but ignoring the moral arguments, I think, misses most of the scope of the problem.
If someone was able to come up with a cogent (and I mean that in the strongest sense of the word) argument against abortion, then it seems like the next step would be to make it illegal, no?
If someone was able to come up with a cogent (and I mean that in the strongest sense of the word) argument against abortion, then it seems like the next step would be to make it illegal, no?
Fair point, unfortunatly though I see no, good, argument as to why it should be legal. Then again it's all perspective; I see it as murder of a future and you see it as a necessity for individual rights..? The hardest part of this issue is that neither side expresses the rights of both the mother and the unborn child and it's very hard to be grey on this issue.
As a side note a detour to something more concrete;
Opinions on abortion being included in universal healthcare; specifically in the currently proposed legislation in America
Or is there already a thread for that? Hrm.
Eh, sorry for the double post but I feel like the bold kinda makes me look like a, uh, jerk.
My bad :S
I see it as murder of a future and you see it as a necessity for individual rights..?
That's a great point. Now that I think about it, if abortion was already illegal and opponents were trying to get it legalized, it would likely be just as hard. But, then again, this scenario ignores the thousands of years women have been performing abortions on themselves. Perhaps there's a very good reason why abortions are legal that simply can't be ignored.
Eh, sorry for the double post but I feel like the bold kinda makes me look like a, uh, jerk.
Not at all. I think that's an excellent and much more tangible area for discussion. I think there might be a thread out there, but it's probably on page 15 or something.
There'd be nothing at all wrong with starting a new one if you wanted to, as long as the OP was clear and gave good direction
There'd be nothing at all wrong with starting a new one if you wanted to, as long as the OP was clear and gave good direction
Because I'm going to bed; I give you all the creative right.
Do it proud ^-^
Yet murder only affects a select amount of people as well; the family, the murder, and their friends. I think murder is morally wrong yet someones murder that I do not know will no affect me, yes?I'm not emotionally scarred by someone I do not know being murdered, so, to a certain degree agreed there. But... Murder disrupts. Murder takes out what is (hopefully) a functioning member of society. It affects the entire social circle of the victim, as well as whoever gained something from the work they did, if any.
The hardest part of this issue is that neither side expresses the rights of both the mother and the unborn child and it's very hard to be grey on this issue.The rights of unborn children are something I've never looked into, can someone elaborate on what is generally considered a right for them and when?
You must be logged in to post a reply!