Sinister anti-abortion piffle

[Princeps]

(Let's debate abortion, a hotly contested issue and bound to create some mud slinging)

I frequently encounter these three arguments against abortion.

1. The argument from soul and God or as I like to think of it, the argument from the supernatural.
2. The argument from self-evident and natural right.
3. And sometimes, a sort of utilitarian argument: because the unborn baby suffers, it therefore is wrong to hurt it. You can simply say that the potential suffering of the born child in dysfunctional or poor family is likely worse.
(As an honorary 4th, I'll include the bizarre and delusional claim made by religious fraud Mother Teresa when she called abortion "the greatest destroyer of peace" in her Nobel acceptence speech.)

Other claims include, "science backs us, the unborn baby is really human" and "it is murder".

I'll try to rebuke these arguments to the best of my ability, because I think the anti-abortion dimwits are dogmatic and dangerous to our families and to our women and their independence.

The first argument, the argument from superstition is quite easy to rebuke. The conception, which many superstitious believe systems often have, is soul. Because the baby has a soul, it must therefore be wrong to kill it. The other superstitious argument is based on God. Because God, being the celestial dictator he is, says it's wrong to kill "babies", killing them is therefore wrong. Well, this is, of course, easy to refute with the simple statement that the soul and gods do not exist. And even if a celestial dictator of that sort existed, he has apparently chosen to conceal himself effectively and decided to not intervene in protecting those supposed rights he confers to the unborn: god allows abortions to go on, clearly showing that he doesn't care. Therefore God is irrelevant.

The second argument is a secularized version of the first, and I hear this from some secular folks, atheists even. The argument is that since the baby is a human, "science says", it's therefore self-evidently entitled to a right to be born after its conception or after some phase of development.

Actually, science doesn't back the notion that life "begins at conception", but rather, a logical scientific analysis would conclude that life begins before conception. So do we now have to save all the sperm, even the ones that spontaneously die?

Furthermore, to conclude that life per se automatically and axiomatically confers some sort of self-evident rights, is delusional to say the least. Rights are not conferred by gods or by the Mother Nature, but by human institutions, and rights are enforced by positive human actions, not by god. Rights and entitlements stem from power, not from the virtue of being alive. Therefore, because we are the living humans, and we have to consider our own resources and convenience, we should treat other living species and the unborn life largely in a way that is convenient to us living humans, not according some narrow-minded dogmas.

So the anti-abortion group has to compose a logical argument, one which isn’t based on their personal prejudices or on religious doctrine, as to why we should extend rights of living humans to the unborn? They have to come up with a good reason, because doing so would be anti-family and anti-woman.

Also, one a side (bottom?) note, it’s not murder to abort the unborn child because murder is a killing of a human committed in violation of law, often planned and done with malicious intent. None of these characteristics of murder fit abortion, because abortion is, first of all, legal, and secondly no one plans to have child in order to abort it and no mother kills the unborn with malicious intention.

Further, those ugly pictures you can find in the internet. Yeah, from what I understand, they’re almost always false or misleading (like very late abortions done for medical emergency reasons).

[Aziel]

Actually, murder is immoral killing; Making abortion illegal won't suddenly make it a murder, nor making killing your neighb for no reason legal will make that act not be considered as a murder.

I'm sure we agree it's immoral to kill a person for no proper justifcation (self-defense etc'). Now, we need to discuss whether a fitus is a person or not, and under what justifcations aboration is acceptable. The anti-aborations arugemants you presented are in my opinion a merely strawman you built, there are far more serious anti-aboration arguemants than these.

[Furious Mental]

As far as I'm concerned the argument begins and ends with the fact that total bans on abortion are pointless - women have always had abortions whether it is legal or not, and always will. The only difference is that when abortion is illegal it is done covertly with an ice pick and drain cleaner, or the woman gives birth and then dumps the child in a river or a garbage can or whatever. That doesn't benefit anyone quite frankly, it just entails much greater risks for the woman. Philosophical and moral arguments are by the by - one might as well enact a law saying that the sky is purple.

[Noble Savage]

I think this topic is more suited to the Ethos.

Ta

Noble Savage

[Bovril]

As far as I'm concerned the argument begins and ends with the fact that total bans on abortion are pointless - women have always had abortions whether it is legal or not, and always will. The only difference is that when abortion is illegal it is done covertly with an ice pick and drain cleaner, or the woman gives birth and then dumps the child in a river or a garbage can or whatever. That doesn't benefit anyone quite frankly, it just entails much greater risks for the woman. Philosophical and moral arguments are by the by - one might as well enact a law saying that the sky is purple.

Ok, I don't approve of anti-abortion legislation either, but this is an absurd argument. try swapping the word abortion in the above for the word rape. People have allways raped, and probably allways will. So why bother making rape illegal? Or murder? Or theft? Or anything at all?

[boofhead]

To me a person always lies in his potential. Sperm+egg = potential human. Potential brother, wife, daughter, friend etc. Plenty of people (including me) were born in circumstances where abortion was feasible but not chosen - so I live. I was adopted by force instead. Am I worthless or useless to this human community? I think not. Would the world be better off without me? I can't answer that. You'd have to ask someone better than myself.

Are we humans so pathetic that we must cull ourselves? Which is in actual fact a culling of any responsibility for our own behaviours? Like having sex in an unwise manner? The fetus/embryo is as innocent as any baby and needs protection - who knows what great things he/she may achieve?

Like I said, to me 'potential' means a great deal.

The only circumstance I really wobble over is rape cases. That's difficult.

[Rich86]

To me a person always lies in his potential. Sperm+egg = potential human.

"Almost every cell in your body is a potential human being, given our recent advances in genetic engineering. Every time you scratch your nose, you have committed a Holocaust of potential human beings. This is a fact. The argument from a cell's potential gets you absolutely nowhere." - S.Harris

I assume also that you don't ever :wub: - as this would likewise be a waste of potential human lives.

Furious Mental raised a very good point - banning abortion is a non-starter as funnily enough, if you tell someone "you MUST give birth" and they *really* don't want to - guess what, you can't stop them. They'll just go and get it done somewhere a bit 'dodgy' with all the added health risks that this entails. Nobody wins.

I believe people should be responsible, and this means safe sex for example - I've little sympathy for people who end up pregnant because they slept with 500 men over the course of a week and didn't bother with condoms for any of them.

[Cluny the Scourge]

To me a person always lies in his potential.

A person lies in their mind, will and body. Saying that a person lies in their potential is so profoundly ed up a statement that I don't even know what to say. That is deeply, deeply sick stuff.

Sperm+egg = potential human. Potential brother, wife, daughter, friend etc. Plenty of people (including me) were born in circumstances where abortion was feasible but not chosen - so I live. I was adopted by force instead. Am I worthless or useless to this human community? I think not. Would the world be better off without me? I can't answer that. You'd have to ask someone better than myself.

Since "you" would never have existed in the first place if your mother had decided on abortion, the worth and value of "you" is entirely irrelevant to the topic.

Are we humans so pathetic that we must cull ourselves? Which is in actual fact a culling of any responsibility for our own behaviours? Like having sex in an unwise manner?

It is for individual women to decide upon whether they are in a fit state to have a child. Not the law or the government, and still less religious groups.

The fetus/embryo is as innocent as any baby and needs protection - who knows what great things he/she may achieve?

Innocence implies capacity for guilt. Since a foetus possesses no selfdom, no mindhoos, it is not a person and is incapable of guilt, it is not innocent, anymore than it is guilty.

[Princeps]

Like I said, to me 'potential' means a great deal.

So we should just reproduce all the time?

Every moment you demur from brazen, incessant repoduction... you waste "potential".

[finsternis]

Furthermore, to conclude that life per se automatically and axiomatically confers some sort of self-evident rights, is delusional to say the least. Rights are not conferred by gods or by the Mother Nature, but by human institutions, and rights are enforced by positive human actions, not by god. Rights and entitlements stem from power, not from the virtue of being alive. Therefore, because we are the living humans, and we have to consider our own resources and convenience, we should treat other living species and the unborn life largely in a way that is convenient to us living humans, not according some narrow-minded dogmas.

I must disagree with this one: rights and morals are actually natural.

But I think that abortion should be legal but moderated. A woman should only be allow to have a limited number of non-life threating/rape abortions (like one. I mean, who gets pregnant by accident more than once except for some idiot?).

[Da Skinna]

I like the idea that a fetus only has rights when it can live independently from the mother's womb, which is far into second triterm I think.

What I hate is when people say they are "pro-life". That bugs the out of me. It doesn't mean you're pro-life, just anti-abortion.

Not until we stress responsibility, for all people, and improve the education system, public schools, vanquish poverty, then I'll say these people are "pro-life".

Otherwise, this is just social beliefs forced on the lower classes.

[thatguy]

Hey I'm pro-choice, a womans body is her own damn buisness, what right do we have to decide what they do with it? We can influence or persuade them, but we really dont have a right to tell them (and vice versa).

Plus, if she really really really doesnt want the baby (hell, what if the sex WAS protected and the condom broke eh?) shouldnt she have the irght NOT to go through the excruciating pain of child birth?
What if she dies during child birth? WHen you think about it all the people who made her not have that abortion just killed her.
Whats more important, a "potential" Human, or A human?

To me a person always lies in his potential. Sperm+egg = potential human. Potential brother, wife, daughter, friend etc. Plenty of people (including me) were born in circumstances where abortion was feasible but not chosen - so I live. I was adopted by force instead. Am I worthless or useless to this human community? I think not. Would the world be better off without me? I can't answer that. You'd have to ask someone better than myself.

Are we humans so pathetic that we must cull ourselves? Which is in actual fact a culling of any responsibility for our own behaviours? Like having sex in an unwise manner? The fetus/embryo is as innocent as any baby and needs protection - who knows what great things he/she may achieve?

Like I said, to me 'potential' means a great deal.

The only circumstance I really wobble over is rape cases. That's difficult

You might want to make a clear meaning to what your saying.
Because it shounds like ":wub: and Protected sex is the same thing" because you kill billions of little spermalots everytime you do either.

[PacSubCom]

Pro-life is Anti-Woman. It condemns all women to sexual slavery.

[Garrigan]

fisternis, surely if you tell a woman that she has only 2 abortion options. She made decide to "save them up" . "Sure the condom broke during sex, but what if I was raped? I dont want to have to live a child of rape for ever. I think I'll hold back my abortion option, just in case. Then ends up saddled with a child she didnt want, and was forced to have.

[finsternis]

fisternis, surely if you tell a woman that she has only 2 abortion options. She made decide to "save them up" . "Sure the condom broke during sex, but what if I was raped? I dont want to have to live a child of rape for ever. I think I'll hold back my abortion option, just in case. Then ends up saddled with a child she didnt want, and was forced to have.

This is what I said:

A woman should only be allow to have a limited number of non-life threating/rape abortions

Life threating and rape abortions should be limitless. It is non-life threating and non-rape abortions (meaning, abortions because of an accident or because you thought your boyfriend could take it out in time or because you are an idiot who decided to not use a condom nor birth control pills) that should be moderated.
But even if they are limitless, how often does an woman get rape (in half developed and developed countries, of course)?

[Cluny the Scourge]

Life threating and rape abortions should be limitless. It is non-life threating and non-rape abortions (meaning, abortions because of an accident or because you thought your boyfriend could take it out in time or because you are an idiot who decided to not use a condom nor birth control pills) that should be moderated.

Your position is morally indefensible.

The only possible justification for the law interfering with someone's decisions over their own body is that is causing harm to someone else. In other words, the only explanation for why abortion could ever be made illegal is that the foetus is a person, with rights, and that those rights need to be protected, i.e. that killing it is murder.

If this were so, however, there is no possible justification for permitting abortion to a rape-victim, or in the case of incest. The supposed foetus-person is entirely "innocent" of the matter. How can you possibly be arguing that a woman should be allowed to kill her baby just because it was the product of rape? You must, therefore, actually believe that a foetus is not a person, and that killing it is not murder.

There is no half-way house and no room for weak compromise. Either it's murder, or it isn't. If it is, it cannot be allowed. If it isn't, it cannot be refused.

[finsternis]

Your position is morally indefensible.

The only possible justification for the law interfering with someone's decisions over their own body is that is causing harm to someone else. In other words, the only explanation for why abortion could ever be made illegal is that the foetus is a person, with rights, and that those rights need to be protected, i.e. that killing it is murder.

If this were so, however, there is no possible justification for permitting abortion to a rape-victim, or in the case of incest. The supposed foetus-person is entirely "innocent" of the matter. How can you possibly be arguing that a woman should be allowed to kill her baby just because it was the product of rape? You must, therefore, actually believe that a foetus is not a person, and that killing it is not murder.

There is no half-way house and no room for weak compromise. Either it's murder, or it isn't. If it is, it cannot be allowed. If it isn't, it cannot be refused.

Maybe you are right. I really do not know what to do with abortion: I understand both sides (one more than the other). I am just trying to get a moderation.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Maybe you are right. I really do not know what to do with abortion: I understand both sides (one more than the other). I am just trying to get a moderation.

It's instinctive for diplomatically-minded people to prefer a compromise to keep the peace, even if it doesn't actually make any sense. That's what keeps society from turning on itself so that we tear each other to pieces.

[Rich86]

Off topic:

Does anyone else keep getting some Pro-Life advert at the top of the page when they view this thread?

It's like the internet itself is weighing in with it's opinion

[Ardruire Iacób]

Personally, I stand by my own country's approach, which is that abortion is illegal unless the pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother and it is legal to go abroad to have an abortion if you really want one.

We don't have anyone complaining about 'sexual slavery' or rubbish like that.



Human cells are not 'potential humans' unless they are in the position of being fertilised eggs embedded in the uterine wall. Then, and only then, do they have the potential to grow into human beings.

IVF clinics hold to the belief that cells are only 'potential humans' when they are embedded in the uterine wall.