Morality of abortion

[The spartan]

The Spartan,

When Jesus said to the leaders of Israel that they were conceived in sin and when David said that he, David, was conceived in sin, then sin infers the taking over of a nature by another and so that nature whatever it was is now in sin as a living body. And, when God gave us the commandment, " Thou shalt not kill," it makes abortion outside God's Law whether we like it or not because that fetus is a living thing.

Woah woah, we don't seem to have a problem with taking life. People kill all the time; animals are slaughtered in their millions to feed people and no one has a problem with that. The issue seems to be around the issue of taking 'human life' which is much more specific.

[Sogdog]

It isn't. She's not killing herself, she's killing her baby. It's her body to the same extent as your body is your mother's.

You cannot come in and claim that only you get to make choices for yourself and then proceed to determine whether somebody lives or dies.

Wrong. She is terminating a cluster of cells that do not have the same cognitive nor physical attributes of a baby. So in fact she is determining what is right or wrong for her and her alone. Her body, her rules, her choice. Not yours, not your religion's nor your government's choice. Her's alone. If you are a male and have no connection to this fetus then it is DEFINITELY not your choice!

[Aexodus]

Is a foetus a body part?

[Sogdog]

Is a foetus a body part?

I meant embryo to represent the first 8 weeks pregnancy. A foetus means from 8 to 12 weeks. Neither of which are a fully developed baby by any standards.

[Aexodus]

Wrong. She is terminating a cluster of cells that do not have the same cognitive nor physical attributes of a baby.

But it’s still human, cognitive function or not. It has human rights like you or me, and these rights exist regardless of a popular vote.

So in fact she is determining what is right or wrong for her and her alone.

We’re talking about two lifes here, not one.

Her body, her rules, her choice.

Not her body.

Not yours

Guess i’ll just give up my democratic right.

not your religion's

Im not religious and have never brought up religious talking points.

nor your government's choice.

Should the government have no say on family matters at all? Even mistreatment, abuse, abortion?

Her's alone.

Do you believe in gender equality? That the father should have as much of a say as the mother?

I meant embryo to represent the first 8 weeks pregnancy. A foetus means from 8 to 12 weeks. Neither of which are a fully developed baby by any standards.

Doesn’t answer the question. If it’s a matter of ‘my body my choice’ then in what regard is a foetus a part of the body, and not a separate but dependent organism. A human organism. With shared parentage of the mother and father.

If you are a male and have no connection to this fetus then it is DEFINITELY not your choice!

And if being male means I have no say in the matter, then why should I be able to vote at all?

Guess I’ll let the wamen do the talking.

[Derpy Hooves]

I won't get into the argument about whether or not an unborn fetus in the womb is a human being yet or not, but surely even the people who say abortion is evil/wrong/murder/etc. shudder at the thought of a 15-year-old girl giving birth to a child after her father raped her? Right? No? I've yet to come across anyone who actually holds this position, but I know that some people do according to polling. It's chilling. Women also have complications from pregnancies that can lead to their death. I think it should be entirely within the choice of the mother what to do with her own body, especially when we're talking about life or death here in certain medical cases. The thing that really propelled Ireland's recent repeal of abortion via the popular referendum was the case of that Indian woman who died from a septic miscarriage. Even if you're against abortion, surely you have to admit that a teenage girl attending high school/secondary school is going to have a crap life if she has to give birth to a child halfway through her schooling. Even if she gives the child up for adoption afterwards, the emotional toll of that would be immense, especially the very idea of just giving your child away.

Why should the fetus pay for its father’s (or mother’s, women can rape too) crimes?
The only time I approve of abortion is when the mothers life is in mortal danger
@Sogdog
Fun fact, you’re a cluster of cells

[Sogdog]

But it’s still human, cognitive function or not. It has human rights like you or me, and these rights exist regardless of a popular vote.



We’re talking about two lifes here, not one.



Not her body.



Guess i’ll just give up my democratic right.



Im not religious and have never brought up religious talking points.



Should the government have no say on family matters at all? Even mistreatment, abuse, abortion?



Do you believe in gender equality? That the father should have as much of a say as the mother?



Doesn’t answer the question. If it’s a matter of ‘my body my choice’ then in what regard is a foetus a part of the body, and not a separate but dependent organism. A human organism. With shared parentage of the mother and father.



And if being male means I have no say in the matter, then why should I be able to vote at all?

Guess I’ll let the wamen do the talking.

It's irrelevant. It's the woman's body, her choice. Obviously the father will have a say, but otherwise it's her choice. Would you men be happy with women deciding to intervene in your reproductive choices? Maybe withhold viagra from the limp dicks out there because they want to choose for men!!??

[Aexodus]

It's irrelevant. It's the woman's body, her choice.

There we have it, just the dogmatic mantra if ‘my body my choice’. This isnt a rally, this is a debate, so you need to back this point up with evidence.

Why is it her body, its not the her choice part im disagreeing with, but obviously if its not her body, then it would follow its not her choice either, wouldnt it?

Obviously the father will have a say, but otherwise it's her choice.

So the father has an equal say yes? If in a consensual relationship the mother wants to abort but the father wants to keep, you would respect hid paternal duty of care to his offspring, the natural right and instinct of every living thing in existence; the right to life, and the right to care for offspring?

Would you men be happy with women deciding to intervene in your reproductive choices? Maybe withhold viagra from the limp dicks out there because they want to choose for men!!??

There are no external lives at risk in viagra use.

[Sogdog]

There we have it, just the dogmatic mantra if ‘my body my choice’. This isnt a rally, this is a debate, so you need to back this point up with evidence.

Why is it her body, its not the her choice part im disagreeing with, but obviously if its not her body, then it would follow its not her choice either, wouldnt it?



So the father has an equal say yes? If in a consensual relationship the mother wants to abort but the father wants to keep, you would respect hid paternal duty of care to his offspring, the natural right and instinct of every living thing in existence; the right to life, and the right to care for offspring?



There are no external lives at risk in viagra use.

It's her body because she is in it, it's her choice because she is pregnant. Simple.

[Gaidin]

There are no external lives at risk in viagra use.

That wasn't the question. Would you be happy with women deciding in them? Remember, men decide in more than abortion as well.

[Aexodus]

That wasn't the question. Would you be happy with women deciding in them? Remember, men decide in more than abortion as well.

Well no because viagra is something completely different, its not equivalent. I wouldnt be comfortable with men having a say in the female equivalent, which is known as flibanserin.

[The spartan]

Why is it her body, its not the her choice part im disagreeing with, but obviously if its not her body, then it would follow its not her choice either, wouldnt it?

Because her body is doing all the work and providing all the resources. The growing cells are rather deep inside her body and are taxing her, don't you think it is kinda weird that a woman would have no say in something within her own body?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Claiming "Its not her body." is reducing women to citizens of minor rights.

[Aexodus]

Because her body is doing all the work and providing all the resources. The growing cells are rather deep inside her body and are taxing her, don't you think it is kinda weird that a woman would have no say in something within her own body?

I do think she should have a say, she can choose not to get pregnant.

[The spartan]

I do think she should have a say, she can choose not to get pregnant.

Well actually, no she can't. Women do not get to choose when to fertile and not. Really what you are arguing is against being sexual when you don't want a child, which is archaic as .

I should also add that your focus seems to be on sexuality, but most fertilized embryos that are destroyed are not conceived sexually. Most are the rejected fertilized eggs used in vitro fertilization. Where is the outrage against that?

[fkizz]

I won't get into the argument about whether or not an unborn fetus in the womb is a human being yet or not, but surely even the people who say abortion is evil/wrong/murder/etc. shudder at the thought of a 15-year-old girl giving birth to a child after her father raped her? Right? No?

Abortions are an extremely ancient phenomena. It's just that with today's technology you can perform them at an Industrial scale.

With logic and morals from the 60s, to protect people from mistakes, abortion could be a fairly chill and liberalized thing, but with today's mindset, it will be consumed with same financial ease that is buying a new Iphone.
There's even the ocasional pics on instagrams of mothers taking pics of themselves in the mirror after the abortion to brag about how they just lost weight and became more fit. Plus ocasional art movements glorifying people who had abortions.

This is the mindset that's existant today, so what will happen is obvious. I don't stress much about it because people will do them regardless if it's illegal or not, it's high on demand and high on supply today.

If you had a legalized situation on this in the 60s it wouldn't even be an issue with the more Puritan sector, for it would be a seen as a last resort scenario rather than something you do fairly easily.

[Prodromos]

What? The heck is this? Who mentioned anything about ethnicities or nationalities here? I don't consider ethnicity or nationality particularly defining of personhood, when compared to other attributes. Abilities like cognition, ability to communicate, and self-motivation are more important, though that is just a limited list.

The point here is, the fact that you personally consider it 'ridiculous' to respect the human rights of unborn babies, isn't a valid reason to deny them their human rights. Many people also consider it ridiculous to respect the rights of certain groups of human beings; for instance, those belonging to a different religion, ethnicity, nationality, "gender identity", etc. This position is irrational to hold for anyone who claims to care for human rights. If you're a live human being, you have human rights. These are the only requirements. Additional, arbitrary criteria like ability to communicate, intelligence, appearance, popularity, etc. are completely irrelevant.

What you're really arguing for here, is that the more vulnerable and different an individual human is the less he deserves protection, which is the opposite of everything human rights advocacy stands for.

This is a conversation we could seriously have, but I am trying to demonstrate the extremes of difference. I don't think anyone here would choose even hundreds of fertilized embryos over a teenager or child. That is to say, no matter the values we put on individuals as a society, we hold men, women, and children as being far more morally comparable than any are to a fertilized embryo.

But that is precisely why advocating against abortion is so important. Unborn babies have no ability to defend themselves and are wholly reliant on adults for protection. The fact that millions of people view them as parasites worthy of being exterminated, is just more reason to fight for them. I'd guess that millions of people would rather save one member of their nationality, over 300 members of other nationalities. Does that mean members of other nationalities aren't equally human?

Society generally has always believed that minorities were of less worth, but human rights advocates nevertheless fought the good fight (and eventually won), even though they had to fight alone, as a minority widely derided by society. The consensus of society doesn't determine right and wrong. Right is right and wrong is wrong, even if 100% of the population disagree.

I won't get into the argument about whether or not an unborn fetus in the womb is a human being yet or not, but surely even the people who say abortion is evil/wrong/murder/etc. shudder at the thought of a 15-year-old girl giving birth to a child after her father raped her? Right? No? I've yet to come across anyone who actually holds this position, but I know that some people do according to polling. It's chilling. Women also have complications from pregnancies that can lead to their death. I think it should be entirely within the choice of the mother what to do with her own body, especially when we're talking about life or death here in certain medical cases. The thing that really propelled Ireland's recent repeal of abortion via the popular referendum was the case of that Indian woman who died from a septic miscarriage. Even if you're against abortion, surely you have to admit that a teenage girl attending high school/secondary school is going to have a crap life if she has to give birth to a child halfway through her schooling. Even if she gives the child up for adoption afterwards, the emotional toll of that would be immense, especially the very idea of just giving your child away.

The moral thing to do isn't always the easiest choice, but still it is the right choice, because one evil doesn't justify another. If you are harmed by somebody, and you react by harming another innocent person, all you're doing is ultimately perpetuating the very evil that was committed against you.

Although that's definitely easier said than done. Here is the experience of a woman who was in a similar situation:



If a pregnancy legitimately poses a serious threat to the life of the mother, then, from a moral standpoint, you could argue it would be self-defense to kill the baby, and therefore not immoral.

But these cases are extremely rare. In more than 90% of abortions, the pregnancy is from consensual sex and doesn't pose a special threat to the mother's life. Most reasonable people would support stopping those 96%+ of abortions, and allowing the ones where the mother's life is threatened.

[The spartan]

The point here is, the fact that you personally consider it 'ridiculous' to respect the human rights of unborn babies, isn't a valid reason to deny them their human rights. Many people also consider it ridiculous to respect the rights of certain groups of human beings; for instance, those belonging to a different religion, ethnicity, nationality, "gender identity", etc. This position is irrational to hold for anyone who claims to care for human rights. If you're a live human being, you have human rights. These are the only requirements. Additional, arbitrary criteria like ability to communicate, intelligence, appearance, popularity, etc. are completely irrelevant.

So it is just a red herring. You seem to be missing the point that not everyone is an agreement with what you define as a human, and not for petty reasons like "ethnicity". A lot of really smart people do not consider a freshly fertilized embryo as a 'human'. And no, those attributes aren't arbitrary and aren't irrelevant.

What you're really arguing for here, is that the more vulnerable and different an individual human is the less he deserves protection, which is the opposite of everything human rights advocacy stands for.

I think a non-cognitive entity is less deserving of protections, yes. So do you.

But that is precisely why advocating against abortion is so important. Unborn babies have no ability to defend themselves and are wholly reliant on adults for protection. The fact that millions of people view them as parasites worthy of being exterminated, is just more reason to fight for them. I'd guess that millions of people would rather save one member of their nationality, over 300 members of other nationalities. Does that mean members of other nationalities aren't equally human?

Society generally has always believed that minorities were of less worth, but human rights advocates nevertheless fought the good fight (and eventually won), even though they had to fight alone, as a minority widely derided by society. The consensus of society doesn't determine right and wrong. Right is right and wrong is wrong, even if 100% of the population disagree.

Woah, I don't think anyone here is advocating for "exterminating" anything; it's "Pro-Choice", not "Pro-Abortion". And you trying to ethically tie embryos to living individuals in minority groups is creepy and probably a bit offensive.

Your "moral crusade" comes off fairly oppressive, though. It isn't enough for you to make your own personal choices, you want others to not have a choice because you personally don't agree. If, like, all (or most of) the smartest biologists were in agreement that abortion was clearly similar to murder then I would be much more concerned, but that simply isn't the position. As long as the main motivation for "abortion=murder" is a religious one, then I am not impressed.

[Aexodus]

Your "moral crusade" comes off fairly oppressive, though. It isn't enough for you to make your own personal choices, you want others to not have a choice because you personally don't agree. If, like, all (or most of) the smartest biologists were in agreement that abortion was clearly similar to murder then I would be much more concerned, but that simply isn't the position. As long as the main motivation for "abortion=murder" is a religious one, then I am not impressed.

Sorry Spartan but where did he bring in religion? This is a moral argument, not a religious one. And religion doesn’t have a monoploy on morality. If we’re going to legalise abortion for superficial reasons, then why not allow parents to kick their kids out of the house before 16 years old. You’re pro-choice, right? Even if it means harming another human? Because if pro-choice is your principle, then you could at least be consistent.

[The spartan]

Sorry Spartan but where did he bring in religion? This is a moral argument, not a religious one. And religion doesn’t have a monoploy on morality.

Ok, which secular ethics framework is being used, then? Utilitarianism, Kantianism, or what? I say this because at least here in the US, pro-life advocates have an overwhelming religious representation. Not many secular ethicists speak out about banning abortion, though I am sure some exist.

If we’re going to legalise abortion for superficial reasons, then why not allow parents to kick their kids out of the house before 16 years old. You’re pro-choice, right? Even if it means harming another human? Because if pro-choice is your principle, then you could at least be consistent.

No, we have been over this, I don't consider an fertilized embryo to have human rights. Sorry that is hard for you to hear. A 16 year old is much more human and has many more rights, and to "kick them out of the house" would be stresses on other parts of society. If the kid comes from a broken home, then I obviously think social services should be involved.

It should also be noted, however, that we don't consider a 16 year old to have the same rights as an adult, so lets not pretend we hold all people in the same standard of agency regardless of age. We are perfectly fine with restricting a 16 year old's freedom despite them being very much human.