Scroll to see replies
There are two main approaches to pro-life: one of moral perspectives and the second of religious perspectives; and although they sometimes intertwine, for this discussion, both views will be treated separately. The religious perspective has very little to be debated considering it embraces the belief in a supernatural almighty entity; and there is, in fact, very little literature discussing the logics of religion. Nonetheless, there is abundant literature covering the moral and ethical rhetoric related to abortion. Pro-life authors often compare the views of its opposition as very individualistic and centered on personal preferences; comparing the choice of choosing vanilla ice cream or chocolate ice cream with having or not having an abortion (Beckwith, 2007).
Critics of abortion attack the fact that despite cultural background, abortion is wrong just as killing is wrong and stealing is wrong in any society, regardless of cultural values.
Some scholars defend relativism, stating that the lack of moral norms is based on the fact that individuals have dichotomous perspectives of values. However, pro-life advocates reply by stating that, first, because people disagree on a matter, that does not mean a lack of truth to the matter; second, if the relativist agrees that there is no truth, than it invalidates itself (because there is no truth, than relativism cannot be correct; or valid); and finally, the overrating of disagreement, considering most people in the world have a common understanding of what appears agreeable or disagreeable (Beckwith, 2007). There are heated debates among scholars whether the unborn entity should be given full rights and moral status; although both, pro-life and pro-choice agree that a fetus is a human being belonging to Homo Sapiens species, pro-choice supporters argue that the unborn is not intrinsically valuable because of a lack of ability to reason and self-awareness (Beckwith, 2007). It appears as a reasonable comparison that there are many cases of retardation in adults where a lack of self awareness or ability to reason is present as well; however, there is no such law favoring the termination of the mentally handicapped. The realm of the debate on abortion appears to be deeply rooted in a philosophical puzzle, and the puzzle consists of three basic sets of questions (Tooley, Wolf-Devine, Devine, & Jaggar, 2009):
1. Do embryos have a moral value? If they do, what is it? Are they entitled to human rights?
2. What makes abortion ethically permissible?
3. How should a society organize itself towards limiting, facilitating, or banning abortion?
It is reasonable to agree that if an unborn is a human, the unborn is entitled to rights; and if a human is entitled to rights, it must have moral values. This statement appears to make abortion unethical from the standpoint that the unborn entity is being deprived from the right of choosing to live, considering someone else is making that choice; and, therefore, society should ban the practice of abortion (Boonin, 2003).
Church’s Views on Abortion
Although the Catholic Church and the Christian church might have a few conflicting ideas, both are basically against abortion at any circumstance; however, the church has shifted from St. Augustine’s self proclaimed disapproval of contraception, to a rather philosophical angle, focused on ethical belief, morality and values. The argumentation of the church nowadays is based on the fact that all life is sacred and abortion terminates life; therefore, this idea must be rejected. Pro-Choice Perspectives
To be an advocate of pro-choice initiatives raises serious ethical, moral, and philosophical questions. Since the beginning of time, women were given the title of caregivers and nurturers; entrusted with the welfare of the offspring and organization of the home. Nowadays, a trend has developed in Westernized countries especially; where women decide to do whatever they feel like instead of following the old housewife stereotype. Such sudden change in human behavior must have its consequences, considering the role animals have been playing since the first animals arrived. One of the most visible consequences of the impact of a new trend for women’s behavior relates to the lack of attention to the children because their mothers are at work. In many occasions, the lack of attachment leads children to lack of self-esteem, lack of self-confidence, anger problems, and other attention deficit behavioral issues. Aside from mentally related issues, there are physical issues that could occur for the lack of maternal vigilance; such as child battery, child sexual molestation, verbal abuse, lack of awareness of dangerous situations and so forth. Notwithstanding, there are greater chances that children might not foresee a promising future because of a lack of parental interest or because of a lack of parental time with the child; or both. Pro-choice advocates tend to focus greater attention on parents who do not want to have a child considering the future implications of having an unwanted child.
Crime and Abortion Relationship
During the 1960s, communist dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu from Romania decided that all children belonged to society and, therefore, abortions was forbidden unless the woman already had reached her quota of four children. The dictator’s efforts in doubling the population were fruitful within one year of the abortion ban; and by the time Ceauşescu’s regimen fell, the children were testing low in school, people were living miserably, and the youngsters had a great tendency to become criminals. As ironic as it may sound, the youth between 13 and 20 years of age were the ones to go out on the streets to protest against the dictator; this incident might have never happened if he had not banned abortion (Levitt & Dubner, 2005).
According to Levitt and Dubner (2005), there was a substantial drop in criminality in the United States during the 1990s, which was covered in a preposterous way by the media; and the reasoning of this rather bizarre event was played as a guessing game instead of been studied. Some suggested innovative police strategies were effective, other groups believed the prisons were more reliable; and some were sure that the stronger economy was of effect. Nonetheless, researchers realized that the result of 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling triggered, in fact, the trend in low criminality, considering it gave women the choice of not having a child when they did not want the child. So overall, what I mean is that at the end of the day it’s your choice about what you do whether it is pro life or pro choice. Hope this helped you to get a better idea of what the perspectives of both sides are are
Critics of abortion attack the fact that despite cultural background, abortion is wrong just as killing is wrong and stealing is wrong in any society, regardless of cultural values.
Some scholars defend relativism, stating that the lack of moral norms is based on the fact that individuals have dichotomous perspectives of values. However, pro-life advocates reply by stating that, first, because people disagree on a matter, that does not mean a lack of truth to the matter; second, if the relativist agrees that there is no truth, than it invalidates itself (because there is no truth, than relativism cannot be correct; or valid); and finally, the overrating of disagreement, considering most people in the world have a common understanding of what appears agreeable or disagreeable (Beckwith, 2007). There are heated debates among scholars whether the unborn entity should be given full rights and moral status; although both, pro-life and pro-choice agree that a fetus is a human being belonging to Homo Sapiens species, pro-choice supporters argue that the unborn is not intrinsically valuable because of a lack of ability to reason and self-awareness (Beckwith, 2007). It appears as a reasonable comparison that there are many cases of retardation in adults where a lack of self awareness or ability to reason is present as well; however, there is no such law favoring the termination of the mentally handicapped. The realm of the debate on abortion appears to be deeply rooted in a philosophical puzzle, and the puzzle consists of three basic sets of questions (Tooley, Wolf-Devine, Devine, & Jaggar, 2009):
1. Do embryos have a moral value? If they do, what is it? Are they entitled to human rights?
2. What makes abortion ethically permissible?
3. How should a society organize itself towards limiting, facilitating, or banning abortion?
It is reasonable to agree that if an unborn is a human, the unborn is entitled to rights; and if a human is entitled to rights, it must have moral values. This statement appears to make abortion unethical from the standpoint that the unborn entity is being deprived from the right of choosing to live, considering someone else is making that choice; and, therefore, society should ban the practice of abortion (Boonin, 2003).
Church’s Views on Abortion
Although the Catholic Church and the Christian church might have a few conflicting ideas, both are basically against abortion at any circumstance; however, the church has shifted from St. Augustine’s self proclaimed disapproval of contraception, to a rather philosophical angle, focused on ethical belief, morality and values. The argumentation of the church nowadays is based on the fact that all life is sacred and abortion terminates life; therefore, this idea must be rejected. Pro-Choice Perspectives
To be an advocate of pro-choice initiatives raises serious ethical, moral, and philosophical questions. Since the beginning of time, women were given the title of caregivers and nurturers; entrusted with the welfare of the offspring and organization of the home. Nowadays, a trend has developed in Westernized countries especially; where women decide to do whatever they feel like instead of following the old housewife stereotype. Such sudden change in human behavior must have its consequences, considering the role animals have been playing since the first animals arrived. One of the most visible consequences of the impact of a new trend for women’s behavior relates to the lack of attention to the children because their mothers are at work. In many occasions, the lack of attachment leads children to lack of self-esteem, lack of self-confidence, anger problems, and other attention deficit behavioral issues. Aside from mentally related issues, there are physical issues that could occur for the lack of maternal vigilance; such as child battery, child sexual molestation, verbal abuse, lack of awareness of dangerous situations and so forth. Notwithstanding, there are greater chances that children might not foresee a promising future because of a lack of parental interest or because of a lack of parental time with the child; or both. Pro-choice advocates tend to focus greater attention on parents who do not want to have a child considering the future implications of having an unwanted child.
Crime and Abortion Relationship
During the 1960s, communist dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu from Romania decided that all children belonged to society and, therefore, abortions was forbidden unless the woman already had reached her quota of four children. The dictator’s efforts in doubling the population were fruitful within one year of the abortion ban; and by the time Ceauşescu’s regimen fell, the children were testing low in school, people were living miserably, and the youngsters had a great tendency to become criminals. As ironic as it may sound, the youth between 13 and 20 years of age were the ones to go out on the streets to protest against the dictator; this incident might have never happened if he had not banned abortion (Levitt & Dubner, 2005).
According to Levitt and Dubner (2005), there was a substantial drop in criminality in the United States during the 1990s, which was covered in a preposterous way by the media; and the reasoning of this rather bizarre event was played as a guessing game instead of been studied. Some suggested innovative police strategies were effective, other groups believed the prisons were more reliable; and some were sure that the stronger economy was of effect. Nonetheless, researchers realized that the result of 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling triggered, in fact, the trend in low criminality, considering it gave women the choice of not having a child when they did not want the child. So overall, what I mean is that at the end of the day it’s your choice about what you do whether it is pro life or pro choice. Hope this helped you to get a better idea of what the perspectives of both sides are are
OP, you are Steven Crowder AICMFP. 🙂
Original post by Napp
How about because its none of your business what other people do with their bodies?
Well from his perspective people are killing babies so it kinda is his business lol.
Original post by Napp
How about because its none of your business what other people do with their bodies?
That is not a very good argument my friend. Its wrong on a number of levels:
1. The foetus is not a part of the woman's body. During pregnancy for example the immune system weakens and certain proteins are released in a woman preventing her immune system from recognising the foetus as a foreign body and destroying it. As in the female body treats the foetus as a foreign body that is not part of the woman. So this argument that this is her body, though you hear it a lot from feminists (the majority of whom have degrees in liberal arts) is all, much like everything else that is feminism, wrong and has no basis in reality. Abortion is not a choice of a woman over her body but the body of another being.
2. We are all interconnected. Our actions, no matter how personal have an impact on others. If I choose for example to walk naked in public, that is my choice and my body but it is a choice that exposes others to it and impacts them, hence they have a right of say over my choice of dress or lack thereof. As in, they have a right to refuse my choice over my body because it impacts them and society. Similarly, abortion is a issue that not only affects the woman and the foetus but society as a whole. Therefore, society has a right of say over the matter.
3. This logic of yours is very dangerous. It legitimises and encourages heinous acts such as for example cannibalism. It is their body. Its none of your business to tell them not to eat each other. Its not your business to tell them that cannibalism is wrong. This logic of "none of your business" is the kind of logic that discourages people from criticising evils and empowers evils in society. It is a very illogical, irrational thought process that benefits flawed, draconian, authoritarian ideologies like feminism who crumble at the slightest bit of criticism and therefore do not benefit from allowing people freedom of expression and so discourage it by telling people this nonsense ...."its their body" "its none of your business".
(edited 6 years ago)
What about if it is found out that the unborn baby has such severe disabilities, it’ll never ever have a good quality of life and will most likely just suffer?
And supposing a teenage girl is raped by her brother. To continue the pregnancy would prolong the trauma for the girl, jeopardise her education and the child will most likely be born deformed due to incest, and will grow up ridiculed.
Also a child who was unwanted by its parents is likely to grow up miserable and more likely to be a criminal later in life, or develop crippling mental health problems.
Some children spend their lives in care homes and are never ‘adopted by a loving family’.
And supposing a teenage girl is raped by her brother. To continue the pregnancy would prolong the trauma for the girl, jeopardise her education and the child will most likely be born deformed due to incest, and will grow up ridiculed.
Also a child who was unwanted by its parents is likely to grow up miserable and more likely to be a criminal later in life, or develop crippling mental health problems.
Some children spend their lives in care homes and are never ‘adopted by a loving family’.
(edited 6 years ago)
Would you be happy raising your rapists baby? I sure as hell wouldn't be. Would you also (or either, rather) want to raise a severely disabled child who you were told at your scan may only live for a matter months or a few years? Those months or years may be painful and the baby may have no quality of life.
Original post by snowman77
One word:
Overpopulation
Overpopulation
Not a good reason. I agree that the country, and the world, is overpopulated, but that doesn't seem, to me, to be a good reason to end unborn lives. You wouldn't do it outside of the womb, so why's it suddenly acceptable to end a life if a human being is inside of the womb?
Original post by Napp
How about because its none of your business what other people do with their bodies?
I would have replied, but @CookieButter pretty much summed it up.
Original post by johnny.snow
Well from his perspective people are killing babies so it kinda is his business lol.
Pretty much.
Original post by Abcdefghijk123
What about if it is found out that the unborn baby has such severe disabilities, it’ll never ever have a good quality of life and will most likely just suffer?
Unfortunately, your view on the child not having a "good quality of life" is entirely subjective. You wouldn't kill an imperfect child outside of the womb, as we all know what regime killed imperfect humans, but the point is that many human beings with disabilities go on to live healthy and prosperous lives. Just because you may feel that you, personally, wouldn't want to live in that condition, doesn't automatically reflect the wishes of another individual who may want to live.
Original post by Abcdefghijk123
And supposing a teenage girl is raped by her brother. To continue the pregnancy would prolong the trauma for the girl, jeopardise her education and the child will most likely be born deformed due to incest, and will grow up ridiculed.
And supposing a teenage girl is raped by her brother. To continue the pregnancy would prolong the trauma for the girl, jeopardise her education and the child will most likely be born deformed due to incest, and will grow up ridiculed.
Rape doesn't change the calculus. The deontological position is that killing is wrong. Rape is wrong also, but to replace a wrong with another wrong doesn't make sense to me. If the girl doesn't want to raise the child, then he/she can be put up for adoption. The 'ridiculing' is just a slippery slope and doesn't represent the realism of the situation.
Original post by Abcdefghijk123
Also a child who was unwanted by its parents is likely to grow up miserable and more likely to be a criminal later in life, or develop crippling mental health problems.
Also a child who was unwanted by its parents is likely to grow up miserable and more likely to be a criminal later in life, or develop crippling mental health problems.
Funnily enough, I haven't seen any studies that show non-aborted, adopted babies growing up and showing abnormal rates of criminal activity and mental health. Maybe you have, and maybe you'd like to link me to it.
Original post by Abcdefghijk123
Some children spend their lives in care homes and are never ‘adopted by a loving family’.
Some children spend their lives in care homes and are never ‘adopted by a loving family’.
I definitely think society should be encouraging adoption for healthy young couples who want to raise a family. The care system should also be improved.
Original post by Tiger Rag
Would you be happy raising your rapists baby? I sure as hell wouldn't be.
I personally cannot say, but I do know that there are exceptions where mothers have raised their rapist's baby and love them, as they can differentiate the difference between cause and effect. The baby had no control over being put into this life, so to punish him/her for merely existing is a horrid attitude to have. Look up Jennifer Christie, she's one example.
On the subject of terminal illness, I definitely think some form of euthanasia should be available to those who are of sound mind, and are 100% going to die in a certain amount of time.
If the woman going to give birth doesn't want to raise the baby, or will not have sufficient resources to look after the baby properly, for whatever reason (think America), and they want to get an abortion? A lot of abandoned kids out there already... :P
Original post by CookieButter
That is not a very good argument my friend. Its wrong on a number of levels:
1. The foetus is not a part of the woman's body. During pregnancy for example the immune system weakens and certain proteins are released in a woman preventing her immune system from recognising the foetus as a foreign body and destroying it. As in the female body treats the foetus as a foreign body that is not part of the woman. So this argument that this is her body, though you hear it a lot from feminists (the majority of whom have degrees in liberal arts) is all, much like everything else that is feminism, wrong and has no basis in reality. Abortion is not a choice of a woman over her body but the body of another being.
1. The foetus is not a part of the woman's body. During pregnancy for example the immune system weakens and certain proteins are released in a woman preventing her immune system from recognising the foetus as a foreign body and destroying it. As in the female body treats the foetus as a foreign body that is not part of the woman. So this argument that this is her body, though you hear it a lot from feminists (the majority of whom have degrees in liberal arts) is all, much like everything else that is feminism, wrong and has no basis in reality. Abortion is not a choice of a woman over her body but the body of another being.
I'm not sure what this has to do with feminism? Saying that you don't someone what to with their body is a pretty basic right.
2. We are all interconnected. Our actions, no matter how personal have an impact on others. If I choose for example to walk naked in public, that is my choice and my body but it is a choice that exposes others to it and impacts them, hence they have a right of say over my choice of dress or lack thereof. As in, they have a right to refuse my choice over my body because it impacts them and society. Similarly, abortion is a issue that not only affects the woman and the foetus but society as a whole. Therefore, society has a right of say over the matter.
Don't put this on society. The only people who should have a right to say anything on the matter are the father and mother - not some random gob on a stick you find on the street. contrary to popular opinion not everyone should have the right to have their messy little opinions heard simply because they have one - especially when it effects someone else, it is a gross violation of popular sovereignty.
3. This logic of yours is very dangerous. It legitimises and encourages heinous acts such as for example cannibalism. It is their body. Its none of your business to tell them not to eat each other. Its not your business to tell them that cannibalism is wrong. This logic of "none of your business" is the kind of logic that discourages people from criticising evils and empowers evils in society. It is a very illogical, irrational thought process that benefits flawed, draconian, authoritarian ideologies like feminism who crumble at the slightest bit of criticism and therefore do not benefit from allowing people freedom of expression and so discourage it by telling people this nonsense ...."its their body" "its none of your business".
No it doesnt. The simple fact of the matter is you have no right to tell anyone what to do with their body, period. and the fact you're comparing it to cannibalism seems to reinforce my point especially because cannibalism generally involves killing or maiming someone, abortion doesnt.
Original post by johnny.snow
Well from his perspective people are killing babies so it kinda is his business lol.
His ignorance is a matter of opinion that doesnt make it his business though.
Original post by Napp
His ignorance is a matter of opinion that doesnt make it his business though.
Please point on this timeline where you think it's acceptable to kill this baby because it's the "woman's body".
Original post by Joel 96
Please point on this timeline where you think it's acceptable to kill this baby because it's the "woman's body".
Why exactly?
Lets go with the 5th trimester though?
Original post by Napp
Why exactly?
Lets go with the 5th trimester though?
Lets go with the 5th trimester though?
There's no official definition for a trimester.
Could you please state in weeks at what point you think abortion is acceptable.
Original post by Joel 96
There's no official definition for a trimester.
Could you please state in weeks at what point you think abortion is acceptable.
Could you please state in weeks at what point you think abortion is acceptable.
Tri means 3 ergo a trimester can only be measured in 1/2/3. So please think on what the 5th is if a babe is born during the 3rd.
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 6 minutes ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 42 minutes ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 47 minutes ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 49 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 53 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 55 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 55 minutes ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Learn Direct - Vet science Unit 9 HELPTrending
Last reply 17 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 17 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
