Turn on thread page Beta

Why would someone think that abortion is not permissible? watch

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I used to have a laissez-faire attitude to abortion, then i watched a YT clip showing one being carried out.
    If you feel up to it there are plenty to see but i warn you that its not easy to watch.
    Then i started to think. You see every sort of surgery on tv being carried out in various programmes even an autopsy and horrendous facial surgeries, but you will never see an abortion being done. Why would that be then?
    Then there is the question of selling dead feotus body parts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwVuozMnU (Planned Parenthood seling body parts under cover footage If you dont want to see diced up body parts dont watch.)
    I am still pro choice but after looking in to it, I have developed a lot more sympathy for the views of people that are against it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by caravaggio2)
    Or their morals. There are plenty of atheists that are "pro life"
    True. So morals and/or religion.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Prior to the point of viability between 20 and 24 weeks, the foetus is biologically directly and entirely dependent on and integrated to the mother. Therefore, it's a part of the mother, not a separate person. I see no good reason why conception is a better point to define personhood than viability.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Prior to the point of viability between 20 and 24 weeks, the foetus is biologically directly and entirely dependent on and integrated to the mother. Therefore, it's a part of the mother, not a separate person. I see no good reason why conception is a better point to define personhood than viability.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What about a siamese twin twin who is dependent on the other twin's organs but has their own brain and sentience? :beard:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    The point is to compare your argument (as opposed to you personally) to previous arguments that have have been used to slaughter other groups of people.
    Please.

    This is his last quote:
    (Original post by CookieButter)
    when you are compared to such people so often doesn't that tell you something?
    Does that sound to you like a comparison of arguments? Because it sure sounds like a petty comparison of persons to me.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    You can't offer a scientific paper on the definition of "person" though, because it's not a scientific issue. You may choose to exclude foetuses from the category of "person", but there is no reason why this is objectively correct.
    Oh but it is - a foetus, especially at the beginning, does not even resemble a person, nor of course shares any human faculties.

    But in any case, please explain how it is objectively incorrect - it's the pro-life supporters who advanced this argument anyway. Why should the law, say, consider it a person? And please don't say 'because it's alive' as bacteria are alive too.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Also don't try to pretend that you have no personal bias on the issue. You discussed bias due to religion earlier - but for a religious person who (probably) does not engage in a promiscuous lifestyle, it doesn't make any difference to their lives whether abortion is legal or not. It tends to be the non-religious, who are more likely to conceive an unplanned child outside of a stable family unit, who stand to benefit from abortion being legal, and who therefore have a personal bias on the matter.
    Wow, the attack on the agnostics/atheists is fascinating.

    And I don't have a personal bias because no sort of ideology or religion guides my thinking. I never said abortion is 'good' - it is horrible and traumatising to everyone witnessing. However, it is also the least worst of two alternatives.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    This is incorrect. Neither the New Testament nor the Qur'an say anything about abortion specifically. Both religions simply regard the killing of innocent human beings to be wrong.
    Of course they don't - the books are two and one thousands years old respectively. But because they hold life as something sacred (which is a good thing), the leaders of such religions came to the conclusion that abortion is immoral, because they -like you- consider the foetus to be a person. One point different words.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Religious people are more likely to oppose abortion because it is (generally) the non-religious who need to try and rationalise abortion, lest they end up accidentally conceiving the child outside of a stable family
    So, the only reason religious people oppose abortion is to slam non-religious people?

    Not quite getting this.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It's not that difficult for a doctor to decide that a particular pregnancy poses a particularly significant risk to the life of the mother
    Anything remotely similar to a surgery can pose a threat to a person. I've had two thus far and trust me it sucks. As above, it's the least worst of two alternatives - not a good alternative.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    And you're telling me that child has to die even though it equally didn't want to be born as a result of rape, and masking it just by conveniently choosing the definition of "person" to suit you.
    But I'm saying it's not a child. You keep pushing that a foetus is a person even though you haven't explained the WHY - which ironically you asked me to. So please, for the fourth time, do elaborate.

    And why are the foetus' interests above the woman's? The latter has to carry through the former, not the other way round.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    A flimsy argument is not enough to justify killing someone though. At least by letting them live we can be sure we're not doing anything wrong.
    Not doing anything wrong by whose standards?

    Wrong or right is a false dichotomy. This is much more complex than a yes/no answer.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    That's true, but don't assume that you're exempt from this yourself.
    Never said I was. It is just my experience that religious people oppose abortion (as they do with anything supposed 'liberal', such as same-sex marriage, divorces and so on), without offering any substantive point other than 'God said so'. To me, that's as empty as thin air.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)

    Nothing justifies killing an innocent person, unless their existence poses a threat to your own life.
    Don't you see you have just fallen into the same trap you have accused your opponent of.


    You've selected these additional criteria of "must be able to survive independently" and "must not reside inside the mother" in order to qualify for personhood, in order to be able to justify killing foetuses. And previous societies have selected their own criteria for personhood in order to legitimise killing the targets that suit their agenda as well.
    Would the airforce be justified in shooting down a hijacked airliner about to be flown into a tall building even though it would cause the deaths of innocent passengers and crew?

    Yes, even though the aircraft posed no threat to the politicians and Air Marshals giving the order or the pilot in the fighter tasked with carrying it out.

    Unless you rely on a religious imperative (in which case you have to justify imposing that imperative on non-believers) the abortion debate requires resolving a moral dilemma and neither side has a knock down, quick fix answer that applies in all cases.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    As a moral nihilist who supports eugenics, I have no problem with abortion.

    It makes much less sense to me that the mushy-wushy leftist consensus of the society in which I live has no problem with it.

    Support for abortion rests on the certain and unshakable belief that a fetus doesn't have any moral value. But these are people who think that cats, fish, and sometimes even trees have moral value high enough to make killing them unjustified. Given any serious doubt that a fetus has moral value - and if you have no doubt about that I want to see your reasoning for giving rights to cats - the modern social democrat should be as outraged about destroying them as she is about destroying battery farmed chickens or the rainforest.

    Opposition to abortion follows logically from the premises of the society in which we live. That it nonetheless seems unthinkable anyone could oppose abortion in this society is a stark contradiction.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Prior to the point of viability between 20 and 24 weeks, the foetus is biologically directly and entirely dependent on and integrated to the mother. Therefore, it's a part of the mother, not a separate person. I see no good reason why conception is a better point to define personhood than viability.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because you are a commie. You don't think it's OK to kill tramps because their labour isn't worth enough to purchase food, making them directly and entirely dependent on other people to survive. You don't even support letting them quietly starve to death. In every other situation, you consider dependants having enforceable claims against their patrons not only morally justified, but morally obligatory.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)

    Support for abortion rests on the certain and unshakable belief that a fetus doesn't have any moral value.
    I don't think you can say that. It only doesn't have moral value in the specific context of abortion. It has moral value in the context of unpasturised cheese and fuel additives.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I don't think you can say that. It only doesn't have moral value in the specific context of abortion. It has moral value in the context of unpasturised cheese and fuel additives.
    I'm not certain I fully understand your point. If you can destroy a fetus (kill it if you consider it to be on the level of a cat or a plant) it's difficult for me to imagine a logical justification why you can't do other things with it.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I'm not certain I fully understand your point. If you can destroy a fetus (kill it if you consider it to be on the level of a cat or a plant) it's difficult for me to imagine a logical justification why you can't do other things with it.
    I understand your point.

    However you say that abortion supporters have a certain and unshakable belief that a fetus doesn't have any moral value. I am saying that is context specific. Most abortion supporters would argue that there was a moral obligation to protect fetuses against damage caused by environmental factors e.g unpasteurised cheese. Abortion is for most abortion supporters always sui generis.


    I should add that I am a believer in legislative compromise and the only changes I would make to UK abortion law are an express ban on sex selective abortion and a reduction in the time limit because of the ages at which children are regularly being born alive.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I understand your point.

    However you say that abortion supporters have a certain and unshakable belief that a fetus doesn't have any moral value. I am saying that is context specific. Most abortion supporters would argue that there was a moral obligation to protect fetuses against damage caused by environmental factors e.g unpasteurised cheese. Abortion is for most abortion supporters always sui generis
    OK, I see your point more clearly now.

    While I agree that that happens, I think that those perceived obligations to the fetus can be recast as obligations to the health of the prospective mother, or her self-interest to have the best possible child.

    The basic moral foundation of the pro-abortion argument is that a fetus is less a person than a cat or perhaps a tree.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)

    The basic moral foundation of the pro-abortion argument is that a fetus is less a person than a cat or perhaps a tree.
    We destroy cats and dogs all the time in our society. Abortion is similar to doing that. No one really wants to do it. It is always seen as a **** option to a **** choice.

    I'd even argue that a cat or a dog is more self aware than a fetus so I probably have more problems with killing a dog than a fetus providing I get get round my inbuilt human nature of trying to protect my own species above others.


    (Original post by Observatory)
    The basic moral foundation of the pro-abortion argument is that a fetus is less a person than a cat or perhaps a tree.
    It is not less a person. A cat or tree can not be a person. It's whether a car or dog is more self aware and capable of suffering than a fetus is. The tree comparison only really works in the earlier stages where the "baby" really is just a bunch of cells. The question is sound when a bunch of cells becomes sentient etc. I don;t think a tree is sentient.

    But ignoring the wording of that basic moral foundation I agree with it probably. I disagree that this mushy leftists consensus of a society has no problem with it. Most people, even those who are pro choice, probably hope to never have to be faced with that decision.


    (Original post by Observatory)
    Opposition to abortion follows logically from the premises of the society in which we live. That it nonetheless seems unthinkable anyone could oppose abortion in this society is a stark contradiction.
    Humans are not logical robots is the problem there which your world view doesn't really seem to leave room for.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    But ignoring the wording of that basic moral foundation I agree with it probably. I disagree that this mushy leftists consensus of a society has no problem with it. Most people, even those who are pro choice, probably hope to never have to be faced with that decision.
    Here is my problem.

    If it is a hard decision, you're admitting that there is something human-like about the fetus. If there isn't, it's no more a hard decision than verruca removal.

    If there is even a 5% chance that a fetus has moral worth like a born human, you shouldn't do abortion, and you should outlaw abortion, according to the moral system that says that preserving human and animal life is the highest good. It's simply too big a risk that legalised abortion occasions something much like a genocide, with too little reward.

    I would understand someone who views abortion as verruca removal supporting legal abortion. Most people don't, though, yet still support legal abortion.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Fergo)
    Please.

    This is his last quote:

    Does that sound to you like a comparison of arguments? Because it sure sounds like a petty comparison of persons to me.
    You can take that up with him. I simply said that, just because an argument contains reference to Nazi's doesn't make it an invalid one. "Godwin's Law" is intended as a joke, but you're taking it seriously.

    Oh but it is - a foetus, especially at the beginning, does not even resemble a person, nor of course shares any human faculties.

    But in any case, please explain how it is objectively incorrect - it's the pro-life supporters who advanced this argument anyway. Why should the law, say, consider it a person? And please don't say 'because it's alive' as bacteria are alive too.
    Again you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that a foetus is a person. I'm saying that it's not for us to decide whether it is or isn't, because we haven't got any objective arguments either way. We don't know for sure whether it ought to be considered a person or not. So that is why it is best not to kill foetuses, because that's the only way we can be sure we're not doing something wrong in killing persons.

    Wow, the attack on the agnostics/atheists is fascinating.

    And I don't have a personal bias because no sort of ideology or religion guides my thinking. I never said abortion is 'good' - it is horrible and traumatising to everyone witnessing. However, it is also the least worst of two alternatives.
    Everyone thinks that.

    Of course they don't - the books are two and one thousands years old respectively. But because they hold life as something sacred (which is a good thing), the leaders of such religions came to the conclusion that abortion is immoral, because they -like you- consider the foetus to be a person. One point different words.
    No religion clearly specifies that a foetus is a person either. There's nothing in any religion to stop a religious person thinking like you - that a foetus is (for whatever reason) not a real person and therefore fair game to kill.

    So, the only reason religious people oppose abortion is to slam non-religious people?

    Not quite getting this.
    Most religious people neither stand to gain anything nor lose anything from abortion being legal or illegal, because they're less likely to be the ones conceiving unwanted children outside of a stable family. No religion specifically dictates that abortion is prohibited nor that a foetus is a person.

    Most non-religious people stand to benefit from abortion being legal, because they are more likely to run the risk of conceiving unwanted children outside of a stable family and then want an abortion. They don't gain anything from abortion being illegal.

    From this alone it's quite clear to see where the element of bias is more likely to crop up.

    But I'm saying it's not a child. You keep pushing that a foetus is a person even though you haven't explained the WHY - which ironically you asked me to. So please, for the fourth time, do elaborate.

    And why are the foetus' interests above the woman's? The latter has to carry through the former, not the other way round.
    Once again, you misunderstand. I am not saying that a foetus is a person. You are saying that it is not, and I am saying you haven't got a strong enough reason to prove this objectively.

    I am saying abortion may or may not be okay, but since there is no clear cut answer either way, the latter option is safer than the first. When in doubt, we shouldn't trust ourselves with life or death decisions based on deciding who is a person and who isn't, because this has never gone well for us in the past.

    Never said I was. It is just my experience that religious people oppose abortion (as they do with anything supposed 'liberal', such as same-sex marriage, divorces and so on), without offering any substantive point other than 'God said so'. To me, that's as empty as thin air.
    I am not the one who brought religion or God into the argument.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Don't you see you have just fallen into the same trap you have accused your opponent of.
    Of course not. I'm not making arbitrary decisions about who is a "person" (and who isn't.

    However I think it's natural for a person to value their own life more than someone else's, or in the scenario you've provided below, value more lives than fewer lives. This is still according to a moral system (which I think most of us would agree with) in which life is more valuable than convenience.

    Would the airforce be justified in shooting down a hijacked airliner about to be flown into a tall building even though it would cause the deaths of innocent passengers and crew?

    Yes, even though the aircraft posed no threat to the politicians and Air Marshals giving the order or the pilot in the fighter tasked with carrying it out.

    Unless you rely on a religious imperative (in which case you have to justify imposing that imperative on non-believers) the abortion debate requires resolving a moral dilemma and neither side has a knock down, quick fix answer that applies in all cases.
    I agree with this but I don't see what it has to do with the argument.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    You can take that up with him. I simply said that, just because an argument contains reference to Nazi's doesn't make it an invalid one. "Godwin's Law" is intended as a joke, but you're taking it seriously.
    No quite - you referred specifically to him and me. I said he compares me to the Nazis, and you said he didn't (it was your first quote I believe).

    And it is far from being a joke. When people compare between an argument with extremities (as in, the actions), they paint the other person and those who committed those extremities with the same colour.

    You may definitely disagree, but seeing how easily the 'Nazi' word flies around in whatever unrelated argument I will probably not sway.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Again you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that a foetus is a person. I'm saying that it's not for us to decide whether it is or isn't, because we haven't got any objective arguments either way. We don't know for sure whether it ought to be considered a person or not. So that is why it is best not to kill foetuses, because that's the only way we can be sure we're not doing something wrong in killing persons.
    But that is a terrible and extremely weak argument. Who is meant to decide? The same logic can be applied to crimes - murder for instance. Who should decide the punishment? Is it something to be left to the abstract? No. Someone has to make a decision.

    Society can't expect supernatural, abstract interventions to indicate correctness - if it were to do that, it wouldn't be able to exist.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Everyone thinks that.
    Not really - I would well concede that if I were to sell a product and had to market it, I would be biased. I really am not biased here - I have no personal feelings nor will I ever be pregnant. No personal connection there to make me biased.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    No religion clearly specifies that a foetus is a person either. There's nothing in any religion to stop a religious person thinking like you - that a foetus is (for whatever reason) not a real person and therefore fair game to kill.
    Because during the inception of religion, the world would never understand what a 'foetus' is.

    Well, go tell that to any religious person who's serious about their beliefs and let me know if your opinion still applies.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Most religious people neither stand to gain anything nor lose anything from abortion being legal or illegal, because they're less likely to be the ones conceiving unwanted children outside of a stable family. No religion specifically dictates that abortion is prohibited nor that a foetus is a person.
    Oh but they are. This point is juvenile given what's going on in the world. Religious people have always been, and will always be, imposing. Just take a look at same-sex marriage. It doesn't affect them, but they still don't want it to exist.

    Same goes with abortions - they think life is sacred, and so no one should have an abortion.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Most non-religious people stand to benefit from abortion being legal, because they are more likely to run the risk of conceiving unwanted children outside of a stable family and then want an abortion. They don't gain anything from abortion being illegal.
    That is pure speculation - You're generalising something that cannot be generalised.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    From this alone it's quite clear to see where the element of bias is more likely to crop up.
    Oh I can - I just don't think it applies to non-religious people as it does to religious ones. Not even close, in fact.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Once again, you misunderstand. I am not saying that a foetus is a person. You are saying that it is not, and I am saying you haven't got a strong enough reason to prove this objectively.
    As above, this is just weak. What is the standard by which you judge the objectivity or strength of what I'm saying? You're literally stating that you don't have any opinion, while at the same time claiming it's not possible to have an opinion.

    That sounds empty to me.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I am saying abortion may or may not be okay, but since there is no clear cut answer either way, the latter option is safer than the first. When in doubt, we shouldn't trust ourselves with life or death decisions based on deciding who is a person and who isn't, because this has never gone well for us in the past.
    No. As I said above, this form of dichotomy never be allowed to exist in civilised society. There's no clear answer to the morality of slaughtering animals as food. Should we just ban it to make sure we're on the 'right'?

    No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion - it's non of your call what others want to do with their body.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I am not the one who brought religion or God into the argument.
    Given how everyone mentioned it here, it's clearly relevant.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Because you are a commie. You don't think it's OK to kill tramps because their labour isn't worth enough to purchase food, making them directly and entirely dependent on other people to survive.
    Without getting too bogged down in questions of economic theory and justice, the situation you describe is not one of direct biological dependency. A destitute tramp client dependent on a patron for everything they have is not biologically connected to their patron. They exist independently of them. If the relationship ceased, then there are plenty of ways in which the tramp could continue to survive. They may well be unlikely, but they are nevertheless well within the realm of possibility. A pre-viability foetus (apart from the first few days after fertilisation, in IVF-style arrangements) literally cannot survive except in a living womb. If it gets removed from the womb, it does not survive. It the mother dies, it does not survive. At least with current levels of technology, these are things we can say with certainty.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    What about a siamese twin twin who is dependent on the other twin's organs but has their own brain and sentience? :beard:
    It's an interesting challenge, but there's a difference in terms of identity. A pregnant woman existed prior to the foetus; she is the same person as the non-pregnant her from a few months earlier. Siamese twins, even if their dependency is clearly unequal, came into existence at the same time. Neither can be said to exist prior. Of course, this still leaves us problematically potentially saying that such Siamese twins are one person, but it does remove the idea that one twin is really part of the other.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Fergo)
    No quite - you referred specifically to him and me. I said he compares me to the Nazis, and you said he didn't (it was your first quote I believe).

    And it is far from being a joke. When people compare between an argument with extremities (as in, the actions), they paint the other person and those who committed those extremities with the same colour.

    You may definitely disagree, but seeing how easily the 'Nazi' word flies around in whatever unrelated argument I will probably not sway.
    If you use an argument analogous to one used previously to commit other atrocities (I'll kill you because I choose not to consider you a real person) what else do you expect?

    But that is a terrible and extremely weak argument. Who is meant to decide? The same logic can be applied to crimes - murder for instance. Who should decide the punishment? Is it something to be left to the abstract? No. Someone has to make a decision.

    Society can't expect supernatural, abstract interventions to indicate correctness - if it were to do that, it wouldn't be able to exist.
    Nobody needs to decide. The point at which a foetus becomes a "person" has no objective answer, it's purely a matter of opinion.

    The same logic cannot be applied to crimes - punishments can be determined in many objective ways, for example by looking at whatever can be statistically demonstrated to be the most effectiveness deterrent.

    Not really - I would well concede that if I were to sell a product and had to market it, I would be biased. I really am not biased here - I have no personal feelings nor will I ever be pregnant. No personal connection there to make me biased.
    You won't ever be pregnant, but if you were to ever get someone else pregnant by mistake you may well benefit significantly from the fact that abortion is legal.

    Because during the inception of religion, the world would never understand what a 'foetus' is.
    Why on earth wouldn't they? The concept of a baby growing in the womb has been understood for centuries. The Qur'an talks quite at length about the formation of a baby in the womb in its various stages.

    Oh but they are. This point is juvenile given what's going on in the world. Religious people have always been, and will always be, imposing. Just take a look at same-sex marriage. It doesn't affect them, but they still don't want it to exist.

    Same goes with abortions - they think life is sacred, and so no one should have an abortion.
    Same sex marriage is clearly outlawed by various religions. Abortion is not.

    Yes, religions teach that innocent people shouldn't be killed, but that's something anybody would agree with. They do not say anything about when "personhood" begins exactly, whether at conception, 24 weeks, birth etc.

    That is pure speculation - You're generalising something that cannot be generalised.
    Of course it's a generalisation - not all religious people oppose abortion, nor do all non-religious people support it. It's just a general trend

    As above, this is just weak. What is the standard by which you judge the objectivity or strength of what I'm saying? You're literally stating that you don't have any opinion, while at the same time claiming it's not possible to have an opinion.

    That sounds empty to me.
    I don't know what you think is so empty about "we don't know enough about this so we should abstain from making potentially risky decisions". This is true in a lot of situations.

    No. As I said above, this form of dichotomy never be allowed to exist in civilised society. There's no clear answer to the morality of slaughtering animals as food. Should we just ban it to make sure we're on the 'right'?
    There are many who would argue that we should.

    No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion - it's non of your call what others want to do with their body.
    This is a completely useless argument to be honest.

    In order for it to work you have to assume from beforehand that a foetus is not a person in its own right and that abortion is therefore not immoral, which is the same as what you're trying to prove.

    Besides, either way I can voice an opinion on whether abortion is moral or not. I'm not stopping anyone from getting them.

    Given how everyone mentioned it here, it's clearly relevant.
    It's not relevant to any of the arguments I have been making. They would still be the same whether God exists or not.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,317

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.