Do you agree with abortion??

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadile)
    I didn't decide. The majority did which can be clearly seen from the fact that an embryo can be aborted. I mean, if it's not human, not a person then why in the world would it have human rights? Human DNA doesn't make you a person, if it at least has a functioning brain then it becomes reasonable to start thinking about that.
    "The majority?" What gives anyone, even "the majority", the right to decide which humans are "human enough" to get their rights equal to everyone else?

    It's rather frightening to think of the number of instances throughout history when the more powerful or majority of people have decided it's okay to kill a group of humans because, based on whatever definition they've chosen at the time, "they're not proper people like us".*
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    I don't believe him to think it occurs in a blink of an eye, but is responding to the way the presented actress was making her statement. Olivia did say that she is about to have her own child, but just after that she does explain that she should still be able to destroy that or a pregnancy. Ben Shapiro is criticizing how the message was presented.
    In the most overdramatic way possible, without actual substance, yes.

    none of this is relevant as those things are not human. Whether or not those things should have rights is not the same as asking, "should your human daughter or son have same rights as they would once born?"
    That doesn't matter. Please explain and justify to me why, e.g. a 12 week old foetus in the womb, has more worth/rights than a gorilla that is capable of sign language? One of them is clearly more intellectual and beneficial to the world, so why are you prioritising the child. Heck even a snail probably has more worth as it actively does something in the world.

    There was a time when "cut offs" did not exist. They were fought for by various individuals. Many pro-abortionists argued for late term abortions during that time.
    Yes, but they exist now. You can't argue about something that isn't even legal - that's like me throwing a hissy fit over robbery being legal...when it's not legal.

    I do believe the focus, however, was on who is being killed, not when. The child in the photo would not look all that different a couple weeks prior to that incident. As Ben says 1:22 - "I am tired of euphemisms." He wants to call the baby in the picture what we would call any "wanted" pre-born individual. My mum did not call me a fetus or group of tissues but "my baby."
    But the child was after the cut-off limit, so before the cut off limit it would not look like that, so either way you try and argue it... there's no point to be made. And the only difference between calling it a "baby" and a "foetus" is because the mother developed a special attachment to it; there's nothing else to it. Just because you're attached to something doesn't make it objectively more important.

    I agree with Ben to a degree, but I don't have an issue with the term fetus as that term is used for humans.
    Oxford dictionary. an unborn offspring of a mammal, in particular an unborn human baby more than eight weeks after conceptio

    Knowing word meanings is important.
    Oxford Dictionaries
    NOUN
    1. a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.
    synonyms: youngster · little one · boy · girl · baby · newborn · infant · [more]
    a son or daughter of any age.
    2. an immature or irresponsible person:
    "she's such a child!"
    3. a person who has little or no experience in a particular area:
    "he's a child in financial matters"
    (children)
    4. the descendants of a family or people:
    "the children of Abraham"
    (child of)
    5. a person or thing influenced by a specified environment:
    "a child of the sixties" · [more]

    Every definition I have ever found of the word child refers to all of us when we were still within our mother's womb. well, I am sure we would not use all definitions, but 1. and 4. are perfect. That is how the terms should be used and how pre-born children should be seen. Only reason why pro-abortionists say otherwise is to - dehumanize.
    Synonyms are not the same thing and can have subtle differences. It is also not surprising that the majority of people want to call a person in the womb a child, because i) the majority of people do not get abortions and thus form an emotional attachment and ii) as shown by your definitions list, it's heavily religiously influenced. To also reiterate what I said before, just because you're attached to something enough to call it a 'child' it doesn't make it objectively better.

    How is this an "entitlement?" How does that come in to play?
    There are no laws saying you can't decide what you do to your own body (excluding euthanasia laws), so you're entitled to do what you want with it. I literally cannot make that clearer.

    Otherwise, the DNA of the kid is not identical to the mom, which makes the child, not her body.
    Ummm no. If I had a skin graft using someone elses skin, that skin is still a part of my body. And as the child is in and physically attached to her body, it is part of her body.

    how are you using the word "its" in this statement: May you elaborate that first sentence?
    I think I meant her, but I'm not certain.

    When do you get to choose to kill another person?

    Both your examples are in error as a baby did not commit a crime. Can't sentence pre-born to death in that sense. I would argue that "pulling the plug" is not the same either. One in the process of being introduced to life while the other is on their way out. Medically, I think there could be some steep differences.
    Not necessarily. You could choose to pull the plug on a several hours old child; there would be no difference. That's when you get to choose to kill someone.

    based on?

    what is fully formed?
    Based on his actual words. He says "the BEGINNINGS" of, that is not full formation.

    Part of the argument for abortion is convenience. Did you skip the intro to this video? Even abortion clinics have provided statements that suggests convenience being an underline decision. Statistics on who does what for what ever reason indicate over 90% +/- (I am rounding) is not based on want; not health, not rape, not incest. This is success to abortion clinics.
    My problem is with them using the term convenience, I'm very well aware of why he said it but it's a disgusting term to use. It's a decision in your life about whether you want to give birth or not, and if you're going to say "well thats just a CONVENIENCE ISSUE" then lo and behold buddy because every single decision you make in life can be argued as a "convenience issue".

    I was confused by this portion. Not sure what is being suggested.
    By what I said or his comparison? If it's what I said, it's because comparing abortion to hitler and slavery is beyond laughable.

    There are many reasons why a mom might die while giving birth, but that was not based on allowing that woman to die. We did not have medical knowledge to identify why the woman would die and how to either a. prevent it or b. treat it. The birth rate grew between 1800 to 1900 simply because of breakthroughs in medicine.

    To kill another person just to prevent something that may be preventable or treatable is ridiculous. I'm sure you would agree. Medicines are advancing and can advance to solve the issue of health in regards to the mother - most incidences I have read about are not predictable however. For example, massive hemorrhaging.
    I would not agree. If that person was old enough to decide they didn't want to live anymore because of a disease that although may be treatable, is still painful, I would accept. Likewise, if a mother wants to make that decision for her foetus she is perfectly within her rights to as it's still a part of her body.

    If we focus our efforts and money on studying pregnancies then perhaps we can overcome many of the obstacles that still exist.
    And I don't dispute that. Of course more funding would help towards safe pregnancies... for women that want them.

    Innocent until proven guilty no?
    Once again, you cannot refer to anything as innocent OR guilty if it cannot commit an act capable of such a thing

    Why?
    Because then it's in the world, separate from the mother and living life on its own.

    Your position is saddening.
    My position is only saddening because, like most prolifers, you are heavily emotionally invested in an unborn foetus and quite wrongly prioritise its life over a great deal of things which are more important (a right to choose what to do with your own body being just one of them). The world would be a much worse place if we resorted back to banning abortion and having people seeking out 'back street abortions'.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    "The majority?" What gives anyone, even "the majority", the right to decide which humans are "human enough" to get their rights equal to everyone else?

    It's rather frightening to think of the number of instances throughout history when the more powerful or majority of people have decided it's okay to kill a group of humans because, based on whatever definition they've chosen at the time, "they're not proper people like us".*
    Tough. Though there's a difference between situations you're giving, and an embryo that's not even close to having thoughts. If you don't like it then become a dictator and force your beliefs onto everyone. What else do you suggest anyway?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nadile)
    Though there's a difference between situations you're giving, and an embryo that's not even close to having thoughts.
    And what exactly are you saying the difference is?

    I'm saying that there is a similarity to historical situations in that, based on some characteristic that has been chosen arbitrarily (whether it's race, gender, age/developmental stage, disability, mental state, existence of current or past thought), some humans are being deemed "less" than others, not "proper" people, and therefore fair game to go and kill.

    You might think your chosen characteristic is the "right" one and confidently say "there's a difference!" (apparently without being able to explain what it is, mind), but then again so did all those people who used to kill based on every other characteristic. If we've learnt anything about the more unsavoury aspects of human nature after reflecting on our behaviour throughout history, it's that mere mortals cannot be trusted to make that judgement call.

    If you don't like it then become a dictator and force your beliefs onto everyone. What else do you suggest anyway?
    I don't feel the need to force beliefs onto anybody when a reasoned discussion would do.*Besides, it doesn't make any difference to me whether abortion is legal or not, I'm not the one having their life taken.

    I'm simply an advocate of openness and transparency, and hope that proponents of abortion can be honest with themselves and others about why they support it: Because a great many people value their own convenience over the life of someone they have no emotional attachment to, and "but it doesn't fulfil my chosen criterion and therefore isn't a real person" is, predictably, the excuse they use to placate themselves.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've had one and I'm glad I did and I would do it again.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Just as there are exceptional circumstances in which we may unfortunately consider it necessary to take another human's life e.g. in cases of self-defence or perhaps euthanasia, I can certainly see that similar exceptions may need to be made in the case of abortion as well.

    But I agree with you, these instances are potentially more justifiable from an objective point of view, than the situations in which convenience is treated as more valuable than life.
    I didn't say that all situations within which convenience is used as a justification are bad

    I knew a chick who was on the pill, her boyfriend was wearing a raincoat, and yet somehow she still got pregnant. Even if we take to one side that she was just starting Uni and would've had to raise the child by herself (boyfriend left her a few days after conception, she didn't realise she was preggers until much later), it's very much (economically and otherwise) convenient, both for her and her potential child, for her to have had an abortion on the grounds that she wouldn't have gotten what she wanted out of life if she'd had the kid, and the kid would've potentially grown up either piss poor if she did go to Uni or with a resentful mother if she didn't.

    (NB: she had the kid, by the way. No idea how she's getting on, haven't spoken to her since she told me she was pregnant as she's a mate of an ex and we broke up shortly after I met her).

    As far as convenience is concerned, wouldn't you say it's also convenient for someone who's carrying a Downs baby to have an abortion? The parents would be under enormous stress, moreso than they'd expect from having a kid, and the kid would have a potentially *****y life due to its affliction... but that's merely dressing convenience up as something else as it's still more convenient, for all involved, to not have a kid with severe mental disabilities.

    The reasoning of "being cruel to be kind" stands, and it's still a good justification for abortion... but the undercurrent will always be convenience.

    Point being, "convenience" covers a hell of a lot of ground when you think about it (having a kid when you're not ready for one for a myriad of reasons is very inconvenient, or so I would imagine), which is why I explicitly said that the only reason I condemn abortion is when people treat it like a contraceptive because they didn't have the brains to wear one during conception.

    As for "more valuable than life"... well, that depends entirely on whether you think it's a human at the point of conception, or merely a potential human. But then the argument somewhat becomes a reductio ad absurdum because all of my sperm are potential humans, so by that logic I'm committing genocide every time I polish my noodle.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drunk Punx)
    I didn't say that all situations within which convenience is used as a justification are bad

    I knew a chick who was on the pill, her boyfriend was wearing a raincoat, and yet somehow she still got pregnant. Even if we take to one side that she was just starting Uni and would've had to raise the child by herself (boyfriend left her a few days after conception, she didn't realise she was preggers until much later), it's very much (economically and otherwise) convenient, both for her and her potential child, for her to have had an abortion on the grounds that she wouldn't have gotten what she wanted out of life if she'd had the kid, and the kid would've potentially grown up either piss poor if she did go to Uni or with a resentful mother if she didn't.

    (NB: she had the kid, by the way. No idea how she's getting on, haven't spoken to her since she told me she was pregnant as she's a mate of an ex and we broke up shortly after I met her).

    As far as convenience is concerned, wouldn't you say it's also convenient for someone who's carrying a Downs baby to have an abortion? The parents would be under enormous stress, moreso than they'd expect from having a kid, and the kid would have a potentially *****y life due to its affliction... but that's merely dressing convenience up as something else as it's still more convenient, for all involved, to not have a kid with severe mental disabilities.

    The reasoning of "being cruel to be kind" stands, and it's still a good justification for abortion... but the undercurrent will always be convenience.

    Point being, "convenience" covers a hell of a lot of ground when you think about it (having a kid when you're not ready for one for a myriad of reasons is very inconvenient, or so I would imagine), which is why I explicitly said that the only reason I condemn abortion is when people treat it like a contraceptive because they didn't have the brains to wear one during conception.

    As for "more valuable than life"... well, that depends entirely on whether you think it's a human at the point of conception, or merely a potential human. But then the argument somewhat becomes a reductio ad absurdum because all of my sperm are potential humans, so by that logic I'm committing genocide every time I polish my noodle.
    Personally I would consider abortion to be acceptable in all situations where, should the same thing have occurred with a fully grown human, it would also be considered acceptable to kill them too. For example, I would consider abortion acceptable where the life of the mother would otherwise be at risk, for the same reason that I consider it acceptable to kill someone if you genuinely fear that they will otherwise kill you. Or, I might consider abortion to be acceptable if the baby is likely to be born into such suffering that any reasonable person would prefer to die rather than go through that, for the same reason that euthanasia might be considered acceptable.

    What I do not support is, killing an unborn child based on the justification that "it's just a foetus, not a child, it doesn't meet such and such a criterion that I plucked out of thin air, therefore it's not a real person, therefore it's acceptable to kill it where it would have otherwise been unacceptable to kill a real person". This is where the definition of "real person" is simply chosen or manipulated to suit one's own convenience rather than being based on anything objective.

    I'm not saying that I think it becomes a real person at conception, or at 24 weeks, or at birth, or at any particular age. I'm just saying it's best that we don't attempt to make such judgement calls at all. Humans on the whole not such moral people, as demonstrated by a myriad of historical examples and behavioural experiments (the Milgram experiment being one of them). When we're told it's acceptable to kill, or when it suits us to kill, we tend to go ahead and do it regardless of any moral qualms there might have been to begin with. We then come up with all sorts of innovative rhetoric to absolve ourselves of the guilt. If there's a risk we may end up going down this route again, I'd rather we all chose to be safe than sorry. Or at the very least, I'd rather we were all honest with ourselves about what it is we're doing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, I've watched Ben Shapiro for a while now, and I'm very glad he has chosen to do another video on abortion since he is very good at explaining the pro-life argument.

    What bothers me the most is how people can sit here and type up some ludicrous statement that it should be the "woman's choice". In what world does any law enable you to kill another human being? At the end of the day, it's all down to convenience. It doesn't matter whether you cannot raise the child or if you were raped, this is a human life under discussion. It should not even be a question.

    I will typically speak up about this subject when it arises, because it just seems to me to be so blindingly obvious and a demonstrably cruel curse on morality. Watch a live film of an abortion and tell me that is not a human being that is being destroyed in front of you. Nobody has a right to do something like this - nobody.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inexorably)
    That doesn't matter. Please explain and justify to me why, e.g. a 12 week old fetus in the womb, has more worth/rights than a gorilla that is capable of sign language? One of them is clearly more intellectual and beneficial to the world, so why are you prioritizing the child. Heck even a snail probably has more worth as it actively does something in the world.
    The fetus is HUMAN. There is a difference between humans and other animals or there is not. That difference is applied to all humans; whether child, handicap, or mentally ill. If there is no difference then that Gorilla is more than or equal to your worth as well.

    you are saying you had no rights as a child in your own mother's womb, yes? If this is true, then you do not matter now and you have no rights now.

    There is not as there can not be any logical "deliverance" into becoming "worthy." I find issue by this concept being developed by those who already have this "deliverance" of worth. There would need to be some objective prescription to which all humans can identify.

    Now, the Pro-Life/anti-abortion stance has not been on who is more important or pertain more worth but that all humans are equal. From this position we can understand how abortion pertains an immoral wrong.

    Don Marquis:
    "What primarily makes killing wrong is neither its effect on the [killer] nor its effect on the victim’s friends and relatives, but its effect on the victim. The loss of one’s life is one of the greatest losses one can suffer. The loss of one’s life deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted one’s future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim."


    Above remark is for all humans, not just a few.

    Yes, but they exist now. You can't argue about something that isn't even legal - that's like me throwing a hissy fit over robbery being legal...when it's not legal.
    The point must be addressed. Use correct terminology and describe what abortion is - killing of a baby. That is Ben's point. Not complaining about something that was legal and then made illegal but correct identification of humans.

    But the child was after the cut-off limit, so before the cut off limit it would not look like that, so either way you try and argue it... there's no point to be made. And the only difference between calling it a "baby" and a "foetus" is because the mother developed a special attachment to it; there's nothing else to it. Just because you're attached to something doesn't make it objectively more important.
    http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-deve...mages-24-weeks
    http://www.babycenter.com/fetal-deve...mages-23-weeks

    http://www.babycenter.com/6_your-pre...-weeks_1112.bc

    From a few days to a couple of weeks there are differences, but they do not look all that different. Appearance does not seem to be dramatically different. Some how a few days prior to "cut off" there is nothing which turns into something?

    However I would stress that a person's appearance does not determine their humanity or worth.

    Concept for whom is important relates to idea to whom has rights. Either every human does, every human has it until it is loss, or no one has it. The thought that it appears or should be given only by measurements of acceptance is flawed. these things are subjective and not objective. They have changed over history and rejected over time. The different ideas contradict each other or do not pertain to word definitions or science. For something that is so flawed, I see no logic in their use.

    Synonyms are not the same thing and can have subtle differences. It is also not surprising that the majority of people want to call a person in the womb a child, because i) the majority of people do not get abortions and thus form an emotional attachment and ii) as shown by your definitions list, it's heavily religiously influenced. To also reiterate what I said before, just because you're attached to something enough to call it a 'child' it doesn't make it objectively better.
    1. A person making a decision based only on emotion can be flawed, but to have an emotional attachment to a person is understandable and does not indicate something to be incorrect.

    2. I have a greater acceptance to the idea that there is emotional investment in what terms are used. Different terms in some arguments could mean difference between being correct and incorrect. No one likes being wrong.

    3. there is no religious influence, that was one example to show how the term may be used.

    4. Even if there was some relation between an oxford definition of a word to some religion - which there is not - that does not mean it is inherently incorrect. Religion is not the basis of anti-abortion though it can drive people to be anti-abortion.

    5. you miss the first definition. A pre-born baby is a young human below the age of puberty. Thus a child. And is the mother's child. This is not religious - just correct terminology.

    There are no laws saying you can't decide what you do to your own body (excluding euthanasia laws), so you're entitled to do what you want with it. I literally cannot make that clearer.
    Incorrect - a person can not cut off their own limbs. Laws have changed over time but suicide, drug abuse, and many other acts against ones own body are or have been illegal.
    Age and ability to reason prevents certain individuals to obtain their own tattoos, piercings, etc.

    Beyond legalities there have been various psychological studies to identify acts against one self as being damaging - to body and mind.

    Ummm no. If I had a skin graft using someone elses skin, that skin is still a part of my body. And as the child is in and physically attached to her body, it is part of her body.
    Pretty well explained. Most coherent explanation I have heard. However, a physical attachment does not mean everything that is attached is a "part of." Comparing how an organ is connected to your brain and blood system/veins - an embryo is not. There is a barrier between the mother and the child.

    Furthermore, an organ or tissue remains just that. The child is a separate person, not a section of an existing person, which develops and changes into different cells. Biology recognizes this among more than just human species.

    In philosophy we can tell there is a difference. I think the best way is to examine what is missing. Take your kidney out and hey, you are missing something. A part of you is gone. The way we discuss pregnancy in medicine, birth does not result in a woman being without a "part of her." A part of her is not missing.

    I think I meant her, but I'm not certain.
    Okay, thank you.

    Not necessarily. You could choose to pull the plug on a several hours old child; there would be no difference. That's when you get to choose to kill someone.
    Two things to go over. Comprehending this paragraph/phrase I come to think how a couple or even a mom would have to come to the event you mention.

    The infant would have to be clinically ill to be related to an old or diseased person (cancer for example). Perhaps then there would be no difference, but if that infant is not ill then I do not see how there could be any similarity between a stable infant and a stage 4 cancer patient.

    Now, the words "pull the plug" I think of a person on life support at the end of their life. A difficult situation to recognize as this unfortunately can be someone in their youth. Again I do not see the similarities, however, between stable pre-born or infant vs. brain dead, organ failure patient.

    That's me. Still I would think in normal situations that these people would be allowed to die, not killed. There is a moral difference between killing and allowing to die.

    In regards to Ben - I watched video again and notice he says "pull the plug." With this, I think it can be argued that even at "end of life" situations is not to choose when that person ends their life. That person has come to decision by themselves or their body is so damaged that they can not make that decision. Which is different than a pre-born who is not under the same circumstance.


    Based on his actual words. He says "the BEGINNINGS" of, that is not full formation.
    So a fully formed or full formation of something changes how we look at a person or human development?

    This also changes who is important or we acknowledge a right to live?

    My problem is with them using the term convenience, I'm very well aware of why he said it but it's a disgusting term to use. It's a decision in your life about whether you want to give birth or not, and if you're going to say "well thats just a CONVENIENCE ISSUE" then lo and behold buddy because every single decision you make in life can be argued as a "convenience issue".
    Is that not the basic reasoning behind it? Are there not arguments for abortion that state a woman (or family) has no time, not enough money, etc. in order to raise a/another child?

    I agree many things can be described as the most basic description of convenience. What's for breakfast: home cook meal, fast food, or nothing - I need to work...that is convenience right?


    By what I said or his comparison? If it's what I said, it's because comparing abortion to hitler and slavery is beyond laughable.
    His comparison. Seemed like he jumped a transition in the explanation that would allow the audience to know what he meant. He was saying a and somehow got to b. Importance of more than one take/shot.

    Otherwise, I agree in comparing induced abortions to other events in history.

    I would not agree. If that person was old enough to decide they didn't want to live anymore because of a disease that although may be treatable, is still painful, I would accept. Likewise, if a mother wants to make that decision for her foetus she is perfectly within her rights to as it's still a part of her body.
    What? step by step here. Why is it okay for someone to decide if they didn't want to live anymore - to ignore treatment for a disease (the flu can kill, you know this? Elderly get it and don't react fast enough and could die from problems that progress) that could be as easy to treat as the flu?


    Once again, you cannot refer to anything as innocent OR guilty if it cannot commit an act capable of such a thing
    Then that is the essence of innocence. Is that not the reason why we refer to kids as innocent? 3 months, 3 years, 5 years - certain things can't be done or comprehended. Therefore they are innocent.


    Because then it's in the world, separate from the mother and living life on its own.
    Thank you for describing it.

    We are still in the world even when inside our mother's womb. We can not be out of this world unless dead or physically out of this world. We can interact with some pre-born and a mother's body interacts with her child/children on a daily basis.

    technically, no infant or child can live on its own. There is not a separation between child and parent.

    There is still an issue being indirectly attached and not a part of.

    My position is only saddening because, like most prolifers, you are heavily emotionally invested in an unborn foetus and quite wrongly prioritise its life over a great deal of things which are more important (a right to choose what to do with your own body being just one of them). The world would be a much worse place if we resorted back to banning abortion and having people seeking out 'back street abortions'.
    Pro life recognize that all humans have equal importance and worth. One is not over or take priority over another.

    As mentioned above, we do not have complete legal power over our own bodies. To take it further, we can not choose to make our selves crippled. We can not, in some situations, change our bodies as it causes health risks.

    We get into the situation in which a "right" must be explained. Now I can observe that right to choose what occurs with our body. Historically, perhaps you may agree, some rights are more important than others. One being life.

    This is where we can compare induced abortion to history events. Like deciding it is okay to kill people when it benefits you and your own liberties. Some people will be more emotionally invested into the holocaust, but that does not deter nor defeat their cause. Emotions does not mean a person is wrong or incorrect.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pro-choice, but I'll grant a lot of what Ben is saying. The term-limits are arbitrary, and I think survivability outside the womb is an absolutely irrelevant criteria for whether or not abortion should be permitted. From my perspective, the problem is that 'human rights' is a misnomer.

    We have to understand what human rights really represent, why it's wrong to kill a human but not a cow, or an ant or a germ. The reason is that humans are intelligent - we understand life, we have goals and aspirations, and we will suffer if we believe we are at risk of being killed before having the right to see those goals fulfilled. Human society is happy when people don't fear for their lives. Cows, by contrast, don't understand their situation, or have an awareness of their lives. If you can kill them in a suffering-free manner, after a happy life of grazing in a field, what's the harm? It's better to be happy and then disappear from the world spontaneously than to never have been happy at all. At the very least, it's not worse.

    If we encountered an intelligent alien race, we wouldn't deny them basic human rights simply because they don't have human DNA. So why then do we give human rights to a foetus simply because they do have human DNA?

    The important insight is that human foetuses are less intelligent than cows, or pigs, and at certain stages less even than ants. Their human DNA is not the determiner of their moral value - their intelligence (sentience) and capacity for suffering is. A foetus should be abortable at any stage in my opinion before it is capable of being considered sentient.

    Worth reading:

    This paper from the British Journal of Medical Ethics argues similar points to Ben Shapiro, that term limits make no sense and that a newborn baby is not obviously morally different from a late-stage foetus; but instead concludes that abortion should therefore be allowed even after the baby is born. Definitely worth a read if you want to fairly judge both sides of the argument.

    http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lavaridge)
    I'm pro-choice, but I'll grant a lot of what Ben is saying. The term-limits are arbitrary, and I think survivability outside the womb is an absolutely irrelevant criteria for whether or not abortion should be permitted. From my perspective, the problem is that 'human rights' is a misnomer.

    We have to understand what human rights really represent, why it's wrong to kill a human but not a cow, or an ant or a germ. The reason is that humans are intelligent - we understand life, we have goals and aspirations, and we will suffer if we believe we are at risk of being killed before having the right to see those goals fulfilled. Human society is happy when people don't fear for their lives. Cows, by contrast, don't understand their situation, or have an awareness of their lives. If you can kill them in a suffering-free manner, after a happy life of grazing in a field, what's the harm? It's better to be happy and then disappear from the world spontaneously than to never have been happy at all. At the very least, it's not worse.

    If we encountered an intelligent alien race, we wouldn't deny them basic human rights simply because they don't have human DNA. So why then do we give human rights to a foetus simply because they do have human DNA?

    The important insight is that human foetuses are less intelligent than cows, or pigs, and at certain stages less even than ants. Their human DNA is not the determiner of their moral value - their intelligence (sentience) and capacity for suffering is. A foetus should be abortable at any stage in my opinion before it is capable of being considered sentient.

    Worth reading

    This paper from the British Journal of Medical Ethics argues similar points to Ben Shapiro, that term limits make no sense and that a newborn baby is not obviously morally different from a late-stage foetus; but instead concludes that abortion should therefore be allowed even after the baby is born. Definitely worth a read if you want to fairly judge both sides of the argument.

    http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full
    There is an issue for "humans rights." That issue is understanding it.

    I think it important to note that the word "human" before "rights" is used as an adjective; describing type. We say "human rights" to understand these things are for us. They are intended for us. "Animal rights" is stated with intent to describe a type. The same is true about "alien rights" in which there would be an expectation of behavior towards them.

    Thus we would think that in order to obtain or have human rights, the only criteria would be dependent on an organism's DNA as this identifies us as HUMAN. Some would say no. As mentioned in the video, characteristics of adults or other more developed human beings are selected as key determinants which sanctify our quality. Yet these things are easily loss and carry so much variety that a generalization would fail to describe it. Even inelegance is varied in a way that some adults do not comprehend life or reality demanded by those who require it for quality.

    Infants days after birth to even months may carry less mental development than cows and pigs and elephants and dolphins/whales - but we do not deny them their humanity. Why? they are human. We think of it as insanity when a parent kills their born child. We cry out in vengeance when a delusional individual harms these children and society cries for the children who must suffer.

    Why? because of their inelegance or importance? NO. because they are human. we are a race of communities - a social creature that acts on social tendencies. Much as an elephant recognizes and respects its own decease, we recognize our own. Our own humanity, that which a pre-born pertains as it is in our DNA.
    ------:eek:
    To understand "rights" we must comprehend what they represent and where they come from. How does one have rights? To you, Lavaridge, I ask - what are rights? If anyone else wishes to pick this mantle up, your challenge is welcomed.

    Once we may clarify what we mean by rights (right to prosperity, right to vote, etc.) we can identify where these rights come from. Are they natural or given by man?

    Even in trying to identify this is difficult as some would think it subjective and others - well can plainly ignore and desire to act outside of these rights. From Sparta to Bełżec and other groups through out history ignore another's right.



    There are many rights, that we can as much state - but which among them if loss will result in all others to perish? Perhaps we can identify not just what is most important for us humans but to know which best represents humanity. ... this is life.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    100% PRO-CHOICE
    :dance::dance::dance:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Pro-abortion. However it's a very serious option to take and shouldn't be used carelessly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by buyabortionpills)
    100% PRO-CHOICE
    :dance::dance::dance:
    of coarse you are. you make money from it.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Infants days after birth to even months may carry less mental development than cows and pigs and elephants and dolphins/whales - but we do not deny them their humanity. Why? they are human. We think of it as insanity when a parent kills their born child. We cry out in vengeance when a delusional individual harms these children and society cries for the children who must suffer.
    And we largely don't think of it as insanity when someone has an abortion. Clearly, emotionally, we're capable of distinguishing between unborn foetuses and 'people'. So I don't think it can be argued that abortion harms the moral fabric of society or anything along those lines.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Why? because of their inelegance or importance? NO. because they are human. we are a race of communities - a social creature that acts on social tendencies. Much as an elephant recognizes and respects its own decease, we recognize our own. Our own humanity, that which a pre-born pertains as it is in our DNA.
    Yes, we have instincts which encourage us not to harm babies. But these don't align with the real ethical situation, and in cases where our instincts horribly misfire we have to learn to detach ourselves from them. It really is that simple. It ties in well with the "You don't have to have an abortion yourself, but respect my right to choose" argument commonly made. You may not be able to detach yourself from your instincts in that way, and can't bring yourself to have an abortion, but you have to accept that you have no ethical grounds for stopping someone else from making the choice for themselves.

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    To you, Lavaridge, I ask - what are rights? If anyone else wishes to pick this mantle up, your challenge is welcomed.
    First and foremost, rights are social constructs, you can't derive an absolute law like "All citizens have the right to vote" from nature. We simply recognize that society is happer and more stable when this is the case, and it helps to satisfy our basic desire for freedom. If our brains were wired differently, such that faithful service was the only thing that made us happy; I wouldn't advocate for this right (unless my boss told me to).

    (Original post by da_nolo)
    There are many rights, that we can as much state - but which among them if loss will result in all others to perish? Perhaps we can identify not just what is most important for us humans but to know which best represents humanity. ... this is life.
    Not for us humans, but for us sentient humans. Foetuses don't care anymore about life than crustaceans, to pick a life form at random, and it's harder to say that a right to life is any more representative of one than the other. You're still guilty, I think, of boxing adult humans with foetuses for moral purposes. This is the problem. We should box sentient creatures who care about life together, and happily put the unborn in the same box as other creatures who share their identity (none), priorities (none) and capability for suffering (none to little).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pro-choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah if the mother aint fit for the job, get shot of the little ****er. Too many single teen mothers that are draining this country, you'd be doing mother and baby a favour if anything.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lavaridge)
    And we largely don't think of it as insanity when someone has an abortion. Clearly, emotionally, we're capable of distinguishing between unborn foetuses and 'people'. So I don't think it can be argued that abortion harms the moral fabric of society or anything along those lines.
    This was not always so. Society changes over time in terms of psychology. Some times for better, some times worse. I don't think such a topic could adequately be seen as a good or bad based on how society reacts. However your use of "society" is not quoting "us" as a whole.

    Emotionally, we are still calling a wanted child "our baby" - connecting parenthood to that child. This I would suggests describes an emotional disconnect when looking at induced abortions and arguments for it. Something that should not be and does not incite logic or truth. Since determination of whom are human or are people (as history would show) is best not determined by emotions, society, or government.

    In actuality, the words used do not even support the claim that pre-born humans are not people. very definition of people is one or more persons or humans. just need a group of pregnant ladies together.


    Yes, we have instincts which encourage us not to harm babies. But these don't align with the real ethical situation, and in cases where our instincts horribly misfire we have to learn to detach ourselves from them. It really is that simple. It ties in well with the "You don't have to have an abortion yourself, but respect my right to choose" argument commonly made. You may not be able to detach yourself from your instincts in that way, and can't bring yourself to have an abortion, but you have to accept that you have no ethical grounds for stopping someone else from making the choice for themselves.
    That's not a misfire. Desire to help another human is never a misfire in ethics or emotions.

    Ethical grounds would be that, one human is being killed. I find it immoral and unjust to kill that human, therefore I desire to help that human. How is this not ethical grounds?

    First and foremost, rights are social constructs, you can't derive an absolute law like "All citizens have the right to vote" from nature. We simply recognize that society is happier and more stable when this is the case, and it helps to satisfy our basic desire for freedom. If our brains were wired differently, such that faithful service was the only thing that made us happy; I wouldn't advocate for this right (unless my boss told me to).
    I agree with the "right" to vote not being from nature (though it may be argued), but all life forms pertain a desire or function to live. Even the most simplest life form among us grow and divide. grow and divide. In a limitless environment - expansion would be limitless.

    This desire/function is part of why many (such as John Locke) have stated that there should be a right to life. Even as a social construct: ability to vote, read, choose, etc. is based on living. Our desire to live - so much so that those of us who wish to end their own life is viewed as there being something wrong. Likewise, our cry for vengeance and sorrow when a person is killed - is constructed upon the idea that our greatest gift and being was stolen.

    Which we may reflect on why women have post abortion stress and depression - as our very nature and social construct reek havoc on the conscious. A human is killed. That was bad.

    Instead of proper reflection, we are "taught" by pro-abortion groups (mostly those who supply induced abortions) to have a disconnect. Thus some generate that disconnect and respond differently. But our response does not fortify that which is ethical.

    Not for us humans, but for us sentient humans. Foetuses don't care anymore about life than crustaceans, to pick a life form at random, and it's harder to say that a right to life is any more representative of one than the other. You're still guilty, I think, of boxing adult humans with foetuses for moral purposes. This is the problem. We should box sentient creatures who care about life together, and happily put the unborn in the same box as other creatures who share their identity (none), priorities (none) and capability for suffering (none to little).
    There is not enough scientific research to describe how a human thinks in the womb (or in what way), but there is enough to acknowledge thought, pain, motor skills, and more.

    As pointed out earlier, all life forms have a function/desire to live. To use an adult's perspective or way of thinking to analyze an infant's or fetus's way of thinking would be inadequate.

    Furthermore, those who want to commit suicide, those in a comma, infants, toddlers, may not care about life same as an adult such as yourself.

    Mammals such as elephants comprehend death and life - in which we can not logically state "do not care about life." I also find fault to categorize any human as compatible or comparable to that of plants, fungi, and viruses.

    The concept of "right to life" is not based on wants or sentient; but what should be.

    Otherwise, my "boxing" is not for moral purposes. I am considering the only logical application of biology to identify who is human.

    Why is this only logical? because it does not differ from circumstance or opinion. There is no corruption or bias.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Disagree apart from incest, rape and danger to mother's or child's life. If you don't want to take care of it, you can put it up for adoption. If you feel to guilty doing that, you should've thought of that before you ****ed a guy.
    just out of curiosity, why do you agree with abortion in incest and rape? what is the child's fault in the rape of its mother or father? why would murdering it be OK in those cases? does rape of one person justify the murder of another? I mean, in this country rape doesn't even justify execution of the rapist so how could it justify executing the child?

    I believe that abortion should be illegal in all cases except when the child endangers the life of its mother in which case abortion is only justified after exhausting all avenues of saving the child.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobBobson)
    Disagree apart from incest, rape and danger to mother's or child's life. If you don't want to take care of it, you can put it up for adoption. If you feel to guilty doing that, you should've thought of that before you ****ed a guy.
    Love that casual sexism in there. Don't expect anything less from you though, Nigel.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 5, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Wake up and smell the...
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

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