I am pro-life: Change my mind!
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Napp
1) So? Given it tends to be religious zealots who're against abortion the point stands
1) Again, so ? And what 'opinion' was restated?
3) A fetus is not a body, nor a person, by any legal definition (well except texas apparently) at that stage. Either way, mildly sexist to infer that the woman carrying said fetus is nothing more than an incubator and has no rights over her or it..
1) Again, so ? And what 'opinion' was restated?
3) A fetus is not a body, nor a person, by any legal definition (well except texas apparently) at that stage. Either way, mildly sexist to infer that the woman carrying said fetus is nothing more than an incubator and has no rights over her or it..
ooo.? strawman. no one said a woman is only an incubator.
rights are shared equally, not one over the other. hence rejection to legalized abortion, it violates equal rights. (but of coarse you disagree with rightz)
medicine and biology identify the children within womb as being human, and a body unique and identifiable individual. thats how/whu the children have their own health check ups within the womb to see if the heart is beating and that everything is okay. ultrasounds etc.
legal definition doesnt dictate biology. multiple humans have been legally defined as not a person, despite biological evidences. so what?
in regards to person, we just need to look at the dictionary as to how the word is used.
2. if you restate something, then that is the thing that is restated.
1. tends to be is an assumption just like the use of zealots. not accurate. either way :::
a. that should not dictate information as accepted or not .
b. arguements against abortion stem from/include biological and philisophical evidences.
as such. religious person? so?
Original post by da_nolo
what conclusive effodence do you speak of?
https://www.guttmacher.org/report/social-and-economic-benefits-womens-ability-determine-whether-and-when-have-children#
https://iwpr.org/iwpr-issues/reproductive-health/the-economic-effects-of-abortion-access-a-review-of-the-evidence/
https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-015-0259-1
https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion
Presumably none of this affects your position of no abortion under any circumstances?
Original post by Theloniouss
As far as I can see, the side of this debate you fall on is based on little more than an arbitrary and usually emotive definition of a person.
Not so. It is the "pro-life" camp that argues from emotion - "but it's a child!".
The pro-choice camp generally defer to the current medical and legal consensus - which the pro-lifers reject because it's a child!!
Original post by Theloniouss
I'm sure there are some hardcore libertarians out there who genuinely believe in bodily autonomy above all else, but the overwhelming majority of people who claim that position in this case are much less quick to get their placards out when someone is jailed for shooting heroin.
No one is jailed for simply taking heroin. It is usually for possession or more likely dealing (I believe the former should not be an offence).
I also think the "her body her choice" position is considerably harder to take when you are of the opinion that fetuses are children at all stages, regardless of how logical and legally sensible that position might be.
So you admit that your position is not really tenable. It is simply a belief.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by QE2
No one is jailed for simply taking heroin. It is usually for possession or more likely dealing (I believe the former should not be an offence).
Hardly an improvement, being jailed for simply possessing the means to take heroin.
Original post by Theloniouss
Hardly an improvement, being jailed for simply possessing the means to take heroin.
But your point was that people such as myself would object to people being allowed to take heroin if they wanted to. I would not object. As I said, I don't think it should be a crime.
And possession is only a crime because of outdated and unworkable laws based on a lack of understanding of the issues - much like the position of those absolutely opposed to abortion.
Original post by QE2
But your point was that people such as myself would object to people being allowed to take heroin if they wanted to. I would not object. As I said, I don't think it should be a crime.
And possession is only a crime because of outdated and unworkable laws based on a lack of understanding of the issues - much like the position of those absolutely opposed to abortion.
And possession is only a crime because of outdated and unworkable laws based on a lack of understanding of the issues - much like the position of those absolutely opposed to abortion.
I said "the overwhelming majority of people who claim that position in this case are much less quick to get their placards out when someone is jailed for shooting heroin." Presumably you are not part of the overwhelming majority, therefore we do not disagree.
Absolute zinger, that.
Original post by Theloniouss
I said "the overwhelming majority of people who claim that position in this case are much less quick to get their placards out when someone is jailed for shooting heroin." Presumably you are not part of the overwhelming majority, therefore we do not disagree.
Absolute zinger, that.
Absolute zinger, that.
I think you'll find that the majority of people who are pro-choice are also in favour of decriminalising much drug use. It is more the pro-lifers who think that drug use is something fundamentally and inherently bad.
Original post by QE2
I think you'll find that the majority of people who are pro-choice are also in favour of decriminalising much drug use. It is more the pro-lifers who think that drug use is something fundamentally and inherently bad.
You're entitled to your opinion, I suppose. Though I didn't say "not in favour of".
Original post by Theloniouss
You're entitled to your opinion, I suppose. Though I didn't say "not in favour of".
Are you opposed to the decriminalisation of drug use? If so, why?
Original post by QE2
https://www.guttmacher.org/report/social-and-economic-benefits-womens-ability-determine-whether-and-when-have-children#
https://iwpr.org/iwpr-issues/reproductive-health/the-economic-effects-of-abortion-access-a-review-of-the-evidence/
https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-015-0259-1
https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion
Presumably none of this affects your position of no abortion under any circumstances?
https://iwpr.org/iwpr-issues/reproductive-health/the-economic-effects-of-abortion-access-a-review-of-the-evidence/
https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-015-0259-1
https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion
Presumably none of this affects your position of no abortion under any circumstances?
Ill look over and reply to the links when I have more time . But considering your earlier reply and my origional question...
Do you suggest that a person changing their origional reasoning to why an act is moral when they find out their origional reasoning was incorrect (invalid, false, immoral, etc.) to maintain a justified position on said act is morally better than being a person who maintains their origional reasoning is correct as to why an act is moral?
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
Ill look over and reply to the links when I have more time . But considering your earlier reply and my origional question...
Do you suggest that a person changing their origional reasoning to why an act is moral when they find out their origional reasoning was incorrect (invalid, false, immoral, etc.) to maintain a justified position on said act is morally better than being a person who maintains their origional reasoning is correct as to why an act is moral?
Do you suggest that a person changing their origional reasoning to why an act is moral when they find out their origional reasoning was incorrect (invalid, false, immoral, etc.) to maintain a justified position on said act is morally better than being a person who maintains their origional reasoning is correct as to why an act is moral?
Changing one's position on an issue because of new evidence or rational argument has nothing to do with morality.
People's position on morality often has nothing to do with evidence or rational argument.
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by QE2
Changing one's position on an issue because of new evidence or rational argument has nothing to do with morality.
People's position on morality often has nothing to do with evidence or rational argument.
People's position on morality often has nothing to do with evidence or rational argument.
I dont thibk that addresses my question. The origional comment was about morality. So my question was about morality. Still ask to provide your thoughts on it. Related to t he question of coarse.
If not. What ever
(edited 2 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
I dont thibk that addresses my question. The origional comment was about morality. So my question was about morality. Still ask to provide your thoughts on it. Related to t he question of coarse.
If not. What ever
If not. What ever
I explained, quite clearly, that I do not consider the issues of morality and changing one's position on an issue on the basis of evidence or argument to be inherently or necessarily connected.
If you believe they are, feel free to explain why.
Original post by QE2
I explained, quite clearly, that I do not consider the issues of morality and changing one's position on an issue on the basis of evidence or argument to be inherently or necessarily connected.
If you believe they are, feel free to explain why.
If you believe they are, feel free to explain why.
Well, as said before, the questions were according to morality only, not a position on an issue. So I dont see why you would bring this up again if someone asks about morality itself.
Ill just answer my own question. A moral action does not need to have reasons for it changed to be justified.
Original post by da_nolo
A moral action does not need to have reasons for it changed to be justified.
Sorry, but that does not make sense, as a sentence.
Original post by QE2
Sorry, but that does not make sense, as a sentence.
Great
A moral act does not need to have the reasons for it to change in order to make it moral. Therefore it is not morally better to adjust reasons for a moral act compared to just having the same reasonings for a moral act.
Because a moral act in itself should already be justified.
This is my rely to my own question from perspective that morality is objective.
Origional question
What is morally better; to maintain reasons xyz to claim an act moral or to change origional reasons xyz to abc if origional reasonings do not support an act as moral.
For any who provide their own answer. Why?
If no one does. What ever. Thank you.
Original post by da_nolo
A moral act does not need to have the reasons for it to change in order to make it moral.
So you are saying that what is "moral" can be changed without providing a reason?
Seems a bit random.
Therefore it is not morally better to adjust reasons for a moral act compared to just having the same reasonings for a moral act. Because a moral act in itself should already be justified.
So you believe that what is considered "moral" should never change, and the original justification for it being "moral" will always apply, regardless of what new evidence comes to light or how societal attitudes change.
So you believe that slavery is moral and always will be, and any argument against slavery should be dismissed because it requires changing morality through evidence and argument.
Good for you
(TBH, I don't think you actually understand much of what you write)
Original post by QE2
So you are saying that what is "moral" can be changed without providing a reason?
Seems a bit random.
So you believe that what is considered "moral" should never change, and the original justification for it being "moral" will always apply, regardless of what new evidence comes to light or how societal attitudes change.
So you believe that slavery is moral and always will be, and any argument against slavery should be dismissed because it requires changing morality through evidence and argument.
Good for you
(TBH, I don't think you actually understand much of what you write)
Seems a bit random.
So you believe that what is considered "moral" should never change, and the original justification for it being "moral" will always apply, regardless of what new evidence comes to light or how societal attitudes change.
So you believe that slavery is moral and always will be, and any argument against slavery should be dismissed because it requires changing morality through evidence and argument.
Good for you
(TBH, I don't think you actually understand much of what you write)
you seem to change the context of the sentence. Your Purpose?
Im Talking about the reasons for an act to be moral not the act itself.
"A moral act does not need to have the reasons for it to change in order to make it moral"
Change make to maintain. Either eay a person is trying to make something moral which is not.
what ever you deem moral. You should not need to change the reasons for why you deem it moral.
If anyone would, then I question whether that act was moral.
2. For example. Slavery. someone thinks slavery is moral for xyz but changes their reasons with purpose to maintain slavery as moral act despite evidence against slavery.
If slavery or any act is moral, the reasons for it does not need to change. That does not mean slavery is moral under different circumstances.
Even at this point you changed the focal point of reasons to the moral act itself. Why?
okay so this post provides given links, links found in research the given links, and comments or highlights from given links
given:
https://iwpr.org/iwpr-issues/reproductive-health/the-economic-effects-of-abortion-access-a-review-of-the-evidence/
https://www.guttmacher.org/report/social-and-economic-benefits-womens-ability-determine-whether-and-when-have-children#
https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-015-0259-1
found:
so unable to find stats on this but there is arguement that these benefits are actually examples to how society continues to fail women. because there is decrease support for women who are pregnant. I think guttmacher is the link that depicts the wage gap decreases for those who obtain abortion where as those who do not have increase wage gap ( even though wage gape is based on being a woman not pregnant). therefore there is an unfair balance on women compared to men.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/against_1.shtml
"what women need for equality is not free access to abortion but to be given what they need to survive financially and socially as mothers:"
https://www.feministsforlife.org/the-feminist-case-against-abortion/
comments:
I think one of the links highlighted how there is high number of african americans receive abortions but do not recieve contraceptives? If I read this wrong I open others to indicate as such. my mistake. But if I read this correct, main abortion clinics defend their clinics by saying that the majority of pregnancy related services include contraceptions. So seems weird that availability of contraceptions would be lower than aboriton if they are offered at the same place.
also unfortunate to see how avilability in "black" communities are stouted as high and positive. many communities have larger number of clinics due to systemic racism to target african american communities among other minorities. however, there are mixed opinions on this of coarse.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/black-pro-life-women-abortion-genocide/
http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html
given:
https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion
also found:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/05/02/no-evidence-of-serious-mental-health-issues-for-women-after-abor.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-tied-to-sharp-decline-in-womens-mental-health/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-disorders-evidence-from-a-30year-longitudinal-study/59A90CBF3A58C58B342CBCFFBBFEBD2E
no comments or highlights
given:
https://iwpr.org/iwpr-issues/reproductive-health/the-economic-effects-of-abortion-access-a-review-of-the-evidence/
https://www.guttmacher.org/report/social-and-economic-benefits-womens-ability-determine-whether-and-when-have-children#
https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12905-015-0259-1
found:
so unable to find stats on this but there is arguement that these benefits are actually examples to how society continues to fail women. because there is decrease support for women who are pregnant. I think guttmacher is the link that depicts the wage gap decreases for those who obtain abortion where as those who do not have increase wage gap ( even though wage gape is based on being a woman not pregnant). therefore there is an unfair balance on women compared to men.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/against_1.shtml
"what women need for equality is not free access to abortion but to be given what they need to survive financially and socially as mothers:"
https://www.feministsforlife.org/the-feminist-case-against-abortion/
comments:
I think one of the links highlighted how there is high number of african americans receive abortions but do not recieve contraceptives? If I read this wrong I open others to indicate as such. my mistake. But if I read this correct, main abortion clinics defend their clinics by saying that the majority of pregnancy related services include contraceptions. So seems weird that availability of contraceptions would be lower than aboriton if they are offered at the same place.
also unfortunate to see how avilability in "black" communities are stouted as high and positive. many communities have larger number of clinics due to systemic racism to target african american communities among other minorities. however, there are mixed opinions on this of coarse.
https://www.liveaction.org/news/black-pro-life-women-abortion-genocide/
http://www.blackgenocide.org/planned.html
given:
https://www.apa.org/pi/women/programs/abortion
also found:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6207970/
https://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2018/05/02/no-evidence-of-serious-mental-health-issues-for-women-after-abor.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/abortion-tied-to-sharp-decline-in-womens-mental-health/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/abortion-and-mental-health-disorders-evidence-from-a-30year-longitudinal-study/59A90CBF3A58C58B342CBCFFBBFEBD2E
no comments or highlights
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
