Abortion

[JoStories]

Without doubt. Maybe it's a nurse thing, my mom was an RN for 4 decades, and sci fi was her passion, too.

It could be Marisa. It is sort of science oriented, albeit sci-fi. Its still intriguing how so many sci-fi ideas have come to fruition. One wonders if these authors had some weird insight into the future of our world.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Because I can breathe and I have legal standing. A fetus can't breathe nor does it have any legal standing. Period.

When you say "legal standing" you explicitly imply that there is a legal definition..one that relates to breating to standing. since you have no problem stating that such a legal definition exits, do you mind pointing it out? Providing a reference? Etc?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Because I can breathe and I have legal standing. A fetus can't breathe nor does it have any legal standing. Period.

Please provide your definition of "can breath?" Also provide definition of your "legal standing?"

 

[JoStories]

Please provide your definition of "can breath?" Also provide definition of your "legal standing?"

Breath means the ability to independently be able to exchange CO2 and O2 without the need of another person. And I will address the other in a while on my laptop and not this iPad.

 

[JoStories]

Please provide your definition of "can breath?" Also provide definition of your "legal standing?"

The following is from an excellent article that reviews the issues dealing with the legal rights of the fetus, both historically and currently. I am posting a particular germane paragraph that points out the premises of the article quite well:

"The term fetal rights came into wide usage following the landmark1973Abortion case roe v. wade,410U.S.113,93S.Ct.705,35L.Ed.2d147.In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman has a constitutionally guaranteed unqualified right to abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy. She also has a right to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester, although the state may limit that right when the procedure poses a health risk to the mother that is greater than the risk of carrying the fetus to term. In making its decision, the Court ruled that a fetus is not a person under the terms of theFourteenth Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. However,the Court also maintained that the state has an interest in protecting the life of a fetus after viability—that is,after the point at which the fetus is capable of living outside the womb. As a result, states were permitted to outlaw abortion in the third trimester of pregnancy except when the procedure is necessary to preserve the life of the mother."

Fetal Rights. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved June 8 2015 from Fetal Rights legal definition of Fetal Rights

 

[BilliardsBall]

seems appropriate when talking about a medical procedure we use the proper medical definitions of the words we are using.

Unless, of course, you are merely making an appeal to emotion....

Repeating, I cannot find where this abortion discussion is lacking in emotion, or where there is statement at RForums that one is to follow accepted formal rules of debate.

Lacking ALL appeals to emotion is inhuman unless we are discussing in a formal debate forum.

One of the reasons I dislike abortion is the positive emotions I've experienced witnessing human childbirth. That isn't a bad thing or wrong thing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is a very significant difference betwen inspiring passion and emotion. One can sway a group to one particular side of the argument without the need for emotive precepts. Since this thread is about abortion, one side could easily sway a group by presenting well supported and peer reviewed opinions with passion but without the "emotive digs" that destroy the topic.

Absolutely. However, Jews, Christians and Muslims cannot offer peer-reviewed proof that souls exist. Nor should they be required to do so. The context of all three faiths is God is transcendent and need not submit Himself to laboratory testing at our will!

Emotion is so rooted in this discussion that people cannot seem to engage it without passion. And frankly, if those opposed to my stance aren't passionate in their belief, I'd rather they go somewhere else to debate. They are drawn here by emotion.

 

[Marisa]

Repeating, I cannot find where this abortion discussion is lacking in emotion, or where there is statement at RForums that one is to follow accepted formal rules of debate.

I find it astonishing that you cannot seem to grab hold of what Mestemia is saying. But, I suppose that's to be expected since you appear to rely on a binary thought system. It's amazing that you cannot discern the difference between presenting a rational, well thought out argument and expecting others to agree with you because you have feelings. Newsflash: we all have feelings. But some of us can set them aside long enough to explore the rationality of a particular perspective that is being foisted upon us. And if you want folks who seem to naturally gravitate to ration to accept your argument, does it make sense to appeal to their emotions?

Lacking ALL appeals to emotion is inhuman unless we are discussing in a formal debate forum.

Binary. It's not either/or. It's not "emotions making all my decisions" or "no emotions can be allowed to affect the process of thinking to any degree". Never mind the chasm between those two concepts that makes the Grand Canyon look like a small crack.

One of the reasons I dislike abortion is the positive emotions I've experienced witnessing human childbirth. That isn't a bad thing or wrong thing.

Congratulations, you have emotions. Welcome to the human race.

 

[Marisa]

Absolutely. However, Jews, Christians and Muslims cannot offer peer-reviewed proof that souls exist. Nor should they be required to do so. The context of all three faiths is God is transcendent and need not submit Himself to laboratory testing at our will!

Wrong. When you base your argument on this "fact", you will be required to prove it. Actually, when you proffer anything as fact, someone is going to require that you provide evidence of that fact. Many of us want to know as many true things and as few false things as is humanly possible. If you can't meet that burden, you should consider extricating yourself from the conversation because you aren't doing anything but offering yourself up as a momentary distraction.

Emotion is so rooted in this discussion that people cannot seem to engage it without passion. And frankly, if those opposed to my stance aren't passionate in their belief, I'd rather they go somewhere else to debate. They are drawn here by emotion.

Emotion is not passion. Generally, one who feels passionate about a subject is able to present an argument based on ration and fact. People who rely on emotions, however, say things like:

One of the reasons I dislike abortion is the positive emotions I've experienced witnessing human childbirth.

 

[McBell]

Repeating, I cannot find where this abortion discussion is lacking in emotion, or where there is statement at RForums that one is to follow accepted formal rules of debate.

I notice you dis not address the point...

Lacking ALL appeals to emotion is inhuman unless we are discussing in a formal debate forum.

I understand that all you have is appeals to emotion, which is why you are trying so hard to push your "emotions are good" agenda.

One of the reasons I dislike abortion is the positive emotions I've experienced witnessing human childbirth. That isn't a bad thing or wrong thing.

no one said childbirth is a bad thing.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wrong. When you base your argument on this "fact", you will be required to prove it. Actually, when you proffer anything as fact, someone is going to require that you provide evidence of that fact. Many of us want to know as many true things and as few false things as is humanly possible. If you can't meet that burden, you should consider extricating yourself from the conversation because you aren't doing anything but offering yourself up as a momentary distraction.


Emotion is not passion. Generally, one who feels passionate about a subject is able to present an argument based on ration and fact. People who rely on emotions, however, say things like:

I don't feel I need to prove metaphysical realities if they are also self-evident. I've met many people who say their soul is self-evident to them, and I've never found a skeptic who able to discredit their personal testimony.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I find it astonishing that you cannot seem to grab hold of what Mestemia is saying. But, I suppose that's to be expected since you appear to rely on a binary thought system. It's amazing that you cannot discern the difference between presenting a rational, well thought out argument and expecting others to agree with you because you have feelings. Newsflash: we all have feelings. But some of us can set them aside long enough to explore the rationality of a particular perspective that is being foisted upon us. And if you want folks who seem to naturally gravitate to ration to accept your argument, does it make sense to appeal to their emotions?


Binary. It's not either/or. It's not "emotions making all my decisions" or "no emotions can be allowed to affect the process of thinking to any degree". Never mind the chasm between those two concepts that makes the Grand Canyon look like a small crack.


Congratulations, you have emotions. Welcome to the human race.

I understand her position and statements. I don't think most people, however, treat questions touching abortion and choice from a pure standpoint of logic. I think they employ a great number of biases including emotional ones to their viewpoints.

I guess I'm protesting the foolishness of a poster insisting I somehow lose an argument by appealing to emotion. My objections are these:

1. This isn't a formal debate. We aren't taking a poll on who "wins". We all win instead by listening, learning and contributing.

2. Proselytizing isn't appropriate at ReligiousForums.com, but preaching is. It's what religious people do. I will try to do so in winsome ways, however.

3. I also try to be honest. It rips my heart apart and makes me want to cry and scream when I hear someone has terminated a pregnancy unless they had the most solemn reasons for doing so. I could restrain myself always, but that would also be inhuman? Yes? No?

PS. Do try to walk a mile in my shoes before you post telling me on each and every tiny point I made that I'm wrong.

PPS. Statements like "welcome to the human race" are intolerably rude IMHO. After all, I was already a member of the human race. I think people who make ad homs do lose formal debates (or should) but this isn't a formal debate.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I notice you dis not address the point...


I understand that all you have is appeals to emotion, which is why you are trying so hard to push your "emotions are good" agenda.


no one said childbirth is a bad thing.

Well, you understand incorrectly. I have appeals to emotion, science, the scriptures, common sense, etc. regarding my pro-life or if you prefer, anti-choice unless the mother is in danger stance.

 

[Marisa]

I don't feel I need to prove metaphysical realities if they are also self-evident. I've met many people who say their soul is self-evident to them, and I've never found a skeptic who able to discredit their personal testimony.

That should tell you something. I don't doubt that you believe you have evidence. I doubt the veracity of your evidence, and the fact that you cannot SHOW your evidence validates that doubt. Until you can SHOW your evidence, stop claiming it as fact. Each time you do, you'll be met with perfectly legitimate request that you show the math. If you choose to select a perspective based on your personal belief in that which cannot be proved, go ahead. Don't demand that anyone else must, though. It's really pretty simple. Don't state something you can't prove as fact, and you'll never be forced to prove the unprovable.

 

[Marisa]

Well, you understand incorrectly. I have appeals to emotion, science, the scriptures, common sense, etc. regarding my pro-life or if you prefer, anti-choice unless the mother is in danger stance.

Emotions: dismissed as irrelevant.
Science: unsubstantiated, yours anyway.
Scripctures: uncompelling, particularly to those who don't believe or don't believe as you do. For your personal edification, the bible describes how and when to obtain an abortion, so best of luck proving that a god who kills man, woman and child equally has any particular reverence for life, regardless of stage of development.

Your opinions are FOR YOU. You can share them as much as you like. But you don't get to write them into law.

 

[Marisa]

I understand her position and statements. I don't think most people, however, treat questions touching abortion and choice from a pure standpoint of logic. I think they employ a great number of biases including emotional ones to their viewpoints.

I have not done so. Nor, in my estimation, has Mestemia

I guess I'm protesting the foolishness of a poster insisting I somehow lose an argument by appealing to emotion.

That's because you lead with your emotions. And what you don't understand is that Mestemia, nor anyone here, is faulting you for having emotions. Outside of those emotions, however, you've presented no argument.

My objections are these:

1. This isn't a formal debate. We aren't taking a poll on who "wins". We all win instead by listening, learning and contributing.

Doesn't matter. If you want your argument to be seen as reasonable, base it on reason. Not emotional diatribes about the beauty of childbirth.

2. Proselytizing isn't appropriate at ReligiousForums.com, but preaching is. It's what religious people do. I will try to do so in winsome ways, however.

Preach away. Everyone loves being preached at. Should help your argument about as much as emotional appeals.

3. I also try to be honest. It rips my heart apart and makes me want to cry and scream when I hear someone has terminated a pregnancy unless they had the most solemn reasons for doing so. I could restrain myself always, but that would also be inhuman? Yes? No?

And here we are, back at full circle. Please wait until the train comes to a complete stop at Emotional Appeal before departing.

PS. Do try to walk a mile in my shoes before you post telling me on each and every tiny point I made that I'm wrong.

Wanna walk a mile in mine? Didn't think so. ETA: What exactly makes you think you get to set the tone for how I reply to you? Or how I consider your ponderings? That's rather patronizing.

PPS. Statements like "welcome to the human race" are intolerably rude IMHO. After all, I was already a member of the human race. I think people who make ad homs do lose formal debates (or should) but this isn't a formal debate.

On this point, you are right, I was rude. You are as well. But it's not an ad hominem. It's rather insulting to think despite repeated requests for an intellectually elevated argument from you, you continue to blast us with emotional orations.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have little evidence, if any, I can provide, to tell you that I know abortion is wrong emotionally or that babies and us have souls. However, there is a debate currently in academia as to whether metaphysics should be subject to traditional rules of science. Also, I will not apologize for being passionate on this or other issues. The real problem is without souls and other metaphysical clutter, we have little reason to think killing is wrong for adults or fetuses. Why do you think someone should be imprisoned for murder? There is no evidence to prove that grief is wrong. It's an emotion. Why jail someone for making someone else a widow or widower? (I'm being serious, not spurious.)

Thank you for your open and honest comments and your previous replies. I appreciate them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Also, I'll request that we both have the common courtesy to use the accepted monikers each side has chosen. Pro-life isn't a wildly inappropriate, meaningless, or deceptively dishonest appellation. It is anyone like-minded, is acting in bad faith; that the goal isn't really the protection of life, but the removal of the choices of women.

I don't think that rejecting the label "pro-life" necessarily implies that the person is acting in bad faith.

The label implies that a person's stance on abortion is informed by a generally "pro-life" view of the world: that the person's values and actions show a high regard for human life in general. This might be true for some people who are against legal abortion, but not across the board.

We frequently see people who are anti-abortion but are "anti-life" in all sorts of ways, e.g. by being pro-war. The anti-abortion movement is a mix of people who are pro- and anti-life, so it doesn't make sense to apply the label "pro-life" to the whole movement... regardless of your particular reasons for opposing abortion.

I think that the term "anti-abortion" is even often inaccurate, since the "anti-abortion" movement includes many people who support causes that tend to increase unwanted pregnancy (e.g. abstinence only sex ed or reduced availability of contraception). Also, in the US, it generally doesn't push causes that would encourage the women who might seek abortions not to abort (e.g. job-protected maternity leave on par with most of the developed world, or ensuring that the health care costs of having a baby won't bankrupt a new mother).

I think that last point is the most telling. I understand that many religions have objections to contraception, but I can't think of any mainstream religion that objects to treating new mothers with decency and respect.

At least in North America, the movement against the legalization of abortion has not generally advocated measures that would give pregnant women in the position to abort good choices besides abortion. In fact, it's been often the case that some members of this movement have actively opposed these measures.

The day I see a march or a petition demanding decent care and benefits for new mothers as an anti-abortion strategy is the day I'll stop calling the movement anti-choice.

Edit: trying to deny women the ability to get a legal abortion IS anti-choice. It may be - but is not necessarily - part of an anti-abortion position. It may be - but is not necessarily - part of a "pro-life" position. The term "anti-choice" doesn't imply that you aren't "pro-life"; it just acknowledges that the term "pro-life" is baggage-laden and implies things about the person or movement it's applied to that may or may not be true.

 

[Marisa]

I have little evidence, if any, I can provide, to tell you that I know abortion is wrong emotionally

For you. This is not a universal truth.

or that babies and us have souls.

Show me a soul or stop stating it as fact.

However, there is a debate currently in academia as to whether metaphysics should be subject to traditional rules of science.

I sincerely doubt that this is being debated among reputable scientists. But even if that's true, I have little doubt that "traditional" science, otherwise known as science will prevail.

Also, I will not apologize for being passionate on this or other issues.

For the umpteenth time, no one is asking you to restrain your conviction. We are asking you to present an argument which doesn't rely on "why don't you believe me?" and "childbirth is so special". Make factual statements and back them up with evidence. That's how you get people to believe you.

The real problem is without souls and other metaphysical clutter, we have little reason to think killing is wrong for adults or fetuses.

Horse pucky. Abortion is not "killing". It is exercising one's right to determine when one's organs shall be utilized in furtherance the life of another.

Why do you think someone should be imprisoned for murder? There is no evidence to prove that grief is wrong. It's an emotion. Why jail someone for making someone else a widow or widower? (I'm being serious, not spurious.)

Because it deprives another person of their life. Not a fetus, dependent upon the organs of another human being for continued development, but a person. You think you're arguing on behalf of a "person" who can't speak for themselves but here's the basic problem you face and thus far in this conversation have been unwilling to recognize: successful conception does not equate to live birth. Period.

Thank you for your open and honest comments and your previous replies. I appreciate them.

I have my doubts about that because there is much of what I said you refused to address. But you're welcome.

 

[Revoltingest]

. Abortion is not "killing". It is exercising one's right to determine when one's organs shall be utilized in furtherance the life of another.

I disagree with this view.
Abortion is killing.
I'd say it's killing a fetus, which is a potential human being.
(Some say it's killing a baby, but this is to lose the distinction between a fetus & a baby.)
I favor abortion rights for the reason that one shouldn't be forced to live as biological host for another.
IMO, the person owning the body has the control, & the fetus (being dependent) has no right to be born.
People who believe otherwise may certainly accept their perceived obligation to carry a fetus to term,
but they shouldn't impose this upon others.

Why might my perspective be useful?
Abortion rights depend less upon the definition of when life begins....a tricky thing.