Pro-choice vs Abortion

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I simply showed you how that particular argument fails.

Point of order, no you didn't.

In fact, I have never seen a Christian comfortably or consistently explain why abortion is bad if foetuses go to heaven. We collectively seem to have agreed to look the other way and pretend that inconvenient doctrine isn't a thing when it comes to abortion discussions.

Because logically, all aborted foetuses go to heaven, but some people after they're born, sin, and die go to Hell would appear to be a very strong argument FOR abortion. By all means show me where I'm wrong, if you can.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Excuse me?

I'm not the one who brought up the 'they are going to heaven so it's ok' argument.

Ok let's start over with a little more information about what I believe. I don't believe terminating a fetus is comparable to terminating young children. I think maybe you're making a bit of leap there, knowing nothing about what I think. But I would like to think 99.999 percent of people wouldn't think those two things are comparable.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

it's human, and it's a being. There is no argument from anybody about either thing.

Actually there are quite a few arguments from many people, depending on definition. If you believe that being living human biological tissue constitutes a being, then OK. If You believe some level of consciousness or experiential factor is required, then not so much.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Ok let's start over with a little more information about what I believe. I don't believe terminating a fetus is comparable to terminating young children. I think maybe you're making a bit of leap there, knowing nothing about what I think. But I would like to think 99.999 percent of people wouldn't think those two things are comparable.

Even strong Right to Life proponents who claim they're the same thing are usually shown to consider them different with thought experiments like "the burning fertility clinic"

 

[dianaiad]

A woman should have an abortion if she does not wish to give birth to a child, or if she discovers the child has a serious health issue with which she cannot cope.

why?

If a woman does not wish to give birth to a child, then her choices are pretty good; birth control is exceptional, when used properly.

My own opinion is that if a woman is so certain that she does not wish to give birth to a child that she will have an abortion should she become pregnant, then she should either do something permanent to prevent pregnancy, or avoid engaging in the activities that might cause her to become pregnant until she is ready to accept that possibility...and give birth.

I utterly fail to understand why anybody thinks that an orgasm is worth killing for.

The health issue is a separate one, and should be between the woman and her doctor. Period.

Please note: I am speaking about consensual sex between adults who understand that having sex can cause the creation of a new human being. It's not 'fair' that women bear the physical cost of bearing babies, but 'them's the law of nature." What that means is that women, in particular, need to be more responsible for preventing pregnancy. If a man slips up, oh, well.....at least, historically that's been true. Still is, physically. SHE, however, has more at stake than he does, so pragmatically, she needs to see to it that birth control methods are used, and used properly. For both partners.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Begging the question.

Irrelevant...at the very least, a strawman.

Non sequitur

Throwing out single sentence name drops of fallacies is not a counter argument, both because it doesn't actually link the argument to it's would be fallacy and because arguments are not necessarily incorrect just because the logic is fallacious. (Logical Fallacy: Fallacy Fallacy)
But mostly because it has about the same effect as if I had posted to you 'false analogy' 'false dichotomy' and left it at that.

The act of consensual sex is not a medical procedure with modern rules.

Sexual consent is a legal framework with modern rules, and pregnancy is a medical event which has legal framework with modern rules.

Everything that human sex involves is directly involved in the procreation of the species.

Only if you're having really boring sex.
But the desire to make sex a single-use utilitarian construct instead of a multi-use sociological tool which can and often does exist entirely outside the framework of child rearing is notwithstanding.

soon as that happens, that new human life MUST be considered,

As I said, I am not a human exceptionalist, and I would rate the chicken you may have had for dinner as deserving more consideration then a human zygote.

But I do consider that human zygote. Just not more than I consider the value of body autonomy of the being that is actually sentient and sapient.

I believe that reading that 'disclaimer' would have been useful

I never mentioned anything in my post that had to do with your disclaimer.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I utterly fail to understand why anybody thinks that an orgasm is worth killing for.

Has anyone in the history of ever planned to have an abortion prior to having sex?

 

[dianaiad]

Ok let's start over with a little more information about what I believe. I don't believe terminating a fetus is comparable to terminating young children. I think maybe you're making a bit of leap there, knowing nothing about what I think. But I would like to think 99.999 percent of people wouldn't think those two things are comparable.

I don't know what you think. I know what you WROTE, and what you wrote was an assumption about my beliefs...and using flawed logic based upon what your assumptions about my beliefs are.

I believe that those two things ARE comparable, at least to the extent of consensual sex between adults who understand what having sex might result in.

As for the fetus/young children comparison....of course they are precisely as comparable as infant/adult. In all cases, they are simply stages of the development of a specific human life.

Now, if that fetus had the 'potential' to come out as a duck or platypus or pony, you might have a point, but no human fetus is going to be anything but a human adult, if it manages to live long enough.

Just like no human infant is going to be anything but a human adult, if it lives long enough. I honestly do not see the logic of any other viewpoint.

and, btw, my view on this issue would be the same no matter what my religious beliefs were. In fact, if I were to lose my faith in God...and my view of Him, I'd probably be even more adamant about it.

 

[dianaiad]

Throwing out single sentence name drops of fallacies is not a counter argument, both because it doesn't actually link the argument to it's would be fallacy and because arguments are not necessarily incorrect just because the logic is fallacious. (Logical Fallacy: Fallacy Fallacy)
But mostly because it has about the same effect as if I had posted to you 'false analogy' 'false dichotomy' and left it at that.

Sexual consent is a legal framework with modern rules, and pregnancy is a medical event which has legal framework with modern rules.

Only if you're having really boring sex.
But the desire to make sex a single-use utilitarian construct instead of a multi-use sociological tool which can and often does exist entirely outside the framework of child rearing is notwithstanding.

Wow, did you ever take THAT out of context. Shall I reintroduce said context? You know...this part?

No matter how many reasons one has for engaging in sex, the fact is....sex is all about procreation. It's FUN, because those who enjoy it are more likely to engage in it...and thus more likely to reproduce. Everything that human sex involves is directly involved in the procreation of the species. Every. Single. Thing, from the fun to the relationship, to keeping the couple 'together,' to..??? I personally can't think of anything about sex that is not first and foremost aimed at the production and raising of children, even...and perhaps not so accidentally, those acts of sex which do not themselves result in pregnancy, but are about the adults engaging in them.

I don't know about you, but I made the point that sex isn't boring. People wouldn't engage in it if it were boring.

Here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/age-un-innocence/201307/purposes-sex

Please note the little diagram about half way down the page. EVERY 'purpose of sex' is about...what does the article say...'fulfillment?" It's about relationships, commitment, intimacy, passion...communication between the partners. basically about keeping them together. Parents who stay together are (at least, historically) more likely to raise children to adulthood. It's not easy to raise children alone. Believe me, I know. I've had to deal with raising children both ways; with a loving, committed husband, and then, after he died, alone. I know which I'd rather do, and which was easier...and a lot more fun. Sex was an important part of our relationship.

I repeat: evolutionarily speaking, everything about sex, from how much fun it is to all the things it promotes between two people, are about...procreation. Even those sexual encounters that do not individually result in pregnancy.

As I said, I am not a human exceptionalist, and I would rate the chicken you may have had for dinner as deserving more consideration then a human zygote.

Do you? I disagree.

But I do consider that human zygote. Just not more than I consider the value of body autonomy of the being that is actually sentient and sapient.

I never mentioned anything in my post that had to do with your disclaimer.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As for the fetus/young children comparison....of course they are precisely as comparable as infant/adult. In all cases, they are simply stages of the development of a specific human life.

I disagree, and I continue to find your comparison pretty distasteful. I haven't much more to say to your points. Believe what you wish.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't know about you, but I made the point that sex isn't boring. People wouldn't engage in it if it were boring...

...I repeat: evolutionarily speaking, everything about sex, from how much fun it is to all the things it promotes between two people, are about...procreation. Even those sexual encounters that do not individually result in pregnancy.

I didn't say sex is boring. I said sex (specifically sexual activity at large) which centers only around action which can lead to pregnancy is boring.
I can think of many many many types of sex which cannot ever result in pregnancy (that occur both inside and outside human sexual behavior) and yet is still natural sexual contact which serves non reproductive purpose. But, as I said, sex being a multifaceted tool that has evolved far beyond something only used for reproduction is besides my larger point: why and how you're having sex is irrelevant to how consent works, nor do I value non-sentient entities as of equitable consideration as sentient entities.

 

[dianaiad]

Point of order, no you didn't.

Yes.

I did.

In fact, I have never seen a Christian comfortably or consistently explain why abortion is bad if foetuses go to heaven. We collectively seem to have agreed to look the other way and pretend that inconvenient doctrine isn't a thing when it comes to abortion discussions.

I have seen very few Christians who were all that certain that fetuses go to heaven...especially not Calvinists. I'm not a Calvinist.

Because logically, all aborted foetuses go to heaven, but some people after they're born, sin, and die go to Hell would appear to be a very strong argument FOR abortion. By all means show me where I'm wrong, if you can.

It's about knowledge vs belief, I suppose.

Have I used the fireman analogy here yet? Probably...but I'll break it out again here anyway.

We have two adjacent apartments on the fifth floor of a building. In both apartments, at the same time, we see that a man has tossed a woman out of the window. Both women land at the same time, and both live and are without injury. One man is hailed as a hero. The other is arrested, tried and convicted for attempted murder.

What's the difference?

Knowledge and intent on the part of the men.

The building is on fire. The 'hero' is a fireman who has tossed the woman into a huge rescue air bag, saving her life. His intent was to save her life, since the window was the only way out of the building.

The next door neighbor wasn't paying attention to the fire, his lack of escape routes or the airbag; he was just trying to kill his wife. However, she landed in the airbag, too, so instead of killing her, he saved her.

According to the logic of 'fetuses go to heaven,' both men should have been seen as heros, right? After all, if the fireman knew what he was doing and why, should it matter that the other guy was motivated to murder, not lifesaving?

It doesn't MATTER whether innocent foeti go to heaven or not. We don't KNOW that they do, so we can't use our belief that they might as an excuse to kill them. GOD knows...so He, like that fireman, can do what He wants. He KNOWS where they are going. We don't. Indeed, I rather doubt that many, if any, women who want abortions get them because that's the way to insure that their babies go to heaven.

Not to mention that murder is rather against the rules, no matter where we think the victims may spend eternity.

 

[dianaiad]

I disagree, and I continue to find your comparison pretty distasteful. I haven't much more to say to your points. Believe what you wish.

You disagree. Please understand that your disagreement doesn't automatically mean that MY position is incorrect or 'distasteful.'

..............and I don't believe I require the permission of someone who wrote:

If you can't get that straight, you're probably not fit for a debate forum. It's your religion, not mine bud.

To believe as I do about anything at all, any more than you require my permission to believe as you do. I think you are wrong. You think I am. That's what debate is about.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

As I said, I am not a human exceptionalist, and I would rate the chicken you may have had for dinner as deserving more consideration then a human zygote.

But I do consider that human zygote. Just not more than I consider the value of body autonomy of the being that is actually sentient and sapient.

That seems pretty much in line with how I feel about this. Both animals and humans out on the ground are more important than zygotes. I don't know if you'd agree, but sometimes I think that animals have a lot more innocence than some humans can. We seem to have more of a capacity for evil. Why should I contemplate a zygote. I feel more sympathy for the cows I eat, who pass into a butchering machines every two minutes or something.

 

[ChristineM]

PRO:
I am pro-choice, not because I encourage women to have abortions, but because I reserve the right to not have abortions.

Legislation takes the right away.

Every woman should have the right to choose abortion, it is her life, her body and no one else has the right to dictate what she does with her own body.

Also there are circumstances in which it is a requirement. Where the life/health is in danger, rape, incest etc.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

To believe as I do about anything at all, any more than you require my permission to believe as you do. I think you are wrong. You think I am. That's what debate is about.

Yeah but the thing is, you don't just take a dozen words I said and just plug them into some twisted situation. That's kind of why I was annoyed, you don't know enough about my logic to just apply it as swiftly as you did. More questions have to be asked between two parties before a debate can actually occur, and then it can occur amiably. And I really think that trying to drag my words into an association with a mass shooting borders on being quite impolite. That isn't something people generally involve in their discussions.

 

[dianaiad]

Yeah but the thing is, you don't just take a dozen words I said and just plug them into some twisted situation. That's kind of why I was annoyed, you don't know enough about my logic to just apply it as swiftly as you did. More questions have to be asked between two parties before a debate can actually occur, and then it can occur amiably. And I really think that trying to drag my words into an association with a mass shooting borders on being quite impolite. That isn't something people generally involve in their discussions.

Go back and reread the posts. You made the claim that I believed that all fetuses go to heaven, and therefore it should be acceptable to kill them.

At least, that's the only way to interpret what you DID write.

I responded by expanding the logic to it's probable conclusion; that if the victim being innocent is an excuse to kill him or her, then it would be acceptable to kill anybody/thing that is innocent.

but it isn't...and your very strong revulsion at my response is proof. After all, if I believe that infants and children up to age eight are innocent, then by YOUR logic (not mine, I didn't bring up 'innocence,' you did) it would be equally acceptable to shoot up children at a day care center.

You, quite rightly, saw that as horrific.

Don't you see that by the SAME reaction you had, I would see the mass killing that is abortion for the sake of convenience as equally horrific?

Again. You brought up the 'innocence' argument. The guilt or innocence of the VICTIM has absolutely nothing to do with this. I think that if it is wrong...to the level that caused you to react so strongly...to kill infants and children 'because they are innocent and going to heaven' (your words, not mine) then it is EQUALLY wrong to kill those humans when they are fetuses before they are infants, or toddlers, or children, or adolescents, or adults.

To me, it's THE SAME THING, because from the instant of conception, that human is unique; individual, apart from his or her parents. That human's DNA 'map' is the same from conception to adulthood...and if the ONLY thing that will prevent that conceptus from becoming a human adult is death, then it is no more logical to kill it in the womb than it is in a day care center.

Conceptus-fetus-infant-child-adult....all simply stages in the development of one specific human. I do not see that it is any more logical or moral to kill a fetus in order to prevent it from becoming an infant than it is to kill a kindergartner in order to prevent it from becoming an adult.

It is the same thing. Equally wrong, no matter where on the development line you want to call killing 'just dandy."

As well, if women can claim that they have more right to say what happens to their own bodies than any man does, then I, a woman and mother of five, have the right to express my opinion in this matter.

It's not as if I don't know precisely what is involved in the conception, bearing, birthing and raising of children, and exactly what women sacrifice in order to do so.

..............AND what is required to prevent pregnancy. My children were planned. I had more problems getting pre-natal care than I would have in getting an abortion.

I have some very sour memories of threading the 'let's schedule you for a termination' gauntlet in order to get pre-natal care.

 

[Koldo]

PRO:
I am pro-choice, not because I encourage women to have abortions, but because I reserve the right to not have abortions.

Legislation takes the right away.

I don't believe in natural rights. Therefore, in my perspective legislation is what allows rights to exist in the first place.

 

[Shantanu]

PRO:
I am pro-choice, not because I encourage women to have abortions, but because I reserve the right to not have abortions.

Legislation takes the right away.

If a woman does not wish to become pregnant, she must have taken the precautions during her sexual activities like contraception to prevent that. Once she is pregnant and unless there are medical reasons for terminating a pregnancy, abortion is simply an act of murder that society should not tolerate without punishment in place for that act. That means abortion requires legislation on when it is permissible.

 

[Kenny]

Point of order, no you didn't.

In fact, I have never seen a Christian comfortably or consistently explain why abortion is bad if foetuses go to heaven. We collectively seem to have agreed to look the other way and pretend that inconvenient doctrine isn't a thing when it comes to abortion discussions.

Because logically, all aborted foetuses go to heaven, but some people after they're born, sin, and die go to Hell would appear to be a very strong argument FOR abortion. By all means show me where I'm wrong, if you can.

Isn't that like saying, "I don't know why keeping you, personally, under the water until you cease living because I know you are going to Heaven"?

Illogical!