What's the Abortion Debate Really About?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If I decide to take a knife using my hand and stab someone in the neck it is an immoral use of my body.

In this scenario the vidtim is inside the body.

A better analogy for abortion would be if you were holding someone's wound to stop it bleeding. You can still walk away even if the person will bleed to death as a result. He doesn't have the right to compel you to provide your body even if he'll inevitably die if you deny your body to him.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

If I decide to take a knife using my hand and stab someone in the neck it is an immoral use of my body.

In this scenario the vidtim is inside the body.

This is funny. You keep proving my point by utilizing analogies that completely forget about the existence of the woman's body and how it is being utilized.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I would agree with you except for one thing: That most people know that if you have sex that you're going to either get pregnant or the other person is going to get pregnant . This is true unless one or both are sterile among other reasons.

I'm sorry, I don't see how this fact negates my point.

I don't feel as though I am shaming women in any way by saying that in a lot of cases, abortion is used as a birth control method. I am not against all birth control. My reasons are personal as to why I am pro-life.

No one is saying you shouldn't change your personal ethics for yourself. If you are against abortion, don't have one. It's your body, your life, your choice.

If I were to be pregnant again, I don't see myself contemplating abortion for myself, in spite of the fact that both me and my husband truly feel as if our breeding days are over. But far be it for me to believe that my choice and reasoning ought to be universally applied for all women.

 

[Falvlun]

Have you seen the new technology they use on some ultrasounds. We can see a real looking baby, authentic looking organs and all that. Makes it difficult for people wanting abortions as they do mandatory ultrasound probably to sway their opinions.

I am talking about a zygote and very young fetuses, for the "Life is sacred from conception" crowd. Conception is a zygote, a two celled blob.

 

[Falvlun]

We all looked like a clump of cells at first. I dont think its reasonable to judgepersonhood merely by how much pitty the person inspires TBH.

I use the word person because thats precisely what it is, its how a person starts.

Its only dishonest if I dont think its a person, by saying it is depishonest you imply to knnow intention and beliefs of mine that you cant possibly know.

Sure, you can believe I am lying (you d be wrong) but it would be very naive to think no one thinks its a person and thus anyone saying its a person is being dishonest.

So, would you also call the couple of grains of sand in your shoe a sandcastle? Are a couple of drops of water an ocean?

 

[Me Myself]

A better analogy for abortion would be if you were holding someone's wound to stop it bleeding. You can still walk away even if the person will bleed to death as a result. He doesn't have the right to compel you to provide your body even if he'll inevitably die if you deny your body to him.

In what way does abortion happen? Isnt it a direct killing of the unborn?

Even if you could, that would not be a moral thing to do, and I am not arguing legality but morality.

 

[Me Myself]

So, would you also call the couple of grains of sand in your shoe a sandcastle? Are a couple of drops of water an ocean?

Are the grains of sand forming themselves into a castle? Are the drips of water forming themselves into an ocean?

 

[Sunstone]

So, would you also call the couple of grains of sand in your shoe a sandcastle? Are a couple of drops of water an ocean?

Anyone who would honestly believe those things, or honestly believe that zygotes are persons, would most likely be in need of a much better education than whatever passed with them for an education in the first place. It seems inconceivable that someone could believe in those things without having been miss-educated.

 

[Sunstone]

Are the grains of sand forming themselves into a castle? Are the drips of water forming themselves into an ocean?

Oh come on now! If you actuallly believe that, then try getting an eight year old wannabe doctor to perform your next open heart surgery on you. Or get a five year old wannabe pilot to fly the next plane you ride in.

 

[Me Myself]

Oh come on now! If you actuallly believe that, then try getting an eight year old wannabe doctor to perform your next open heart surgery on you. Or get a five year old wannabe pilot to fly the next plane you ride in.

Thats like saying a baby human isnt human because it isnt even smarter than an adult dog yet and cant stand on its two legs.

 

[Sunstone]

Thats like saying a baby human isnt human because it isnt even smarter than an adult dog yet and cant stand on its two legs.

Nope. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying a five year old wannabe pilot is not a pilot, and a zygote is not a person. Just where you came up with your interpretation of what I was saying would probably require a team of psychiatrists to figure out.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Of course, there is no zygote. There is no complete DNA of the human being.

That sperm (whichever of the winning ones) could be many different human beings depending on ovule to match.

I certainly dont believe menstruation to be mass murder from the evil woman body machine.

Pulling out is done with the intention of preventing fertilization and consequently the formation of the zygote, though. It's done to prevent the formation of what you deem a human life, but you don't seem to call it murder like you do abortion. How is that consistent, given that zygotes are as "alive" as sperm until at least several weeks into pregnancy?

 

[Me Myself]

Nope. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying a five year old wannabe pilot is not a pilot, and a zygote is not a person. Just where you came up with your interpretation of what I was saying would probably require a team of psychiatrists to figure out.

A baby human is less intelligent than an adult dog, cant stand on its two lefs and can get way less of the language than the dog.

Yet we call it human.

Pulling out is done with the intention of preventing fertilization and consequently the formation of the zygote, though. It's done to prevent the formation of what you deem a human life, but you don't seem to call it murder like you do abortion. How is that consistent, given that zygotes are as "alive" as sperm until at least several weeks into pregnancy?

It prevents it. The zygote is not formed. You could as well say not having sex all the time is murder.


Then again all of these keeps coming from an actual debate on pro life pro choice, when I ve been in enough of those.


To the subject of the thread:

Most pro lifers are debating about the right of the unborn to live and the only choice they want to restrict from everyone is to kill the unborn.

Thats it.

 

[Sunstone]

A baby human is less intelligent than an adult dog, cant stand on its two lefs and can get way less of the language than the dog.

Yet we call it human.

True, but irrelevant.

 

[Me Myself]

True, but irrelevant.

As irrelevant as a baby trying to pilot a plane to determine personhood of the unborn.

 

[Sunstone]

I know some folks really are pro-life in the sense that their positions are consistently pro-life, and nothing but pro-life, across the board. But then you get the folks that mask themselves as pro-life, but whose positions are such that they could be more accurately called, anti-choice. It would be illogical to deny the existence of the latter simply because the former exists.

 

[Sunstone]

As irrelevant as a baby trying to pilot a plane to determine personhood of the unborn.

It seems to me that you think debate is merely rhetoric, because you consistently post statements that make no logical sense, but which are merely rhetorical in nature. Were you taught to do that in school? Just curious. I've heard some people are educated to "debate" the way you "debate". I'm genuinely interested if you were taught to do it the way you do it, or if it's something you came up with on your own?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It prevents it. The zygote is not formed. You could as well say not having sex all the time is murder.


Then again all of these keeps coming from an actual debate on pro life pro choice, when I ve been in enough of those.


To the subject of the thread:

Most pro lifers are debating about the right of the unborn to live and the only choice they want to restrict from everyone is to kill the unborn.

Thats it.

So, what you're saying is that you don't really consider it murder to terminate a to-be-life (in your opinion) unless fertilization occurs inside a woman's body--then it becomes a crime to end a pregnancy? Is that an accurate summary of your stance?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In what way does abortion happen? Isnt it a direct killing of the unborn?

Why does "direct" matter? The effect is the same either way (provided we equate the wounded person with the fetus, of course).

You aren't arguing for Catholic-style "double effect" doctrine, are you?

Even if you could, that would not be a moral thing to do, and I am not arguing legality but morality.

So am I. I'm saying that it's immoral to try to force that person to stay and hold the wound against their will.

 

[Falvlun]

Are the grains of sand forming themselves into a castle? Are the drips of water forming themselves into an ocean?

The zygote isn't doing that either. At least, not on it's own. It requires it's mother's body, just like the sand requires a sandcastle builder.

Besides, that doesn't answer my question. Are the grains of sand, right now, a sandcastle? After all, the sand could become a sandcastle, just like your zygote can become a person.

Does the ability to become something mean that it is that thing right now?