This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Abortion Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
I disagree. I stand all the way to one side. Abortion is never ok. NEVER. There is no gray area. Not massive, not miniscule. There is no gray. Abortion is wrong. Period. I have stood the test to real life application, and have answered that test in a very real way in my own life, with the life of my most precious person, my wife. She faced death. Abortion was wrong. Period. End of story. Killing children. When is it ok? Not ever. What if? No. Never. But what if? No. How about when? No. Never! NEEEEVVEEEERRRRR!
I feel the same way honestly. But what Im saying is that most people (in my experience) fall somwhere in the middle. I hear a lot of "Im pro choice but personally I think abortion is wrong" or "I think abortion is wrong, except in cases of rape/incest/birth defects".
Personally I think a lot of the people who fall in this category have never been faced with the choice themselves and are just kinda half thinking about it tbh.
So MyTie, you are
happy
to let the mother and most likely the child die, when there is the option that guarentee's saving one of them?
Did he ever say he would happily make that choice? Just because a decision is right dosnt make it easy to bear.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Ok heres a question that comes to mind when I think about the abortion debate.
A mother and child are on a desert island with one weeks of water, and a rescue boat will come in two weeks. If they continue to share the water then one of them, and possibly both will be dead before the boat comes. The child cannot survive on its own and will likley die without the mother. Does this make it ok for the mother to kill the child? Doing so would garentee her own survival, and would be the option with the best chance of one of them making it out alive. But does that make it ok?
Post by
MyTie
Trying to devise some sort of moral scale off the top of your head, just reeks of self righteousness.
Well, there are some instances such as ectopic pregnancies where the zygote, which is a developing independent human, will not survive. Is it self-righteousness to recognise that?
There are other instances where the foetus, despite being a developing independent human, is not capable of feeling pain. I'd argue that it isn't pride that causes humans to accept that aborting in such instances is such instances is acceptable, it's an independent moral scale (and not an arbitrary one, it's specifically termed Utilitarianism). I'd agree that life isn't the absolute arbiter on such a scale, but rather reducing pain and increasing pleasure for everything that is capable of feeling either.
So if you numb the pain of a 3 year old, till it is in a coma, then beat it to death, it's ok because there is no actual pain? I hate these lousy justifications that fall flat with the slightest examination. Murder without pain is wrong. Why is it all of a sudden ok in this circumstance?So MyTie, you are happy to let the mother and most likely the child die, when there is the option that guarentee's saving one of them?
No. I'm not happy that my wife could have died. That wasn't something that made me throw a party. It was scary, and horrible. Epic twisting of my words. I hope you choke on your foot.
I disagree. I stand all the way to one side. Abortion is never ok. NEVER. There is no gray area. Not massive, not miniscule. There is no gray. Abortion is wrong. Period. I have stood the test to real life application, and have answered that test in a very real way in my own life, with the life of my most precious person, my wife. She faced death. Abortion was wrong. Period. End of story. Killing children. When is it ok? Not ever. What if? No. Never. But what if? No. How about when? No. Never! NEEEEVVEEEERRRRR!
I feel the same way honestly. But what Im saying is that most people (in my experience) fall somwhere in the middle. I hear a lot of "Im pro choice but personally I think abortion is wrong" or "I think abortion is wrong, except in cases of rape/incest/birth defects".
Personally I think a lot of the people who fall in this category have never been faced with the choice themselves and are just kinda half thinking about it tbh.Agreed.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Quite straight forward. So you will not kill something which is not conscious yet but you are okay with killing mother bearing it or baby who is going to suffer for the tiny bit of his existence or even both? MyTie, you have no right to call people insane cause you are disconnected from reality as much as any other person you consider insane. Your cruelty is fueled by ignorance and stubbornness, your views are sickening, cruel and immoral. I am done arguing and never wander why threads about topics like abortion die so fast, because you leave no room for exceptions or compromising....
Who said "killing mother"? One is a natural circumstance that leads to death, and the other is taking life in your own hands and killing it. I am above killing babies. I'm not perfect, but that is beneath me, and I will not compromise with it. Something as heinous as that is not worthy to be compromised with. If that is so unpalatable to you, then you don't belong in an abortion debate with people who have a different opinion than you.Ok heres a question that comes to mind when I think about the abortion debate.
A mother and child are on a desert island with two weeks of water, and a rescue boat will come in one week. If they continue to share the water then one of them, and possibly both will be dead before the boat comes. The child cannot survive on its own and will likley die without the mother. Does this make it ok for the mother to kill the child? Doing so would garentee her own survival, and would be the option with the best chance of one of them making it out alive. But does that make it ok?
No. You don't take the lives of other humans as expendable for some cause you feel worthy. It's a big part of why I got out of the military. It is why I am against the death penalty. I am as completely and thoroughly pro life as anyone can be.
Post by
Patty
Personally I think a lot of the people who fall in this category have never been faced with the choice themselves and are just kinda half thinking about it tbh.
In all fairness, I doubt the majority of people in general with an opinion regarding abortion have ever
truly
faced that choice. Not just those leaning more towards pro-choice than pro-life.
Post by
MyTie
No. I'm not happy that my wife could have died. That wasn't something that made me throw a party. It was scary, and horrible. Epic twisting of my words. I hope you choke on your foot
Right ... and yet, you imply in your "Abortion is wrong" post that anyone else who faces that prospect, and instead chooses to save their wife/themselves, immediately acknowledges abortion as a whole concept as "Ok". Is that not exactly the same word-twisting?
Another question -- why is the life of a child automatically worth more than that of an adult?
It isn't. No human life is worth more than another's. It is not for me, nor anyone else, to take a life to save another. No one is an adequate judge for those circumstances.
And, if someone does choose to kill a baby to save the life of their wife, than the concept of abortion, in those circumstances, they accept as 'ok'. That isn't a label I am hanging on them. That's the way they view it.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
No. You don't take the lives of other humans as expendable for some cause you feel worthy. It's a big part of why I got out of the military. It is why I am
against the death penalty
. I am as completely and thoroughly pro life as anyone can be.
Yet you would shoot someone for pointing a gun at you.
(Yes, I am shooting fish in a barrel. No, you don't need to respond. Yes, I've made my point.)
Thats not the same at all, the person pointing a gun at you is making their own choice and you are defending yourself. You cant compare that to a baby that has no control over its actions.
Post by
MyTie
No. You don't take the lives of other humans as expendable for some cause you feel worthy. It's a big part of why I got out of the military. It is why I am
against the death penalty
. I am as completely and thoroughly pro life as anyone can be.
Yet you would shoot someone for pointing a gun at you.
(Yes, I am shooting fish in a barrel. No, you don't need to respond. Yes, I've made my point.)
Thats not the same at all, the person pointing a gun at you is making their own choice and you are defending yourself. You cant compare that to a baby that has no control over its actions.
He practically begged for no response. He knows his argument is so convoluted that it wouldn't hold water. Let stuff like that go.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Is somebody pointed a gun at you, thet initiated the action, they are the one making the choice there not you. and picking at the way people word something is kind of a cheap way of breaking down the argument when you know damn well that its not the same situation.
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
So MyTie, you are happy to let the mother and most likely the child die, when there is the option that guarentee's saving one of them?
No. I'm not happy that my wife could have died. That wasn't something that made me throw a party. It was scary, and horrible. Epic twisting of my words. I hope you choke on your foot.
OK, so my choice of wording was bad, but then again, so was your reaction...or over-reaction.
I understand where you are coming from, and your point on this whole debate. But I also understand where the people on the other side of it come from.
Think of a sliding scale. On the far left is you, saying "Not Ever!", and on the far right is the pro-choice mob saying it's the womans choice, for what ever reason.
The two ends will never meet in the middle, because they both beleive they are correct.
So how does it get resolved? Same as just about everything else that is contriversial, we have to revert to the law-makers.
They give us a ruling that X weeks is the point of no return.
Be it right or wrong, it's what we have to work with. End of story.
Agreed. I still won't budge. Not an iota. To do so would be... unimaginable. I also won't vote for anyone that supports abortion in any way. In any form. I don't care if I agree with every other platform item. If they support abortion in .00001% of cases, I won't vote for them. I consider them unfit to represent me.
Post by
gamerunknown
Murder without pain is wrong. Why is it all of a sudden ok in this circumstance?
We're back to the original distinction: things that prevent future pleasure from a Utilitarian perspective. A non-ectopic foetus or zygote that won't autoabort is capable of feeling pleasure in the future, as is a three year old in a drug induced coma. However, the number of individuals capable of feeling future pleasure is limited in all sorts of other ways (going back to a few pages ago). Say there's another scale: is a society where someone may put a dependant in a coma and then kill them because they're inconvenient more conducive to pleasure than not? Is a society where impregnation is the maxim more conducive to pleasure or not? Most likely we'll fall somewhere in the middle.
kind of a cheap way of breaking down the argument when you know damn well that its not the same situation.
He's the one saying he's being consistently pro-life. I think individuals that are utterly unwilling to harm anyone other than themselves are much more consistently pro-life. In my mind, self-immolation is a useful strategy which prevents pacifists from being exploited. If one is kept alive only to serve the interests of a redundant population that is aggressive or retaliatory, one may cause that aggressive population to collapse by voluntary withdrawal (suicide).
Post by
164232
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
You can't both be right...but you can't both be wrong.
I think this is a false dichotomy. It depends entirely on how either party words their premises and conclusions.
If his premise is that societies that permit abortion will have higher rates of abortion, that doesn't bear out in reality.
If the antithesis is worded as "abortion has always been used as a tool for the emancipation of women", that's also incorrect, since the current form as advocated by Marie Stopes was based on the principle of eugenics.
It's entirely possible for every side in the debate to be wrong.
Post by
MyTie
So, I think what we are wrestling with is that if one of us is very likely right, the other is wrong, and vice versa. Believe it or not, I've been to this point in the debate, and here is my response:
If I am wrong, and abortion is not murder, I have played a part in hindering women's rights.
If I am right, and abortion is murder, than pro-lifers have killed babies.
Women's rights.
Killing babies.
If I am wrong, I can live with it. Unpleasant, and ugly, yes. Unfortunate? Definitely. If there were some magic 8 ball that gave us all the answers and I found out that I had hindered women's rights, I'd feel bad about it, and apologize. Now, if that magic 8 ball told you that all abortion was murdering babies, could you sleep at night knowing you had defended that? That is why I feel that the burden of proof lies with pro-choicers. The consequences of their position, if they are wrong, is unfathomably heinous.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.
