Respectful debate about abortion, anyone? (Israel, polls, regular, radical)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So then are you a murderer because you eat food? I mean, what does it matter if life is "human" or not human? Is human-ness all that matters?
If an intelligent alien in a space ship came to earth, it would be okay to kill them, because they're not human? Is a particular kind of DNA what matters?
Surely what matters, the reason why murder is even a concept in the first place, is the fact that we are self-aware, and able to even have this discussion. And have feelings about it. Therefore, we can be murdered.
Which is why abortion is not the ending of a person's life. You can't end that which hasn't developed into existence yet.
If you eat meat you are complicit in ending the lives of animals in order to consume them, yes, absolutely.
Abortion ends a life. If a fetus or embryo has not developed into existence yet as you claim, what are you aborting?
And, what is the big difference? That was my point. An embryo is also at that point only a potential new human. Especially since, as noted earlier in the thread, most, or half of them die within weeks.
It's tiny biological matter... I'd really like to hear someone argue a rational, non-religious reason (without mentioning souls or anything spiritual/emotional), why some cells are a person, with a person's legal right to not be harmed. I'm not being facetious... I'd like to hear a good argument for it. One that doesn't involve "oh, but just look at it...", etc.
I mentioned the boat thing, which may not be a perfect analogy, but the point is that the parts that could be developed (by the right environment) to compose a boat, is, at that point, definitely not a boat.
I'll admit the fair point that was made earlier, that conception is at least one of the least arbitrary points you can make for when a life begins, as is birth, but for a lot of reasons I think birth is a much better arbitrary event that society can deem as the point when a new developing person's life and rights begin.
And as far as some other point in between... like as far as a certain amount of weeks post conception, I suppose I'm open to hearing out an argument for that, if it's reasonable, and if it's not anti-woman and anti-autonomy.
We can debate different aspects of this topic... but still at the end of the day it comes down to, wanting people being forced to carry a pregnancy to term, against their will. And that clearly is a horrific abuse of what is 100% a person, a grown human woman. And it's an act of child abuse as soon as the child is born.
I can understand people who are saddened by abortion, as an extinguishing of life. I can't understand an obsession with it. I can't understand such a lack of respect and concern for women. And I absolutely can't understand that people would stand outside a clinic with a shotgun, and murder someone in cold blood. People with lives and families and everything. Versus... a tiny clump cells going through simple biological processes...
Religious beliefs should play no role in formulating public policy in a country that believes in separation of church and state. Frankly, when a pro-life/anti-abortion argument is stated purely in religious terms some of us discount it for that purpose alone.
So then are you a murderer because you eat food? I mean, what does it matter if life is "human" or not human? Is human-ness all that matters?
If an intelligent alien in a space ship came to earth, it would be okay to kill them, because they're not human? Is a particular kind of DNA what matters?
Surely what matters, the reason why murder is even a concept in the first place, is the fact that we are self-aware, and able to even have this discussion. And have feelings about it. Therefore, we can be murdered.
Which is why abortion is not the ending of a person's life. You can't end that which hasn't developed into existence yet.
Being human matters, because that's what we are, and we look out for each other, value and respect other humans. Babies are human. Even unborn babies, though they may not be legally persons, are still demonstrably human.
When did being self-aware become a criterion for ability to be murdered? A newborn or two-year-old cannot have a discussion about killing vs . murder, but if someone breaks into your house and kills your baby or toddler, it is murder.
I'm going to assume your questions about animals being used for food and aliens are facetious.
You're still missing the point. If a person believes something is fundamentally immoral, be it abortion, slavery, spanking a child, dog fighting, whatever, that person is not going to be at ease by simply not participating in the act him/herself. That person truly believes no one should engage in that immoral act.
I'll say it again, I am prochoice. But the "Don't like abortion? Then don't have one," doesn't make any sense to me, so it's certainly not going to make any sense to a staunch prolifer. I find it annoying and dismissive. If your goal is to help prolifers understand why you don't think of abortion as murder, one line zingers is absolutely the worst way to do it.
For the record, I have written out paragraphs over a few pages in this thread, explaining my reasoning.
For me to even use this misleading marketing term "pro-life", would be to say that I hate women, and want them to suffer. Let alone for me to have any kind of respect for such a horrifying position.
The 2 sides of the national "debate", are, Christian zealots who want to force all women to have to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and, people who don't want to do that. I mean, that, is what all this SCOTUS stuff in the news boils down to. That's why all this topic is relevant. If it was a matter of whether we individually value abortion or have a problem with it or not, then no one would care.
How is it even a "debate"? I mean, let's see. Widespread, authoritarian mass suffering, or, valuing privacy and basic autonomy and separation of religion and the law that applies to everyone... it's... just kind of difficult to debate that one in any kind of respectful good faith.
But, I'll try my best to do so. I'll ask anyone again, why exactly would abortion be murder? What is murder, exactly? Why is it a thing, why is that a concept? And if someone's answer is related to their religious type of view, then, well, this ain't a theocracy, and I say let's keep it that way. Also, you can't argue faith-based anything. There's no point.
But if someone (not appealing to souls, personal faith, etc.) says that that abortion is murder because x, and it's a rational discussion, then we can debate that. And I think that's a fair and interesting topic to discuss at length.
Quote:
Regarding your sentence, "Abortion is not ending a life, because the life hasn't started yet," that is absolutely, scientifically false. Shortly after the sperm fertilizes the egg, the process of cell division (mitosis) begins. Cell division can take place only in something that is alive. That is why the discussion needs to be about "legal personhood," "sacred life," "life deserving of protection," etc., rather than just the word "life."
And, didn't I do exactly that, with my posts when I came into this thread? I came in here to say, it's not a person, therefore abortion is not murder, and explained myself.
Of course it's alive... all biology is alive. A plant is alive. In that sense, there's no question that abortion is the extinguishing of biological life, but that's not what's relevant here. We do that literally all the time.
If your position is that it's wrong to ever harm life, then how do you even survive? Since, we require nourishment.
I think a right to life applies to a sapient entity. To deliberately kill a person, is murder. But to deliberately kill a fetus isn't murder, because something's potential to develop into x, is not the same thing as x.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissTerri
If you eat meat you are complicit in ending the lives of animals in order to consume them, yes, absolutely.
Hey, then while I don't share that view or position, I at least applaud you for being much more consistent with this topic than probably at least 90% of the anti-abortion crowd in the US (not saying you're anti-abortion, just saying). Not a lot of Republican ethical vegans in the bible belt.
But, I must say, I don't consider killing an animal to be murder. My criteria on murder has nothing to do with pain or nervous systems or any of that. Murder is something that to me is exclusive to the concept of a person. Which of course doesn't mean that there can't be degrees of basic rights. Torturing animals should absolutely be criminal.
Animal rights is a huge and interesting discussion topic. I certainly don't have all the answers on that topic.
Quote:
Abortion ends a life. If a fetus or embryo has not developed into existence yet as you claim, what are you aborting?
Abortion ends a "life" in the sense that anything that kills any life does that. But I think it's pretty clear in this whole debate, the term "life" is implying that abortion ends the same thing that going up to a 25 year old guy and shooting him dead, ends. The latter, ends a life. The former, you're talking about some cells that are undergoing processes inside someone.
It might possibly develop into a life, but that doesn't make it a life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saibot
Being human matters, because that's what we are, and we look out for each other, value and respect other humans. Babies are human. Even unborn babies, though they may not be legally persons, are still demonstrably human.
When did being self-aware become a criterion for ability to be murdered? A newborn or two-year-old cannot have a discussion about killing vs . murder, but if someone breaks into your house and kills your baby or toddler, it is murder.
I'm going to assume your questions about animals being used for food and aliens are facetious.
The food point, was to bring up the point about how we're using 2 different definitions/meanings of the term "life".
The alien point, was to show that humanity is not tied to the concept of a person. All the people we've ever known have been human, but that's not to say that one day another mammal species couldn't eventually develop similar intelligence, or that maybe there are aliens out there somewhere. They would be people, too.
Some have even made the case that certain apes should meet the criteria for some kind of legal rights of personhood, and I'm not opposed to exploring that discussion.
As far as sentience/self-awareness/advanced consciousness, complex thoughts and deep emotions and memories, etc., surely all that's why murder is a concept and why murder is wrong.
I remember from a long time ago, the whole Terri Schiavo feeding tube thing... I'd argue that clearly wasn't murder. Because, she, the person, was gone. The distinction of whether a given DNA is human or not human, is just scientific classification about biology. It's not our "human-ness" which gives us rights that we have. It's this debate we're having, which does. It's the ability to communicate concepts like this.
The whole baby/toddler thing, again that gets back to the admitted fact that, legally/practically, we have to set a line, where we say that a person begins. A person gradually comes into existence over years, is the actual fact of it. So, legally, we should set that point somewhere where we know that it's definitely not a person at any time before that point, so, I say anytime around birth is fine by that measure. Because that also allows for a woman to have control over her pregnancy.
If we take the other non-arbitrary point, which is the fertilization of an egg point, and we call that a person with rights, then there's just no good reason for that, it causes women to suffer, it takes away their options. We know that is not a person, at that point. Maybe it's true that whether a toddler is a person is debatable in a lot of ways, but we don't have any reason for that to be controversial. Because, we just simply say that any baby that's been born, is a legal person. A minor person, legally, in that case.
Agreed. The ability to apply sound moral judgement on important issues such as abortion is not gender specific. I would guess that most fathers would die for their children, just like most mothers would.
That is probably true. But is the willingness to die for one's children a moral judgment, a rationa judgment or an emotional judgment?
By one reckoning, if the children die but the parents survive, then the parents, if sufficiently young, can produce more children. But if the parents die, then the children are orphaned, and in the long sweep of human evolutionary history, these children will probably eventually die too. So, the selfless and heroic deed, is arguably contrary to that for which evolution selects.
The point of this anecdote is that we should take particular care in parsing what "feels right" and what is statistically right, in the sense of most likely to be successful. What happens if the postulates of our culture, our policies and are laws, are based on a squishy and emotional sense of right-and-wrong, as opposed to something more objective? Have we, collectively, made a grave mistake?
The 2 sides of the national "debate", are, Christian zealots who want to force all women to have to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, and, people who don't want to do that. I mean, that, is what all this SCOTUS stuff in the news boils down to. That's why all this topic is relevant. If it was a matter of whether we individually value abortion or have a problem with it or not, then no one would care.
How is it even a "debate"? I mean, let's see. Widespread, authoritarian mass suffering, or, valuing privacy and basic autonomy and separation of religion and the law that applies to everyone... it's... just kind of difficult to debate that one in any kind of respectful good faith.
But, I'll try my best to do so. I'll ask anyone again, why exactly would abortion be murder? What is murder, exactly? Why is it a thing, why is that a concept? And if someone's answer is related to their religious type of view, then, well, this ain't a theocracy, and I say let's keep it that way. Also, you can't argue faith-based anything. There's no point.
But if someone (not appealing to souls, personal faith, etc.) says that that abortion is murder because x, and it's a rational discussion, then we can debate that. And I think that's a fair and interesting topic to discuss at length.
Hey, then while I don't share that view or position, I at least applaud you for being much more consistent with this topic than probably at least 90% of the anti-abortion crowd in the US (not saying you're anti-abortion, just saying). Not a lot of Republican ethical vegans in the bible belt.
According to pew research the only religious group to overwhelmingly oppose abortion are evangelicals. Most religious group are fairly evenly split.
I am pro choice for abortion rights for the first trimester, not anti choice as you stated, just an fyi. My views on abortion have nothing to do with religion.
According to pew research the only religious group to overwhelmingly oppose abortion are evangelicals. Most religious group are fairly evenly split.
I am pro choice for abortion rights for the first trimester, not anti choice as you stated, just an fyi. My views on abortion have nothing to do with religion.
We non-religious and atheists sure aren't split on it. I guess there are probably some anti-choice atheists out there, but I'd love to hear their reasoning. And I'd like to hear your reasoning for your stated position.
As far as the whole trimester thing, fine, but, I mean it's not a person at 3 weeks, and it's not a person at 15 weeks. That you'd advocate for people being thrown in jail for terminating the latter pregnancy but not the former, seems strange to me.
According to pew research the only religious group to overwhelmingly oppose abortion are evangelicals. Most religious group are fairly evenly split.
I am pro choice for abortion rights for the first trimester, not anti choice as you stated, just an fyi. My views on abortion have nothing to do with religion.
I agree with the first part. The ONLY religious group who is rock solid against terminating and in some cases, even preventing pregnancy, are the Fundamentalists. Fundy Christians are the loudest. However, fundy Jews and Hindus are not as loud, but both groups are against termination of pregnancy.
However, none are as obnoxious are the fundy Protestant Christians.
ALL of my Catholic friends are "Pro-choice, pro woman, and pro-child" as am I.
You second statement troubles me a little. Abortion appears to have a lot to do with religion.
Also, what if there are problems that occur during delivery? Does your statement include the life of the women? Or is that just your own "cut off point"?
...Abortion appears to have a lot to do with religion. ...
There is close consonance between adherence to any of the world's traditional interpretations of the organized religions, and what might be termed "traditional views" on matters of sex, reproduction, gender, the family, marriage and so on. While there are good reasons for this, I really do marvel, how deeply the two go together.
The basic idea goes like this... we humans are the product of a certain cosmic plan, well-ordered, providential, profound. This well-ordering entails certain responsibilities on our part. Responsibilities need not exclude pleasure or individual choice outright, but they must be taken seriously, lest there be grave and ghastly offence against the providential entity that made us possible in the first place. And while some members of our community might not share this faith, they must still be subject to the laws informed by said faith, for otherwise the very fabric of society is torn.
Those of us on the secular side, are deeply fortunate, that in so many ways the various religions and creeds and sects manage to disagree, sometimes vehemently. Imagine what would have happened if these disagreements were absent! Unfortunately, on the topic of abortion, and sexual matters in general, this disagreement is superficial. The religious view is much the same, worldwide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
