The Abortion Debate Containment Thread - Put abortion sperging here.

[FEETLOAF]

host

You mean mother.

It's not murder to not donate my organs, my blood, or any other body part, to ensure the life of another... period.

Is it okay for a mother to not feed her child?

If we were to agree it's a separate being, are mother's responsible for it like any other child?

Yes, obviously. How is this even confusing to you?

If she eats wrong, or not at all, is that child abuse?

Yes, obviously. How is this even confusing to you?

How about risky sex, with possible diseases?

Yes, obviously. How is this even confusing to you?

Is smoking and drinking then child abuse?

Yes, obviously. How is this even confusing to you?

What about taking over the counter meds (ibprofen) that can cause miscarriages?

Yes, obviously. How is this even confusing to you?

How are any of these not unambiguously wrong?
What the actual fuck?

Usually anti choicers make it too extreme because once again, it's tricky to give "equal" rights to a being that can't survive outside another human beings body.

It's really not tricky at all.

That's how we end up letting women die from ectopic pregnancies (where death is inevitable, but it's technically an abortion to help them), prosecuting women as murderers for their own suicide attempts, violating basic rights with undisclosed blood tests to convict them for substances, treating miscarriages with suspicion, and making raped girls risk death in child birth.

I see no problem with any of these things. I don't see this as extreme at all, I see it as normal.
The idea that it's wrong to drug test a mother to see if she's poisoning her baby with heroin, but not wrong to fucking kill the baby, is blowing my mind right now. How?

 

[Yinci]

I see a distinction between "this is bad, I do not like this," and "this is bad, it is actually wrong." You don't seem to. Probably because you are an atheist and "actually wrong" just doesn't exist to you. Would I like being homeless? No, of course not. Would I see it as a personal problem I need to solve? Of course. Would I see it as unjust or some kind of social problem that needs solving? No, that's silly.
Me suffering != unjust in all cases. Was the suffering caused by some injustice? Did any person do anything wrong? If not, it's purely personal and I don't see why some guy sitting in his livingroom should go "Oh shit, feetloaf is poor, I need to fix this!" I don't feel that way about others because it would be narcissistic for me to expect them to feel that way about me. I have a sense of perspective regarding my problems.

This brings up a question. In a lot of major cities around North America,m rent price's are continuing to go up and collectively housing is becoming unaffordible for people. Would you say a situation like this needs some sort of government intervention?

 

[Zero Day Defense]

If its survival depends on another body, its survival or death should be up to the host donating those resources. That would mean limits to abortion when survival is possible outside moms body. It's not murder to not donate my organs, my blood, or any other body part, to ensure the life of another... period.

By that logic, we should be able to kill newborns and children up to a certain age. They're very intimately dependent on the resources of provided by the mother's body and the father but hmmmrmmm. A newborn dies without care, because they have no knowledge nor means to support themselves.

You also have a bad conception of what a child even is-- it's not murder to not donate parts of your body to another for their survival because those other people aren't your responsibility. On the other hand, you brought your child into the world by doing the only thing that could do so, and that child is literally your flesh and blood-- your child is your responsibility, which is why we punish child abuse and neglect in pretty much every culture.

If we were to agree it's a separate being, are mother's responsible for it like any other child? If she eats wrong, or not at all, is that child abuse?

Is she eating wrong in an attempt to harm or kill her child?

How about risky sex, with possible diseases?

Yes.

Is smoking and drinking then child abuse?

Yes.

What about taking over the counter meds (ibprofen) that can cause miscarriages?

Is she taking the meds in order to kill her child? I don't recall ibuprofen being used in order to induce miscarriages, that seems like a rare side-effect.

At the end of the day, however, you need to take into account how much can actually be legislated. You can legislate abortion itself because of the shape of the action, but punishing recklessness during your pregnancy is much harder to do because it's also much harder to prove.

I see no problem with any of these things. I don't see this as extreme at all, I see it as normal.

It should be noted that "making raped girls risk death in child birth" is profoundly loaded. What he's referring to, presumably, are isolate cases in developing nations where girls of 12 years or less were strongly encouraged to continue with gestation and childbirth. Of course, the typical pro-life proponent would permit abortion in this instance because the risk of death is substantially increased for a woman who hasn't come close to the completion of puberty.

 

[Yinci]

Yeah the sentence makes sense or at least not insane with a tubal ligation given how drastic an unspecified hysterectomy is. Like getting an orchiectomy when a man doesn't want to have kids vs a vasectomy.


Are you lost? This thread is about abortions not high schoolers first debate class.

The Debate of Abortion is between the Christians and everyone else. Abortion is a example of the divide between the religious Right Wing and the non Religious right wing. In Poland the clergy took controll of the state is is forcing polices like banning Abortion that we debate in the United States.

 

[KateHikes14]

The Debate of Abortion is between the Christians and everyone else. Abortion is a example of the divide between the religious Right Wing and the non Religious right wing. In Poland the clergy took controll of the state is is forcing polices like banning Abortion that we debate in the United States.

If you even know what you are on about that makes one person in this thread.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

The Debate of Abortion is between the Christians and everyone else.

”Induced abortion is a sin after conception. The sin incurred thus can be of degrees. When the sperm enters the ovaries, mixes with the ovum and acquires potential of life, its removal would be a sin. Aborting it after it grows into a germ or a leech would be a graver sin and the graveness of the sin increases very much if one does so after the stage when the spirit is blown into the fetus and it acquires human form and faculties.” - Abu Hamid al-Ghazali.

 

[Prester John]

That's how we end up letting women die from ectopic pregnancies (where death is inevitable, but it's technically an abortion to help them),

Not even the Catholic Church asks women to die from ectopic pregnancies.

 

[FEETLOAF]

This brings up a question. In a lot of major cities around North America,m rent price's are continuing to go up and collectively housing is becoming unaffordible for people. Would you say a situation like this needs some sort of government intervention?

No.

Of course, the typical pro-life proponent would permit abortion in this instance because the risk of death is substantially increased for a woman who hasn't come close to the completion of puberty.

It's still murder. There is no "but i really NEEDED to commit murder!!!" exception.

The Debate of Abortion is between the Christians and everyone else. Abortion is a example of the divide between the religious Right Wing and the non Religious right wing. In Poland the clergy took controll of the state is is forcing polices like banning Abortion that we debate in the United States.

Good.

”Induced abortion is a sin after conception. The sin incurred thus can be of degrees. When the sperm enters the ovaries, mixes with the ovum and acquires potential of life, its removal would be a sin. Aborting it after it grows into a germ or a leech would be a graver sin and the graveness of the sin increases very much if one does so after the stage when the spirit is blown into the fetus and it acquires human form and faculties.” - Abu Hamid al-Ghazali.

The debate is between fedora tipping publicly educated nihilists and everyone else. The new atheist i-fucking-love-science, things-are-evil-if-i-dont-like-them, judging-people-is-wrong-my-dad-did-that-and-it-felt-bad, ideology that emerged in the 90s is a plague on earth.

 

[Marshal Mannerheim]

The new atheist i-fucking-love-science things-are-evil-if-i-dont-like-them ideology that emerged in the 90s is a plague on earth.

These people turn denying God into a religion and preach it with a ferocity that would make a Knight Templar look like a Novus Ordo boomer by comparison.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

It's still murder.

In that situation, I'd wager it a non-murder kill, since murder requires malice and the aim of aborting a child gestating in a child barely able to handle it is to save the life of the mother. I don't consider it much different from excising an ectopic pregnancy when the stakes are very much that both mother and child are likely to die and we need to save as many lives as possible-- though, in the case of the ectopic pregnancy, I suppose the chances of the survival of the child is 0% regardless of subsequent action.

 

[FEETLOAF]

since murder requires malice and the aim of aborting a child gestating in a child barely able to handle it is to save the life of the mother.

Save her by killing her child. You know you're killing the child ahead of time and you choose to do it, that is malice aforethought.
malice does not mean "HAHA FUCK THIS BABY," it means you know what you're doing.
The stakes are not relevant at all. Nothing is.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

You know you're killing the child ahead of time and you choose to do it, that is malice aforethought.

That's not malice. Malice is by definition "ill will". In this situation, you don't want a dead baby-- you want to save the life of the mother.

 

[FEETLOAF]

That's not malice. Malice is by definition "ill will". In this situation, you don't want a dead baby-- you want to save the life of the mother.

I literally just explained to you how you are wrong about this. Malice does not mean ill will in a legal context. It means you know what you are doing and do it anyway.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

I literally just explained to you how you are wrong about this. Malice does not mean ill will in a legal context. It means you know what you are doing and do it anyway.

The "ill will" is implied, then, because of the nature of malice in a legal context, which requires the crime to necessarily lack "justification or excuse".

In the case of performing an abortion for, say, an ectopic pregnancy, it cannot be denied that a child is being killed. However, the child is not being killed because they're inconvenient for the mother-- they're being killed because the child won't be able to gestate properly where it is and a continued gestation means death for the mother. An imperfect analogy would be killing in self-defense-- you still deliberately killed someone (you didn't kill them by accident, more than likely), but you didn't do so because of some selfish reason (e.g. you wanted their money, you were angry with them), but because you would be killed if you didn't kill them first.

Of course, the child isn't posing a danger to the mother's life by their own volition, and to terminate their life would still constitute a killing, but the reality remains that both mother and child will perish if the abortion isn't performed. At this point, it's a life-or-death situation.

 

[FEETLOAF]

In the case of performing an abortion for, say, an ectopic pregnancy, it cannot be denied that a child is being killed.

The end. Do not pass go, do not collect 200$.

However, the child is not being killed because

Are you under the impression that your motive for murdering someone makes any difference at all?

An imperfect analogy would be killing in self-defense-- you still deliberately killed someone (you didn't kill them by accident, more than likely), but you didn't do so because of some selfish reason (e.g. you wanted their money, you were angry with them), but because you would be killed if you didn't kill them first.

You can't use self defense against someone who lacks malice aforethought like your fetus does. Self defense is justified by the fact that the person chose to attack you, not by the risk to your life.

Of course, the child isn't posing a danger to the mother's life by their own volition, and to terminate their life would still constitute a killing, but the reality remains that both mother and child will perish if the abortion isn't performed. At this point, it's a life-or-death situation.

The moral rules in life or death situations are identical to the moral rules at all other times. They do not change, ever. There is no "but i really need to kill my baby!" clause in the book of life.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

Are you under the impression that your motive for murdering someone makes any difference at all?

I'm making a distinction between murder and not-murder, because most forms of morality and law do the same.

You can't use self defense against someone who lacks malice aforethought like your fetus does.

Thus, "imperfect analogy". What I was drawing from said analogy wasn't "self defense", but the fact that you can kill someone without it being classified as murder given the circumstances.

They do not change, ever.

What does the dynamism of morality or lack thereof have anything to do with anything? I'm asserting that in scenarios where both mother and child are likely to die, abortion is a "necessary evil" meant to save as many lives as possible, not that it's suddenly okay. The alternative for a father is letting both wife and child die because of an unsalvageable situation that wasn't anyone's fault.

 

[FEETLOAF]

I'm asserting that in scenarios where both mother and child are likely to die, abortion is a "necessary evil" meant to save as many lives as possible, not that it's suddenly okay.

"Necessary" evils are exactly as evil as other evils. Necessity is not morally relevant. There is no "need" exception for evil.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

"Necessary" evils are exactly as evil as other evils. Necessity is not morally relevant. There is no "need" exception for evil.

Nobody contended otherwise. But we're talking about a situation where a decision can be made that preserves as many lives as can be. I notice you're avoiding any of my talking about the practical applications of either of our stances, which is unfair, so I'll try to directly elicit an answer:

If an expecting father is told that his wife has an ectopic pregnancy that will most certainly kill her, and he's left with a decision to call for an abortion procedure, should he allow both wife and child to perish even as there's a means to save the former? Is this moral, and why (not)?

 

[FEETLOAF]

I notice you're avoiding any of my talking about the practical applications of either of our stances, which is unfair,

I ignore them because they should be ignored.

If an expecting father is told that his wife has an ectopic pregnancy that will most certainly kill her, and he's left with a decision to call for an abortion procedure, should he allow both wife and child to perish even as there's a means to save the former? Is this moral, and why (not)?

Yes, because he has not murdered anyone.

 

[Muh Vagina]

I'm a Christian and I feel that destroying embryos as a result of IVF or by using them for stem cells is as immoral as abortion.

”Pro-life” means ”pro-life”, not ”pro-some lives when it suits me, but not when we want kids”

Stem cell research saves lives. Why would you be against that? You're not "pro-life".