Is it right or wrong, for this thread I won't take a side, just the "blank slate voter", so go crazy!
It depends on if the fetus is a person. I say it may not be yet, but it will be in short time. So in that light, it is unethical to get abortions in the vast majority of cases. Occasionally, the mothers life is threatened.
Can confirm, doesn't matter if the fetus is a person, still ethical
abortion is immoral yet it is ethical
Nah, its moral and ethical
Sorry let me correct that, its amoral and ethical
to be fair I think supporting abortion in a world like Minority report would be nearly impossible, with legal leaps that whiteflame worries about out of the way. Pro life do have burden of proof due to innocent until guilty but MisterChris introduces a level of uncertainty that feels like Minority Report would Ban abortion
What do you mean by Minority Report?
minority report is a movie where all crimes are predicted with 100% accuracy. This infers that they could also predict child birth with 100% accuracy. With the 20% success rate of birth out of the question we can now know it it is actually going to be a baby or still birth. As such you will know exactly which abortions to ban as the child’s life is now known for certain
That also doesn't matter, whether the fetus is alive or not.
really? How does the woman's liberty defeat the innocent life? It's much harder than Chris's debate about violent revolution against oppression, or slaves killing their masters. I certainly could not beat Chris over that idea.
Because abortion isn't necessarily ending a life. Its terminating a pregnancy, and there are different ways to do that, but beyond that, let's take a hypothetical into consideration.
There's a child, your child, that's dying. They need a blood donor to live, you are a match. But you are not forced to donate your blood. You have the right to refuse. The same goes for abortion.
yes, but Whiteflame wasn't convinced with my comparison to being forced to donate blood.
MisterChris killed my comparison argument by saying:
The mother freely elects to “serve as life support” when having the child, that is the inherent responsibility of motherhood”
“Second, even if the voter buys that by existing the baby has somehow done wrong, consider that the punishment must be proportional to the crime. Violating someone’s right to life is black & white. Life is the prerequisite to all other natural rights, so the punishment is proportional even if it is death. For instance, those sentenced to death have taken the lives of many people (i.e. in exchange for taking the lives of others, the perpetrator forfeits their right to life in response). On the other hand, it is universally agreed to be an unjust practice to execute over minor grievances. My liberty and pursuit of happiness are impeded in small ways daily (such as the fact that I must follow traffic laws when I drive, or the fact that I am not allowed to bring my orange juice into the movie theatre). These small inconveniences do not warrant me lining up everyone who has wronged me and shooting them in the back of the head, especially since many small sacrifices I make in liberty I make for the greater good (imagine how many lives people would take if they didn’t follow traffic laws). The woman sacrifices the right to kill her baby for the greater good of having a child… and finally the minor inconvenience a baby brings is not warranting death.”
“The right of a baby to live is more fundamental than the right of a woman to not be pregnant. To take someone’s life under the warrant that “my liberty and pursuit of happiness are being impeded” it is unjust and blatant homicide.”
I countered by trying to say the negative right to have her bodily invaded outweighed the positive "right to life". Chris destroyed Cambridge University's article by noting:
CON has already debunked the argument Cambridge makes. On many levels.
- First, this is an argument from unwantedness. Something CON has already debunked numerous times.
- Second, the “invasion” classification is bullshit. It labels a living child as something close to a parasite.RECALL:“when a person voluntarily engages in a behavior which can produce reasonably foreseeable consequences, and the agent is a proximate and primary cause of those consequences, then it follows that the agent has obligations with respect to those consequences. In the case of procreation, the child needs care. To fail to provide it is to allow harmful consequences to obtain. Since the agent is causally responsible for the existence of a child in need of care, then the agent is morally responsible to provide it. “It is not an invasion, it is an invitation. You have incurred the known risk of child-creation as soon as you have sex. You’ve created a human who deserves protection from death. Once again, the right to life outweighs your right to not be pregnant.
I'm not seeing a way to win against MisterChris.
it's not that simple; Abortion is simply wrong, but illegalizing abortion is even more wrong, so you could argue we're forced to take the lesser of two evils.
whats wrong with illegalaing abortion?
Women are still going to abort and it is going to be even more unsafe. Women are also going to claim miscarriage more and the illegalization would be chaos and very difficult to enforce. Democratic societies would have riots and be unsustainable. Men would abandon women who are forced to carry through, or the adoption centers would be overloaded with children with their mothers unable to support them.
Something I've already typed on this matter that you may all have already seen.
The following are very summarised responses to common arguments Pro-Choice individuals use.
I have no obligation to them. You can say that about your 3 year old child.
The unborn are clump of cells. So are you, you're reducible to cellular structures. Also, this does not excuse 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, which involve much more than an unrecognisable clump of cells.
The unborn don't feel pain. Does this mean painlessly gassing people to death is moral?
Women have a right to comfort. Does this mean a murder is allowed to burn a village down for their personal comfort?
They are dependent on the mother to live. Babies are dependent on their mothers outside of the womb. The elderly are dependent on their caretakers outside of the womb.
Abortion is deeply personal. Murder can also be deeply personal.
I can't afford them or I don't think they will have a good life without me. Does this mean I will be doing good if I murder starving African children? Does this mean I will be doing good if I murder homeless people?
They will be born with terrible disabilities. Does this mean I can go to a disability learning center mow all the disabled kids down?
They are not alive yet. Not according to the science of embryology. Nevertheless, when do you believe human life begins then?
Banning abortion puts women at risk by forcing them to use illegal abortionists. That’s like saying “banning cocaine means I have to get impure cocaine of the streets, you should legalise it so I can get access to the real and pure columiun stuff.
Women have a right to abort their baby to reach their full potential. Abortion is not something which happens spontaniously, you don’t wake up with a baby in your womb. If a women really cares about reaching their full potential, maybe they should use contraception or just walk away from sex.
Men cannot have opinions of a womanly matter. Does this mean doctors cannot have opinions on womanly matters? Does this mean a commentator cannot have an opinion on a game which he is not playing? Does this mean I am not allowed to intervene when my neighbor kicks their dog, which doesn’t affect me what so ever?
Women have a right to their bodies. This is completely true. However, the fetus is a different body unless you believe a pregnant woman has 20 fingers and 2 brains.
I can debunk any pro-choice argument on the basis that they believe murder is wrong.
try to debunk Ragnar's main argument: The baby makes the woman into a slave. A slave has every right to kill their master painlessly.
It’s not really that good of an argument. First of, the difference between a foetus and a slave is that the foetus is a result of the mothers direct and conscious action (not taking into account marginal cases). So to rephrase Ragnar's point with more accuracy, the mother creates a baby of whom they are obliged to carry.
To lay out this slave analogy, I must first define and describe the situation involving slavery and compare it to the situation of an abortion.
Slavery usually involves a slavetrader seizing another free individual and forcing them into labour.
Abortion usually involves a mother creating another free individual and murdering them.
Upon closer inspection, slavery is very much like abortion, but not like how you think. It is the baby who is created (without consent, one might add), and it is their free will which is breached when they are mercilessly killed. It seems like it is the mother who is the slave trader, who forcibly brings this human into the world, gives it no choice to be free and finish off by killing them.
The mother is in no way the slave in this analogy. The mother had a choice to have this baby and it is irresponsible to go back on your word, especially when a babies life is on the line.
Secondly, Ragnar uses the word “painlessly” to justify the murder of a fetus. To that I direct you to 14:06 of the following video.
50% of abortions are from people who used contraceptives. Clearly, these people had little choice in the manner of saying.
In 2014, about 37.8 million U.S. women aged 15–44 were using a contraceptive method. In contrast, only 471,000 abortions were provided to patients who reported they were using contraception in the month they became pregnant
Same article. I'm not sure what you make of this.
what are you getting at? Obviously it doesn't make sense that 30 million people would be getting contraceptives. The failure rate of contraception matches well with 400,000/37 million (1%!!). Do the math.
Does not change what the act of abortion is.