Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Playing Gawd's Advocate On Abortion


XtianChris

Recommended Posts

TO amplify my opposition to Ramen's posit. I've not known a single person who, having been faced with the decision, has taken that stance. Having sat in witness many times, it's done in silence and tears... and you then sit a Gethsemane's gate under a Passover moon with them... possibly forever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • XtianChris

    34

  • Grandpa Harley

    30

  • Asimov

    22

  • Vigile

    12

Do you mean all abortions or just late term ones?

 

I would fight against third trimester abortions that aren't done to save the life of the mother or child because I believe it is ignorant not to consider the life to be anything other than a human child, and therefore a person deserving of the same rights as any other person. On the other end of the spectrum, although I don't understand why it is considered a form of contraception, I would not object to use of the morning-after pill. All other stages in-between I would not take lightly. Knowing that natural processes are responsible for most miscarriages, I think it makes sense to view earlier stages of pregnancy differently than later stages.

 

I do despise the idea of allowing abortions for unwanted pregnancies at any stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'm not sure I understand all of this exactly in the way that you meant it, but from my perspective the option to "do nothing" was not clearly presented. However, I will say that I considered doing nothing anyway, but after re-reading the scenario several times I got the sense that if I do nothing, then whatever power that is demanding I make such a choice is a cruel enough entity that it would likely take matters into its own hands anyway, possibly choosing to inflict terrible pain upon all of us for the rest of our natural lives and/or brutally murder us. All-in-all, the scenario presented is very difficult to imagine and unlikely to take place, and as such I don't believe it is as useful as arguing real situations and circumstances.
Actually, I believe it was the second sentence where I stated that you must take at least one life, or all 4 die. I thought that was a clear statement that you could choose not to do anything. It would result in all four entities dying, however you'd have been not at all morally responsible for the termination of any life, and it would show that you assigned equal value to all stages of human life, thereby bolstering your argument.

 

Yes, I do. The puppy and the baby both can undeniably feel pain. Killing either would be more than a simple termination, it would be inflicting pain. I believe the scenario you set up has more than one dimension to it. That's my reasoning.
Yes, this scenario had more dimensions than even I realized when I came up with it :) . The termination of the baby would have been easier under your most recent argument. Your original premise was that abortion after some admittedly arbitrary point was murder, but you amended it, whether you wanted to or not, to include practically all abortions at any stage. Ergo, if the moral choice was to terminate any life, it should either have been the baby, or the puppy and the zygote, as that would save two human lives, pain inflicted on the fully conscious beings being irrelevant. However, as stated, the moral choice would have been to do nothing, or rather, the most moral choice under the circumstances.

 

I would not feel right about terminating any of the lives nor causing pain to any of them. However, given the scenario, I clearly made an intentional choice to kill two of the lives, which yes, I do consider murder. If placed on trial for such an action, I would argue and hope that the murder would be excused, seeing that there was no good and right solution.
This reasoning is simply faulty, as it implies that you did something wrong. You were not given an option that allowed no harm to come to anyone. Furthermore, forethought is not the only criteria for murder, homicide yes, but murder by definition requires malice aforethought, which means that whether you chose to act by terminating any life under the conditions set forth by the scenario, or chose to do nothing, you can not be legally or morally culpable, so long as you didn't intend for malice's sake to end any of those lives, or purposefully kill all four with your own hand (and even that is debatable). You didn't murder anyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, this scenario had more dimensions than even I realized when I came up with it :) .

 

I can see your logic now. I bow to your imagination. :notworthy:

 

Also, I hesitate to bring up anything light in a thread such as this, because I do believe it is a serious matter, but I noticed you used the word "ergo" and it reminded me of something funny. Have you ever seen the Matrix parody from the MTV Music Awards? If you haven't, you should try to catch it. If you have the Matrix Reloaded DVD, it's on the second disc. Otherwise you may be able to find the video on YouTube or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see your logic now. I bow to your imagination. Cryotanknotworthy.gif
It is all-powerful. Apparently even more all-powerful than I thought. "Hey, I'm even greater than I thought I was!"- Bender, Futurama.

 

Yeah, I did see that skit with Will Farrell. It was funny, but if you saw that scene in the Matrix, you realize he wasn't exaggerating that much. I try not to be that damn wordy, but on the other hand, I have a habit of telling people to look it up when they don't understand me. So I know a lot of words. Use it or lose it, I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dhampir,

 

I would also like to thank you for pointing out falicies in my reasoning (as well as others that have done so) in this thread. My inexperience as a debator is probably pretty obvious, and it's something that I want to work on. I appreciate being able to do it in this thread as opposed to other places where I am more likely to be ridiculed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think a one day old baby being killed would be amoral.

In that case, I would ask you what the difference is between killing a one day old baby and performing an abortion just before the due date is, when healthy babies are routinely induced for reasons as trivial as convenience?

 

Are they routinely induced just before the due date? By all means, back that up.

 

The difference is that one baby is living inside a mother and using her bodily resources directly for nutrition and respiration, the other is that it is an independently unattached organism.

 

If it is the parasitical nature of the fetus and that it should be the mother's choice to have it removed, do you consider it amoral to remove it and let it live, but not amoral (I assume immoral) to remove and sacrifice it?

 

I don't understand your question.

 

If you would not consider it amoral to remove a fully developed, robust baby and not let it live, then wouldn't you agree that abortion eventually transitions from amoral to immoral at some point during pregnancy, when the baby can survive without special medical care as with an ordinary delivery?

 

I have no idea what you're trying to imply.

 

Or would you simply not consider it an abortion if it was that late in pregnancy and the baby could thrive without special intervention like any other baby, and expect that in such a case the baby would not be sacrificed? Admittedly it's a logical extreme.

 

In either of these last two cases, what if the baby was developed enough to survive with the same care as a full-term baby, but immature enough to risk lasting consequences that could impact his/her ultimate health/intelligence/life expectancy? Would it not be immoral to remove a baby from the womb at this juncture, without a medical reason or some good logical justification, either risking harm to the baby or sacrificing what should have been a viable infant?

 

Again, you'll have to rephrase your question as I don't know what you're getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is "convenience?" I have a hard time believing that there's as many abortions for "convenience" as you seem to imply, ShackledNoMore.

 

This is especially true that anyone seeking a late-term abortion would almost certainly have their case decided by a hospital ethics board. And the stats GrandpaHarley cited a few pages back stated that 95% of second-trimester abortions are done for the health of the mother, which is an overwhelming amount. (remember that life isn't perfect and there's always going to be someone to "break the rules.")

 

But what is this "convenience?"

 

-Seth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What exactly is "convenience?" I have a hard time believing that there's as many abortions for "convenience" as you seem to imply, ShackledNoMore.

 

This is especially true that anyone seeking a late-term abortion would almost certainly have their case decided by a hospital ethics board. And the stats GrandpaHarley cited a few pages back stated that 95% of second-trimester abortions are done for the health of the mother, which is an overwhelming amount. (remember that life isn't perfect and there's always going to be someone to "break the rules.")

 

But what is this "convenience?"

 

-Seth

 

I think it's another gag word by the pro-lifers to induce emotionalism in lieu of reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dislike these conversations. I know you like them for some twisted reason Asimov.

 

I am in favor of the ban on partial birth abortions, even though I am in favor of keeping abortion legal in general.

 

I guess part of me reasons like this... Suppose that I say that some act should be allowed. Am I also willing to do that act myself? I mean for those who say that partial birth abortions are okay, would they also be willing to give someone a partial birth abortion? To perform the act? To do the deed? The very thought of it twists my stomach.

 

I think it's easy to say "yeah man, that should be allowed." But to actually do the thing yourself, well that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "partial birth abortions" actually existed, I'd say "boy that sucks that they do." But damn, that kind of procedure would really be gratuitously painful. I mean, if a woman is going to go through that long of a pregnancy, what's the point of terminating it for "convenience."

 

No credible hospital or clinic would perform a late-term abortion without an ethics board or at least an evaluation of the gestating woman.

 

This is moot anyway since "convenience" abortions in the late term simply do not happen. I would move that virtually 99.9% of mothers pregnant to that level are in it for the long haul and would only abort if they were in danger—indeed, women still die from childbirth nowadays.

 

It's a stupid ban because it's banning something that's for all intents and purposes nonexistent in the grand scheme of things (such as flag burning). One or two incidences of something so localized is no reason to go through the trouble of making a law.

 

Getting the support of busybody control freak followers IS worth it, though...and that's what I think that "partial birth abortion" urban myth accomplishes.

 

I mean really, there's a fundamental misunderstanding about what abortion is. You don't go shopping and then pop into the clinic to have an abortion, then go skating. It's an invasive surgery!

 

-Seth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dislike these conversations. I know you like them for some twisted reason Asimov.

 

I am in favor of the ban on partial birth abortions, even though I am in favor of keeping abortion legal in general.

 

I guess part of me reasons like this... Suppose that I say that some act should be allowed. Am I also willing to do that act myself? I mean for those who say that partial birth abortions are okay, would they also be willing to give someone a partial birth abortion? To perform the act? To do the deed? The very thought of it twists my stomach.

 

I think it's easy to say "yeah man, that should be allowed." But to actually do the thing yourself, well that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

 

That just sounds like the 'moral hazard' type of slippery-slope argument, saying that if we allow something that everyone will do it. There is a matter of practicality here.

 

For goodness sakes, there's all kinds of things that are permitted; it doesn't mean that people are always going to DO it just because it's permitted! Case in point, in my state (New York) it is fully legal for women to be topless in public. Number of women I've observed being topless while just walking about outside? 0.

 

I don't think it's untoward at all to agree with a law or principle and not partake of it yourself. For example I don't use marijuana, yet I think people should be allowed to use it. I don't have anal sex (criminalized as sodomy in a few states) yet I support people's right to have it.

 

-Seth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would move that virtually 99.9% of mothers pregnant to that level are in it for the long haul and would only abort if they were in danger—indeed, women still die from childbirth nowadays.

I hope this is true.

 

But let's be real. In my estimation the vast majority of all abortions are probably performed for women who are either unwilling or feel that they are unable to shoulder the responsibilty of raising a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really dislike these conversations. I know you like them for some twisted reason Asimov.

 

I'm weird like that.

 

I am in favor of the ban on partial birth abortions, even though I am in favor of keeping abortion legal in general.

 

I guess part of me reasons like this... Suppose that I say that some act should be allowed. Am I also willing to do that act myself? I mean for those who say that partial birth abortions are okay, would they also be willing to give someone a partial birth abortion? To perform the act? To do the deed? The very thought of it twists my stomach.

 

I think it's easy to say "yeah man, that should be allowed." But to actually do the thing yourself, well that's a whole 'nother can of worms.

 

I think appendectomies should be allowed, but I'm not willing to give someone an appendectomy. By your reasoning, you wouldn't support appendectomies if you weren't up to the task of doing one.

 

:scratch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think appendectomies should be allowed, but I'm not willing to give someone an appendectomy. By your reasoning, you wouldn't support appendectomies if you weren't up to the task of doing one.

I'm not speaking of the ability. I'm speaking of the willingness. If I had the know how to perform an appendectomy then I would be willing to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think appendectomies should be allowed, but I'm not willing to give someone an appendectomy. By your reasoning, you wouldn't support appendectomies if you weren't up to the task of doing one.

I'm not speaking of the ability. I'm speaking of the willingness. If I had the know how to perform an appendectomy then I would be willing to do it.

 

Yea...that's what I said:

 

I think appendectomies should be allowed, but I'm not willing to give someone an appendectomy. By your reasoning, you wouldn't support appendectomies if you weren't up to the task of doing one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I'm not going to extensively debate you on this Asimov.

 

I think that abortion should remain legal, but I also think that abortions are less than ideal. They are not noble in my view. They don't speak to the better character of men and women.

 

Why do women get abortions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, I'm not going to extensively debate you on this Asimov.

 

I think that abortion should remain legal, but I also think that abortions are less than ideal. They are not noble in my view. They don't speak to the better character of men and women.

 

You made the point, and now you're avoiding it.

 

I don't think abortions are ideal either. I much prefer education, birth control and other methods of prevention. I don't think they speak to the character of men and women at all, they are an elective procedure to end a pregnancy, and can be used for any reason.

 

Why do women get abortions?

 

I don't know, ask them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit late to the poll I guess, but anyway...

 

...whatever line we draw to decide "this side of the line is murder, the other isn't" is arbitrarily. What makes an unborn human a human? Damned if I know. From what point on can we assume/be sure that the fetus has a consciousness (which I think would be the best criterium)? Obviously, this would at least be related to development of the brain and nervous system, but whoever has to decide where the border is crossed has my sincere pity. :(

 

Unless we find a way to clearly and finally answer that question, there'll always be dispute and debate on the question of abortion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do women get abortions?

I don't know, ask them.

Now who is avoiding what? You have no suspicions regarding the reasons why women get abortions?

 

I think you are being less than honest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 6B people in the world and growing, why do we care if someone we don't know chooses to engage in partial birth abortion? Is it better to force a mother who doesn't want the child to give birth regardless? The fetus isn't sentient, it seems you can only justify protecting it on a religious basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fetus isn't sentient, it seems you can only justify protecting it on a religious basis.

I am not religious, yet I think some protection should be afforded to the fetus.

 

If a man attacks a pregnant woman and her pregnancy is lost, then what should be the penalty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With 6B people in the world and growing, why do we care if someone we don't know chooses to engage in partial birth abortion? Is it better to force a mother who doesn't want the child to give birth regardless? The fetus isn't sentient, it seems you can only justify protecting it on a religious basis.

 

With 6B people in the world and growing, why do we care if there is ethnic cleansing in some third world country that will never contribute to the financial welfare of our lives or in any other way affect us? There are some things that we should be concerned about simply because it is right to be concerned, regardless of whether or not it affects us in a religious, political, or any other way.

 

We don't know at which point the fetus becomes sentient, but we can all pretty much agree that once it exits the womb and magically becomes a baby it is sentient. Obviously, at some point inside the womb it is sentient.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do women get abortions?

I don't know, ask them.

Now who is avoiding what? You have no suspicions regarding the reasons why women get abortions?

 

I think you are being less than honest.

 

I don't care about the reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do women get abortions?

I don't know, ask them.

Now who is avoiding what? You have no suspicions regarding the reasons why women get abortions?

 

I think you are being less than honest.

 

I don't care about the reasons.

I think you don't want to look at the reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.