Jump to content

Abortion


Assume Nothing

Recommended Posts

The arguments come down to:

 

Unborn > born

 

or

 

Born > Unborn

 

 

Every argument about abortion is supporting either one of these conclusions. Everyone already has their mind set up on which side they agree upon through socialization you have been exposed to throughout your life such as family, religion, education, etc. I think instead of arguing whether or not you think abortion should be legal you should argue about what forces in your life helped you reach the conclusion you have about abortion.

 

Almost everything in the world that has no rational or set answer can be boiled down to the second paragraph here, but that solves nothing. Furthermore, the real question surrounding abortion is when a human is considered human - it's not quite as mathematical or two-dimensional as 'Born > Unborn, Born < Unborn ?'.


"Imagine yourself surrounded by the most horrible cripples and maniacs it is possible to conceive, and you may understand a little of my feelings with these grotesque caricatures of humanity about me."

- H.G. Wells, The Island of Doctor Moreau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 645
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For abortion advocates - would you be supportive of your parents aborting you, had they faced the dilemma in the past?

 

Oh come on, that's just as loaded as the question, "How would you feel if Hitler's mother wanted an abortion?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For abortion advocates - would you be supportive of your parents aborting you, had they faced the dilemma in the past?

 

Oh come on, that's just as loaded as the question, "How would you feel if Hitler's mother wanted an abortion?"

 

 

...Is it bad that I laughed out loud at that?

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to things like abortion, I usually avoid taking a definite stance. I am for it if it's logical like safety concerns for the would-be mother or unborn child, but am against irresponsible purposes overall. It's just one of those issues that is seen as black-and-white but is treated like it.

 

For the record, I grew up in a mostly conservative community with a semi-conservative family, but political stances or religious beliefs didn't seem to affect my stance to one way.

 

OT: Nom, I kinda chuckled at it myself, so you aren't alone.

 

EDIT: Forgive me if I wasn't being clear or articulate. I just don't get into these kinds of debates often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For abortion advocates - would you be supportive of your parents aborting you, had they faced the dilemma in the past?

 

Oh come on, that's just as loaded as the question, "How would you feel if Hitler's mother wanted an abortion?"

I think its more like a Buddist dude walking up to you asking how you felt like when your village was wiped out by Genghis Khan.

 

You have no memory of it because YOU (in your current state by reincarnation) don't have any memory. It's a poor question, a very, very poor question to ever ask.

 

 

As for Y-Guy's question over

 

 

Once again: would you put aside your morals for the good of society?

I would answer no on the basis morals can be changed. We are trying to convince you to change your morals. If we fail to do so we may call you an idiot but that is in all good-fun argument intentions. :razz:

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. I could just do the same...I'd rather see a society with morals I disagree with than one willing to break whatever morals they have for some warped vision of "common good".

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For abortion advocates - would you be supportive of your parents aborting you, had they faced the dilemma in the past?

 

Oh come on, that's just as loaded as the question, "How would you feel if Hitler's mother wanted an abortion?"

I think its more like a Buddist dude walking up to you asking how you felt like when your village was wiped out by Genghis Khan.

 

You have no memory of it because YOU (in your current state by reincarnation) don't have any memory. It's a poor question, a very, very poor question to ever ask.

 

Took the words right out of my mouth, I couldn't argue for living since I was a collection of non-sentient cells and I wouldn't feel sad since I couldn't and wouldn't be alive and feel anything at all. Looking at it now as a person non-sentience is a terrifying thought, but since back then I never was it wouldn't bother me.

 

As for Y-Guy's question over

 

 

Once again: would you put aside your morals for the good of society?

I would answer no on the basis morals can be changed. We are trying to convince you to change your morals. If we fail to do so we may call you an idiot but that is in all good-fun argument intentions. :razz:

You're still assuming that I or any pro-lifer consider abortion immoral and we are just ok with looking past it. Read over my other posts again, especially that article titled "Why Abortion is a Moral Choice."

 

EDIT: Thanks for catching that.

http://i700.photobucket.com/albums/ww6/aspeeder/Siggy_zpsewaiux2t.png

 

99 Strength since 6/02/10 99 Attack since 9/19/10 99 Constitution since 10/03/10 99 Defense since 3/14/11

99 Slayer since 8/30/11 99 Summoning since 9/10/11 99 Ranged since 09/18/11 99 Magic since 11/12/11

99 Prayer since 11/15/11 99 Herblore since 3/29/12 99 Firemaking since 5/15/12 99 Smithing since 10/04/12

99 Crafting since 9/16/13 99 Agility since 9/23/13 99 Dungeoneering since 1/1/14 99 Fishing since 2/4/14

99 Mining since 2/28/14 99 Farming since 6/04/14 99 Cooking since 6/11/14 99 Runecrafting since 10/10/14

9 Fletching since 11/11/14 99 Thieving since 11/14/14 99 Woodcutting since 11/20/14 99 Construction since 12/03/14

99 Divination since 2/22/15 99 Hunter since 2/23/15 99 Invention since 01/20/17 99 Archaeology since 5/14/22
Quest Point Cape since 08/20/09
Maxed since 2/23/15 Fire Cape since 02/27/13
Slayer: 3 Leaf-Bladed Swords, 8 Black Masks, 2 Hexcrests, 26 Granite Mauls, 5 Focus Sights, 32 Abyssal Whips, 9 Dark Bows, 1 Whip Vine, 3 Staffs of Light, 15 Polypore Sticks

Dragon: 9 Draconic Visages, 7 Shield Left Halves, 20 Dragon Boots, 40 Dragon Med Helms, 8 Dragon Platelegs, 6 Dragon Spears, 20 Dragon Daggers, 5 Dragon Plateskirts, 1 Dragon Chainbody, 63 Off-hand Dragon Throwing Axes, 19 Dragon Longswords, 27 Dragon Maces, 1 Dragon Ward
Treasure Trails: Saradomin Full Helm, Ranger Boots, Rune Body (t), Saradomin Vambraces, Various God Pages
Misc:1 Onyx,1 Ahrim's Hood, 1 Guthan's Chainskirt, 1 Demon Slayer Boots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. I could just do the same...I'd rather see a society with morals I disagree with than one willing to break whatever morals they have for some warped vision of "common good".

It looks like we're both losing then.

 

 

 

You're still assuming that I or any pro-lifer consider abortion immoral and we are just ok with looking past it. Read over my other posts again, especially that article titled "Why Abortion is a Moral Choice." Also your example of the African children makes no sense, since other countries like India and China have far greater populations and countries like America and the UK are a far greater drain on the planet's natural resources.

We're trying to convince each other to look past our morals. We are both loosing.

 

...and that second sentence is in a completely different thread, in the "Israel makes cancer vaccine" one.

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I saw sexism mentioned earlier, did you know that-- in the U.S., at least-- where gender differences in abortion attitudes are found, it's typically that men are more approving of abortion than are women, and White men more approving of abortion than any other group. Don't believe me? Go to the GSS website and construct a chart. Where it says row, paste 'ABHLTH ABRAPE ABDEFECT ABPOOR ABSINGLE ABNOMORE ABANY'; where it says column type in 'RACE' and where it says control type in 'SEX'. And now you know (and knowing is half the battle).

 

Anyway, I've always found the "I'm personally against abortion but I'd never stop you from obtaining one!" chain of logic rather odd. Just how far do said people who use that argument extend it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I saw sexism mentioned earlier, did you know that-- in the U.S., at least-- where gender differences in abortion attitudes are found, it's typically that men are more approving of abortion than are women, and White men more approving of abortion than any other group. Don't believe me? Go to the GSS website and construct a chart. Where it says row, paste 'ABHLTH ABRAPE ABDEFECT ABPOOR ABSINGLE ABNOMORE ABANY'; where it says column type in 'RACE' and where it says control type in 'SEX'. And now you know (and knowing is half the battle).

 

Anyway, I've always found the "I'm personally against abortion but I'd never stop you from obtaining one!" chain of logic rather odd. Just how far do said people who use that argument extend it?

 

Why is it odd? I find that that viewpoint is very conscientious and well thought out.

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I saw sexism mentioned earlier, did you know that-- in the U.S., at least-- where gender differences in abortion attitudes are found, it's typically that men are more approving of abortion than are women, and White men more approving of abortion than any other group. Don't believe me? Go to the GSS website and construct a chart. Where it says row, paste 'ABHLTH ABRAPE ABDEFECT ABPOOR ABSINGLE ABNOMORE ABANY'; where it says column type in 'RACE' and where it says control type in 'SEX'. And now you know (and knowing is half the battle).

 

Anyway, I've always found the "I'm personally against abortion but I'd never stop you from obtaining one!" chain of logic rather odd. Just how far do said people who use that argument extend it?

 

Why is it odd? I find that that viewpoint is very conscientious and well thought out.

Apply it to other questions of right or wrong and it looks ridiculous.

 

For example "I'm personally against rape, but I'll never stop you from raping someone!".

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because I saw sexism mentioned earlier, did you know that-- in the U.S., at least-- where gender differences in abortion attitudes are found, it's typically that men are more approving of abortion than are women, and White men more approving of abortion than any other group. Don't believe me? Go to the GSS website and construct a chart. Where it says row, paste 'ABHLTH ABRAPE ABDEFECT ABPOOR ABSINGLE ABNOMORE ABANY'; where it says column type in 'RACE' and where it says control type in 'SEX'. And now you know (and knowing is half the battle).

 

Anyway, I've always found the "I'm personally against abortion but I'd never stop you from obtaining one!" chain of logic rather odd. Just how far do said people who use that argument extend it?

 

Why is it odd? I find that that viewpoint is very conscientious and well thought out.

 

Obfuscator beat me to it. It's neither a conscientious nor well thought out argument. If you can use the "personally-opposed-to-but-legal-for-others-to-engage-in" line of reasoning for abortion, then why not apply it equally to things such as rape, murder, theft, beating your wife or even owning a slave? That is, you argue that while they all might be and probably are moral wrongs, they should be a choice allowed for people to freely engage in if they so choose. After all, that would be valuing "choice" and, by extension, liberty. Of course, such an argument wouldn't be deemed valid, but why not? Why would the "personally opposed to" argument not work for the aforementioned issues but be considered valid in regards to abortion? When, where and under what circumstances can that argument be invoked and when can it not be?

 

BTW> Just before it's inevitably mentions, "Because the law says it's legal!" is not a valid justification, as I don't care what the law says, as the law does not dictate what is right and wrong and what should or shouldn't be allowed, rather just what is and isn't allowed or what one can and cannot do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be against the use of birth control, but does that automatically mean you should want to make it illegal? You might think it's wrong to drink beer or have sex, so you must want them to be illegal, right? No. It means that you think people should be allowed to choose for themselves regardless of how you feel about it. They probably don't feel the same way about rape however, seeing as rape has no medical benefits and there is no taking away of anyone's rights if they aren't allowed to rape (in the case of rape, the woman loses the rights to decide what happens to her body, same as with illegalized abortion). So rape, murder, and abuse are not the same as abortion, and the reasoning can't be applied to them.

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be against the use of birth control, but does that automatically mean you should want to make it illegal? You might think it's wrong to drink beer or have sex, so you must want them to be illegal, right? No. It means that you think people should be allowed to choose for themselves regardless of how you feel about it. They probably don't feel the same way about rape however, seeing as rape has no medical benefits and there is no taking away of anyone's rights if they aren't allowed to rape (in the case of rape, the woman loses the rights to decide what happens to her body, same as with illegalized abortion). So rape, murder, and abuse are not the same as abortion, and the reasoning can't be applied to them.

 

Of course none of these things are the identical, but the principle is still the same. Why do you extend the logic of "choosing for yourself" to only certain things and not to others?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that people should not be allowed to have an abortion at all restricts their right to the power over their own body. Rape does this, as does murder and abuse. Thus, people consider abortion something to be chosen by each individual. Making rape illegal does not restrict anyone's rights and prevents people from taking away others' rights (as said above, rape takes away a person's power over their own body).

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that people should not be allowed to have an abortion at all restricts their right to the power over their own body. Rape does this, as does murder and abuse. Thus, people consider abortion something to be chosen by each individual. Making rape illegal does not restrict anyone's rights and prevents people from taking away others' rights (as said above, rape takes away a person's power over their own body).

As abortion takes away the fetus' right to life.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that people should not be allowed to have an abortion at all restricts their right to the power over their own body. Rape does this, as does murder and abuse. Thus, people consider abortion something to be chosen by each individual. Making rape illegal does not restrict anyone's rights and prevents people from taking away others' rights (as said above, rape takes away a person's power over their own body).

As abortion takes away the fetus' right to life.

 

If we assume that a fetus has a right to life, then we must assume that this takes away the mother's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - two entities occupying one body means that if one entity exercises control over their rights, it would nullify the other's. During pregnancy, mothers tend to forego their own rights in order to allow a fetus to gestate unless it interferes with their very own health.

 

If a mother chooses not to forego her rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - why should she have to carry the term? This goes especially in the case of failed contraception.

 

If pregnancy didn't involve the 9 months of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth, then maybe the adoption argument would work - but until such technology exists, the abortion debate will continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that people should not be allowed to have an abortion at all restricts their right to the power over their own body. Rape does this, as does murder and abuse. Thus, people consider abortion something to be chosen by each individual. Making rape illegal does not restrict anyone's rights and prevents people from taking away others' rights (as said above, rape takes away a person's power over their own body).

As abortion takes away the fetus' right to life.

 

If we assume that a fetus has a right to life, then we must assume that this takes away the mother's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - two entities occupying one body means that if one entity exercises control over their rights, it would nullify the other's. During pregnancy, mothers tend to forego their own rights in order to allow a fetus to gestate unless it interferes with their very own health.

 

If a mother chooses not to forego her rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - why should she have to carry the term? This goes especially in the case of failed contraception.

 

If pregnancy didn't involve the 9 months of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth, then maybe the adoption argument would work - but until such technology exists, the abortion debate will continue.

 

A mother carrying a normal pregnancy to term does not forgo her right to life. The flaw with your argument is that while there will be some conflicting rights when two entities occupy the same body, it isn't always the case. The only way the mother's right to life is being threatened by pregnancy is if carrying the child to term will result in her death; an abnormal pregnancy in which case abortion becomes a morally acceptable medical procedure.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be against the use of birth control, but does that automatically mean you should want to make it illegal? You might think it's wrong to drink beer or have sex, so you must want them to be illegal, right? No. It means that you think people should be allowed to choose for themselves regardless of how you feel about it. They probably don't feel the same way about rape however, seeing as rape has no medical benefits and there is no taking away of anyone's rights if they aren't allowed to rape (in the case of rape, the woman loses the rights to decide what happens to her body, same as with illegalized abortion). So rape, murder, and abuse are not the same as abortion, and the reasoning can't be applied to them.

 

You're not making any sense. On one hand, you say that people should be allowed to choose the morality of an issue for themselves regardless of how another feels about it but then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that it doesn't apply to rape because (1) there are no medical benefits to rape and (2) because not allowing one to rape doesn't take away their rights.

 

(1) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "personally opposed to" line is not constrained by whether or not an action has medical benefits. For example, I'm going to assume that you're not going to refrain from using that line in the instances where someone wants to drink themselves into a coma or give themselves lung cancer by smoking twelve packs of cigarettes per day. Whether or not an action has medical benefits or not is immaterial to the issue of legality.

 

(2) A few people in this thread have claimed that disallowing a woman from having an abortion restricts her rights to liberty and happiness (I'm not even going to talk about life). Following that chain of logic, then disallowing a rapist from raping someone could also be argued to be restricting his/her right to liberty and happiness. Number one, any restrictions on an action that the individual would otherwise engage in are a restriction on liberty, as liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act according to their own will. And if, as you're arguing, that it's wrong to restrict one's liberty, then how can you argue against a restriction on rape? Number two, if engaging in rape would make someone happy, and everyone has a right to happiness, then why shouldn't one be allowed to engage in rape? Remember, everyone has the right to decide the morality of an action for themselves, even if you wouldn't engage in it yourself.

 

(Now, there's a bit of facetiousness in the above post, but it's useful to highlight the ridiculousness of your position.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying that people should not be allowed to have an abortion at all restricts their right to the power over their own body. Rape does this, as does murder and abuse. Thus, people consider abortion something to be chosen by each individual. Making rape illegal does not restrict anyone's rights and prevents people from taking away others' rights (as said above, rape takes away a person's power over their own body).

As abortion takes away the fetus' right to life.

 

If we assume that a fetus has a right to life, then we must assume that this takes away the mother's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - two entities occupying one body means that if one entity exercises control over their rights, it would nullify the other's. During pregnancy, mothers tend to forego their own rights in order to allow a fetus to gestate unless it interferes with their very own health.

 

If a mother chooses not to forego her rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - why should she have to carry the term? This goes especially in the case of failed contraception.

 

If pregnancy didn't involve the 9 months of carrying a child and the pain of childbirth, then maybe the adoption argument would work - but until such technology exists, the abortion debate will continue.

 

A mother carrying a normal pregnancy to term does not forgo her right to life. The flaw with your argument is that while there will be some conflicting rights when two entities occupy the same body, it isn't always the case. The only way the mother's right to life is being threatened by pregnancy is if carrying the child to term will result in her death; an abnormal pregnancy in which case abortion becomes a morally acceptable medical procedure.

 

Do note that I mentioned three universal rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A normal pregnancy would still forego the mother's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness if she is obliged to carry the child against her will. The argument is whether an existing being's right has superiority over the rights of a dependent being that is not yet conscious.

 

Oh, and there's more rights I have yet to mention - such as the universal right to good health. It is possible that a pregnancy can harm a mother's health without causing death, which must also be accounted for in our arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Do note that I mentioned three universal rights - life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. A normal pregnancy would still forego the mother's right to liberty and pursuit of happiness if she is obliged to carry the child against her will. The argument is whether an existing being's right has superiority over the rights of a dependent being that is not yet conscious.

 

Oh, and there's more rights I have yet to mention - such as the universal right to good health. It is possible that a pregnancy can harm a mother's health without causing death, which must also be accounted for in our arguments.

But you agree that a normal pregnancy does not infringe on the mother's right to life?

 

Could you please rank those three rights you mentioned in order of importance?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be against the use of birth control, but does that automatically mean you should want to make it illegal? You might think it's wrong to drink beer or have sex, so you must want them to be illegal, right? No. It means that you think people should be allowed to choose for themselves regardless of how you feel about it. They probably don't feel the same way about rape however, seeing as rape has no medical benefits and there is no taking away of anyone's rights if they aren't allowed to rape (in the case of rape, the woman loses the rights to decide what happens to her body, same as with illegalized abortion). So rape, murder, and abuse are not the same as abortion, and the reasoning can't be applied to them.

 

You're not making any sense. On one hand, you say that people should be allowed to choose the morality of an issue for themselves regardless of how another feels about it but then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that it doesn't apply to rape because (1) there are no medical benefits to rape and (2) because not allowing one to rape doesn't take away their rights.

 

(1) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "personally opposed to" line is not constrained by whether or not an action has medical benefits. For example, I'm going to assume that you're not going to refrain from using that line in the instances where someone wants to drink themselves into a coma or give themselves lung cancer by smoking twelve packs of cigarettes per day. Whether or not an action has medical benefits or not is immaterial to the issue of legality.

 

(2) A few people in this thread have claimed that disallowing a woman from having an abortion restricts her rights to liberty and happiness (I'm not even going to talk about life). Following that chain of logic, then disallowing a rapist from raping someone could also be argued to be restricting his/her right to liberty and happiness. Number one, any restrictions on an action that the individual would otherwise engage in are a restriction on liberty, as liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act according to their own will. And if, as you're arguing, that it's wrong to restrict one's liberty, then how can you argue against a restriction on rape? Number two, if engaging in rape would make someone happy, and everyone has a right to happiness, then why shouldn't one be allowed to engage in rape? Remember, everyone has the right to decide the morality of an action for themselves, even if you wouldn't engage in it yourself.

 

(Now, there's a bit of facetiousness in the above post, but it's useful to highlight the ridiculousness of your position.)

 

 

Because as I said, rape takes away the rape victim's right to their own body. And one person's right to their own body (especially in the case of rape) outstrip the rights of someone to be "happy" because they can rape people freely. Not to mention that rape sometimes ends in murder.

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might be against the use of birth control, but does that automatically mean you should want to make it illegal? You might think it's wrong to drink beer or have sex, so you must want them to be illegal, right? No. It means that you think people should be allowed to choose for themselves regardless of how you feel about it. They probably don't feel the same way about rape however, seeing as rape has no medical benefits and there is no taking away of anyone's rights if they aren't allowed to rape (in the case of rape, the woman loses the rights to decide what happens to her body, same as with illegalized abortion). So rape, murder, and abuse are not the same as abortion, and the reasoning can't be applied to them.

 

You're not making any sense. On one hand, you say that people should be allowed to choose the morality of an issue for themselves regardless of how another feels about it but then, on the other hand, you turn around and say that it doesn't apply to rape because (1) there are no medical benefits to rape and (2) because not allowing one to rape doesn't take away their rights.

 

(1) I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the "personally opposed to" line is not constrained by whether or not an action has medical benefits. For example, I'm going to assume that you're not going to refrain from using that line in the instances where someone wants to drink themselves into a coma or give themselves lung cancer by smoking twelve packs of cigarettes per day. Whether or not an action has medical benefits or not is immaterial to the issue of legality.

 

(2) A few people in this thread have claimed that disallowing a woman from having an abortion restricts her rights to liberty and happiness (I'm not even going to talk about life). Following that chain of logic, then disallowing a rapist from raping someone could also be argued to be restricting his/her right to liberty and happiness. Number one, any restrictions on an action that the individual would otherwise engage in are a restriction on liberty, as liberty is defined as the ability of an individual to act according to their own will. And if, as you're arguing, that it's wrong to restrict one's liberty, then how can you argue against a restriction on rape? Number two, if engaging in rape would make someone happy, and everyone has a right to happiness, then why shouldn't one be allowed to engage in rape? Remember, everyone has the right to decide the morality of an action for themselves, even if you wouldn't engage in it yourself.

 

(Now, there's a bit of facetiousness in the above post, but it's useful to highlight the ridiculousness of your position.)

 

Because as I said, rape takes away the rape victim's right to their own body. And one person's right to their own body (especially in the case of rape) outstrip the rights of someone to be "happy" because they can rape people freely. Not to mention that rape sometimes ends in murder.

 

And yet, you seem to have no qualms with taking away the unborn's rights to their own bodies. Presumably, this is because you're using some form of the "Because it's not a person it has no right to not be killed!" argument, but then you are burdened with explaining why the unborn are not. Any justification you can try to come up with will either lead to 'abortion-at-any-time-for-any-reason' (i.e., you'll base your argument on location) or you will put yourself on a slippery slope to where you also define some born individual out of rights based on some arbitrary quality (i.e., self-awareness). Unless you're going to take either position, you're going to have to play a liberal amount of mental gymnastics to even begin to justify your argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fetuses aren't people because they aren't sentient. You can't use this on already born humans because they do not restrict the rights of anyone else and can survive on their own, plus we don't actually know when humans become sentient.

 

 

Yes, there are humans who have been born who are not people. Most humans under age 2 are probably not people (were you sentient at 2 years old?).

PM me for fitocracy invite

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.