Originally Posted by Mallymkun
In my view, abortion should be illegal in all circumstances. If conception is the all-consuming veto over human life's inception and beginning, then any line draw after conception is wholly arbitrary. Thus, I fundamentally believe that innocent human life should be protected at all developmental stages under the pretense that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is wrong & immoral.
Rape victims can go fuck themselves, eh?
Mothers who would die from giving birth can fuck themselves, eh?
People who do everything in their power to not get pregnant while having sex can fuck themselves, eh?
Unwanted kids who get dealt one of the shittiest hands in life can fuck themselves, eh?
Making abortion illegal is just not the right answer in my view. People will search for other means, whether that means coathanger abortions or purposefully starving themselves to induce a miscarriage. Forcing a kid into a world where he isn't wanted is more immoral than ending the possibility of life of an unthinking, unwanting entity, in my opinion.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Other users in this thread clearly believe that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is sometimes permissable.
You are literally in favour of the death penalty
alright guy
I think it should be legal. Most cases of wanted abortions are usually due to the fact that the impregnated women is either mentally (usually rape victims) or financially incapable of giving birth to a child and raising it. Therefore allowing them to rid of the unborn child without any consciousness before it grows to have one is good because it can prevent many possible problems for not only the mother but the child as well as it may not have the best experience growing up. Now I know a lot of people would also argue that they could just simply give their child up for adoption, but I don't think it's really all that simple because there is a lot of responsibility and mental distress that comes with it. Just to let you all know I did not do any research because I just wanted to quickly give my opinion on this but if I'm factually wrong on anything I said feel free to correct me.
I like ya cut g.
Originally Posted by Ele
So as soon as an egg is fertilized, it's immoral to do anything about it? What do you make of the multitude of lifesaving (and life-enhancing) benefits that embryonic stem cell research provides us with?
Once an egg is fertilised, human development has begun, thus moral implications simultaneously arise since - yes - an innocent human life is involved. As far as the benefits of stem cell research go, I prescribe to deontology, so benefits don't matter to me as much as the initial means which lead to the benefits in the first place. For example, I also oppose animal testing, despite the benefits that come from it all.
Originally Posted by Ele
You said any lines drawn are arbitrary, but they're not plucked out of thin air. There's a stark moral difference between the termination of an unthinking, unfeeling mass of cells and a sentient second trimester fetus. Just as there's a stark moral difference between end the life of your brain-dead comatose mother and Larry (perfectly healthy) who lives down the road. The particulars are important in these kinds of things.
There is an emotional difference; not necessarily a moral difference. Of course, any human being will prioritise a 4-year-old child over a zygote, but that doesn't negate the humanity or life of the zygote. Lots of actions we make are emotionally-reasoned, but that doesn't make them right. Hypothetically, a family member would save the life of another family member over a thousand strangers. We are emotionally-reasoned creatures, but we strive to be as objective and logical as possible when, for example, deciding laws.
In the case of abortion law, you are deciding a law that could potentionally end the lives of millions of unborn human lives based on the line you draw. You can draw it at birth, you can draw it at 24 weeks, 12 weeks, or you can draw it at the point of conception. Drawing the line at conception is the most objective and morally-consistent position if you value all innocent human life.
Originally Posted by Ele
You religious at all? Or you just tryna be a 'hyper-logical' devil's advocate?
I personally don't see it as relevant to the discussion since the pro-life position is consistent with atheism, but yes, I am religious.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
Rape victims can go fuck themselves, eh?
Mothers who would die from giving birth can fuck themselves, eh?
People who do everything in their power to not get pregnant while having sex can fuck themselves, eh?
Unwanted kids who get dealt one of the shittiest hands in life can fuck themselves, eh?
Oh, boy. Obviously those are terrible instances, but circumstances don't change the calculus. As for the situation of where an abortion is the only way to save a mother's life, I've never found an example of it, yet it is raised all the time in the abortion argument because, of course, the pro-choice side is focused on the extreme cases. Roughly 99% of abortions are done for convenience, with 40% of those abortions being by women who have had 2 or more abortions (UK.gov statistic 2019). Aren't you concerned about that at all? Or do you believe that women should have the right to abort in all cases for whatever reason at any stage?
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
Making abortion illegal is just not the right answer in my view. People will search for other means, whether that means coathanger abortions or purposefully starving themselves to induce a miscarriage.
This isn't an argument. Murder still happens despite murder being illegal. Imagine if it wasn't illegal? There would be lots more murder. That's the point of the law, to decrease the number. No system or law is infallible, and there will always be abortions.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
Forcing a kid into a world where he isn't wanted is more immoral than ending the possibility of life of an unthinking, unwanting entity, in my opinion.
This is emotionally-reasoned. When exactly does an unborn-unthinking-entity make the transition from unthinking to thinking? I could probably guess that you'd be against killing an already born 25-week-old baby, yet are you for the right to abort a 27-week-old baby still in the womb?
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
You are literally in favour of the death penalty
Re-read my pretense. I'm against the deliberate killing of innocent human lives.
Last edited by Mallymkun; Aug 4, 2020 at 08:22 PM.
Reason: <24 hour edit/bump
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Oh, boy. Obviously those are terrible instances, but circumstances don't change the calculus. As for the situation of where an abortion is the only way to save a mother's life, I've never found an example of it, yet it is raised all the time in the abortion argument because, of course, the pro-choice side is focused on the extreme cases.
Obviously the things I mentioned are not the majority of cases, but making abortion illegal would definitely give two big middle fingers to all of them. Also, just because you haven't seen stuff doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thought you would know this, being religious and all.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Roughly 99% of abortions are done for convenience, with 40% of those abortions being by women who have had 2 or more abortions (UK.gov statistic 2019).
What is 'convenience'? I tried looking these stats up, UK.gov doesn't exist, you probably mean gov.uk. The query "abortion statistics 2019" brings up this page: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...and-wales-2019. I couldn't find the 99% stat, I guess you mean that 98% of abortions are carried out under Ground C?
Originally Posted by gov.uk, Ground C
That the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
This doesn't sound like convenience to me.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Aren't you concerned about that at all?
Of course I would like every abortion to have a good reason behind it, it's not something I see as fun. But it is in my opinion a necessary evil.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Or do you believe that women should have the right to abort in all cases for whatever reason at any stage?
No. Late stage abortions are horrible.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
This isn't an argument. Murder still happens despite murder being illegal. Imagine if it wasn't illegal? There would be lots more murder. That's the point of the law, to decrease the number. No system or law is infallible, and there will always be abortions.
The law against murder is there to reduce harm. I think making abortion illegal would not reduce harm, but increase it.
- The mother suffers through pregnancy and child birth
- The child most likely grows up without parental love
- Desperate mothers (and babies) die in botched coathanger abortions
Probably more harms but you get the point
I'll take the harm of ending the possibility of life for an unthinking, unwanting entity over all these harms any day of the week.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
This is emotionally-reasoned. When exactly does an unborn-unthinking-entity make the transition from unthinking to thinking? I could probably guess that you'd be against killing an already born 25-week-old baby, yet are you for the right to abort a 27-week-old baby still in the womb?
I thought it was pretty logical. Shit life or no life at all? We can't know what the baby wants so we have to make the decision for them. I'm on the side of no life at all.
As for the transition, we don't know. But you can't have thoughts or desires without a brain, right? I believe the brain starts forming around 4 weeks into pregnancy. We've been over late stage abortions already.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Re-read my pretense. I'm against the deliberate killing of innocent human lives.
You acknowledged that innocent people would be put on death row. You are apparently okay with that, as you are in favour of the death penalty.
alright guy
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
Obviously the things I mentioned are not the majority of cases, but making abortion illegal would definitely give two big middle fingers to all of them.
I care about rape victims and hope they deal with their trauma in the best way they see fit, but abortion isn't justified because the mother got raped. They're two seperate issues, totally unrelated from one another. As for people who try to prevent conceiving during sex, that's all well-and-good, but conception is always a possibility during sexual intercourse. When you have sex, you consent to the possibility of pregnancy (different from consenting to pregnancy). The responsibility falls on the two partners to carry out the pregnancy to full-term, and then they're free to put the baby up for adoption.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
Also, just because you haven't seen stuff doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thought you would know this, being religious and all.
Granted, it could be a possibility, and it could realistically happen. The law should state that all attempts should be made in saving both lives in question, but if chemotherapy happens to save the mother's life - with the baby dying as a result - that wouldn't be considered an abortion in the general sense.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
What is 'convenience'? I tried looking these stats up, UK.gov doesn't exist, you probably mean gov.uk. The query "abortion statistics 2019" brings up this page: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...and-wales-2019. I couldn't find the 99% stat, I guess you mean that 98% of abortions are carried out under Ground C?
My apologies, yes I meant gov.uk. I should have sourced more clearly as you've mistaken my sourcing for the former point regarding the 99%. I was actually referring to the 40%.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
This doesn't sound like convenience to me.
See above.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
Of course I would like every abortion to have a good reason behind it, it's not something I see as fun. But it is in my opinion a necessary evil.
It's not necessary.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
No. Late stage abortions are horrible.
Glad you agree.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
The law against murder is there to reduce harm. I think making abortion illegal would not reduce harm, but increase it.
- The mother suffers through pregnancy and child birth
- The child most likely grows up without parental love
- Desperate mothers (and babies) die in botched coathanger abortions
Probably more harms but you get the point
Incorrect. The law against murder is there to reduce murder. The abortion law wouldn't be there to reduce harm, but reduce abortions. The utilitarian answer to abortion isn't something I'm invested in.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
I'll take the harm of ending the possibility of life for an unthinking, unwanting entity over all these harms any day of the week.
Of course, it makes it easier to take that position when you slap on "unthinking" and "unwanting" before it. Does an unthinking human adult have no value? What about a child who is unwanted? Do they have zero value as well? I don't think desire and the capacity for thought are logical or reasonable ways of measuring one's value as an objectively, existing human life.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
I thought it was pretty logical. Shit life or no life at all? We can't know what the baby wants so we have to make the decision for them. I'm on the side of no life at all.
I would have thought that the fact that the human life is incapable of giving consent to such an enormous decision concerning whether they should live or not is exactly why we should not be able to make such a decision? You couldn't possibly know what they want, since many babies conceived in the most awful and tragic of conditions go on to live happy, fulfilling lives. It's common to see pro-life people who were conceived in rape state that they're thankful that their mother didn't abort them.
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
As for the transition, we don't know. But you can't have thoughts or desires without a brain, right? I believe the brain starts forming around 4 weeks into pregnancy. We've been over late stage abortions already.
Since you're pro-choice, what law do you believe is correct? Where do you personally draw the line? At 4 weeks?
Originally Posted by fudgiebalz
You acknowledged that innocent people would be put on death row. You are apparently okay with that, as you are in favour of the death penalty.
I'm for the death penalty as much as I'm for our participation in the Second World War. Would you describe adherents of the US' participation in WW2 as "okay" with the taking of innocent life? No, you wouldn't, because there's a difference between acknowledging that a noble goal could end up with innocent deaths and being for a procedure that is intentionally designed to end innocent life.
