What Does Abortion Have To Do With Pro-Choice?

My view is that abortion is just one of those things that is definitely wrong but accepted by almost everyone. Just like if you saw a pregnant animal trying to take out its own baby out and kill it, you most likely would think its wrong. Like lions doing infanticide. If an alien race, looking from the outside, understood that we discarded millions of human babies each year, killing or farming their cells out to labs for profit, they would probably think lowly of us.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by yes4141

 

I argue that the potential for life is indeed more important than life itself in every which way.

Potential is always greater than current because it's derivative based, not a single digit.

I'd save anyone irregardless to whom they are, but the objective truth of the matter is that the choices people make make themselves less valuable or more valuable beyond that basic humanity. That basic humanity is what gives us all the same rights. And the potential to get there is the justifies for it.

I'm sorry I got a little lost in that post. Objective value of humanity? Where, what, how? Value to a society? Value to you? You talk about 'rights' as if it is a force of nature. I'm a little confused by your comment.

I understand your basic statement however, and respect that it is at least ideologically ambitious. Though it also implies (as it seemed from your comment) that as a life is lived it can only ever decrease in 'importance'/ 'value' with the best possible result being it remaining at the same level. I'm sure you don't mean it like this but I can't help but be reminded of the T4 programme from that idea.

I mentioned Peter Singer because I think he raises an interesting point which is the potential for suffering- which surely cannot elevate humans above any other animal in that sense simply because of brain size and self awareness.

I suppose my main (and considerable) objection to what you said is the idea of 'human value'- especially a supposedly objective form. I find it at best unnerving and at worse... a lot worse.

Originally posted by Greywey
My view is that abortion is just one of those things that is definitely wrong but accepted by almost everyone. Just like if you saw a pregnant animal trying to take out its own baby out and kill it, you most likely would think its wrong. Like lions doing infanticide. If an alien race, looking from the outside, understood that we discarded millions of human babies each year, killing or farming their cells out to labs for profit, they would probably think lowly of us.

That's actually quite a good way of describing it. All these people saying "it's not your right to tell a woman what to do with their "body!" (with no regard for the living child within) just don't get it. The way you described it is *exactly* what it is, it's just people refuse to genuinely see the actual reality of it.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Wyn Hawks

 

Congratulations, you're looking at the type of people being mass produced at college. The careful merger of socialist with science.

...no one is forcing you to believe the hooey you've been spouting on this thread tonight nor is your "i dont have ethics or morals" nonsense taught in college...

Originally posted by Gorman91
But fyi, that's not proving what I said wrong.

...your own words proved you wrong, honey... case closed...

reply to post by ModernAcademia


I have read through a few of responces to OP question yet I have not read where the man in all this fits? By that if the woman wants an abortion then the man has no say in the matter and if the woman wants to carry to term the baby and male does not want it then he is saddled with child payments until the child is 18 so how does that fit into the argument? It seems to me if the woman has the power to say yes or no to the baby then she should be responcible to that childs support.

reply to post by Greywey


Only in America where genocide is okay (countless wars). But abortion is a NO NO.... Go figure.

reply to post by atomicn


Good try, but the other form of genocide (abortion) is widely accepted in the U.S. hence the nature of this thread.

reply to post by Wyn Hawks


Cool story, but it's not anything to go on in terms of what I said.

Morality and ethics are fabrications of man. They have no scientific basis and vary from people to people. It's simply a distraction. Like person hood. They invented that term as well, and have used it for every purpose under the sun to destroy rights of others. Now they've simply moved on to those that haven't even had the chance to defend themselves.

reply to post by yes4141


Well we're the only species that can do these things. IE, we're more important. Because if we couldn't, then we wouldn't have discussions of abortion. We'd simply breed.

In terms of value on life, no, it's not always decreasing. Your humanity is where you start off with. Your basic right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Your actions and decisions can either make you more valuable for your knowledge, abilities, etc etc, or less valuable if you go and run amok and cause problems. And yes, this does mean that you can become less than human through your actions. Such people include Hitler, just for the sake of example. And to be honest? I don't even think they deserve protection of their lives. But this is subjective. They still deserve the right to trial, etc etc. Now I'm not advocating people who do abortions or have them are in line with such people. I'm simply saying that we all start with the same humanity. What you choose to do with that is your choice and decision. You don't have the right to stop someone else's path because you desired to have sex without protection or do something dumb.

Let's get rid of abortion completely so we can pay for even more children whose parents couldn't afford to raise them. Sounds great to me. I think we have to not only consider the mothers welfare, but the child's as well. I can say with confidence that many children would be better off not being born than being born into a life of neglect, abuse, and poverty from unwilling parents.

At what point does it become 'murder' anyways? When I pull out and spill my seed on the floor? When it's just a growth of unrecognizable cells? When it has eyes but can neither think nor feel?

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by yes4141

 

Well we're the only species that can do these things. IE, we're more important. Because if we couldn't, then we wouldn't have discussions of abortion. We'd simply breed.

In terms of value on life, no, it's not always decreasing. Your humanity is where you start off with. Your basic right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness. Your actions and decisions can either make you more valuable for your knowledge, abilities, etc etc, or less valuable if you go and run amok and cause problems. And yes, this does mean that you can become less than human through your actions. Such people include Hitler, just for the sake of example. And to be honest? I don't even think they deserve protection of their lives. But this is subjective. They still deserve the right to trial, etc etc. Now I'm not advocating people who do abortions or have them are in line with such people. I'm simply saying that we all start with the same humanity. What you choose to do with that is your choice and decision. You don't have the right to stop someone else's path because you desired to have sex without protection or do something dumb.

No, we are not the only species that can do these things, nor do I see how that would make us 'more important'. Lions, monkeys, mice, and many other species will kill their children if they think it would be in their best interest (scarce resources, overcrowding, if the males are killed, or even just to prevent future competition for mating) and they usually do so much, much later than the pregnancy stage.

We are human, and can never become less human through our actions. In fact, anything we do could be classified as natural as it's come about from our intrinsic biological urges and thought process.

Originally posted by Akasirus
Let's get rid of abortion completely so we can pay for even more children whose parents couldn't afford to raise them. Sounds great to me. I think we have to not only consider the mothers welfare, but the child's as well. I can say with confidence that many children would be better off not being born than being born into a life of neglect, abuse, and poverty from unwilling parents.

At what point does it become 'murder' anyways? When I pull out and spill my seed on the floor? When it's just a growth of unrecognizable cells? When it has eyes but can neither think nor feel?

By this logic, why don't we take it a step further and just sterilize and force all poor people to get abortions, since they can't afford a happy life for their kids anyway? This is actually happening right now in a way, abortion centers open up in mostly poor neighborhoods. That's where most of their business comes from. Like I said before, from the outside you know it's wrong, but its widely accepted. I think a lot of people like to argue about science and morality. You can give excuses to lions, monkeys and other animals. But to humans who are sentient, there is no reason not to expect morality.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I don't understand how some people can say that being pro-abortion means you are pro-choice and if you are against abortion you are not pro-choice.

How does that make sense?

To me pro-choice = you can do whatever you want to your body

but with Abortion it's not about YOUR body, it's about the body(depending on trimester) inside of you.

You can do whatever you want to your house within property rights as long as you don't hurt the property of your neighbors but does that mean if I am inside of your house you can kill me?

In some cases even when you invited me?

This is a horrible, horrible analogy. Jesus Christ. I don't know if you are aware of this or not but when a woman is pregnant it does involve her body. To say that it has nothing to do with her body is absolutely absurd.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Janky Red

 

I would not really favor the state forcing you to have a family, but rather, forcing you to take care of your mess. To pay your dues to the thing you created. There is always the need for some government. As little as possible.

That sounds great.
How do you make that happen?
How do you force the parents to pay for their mess? Please give as much detail as possible and remember this is the real world.

This might really help you understand why your views on abortion might need adjusting.

Originally posted by Gorman91

I'm not going to pretend I'm not wrong, I give you that.

Do you not see the importance of that? You are trying to redefine things right there which only adds to the fact that male bias on the abortion issue can so easily be a product of personal distortion.

Sure there is. And that's irrelevant to the population being sustainable or not considering we could always build down or simply leave the Earth. Money and technology are the real limiting factors. Not population, as was the context you put it in.

I did not say the population was the thing that needed to be sustainable.
Population is the problem because neither of your "solutions" exist.

If the difference between objectivity and subjectivity is stupid, well that's real sad for you.

Not at all. Just that one thing you wrote was. I do not use that word often and I am not calling you stupid but of all the crazy things I read on ATS that really rates up there.

You asked for the scientific reasoning. There it is.

If you say so.
I am not sure what you think you wrote but I read this crap over a couple times and you never answered a thing. Please stop bothering then.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

Originally posted by Kitilani
Either that or men just do not know where not to stick their noses when not invited.

...well, to be fair, not all men are that way - just the ones that werent raised right... sadly for humanity as a whole, theres plenty of pro-misogynistic females who stand behind that ilk and gladly produce more anal retentive jerks psychologically dysfunctional control freaks...

This thread is not about Michelle Bachmann.

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by atomicn

 

Good try, but the other form of genocide (abortion) is widely accepted in the U.S. hence the nature of this thread.

Not nearly as widely and I think that was the point.
But I am sure you actually knew that.

Here's an idea: If you don't want kids, get your tubes tied, so that later down the road, you'll have no accidents to bitch about. This way, you can have all of the dirty sex you want while determining when/if you'll be "ready". Then, if/once you decide you're ready, you can go adopt a kid who doesn't have a parent. Win/Win.

Originally posted by BeyondPerception
Here's an idea: If you don't want kids, get your tubes tied, so that later down the road, you'll have no accidents to bitch about. This way, you can have all of the dirty sex you want while determining when/if you'll be "ready". Then, if/once you decide you're ready, you can go adopt a kid who doesn't have a parent. Win/Win.

How about this. If you do not want to have an abortion, do not have an abortion.
That is it. Don't worry about what I do.
Win/win.

Originally posted by KitilaniHow about this. If you do not want to have an abortion, do not have an abortion. That is it. Don't worry about what I do. Win/win.

What a wonderful argument.

I suppose you just ignore all of the issues you come across?