[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394497]The menstrual cycle doesn't kill unborn and developing fetuses. Also yes, I do believe we should act in the best interests of new lifeforms, because I believe they have a right to exist and simply live a life in however way they chose. Does it really matter what it is though, a tiny bundle of cells or what, it is developing into a human being.[/QUOTE]
Did you choose to be born?
[QUOTE=TH89;32394160]I don't agree with a lot of how the pro-choice argument is framed. I don't think a zygote is human [B]but a baby that's days away from delivery certainly is,[/B] and there's no easy answers in between the two. It's a morally murky area--anywhere you draw the line is going to be arbitrary.
That said, I don't think it should be outlawed, both because it's way unfair to women and because it won't work--people will just have sketchy illegal abortions that can result in pretty horrible injuries or death.
Abortions should be legal but we should redouble our investment in sex education and contraceptives so that we can avoid it as much as possible.[/QUOTE]
I don't think anyone says it's not.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32394371]Are you really trying to argue that morality isn't an item of philosophy? Do you even understand what an appeal to philosophy is? Philosophy just boils down to arguing rationally. By saying anti-abortion arguments are 'philosophically invalid' I am literally just saying they don't follow deductive reasoning.
How do you suppose morality would work, according to science? It just wouldn't. Science is about observable phenomena, it's nothing to do with ethics purely in the nature of what it is.[/QUOTE]
Not at all, what I am saying is that philosophy should take a 'backseat' in this sort of dilemma. Science is capable of solving these problems as well as the mysteries of the natural world - I think it is by popular belief that science cannot interfere in arguments of morality that it doesn't.
And yes, you are right. Science is very bad at working with morality. However science doens't have to venture into the realms of morality to settle these debates - they can be circumvented. Stem cell reseach was considered immoral due to the use of embryos in development, so instead of extracting them from an early embryo, they extracted them from bone marrow - completely avoiding the morality debate and settling it in one fell swoop, eliminating the need for philosophical discussion.
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32394377]It's murder.[/QUOTE]
Not murder no...The fetus is not yet a fully living organism with a brain until a certain month of pregnancy.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394497]The menstrual cycle doesn't kill unborn and developing fetuses. Also yes, I do believe we should act in the best interests of new lifeforms, because I believe they have a right to exist and simply live a life in however way they chose. Does it really matter what it is though, a tiny bundle of cells or what, it is developing into a human being.[/QUOTE]
I don't see the difference between using contraception and having an abortion. The amount of life you get is the same.
[QUOTE=Turnips5;32394537]Did you choose to be born?[/QUOTE]
No, I had no choice, but I am glad I was given the chance to be born and live.
[QUOTE=ffffff-;32394563]Not at all, what I am saying is that philosophy should take a 'backseat' in this sort of dilemma. Science is capable of solving these problems as well as the mysteries of the natural world - I think it is by popular belief that science cannot interfere in arguments of morality that it doesn't.
And yes, you are right. Science is very bad at working with morality. However science doens't have to venture into the realms of morality to settle these debates - they can be circumvented. Stem cell reseach was considered immoral due to the use of embryos in development, so instead of extracting them from an early embryo, they extracted them from bone marrow - completely avoiding the morality debate and settling it in one fell swoop.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? How are you going to answer the question "Should abortion be legal?" with science?
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394497]The menstrual cycle doesn't kill unborn and developing fetuses. Also yes, I do believe we should act in the best interests of new lifeforms, because I believe they have a right to exist and simply live a life in however way they chose. Does it really matter what it is though, a tiny bundle of cells or what, it is developing into a human being.[/QUOTE]
Why does it have the right to life?
Why does the right to life override the right to make decisions?
Why shouldn't we devote our lives to making baby factories to facilitate the maximum number of new human lifeforms (because that's basically what you're suggesting we do: give up our liberties for POTENTIAL LIFE)?
Why isn't a separate sperm and egg any more of a 'potential life' than a fertilized egg?
And finally, if we should support the foetus' "right to exist and simply live a life in however way they chose", what happens when they eventually become pregnant and choose to have an abortion? You can't say they have a right to life and to life how they choose but then say they can't choose to not devote the rest of their lives to unwanted childrearing.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32394159]Because 9 months of nausea and an insanely painful birth isn't very pleasant.[/QUOTE]That's a really bad excuse in my opinion.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32394604]I don't see the difference between using contraception and having an abortion. The amount of life you get is the same.[/QUOTE]
Sperm and eggs aren't a developing organism.
Abortion is as moral as wearing a condom. In both, you are stopping a baby from being born.
[QUOTE=ffffff-;32394563]Not at all, what I am saying is that philosophy should take a 'backseat' in this sort of dilemma. Science is capable of solving these problems as well as the mysteries of the natural world - I think it is by popular belief that science cannot interfere in arguments of morality that it doesn't.
And yes, you are right. Science is very bad at working with morality. However science doens't have to venture into the realms of morality to settle these debates - they can be circumvented. Stem cell reseach was considered immoral due to the use of embryos in development, so instead of extracting them from an early embryo, they extracted them from bone marrow - completely avoiding the morality debate and settling it in one fell swoop, eliminating the need for philosophical discussion.[/QUOTE]
No you don't understand. You can't base a should claim on science. Why should we bother circumventing the morality debate? Answer that scientifically and I'll take your side (hint: it can't be done).
[QUOTE=Capitulazyguy;32394377]It's murder.[/QUOTE]
At that point in it's development it's no more than a sack of flesh with no mind.
It's like crying over wasted Jizz.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394641]Sperm and eggs aren't a developing organism.[/QUOTE]
They have exactly the same potential to be a developing organism.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394354]I don't know about you, but giving something a chance at life overshadows that. I really don't understand, how that, social stigma against the mother, and other such things gives you the right to not allow someone to live.[/QUOTE]
If you're so pro life, why don't you donate a kidney? Doesn't the chance at life overshadow you missing an organ?
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. N;32394641]Sperm and eggs aren't a developing organism.[/QUOTE]
Neither are old people: They're pretty much a decaying organism, but we don't kill old people (though we should totally kill old people.
I'm against it. It's illegal in Ireland at the moment too. If there was a referendum to legalise it, I would vote no.
I believe that it is murder. I understand that it can be traumatic for rape victims, but there is no reason why the baby cannot be put up for adoption if all else fails.
[QUOTE=sp00ks;32394619]What are you talking about? How are you going to answer the question "Should abortion be legal?" with science?[/QUOTE]
Great developments in technology and science are being made all the time. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, solutions for abortion are proposed and adopted. I suppose my answer to your question would be "Well, we have developed ways of making abortion as humane as possible. The benefits of abortion are substantial. The answer is obvious, it should be legal."
I'm pro-choice just because I believe you should be able to do whatever you want with your own body but I would like to point out that the baby that is getting killed didn't do anything to deserve it.
I would highly advise adoption over it though.
I'm sure technology will exist so that a developing fetus can be removed from the mother and grown in an artificial womb, then put up for adoption. That seems the most humane thing to do.
[QUOTE=ffffff-;32394740]Great developments in technology and science are being made all the time. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, solutions for abortion are proposed and adopted. I suppose my answer to your question would be "Well, we have developed ways of making abortion as humane as possible. The benefits of abortion are substantial. The answer is obvious, it should be legal."[/QUOTE]
That doesn't change shit for the people who think it's wrong because you kill potential life, and even if it did, we still don't have that solution right now.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fatal-Error;32394769]I'm sure technology will exist so that a developing fetus can be removed from the mother and grown in an artificial womb, then put up for adoption. That seems the most humane thing to do.[/QUOTE]
That is going to be really fucking expensive.
[QUOTE=ffffff-;32394740]Great developments in technology and science are being made all the time. I would not be surprised if within my lifetime, solutions for abortion are proposed and adopted. I suppose my answer to your question would be "Well, we have developed ways of making abortion as humane as possible. The benefits of abortion are substantial. The answer is obvious, it should be legal."[/QUOTE]
A solution for abortion? I have literally no idea what conceivable solution there could be. You have a foetus inside you. You can either keep it, give it to someone else or kill it. There is no fourth option.
[editline]20th September 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Fatal-Error;32394769]I'm sure technology will exist so that a developing fetus can be removed from the mother and grown in an artificial womb, then put up for adoption. That seems the most humane thing to do.[/QUOTE]
I think we should definitely look in avenues for artificial wombs (for lots of reasons, besides abortion), but it's not a valid moral choice unless they can make it somehow cost less than it costs to save any one life (not gonna happen).
Is there seriously any reason not to allow this ? Abortion is a mentally painful process that is mostly used for rare cases, such as teen pregnancy or rape. Allowing it won't make women use less protection or be less vigilant with their sexuality - it just will ensure women who didn't want a baby don't have any should any accident happen.
You'd better kill off the baby while he's not born yet that wait until he is and let him starve to death.
I have no issues with abortions whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Fatal-Error;32394769]I'm sure technology will exist so that a developing fetus can be removed from the mother and grown in an artificial womb, then put up for adoption. That seems the most humane thing to do.[/QUOTE]
This is pretty much cloning the baby, aborting it and creating a copy of it in who'll grow in another woman's womb.
I get the feeling this argument is going nowhere fast because people who accept the sanctity of life as a valid argument are misled. The only way to resolve this problem is for them to realise their belief in the sanctity of life is based off of unsupported claims.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;32394868][B]Is there seriously any reason not to allow this ?[/B] Abortion is a mentally painful process that is mostly used for rare cases, such as teen pregnancy or rape. Allowing it won't make women use less protection or be less vigilant with their sexuality - it just will ensure women who didn't want a baby don't have any should any accident happen.
You'd better kill off the baby while he's not born yet that wait until he is and let him starve to death.[/QUOTE]
religion
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32394629]Why does it have the right to life?
Why does the right to life override the right to make decisions?
Why shouldn't we devote our lives to making baby factories to facilitate the maximum number of new human lifeforms (because that's basically what you're suggesting we do: give up our liberties for POTENTIAL LIFE)?
Why isn't a separate sperm and egg any more of a 'potential life' than a fertilized egg?
And finally, if we should support the foetus' "right to exist and simply live a life in however way they chose", what happens when they eventually become pregnant and choose to have an abortion? You can't say they have a right to life and to life how they choose but then say they can't choose to not devote the rest of their lives to unwanted childrearing.[/QUOTE]
-Because life is an important thing, people take for granted that they exist and are able to experience everything around them.
-Because that decision gets in the way of someone else's right to live.
-Now that is just flat out silly. I never said anything about churning out people, I just believe once conceived, the fetus should be given the chance to live. That is quite different from what you just said there.
-An egg is developing into a child, a sperm and egg are not developing. If left alone, a fertilized egg will naturally grow into a child, something sperm and eggs don't do.
Lastly, if it's choices end up preventing a life later in it's life, then everything I said still applies. Also, if you have a child you don't have to "devote the rest of your life to unwanted childrearing", tell me why adoption is not a valid way to avoid that.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32394398]
Prove to me, using sound, valid deductive reasoning, that murder is wrong.[/QUOTE]
Kind off of topic, but do you believe murder is wrong, or is this for the sake of the debate?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32394672]No you don't understand. You can't base a should claim on science. Why should we bother circumventing the morality debate? Answer that scientifically and I'll take your side (hint: it can't be done).[/QUOTE]
Surely, when all is said and done, there is little point in asking the question in the first place. Science has done a perfectly good job of closing the door on the argument, and it has done it without the aid of philosophy. Ergo, there is no need for questions such as "Why should we bother circumventing the morality debate?". The focus is not on the 'should' assertion, it is on how philosophy was not required to solve the debate.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;32394834]A solution for abortion? I have literally no idea what conceivable solution there could be. You have a foetus inside you. You can either keep it, give it to someone else or kill it. There is no fourth option.
[/QUOTE]
Of course there is no completely happy-go-lucky option with abortion. As you quite rightly say there is "no fourth option". I should have been more specific in my post, what I mean to say is [I]the better[/I] solutions can be proposed and adopted. What these solutions may be I can only guess at.
Any woman should have the right to an abortion, some people can't look after themselves never mind a child.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
