Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

[questioner4]

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

[ShieldAxe]

If I did not have all that was essential to my survival, then i would not be me... I would be dead. DNA is essential to the development of a human being as much as water and nutrients are. I am not saying that they are equal in any way to a human being, I am saying that they are essential to the human being.

DNA is not a equivalent to a human but a zygote is equivalent?

I agree that a fully developed Human is conscious, has a brain, intelligence. But what about a newborn baby? It is not entirely aware of where the hell it is months after birth, it's definately not intelligent, and it's brain is undeveloped. It takes five years for the human brain to develop 90%. does this make newborns any less human?

You have illustrated my point. There is a clear difference between a newborn and a 5 yr old as you point out. Similarly there is a difference between a zygote and a newborn. The question is when is it considered a human.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Quote:


There is a definate difference in miscarriage and abortion and that is often over-looked by vehement pro-choice arguments. Miscarriage is totally unintentional. Abortion is 100% intentional. There is a world of difference. This distinction must be made.



Yes, given the odds involved, it's the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter if we were to accept your view.

Yes, and given the way you mis-interpreted my point every single death in the history of the human race is involuntary manslaugher. A miscarriage is nobody's fault, there is no one to blame for it. It is nature taking it's course. An abortion is the mother's decision. It's the difference between murder, and death by natural causes.

[Nirvana-Eld]

You have illustrated my point. There is a clear difference between a newborn and a 5 yr old as you point out. Similarly there is a difference between a zygote and a newborn. The question is when is it considered a human.

Why do we need to draw a line in the first place I ask? What dire need is there? If the mother's life is in question I can understnad that. But this obviously isn't the problem.

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.[10]

http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

I see no life or death situation here, I see people who do not want to bring a human being into the world because it will "interfere" with their lives thus far. The "demand" for this "supply" is that they don't want consequences for their actions.

No where in these statistics are an concerns of life and death situations. If there are (and I'm sure there are) they are so small that they do not bother mentioning them.

According to Aquainas there are 3 reasons for sex, each lower in importance than the first.

1) Procreation

2) Strengthening the Union between two people

3) Pleasure

Pro-choice simply wants to ignore that which sex was ultimately intended for, procreation. It wants to look at an embryo and see it as a meddlesome byproduct of the two lesser important of the three. Please explain to me how one can go about ignoring the most important purpose of sex, so that their lives are not "interfered" with.

[Cephus]

There is a definate difference in miscarriage and abortion and that is often over-looked by vehement pro-choice arguments. Miscarriage is totally unintentional. Abortion is 100% intentional. There is a world of difference. This distinction must be made.

So what? By the same token, often pregnancy is 100% unintentional and abortion is simply the manner to take care of unintentional consequences.

Aristotle, the father of rhetoric, said that there are three methods of persuasion. Ethos, Pathos, and Logos.

So what? That doesn't mean that using emotion to sway an audience is a rational or intellectual way of proving your point, it simply plays upon a human weakness to convince them to think your way, whether your way is right or not.

We're talking facts here, not emotions.

[juliod]

Why do we need to draw a line in the first place I ask?

Because there is a need to determine the difference between one generation and the next.

If the mother's life is in question I can understnad that.

Obviously then you don't consider abortion anything at all like murder. Murder is not OK because you might have a fatal medical condition. If abortion is an acceptable procedure when the mother's life is endangered, then it still acceptable when the mother is not in danger. Otherwise you open up new ground in moral relativism.

Pro-choice simply wants to ignore that which sex was ultimately intended for, procreation.

You're showing your "traditional anti-abortion" suit now.

Please explain to me how one can go about ignoring the most important purpose of sex, so that their lives are not "interfered" with.

It's what we call "autonomy" or "agency". Women can make thier own choices about medicine and reproduction without seeking the approval or permission of religious or political authorities.

Also, in these days of overpopulation, it is essential to remove procreation from the lsit of reasons to have sex.

DanZ

[juliod]

A miscarriage is nobody's fault, there is no one to blame for it. It is nature taking it's course.

Do you have evidence for this? There are many many known causes of miscarriage that could be described as "voluntary". Even if the majority of miscarriages are "natural" in your view there would still need to be investigations to identify and punish those that were due to drugs (prescription and otherwise), alcohol, nutrition (including abortion-herbs), masturbation, physical activities, and other causes.

Do you think that is a reasonable alternative to safe and effective legal abortion?

DanZ

[Cephus]

Do you think that is a reasonable alternative to safe and effective legal abortion?

Unfortunately they never think that far ahead. What, exactly, are we going to do with an estimated million extra unwanted children per year? We can't even get the children we have now adopted, precisely where are all these extra adoptive homes going to magically come from?

Anti-abortionists are acting on pure emotion and a distinct lack of logic and forethought.

[mrmufin]

I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother.

i believe that securing the civil rights for a fetus can only be accomplished at the expense of the civil rights of the woman carrying the fetus because the fetus is entirely dependent upon the woman. That dependency is not transferable prior to birth.

I believe that a fetus can occupy the womb of a woman without her consent and alter her bodily chemistry against her will. To the best of my knowledge there is no legal precedent wherein an individual (what anti-abortionists would like us to regard the fetus as) has the protected right to occupy the body of another individual and alter the bodily chemistry of the occupied person against her will.

Regards,
mrmufin

[1John2_26]

We're talking facts here, not emotions.

The emotions seem to be raised to a fever pitch when Christians introduce scientific proof that life begins at conception and/or challenge this intellectually. This is a Christian versus non-Christian issue so there is little hope for resolution. Christians should have their children and anti-Christians and non-Christians should be allowed to traet their children anyway they see fit.

[juliod]

scientific proof that life begins at conception

One problem with this is that in no way can life be said to "begin" at conception. That would imply that eggs and sperm are "dead" or something.

DanZ