A Refined View on Abortion - The Sympathic Angle

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 398 times
Been thanked: 25 times
Contact:

A Refined View on Abortion - The Sympathic Angle

Post #1

Post by Aetixintro »

There are basically two views on abortions, the pro and the con.

Now, let's say there are heavy reasons for choosing either side. If this is the case then maybe abortion should be allowed? I think abortion should be allowed so that all people who need it may have their abortion and so that all who are fortunate to live lives that allow them to reject abortion.

Let's be clear: the ideal for both sides is that no abortions are carried out because nobody really wants an abortion, to kill a fetus.

So my entry is that the view of sympathy to abortion is to allow abortions and at the same time make good use of the contraception-pills or condoms to accommodate both views as ways of life!

Like it? Your view?

(By this text, I don't list the usual arguments pro- and con-.)
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9458
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Post #21

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: Who mentioned religion? I’m talking about science. It’s funny when the pro aborts wait with anticipation for someone to bring up God so they can say, “Ah ha! You only believe that because the Bible tells you so!� Then they can relax and know they can just call the opposition religious zealots and don’t actually have to have a conversation. They hope pro lifers bring up religion so they can be justified in dismissing them.
Nah, I am not waiting for any of them to bring God up. I've already pre-emptive called the opposition "religious zealots." As for not having a conversation, I prefer to dismiss them verbosely.
They start to get nervous when Pro lifers are all about facts and science. They begin to squirm, because they know if they actually have to face the facts/truth their position crumbles.
If only the anti-abortion side have enough self awareness to squirm in the face of facts and truths.
How is using science and technology emotional blackmail?
When said particular usage of science and technology is designed to strike up an emotional response in order to influence their decision.
If a poor woman already has two children and finds herself pregnant with her 3rd is it justifiable for her to simply kill the 3 year old instead of the baby in the womb?
No.
I mean, if money is the issue and a justification for killing a baby, why not get rid of the 3 year old.
Because that is immoral and a violation of the 3 year old's human rights. Assuming by "get rid of," you meant kill.
The new baby could even be nursed for a couple of years and cost less than a 3 year old.
You are right on that front.
What facts? Please share. Is a baby in the womb really a parasite?
No, parasite is defined in such a way to explicitly exclude organisms of the same species.
Wasn’t the same thing said about Jews?
Yep.
Is a baby in the womb really just a clump of cells?
Yes.
Couldn’t the same thing be said about a houseplant?
Yes.
So, that’s not exactly accurate to reduce a baby in the womb to a clump of cells now is it?
Why not? Is it not also accurate to reduce an adult to a clump of cells? That's what we are.
“My body. My right� isn’t exactly true either is it?
Sure it is.
Your rights end where another human being’s rights begin.
Sure.
Once a baby is conceived, it isn’t just about YOU is it?
It's also about the man who provided the sperms, but to a far lower degree, because it's not his body.
Pro-choice? Are you aware that research shows women who have abortions regret their abortions?
Sure, and you can help by not referring them as baby killers.
They actually claim they felt pressured by boyfriends, husbands, mothers, and society. They report that they wanted to keep their baby, but WAIT FOR IT . . . but they felt they had NO choice. So, those are some of the facts. Are those the facts you wanted to discuss?
Not particularly, no. As non of those support the anti-abortion stance.
No, sorry that simply is ridiculous. That’s like saying when the crime team comes and clears away the body, they are committing murder.
Why would it be like saying that? It's like saying when a firing squad shoot the condemned legally, and a gangster shooting someone in the head point blank, they are both execution. Same procedure, different moral considerations.
Where the heck do you get that? That is not what that case meant at all.
I got that form the fact that a woman died because abortion was illegal.
It was never illegal to treat and care for the pregnant woman.
Not when said treatment or care involves an abortion.
Again, abortion was NOT necessary to save her life. Would saving her life had resulted in her baby dying—probably, but that wouldn’t have been an abortion as previously explained.
Only because you are under the impression that an abortion isn't an abort when it is medically necessarily.
The health care providers made ignorant decisions based on a faulty understanding of the law.
Would it make you feel better if I say, it was illegal for her to have a procedure that is definitely not called an abortion, but non the less resulted in the death of the baby, a procedure that would have saved her life?
Well, then do you object to killing the elderly when they become too much of a financial burden?
Yes.
How about killing the disabled?
Same.
That is the merciful thing to do, right?
Maybe it is, but it should be the disabled person's decision.
Wow! Well, at least you’re honest. Hope there are people who continue to find you worth keeping. And here I always thought our right to life is just that. I didn’t realize a human beings right to life is dependent on whether another human being wants to allow me to live or not.
Well now you know. Human rights are social norms, granted and maintain by society. Most relevant society to this discussion now is the UN.
Why wouldn’t they?
Because they aren't people.
Again, science shows they are human. We are right back to when the population thought they had the right to decide if African Americans deserve rights or not. If Jewish people deserve rights or not. If people with Downs Syndrome deserve rights or not.
And we have decided that they do deserve rights.
Is it? So human beings doing not simply have intrinsic rights for being human beings?
Nop, we do not. Non what-so-ever.
So, African Americans only have rights because we as a population have decided they should?
Yep.
Got it. So, hope they play their cards right, or we might just change our minds.
Not likely, there is nothing to worry about on that front. They have better things to worry about, like how an blanket ban on abortion would negatively affect them far more than the average American.
Ha, ha, ha . . . the logic is on my side. Your position wants to deny the facts/the science/the logic and appeal solely to emotions.
So says the guy who seemed to think equating his opponents to Nazis was an effective way of debate.
Deliberately killing a baby in the womb is immoral.
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
How could it not be? If it is immoral to kill a baby once it is outside of the womb, how can you argue it is ok to kill the same baby when it is inside the womb?
Because of difference in the level of development obviously.
Just because you can’t see the baby yet? That is illogical!
That would indeed be illogical, hence my earlier charge of emotional blackmailing re: seeing the baby.
It is pretty good, it was fair in its presentation of the moral argument against banning abortion. Can't say the same for the count-points though. Care defend the counter-points raised in the video? The quiz at the end is a bit doggy too, if you want to defend it.

User avatar
Aetixintro
Site Supporter
Posts: 894
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 3:18 am
Location: Metropolitan-Oslo, Norway, Europe
Has thanked: 398 times
Been thanked: 25 times
Contact:

Re: Pro Abortion - New Arguments...

Post #22

Post by Aetixintro »

[Replying to post 11 by RightReason]

I'd like to inform the forum of a more complex situation too, regarding the availability of c-pills and possibly the availability of abortion too:

Let's say a woman has no other option but one special physician. And this physician sees this or gets ideas in the head that this virtuous woman must give birth to babies if not only one. Because c-pills require prescription from the physicians, often, the woman is left with condom option or celibacy. However, whether by "social contract" or other (social scheming) this woman gets targeted by a man who makes her pregnant! Now, should not this woman be granted abortion instead if a situation like this makes it so? I happen to think abortion can be called for justifiably for this kind of situation.
You?
I'm cool! :) - Stronger Religion every day! Also by "mathematical Religion", the eternal forms, God closing the door on corrupt humanity, possibly!

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #23

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Quote:
How is using science and technology emotional blackmail?

When said particular usage of science and technology is designed to strike up an emotional response in order to influence their decision.
You mean like this . . .

A pro-choice person says "Who are you to take away a woman's right to an abortion? You have no right to decide what a woman wants to do with her body and have no right to force her against her will to carry the unborn. That will take away her option to an abortion if she needed one to save her life. That will also take away her options if she were raped and didn't want to carry the rapist’s baby, so back off!" This argument is clearly attempting to establish its merit by appealing to the emotionally traumatic situation of rape and a life-threatening pregnancy to put into perspective why should always have the right to an abortion. This may very well be emotionally challenging situations, but they don't necessarily prove on an intellectual level why she should have access to an abortion. An emotionally challenging situation doesn't necessitate one taking a particular action. For example, a mother may find it very difficult to calm her baby down from crying and the baby is stressing her out. As painfully difficult and emotionally stressful as this may be, does that give her a right to kill her baby? No, it does not. Similarly, the emotional situations from rape and from a life-threatening situation do not necessarily show why a mother should have a right to an abortion.




The entire My body. My choice. Is an emotional appeal because it fails to acknowledge there is another body involved. It relies solely on feelings and emotion and denies fact: The baby is a human being.






Quote:
Once a baby is conceived, it isn’t just about YOU is it?

It's also about the man who provided the sperms, but to a far lower degree, because it's not his body.
It is neither the man or the woman’s body. A third body is involved. Again, that is simply science.

Quote:
No, sorry that simply is ridiculous. That’s like saying when the crime team comes and clears away the body, they are committing murder.

Why would it be like saying that? It's like saying when a firing squad shoot the condemned legally, and a gangster shooting someone in the head point blank, they are both execution. Same procedure, different moral considerations.
Then once again you do not understand what a D&C is. The D&C is NOT to kill a baby. The D&C is performed after someone else thought it was a good idea to kill the baby or is something done after the baby died of natural causes. A D&C is to make sure there are no body parts remaining in the woman that may cause infection and harm to her later on. Please Google this as you are not understanding.

If you are referring to an abortion procedure where by the uterus is scraped and cleared out with the sole intent on killing the baby, then that is an abortion. AND once again something that is NEVER medically necessary.

Quote:
Where the heck do you get that? That is not what that case meant at all.

I got that form the fact that a woman died because abortion was illegal.
That is how the Pro aborts spun it, but that is not an accurate conclusion. The woman died because she received inept care.




The health care providers made ignorant decisions based on a faulty understanding of the law.

Would it make you feel better if I say, it was illegal for her to have a procedure that is definitely not called an abortion, but non the less resulted in the death of the baby, a procedure that would have saved her life?
No, because that isn’t what happened and would be a lie. Why would it have been illegal for her to have had a procedure that isn’t an abortion?

Quote:
Well, then do you object to killing the elderly when they become too much of a financial burden?

Yes.


Quote:
How about killing the disabled?

Same.
So, why would location be a determinant in deciding whether a human being has the right to life or not? Not protected inside the womb—centimeters later same human being protected. This is the illogic of your position. Let that sink in.

Quote:
Wow! Well, at least you’re honest. Hope there are people who continue to find you worth keeping. And here I always thought our right to life is just that. I didn’t realize a human beings right to life is dependent on whether another human being wants to allow me to live or not.

Well now you know. Human rights are social norms, granted and maintain by society.
So, why do you object to a society killing off those who will just bring the human race down? Those inferior ones? Since according to you human life isn’t of value in simply being a human life but only of value if we as a culture grant him/her value why not start lining up those who do not contribute much to society – anyone who can’t pull their own weight?

Quote:
Again, science shows they are human. We are right back to when the population thought they had the right to decide if African Americans deserve rights or not. If Jewish people deserve rights or not. If people with Downs Syndrome deserve rights or not.

And we have decided that they do deserve rights.
So, why wouldn’t an unborn human being deserve rights? Weren’t you once unborn? How could a 9 month in the womb be undeserving of rights, but when he emerges enough centimeters out of the womb he suddenly deserves rights? Again, how do you justify deserving of rights based on location? Your position is beyond illogical when we show it for what it is. Not only is it beyond logic – it is disgusting and revolting. It is no different than when people tried to justify why the extermination of Jews was ok. They weren’t born in the right location. They don’t possess the traits we deem valuable. Sick.


If it is immoral to kill a baby once it is outside of the womb, how can you argue it is ok to kill the same baby when it is inside the womb?

Because of difference in the level of development obviously.
So, like I said let’s just line all the disabled and mentally ill up and get rid of them. They are adding to the carbon footprint but are clearly a different level of development than the rest of us so we should be able to kill them. <sigh> Sound absurd? I agree. And so is your position on the unborn. Part of being a human being is going thru different stages of development.

kcplusdc@yahoo.com
Apprentice
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:35 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Meaning what you say....

Post #24

Post by kcplusdc@yahoo.com »

Im adopted and i am glad i am here. Im sympathetic to a womans right to choose as well.
I also had a thought one day that im not sure that even matters.
Here goes....

Lets say we invent time travel, what would stop someone to go back in time and convince your mom to abort you?
Far fetched as it may be if you have skin in the game your enlighted moral highground may get a bit wobbly. Is this an issue that survivors should deside or the people being snuffed out? Or should are thoughts be focused on the greater good? If you were the potentially aborted fetus and asked your opinion who would say kill me.

Anyway after a bit of soul searching i realized i was full of the brown stuff. Would i want to be aborted? No.

User avatar
Tcg
Savant
Posts: 7143
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2017 5:01 am
Location: Third Stone
Has thanked: 1271 times
Been thanked: 1504 times

Re: Meaning what you say....

Post #25

Post by Tcg »

kcplusdc@yahoo.com wrote:
Lets say we invent time travel, what would stop someone to go back in time and convince your mom to abort you?

The fact that we haven't actually invented time travel? If we ever do, your question may have some relevance.



Tcg
To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

- American Atheists


Not believing isn't the same as believing not.

- wiploc


I must assume that knowing is better than not knowing, venturing than not venturing; and that magic and illusion, however rich, however alluring, ultimately weaken the human spirit.

- Irvin D. Yalom

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9458
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 117 times
Been thanked: 182 times

Post #26

Post by Bust Nak »

RightReason wrote: You mean like this . . .

A pro-choice person says "Who are you to take away a woman's right to an abortion? You have no right to decide what a woman wants to do with her body and have no right to force her against her will to carry the unborn. That will take away her option to an abortion if she needed one to save her life. That will also take away her options if she were raped and didn't want to carry the rapist’s baby, so back off!" This argument is clearly attempting to establish its merit by appealing to the emotionally traumatic situation of rape and a life-threatening pregnancy to put into perspective why should always have the right to an abortion.
While people being forced to carry the baby of a rapist might be emotive, you are not given graphic images to influence your decision. One can tell this doesn't qualify as an appeal to emotion, when it clearly doesn't seem to have much effect on you, as you seemed to be quite comfortable with forcing women against their will to carry the unborn after a rape. It's easy to dismiss them when you don't have to face them in person. You can call it an appeal to emotive when you are force to look them in the eye and tell them you don't care.
This may very well be emotionally challenging situations, but they don't necessarily prove on an intellectual level why she should have access to an abortion.
Sure it does, she has a right to therefore she should have access to an abortion.
An emotionally challenging situation doesn't necessitate one taking a particular action...
Exactly, that's why appeals to emotions is a fallacy.
Similarly, the emotional situations from rape and from a life-threatening situation do not necessarily show why a mother should have a right to an abortion.
Well, the "should" question is somewhat irrelevant when a mother does have a right to an abortion.
The entire My body. My choice. Is an emotional appeal because it fails to acknowledge there is another body involved. It relies solely on feelings and emotion and denies fact: The baby is a human being.
So you should have no problem removing the baby from the woman's body on demand, that much in isolation, is solely about her body and her choice.
It is neither the man or the woman’s body. A third body is involved. Again, that is simply science.
Sure, as long as you acknowledge that this body in question is strictly scientific, i.e. the physical structure of an organism, as opposed to a person.
Then once again you do not understand what a D&C is. The D&C is NOT to kill a baby...
I never said D&C kills babies though, stop attacking strawman.
If you are referring to an abortion procedure where by the uterus is scraped and cleared out with the sole intent on killing the baby, then that is an abortion. AND once again something that is NEVER medically necessary.
Doctors disagree. Even pro-life ones qualify such statements with late-term abortion.
That is how the Pro aborts spun it, but that is not an accurate conclusion. The woman died because she received inept care.
Sure, where adequate care would involve give her access to an abortion.
No, because that isn’t what happened and would be a lie. Why would it have been illegal for her to have had a procedure that isn’t an abortion?
You would have to ask the Catholics for that.
So, why would location be a determinant in deciding whether a human being has the right to life or not?
That question doesn't make much sense since said human being in question doesn't have rights to begin with. But I think the answer to what you were getting at is that any rights that a fetus would have, ends where the rights of the woman right.
Not protected inside the womb—centimeters later same human being protected. This is the illogic of your position. Let that sink in.
I don't see what illogic you are referring to.
So, why do you object to a society killing off those who will just bring the human race down?
Because it's immoral and a violation of human rights.
Those inferior ones? Since according to you human life isn’t of value in simply being a human life but only of value if we as a culture grant him/her value why not start lining up those who do not contribute much to society – anyone who can’t pull their own weight?
Is that how you evaluate the worth of people, by how much weight they pull? Suffice to say, that's not how I or my society (presumably your society too) evaluate people's worth.
So, why wouldn’t an unborn human being deserve rights?
Because we collectively feel that way, it fits into our moral value of personal freedom and equality.
Weren’t you once unborn?
Depends what you mean by "you," I was once separated into a sperm and an egg, I was once part of a star. I was once energy without form. On the other extreme I came into existence months after the birth of the body that later became me.
How could a 9 month in the womb be undeserving of rights, but when he emerges enough centimeters out of the womb he suddenly deserves rights?
Because of a whole bunch of development that goes on in that 9 months.
Again, how do you justify deserving of rights based on location?
By pointing out the location in question is inside a person.
Your position is beyond illogical when we show it for what it is. Not only is it beyond logic – it is disgusting and revolting.
I suggest you save the trash talk for when I don't have a logical answer. All these cheering is very much premature.
It is no different than when people tried to justify why the extermination of Jews was ok. They weren’t born in the right location. They don’t possess the traits we deem valuable. Sick.
Incidentally, it is also the same justification you used to justify killing cattle. Wow! Much sick! Very Nazi!

How many times are you going serve this up?
So, like I said let’s just line all the disabled and mentally ill up and get rid of them. They are adding to the carbon footprint but are clearly a different level of development than the rest of us so we should be able to kill them. <sigh> Sound absurd? I agree.
I too agree, but probably for different reasons: It is absurd because the group of people you mentioned here are all at the level of development that deserve human rights.
And so is your position on the unborn. Part of being a human being is going thru different stages of development.
Right, but you don't seem to be taking the threshold into account. That makes all the difference between a fetus and the disabled and mentally ill. It's frankly disgusting that you would suggest that the disabled and mentally ill are somehow underdeveloped people.

kcplusdc@yahoo.com
Apprentice
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 1:35 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

My actual point

Post #27

Post by kcplusdc@yahoo.com »

My point was not time travel, it was the vehicle that caused me to realize that what i thought i believed was false.
Basically, if I have skin in the game, if I would be the potential abortion, I saw that i would like to live. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness, most folks want to live.
Because of wordage like fetus, a womans body, viable, ect the focus is diffused from the basic underlying issue, the fetus, if given a voice would like to live, in fact, chances are, you would want to live.
Im not sure that the survivors should get the
final word on who gets to live.
The dead should have a voice too. In this case, that voice wouldnt be, "go for it mom, its your body, kill me."
Another point, and more pressing perhaps, is abortion when mixed in with gender bias. Say the preference of a male over a female?
Toss in a handfull of over population and suddenly, the female is the victim of a prebirth genocide. Whats your opinion on abortion when it is changing the natrual make up of the worlds population? Thats beginning to happen now.

As an adopted creature I'm glad i am here, kinda selfish i know but hey im a jerk.

JJ50
Banned
Banned
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 6:22 am

Post #28

Post by JJ50 »

A woman should be able to have an abortion, for whatever reason, before the foetus is viable, but preferably in the first three months of pregnancy.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #29

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to JJ50]

Viability is a lame argument.

There are adults who need help breathing, or machines to regulate their heart. A 3 week newborn is not viable outside the womb if someone didn’t care for him. He would die within days. There are disabled human beings who could not survive without extreme measures and care.

As human beings, we all go thru different stages of development. A 2 week old looks very different from a 2 year old and a 2 year old looks very different from a 20 year old. A baby inside the womb is simply in a different stage. We don’t say, let’s kill all the 2 year olds because they can’t do as much as a 20 year old can. That’s illogical.

No human being should get to take the life of another innocent human being. Once another human being has been created, there is a 3rd person involved. It is no longer just about the woman’s body.

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1510
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 12 times

Post #30

Post by RightReason »

[Replying to post 30 by JJ50]
That is your opinion, NOT mine.
Actually, everything I said is fact. It is based on science.

Post Reply