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?

[juliod]

Heres a thought juliod, why not use a condom? or pills? or don't do it in the first place if you don't have a baby?

Those are good suggestions for reducing the incidence of abortion, but they don't constitute an argument that abortion is wrong.

personally i havent seen any protesting going on against the selling of those two products.

In point of fact there is enormous pressure to restrict these forms of birth control. In my view the main anti-abortion position is not interested in reducing abortion, but in controlling sexuality, particularly women's sexuality, and using pregnancy as a punishment for having sex. Any program proposed to give birth control products to young adults is always met with a storm of protest.

In Florida, turlte fetuses are protected by law, but why not Human fetuses?

Humans aren't an endangered species. That's pretty simple.

And having an emotional reaction from a logical conclusion is very possible. Thats how we form opinions.

Then those opinions are not based on logic and reason but on emotion.

the effects of abortion on the mother's uterus

I don't have any source for this, but I have read that multiple abortions can reduce the fertility of a woman. One question that would need to be dealt with is whether this effect is greater or lesser than the effect of multiple births. Abortion is (I think the data and source are earlier in this thread) about 10 times safer for a woman than giving birth.

DanZ

[Cephus]

Heres a thought juliod, why not use a condom? or pills? or don't do it in the first place if you don't have a baby? personally i havent seen any protesting going on against the selling of those two products. The only protesting i see is the killing of innocent human beings. In Florida, turlte fetuses are protected by law, but why not Human fetuses? Is it because our society today have become morally apathetic and emotionless?

No, there are just a lot more humans around than turtles in some places. You're not in any risk of having humans go extinct.

And yes, why not use a condom or pills? Certainly any responsible person should, but organized religion, particularly the fundamentalist Christians and Catholics are 100% opposed to any form of birth control. You have pharmacists refusing to sell birth control of any kind because it violates their religious beliefs.

They don't like abortion, but they don't like alternatives any better. Go figure.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Those are good suggestions for reducing the incidence of abortion, but they don't constitute an argument that abortion is wrong.

In point of fact there is enormous pressure to restrict these forms of birth control. In my view the main anti-abortion position is not interested in reducing abortion, but in controlling sexuality, particularly women's sexuality, and using pregnancy as a punishment for having sex. Any program proposed to give birth control products to young adults is always met with a storm of protest.

My point here is that there are other perfectly viable options to birth control. I'm not protecting the "main anti-abortion position". I'm protecting my own views after my own consideration of the facts presented. I believe that there no problem with stopping conception from even happening, but once it does happen and there is essentially a human being in the making developing inside the womb, then human rights apply, there in the genetic code is all the zygote will need to become a fully grown human being, who are we to say that this human being does not get to live?

And having an emotional reaction from a logical conclusion is very possible. Thats how we form opinions.


Then those opinions are not based on logic and reason but on emotion.

You must live in a very cold world buddy, if i see a baby die i have an emotional reaction first, and ask questions later. Call me irrational i don't care, once there is a baby in there, the mom is sharing whether she likes it or not, It's not part of her body, its not her DNA, it is someone else.

[ShieldAxe]

Those are good suggestions for reducing the incidence of abortion, but they don't constitute an argument that abortion is wrong.

In point of fact there is enormous pressure to restrict these forms of birth control. In my view the main anti-abortion position is not interested in reducing abortion, but in controlling sexuality, particularly women's sexuality, and using pregnancy as a punishment for having sex. Any program proposed to give birth control products to young adults is always met with a storm of protest.

My point here is that there are other perfectly viable options to birth control. I'm not protecting the "main anti-abortion position". I'm protecting my own views after my own consideration of the facts presented. I believe that there no problem with stopping conception from even happening, but once it does happen and there is essentially a human being in the making developing inside the womb, then human rights apply, there in the genetic code is all the zygote will need to become a fully grown human being, who are we to say that this human being does not get to live?

Is it logical and reasonable to equate DNA with a birthed human baby? That's like saying a building blueprint is equivalent to a building. If a zygote is all you need for a human, so is a single sperm and egg pair.

[juliod]

who are we to say that this human being does not get to live?

The standard has been that life begins at birth. If this were not the case, then there would need to be murder inquiries every time there was a miscarriage which is very common.

You cannot say that people have a "right" to life since everyone dies in the end. Eggs and sperms are every bit as alive and human as we are. If a newly fertilized egg has some right to be born, don't all the other eggs and sperm (and their possible embryos) also have this right?

You must live in a very cold world buddy, if i see a baby die i have an emotional reaction first, and ask questions later.

You really don't you know. Misscarriages are very common. Yet rarely does anyone have a serious emotional problem. Most happen before anyone knows the woman is pregnant. A misscarriage that ends a hoped-for pregnancy may be traumatic, but it is not usually on the same order as loosing a child.

DanZ

[Nirvana-Eld]

You cannot say that people have a "right" to life since everyone dies in the end. Eggs and sperms are every bit as alive and human as we are. If a newly fertilized egg has some right to be born, don't all the other eggs and sperm (and their possible embryos) also have this right?

Individual sperm and egg are only half of the necissary genetic code. Once they are combined they produce one complete human genome. They are definately not the same.

Is it logical and reasonable to equate DNA with a birthed human baby? That's like saying a building blueprint is equivalent to a building. If a zygote is all you need for a human, so is a single sperm and egg pair.

A blue print is essential for the builing just as much as the bricks and concrete right? So DNA is essential to human life, it is the foundation, taking that away is taking the human out of a human, taking away what is essential to it's existence. That is just as bad if not worse than taking away the nutrients needed to survive. Once there is a genome that is formed and developing into a full fledged human being, who are we to stop it? It's a waste on the same degree as murder is a waste, theres no need for it. I believe this is our emotionally apathetic society induldging in its own abilities to destroy human life for one's own benifit.

[Cephus]

Individual sperm and egg are only half of the necissary genetic code. Once they are combined they produce one complete human genome. They are definately not the same.

Then just about every woman on the planet is a mass murderer because the overwhelming majority of fertilized eggs are flushed out of the system without ever implanting, or spontaneously miscarried. Better get to work building all those prisons!

A blue print is essential for the builing just as much as the bricks and concrete right? So DNA is essential to human life, it is the foundation, taking that away is taking the human out of a human, taking away what is essential to it's existence. That is just as bad if not worse than taking away the nutrients needed to survive. Once there is a genome that is formed and developing into a full fledged human being, who are we to stop it? It's a waste on the same degree as murder is a waste, theres no need for it. I believe this is our emotionally apathetic society induldging in its own abilities to destroy human life for one's own benifit.

DNA is no more a human than bricks are a building. Otherwise, every time you gave blood, you'd be giving humans. Every time you cut yourself, you'd be killing humans. Every time you went to the barber, you'd be killing humans, simply because every cell in your body has a complete DNA profile of you.

Maybe it isn't the emotionally apathetic society you should be concerned with, but your own overly-emotional self.

[ShieldAxe]

A blue print is essential for the builing just as much as the bricks and concrete right? So DNA is essential to human life, it is the foundation,

No, it is the instruction set.

taking that away is taking the human out of a human, taking away what is essential to it's existence.

DNA is not a human being.

That is just as bad if not worse than taking away the nutrients needed to survive.

Nutrients are not a human being.

Once there is a genome that is formed and developing into a full fledged human being, who are we to stop it? It's a waste on the same degree as murder is a waste, theres no need for it.

We wouldn't be discussing this if there wasn't need

I believe this is our emotionally apathetic society induldging in its own abilities to destroy human life for one's own benifit.

Destroying a zygote is not equal to destroying a human. We as humans have decided that certain forms of life have more worth than others. In general, people think insects dont have the same worth as dogs. This is similar. There is a distinction between a zygote and a human. A human is conscious, has a brain, intelligence etc. A zygote has none of those things.

[Nirvana-Eld]

Basic metaphysics guys. Remove what is essential and you don't have "it" anymore.

Example of this. Equation: 2 + 2 = 4
2 is not equal to 4.
2 is essential to 4.
there is no 4 without 2

Water + Nutrients + Oxygen = Sustaining Human Life
Oxygen is not equal to Human
Oxygen is essential to Human
There is no Human without Oxygen

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. Thus once a developing human being is willingly terminated by a mother for reasons such as "I don't want it", because most abortions are not done for medical reasons. (according to the Guttmacher Institute 3/4 of women say that having a baby would "interfere" with work/school/other responsibilities.

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?

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.

Maybe it isn't the emotionally apathetic society you should be concerned with, but your own overly-emotional self.

Aristotle, the father of rhetoric, said that there are three methods of persuasion. Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Pathos would be an emotional appeal to persuade an audience to opinion. Go to www.wikiquote.com and type in friendship or compassion (both of which are emotional) You will find that some of the most prevelant thinkers in our past saw the importance of emotion. Why do I call our society emotionally apathetic? People are starving in the Sudan, people are still dying of lepresy in India, the population of third-world citizens is far greater than the small first-world who has such vast resources but is seemingly too stingy to help our fellow human being. We're too busy watching people get sentenced to death on Tivo while getting morbidly obese with gluttony and sloth. And we are now so apathetic, that when someone "accidentally" gets pregnant, they just suck the think right out of the womb. That is emotional apathy, call me whatever you want.

[ENIGMA]

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.