Banning abortion doesn't make sense to me.

[Stupified]

It's pretty hard not to be on the higher moral ground here - you're arguing for the right of a woman to murder her own offspring.

You're asserting that the women will undoubtedly jeopardize their own lives if we don't help them kill their offspring, so therefore we're better off if we just help them. I'm not on that page. I'd treat those women the same way I would if they were equally intent on hanging themselves, or putting a bullet in their own brain - as mental patients in serious need of mental help.

The fact that abortions rose so dramatically after it became legal proves that most women actually aren't crazy enough to jam a coat hanger up their cooch.

And since you're so concerned about women's health, how do you reconcile that a 13-year study taken of all Finland found that post-abortive women were more than six times likely to commit suicide than those who had not had one?

Here's the hard part: Math. Run the numbers of the number of women who have had abortions, multiply by the likelihood that they'll end up killing themselves later in life, add the number of women that die annually die from the side effects of legal abortions, and compare it to the number abortion-related deaths that the CDC reported in 1972.

Do enough homework to fill in those blanks I intentionally left, then explain to me again how it's statistically better for society to give women permission to kill their kids.

I really love when - in an argument with someone who does not share similar beliefs - pro-life people argue their stances by asserting their belief that a fetus is a child and therefore has the right to human life. Protip: If the other person also believed that... you wouldn't be arguing! Come up with something better than circular reasoning.

 

[MaxPower]

I really love when - in an argument with someone who does not share similar beliefs - pro-life people argue their stances by asserting their belief that a fetus is a child and therefore has the right to human life. Protip: If the other person also believed that... you wouldn't be arguing! Come up with something better than circular reasoning.

1. Actually, there are "evictionists" in this thread arguing that abortion is acceptable even though the fetus is a person.

2. In the post you quoted, Angela was not "arguing her stance by asserting her belief that the fetus is a child and has the right to human life," and was not even responding to someone who had argued the opposite. Instead, she was responding to someone whose position was that abortion is properly legal on the grounds that it would still go on even if it were illegal and that it is safer (for the mother) when legal, by pointing out that:
A. abortion rates increased dramatically after legalization, indicating that most women actually would not attempt risky unprofessional abortions, and furthermore, that illegalization does discourage the practice.
B. suicide rates among women who have had abortions are six times higher than amongst the general population, suggesting that abortion may not be good for "women's health," despite the fact that its proponents often operate under that banner.
C. based on the previous two points, women are not, on the whole, safer in a society with legalized abortion than without it.

Nowhere in there did she simply argue from the assertion that the fetus is a child with the right to human life, although she did include that assertion at the end. The strawman you have constructed of what she said is so inaccurate and simplistic that it is almost difficult to believe you so much as read the post before writing this sarcastic and dismissive response.

While we are on the subject of the fetus' status as a child with the "right to human life," however, I wish to point out that it is objectively undeniable that the fetus is a human life ("child" or "person" being more qualitative and less strictly-objective terms), and that it is your assertion that the fetus is an exception to the rule that humans have the right to their lives which needs proving, not the assertion that we should simply follow the same standard we apply to all other human lives in dealing with fetuses.

 

[jmdrake]

The "evictionist" argument "on a woman's body" is that the woman owns her body; likewise, a boat-owner owns his or her boat. They are both arguments from property rights and are thus logically analogous. You are not entitled at your discretion to "evict" someone from your property who is there involuntarily as a result of your own actions in a fashion that amounts to killing them.

Even still, just to sharpen my argument, I will pose a new hypothetical:
Suppose that tomorrow morning, I wake up and find you physically grafted onto me, in such fashion that the only way to sever the connection within the next several months will be to kill you. This has occurred as a result of some recreational activity I partook of without your consent and while knowing that in so doing I was running the risk of this happening. Now suppose that I tell you I am going to have you killed, and that this is justified because you are an "intruder" on my property being "evicted" in accordance with my "rights." Who is the aggressor in this situation, and who is being aggressed upon? Is there any valid question?

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MaxPower again.

 

[Domalais]

1. Actually, there are "evictionists" in this thread arguing that abortion is acceptable even though the fetus is a person.

And in our glorious an cap future, that fetus could find another uterus to inhabit after its eviction, perhaps trading future earnings against rent of the willing woman's body.

The transactions will all be in gold, of course. We aren't savages.

 

[seraphson]

The "evictionist" argument "on a woman's body" is that the woman owns her body; likewise, a boat-owner owns his or her boat. They are both arguments from property rights and are thus logically analogous. You are not entitled at your discretion to "evict" someone from your property who is there involuntarily as a result of your own actions in a fashion that amounts to killing them.

Even still, just to sharpen my argument, I will pose a new hypothetical:
Suppose that tomorrow morning, I wake up and find you physically grafted onto me, in such fashion that the only way to sever the connection within the next several months will be to kill you. This has occurred as a result of some recreational activity I partook of without your consent and while knowing that in so doing I was running the risk of this happening. Now suppose that I tell you I am going to have you killed, and that this is justified because you are an "intruder" on my property being "evicted" in accordance with my "rights." Who is the aggressor in this situation, and who is being aggressed upon? Is there any valid question?

I think that's a straw man argument.

 

[MaxPower]

I think that's a straw man argument.

I think that's an unsupported assertion.

I do not think the argument of mine you bolded was in any sense a "straw man" of the evictionist position to which I was responding, although it would be a straw man if it were applied to the "fetuses-have-no-rights" position, which I have addressed elsewhere.

 

[Black Flag]

Mainly about how legislating morality doesn't work.

I guess legislating the immorality of murder doesn't work either - there are still murders.

Of course "it works" - it maintains a significant hurdle upon the irresponsible to reduce such behavior.

Will it completely disappear? Well, murder hasn't yet, given 10,000 years of prohibition to it, so I doubt abortion will disappear either.

But do you think murder rates would go up, go down or stay the same if there was no consequence to killing?

 

[Black Flag]

The slippery slope argument is a very poor one. Making abortions illegal would lead to the deaths of many women who will still try to have them.

Well, right now, it leads to the deaths of millions of babies - you believe there is some equivalence to purposely killing a child vs. a mother who dies by trying to kill her child???

Valuing the health, sovereignty of body, and life of full grown American citizens over that of unwanted zygotes is pretty justifiable even if one believes human life begins at conception.

The American citizen are free to act - but you bear the consequences of your action

You want to murder and kill so to still be able to do your act, but free yourself from the negative consequences it may create.

And that, sir, is the gravest immorality of them all.

Brain dead and brainless are different things.

PS: The zygote has a brain.

You confuse a state of development of human beings to be the measure of humanity of human beings - and men have used your justification to create hell on earth for humanity.

It is no "slippery slope" when it is true.

Slippery slope is an extension of argument into the ridiculous.

There is nothing ridiculous of arguing for murder based on a subjective whim of development - it is horrific.

You have nothing but "well, I think ...here...they are human" -- nothing objective.

If you place your finger "here", I -with as much justification- place my finger "there". Guess what? That's you.

Arguing whether we should allow women to die trying to abort an unwanted child

Utter red herring.

Sir, you can't even figure out the 99.9% of the cases where there is no threat to life, except to the baby -- and now, you want to justify the wholesale slaughter of millions because of the 0.1%????

No, you have no basis from which to discern the case of risk to mother's life when you can't even discern circumstances where there is no risk.

Before you engage in calculus, prove you can add first.

 

[Black Flag]

I think that's a straw man argument.

No, it is utterly germane.

By a person's free will, they engage in an act. Such acts have known consequences - well long determined by man for himself over the last 100,000 years at least - there is no hidden mystery here.

But they engage in this act anyway, because they like it.

They receive the likely consequence.

They don't like being responsible for the consequence they created for themselves, so they ... want to kill it, but -perversely- argue that somehow IT imposes upon them - when it was THEY who did the act and created IT!

 

[Roxi]

adulthood[/B] and is personally against murder I don't see how the government getting involved and banning it would be a good idea producing a positive outcome. Like with drugs, prostitution, gambling, anything that people want, making it illegal doesn't make it disappear it merely moves it underground. Banning murder will not stop women from having them. But it would make murder very dangerous and much more traumatizing. Keeping it legal and regulating it makes it a safe medical procedure. If murder was banned there would presumably not be an exception for victims impregnated because of rape. This loophole would certainly be abused since anyone wanting an abortion could try to claim this to get it done legally. I get why someone personally would be morally against abortion, I don't get wanting to force this moral belief onto everyone using legal measures.

there, fixed.

Can someone please give me a reasonable explanation why the the law should compromise the liberty of a fully grown women to do what she wants with her own body to protect the life something living inside her which for weeks doesn't even have a working brain?

3 weeks after conception? Very few women know they are pregnant by then, almost none have had a blood test or procedure confirming pregnancy.

 

[Republicanguy]

Yes better education is one answer to stopping this and unwanted pregnacies.

But I don't have any right to interfere with a woman's right to abort her fetus/baby.

But rape is left conviently left out, and for those who say give a child up for adoption, may be they can adopt a child instead of pro creating for one.

 

[Southron]

But rape is left conviently left out, and for those who say give a child up for adoption, may be they can adopt a child instead of pro creating for one.

The Romans used to leave unwanted babies outside to die of exposure and Christians would take them in. I'm not sure why they can't be adopted now.

 

[Black Flag]

Yes better education is one answer to stopping this and unwanted pregnacies.

But I don't have any right to interfere with a woman's right to abort her fetus/baby.

But rape is left conviently left out, and for those who say give a child up for adoption, may be they can adopt a child instead of pro creating for one.

Therefore, sir, you argue you have no right to interfere with a thief's right to steal from your neighbor, nor have a right to interfere with a killer's right to murder either.

As long as you are consistent in your understanding of rights, your thinking vs. abortion works.

I do not think you are consistent, and your position on rights vs abortion therefore is irrational.

 

[Black Flag]

But rape is left conviently left out,

As it must be.

When we organize ourselves to be civilized, we created a base prohibition against violence.
Violence is wrong and it is wrong to hurt another person.

We codified this into human law to affirm this - prohibit murder and assault and all of that.

We then contemplated the exceptions - the rare times where killing is justified, such as self defense.

But we do not go and say "well, because rarely it is justified to kill for a reason, therefore any reason to kill is justified"

Same here - get the morality straight for the 99% - then determine when a justification occurs for the rarity times of the 1%

 

[nobody]

I believe ACTIONS should have consequences. I should not have to pay for anothers ACTIONS. NUFF said.

 

[Stupified]

PS: The zygote has a brain.

Biology 101 please.

 

[Republicanguy]

But who here is a woman that is the question, what do we know about this? If you were left with a fetus you didn't want, and the alternative may be problematic.

In what we now call the Kosovan state, back in the conflict kosovan women were raped and left with children they didn't really want, and some you know live with that. Men(husbands) in that state pushed women away who were violated because it was seen as the enemy's castle. Kosovo is no western nation, today I am not certain what the culture is concerning rape.

But my point is using this place as an example is that some women just killed the babies after they were born.

May be if the education was different there, and a dose of feminism, perhaps women there would of had some muscle to defend themselves instead of traditional ways, when they men were killed.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The Romans used to leave unwanted babies outside to die of exposure and Christians would take them in. I'm not sure why they can't be adopted now.

Yes. The Roman and Greek societies frequently practiced abortion and infanticide. Babies who were born alive were thrown into the trash heaps outside the city walls and left to die. The Christians would make a regular practice of combing the trash heaps in search of babies, which they would take in and raise as Christians.

 

[Republicanguy]

Are there any particular examples of Roman women who did so and why? Any records?

Roman men never allowed their women to gather with other men, they would beat them up. I'm sure not all did this, but those societies were very patriarchal.

 

[KMX]

At no point is it every right ti KILL a baby.

Just b/c my daughter got raped by some thug , does not mean I take a life to solve the problem. THAT IS A gift from god, a child,

Who are you to say that child does not have a right to live?