Or why not go back further and say that it is a human being a ovulation?
After all, think of all those wonderful children who never had the chance to be conceived? Think about all your own and your friend’s sons and daughters, what if their parents had decided not to have sex and those children wouldn’t exist? Isn’t that a tragedy? What if Einstein’s mother had decided to not have sex? Think of what a loss there would be to science. What if your parents were abstinent? where would you be? Don’t you think another child deserves the same chance you got?
The only policy that makes sense it so have all women pregnant from puberty onwards, by force if necessary. What’s a woman’s inconvenience as compared to all the wonderful children who will be given a chance at life?
I think you misspelled anti-science. The things I’ve read from anti-abortion cites is false information ranging from when certain tissues are formed, ability of a fetus to feel pain, to outrageous claims like abortion causes breast cancer.
Actually, it’s not based on the bible or any other Christian tradition, AFAIK. It appears to be a recent thing. It’s like a neo-fertility cult sans the honored place of women in the cult.
Ever heard of hyperbole? I didn’t time myself, but the point is that it was a brief reply that didn’t tax me at all to write. So if that fills your heart with the jollies, good job for you. But I’d really like to know what you actually think the ‘utility’ of unwanted babies is. You can just keep messing around and avoiding the point, but it’s not doing anything for your side.
Wait. So death is seen as a less severe outcome than is being abused?
You were doing so well until the last sentence. Such a shame, too. Actions are not restricted based on whether it is in society’s best interest to do so, but whether or not it is in the best interest of the individual-who-would-be-negatively-affected-by-that-action’s interest to do so. I’d like to know where you live where this isn’t the case.
Except it’s not false. One of the favorite mantras of pro-choicers is “My body, my choice!” or some form of the argument. Well, assuming that’s true, then it should always be a woman’s choice to abort so long as it’s her body. And since her body always belongs to her, then she should always be allowed to abort. The unborn is quite immaterial, here.
Are you saying it’s okay for a woman to do to her unborn prior to viability, but not after? Are you saying that you would restrict abortion if, tomorrow, advances in technology made is to that the unborn was viable exactly one second after conception? Viability is arbitrary, and a point you only picked because after then abortion becomes too much like infanticide for your tastes.
And wtf is a “potential life”?
Really? I’m pretty sure prohibitions against abortion span back thousands of years, whilst laws making abortion legal only really sprung up in the last century. Just so you know.
Again, I just want to make sure I’m reading you correctly. You really think that getting rid of the thing to which you would be held responsible to be responsible? Yes?
Oh, how witty. Next you’re going to use the “I know you are but what am I?” line, right?
Hey, look. More moral gymnastics.
If abortion is a case of trying to impose one’s religious beliefs upon another, then human rights are a religious issue. If people have the right to their own religious views and beliefs, then you should agree that something like, say, child sacrifice is okay for some people to engage in. If you argue that child sacrifice is not okay because children are persons, then you’re forcing someone to adhere to your own religious views and beliefs instead of their own. If you argue that cild sacrifice is not okay because the children are human, then you’re speaking of human rights, and even then you’d still be arguing from a religious position.
Pick your poison.
No, it’s not the law (currently). With that being said, would you like to place a wager on those assertions? It’s a well-known fact that, at least in the U.S., the majority of people view abortion to be murder and would restrict abortion not based on what the mother wants, but because of the situation (generally limiting it to cases of rape, incest and severe fetal defects). But, hey, don’t let facts get in your way.
Who said any individual had worth that was inherent?
There’s no question that a zygote is the beginning of a potential human life. The question is does that potential deserve the same consideration, the same rights, that we attribute to citizens. even more so, because what you’re suggesting is making woman legally bound to physically sustain a life with their own, even if they prefer not to. Something we’d consider a little crazy in other circumstances.
The pro-lifers. Pro-choicers seem to believe that an individual only has worth so long as his/her mother and society deem them to have worth.
You know, in all my time in school, I never once saw anything about a zygote being the beginning of a potential human life. And again I ask, wtf is a potential human life?
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Can I get the name of your supplier for that straw? You must be getting a hell of a price to use it so profligately.
[/quote]
Um, “well known fact”? You realy need to provide a cite for that. Based on what I’ve been able to come up with in a quick google search, it’s neck and neck, hardly a vast majority. Also, I haven’t seen a detailed explanation of what circumstances people feel abortion should be limited to. You cite limiting to cases of rape, incest and severe fetal defects, but my understanding is that many people’s thoughts on abortion are strongly correlated the trimester in which it occurs rather than the circumstances you listed. I would posit that such limitations you’re projecting onto others are the ones you favor. And while not many people favor unlimited abortion just because, financial considerations, the relationship between the man and the woman (in cases where rape and/or incest is not a factor) are considerations. But, hey, don’t let facts get in your way.
The onus is on you to provide supporting cites. But, a quick google search yields the following on public perception of abortion in the U.S.
This seems to be very close to being the root of the whole problem: is a zygote deserving of the same rights of life-preservation as a developed human?
I hold that it isn’t, and therefore may be aborted by the woman to whose body it is attached. As cosmodan points out, the alternative, i.e., “making woman legally bound to physically sustain a life with their own, even if they prefer not to. Something we’d consider a little crazy in other circumstances” is unsupportable.
You just can’t make anyone legally liable to risk their own life to save another. It can be a choice lauded by society, but it must never be more than an option. Shall we require every woman who has a spontanenous abortion to prove that she didn’t use an abortafacient? Shall we subject every used menstrual pad to forensic analysis - might be a fetus in there!
Or shall we quit with the crazy and pick an arbitrary event - say, being born - as the rite of passage to legally-protected human?
Actually, historically, abortion was legaland personal in this country until around 1867. Some of the reasons it became illegal had little to do with morality, or true concern for “unborn children” Any idea that an embryo or fetus was widely considered the same as a newborn baby simply isn’t true. {Just in case that’s what your claiming}
No, pro-choicers believe that individuals can come to individual moral conclusions about something so not black and white as this issue. To be pro-choice actually means nothing about an individual stance on the ethics of abortion, but on the role of imposing your ethics on others.
Honestly, your oversimplified arguments reflect a real ignorance of the abortion issue. That’s not an insult, just an observation. You have your personal opinion, but it’s not based on a lot of knowledge.
Go ahead and insult me. You’ve got nothing else. I don’t need to use all the flowery words that you guys have been using to try and make it seem like you know what you are talking about. It’s just a bunch of mumbo jumbo anyways.
Using the arguments that pro-choicers use you would have to be for infanticide. There’s no way around it. Basically what you are saying is the mother should have the choice to kill her won baby just because she feels like it.
[quote]
With respect to circumstances, most Americans agree that abortion should be available when there is a medical problem, whether involving the woman or the fetus. They generally disapprove of abortion in cases involving lifestyle decisions. Public opinion surveys indicate the following rank order of approval for abortion under specific circumstances:
Life of the woman: 84%
Physical health of the woman: 83%
Rape or incest: 79%
Mental health of the woman: 64%
Baby would be mentally impaired: 53%
Baby would be physically impaired: 51%
Would force teenager to drop out of school: 42%
Woman/family can’t afford the baby: 39%
Woman/family want no more children: 39%
Couple does not want to marry: 35%
Fertility selection (when fertility process creates multiple embryos): 29%
Would interfere with woman’s career: 25%
[Link](http://www.gallup.com/poll/9904/public-opinion-about-abortion-indepth-review.aspx#5)
[/quote]
[quote]
Situation/Should Be Legal/Should Be Illegal
All or Most Cases: 57%/42%
To Save Woman's Life: 88%/10%
To Save Woman's Health: 82%/14%
In Cases of Rape/Incest: 81%/17%
Physically Impaired Baby: 54%/40%
To End Unwanted Pregnancy: 42%/57%
D&X/Partial-Birth Abortions: 23%/69%
Pregnancy is 6 Months+: 11%/86%
[Link](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/abortion_poll030122.htm)
[/quote]
[quote]
FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Oct. 23-24, 2007. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.
"Please tell me if you think abortion should be legal or illegal in each of the following situations..."
Legal/Illegal/Unsure
If the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest:
10/23 - 24/07: 70%/21%/9%
2/28 - 3/1/06: 74%/21%/6%
If the pregnancy puts the mother's life at risk:
10/23 - 24/07: 73%/15%/12%
2/28 - 3/1/06: 83%/12%/5%
If the pregnancy puts the mother's mental health at risk:
10/23 - 24/07: 56%/28%/16%
2/28 - 3/1/06: 62%/30%/8%
If the baby has a fatal birth defect:
10/23-24/07: 53%/30%/18%
If the pregnancy is unwanted:
10/23 - 24/07: 39%/50%/11%
2/28 - 3/1/06: 43%/49%/8%
[/QUOTE]
And:
[quote]
CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Jan. 10-12, 2003. N=1,002 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
Now I am going to read some specific situations under which an abortion might be considered. For each one, please say whether you think abortion should be legal in that situation, or illegal. How about [see below]?
Legal/Illegal/Depends/Unsure
When the woman's life is endangered:
85%/11%/2%/2%
When the woman's physical health is endangered:
77%/17%/4%/2%:
When the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest:
76%/19%/2%/3%
When the woman's mental health is endangered:
63%/32%/3%/2%
When there is evidence that the baby may be physically impaired
56%/37%/4%/3%
When there is evidence that the baby may be mentally impaired:
55%/39%/3%/3$
When the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child
35%/61%/2%/2%
Thinking more generally: Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy? How about [see below]?
Legal/Illegal/Depends/Unsure:
In the first three months of pregnancy
66%/29%/3%/2%
In the second three months of pregnancy:
25%/68%/4%/3%
In the last three months of pregnancy"
10%/84%/4%/2%
[Link](http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion2.htm)
[/quote]
And for good measure:
[quote]
Do you agree or disagree with this statement? "Abortion is murder."
-57% agree that it is murder
-36% disagree
[/quote]
[Link](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/timespoll/la-000618abortpoll-442pa2an,1,7894326.htmlstory)
I'm getting kind of lazy here, so that's all I'm gonna' search out. Point being, you're welcome.
I have had stimulating, enlightening debates about these issues with people from all ends of the spectrum. What makes those debates positive is that they are intelligent and aim at exploring the issue, not winning the debate. Good debate is often more about helping someone define their own position more clearly and explicitly than about converting their opponent. Unfortunately, bad debate ends up being people just talking past each other. Sometimes, complex arguments require precise and intelligent language. I guess that would be what you are calling “flowery”- most would just call it sophisticated language for complex and nuanced debate.
