Pro-life or Pro-choice?

I personally don't agree with abortions but...I don't agree with most things, not even what I just said so who the hell am I to judge?

 

Can you switch the poll options to prodeath and prolife please.

 

Prodeath- I am a murderer and would love to see babies die
Prolife- I love life and would love to see children flourish.


Something like that

 

This is a sensitive and oft confused issue. Some preliminary thoughts.

1. Morality is not relative. That is, what is morally binding on an individual or group is not dependent on time, place, or culture. Objective moral values exist, and these are not necessarily dependent on religion. There are no good arguments for moral relativism, in either the individual or cultural forms. Most working philosophers in the western world, regardless of their philosophical or political positions on other issues, agree on this. I can proved 7-10 arguments why, or refer to sources that elaborate on the issue as such.

2. The most important thing to determine is the status of the fetus. By this, I mean one must determine whether or not the fetus is a life. If it is a life, a person in development, then it has all the same basic human rights afforded to any other more developed person, which includes the right to life. Whether or not the child was conceived under tragic circumstances, or if it was wanted or not, does not change the quite independent fact of whether or not it is a person.

3. How can we determine if it is a person? This too is not a matter of opinion. We can safely accept the notion that personhood does not begin at birth: this would treat the women's cervix as some sort of magical personhood granting apparatus. Scientifically, we know that the age of viability (brain waves can be detected) is somewhere around the first trimester mark. Any other point chosen along the 9 month timeline is arbitrary. However, this not to say that personhood doesn't begin earlier than this time.

Establishing what counts as a person depends upon how personhood is defined. Once a definition is proposed, one must test it against all instances in which their might be a person. For example, if you require that personhood be a contributing member of society, then that means people who have altzheimers or are in a vegetative state would then not count as persons. but clearly we would not say this is the case.

4. If the fetus is a person, then women's rights are a secondary matter. This is not a politically correct thing to say, but is the correct thing to say. If it is a person, then the mother must respect its basic human rights. If it is a person, then it is not merely a part of the woman's body (like a tumor or a finger). If it was part of the mother, then it would not have it own unique genetic identity (DNA). But it has its own unique genetic identity, so it is not a part of the mother in the same way a finger is. There are exceptions to this, as I will elaborate on below.

5. My contention is that the fetus is a human person, and is so at least at the first trimester mark, and therefore should enjoy constitutional protection. When a person is in the hospital, and their life hangs in the balance, we should always err on the side of caution. this is a general principle of hospital care. The same is true for the life of the fetus; that if we are not quite sure about whether or not it is a person, we should err on the side of caution and assume it is a person, because it is better to assume its a life and act as such than to assume it's not and therefore kill an innocent person.

6. Pro-life does not need to be without conditions. Rape is a difficult instance, as is incest, and while I find them highly regrettable situations, an abortion is not warranted in these cases. If the mother's life is in jeopardy, and by proxy the child's life, then we take it as the morally correct choice to save one life (by aborting the fetus) rather than losing two.

 

pro choice. oh and... (possibly depending on how people respond)

 

You make me feel bad about masturbating in public places. People can see me openly commit murder.

 

Peolple don't want to believe morality is relative because then it's hard to take almost anything seriously. You fall into emotivism or cognitive relativism both of which make our "moral" decisions quite irrelevant. I think that the fact the whole world cannot agree on a single moral rule is evidence in itself that relativism can give u a run for your money. No mater what moral principle you name, I guarantee You can find two opposing groups on the issue. I'm not arguing for relativism, but I think your too quick to dismiss it.

 

It depends on how far along the pregnancy is. But for the individuals using it for birth control maybe they can be sterilized during the process because obviously they are playing with fire.

 

Wow... Really informative post. Are you writing an essay on this be any chance?
Also I take it youre prolife?

 

Pro-choice.

Interestingly enough, I just finished the book Freakinomics and they had a very well thought out study on abortion. Turns out once abortion was legalized in America, the crime rate dropped once the unborn fetuses would have been of the age to start committing crimes. Dropped. That's because statistically children that are aborted are unwanted (duh) by poor, uneducated, drug affiliated single women. Turns out that's the same demographic that creates criminals. Funny how that happens, huh?

An important thing to realize is that whether the woman was irresponsible at the time of conception or not, she is the best one to trust if she should raise a child or not. If she doesn't think she is fit to do so, than who are you to force her? She knows best at that point. Maybe she will be ready in the future, when she is married, cleaned up, and financially secure. Maybe not, but lets not force her hand on something that she knows better than you or I.

 

Did someone say it was? I certainly didn't.

 

"Dont tell someone they cant because you wont."

sorry, but when it comes to murdering an unborn child simply because someone knowingly engaged in behavior that could cause the situation, and simply wants the easy way out.... i will tell you my opinion. that baby cannot yet speak for itself.

sad that our society has become what it has. no responsibility for your actions.

 

Unfortunately, morality is relative. The Aztecs, Mayans, Sumatrans and Phoencians all practiced human sacrifice, slavery, animal sacrifice and a host of other beliefs which we today would find reprehensible -- but in their period of time, were regarded as legitimate, even necessary. Nazi Germany persecuted and murdered people of the Jewish faith and homosexuals. For the longest time in this country, women and blacks were not considered to be of equal footing with white males. Some of these trends continue today.

Morality is relative to the time/place/religion/social group you live in at the time.

100 years from now, people could look back at our time and wonder how we could be so closed-minded to deny abortions -- or how we could be so barbaric as to perform them.

One can be determined to be a person, yet not be granted all the rights afforded another person. If that were the case, upon birth, a child in the US should have the right to vote, smoke, drink, hold a job, join the military, pay taxes, commit crimes, drive, possess a firearm among other rights which are currently restricted to the population on the grounds of age, aptitude or morality.

Furthermore, the opposite is true in that often, people in advanced stages (more developed) of life are denied their "rights" due to brain functionality, mobility, aptitude, age, etc. These rights are turned over to their power of attorney, next-of-kin, guardians and the like, and the decision made on their behalf can and oftentimes do involve the consequences of life and death.

Viability is only one determining factor in what counts as a "person." There are very few fetuses, despite exhibiting brain waves, that could live outside of the mother at one trimester. I believe most lines in the debate have been drawn around the period of time when a child is able to breathe, eat, and perform necessary survival function on its own as viability.

This is the part where most people will come to blows.

To say that a woman's rights are a secondary matter flies in the face of all the statements you have previously made about persons and their rights in life.

If you are to assume that a person is indeed a person, and that they are afforded all the rights under the United States Constitution (assuming US citizen) that includes the rights of the mother -- who is in fact, a person.

To suggest that a fetus, who may or may not in fact be a person, super-cedes the rights of a mother -- who is in fact a person -- is contradictory to the arguments that you have laid out before. The mother has established herself as a person, and her rights cannot be relinquished -- including the rights to life and choice.

In my personal opinion, this is a flawed argument, and blatantly incorrect as stipulated by the very terms laid out above.

Furthermore, until it reaches viability, the fetus is in fact, a part of the mother. It depends on the mother for survival, much like a finger or tumor. Unique DNA is moot, for without the host, the fetus will not survive.

Rape and incest are considered in our moral relativity to be reprehensible acts. To force a mother to have to carry, raise and care for a child which was forced upon her against her will is one of the cruelest, despicable outrageous concepts confronted by modern man. It is tantamount to "cruel and unusual punishment" which is forbidden under US law, and in these cases, imposed upon a person who has not even committed a crime.

There are those who elect to carry a child after these tragedies, and I find them to be some of the most incredibly strong, caring people in the world. To be able to handle that sort of situation is nothing short of courageous.

But to force a person to carry a child caused by rape or incest is not anything I would wish upon my worst enemies.

 

WTF did you say to me! I'm mad! Yo mama! Argggg!!!

 

I have read the entire thread up to this point, and have not noticed anyone quoting the Bible, much less using it to shove their views on others.

 

Very well put!

 

im pro-choice, because i don't believe the government has any business telling people that they can or can not have an abortion.

BUT im pro-life, because i personally don't agree with it.

does that make any sense?

 

Some of what is noted here are not rights, but privelidges. To drive requires a licence, and is a preveledge. I dont think everyone has the right to commit crimes either. What you are talking about are "restricted to the population on the grounds of age, aptitude or morality." What we are talking about is the basic right to live. By your own arguement, people who are "in advanced stages of life" as you put it, can also be denied the basic right to live. By your logic, these people should be put to death without consequence.

Does this arguement also hold for those on life support? Can we push this arguement to the limit, and say people who cannot survive on their own should be left to die. So, if a person is wounded in an accident, we should not intervene?

Take, for example, a person is infirmed in the hospital, but has a good chance of survival after being taken off life support as the recovery progresses. This arguement gives the person providing the care and life support the right to kill the patient.

I agree, Rape and incest are considered to be reprehensible acts. However, no one chooses the circumstances in which we are conceived, or born. Are we to kill because the circumstances of the conception is non-ideal?

Theses are just points for debate. I think it depends on whether you see it from the viewpoint of the mother, or the baby.

By the way, kudos to everyone who has kept this a civilized debate.

 

Makes a lot of sense.

I think a lot of people feel the way you do.

 

x2

Like, I'd rather have a fetus NOT be aborted, but in the end it should all come down to the woman's choice.