The fact that abortions are legal doesn't force you to do anything, you can choose to have the child. My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, everyone can do what they want. — Samlw
I have never heard a compelling argument for pro-life. All of them have been based on religion or personal feelings in which my answer is always to simply not have an abortion. — Samlw
They believe that abortion is murder. Telling them that abortion should be a choice is, to them, telling them that murder should be a choice. — Michael
This line of reasoning will entail the conclusion that it is wrong to kill a baby from the moment of conception. — Michael
But this also brings me back to my first point. This is a belief, and to take away rights from people simply because of that I find disgusting. — Samlw
I understand where people would get that from, however my counter would be that it would be wrong to kill a foetus that is conscious, I think the logic of every foetus is a potential life is correct however, to call it murder would be dramatic aslong as the foetus isn’t conscious. — Samlw
They believe that abortion is murder. Telling them that abortion should be a choice is, to them, telling them that murder should be a choice. — Michael
Additionally, it's seen as a road to euthanasia of the elderly, sick, or infirmed, which is in the same territory as readily-available state-sanctioned/assisted suicide if someone happens to convince themself (or, and this is the concern, becomes convinced by others) they should cease living, even for reasons as minimal and transient as a break-up, divorce, or loss of a job or having a bad year, month, week, or even day. — Outlander
In which case it would have to be discussed on what do we class as a life. Consciousness is believed to start developing around 24-26 weeks into the pregnancy. — Samlw
Think about how many teenagers who don’t understand life have managed to have an abortion. Think, if they were forced to have that child would their quality of life decrease or increase? Obviously there would be cases of their life increasing but I believe the vast majority would have a decrease. — Samlw
You've begged the question by assuming that we have the right to an abortion — Michael
Additionally, it's seen as a road to euthanasia of the elderly, sick, or infirmed, which is in the same territory as readily-available state-sanctioned/assisted suicide if someone happens to convince themself (or, and this is the concern, becomes convinced by others) they should cease living, even for reasons as minimal and transient as a break-up, divorce, or loss of a job or having a bad year, month, week, or even day. — Outlander
There's a way to look at it not from abortion (nor religion) specifically but from a general cultural and societal standpoint: Unconditional respect for human life or not. Blood sports (gladiators/prisoners fighting to the death for public entertainment/their freedom) or televised executions/public hangings for example all contribute to this dynamic of a given society and have largely been phased out in most all civilized countries for reasons that they do not contribute to (have no place in) modern, intelligent, and advanced societies. Back in man's earlier days when the threat of a bloody invasion and having one's town/city/fiefdom/kingdom/empire sacked to the ground and every man, woman, and child killed or enslaved was a very real and looming possibility on the back of everyone's mind, it was probably of benefit for the average adult man and woman to realize, such things could occur and to be prepared. Now that war is largely technological/nuclear and traditional ground invasions of troops are becoming less and less likely, everyday exposure and thoughts of such have little to no utility only burden and detriment. So, why not instill the value of unconditional respect for human life in any form and at any stage to a populous? We can go forward or we can go backward. People scarcely know their own nature, despite their own self-assurance otherwise. — Outlander
Around 60% of the world’s population has the right to an abortion. — Samlw
And in the interest of freedom and not allowing a government to have control on what life choices you want to make with your personal body, I would argue it should be a basic right. — Samlw
Do I have the basic (moral) right to kill you if you annoy me? Presumably you believe we don't. Some believe that we also don't have the basic (moral) right to kill a foetus.
So again you're just begging the question. — Michael
And I would argue that it shows an actual advancement in civilisation where we can safely choose whether or not to have a kid. — Samlw
In my opinion that’s a weak counter because I can flip the same question and say, is it moral to take away the choice? — Samlw
It is moral to take away your choice to kill me for the same reason that it is moral to take away your choice to kill a foetus; both I and the foetus have a right to life, and our right to light is greater than your choice to kill us. — Michael
The reason some allow for the exception for rape is because people should be given the right to choose to become pregnant. If the sex was consensual, the choice was made to expose yourself to the risk of pregnancy. That's how that works. — Hanover
I would say to that, your conscious, the foetus isn’t. So in some way you can’t use human rights in the argument because an abortion would be the same as killing something else that isn’t conscious such as a blade of grass. — Samlw
Why do we value human life over every other life? — Samlw
That question has no bearing on the pro-life claim that abortion is wrong. A pro-life advocate could equally be a vegan and believe that killing animals is wrong. — Michael
As I asked you before, why is consciousness the measure of the right to life? — Michael
I have never heard a compelling argument for pro-life. All of them have been based on religion or personal feelings in which my answer is always to simply not have an abortion. The fact that abortions are legal doesn't force you to do anything, you can choose to have the child. My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, everyone can do what they want. — Samlw
Some think a fetus is a stage in the life of a human being, so nobody should have the right to choose what to do with the fetus' body.Around 60% of the world’s population has the right to an abortion. And in the interest of freedom and not allowing a government to have control on what life choices you want to make with your personal body, — Samlw
Around 60% of the world’s population has the right to an abortion. — Samlw
You are the one who claimed that it is acceptable kill a foetus if it is unconscious and unacceptable to kill a foetus if it is conscious. You must explain why being conscious matters. Asking me the question "why do we value human life over other life?" does not provide an explanation or a justification of your claim — Michael
This is a weak argument. As for justifications for pro-life beliefs being based on religion or personal feelings 1) I don't see how pro-choice beliefs are any different and 2) Those seem like pretty good reasons to me. People who are against abortion generally consider it killing a child. Let's take the paragraph I quoted above and change "abortion" to "kill a child." I think that puts a different light on it. — T Clark
Then why take away the choice whether to live or die from the child? — NOS4A2
If you want to baffle the world with statistics, you need to do better homework. About 49% of the world's population is male, and of the rest, there are many prepubescent, many post-menopausal, and some infertile for various reasons. Thus more than 50% are ineligible for any right to abortion. Perhaps you mean that around 60% of the world' population live in countries where abortion is legal and accessible for women who might want or need it? — unenlightened
I must say I find it odd that folk who get very exercised about the sacred value of a foetus, seem to have little to say about the children killed day after day in wars and famines and from poor sanitation and lack of clean water and of easily preventable diseases. It almost looks like the real agenda is the control of women's bodies and sexual expression, not saving precious innocent human lives. But of course I am an old cynic as well as a pedant. — unenlightened
there will be a vast majority that is pro-life for their own reasons. — Samlw
You can say you are still preventing a human life and I agree, but the benefits out weigh the cons in my opinion. — Samlw
But with that logic you would be murdering something to cover up a rape. Do two wrongs make a right? — Samlw
That wasn't my logic. You said that women should have a choice whether to have a child and I agreed. I then said that when a woman is raped, her right to decide whether to have a child has been violated (and she was violated in many other ways most certainly) and that is why many agree that in cases of rape abortion is permissible. — Hanover
It is often argued that incest, under-age sex (both of which are usually non-consensual in legal terms at least), non-viable foetus, risk to mother's own life are often included with rape. I think not to allow those exceptions is inhumane, even cruel. However, the cruelty to both mother and child of forcing a mother to go through an unwanted pregnancy and then expecting both mother and child to cope with a dysfunctional relationship is too often ignored. Children need love - for at least twenty years. You cannot create that by passing a law.That is, one way women choose to have children is by having sex. It's the most common way actually. Women should have the right to choose to have children, but if they're raped and become pregnant, they were deprived that choice. For that reason, abortion might be argued to be permissible in that instance. — Hanover
That's a very good point.The most common reason for advocating for abortion bans is not acknowledging that this topic is one of competing interests (fetus vs adult woman). Thus any argument that addresses only one side of the topic (such as "abortion is murder") is at minimum incomplete, but usually is intellectually dishonest. — LuckyR
Absolutely. It's the least you can do for a reluctant mother and for the child as well.Let's make laws against them during pregnancy and child-care, and then there will be little demand for abortions, except for tragic medical circumstances that cannot be avoided by legal fiat. — unenlightened
That's absurd. Parents (biological or other) not only have the right, but the duty to make decisions about their children's lives. Why should there not be a similar right and duty to make decisions about a foetus? After all, we allow people to make decisions for their relatives when they are ill and unable to make the decisions themselves.Some think a fetus is a stage in the life of a human being, so nobody should have the right to choose what to do with the fetus' body. — Patterner
The last thing anyone should do is make a decision of this sort based on a philosophical theory - unless, by some miracle, all the theories deliver the same judgement.moral value is not determined by benefits, i.e. deontology is correct and consequentialism is incorrect — Michael
That's absurd. Parents (biological or other) not only have the right, but the duty to make decisions about their children's lives. Why should there not be a similar right and duty to make decisions about a foetus? After all, we allow people to make decisions for their relatives when they are ill and unable to make the decisions themselves. — Ludwig V
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.