|
Pro-life vs. pro-choice (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Omega_Blue |
| i'm not really down with abortions personally, i would rather see my kid adopted than killed. however, if i were put in that situation, i would respect any choice my SO made in the matter. and while i would attempt to convince her otherwise, in the end it's her body, not mine. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
i'm not really down with abortions personally, i would rather see my kid adopted than killed. however, if i were put in that situation, i would respect any choice my SO made in the matter. and while i would attempt to convince her otherwise, in the end it's her body, not mine. |
well, if we wanna be correct about the whole situation, KIDS aren't killed. foetuses are. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
as opposed to really pathetic excuses related to granting collections of cells legal rights? :p |
Well, are you anything other than a self-organising collection of cells yourself? As far as I remember, I'm given legal rights too. Do I need something else in order to obtain these rights?
Come on, pkc, I'm even helping you here! |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Omega_Blue
i'm not really down with abortions personally, i would rather see my kid adopted than killed. however, if i were put in that situation, i would respect any choice my SO made in the matter. and while i would attempt to convince her otherwise, in the end it's her body, not mine. |
Forced adoption sounds like a pretty badass policy |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ Damerchi
lira, may i ask you a question(which you have probably been asked 1 million times as a result of your stance)
rape babies, potential death of mother, detection of downes, etc? |
Sure, no problem.
I think it's extremely important to preserve the life of the mother, so potential death of the mother is a no-no. In that case, which is naturally an exception, abortion could even be tolerated insofar as one must inevitably perish.
As for rape babies, this is a huge grey area: on the one hand, this was not a choice of the mother, so she cannot be held accountable for this act; on the other, the state should be held responsible for having failed to protect the woman, but if the state couldn't take care of the mother, what's to say it may protect the child? In that sense, unless the mother herself wants to keep the baby for whatever reason, it should be up to the state.
Finally, regarding down syndrome, are you really implying that kids with down syndrome ought to be aborted by default?
| quote: | Originally posted by Renzo
Maybe the reason you're alone [which you're not, obviously], Lira, is because you call their reasons pathetic. |
It's because there's little point in discussing that, really, and I admit I was harsh. But, seriously, what kind of discussion can you have with "This is wrong because God said so / God said so because this is wrong"? |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Well, are you anything other than a self-organising collection of cells yourself? As far as I remember, I'm given legal rights too. Do I need something else in order to obtain these rights?
Come on, pkc, I'm even helping you here! |
Pretty much every element of murder as defined in most common law jurisdictions comes from Coke's 17th century formulation that goes something like:
"when a man of sound mind and of the age of discretion unlawfully killeth a reasonable creature in being under the King's peace with malice aforethought, either express or implied, death taking place within a year and a day"
The part that comes into question in cases of abortion is "reasonable creature in being". IMHO foetuses (like animals) do not come under the definition. |
|
|
| astroboy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
It's because there's little point in discussing that, really, and I admit I was harsh. But, seriously, what kind of discussion can you have with "This is wrong because God said so / God said so because this is wrong"? |
Harsh but fair. If an argument is not falsifiable it is a good sign that the argument is weak. |
|
|
| DJ Damerchi |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Sure, no problem.
I think it's extremely important to preserve the life of the mother, so potential death of the mother is a no-no. In that case, which is naturally an exception, abortion could even be tolerated insofar as one must inevitably perish.
As for rape babies, this is a huge grey area: on the one hand, this was not a choice of the mother, so she cannot be held accountable for this act; on the other, the state should be held responsible for having failed to protect the woman, but if the state couldn't take care of the mother, what's to say it may protect the child? In that sense, unless the mother herself wants to keep the baby for whatever reason, it should be up to the state.
Finally, regarding down syndrome, are you really implying that kids with down syndrome ought to be aborted by default?
|
Thanks for the answers, I wasn't implying anything about the obligation to abort fetuses with down syndrome, just raising the question because it is one of the biggest debates. I think it would be highly fascist of the state to force abortions in these cases. But when people come out and say "The world needs more Triggs, not less", you have to be able to effectively say that logic is twisted. I am not advocating the termination of downs syndrome through Eugenics, but it should still be the mother's choice to terminate or not. The rest of her adult life will be greatly affected, and the mother should be given the option to weigh the value of this clump of cells against the drastic changes that will occur in her life as a result of keeping the baby. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| all the coat hangers the lady needs |
|
|
| Paradox Lost |
Without necessarily advancing my own position on the matter (I have no intention of getting into a multi-paged quarrel here), insofar as the appeal to individual autonomy over one's body is concerned, I think that this would prove as insufficient grounds to justify abortion without first interacting with the issue of personhood, as well.
After all, the idea of placing limits on rights and decisions concerning ones body is hardly unusual, and hardly inconsistent with the spirit of autonomy.
When looking at this in the context of abortion, I feel that one of two things needs to be substantiated if this argument is to succeed:
1. That there is only only person involved, not two, and thus, no one's rights are being violated by abortion.
2. That personhood is ultimately insignificant, for in the case of pregnancy, the mother's rights over her body takes precedence over the rights of the unborn.
Regarding the second point, I think it's worth noting that this attempt at essentially circumventing the classic debate over personhood has been taken up by both anti and pro abortion positions in professional philosophical circles, most notably by Don Marquis' "Future Like Ours" argument, and Judith Thompson's famous "Violinist" argument, respectively.
So, in other words, I don't find saying "a government may not tell me what I may and may not do with my body" as a tenable justification to abortion without first contextually substantiating it in the above mentioned capacities.
Whether or not I find that it is takes me into waters I'd much rather steer clear of.
EDIT:
I suppose there is also a third way to go about this, though I usually don't see many people approach it through this angle:
Personhood does not entail any intrinsic rights; rights are possessed only by those whom we are willing to grant them to. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
Any pro-life people in here.
The less people the better.
I am a hawkish, leftist, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-choice militant narcissist. |
|
|
| Renzo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Paradox Lost
1. That there is only only person involved, not two, and thus, no one's rights are being violated by abortion.
2. That personhood is ultimately insignificant, for in the case of pregnancy, the mother's rights over her body takes precedence over the rights of the unborn. |
1. But what about if both parents agree that an abortion is the way to go? Or are you referring to the fetus not being considered a literal person yet?
2. But isn't personhood extremely significant here? One may argue the mother has a wide spectrum of maternal rights, but they are not greater than those who have no voice. Yet. |
|
|
|
|
