Login or register
Online User List [+] Online: (7): akkere, drastronomy, effort, MuahahaOfLore, theism, thereasonableperso, tyrano, anonymous(7).
#14663 - shnoople
Reply 0
(11/20/2012) [-]
So i'm looking to start a debate. From a completely non-religious standpoint, Why do people think that abortion should be allowed?
For any one pro-choice, this might change your views a little bit:
#14788 to #14663 - threeeighteen
Reply +1
(11/22/2012) [-]
As long as the government doesn't actually pay for their abortions (i.e. wasting money) I don't really care what they do, let them inject cyanide into their eye for all I care.
#14729 to #14663 - misterbonzo
Reply +1
(11/21/2012) [-]
It should be allowed because it's not the government's business if a woman has one.
#14677 to #14663 - noblexfenrir
Reply +3
(11/20/2012) [-]
Reasons for having an abortion:

>Unable to care for the child.
>Child will be born with a debilitating disease/deformity.
>Life risks to the mother.
>Because the mother plain doesn't want a child (There are steps to take before this but I hardly see why you can't include this)

I need one reason why abortion shouldn't be allowed that isn't based off of religion or the premise that it will one day become a child. Common misconceptions:

>"It's a baby"
No it is not, it is a fetus and before that it is simply a collection of human cells. It's right to life is the equivalent to that of a tumor. I have no problem with admitting the fact that this will one day become a human baby, however this idea has been perverted to the point where accepting that idea gives pro-life advocates reasoning to think that makes this argument sound.

>"It can feel pain"
By the time the nerve receptors are set up in such a way that it can actually feel pain, an abortion cannot be had unless it risks the mothers life so this is a moot point.

>"The body can shut down in cases of unwanted pregnancy so secretly the mother wants it" or "every baby is a gift of god"

These aren't really common arguments, I just find them hilarious.
#14708 to #14677 - Ruspanic
Reply +1
(11/20/2012) [-]
Here's a few points to address your arguments. I'm interested to see what you think.

"it is a fetus and before that it is simply a collection of human cells.
"Fetus" is just a classification related to the stage of pregnancy.
The fetal stage ends at birth. Just because an unborn child is technically classified as a "fetus" does not have any implications with regard to its rights. Do you think partial-birth abortions are okay simply because the child is still in the womb?

"It's right to life is the equivalent to that of a tumor."
There's no objective way to determine at what stage in development humans gain the right to life.
A fetus is not like a tumor in that it is a distinct living organism with a distinct set of human DNA, meaning it is not merely part of the mother the way a tumor is. (And of course this organism will, if left to nature, eventually develop into a person with basically equal status to the mother. This is not insignificant.)

The idea that fetuses do not have a right to life is based on a) their general lack of cognitive capacity/sentience and b) their dependence on the mother for survival. But comatose or mentally impaired adults still have a right to life, and infants or disabled children can't survive without their parents either. If the right to life is inherent to humans (and the unborn are biologically human), why should such criteria be a basis for limiting that right?

We also don't typically put people "out of their misery" to end their suffering, unless they request it. The obvious fact that the child itself cannot make a choice (yet) about whether it wants to live does not necessarily give the mother the power to make that decision for it. Basically if the unborn can be determined to have a right to life, all arguments except risks to the mother (women's rights, unfit parenting, birth defects, shitty life, etc) simply don't apply. That's why the fetus, not the women, is the crux of the controversy.
#14720 to #14708 - noblexfenrir
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
I was simply using the term fetus to clear up the case of calling it a child. I think that is a severe misrepresentation of what stage it is currently at. Basically I am against equivocating the rights and regulations of something during a specific stage in its development to an earlier stage simply because it has the ability to ascend to the form we most prefer to see it in. It's the same logic used to say that if a fetus is considered to be a full fledged human baby then so should sperm cells, and thus making every teenage boy a child abuser/murderer, and possible sexual predator since they most likely die seeing him naked.

and what is a tumor? A collection of cells with human DNA that differs from the host. There is no actual "right to life" in the sense of it being a corporeal rule. It's just an idea and while you are right there is no objective way of determining the levels people give something a right to life, we can compare composition/situation/etc and in those regards, a tumor is very equal to a fetus.

The reason such criteria is used is because as I said, right to life doesn't exist. I purely use it to compare in arguments with people who do believe it is real.

We give conscious beings a choice in the matter. A fetus has no conscious or brain functions to even recognize what is happening/will happen, or the ability to even process what is going on when an abortion occurs. In that regard it can be considered like unto a blood cell that you let fall from a cut. It can't comprehend what is happening to it, or that it is going to die, but it is made up genetically like you and me, so should people not be allowed to make decisions regarding their own cells?

If right to life is the only problem, then it is easily solved as I have already stated, right to life doesn't exist. It's a thought experiment, nothing more.
#14726 to #14720 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
" if a fetus is considered to be a full fledged human baby then so should sperm cells"
No, sperm cells are gametes containing only (half) the DNA of the male that produced them. They are not distinct organisms and have no potential to become distinct organisms on their own.
A fetus is an organism distinct from both parents.

"right to life doesn't exist".
The fact that "natural" rights are a human construct rather than a physical/natural one does not make them any less important. Rights are critical to society and to peaceful coexistence. We can't just do away with the concept of rights whenever it is convenient to do so.

"should people not be allowed to make decisions regarding their own cells"
Again, a fetus is an organism distinct from the mother. It is not a physical part of the mother, and its cells are not its mother's cells.

"A fetus has no conscious or brain functions to even recognize what is happening/will happen, or the ability to even process what is going on when an abortion occurs."
The point that we can't expect nonsentient beings to make decisions is a fair one.
But again - there are born people with severe mental disabilities who would not comprehend the concept of death or if they were to about be killed. At least most fetuses will eventually develop this cognitive capacity.
#14691 to #14677 - deltadeltadelta
Reply 0
(11/20/2012) [-]
I'm an atheist, and although I'm technically pro-choice, I don't associate myself with the label.

I don't like abortion, but I don't think it should be illegal. If a woman wants an abortion, she's going to get one whether or not it's by a doctor. Prior to abortion becoming legal, there were quite a lot of people known as "Midwives".

It's better to have an abortion safely performed by a doctor than by someone who isn't a medical professional.

If a woman gets pregnant though, she should really just wait and conceive the baby, then give it up for adoption. There are many couples out there which are incapable of having children and are always looks to adopt.

*reposted because of typos
#14700 to #14691 - paintbucket
Reply 0
(11/20/2012) [-]
i was born in care of midwives, not in a hospital.
it's no unsafer than by a doctor.
you're more likely to find an inexperienced doctor than an inexperienced midwife.

anyway, i think adoption is better than abortion.
early abortion i don't care.
late abortion should be illegal though.
what i am definitely against is it being paid for be the government.
#14712 to #14700 - deltadeltadelta
Reply 0
(11/20/2012) [-]
Helping someone conceive a baby is very different than an abortion. Midwives would sell poisons that forced miscarriages.
#14728 to #14712 - paintbucket
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
Midwives would sell poisons that forced miscarriages
yeah? in what country?
midwives have nothing to do with abortion
idk why you brought them up
#14730 to #14728 - deltadeltadelta
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
Yes they did, prior to the legalization of abortion. I thought that was already made clear.

The fuck do you mean "idk why you brought them up". I made a mention about part of their role prior to the legalization of abortion, you responded to that bit, I responded to your bit, and now you're asking me why I brought it up? This shouldn't bother me, but it really fucking does. I'm mad at you for being so stupid and dismissive.
#14774 to #14730 - paintbucket
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
i don't see any proof of that
don't be a fucking dick
i'm saying they have nothing to do with the abortion argument.
#14711 to #14700 - deltadeltadelta
has deleted their comment [-]
#14690 to #14677 - deltadeltadelta
has deleted their comment [-]
#14678 to #14677 - oxan
Reply +5
(11/20/2012) [-]
Essentially what I had intended to post, before accidentally backspacing the page and losing my post. Sigh, sometimes I think I should have been aborted.

Moving on. I also would like to add the following reasons for abortion:

>The parents were too fucking stupid for birth control - therefore, unfit for parenting
>The parents were unfortunate enough for their birth control to fail - therefore, it's not their fault and they took all the appropriate steps. Additionally, they don't want to be parents, and therefore are unmotivated, and therefore unfit for parenting
#14679 to #14678 - noblexfenrir
Reply +2
(11/20/2012) [-]
No, the backspace key is the bane of human existence. The reason it's default is to go to the previous page is simply to troll.

and I agree with both of those points. In the end, I hardly see any reason why abortion should be disallowed that has anything to do with scientific evidence. It's all emotional and that's where it fails.

I also find it quite selfish that they believe a baby feels pain and that you shouldn't torture it with an abortion, yet if it's going to be born with...I don't know, sickle cell (which we can determine in the womb no I believe) and the doctors essentially say this child will live a very short life in tremendous pain, the parents who are pro-life will have the child with the reasoning of giving it as much love as possible before it dies in horrendous pain. That is the epitome of selfishness in my opinion.
#14680 to #14679 - oxan
Reply +3
(11/20/2012) [-]
You continue to remain mah nigga.

Excellent points, good sir. Subjective arguments are the only ones available to those who oppose abortion. It's mostly a fear of progress, instigated by outdated religious 'morals', but that's another argument.
#14709 to #14680 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(11/20/2012) [-]
"It's mostly a fear of progress, instigated by outdated religious 'morals'"
Oh god that rustled my jimmies so much.

Dammit, these people literally believe abortion is murder. Infanticide. It's NOT fucking progress to them.
#14733 to #14709 - oxan
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
Their subjective definition of progress is irrelevant. Abortion is part of medical progression.

I believe that is related to the point you're trying to make.
#14737 to #14733 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
All definitions of progress is subjective. So are all arguments related to rights.
This does not make them less significant.
#14739 to #14737 - oxan
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
Progress can be objective. We didn't have the technology to deliver abortions with the quality we have today in the last century, but we do now. It's a clear step forward in medical technology.

More importantly, it is the source of subjectivity that determines the significance of the argument.
#14740 to #14739 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
Okay, so it's progress in the sense that we can now abort fetuses more neatly and efficiently, and with less risk to the mother. The progress is in the technology. We've always been able to do some sort of abortion.
That has nothing to do with the controversy that is the abortion issue, and I'm pretty sure that's not the sort of "progress" you were talking about earlier - unless you literally think pro-lifers are afraid of technological advances in medicine.

What they will differ on with pro-choicers is whether the increased legality and acceptability of abortion is progress - social progress, which is subjective.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "source of the subjectivity". Religion? All opposition to abortion is not based on religious dogma.
#14741 to #14740 - oxan
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
We're in agreement on your first paragraph, and I agree with your second paragraph. Moving onto the third.

By source of the subjectivity, I meant sources such as religion, but I recognise that it isn't the single source of opposition to abortion. However, religious dogma has caused opposition both directly and indirectly.

And the most basic example of indirect influence is due to our Judeo-Christian culture.
#14742 to #14741 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
Okay. How and why does the influence of religion or culture (which in turn was influenced by religion) on an argument determine the significance of the argument?
#14743 to #14742 - oxan
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
It's not just about religion or religiously influenced culture. It's just about determining the significance of any opposition to abortion. But I'll continue with religion, simply for an example.

Most simply, many religious reasons are either based upon (speaking of Christianity specifically) teachings that were recorded until centuries after they were supposedly taught. Moreover, they've been subject to modification, per the interest of the Church at the time, and personal interpretations of church officials. Most interpretations are either outdated or complete and utter bullshit created to serve the interests of an individual.
#14744 to #14743 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
I'm not talking about the reasons that people oppose (or support, for that matter) abortion - many people are irrational in their stances, and indeed some simply have their facts wrong.
I'm talking about arguments against abortion. What does it matter if an argument originated from a Christian worldview? Shouldn't it be judged by its merits, and not by its source?
Frankly, abortion would be controversial even if everyone knew all the relevant science and statistics. It's largely an issue of rights and ethics (or morality), which cannot be determined empirically and are, as you say, subjective.
#14745 to #14744 - oxan
Reply +1
(11/21/2012) [-]
Ah, correct. And it is indeed an error on my behalf. I was associating merit with source, in the sense that a source of poor merit - outdated beliefs, for example - would result in an argument of poor merit. Apologies for my poor communication.
#14738 to #14737 - Ruspanic
Reply 0
(11/21/2012) [-]
*are subjective
#14672 to #14663 - oxan
Reply +1
(11/20/2012) [-]
If someone wants an abortion for any reason, they're unfit to be a parent, as they're not motivated. As such, why put the child in a situation where it's unloved or even abused?
#14669 to #14663 - pokemonstheshiz
Reply +1
(11/20/2012) [-]
"Another equally attractive girl stood up" Get you some Reagan.

I would never have an abortion. But I'm not going to advocate myself as morally superior, people have different views and different reasons for an abortion, and it's generally not for malicious reasons. Especially in cases of rape, danger to the mother's health, or the baby would have severe issues. Caring for a child with disabillities is very expensive and time consuming, if it's something predictable you should not have to suffer if you don't want to. Most people aren't going to adopt disabled children over other children, he/she is going to be in a shitty living situation with minimal care.