[Zziggywolf5]

(I remembered I have to make a debate topic)
How do you feel about abortion? Is it wrong? Is it right? What regulations (if any) do you think are needed?

[Neraphym]

I apply morality to a subject based not on what it is; rather, what it can do. Most people apply morality to humans because they are human. I believe this is wrong, simply because being human is not a good reason to apply morals to it. If you ask, "Why apply morals to something because it is human?" you cannot get a good answer. The truth is, we apply morals (subconsciously) to things based on what they can do.

For example, I believe the UK has, as a standard of animal abuse, said that you cannot abuse any vertebrates. This is because the nervous system of vertebrates allows them to feel and understand (to an extent) pain and suffering. Invertebrates tend not to have very well-developed nervous systems, so applying morals to shrimp, ants, or bacteria really doesn't make sense. They can't feel pain to a sufficient extent to warrant applying morals to them. Because of what vertebrates can do and what invertebrates can't do, we drew the line where we did. Sadly, by drawing the line there, we focused more on what the animal was rather than what it could do. This was why certain squid and octopuses were originally left off that list, until it was brought to our attention that they, despite being invertebrates, have very advanced nervous systems.

The point I am making is that morals need to be applied to subjects because they can feel pain, not because of what they are. I make one slight exception to this rule, and I will discuss this later. The implications of this are that certain abortions are not immoral, and that certain abortions are. A blastocyst is a sphere of around 100 cells that forms after an egg is fertilized. This sphere of cells cannot have feelings, it cannot laugh or cry, and it cannot have intentions. There is absolutely no reason to apply morals to it that we apply to a fully formed human that can do these things. Like an invertebrate (which it technically is at that stage), it cannot suffer. We need not fret over its loss, nor is killing it wrong.

Now, later on it the development of a human baby, a nervous system does form, and the baby can feel pain at this point. Now, we have morals against the abuse of animals, but not the killing of an animal. You can't abuse a cow, but you can certainly slaughter it. The difference is that humans, unlike cows and all other animals, have the ability to form intentions and self-awareness. This elevates us to a point where no other known species exists. We are allowed to kill any other animal (except the endangered ones), but never a human. We are just not allowed to torture them.

Now, a fetus as some point is exactly like the cow; it can feel pain, but not intentions. If we apply the above reason, it should be amoral to kill a fetus, just as it is amoral to kill the cow. The problem here is that the same holds true to a baby that has just been born. It, too, cannot form intentions, so killing babies would also be amoral by this logic. Up until a kid is able to form an intention, it would be permissible to kill it. I disagree with this entirely, but that is what follows from the logic I used.

The alternative to this logic is vegetarianism. That is, we should also consider killing cows and stuff to be just as immoral as killing human babies. I believe this to be the correct moral solution, but this is where I feel like a complete {expletive antidisestablishmentarianized by Cspace}. I am too weak to be a vegetarian/vegen. I love meat too much, and I am such a hypocrite in this respect. It is wrong to kill anything that can feel sufficient pain, even if you can kill it painlessly. Thus, after a certain point in the development of a baby, it would be immoral to kill the fetus without good reason. That is why abortions should be done quickly.

The three arguments against abortion I hear a lot are as follows:

-It's a human, so you can't kill it.
-It has a soul, so you can't kill it.
-It will become a person that can feel and intend, so you can't kill it.

I just addressed the first one, and now I'd like to move onto the second. The concept of a soul is entirely unproven. Even so, enough people believe in it, that we must at least consider it plausible, no? I say no, and here is why. Remember our old friend, the blastocyst? Does it have a soul? Probably no, because this would be a very bad time to add it. A blastocyst can split into identical twins. If the soul is added at conception, one of the twins would not have a soul (and would, presumably, be permissible to kill). Also, twins can merge into each other and create a chimera. What then, does this person have two souls? And what of conjoined twins? One body, two souls? This math of souls makes the whole concept laughable, and is rightly discarded.

Also, there is a lovely correlation in religion with life and breathe. And the bible has God committing abortions in a few places, and other people killing pregnant women, too.

Also, we have to consider the argument to potential. Because the fetus will one day become able to feel pain and have intentions, we should not kill it. Well, to this, I say every cell in your body can one day because an adult human able to feel pain and have intentions. This is allowed for by cloning. Thus, if you believe in this argument, you commit genocide every time you scratch your nose.

Finally, I just want to point out that roughly 2/3 of all pregnancies end in death. This figure is without the deaths induced by abortion. So if you think abortion is wrong, then you need to consider who might just be the biggest perpetrated of them all.

A lot of the above points came from my reading of Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet. Thanks to them for my opinion I formed here. Get their books; they're awesome.

[Neraphym]

Oh, the one exception to the rule is defiling human corpses. People, while alive, do not want to have the fear of their corpse being violated after death. To prevent this fear (and suffering in that fear), it is necessary to apply some morals to corpses. It is not for the sake of the corpse, for it cannot have a sake (it is dead!); rather, for the sake of the individual while he or she is alive. Also, the friends and family of the departed will also feel indignant to this. For these reasons alone, corpses need to have morals applied to their treatment.

[Aaron]

I am a Libertarian, but I side with the unborn child in the abortion issue. The unborn child may not be "living" as we see it, but it still has the right to life. Unless the mother is going to die as a result of the child, then the child should live.

[Bobette]

Finally, I just want to point out that roughly 2/3 of all pregnancies end in death.

Tee hee, that made me laugh. Not that you're anti-pregnancy or whatever.


I don't want to end up here all day, so I'll say only this: I don't care whether it's felt to be wrong or right by any person, and I'm not out to convince, but I do believe that if an abortion has to be done, it should be done safely. One of the only reasons why I would be against anti-abortion laws would be because of the fact that for most women, if you can't get an abortion at a clinic, you're going to go elsewhere. And Elsewhere is not guaranteed to be safe, clean, or certified.

Okies, bye-bye.

[Neraphym]

I am a Libertarian, but I side with the unborn child in the abortion issue.

The point I had just made was that the unborn child does not have a side. It does not care weather it feels pain or dies, because it cannot feel pain or understand what it is to die. You kill more cells when you swat a fly than you do when you take an abortion pill. Your body slaughters tons of germs an hour. Do you think we ought to respect their rights too?

The child has no rights, because it has no dignity and is not an end in and of itself in ANY way. The immense disutility created by banning a practice that violates nothing IS immoral, because you are failing to respect the rights of the woman to control what goes on in her own body. She must suffer through a pregancy MEANINGLESSLY. There is a safe, amoral alternative, and to ban that is highly immoral. A human is not deserving of rights just because of a cell's DNA sequencing. Humans deserve rights because they feel! Don't make people suffer to protect the unfeeling. You'll just make life more miserable.

[Zandabyte]

Look if its not your kid its not your problem it is the people having the kid who should chose not you.

Here are a few facts..

1. Do you think the kid would have a good life with people who didn't want to have him in the first place? (Yes you could take the kid away from his mom and dad but would he/she like it any bedder?)

2. What if they cant support a kid? So he starves to death in stead of dieing in the moms whom.(Yes you can take the kid away but same as above.)

3. It is not yours you shouldn't control some one else's life or do you really want to control people?(If it is yours than go for it after all it is your chose)

4. Kid is pregnant at 12 years old would it be the best thing for the kid to have it because you don't want it too?(Yes 12 year old get pregnant allot... )

5. How many ants do you kill? How many burgers have you had? All of them killed but that's different you say they were not human but they where still alive and humans are no better than any other animal.(I'm not saying turn in to a variegation or love all living things I'm saying things die it is the way of life.{Don't fear the reaper.})(I do believe i am no better than animals. I think of my dog as a equal.)

Now what do you have to say to those five questions?

[Death_013]

ABORTION IS BAD!!!!!!

[Atilla]

ABORTION IS BAD!!!!!!

Now here's a real argument.

[Bespetna]

ABORTION IS BAD!!!!!!

Agreed,
Everyone should have a chance at life.
What if one day someone gave a random person a chance to kill you.
What would you want to happen?

[Atilla]

...

Some people don't seem to understand what the real debate is about.

Define personhood. Pro-lifers believe an embryo/fetus is a person, and therefore it is murder to abort it. Pro-choicers either don't believe an embryo/fetus is a person, or don't believe abortion is murder, or believe that the mother takes priority, or some combination of the above.

Simply saying "ABORTION IS BAD" is not an argument. You're repeating what you've heard from the catholic church or some other pro-life organization. Give a real reason please.

I always found it very ironic that all these conservatives are anti-abortion when half of the illegal immigration problem is that illegals come here and simply don't have an abortion. Talk about a contradiction. Seems like in order to be pro-life you have to be pro-amnesty.

Personally, I don't believe an unborn baby is a person, and don't believe it's right for anyone to tell a mother she is obligated to give birth.

[Death_013]

Well.. heres my real point, Abortion is BAD.
But i think the mother, and only the mother (thank goodness i'm never going to be the mother) should have the right to chose weather or not the child lives or dies.

[Neraphym]

ABORTION IS BAD!!!!!!

Agreed,
Everyone should have a chance at life.
What if one day someone gave a random person a chance to kill you.
What would you want to happen?

I think you missed the point of my post. Empathy is a great thing, but you aren't applying it properly. I would not want someone to kill me, but a fetus CANNOT posses the same want I have. A fetus is as indifferent to the question as a tree would be.

[Jake]

Well.. heres my real point, Abortion is BAD.
But i think the mother, and only the mother (thank goodness i'm never going to be the mother) should have the right to chose weather or not the child lives or dies.

What a compelling point. Abortion is bad. I feel my brain tingling, my whole outlook on life is changing. IQ... dropping, losing the will to make my own decisions. Beginning to agree with... fox... news.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Neraphym just hit the nail on the head on that one.

[Neraphym]

I don't like how people try to spin it as a lesser of two evils. It isn't bad!