Abortion

Off subject, so Minsc won't go into details of who all these people are.
You'll have to PM me for more information on Clare, Minsc, Boo, and the rest of the gang.

Back on abortion:

Minsc doesn't think people would find pictures of "tumor removing operation", or "insert your favorite operation / surgery here" as disturbing, as a dead baby.

Though, could be wrong... wouldn't be the first time!

Wow, that went tangental.



I'm not sure why you say I am only pointing out your weakest argument and attacking it here. I don't think that statement was argumentative at all. The idea is simply that, assuming one believes that human beings are granted a right to life simply for being human(correct me if I am wrong, but your writings imply you do believe this?), then abortion depends on whether the fetus is human. If it is not human, then abortion is no problem. But if, as I believe, it is human, than abortion violates its right to life, and is immoral. So at the heart of the matter is whether a fetus is human.

I think we discussed the question "Is a fetus human" in a depth a few pages back. We each stated what we thought should qualify as human, why, and debated over the subject. Thus, I propose to conclude that section of the abortion debate in a civil manner by basically saying that we disagree on the matter after extensive debate and that's that. Basically, we agree to disagree. As I said, however, if in the future you decide that you have a new point to bring to the table concerning the question "Is a fetus human?" and would like to continue that section of the debate, I'll be up for it.

As for attacking the weakest point of the opposition's argument, well, that is the natural place to attack. However, I realize that you cannot just attack your opponent's point of view, you also have to attempt to support your own point of view with a sturdy foundation of logic, which I have made an effort to do.

I think it is a bit unfair to say that I only addressed your weakest points. I think I made a good effort to address all your points, and if you feel that you have a particularly good point I haven't addressed, point it out to me and I will gladly comment.

Ah yes, the picture is overly hiding the facts from us... isn't it?
Can't come to the conclusion that the baby was aborted... can we?
Hmm, at least you see it as a "baby", which is a step in the right direction.

There are too many points to cover in this topic, and addressing them all in detail would be futile for our free time. Minsc is sure you realize this.

It's better to see who logic stands, and who doesn't. Because you can't argue someones opinion is wrong, unless their logic has a bunch of holes in it.

Even though it's hard to read your logic, because you constantly change it during the argument (e.g First abortion is suicide, then its self-mutilation? Not quite the same... but OKAY.)

Minsc has a question for you, Raoin.
Say you and your girlfriend 'decide' to have a baby.
She changes her mind during pregnancy, and decides to opt for an abortion.

How do you personally feel, when it affects you right at home?
Also, view that this same scenario happened to your brother.

Your logic, you argue that the baby is part of the mother, so it's her property. Are you perfectly fine with her choices in both scenarios?

How many people here are perfectly fine, with the girlfriend getting an abortion, in the case of a planned pregnancy? Because as of current law, it's perfectly fine for them to do so.

I'd guess that everyone who voted 'No' on the poll is ok with this scenario. I'm not the one who has to carry the little guy for 9 months and go through the pain of birth. If she isn't 100% sure she wants to have the child, then best to not go forward with it eh?

Stooping to emotional appeals, eh, Minsc?

You had quoted what I wrote, which made me think otherwise.



Well, simply put, I believe unjustly depriving people of their rights hurts our nation because it subverts the laws and protections that are at the core of our constitution. Thus, if feti are human, than abortion does harm our nation.

You might say that claim is somewhat abstract, but so is the benefit "giving the mother a choice" that you list. The choice is a freedom that is valued, just in my opinion, it is not as valuable as the right to life. There are certainly consequences to the various aspects of the choice, which you have highlighted as well, but to argue for the choice itself as a benefit is no more abstract than my claims above.

We have discussed back and forth and come to the agreement that you can't really guarantee either way that an aborted fetus would come out "good" or "bad" if given a chance at life, and so I will not attempt to further that point in order to show that abortion is harmful to society.

You challenge me to demonstrate that ways in which abortion is harmful to society, and that is valid. After all, if something is not harmful to society than it should be legal, as the value of liberty is all that is really at stake and trumps the fact that I or others might find the action in itself undesireable.

However, my argument towards that is as follows: Humans are granted a right to life simply for being human and retain it until they commit such a crime as would allow them to be deprived of the right to life under "due process of law." Depriving humans of their right to live unjustly is harmful to society because it subverts the laws, protections, and rights that are at the core of our society and ingrained in our constitution. Therefore, if a fetus is human, then abortion consists of unjustly depriving the fetus of the right to life, and is harmful to society for the reasons I just stated.

Just because the harm done to society is presented in an abstract manner does not mean the point can be dismissed. The laws and values of society and that ways in which they are upheld influence its behavior. For an extreme example, consider if murder were legalized. Obviously the act of legalizing murder itself doesn't hurt anyone, but the increase in murders that would surely occur would be directly harmful to society. This case is analogous, albeit, much more subtle. The less human right to life is valued, the more likely it becomes that someone will in actuality lose their life in the eyes of even the law for a reason without merit.

Just showing people who voted 'NO', how abortion could affect them personally.

Not a lot of people have considered this hypothetical situation.
It could change minds, but probably not.


Note:
Anyone is available to answer the question.

Are you 'OKAY' with your girlfriend getting an abortion, despite your agreed plans and wishes? And hypothetically, say you spent time and money on this woman for the sole purpose of having a son/daughter.

I still think we need a woman's point of view to all this =/.

If you spend time and money on a woman for the SOLE purpose of getting a baby, then you should've hired a surrogate mother or something. It feels kind of a sexist to say "Hey there woman, I bought you dinner and listened to you whine about your feelings, now spread 'em and gimme a baby!"

If two people have genuinely been trying to build a relationship together (thereby creating a loving environment for any potential children) and the woman wants to have an abortion, then try to find out what the probelm is. If it is an issue that cannot be resolved, then let her have the abortion. Of course, something like that can be a relationship breaker, but then so be it. The woman doesn't "owe" you a baby just because you donated some sperm and bought her stuff...

Well, it's a pretty weak argument, but whatever.

I would be okay with it. If she isn't ready to have a child, then I would have the respect to let her make her own decision. Until the unborn child becomes it's own seperate entity (obtains cognitive ability) the fetus is part of her body, and she has the right to choose what she wants to do with her body.

Edit: Very well said, cooperboy.

Minsc was referring to if the woman has verbally agreed to conceiving your child, and then changes her mind. Not that "she owes you" just because you treated her out.

Perhaps Minsc should have been more specific on using the word "Agreed", oh wait... Minsc did use that word. So why did you totally ignore that fact? It's not sexist to want something you agreed upon.



That's pretty much what Minsc was hoping for. An honest response.

Did you not read the third paragraph in his post? ._.

Biohazard: Would you be kind enough to point out, something Minsc missed?

*Looks for where Cooper addresses verbal agreements, and finds nothing.*

Verbal agreement is different than...

I'm not really comfortable addressing an argument you have about someone else's argument, so I'll let cooperboy defend his own argument.

But, it's not so much you missing something as much as it is you addressing a completely moot point. I can see where Raoin is coming from when he says that you zero in on the least significant arguments.



You completely ignore this part of his argument, and zero in on this:

This is quite ironic.
It's OKAY for YOU to break a part sentences in an argument,
But Minsc is not allowed to do so? What hypocrisy.

In such case: Here's what you did:



You took one sentence out of:

Mmm, I didn't ignore the verbal agreement part with any intention to obfuscate, I just didn't feel it was an important point... Personally, I don't really think it should work that way, just because you both say you want a baby at one point in time, things change, people change, shit happens. You have to expect that right? Life isn't like a cut and dried business deal (heck even those can get funky).

I did kind of address the point when I said the guy should go hire a surrogate mother if that's the kind of deal he wanted, i.e. only spend time and money and none of that building a relationship stuff. Even in that case though, I'm not sure what the law says.

You may not have intended it to be so, but the way you phrased the situation was kinda sexist, irrespective of the use of the word 'agreed'. She can agree all she wants till the cows come home, but ultimately, in my opinion, the potential costs of pregnancy to the male (lose some sperm, maybe some money) are miniscule compared to the potential costs to the female (physical pain and discomfort, emotions go all nutty, potential harm/death from a bad birthing). Forcing someone to risk their life and body just because "we said so" is wrong. Thusly, I remain pro-choice.

Maybe we should just make 'birth' illegal for young mothers, because according this thread, it's causing them great pain and death and suffering, and raising the crime rate, increasing murders around the globe, It's worse than drugs!

Yes folks.. breeding is the enemy here, not abortion.
Why didn't Minsc see this before?

You've all awakened my greater insight. Thank you.
Ouch, Boo bit me.

Wow...I'm hoping your being sarcastic on this Minsc...Because it the mother and father's choice to have a child. Whether they plan it or not they chose to have sex. So making birth illegal is impossible...lest you pan to make a virus that kills the reproductive cycle. I'm far against what you are saying if you are being serious...but i can understand this only as a joke.