asking your opinion about the abortion debate? no bashing, no sarcasm? please just rational, logical reasoning

Question

I am pro life so far, but I am a free thinker, and I believe that If I am confronted with enough reason, I would gladly convert to pro choice.

So far, the most common abortion arguments I've heard are the following:

1. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants to her body

2. The child will not be loved

3. The child is not alive and it should not be considered a crime to abort it

my thoughts on these

1. If we're granted the right to do anything we want simply on the basis that it is our body, why cant we murder, or steal, or lie and stuff?

2. If we are killing the fetus because it MIGHT not be loved, then logically we should be able to kill people who are already grown but are not loved. In both instances, we are doing it for the person's own good, the only difference is that one is in the womb, one isn't.

3. Well, I don't have many thoughts about this one, since it varies by opinion and is so vague, I guess its up to one's interpretation.I dont count it

imput is welcome and appreciated, please analyze and critique my views, add your own if you want.

i think there should be some sort of exemptions for rape and mothers health, thats about it.

well, I liked how you brought up the argument about hitlers mother wanting an abortion, but you must realize that your argument is a double sided one.

One could easily also say the same with Mother theresa, or some other person who really impacted the world, like someone who cures aids or cancer or something.

well, I liked how you brought up the argument about hitlers mother wanting an abortion, but you must realize that your argument is a double sided one.

One could easily also say the same with Mother theresa, or some other person who really impacted the world, like someone who cures aids or cancer or something.

At face value, I dont think the overpopulation thing is a good claim for the justification of abortion, but with further thought, i believe abortion is a solution for overpopulation. weird huh.

Overpopulation cannot justify abortion, however abortion can help control overpopulation (to a slight degree.)

It's all about interpretation. I will think more about it, it is an interesting claim under the surface

I understand your reasoning about not wanting to bring unwanted babies who will have to suffer,

but if you look at it from my perspective, you cannot just say, I dont want you, therefore your right to live is diminished. you get what I'm saying?

to blondie, so what you are saying is:
it is ok to murder a fetus,
it is wrong to murder a person who is not a fetus

the only difference is one is in the womb, one isnt. just because you cant see the one in the womb, does it make it any less alive?

by the way, if you have questions or opinions to ask me, or if you want to have a discussion of some sort, my email address is on my profile.

I could start a forum if you guys wanted, because yahoo answeres is not practical for these kinds of discussions.

to siar: you say that the only thing that separates us from animals are abstract reasoning, art, and the such.

Should people who have brain trauma or are mentally deficient or retarted be euthanized? seeing as how they would be counted as body parts, by your ostensive definition?

Answer 1

I think much of your understanding is coming along fine.

A mother does have a right to do with her own body whatever she likes, she simply doesn't have the right to do whatever she likes with someone else's body, namely, the child's.

Whether or not the mother will love the child is immaterial. God loves his creation, and many people will love this child as he grows up. Since when is murder okay because the murderer didn't love her victim?

The child IS alive, else we wouldn't be having this conversation. If it were dead, it wouldn't grow into a born child which is exactly where it is headed unless some doctor sticks a knife in there and cuts the child into little bits for mom's convenience. It's sick, it's sin, and it's murder. How can it be right?

Answer 2

I don't believe that it's right. If a child isn't wanted there is always adoption. There are so many people out there that can't have children of their own and it tears them up to know that someone so irresponsible would take the life of theirs just because they don't want it. Someone would be happy to have it.
For the argument of a woman's "right to choose". She had the choice before becoming pregnant. If she was raped, then it still doesn't make sense to me. Once again, adoption. Her being a murderer doesn't make her any better than the rapist.
As far as it not being alive, once it's growing, it's alive. The first thing to develop is the heart. If it's beating, it's alive.
The only time that I think it should be legal is if there is something seriously wrong with it. They do so many tests now that they can find things that might be life threatening or make the child's life too difficult to be enjoyed by the child. If all the child would know is a life of pain and suffering, then it should be accepted.

I know a lot of women are scared when they find out they're pregnant and weren't planning, but they don't realize that they're going to have to live with what they've done for the rest of their lives.
What I want to know is; How is it okay for a teen (under 18) to have an abortion without her parents being told?

Answer 3

The crux of the question is who or what is the fetus?
I believe the fetus is a baby that needs protection.
1. Does the size of the baby determine in anyway whether the baby is human or part of a human member?
I cannot kill a small toddler because it's small and not be called a killer.
2. Does a level of development determine a human?
A 4 year old is not as developed as a 14 year old in their reproductive system. Does that mean I can kill the 4 year old cause it's not human?
3. Does location determine whether it is a human or not?
If I roll out of bed to my right instead of to my left, that does not mean I can now be killed. A man in 7-11 leaves 7-11; does that mean a person is any less of a human cause he was in 7-11? A few inches away from the canel does not mean the baby is any less of a baby.
4. Let's say a 2-year old is living in an unhappy family. Does that give you a right to kill the 2-year old? Or do you relocate the child to a foster parent? Why isn't adoption an option?
5. Scientifically, the DNA and blood type of the fetus proves that the fetus is a seperate living being that needs the mother to survive. A baby needs its mother to survive and not on its own. The child is not a part of the mother. The mother must protect her child; NOT kill the baby.
6. The planned parenthood and the like are mostly funded by the government and 95% of them are located in minority areas. Their goal is to make money by having the mothers go through killing their baby instead of adoption.
7. Side Social issue note: If all the children who were aborted were not aborted, then enough of them, 45 million, would have been enough to solve the social securities problem.
We, the society, reap what we sow.

Answer 4

I'm going to answer before I read your thoughts...

1. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants to her body

I do believe this is true, yes. Why does the fetus or baby or whatever you want to call it have more of a right to life than the woman has to control what happens to her body? What about in the case of rape or incest or some other violent, invasive crime? Would you have her carry that reminder around with her for all that time, then KNOW there is a human reminder of that crime? I don't think so.

2. The child will not be loved
That is a poor reason for an abortion. If the woman is capable of going through with the pregnancy and it's the result of poor planning (to put it nicely), then adoption is always an option.

3. The child is not alive and it should not be considered a crime to abort it

I may fall into this camp as well, though "alive" is not the term I'd use. If the cells are growing, it is alive. But whether it can be considered a baby or merely a tumor depends on the gestation.

My bottom line is this:

I have no problem with a woman deciding to do what she wants to do with her body and anything IN her body. My PREFERENCE is that abortion is fine in the first trimester for whatever reason, but I do not want abortion used as birth control. Some measure needs to be in place and if a woman has too many abortions due to poor planning, perhaps she should consider a more permanent option.

I'd also be okay with abortion in the second trimester in the case of a violent act that resulted in the pregnancy. Chances are these pregnancies were either undetected or the woman was in denial until it was too late for a first trimester termination. I'd also say if the woman's life is in danger, an abortion in the second trimester would be okay. But I wouldn't approve of abortion for irresponsible sex pregnancies.

Third trimester... sorry, too late, you'll have to go through with it and put the baby up for adoption or find other solutions.

Answer 5

I am pro life personally.

1. A person does have the right to do what they want with their body but does that right extend to the body of the person growing inside them? I was asked when I got pregnant with my oldest if I wanted to have an abortion. I said no. I am so glad I did. If I had I would have never had the pleasure of knowing and raising the beautiful, caring, intelligent young lady she is today. She has brought such joy and happiness into my life. I love her so very much.

2. There are many wonderful families that can not have children that would love to raise and care for an unwanted child.

3. The link to the web site below shows a child grasping the doctors hand from the womb. It is the photographers web site I think maybe it shows that the child is alive. It is a surgery so there is some blood if you are squeamish beware.

I just think that there are many other alternatives to abortion. Yeah there are some gray areas like rape and incest but most cases are just unwanted pregnancies that most likely could have been avoided with some precautions or just keeping your legs together.

Answer 6

Good question. I'm pro life.

I want to start with number 3 because I think that's actually the most important one, and the real basis of the debate. I personally feel that life begins at conception. That's my opinion and really the only reason I am against abortion. If I didn't feel the fetus was alive or a person, I would probably feel differently. But I do.

I agree with you on number 2. Since, as I stated, I think a fetus is a living person, it would follow that from that viewpoint, it would be okay to kill anyone who is not loved or wanted.

On number 1, it still comes back to the issue of how the fetus is considered. People have some right to do whatever they want to their own body. When it infringes on another person's rights (in this case the baby's) is when it becomes wrong.

That's how I feel. In my opinion, it all comes down to #3. When you consider life to start, or a new person to be created.

Answer 7

*Is Catholic*

1. The mother has the right to do whatever she wants to her body.

We currently do not grant people the right to do whatever they want with their bodies. We outlaw suicide, drugs, unnecessary amputations, etc. Thus there is no overarching right that a woman has over her body in US law.

2. The child will not be loved.

"Feelings" do not constitute what is right. Also we can turn this around and say regardless of the feelings of the mother, the child has the right to express its own love for others.

3. The child is not alive and it should not be considered a crime to abort it

That's the wrong argument. The argument is that the child is not viable or that the child is not considered person. Scientifically, the embryonic mass, even when a zygote, is a living cell. There is no stage, even if we consider sperm and egg that we do not say those cells are living. Consider also that we can point to when sperm or an egg cell is dead. If it becomes dead at one stage it must be living. Also conceder that the embryonic mass can be said to be dead at a point, and if so it must be living at a point.

No really the question is over whether or not the child is a person.

Answer 8

The thing is to start from a self-conscious position regarding ethics, which involves admitting one's own prejudices, and proceeding to construct a value system which shows no favouritism. I am a white middle-class male Anglo-Saxon heterosexual able-bodied middle-aged Protestant, right in the centre of a host of privileged positions. It's therefore very important for me to avoid the prejudices to which i'm susceptible as a result. The problem i have with the idea of a rational debate is that so much thought is subconsciously self-serving. How would one go about avoiding that? I don't know if it ever really happens. I think people generally make up their minds first, then look around for an argument to justify their position and hide their real motives from themselves. So, you can say "should", but you might be on a bit of a futile project there. So, the second part: It can be distinguished by looking at one's moral choices and seeing to what extent they are to one's advantage, then setting that against how oppressed one is, since if one is particularly downtrodden it seems to serve a principle of natural justice to fight back against it. Concerning your final question, well, a bloke i knew called Jonathan Dancy wrote a paper on that once called "Tolerance and Commitment", but i can't for the life of me remember what he said. I suppose you could try Googling it.

Answer 9

i don't agree with arguments 2 & 3 for the pro-choice side.
your criticism of 2 is fair, plus many adopted babies are loved, and you really can't predict what will happen to a person, even if they start out under terrible conditions.
3 is patently false, the fetus is clearly alive, though arguably not a person yet.

i think 1 is where it's at, and your criticism doesn't work. murdering, stealing and stuff is done to other people. but i don't think you can call a gestating fetus an "other person".

the bottom line is this. science says NOTHING about when a fetus is a person. the bible says it's not a person until it's born. (deut 30:19 has nothing to do with abortion, you can't take the 2 words "choose life" out of context and claim it's about abortion.) it's alive, but so are cows and chickens and we kill them. where human life begins is a RELIGIOUS question, not a scientific one, and therefore should not be decided from the outside for everyone.

the old bumper sticker "if you are against abortion, don't have one" says it all. reasonable people will disagree, so i don't think anyone should have the right to tell others what to do about it.

also, the history of the world includes a lot of subjugation of women. women used to be property and controlled by men, and so i think we have to be sensitive to this history, and not have a bunch of men deciding how women can reproduce. making abortion illegal means men can have sex whenever they want but women can't. it's a 2 way street, people.

Answer 10

I know I'm late getting in on this, but let me have a shot:

1. The 13th amendment to the US constitution prevents slavery or involuntary servitude. Requiring a woman who does not wish to be pregnant to remain so is forcing her into involuntary servitude. What is more, it requires her to undergo medical procedures that threaten her health more than would a simple, early abortion.

2. Children have historically never been considered an independent life until they were born alive and took their first breath. This is why we issue birth certificates, celebrate birthdays, and start driving, drinking, and retirement based on the years following our birth. Conception has no legal precedence and so a fetus cannot claim standing within the courts. The woman, however, can.

3. In utero death is not unusual. About 20 percent of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Recognizing that there are many causes for a fetus not to reach full term can reduce the sense that a child is the inevitable outcome of a pregnancy.

^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^ ^v^