Abortion

Well. . .this is getting to be a very good debate. .BB has very strong points.

 

This is the type of stuff that gets me mad. You are one of the people that believe that good and evil is just a point of view. That's not true, we know that murder is evil, we know that stealing is evil, and there are punishments for these things. That's how it should be with abortion, there should be a punishment for it. It should be illegal.

Now you said that some people can live their life without any guilt of having an abortion, those people are monsters. They killed their child and they have no guilt, how can you possibly approve of allowing people to do that.

Now let me get to my point:

People do have choices. A murderer can choose to kill someone but they are punished for it. A mother can choose to abort her child but she should also be punished.

Why don't you care about the feelings of the child? When that baby dies, it's soul will feel unloved and unwanted by it's mother. People like you have no sense of justice, you only care about ruining people's lives by taking away laws, morals, and justice. I swear to god that I will make abortion illegal and I will bring justice to all the aborted babies. Those mothers will pay for what they have done. Then the aborted babies will know that there is someone on this earth that is on their side, that will stand for them. I will save future babies. I don't care if you or the liberals hate me, atleast I can die knowing I saved millions of lives. You are a digusting, evil, twisted, monster. You make me sick and one day you will have to face all mighty God and you better hope he shows mercy on you because you are a monster.

 

I hate to come across as a prick, but as far as i'm concerned you're no longer involved in this debate Twilight, i've found someone or a much higher intellectual calliber to verbally spar with. I'll leave you with the words: for a man of god you come across as particularly hate filled and vengeful. God's most touted trait other than omnipotence is indeed benevolence and forgiveness.

 

i agee with .BB, i would add on to this debate but yet again the legendary .BB has said all that has to be said much on this topic.

 

But the mother can choose to abort a fetus and not be prosecuted.

 

...Twilight, if you are desirous to debate well, you must speak with gentleness and assertiveness; something akin to speaking softly, but carrying a big stick. I agree with you wholeheartedly that abortion is evil, that it is murder. But that is no need to attack BB for the expression of views. If we seek to move others, I think it is important to see as they do first (to understand where they are coming from).

I think that I will segway into my argument on morality...how do we know that abortion is evil?

It may seem like a simple question, but take caution to note the presupposition inherent within the statement that abortion is evil/murder is evil. Consider moral relativists' views, evolutionists', secular humanists', atheists', and finally Christians'. It will be useful to you in life, I assure you. I will respond to BB later on the previous subjects. (Hehe, I'm supposed to be doing homework right now. 5 hours of reading, a quiz, and a test, and chapter summaries...oh boy.)

 

It's legal (In America) because of a court case called Roe v. Wade. This one lady wanted an abortion, and took the whole thing to the Supreme Court. They then decided that abortion was constitutional (a.k.a. legal).

Hey, I've just been gone for family things. Although I suppose how one could see me being un-intellectuall with this debate.....

Their way of disproving those existances is based on evidence. Like how nobody has ever seen a fossil of a dragon.

Although leprichauns could just be really short people born with some horrible disease but are very lucky. Just speculation though.

We judge because we are humans. Perhaps we shouldn't judge other people, but we still do. Maybe it's because we see ourselves as betters. Or maybe it's because we think we would have picked door #2 instead of door #1. I'm against abortion because I judge that there are better options than abortion. And maybe I'm too blind to see every reason why people get abortions. But I'm only human.

But the main difference between a fetus and a bundle of cells is that it's a bundle of human cells. To the extent of my knowledge, humans are the only creatures on this earth who can truly rationalize and see a bigger picture than what is in front of us. That is a reason why plenty of people put humans higher up than other animals.

 

But we're not animals Desert Warrior! But abortion to many people makes us animals.

 

In answer to BB:

I agree! Science is likewise unable to disprove the existence of such beings as faeries and/or leprechauns because they, if they do exist, cannot be tested scientifically; they also violate the Falsifiability Criterion. (Note that they can't be disproved, Desert Warrior.)

I am glad that this concept is sufficiently grasped. What does it mean, though? In other words, what are the implications of this? I personally see this as yielding to, once again, the fact that science is finite. It is therefore impossible for science to grasp those things outside its limited scope. It cannot grasp the absolute. Thus, scientific methods cannot be the only source of information we cling to if we hope to reach an absolute position verifying abortion as right or wrong. (And again, this is assuming that right or wrong even exists.)

Hirst sums it up very well: “However, in spite of all the information which science can gleam it cannot do more than enlighten us about the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of the moral life” (Morality and God by Edward Wales Hirst, 9).

Continuing forward with this in mind, we must acknowledge morality head-on. A comprehensive study of morality is necessary to effectively argue about it. I apologize that I am not more knowledgeable in the field. What you speak of in regards to the decision being based upon the person in question—the mother—as to whether abortion is murder or not is known as Moral Relativism. In this system, there is no such thing as objective, or absolute, right or wrong; in other words, “Real right and wrong is an illusion” (Chamberlain, 23). Moral decisions, then, are “Judgments of personal taste” (Chamberlain, 26). There are no rational grounds, in the subjectivists point of view, to condemn another’s actions as objectively bad or immoral because there isn’t an objective moral standard.

There are a few issues with this view. For one, a Moral Relativist cannot say that anything is wrong or right. They can only say that an action offends them, or that they don’t like it. Once again, Chamberlain captures the essence of moral relativism perfectly:

“If that is the true nature of morality (subjective), then it would mean each of us is free, morally speaking, to choose whichever moral point of view we find most appealing. The choice of whether to be a Mother Theresa or an Adolf Hitler would be roughly the same choice as whether to become a saxophone player or an organ player. You simply choose the one you find most appealing and worthwhile” (Chamberlain, 46).

Basically, I’m disproving the validity of moral relativism with the above information. A few questions before moving on: why does the one who is being murdered not have a say? Is it because he/she cannot speak in a comprehensive manner toward us? And if this is the case, does that justify our destruction of one without a voice?

And of course you are right, it is their choice. But clearly, in the realm of moral relativism, there is no right or wrong. Everything is just a flavor. Now, if everything is just a flavor, why are certain things valued across the board? Such things as fairness and justice, for example, are valued, whereas other things, as in the case of murder, are condemned. What is the basis for valuing these things and condemning others?

I probably sound like a broken record by now, but Chamberlain gets to the heart of morality. He argues: “There really is one objective moral standard. All people, wherever and in whatever condition they find themselves, recognize this standard…this is precisely what we would expect to find if an objective standard existed: fundamental similarities with minor differences due to different conditions in life” (Chamberlain, 81).

Also: “It is one thing to recognize or know about an objective moral standard. It is quite another to follow and obey it” (Chamberlain, 82). Can We Be Good Without God? Paul Chamberlain


So yes, while the decision is the abortion-seeker’s, they are not justified in saying that it’s their decision…just because I decide to murder someone else doesn’t make it right because ‘I felt like it’ or ‘I didn’t like that person’ or because ‘I thought it was a good idea.’

It doesn’t matter if the woman is morally upright or not. It comes down to understanding morality to determine who we are to judge—at least for now in this argument. Later it will come down to God. (Please don’t discredit someone’s intellectual ability because they mention Him. As I did illustrate, science cannot reveal everything.) I agree with part of Desert Warrior’s statements about judging—the human part. And yes, I do think that there are better options than abortion, because there are. One of these is abstinence, for example.

But you are right, BB, in asking who we are to judge. If we do not have an objective moral standard—which science cannot provide, and neither can man of himself in his finiteness, as was demonstrated by my rebuttal of moral relativism (and in the future secular humanism’s stance, evolution’s stance, atheism’s stance, and the Christian stance because they pretty much cover the field)—we have no right to judge anyone. But yet we will still insist on injustice. See the problem?

I think that the main point in regards to your last section of debate should focus on the outcome. It has the potential to be a fully functioning human being. Everything needs to start somewhere. I suppose, then, what is more important is where it will eventually lead.

Also, biblically, the fetus is not merely a bundle of cells. Of course, here I am assuming the existence of God, but I am going to argue the point anyway. Jeremiah 1:5 states: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations." God, who is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient, formed each of us in the womb. God is not a God of the dead, but of the living.

Desert Warrior: “But the main difference between a fetus and a bundle of cells is that it's a bundle of human cells. To the extent of my knowledge, humans are the only creatures on this earth who can truly rationalize and see a bigger picture than what is in front of us. That is a reason why plenty of people put humans higher up than other animals.”

I agree…but can you argue it? And also, explain why?

 

interesting, interesting.
I've been gone for a while, and this debate just keeps goin' strong.
I really agree with much of what Twilight has said, but not in such a radical manner. Abortion has become a threat due to the laziness of mothers, corruption in liberal beliefs, twisting the term of freedom, and population control. Through all this it has worked its way into society as being "okay". (This also applies to geys and the economic use of "credit"). It would be hard, but to truly get rid of abortion (and a lot of other "bad" things in society) you'd need to uncorrupt young lazy mothers, bring liberals back to their true core beliefs, and get rid of population control schemes by the governments.
Otherwise, (unfortunately) it ain't goin' nowhere...

 

I didn't say we were animals. I was pointing out that there are people who believe humans are superior to animals.

I can try.

Animals mainly survive on instinct. Some species see more than that, like a sense of family. An example of that is Killer Whales. They travel in families, but I believe that the rest of their actions are guided by instinct.

But humans on the other hand seem to be the only species on Earth that can think through gigantic things. We can engineer 100 ft. buildings that don't fall over. We invent new things. We discover new things. I don't think there is any other animal species that has had the ability to do more things than us.

And as for why. I believe it's because humans have a more developed brain than other animals. And we're fortunate enough to have the bodies to accomplish such feats as mentioned above. It would be those things that would make us superior to animals.

Which brings me back to the specialness of fetus's. They are a collection of human cells. Not a collection of cat cells, not a collection of monkey cells, but human cells. We don't reproduce only to continue the existance of our species, as do most animals, but to further ourselves. We try to evolve past the previous generation; build better things, explore the unexplored.

 

Well, on that statement you just made we in fact are superior to animals, I mean. . .we are the top of the food chain.

 

Nice job, Desert Warrior. There are a few more things that I can present scientifically as to why humans are superior to animals. Cultural Anthropology, for example, presents another partly scientific (and partly humanities focused) reason why humans are superior to animals: culture. I have a lot more to say about this and the other arguments...and not enough time to type them out. So, I'll post back later with the information (sorry).

 

The Three Sides. . .

Now, there are three sides to this topic. The Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, and well what I call "Pro-Abortion." When you say you are Pro-Choice, you are not encouraging abortion. You are simply stating that it is the woman's choice to abort the fetus. When you say you are Pro-Life, you are saying the abortion is unacceptable and should not be carried out whatsoever.

When you say you're Pro-Abortion, you're saying that abortion is right and should be carried out. Until any of us can identify each others views on the topic, we really shouldn't be debating this topic. But when I say this, I'm saying that I don't want to debate, but in truth, I really do.

 

Let me try and make my veiws as clear as possible.

Pro-Life: We understand that the mother may not want the child, may have fear of raising it, but we value the life of that child above all else.

Pro-choice: I understand your aurgument. However when you say your pro-choice, your saying that the woman has the right to murder her child just because it's inside her womb. Which suggest two things, 1. You see the fetus as less than human (That makes me mad), 2. It's the same as telling anyone they have the right to take a grown human being's life and not have to be punished for it.

Pro-Abortion: This is the worst group of people and to tell you the truth, I really don't care what this group of people have to say because there must be something wrong with people that say, "Killing babies is right."

 

However, the fetus is only human at the ninth month. . .ahem.

 

But now I'm forced to ask. Can you define human?

 

I'm Pro-Life in all situations EXCEPT in rape situation were the baby is thrust upon the poor woman getting raped. I feel THEY get to have a choice, so I'm Pro-Choice in a rape situation. But overall, Abortion is a REALLY BAD THING!! Its population control people!

As far as defining "human", well, its all opinion, but my opinion is AT CONCEPTION!!

 

Okay let's get the Oxford dictionary and start defining things that we already know about.

 

You fail to realise that most pro-life people believe that it is human at the moment of conception.

Even scientist can't say for sure when something can be classified human. So you have no argument.