Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2014, 09:11 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(11-09-2014 09:07 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Sorry, I had it wrong. I will delete it and repost my last comment here.

What I meant was that you don't even have to explain all the science behind whether a fetus is a person or not.

Pro-lifers tend to fight for the idea that a fetus is indeed equal to a newborn baby, correct? Well, you can actually grant them that premise and still win the argument. Make sense?

So, IF they eventually say "fine, its not a person and isn't equal", well you have gained extra points in the debate. You can then ask them "if its not equal, then what is it"


See the point? You are just granting them the first premise they fight for and still kicking their ass. Its a philosophical deductive argument. It just shows that they have lost even fi it turns out to be true that a fetus is a person.


See my point?

I don't really get your point... How do you win the argument if you grant them that an unborn fetus is equal to a born baby?

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 09:17 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(11-09-2014 09:11 PM)Sam Wrote:  
(11-09-2014 09:07 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  Sorry, I had it wrong. I will delete it and repost my last comment here.

What I meant was that you don't even have to explain all the science behind whether a fetus is a person or not.

Pro-lifers tend to fight for the idea that a fetus is indeed equal to a newborn baby, correct? Well, you can actually grant them that premise and still win the argument. Make sense?

So, IF they eventually say "fine, its not a person and isn't equal", well you have gained extra points in the debate. You can then ask them "if its not equal, then what is it"


See the point? You are just granting them the first premise they fight for and still kicking their ass. Its a philosophical deductive argument. It just shows that they have lost even fi it turns out to be true that a fetus is a person.


See my point?

I don't really get your point... How do you win the argument if you grant them that an unborn fetus is equal to a born baby?

Premise 1: An unborn baby is equal to a new born baby

Premise 2: A newborn baby does not have the right to use the mothers body to keep it alive no matter what and no matter how long IF the mother does not want it to. This means that if it needs an organ or something from the mothers body, it does not have the right to do so. Even in cases of breast milk, the mother is NOT obliged to feed the baby.
Premise 3: An unborn baby is equal to an newborn baby

Conclusion: Therefore, an unborn baby cannot use the mothers body without her consent, even in cases of pregnancy.





Put it this way, if a new-born baby needs an organ transplant or needs to use the mothers body for X amount of time, the mother is not obligated to give up her body. So, if the newborn is equal to the unborn baby (for the sake of the argument, they are equal) then we must conclude that the unborn cannot use the mothers body no matter what for and no matter how long if we grant the unborn baby the same rights as the newborn. Why? because the newborn also does not the right to use the mothers body without her consent no matter what for, or how long.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 09:22 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(11-09-2014 09:17 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  
(11-09-2014 09:11 PM)Sam Wrote:  I don't really get your point... How do you win the argument if you grant them that an unborn fetus is equal to a born baby?

Premise 1: An unborn baby is equal to a new born baby

Premise 2: A newborn baby does not have the right to use the mothers body to keep it alive no matter what and no matter how long IF the mother does not want it to. This means that if it needs an organ or something from the mothers body, it does not have the right to do so. Even in cases of breast milk, the mother is NOT obliged to feed the baby.
Premise 3: An unborn baby is equal to an newborn baby

Conclusion: Therefore, an unborn baby cannot use the mothers body without her consent, even in cases of pregnancy.





Put it this way, if a new-born baby needs an organ transplant or needs to use the mothers body for X amount of time, the mother is not obligated to give up her body. So, if the newborn is equal to the unborn baby (for the sake of the argument, they are equal) then we must conclude that the unborn cannot use the mothers body no matter what for and no matter how long if we grant the unborn baby the same rights as the newborn. Why? because the newborn also does not the right to use the mothers body without her consent no matter what for, or how long.

Well... That's just daft.

Its like saying your conjoined twin has no right to use your heart if you don't want him to...

Its not like the baby is a parasite that chose the mother to be its host...

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 09:26 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
No, because neither one of them has ownership of the heart. One did not "have it first". The mother was not born with a fetus in her.

That was a daft comment… Sorry.


Excellent essay: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_o..._the_essay

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 09:30 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(11-09-2014 09:26 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  No, because neither one of them has ownership of the heart. One did not "have it first". The mother was not born with a fetus in her.

That was a daft comment… Sorry.

It doesn't matter whether the mother was born with the fetus... The mother's ovaries contain all the eggs she'll ever have, if one happens to unite with a sperm, you get pregnancy.

Its not like the fetus chose to come into existence... You seem to be suggesting that its somehow the unborn baby's "fault" somehow. It isn't, its nature, pregnancy happens.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 09:33 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
So what? Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Its consent to the risk of being pregnant, and consent to the risk of been pregnant does not mean you have consented to staying pregnant if it happens.

I don't see your problem with it. It sounds like a naturalistic fallacy.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 09:39 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(11-09-2014 09:33 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  So what? Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. Its consent to the risk of being pregnant, and consent to the risk of been pregnant does not mean you have consented to staying pregnant if it happens.

I don't see your problem with it. It sounds like a naturalistic fallacy.

So at what point do you think abortion should be illegal?

To abort a fetus in the last stages of development, to me would be murder. If its a human being, its a human being... whether its inside or outside the body.

I'm totally pro-choice, but there's got to be a cutoff at some point.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 09:43 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
That IS an issue. I agree. Put it this way, if we did let it happen at the last weeks of pregnancy, I can still consider that person irresponsible, immoral, and lazy. But you cannot ignore the argument. Otherwise its a fallacy of adverse consequences.

“Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way.

-Christopher Hitchens
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 10:01 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(11-09-2014 09:43 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  That IS an issue. I agree. Put it this way, if we did let it happen at the last weeks of pregnancy, I can still consider that person irresponsible, immoral, and lazy. But you cannot ignore the argument. Otherwise its a fallacy of adverse consequences.

I dunno what you're on about man... You seem to be suggesting that an unborn baby is for all intents and purposes a parasite. Well, I beg to differ on that... The idea that a late stage pregnancy can be terminated just because the mother decides she's sick of being pregnant seems immoral to me.

If the mother's life is in danger, or the pregnancy was the result of rape, etc etc... then I'm all for abortion...

But, consensual sex is an "at your own risk" activity... In my opinion people must accept the consequences of their actions. Which is why there must be a high standard of sex education in schools, so that consent is informed.

I just don't agree that fetuses should be aborted, simply because the mother views it as a pain in the arse.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2014, 10:08 PM
RE: Concerning Abortion: Pro-Choice - Discussion
(11-09-2014 07:21 PM)Just Another Atheist Wrote:  BUT, does the newborn have a right to life at the expense of the mothers body?
Who is the definer of rights?
Am I obligated to abide by these rights?
Does this give me the obligation to force the mother down the righteous path?

Is that my purpose in life, to be the enforcer of rights?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: