Bold claim eh? Well, when you've been arguing something this long (4 years), one starts to get irritated with the same poorly regurgitated arguements the other side puts forth, and frankly, I'm sick to death of regurgitating my own superior arguements. Yeah, I'm an arrogant shit.
Pro-choice is not pro-abortion, it's pro-freedom.
[ ***warning: extreme anger is present because of repeated encounters with bible-thumpers*** ]
-I am presumptious about pro-lifers being Christians, but most of them are, until such time that this untrue you can shut the fuck up about me being discriminatory
-about that anger management...
-won out on a technicality
-fairly convincing
-one dead person is better than two
-for people who still view abortion as immoral, but see that outlawing it would lead to more deaths caused by dangerous back-alley abortions, hence making a law would be more immoral from the viewpoint that it would simply cause more people to die
-to those pro-lifers who say 'well, they deserve to die because of the sinful act against god' Shut the fuck up you hypocrites, you're not pro-life, you're pro-stupid
1. Whatever is growing inside a person is their own private property (organs, kidneys, etc.)
2. A fetus grows inside a person
3. The fetus is private property (from 1. and 2.)
4. The owner of property may do as they wish with their property
5. The own may abort the fetus from 3. and 4.
Hypocrisy
Hmmm...why do pro-lifers care about women aborting so much? Do we even value life that much? If we did, we'd make laws forcing money out of people to save lives of african children. If we can't even take care of the children already alive in the world, why are we forcing people to make more? This is contradictory to any sort of logic. Hey pro-lifer, when's the last time you donated to save lives? If you didn't have a religious agenda, I bet you wouldn't give a shit. I'll have you know, there are far worse ways to die apart from being aborted, all of which occur while one is truly alive and concious.
First of all, let's deal with those people who think aborting a zygote is wrong. It's fricken' ridiculous to value the rights of a lump of tissue (zygote) over that of a fully autonomous being (a woman). A woman can actually acknowledge/re gister the fact that her rights are being taken away, while a zygote doesn't even have the capacity to care. To remove actual human suffering from morality is simply idiotic. Actually, I find it insulting that one could value the rights of a zygote over that of a thinking, feeling, conscious human being.
Why is human suffering an important aspect of morality? Well, I think it's pretty self-explanato ry, but I'll explain anyways, I'll make an appeal to your value system:
What's worse? Getting tortured and murdered or just getting murdered? In both cases, the person ends up being dead, but torture makes it worse? Why? Because we are creatures of empathy and we view causing unneccessary pain as immoral. A crime with more physical pain is worse.
Arguement from unique DNA is just worthy of mockery, a tumor growing inside someone can have unique DNA, should they keep it or even be forced to keep it? How different is a zygote from a sperm? In both cases, they are potential life, in Catholicism, jacking off is viewed as a sinful act because it is the destruction of 'potential life'. Wow...should we outlaw masturbation because of 'unique potential life'? Okay, some people say a zygote is a combination , big whoop?! That essentially was dealt with in the 'unique DNA' arguement.
So we have:
1. potential life (check!)
2. Unique DNA (check!)
3. Is a combination (which is essentially 2.)
"Well, if we left it alone, it would grow into a person."
Untrue!
It requires the mother to live, and a woman is simply not an incubator.
Argue a reducto ad absurdum:
Well, if we left the sperm alone it could grow into a new person + egg + incubation
Well, if we left the zygote alone it could grow into a new person + incubation
I already addressed the 'differences' between a zygote and a sperm and I have already addressed the 'unique DNA' arguement.
For the people who think a soul enters the zygote at conception: HAHAHAHAAHAAHA HAH. (1st ammendment, seperation of church and state, so yes, that means take your religious nonsense out of this govt matter please)
On fetal pain
"The cutoff date of 20 weeks gestation is significantly earlier in pregnancy than the 26 weeks that most medical researchers feel that fetuses can feel pain. However, it is far later than the seven weeks that some pro-life groups had been promoting as the fetal age when pain can be felt." http://www.rel igioustoleranc e.org/abo_pain .htm
Bascially, experts think that fetuses can feel paiin at around 26 weeks of gestation, that is around the third trimester. So they attempted to pass bills making anesthesia mandatory, of which I don't entirely disagree with.
There is no debate to raise in first/second trimester, but the third, perhaps.
Becomes a person when..?
"About 24 weeks, when the fetus becomes viable, (i.e. able to live outside the womb) with current technology. When medical ethicist Bonnie Steinbock was interviewed by Newsweek and asked the question "So when does life begin?," she answered: "If we're talking about life in the biological sense, eggs are alive, sperm are alive. Cancer tumors are alive. For me, what matters is this: When does it have the moral status of a human being? When does it have some kind of awareness of its surroundings? When it can feel pain, for example, because that's one of the most brute kinds of awareness there could be. And that happens, interestingly enough, just around the time of viability. It certainly doesn't happen with an embryo." 7 "http://www.re ligioustoleran ce.org/abo_whe n5.htm
-only grey area in debate within third trimester
-at this point, fetal development pretty far
-fetus can feel pain, therefore have some ability to 'care'
-maybe pointless to abort, physical repercussions nearly the same as giving birth
-anesthesia maybe encouraged, because of pain to fetus
Backing off? Am I?..Not really.
-evaluate the morality of the law in practice, Roe Vs. Wade (one dead thing is better than two)
-Women's Rights Vs. Fetus Rights
-Organ Donation example, evaluation of your actual values (involving forced physical sacrifice for moral highgrounds)
-I would personally disagree with third trimester abortions, but I would still not agree with a law banning them
-a fetus still loses nothing, like pulling the plug on a coma victim, except the coma victim had something to begin with, while a fetus has nothing to lose
-fetus never interacted with reality independently, still not fully concious of situation :. still worth less than that of a full autonomous being (more suffering)
On the pain of giving birth
Well, I hate to cut it to you, but I don't think giving birth is a mere 'inconvenience ' as some idiots have put it. So the pro-life arguement goes something like this: "It's just an inconvenience to a woman to give birth, so inconvenience vs. murder! , one could just give up the child to another..."
First of all, pull your head out of your ass, have you ever seen someone give birth? It's not exactly a walk in the park, lack of god, it hurts like hell and there is still a probability of dying in this day and age.
Intro:
Yes, feast your eyes on the arguement which is better than the Roe Vs. Wade. I was amazed to have stumbled across it; my unworthy eyes. I was forced to sit on the fence once because of a really good pro-life arguement, until I found the Organ Donation Example. Contrary to popular belief, I am actually very open-minded. I just expect a decent arguement.
The Goods:
If my dad was going to die from a disease and he needed one of my kidneys to live. Would I be forced to give one of my kidney's up? No. Why? Because it's my bloody organ, my bloody body. Sure he'd die, and it is 'the right thing to do' to give him a kidney of mine. It is the moral thing to do on all levels, But does the govt have the right to force me to give up one of my organs for a moral highground? No. Even if I were the only person in the world that could donate my kidney to my dad, the government does not have the right to force me to give up my organ. Most people would agree with this evaluation.
So why the hell would the govt have control over someone's womb? To save a potential human being?
So no, we do not value life over freedom of our bodies , if we did, people would be forced to donate their organs for the greater good. This is a valid analogy because pro-life is about forcing people to make physical sacrifice in order to 'preserve' life. In a sense, forcing people to give up their kidneys for the greater good is even 'more moral' than forcing people to give birth, since it actually involves a fully autonomous being who can actually feel, and mentally understand the horror of death. Like I said, human suffering is definately an important aspect of morality.
Either you support the government randomly grabbing people's organs or you are pro-choice. You either value freedom of your autonomous body over that of another's life, or you are a fascist lunatic who deserves to be locked up. Take your pick.
"[ Any time the rights of two people stand in opposition to each other, the government must protect the more fundamental right. Let's consider crosswalks. A car is driving down the street while a person is crossing the street. The law requires the driver of that car to slow down and stop (giving up their right to drive where they want, when they want, and at what speed they want) so that the pedestrian may cross the street in front of him. Why? Why must the driver temporarily give up his right to drive down the street just because someone else is walking across the street? Why is the right of the man on foot upheld while the right of the man in the car is denied? It is not because the pedestrian is more valuable than the driver but rather because, if the driver doesn't stop, the pedestrian will likely be killed. In order for the driver to proceed down the street at full speed, at that moment, it will cost the pedestrian his life. In order for the pedestrian to finish crossing the street, at that moment, it will cost the driver a few minutes of drive time.
Obviously, for a woman to remain pregnant, she gives up far more than a few minutes of drive time, but she gives up far less than the baby who would otherwise be killed. This is what it all comes down to. Abortion permanently takes away the life of the unborn. Pregnancy temporarily takes away some of the freedoms of the mother. Since there is far more at stake for the child, the more fundamental right to life must be upheld.
]" - from http://www.abo rt73.com/HTML/ I-B-3-competin g.htmlFirst of all, your comparison between a fetus and a fully autonomous person is insulting. This makes your analogy moot, a fetus, before third trimester can not feel pain unlike that poor bastard who just got hit by a car. Secondly, a fetus has never experienced life, never interacted independently in reality, while a person crossing the street has. The fetus does not lose much, because it had nothing to begin with, while a person crossing the streets can fully appreciate the horror of impending death/human suffering, not to mention the impact on said family/relativ es. The death of a fetus affects none on the personal level except for, maybe the mother/father. Okay, hopeless asshole, 'a few minutes of driving inconvenience' vs. 'the inconvenience of giving birth': HAAHAHAHAHHAHA HAHAHAHAH. Okay, you've mentioned it's obviously alot more than driver inconvenience, but your analogy is still worthy of mockery. It almost trivializes a serious situation.
No, you don't have the right to life at the expense of someone else's body. Organ donation example, what people don't seem to understand is the fact that it isn't a matter of life vs. 'inconvenience ', it's a matter of the government forcing someone to make physical sacrifice in order to fulfill someone else's moral highgrounds. No, that is not acceptable.
"[ Furthermore, in almost 99% of all U.S. abortions1, the woman having the abortion chose to have sexual intercourse in the first place. Therefore, it could just as easily be argued that these women already made their choice when they chose to engage in behavior that often leads to pregnancy. Ultimately, restricting a woman's right to abortion does not restrict a woman's right to not be pregnant. Abortion, after all, does not keep a woman from being pregnant. Abstinence does that. Abortion simply ends the pregnancy of an already pregnant woman by killing the embryo or fetus living within her.
In the end, we are only free to choose so long as that choice doesn't kill or harm someone else, and our government exists to take away those choices that do. Nobody argues that a man should be free to choose when the context is sexual assault. What a fool he would be to try and justify rape by saying, "My body, my choice." Why? Because rape is a violent assault which involves more than just one body. And so is abortion. The heart of the issue is not "choice". The real question is humanity, and nothing short of anarchy can guarantee the perfect freedom of choice.
]" - http://www.abo rt73.com/HTML/ I-B-2-choice.h tml"Killing the embryo or fetus" - I already addressed womans rights vs. embroyo/fetus rights.
Nobody argues wether the govt should force people to give up their organs for transplant when the lives of others are at stake! :O . Comparing abortion to rape is also insulting, first of all, raping someone, wow...okay, back to the human 'suffering' thing I was talking about earlier. Before the third trimester, the fetus/embryo cannot feel pain. A fully autonomous being can experience pain much more vividly and conciously than a fetus ever could. There is still some disagreement on wether a fetus can feel pain at all.
Rape is about, abusing someone in order to satisfy one's own twisted desires. There is no comparison in suffering. Abortion is not quite so simple, pro-life is about the government forcing people to give birth in order to fulfill a moral highground.
"...we are only free to choose so long as that choice doesn't kill or harm someone else, and our government exists to take away those choices that do."
Yes. But a fetus isn't someone yet, in any sense until maybe in third trimester and the government doesn't exist to demand physical sacrifices out of people, nor does the govt have control over someone's womb.
I don't encourage abortions, but I don't discourage them either. It's about freedom of choice. I don't think anyone has the right to make a woman a human incubater and make her suffer great pains through forced birth as some sort of frickin' twisted punishment for having sex. And for rape victims, there's just no debating it at all. It's not their fault at all, why would you make them suffer because of someone else's sin? And don't even talk to me about 'keeping their legs closed', what now? Are you going to stop people from having sex? Fuck you very much :)
2006, 2007 edit