I think it should be legal. Most cases of wanted abortions are usually due to the fact that the impregnated women is either mentally (usually rape victims) or financially incapable of giving birth to a child and raising it. Therefore allowing them to rid of the unborn child without any consciousness before it grows to have one is good because it can prevent many possible problems for not only the mother but the child as well as it may not have the best experience growing up. Now I know a lot of people would also argue that they could just simply give their child up for adoption, but I don't think it's really all that simple because there is a lot of responsibility and mental distress that comes with it. Just to let you all know I did not do any research because I just wanted to quickly give my opinion on this but if I'm factually wrong on anything I said feel free to correct me.
I like ya cut g.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Oh, boy. Obviously those are terrible instances, but circumstances don't change the calculus. As for the situation of where an abortion is the only way to save a mother's life, I've never found an example of it, yet it is raised all the time in the abortion argument because, of course, the pro-choice side is focused on the extreme cases.
Obviously the things I mentioned are not the majority of cases, but making abortion illegal would definitely give two big middle fingers to all of them. Also, just because you haven't seen stuff doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thought you would know this, being religious and all.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Roughly 99% of abortions are done for convenience, with 40% of those abortions being by women who have had 2 or more abortions (UK.gov statistic 2019).
What is 'convenience'? I tried looking these stats up, UK.gov doesn't exist, you probably mean gov.uk. The query "abortion statistics 2019" brings up this page: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...and-wales-2019. I couldn't find the 99% stat, I guess you mean that 98% of abortions are carried out under Ground C?
Originally Posted by gov.uk, Ground C
That the pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.
This doesn't sound like convenience to me.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Aren't you concerned about that at all?
Of course I would like every abortion to have a good reason behind it, it's not something I see as fun. But it is in my opinion a necessary evil.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Or do you believe that women should have the right to abort in all cases for whatever reason at any stage?
No. Late stage abortions are horrible.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
This isn't an argument. Murder still happens despite murder being illegal. Imagine if it wasn't illegal? There would be lots more murder. That's the point of the law, to decrease the number. No system or law is infallible, and there will always be abortions.
The law against murder is there to reduce harm. I think making abortion illegal would not reduce harm, but increase it.
- The mother suffers through pregnancy and child birth
- The child most likely grows up without parental love
- Desperate mothers (and babies) die in botched coathanger abortions
Probably more harms but you get the point
I'll take the harm of ending the possibility of life for an unthinking, unwanting entity over all these harms any day of the week.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
This is emotionally-reasoned. When exactly does an unborn-unthinking-entity make the transition from unthinking to thinking? I could probably guess that you'd be against killing an already born 25-week-old baby, yet are you for the right to abort a 27-week-old baby still in the womb?
I thought it was pretty logical. Shit life or no life at all? We can't know what the baby wants so we have to make the decision for them. I'm on the side of no life at all.
As for the transition, we don't know. But you can't have thoughts or desires without a brain, right? I believe the brain starts forming around 4 weeks into pregnancy. We've been over late stage abortions already.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Re-read my pretense. I'm against the deliberate killing of innocent human lives.
You acknowledged that innocent people would be put on death row. You are apparently okay with that, as you are in favour of the death penalty.
alright guy
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
I care about rape victims and hope they deal with their trauma in the best way they see fit, but abortion isn't justified because the mother got raped. They're two seperate issues, totally unrelated from one another. As for people who try to prevent conceiving during sex, that's all well-and-good, but conception is always a possibility during sexual intercourse. When you have sex, you consent to the possibility of pregnancy (different from consenting to pregnancy). The responsibility falls on the two partners to carry out the pregnancy to full-term, and then they're free to put the baby up for adoption.
Forcing a rape victim to give birth to the child of the man who raped her IS justified?
I doubt you're going to admit this, but it's definitely implied here.
I don't think it's fair to compartmenalize abortion to this degree, the laws will impact pairs of mothers and potential children. Not some abstract concept 'fetus' and another, totally unrelated abstract concept 'mother'.
Adoption does not give the same quality of life as a child with two loving parents. Sadness all around. Troubled child, traumatised couple, a society with an orphanage shortage.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
My apologies, yes I meant gov.uk. I should have sourced more clearly as you've mistaken my sourcing for the former point regarding the 99%. I was actually referring to the 40%.
Then why mention the stat at all?
As for the 40%, it does come off as concerning. But I don't think it's enough of a reason to deny abortions to all those who do need it.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
It's not necessary.
In your opinion
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Incorrect. The law against murder is there to reduce murder. The abortion law wouldn't be there to reduce harm, but reduce abortions. The utilitarian answer to abortion isn't something I'm invested in.
Reducing murder is reducing harm
I'm curious, what rules inform your deontologist argument against abortion?
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Of course, it makes it easier to take that position when you slap on "unthinking" and "unwanting" before it. Does an unthinking human adult have no value? What about a child who is unwanted? Do they have zero value as well? I don't think desire and the capacity for thought are logical or reasonable ways of measuring one's value as an objectively, existing human life.
I don't know what value has to do with this, but braindead adults are cut off from life support all the time. Of course an unwanted child has value, but I don't want a child to struggle with major feelings of unwantedness throughout their childhood, when that easily could have been prevented.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
I would have thought that the fact that the human life is incapable of giving consent to such an enormous decision concerning whether they should live or not is exactly why we should not be able to make such a decision? You couldn't possibly know what they want, since many babies conceived in the most awful and tragic of conditions go on to live happy, fulfilling lives. It's common to see pro-life people who were conceived in rape state that they're thankful that their mother didn't abort them.
You can turn that argument all the way around. Making abortion illegal presumes that fetuses want to live, you couldn't possibly know that. Also I believe that people born into tragic circumstances living happy lives are the exception, not the rule. The people that were 'abortion candidates' (sorry for the dehumanizing term, can't think of another way to refer to them) are adults now and (presumably) have a natural instinct to want to be alive. They have a personal bias.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Since you're pro-choice, what law do you believe is correct? Where do you personally draw the line? At 4 weeks?
Haven't given much thought to exactly which legalese I prefer, but 4 weeks seemed reasonable at first. Apparently most women find out they are pregnant 5.5 weeks in though, so it probably isn't so reasonable. Maybe the law should be paired with increased access to pregnancy tests at lower costs, and general sex education.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
I'm for the death penalty as much as I'm for our participation in the Second World War. Would you describe adherents of the US' participation in WW2 as "okay" with the taking of innocent life? No, you wouldn't, because there's a difference between acknowledging that a noble goal could end up with innocent deaths and being for a procedure that is intentionally designed to end innocent life.
As said in the other thread, I don't think they are analogous.
alright guy
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Once an egg is fertilised, human development has begun, thus moral implications simultaneously arise since - yes - an innocent human life is involved. As far as the benefits of stem cell research go, I prescribe to deontology, so benefits don't matter to me as much as the initial means which lead to the benefits in the first place. For example, I also oppose animal testing, despite the benefits that come from it all.
You claim to be thinking deontologically, but you're actually making a consequentialist argument here.
The only thing that matters to you is that 'an innocent human life' doesn't get terminated. Regardless of case or context. Unthinking/unfeeling mass of cells? Keep it. 2 day old rape victim zygote? Keep it. In-vitro egg that was always intended for stem cell research and was never going to result into the formation of a living human? Keep it.
Regardless of the circumstances of conceptions or stage of development, the only thing you focus on is the consequence that 'an innocent human life' gets killed. It's 'wrong' and 'immoral' BECAUSE 'an innocent human life' is ended.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
There is an emotional difference; not necessarily a moral difference.
Disagree.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Of course, any human being will prioritise a 4-year-old child over a zygote, but that doesn't negate the humanity or life of the zygote.
And you think that the only reasons people can come up with for supporting their preference to end a zygote over ending a child is purely emotional? There's no rational thought going into it at all? Like maybe 'oh, it's an unthinking, unfeeling mass of cells vs a fully formed thinking, feeling child'?
When determining the morality of things, how people will come to determine the morality of an action differs. Some will go hyper-logical, some will go full emotional, some will mix it up with a combination of logic and emotions. "It's right or wrong because emotions", "It's right or wrong because facts", "It's right or wrong because emotions + facts. Whatever your formula, you're still making a determination as to the rightness or wrongness of something. You're still making a moral decision. There's still a difference in the moral weight of killing a zygote vs killing a second trimester fetus. The line's being drawn aren't plucked from thin air.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
Drawing the line at conception is the most objective and morally-consistent position if you value all innocent human life.
That's just like, your opinion man.
Originally Posted by Mallymkun
I personally don't see it as relevant to the discussion since the pro-life position is consistent with atheism, but yes, I am religious.
Well, if you believed in the concept of a soul, it would explain why you're so concerned about the abortion of zygotes.
Last edited by Ele; Aug 5, 2020 at 04:45 AM.