1. PF has switched to Xenforo. Please see this post for more details. Search and other functions are still being worked on.
    Dismiss Notice

That abortion is morally acceptable.

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by MegadethFan, Feb 17, 2012.

  1. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The topic of this debate thread is 'that abortion is morally acceptable.'

    I'll be arguing in the affirmative - that this statement is true.

    The rules are just general stuff for a better debate. If someone has a complaint please direct it to a mod, or if you want send me a pm so you can tell me specifically where I didnt respond to your properly or if you have another grievance with me in my argumentation. So I'll expect people generally try to avoid ad-hominem arguments, non-sequiturs and any other logical fallacies that arise during debates.

    My Contention;
    Life of any kind only acquires value where it has an interest in its existence. Because of this fact, killing a fetus is morally acceptable because the fetus has no interest in its own existence.

    Definition of abortion:
    a·bor·tion
       /əˈbɔrʃən/ Show Spelled[uh-bawr-shuhn] Show IPA
    noun
    1.
    Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
    2.
    any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months.

    So for this debate, abortion refers to the termination of a fetus when it is still in the whom. All other topics are thus irrelevant and all other applications of the term abortion and or perceived relevant meanings are not apart of this debate.


    Defining morality is essentially defining what is ethical, ie what is 'right action':


    ethicsplural of eth·ics (Noun)
    Noun:

    1. Moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior.
    2. The moral correctness of specified conduct.


    It is therefore necessary that people articulate a code of ethics to which they acquire the conclusion of abortion's moral acceptability.


    My Argument:


    What is moral/ethical action: right and wrong.

    To think ethically is to make the realization we are not the only beings in the world. Since we pursue various interests, as do other creatures, is it not logical that we mutually assist or recognize each other in this mutual quality. That is, if I have an interest in being alive and another person wants to be alive, is it not logical to both help keep myself AND the other person alive? This is the foundation of right action: where we consider the interests of those who exist alongside us. It must be noted though that to have an interest in the most elementary, such as life, requires certain characteristics, namely rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness etc. Without these mental faculties, one cannot value their life or have an interest in their existence. Aside from what I have just said, which is what Peter Singer calls the principle of 'Equal consideration of interests,' all other concepts of right action appear to be no more than socially contrived codes of thought - not objective logical observations and reasoning. Consequently, immoral action is that which rejects the logical principle of the equal consideration of interests. Violating the interests of another then (in cases where it is not to achieve shared interests, for example taking money from the rich to save the starving) is almost always wrong on this basis.
    Using this principle of morality in the abortion debate has rather obvious implications. First, when applying this idea, we need ask who is affected and whose interests are in play. Chiefly, the only beings affected are the mother and fetus. However, and here's the crucial part, only the mother has interests because only the mother has the mental capacity to maintain self-awareness and self-consciousness to the point of realizing and valuing her existence. A fetus is devoid of these faculties. Thus, the mother's interests are the only one's we need, morally speaking, take notice of.

    Conclusion:
    Killing a fetus is fine because the baby has no interest in its own existence. This is because it has no a consciousness or mental function that allows it to think and comprehend its existence and its life. A fetus has no interests as it has no mind - no conception of space or time, rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness or awareness of itself or of anything within the confines of reality. In fact a fish has greater conscious capacity than a fetus under three months of growth. This is why killing a tree amongst other things is fine because it has no self-conscious interest in its existence. This is why when we bleed, we need not mourn for the loss of blood cells or skin cells because none of these organisms, like the fetus, function on a level that allows them to comprehend any notion of life and existence. A fetus has feelings in the most primitive sense of physical sensations sure, but that does not constitute an interest or evidence that the mind has developed to keep an interest in living.

    You can find medical and philosophical justification for this position in the writings and research of Peter Singer and Michael Tooley amongst many others.

    A question to Lifers:
    The lifer position rests on this syllogism:

    It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.
    A human fetus is an innocent human being.
    Therefore it is wrong to kill a human fetus.

    My question is simply then, why is it wrong to kill an innocent human being? This question does not mean to say any human life is free to destroy, since as we have seen, humans with interests should be considered. But how can one possible say human life, in and of itself, is special?

    Incidentally, my position poses huge problems for the liberal position also, since it is entirely correct for one to say a fetus is a human being and this fact does not change between conception and birth. The only thing that does is conscious ability and mental capacity to care about its existence.
     
    Blasphemer and (deleted member) like this.
  2. Gemini_Fyre

    Gemini_Fyre New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have you selected a moderator yet? Been following the last forum but it was a little disorganized with tons of junk on it.

    This will be interesting to see unfold.
     
  3. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Crap I forgot about a mod. Oh well. I think people generally see the structure of this thread. I have my argument, which they can either context, or hide from.

    I hope so. If it becomes disorganized, or rather, derailed, I will get a mod to start deleting posts and warning people. As I said, people can send me a PM if they think I am not answering their responses properly or thoroughly enough.
     
  4. Gemini_Fyre

    Gemini_Fyre New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it would be prudent to select a moderator for this one, and establish some simple ground rules. Because with such a "touchy" subject people will need some sort of written structure/standard to be held to. Assuming intelligent debate will occur has taught me in the past that it may never occur at all without some concrete rules in place.

    But hey, it's your thread. Have at it, either way it will surely get interesting.
     
  5. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I had the same fear so I made this:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/forum-help-feedback-etc/233201-moderate-debate.html

    Hopefully a mod will respond, else I will have to find one.
     
  6. Thinker

    Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    761
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How about you have opening post.
     
  7. churchmouse

    churchmouse New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,739
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Peter Singer???????

    Oh great one of those…..LOL
     
  8. churchmouse

    churchmouse New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,739
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do people with no morals comprehend how to do this? It is acceptable for them to kill…end of story. They in no way could see the side of life…that a pro-lifer would see…it would be impossible. They operating from two different operating systems….sorta like the PC and MAC.




    Now does this include potty mouths? You usually swear and use profanity….is that allowed? LOL


    Who says? So if I was to say a newborn has less right to live than a one year old…I would be right? I would imagine that I am older..than you, so I have more right to life. I have existed longer…and have more of a longing to hold on….so killing you would be more moral than killing me. I have more interest in my existence….I am older and more aware of my surroundings.




    I will make it earlier…..abortion kills a living human being. If it didn't abortion would not be needed….as it would grow. Terminate….same as kill. The abortionists only goal……to kill the life inside any way he/she can.

    Could you use the word KILL just for grins and giggles? I assume you meant womb….as you said whom? I will not debate using only the term terminate. You sound like your terminating cockroaches…or turning off electricity. The abortionists goal is to KILL….THAT IS THE TERM THAT SHOULD BE USED. I AM SURE SEEING YOUR SUCH AN OPEN MINDED INDIVIDUAL WOULD NOT MIND…YOUR PRO-ABORTION AND SHOULD WEAR THE PRO-ABORT LABEL PROUDLY…KILLING IS A GOOD THING FOR YOU GUYS.


    Not so with you moral relativists. If you think what is ethical is killing and I don't…no middle ground. And I don't think that on this issue your side stands on ethical grounds.

    And impossible as I don't think people who are pro-abortion have morals in this area. This view would taint all others….moral situations as our view on life defines who we are.



    We can never agree on this…our world views are polar opposites. You say you are an atheist so therefore you make up morality as you see it…I don't I believe in God and mine are set. I think we should use science…because on morality we can never come to agreement.


    Characteristics that you don't have…as recognizing that the life growing in the womb is human with its own DNA and identity that is NOT PART OF THE WOMAN. This scientific factual information you dismiss. I think you are irrational in your beliefs on this. I have an interest in every living human beings existence….you pick and choose who you think is worthy. Again polar opposites.

    I have a basic respect for all human life and see a definite difference between human life and animal life. Now I know you don't agree…no one who was a Peter Singer follower would agree…therefore a human life is equal to that of a fly. Again we can't agree world views and values poles apart….no meeting ground.


    But then there is the biological proof that half the fetus' DNA belongs to the father….he is just nothing however and an non issue. But that scientific fact still remains…that..the life in the womb bears the imprint of its father. The law however says the woman is the important one…not even the baby means anything. However our laws are wishy washy….you can hire someone to kill and pay them….but you have a friend or do it yourself and you might be in trouble.

    The fetus is affected as…..the hired killers job is to Kill it.

    So abortion should be legal throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy…an anything less would be to enslave her…right? Don't use the word moral…as we can't agree to what morality really is.


    Bravo….you used the correct terminology….KILL. Could we also say…expanding this a bit further….killing anyone in comas…or the mentally handicapped etc…would also be fine?


    Can a one year old….comprehend its existence? How about a three year old? A mentally handicapped person? NO….can we say then by your definition that a parent or grandparent should be able to kill them?

    Again killing anything human that can't quite grasp awareness of everything you state…would be on your axe list.

    Yes there ya go…..a fish is more aware then a human child. Wow. But why add the three months in the womb…you say it nothing until its aware of its surroundings….probably somewhere around one and three years old.
    What you say here….I can't honestly comment on the rest of this dribble…again there are rules to be followed on this forum.

    "
    .

    Both left wing radical nut jobs…I have read Singers stuff…and again…have to watch what I say here.


    Based on what you said in this thread any debate with you would be worthless…especially when you bring people like Singer into this. If he is your guru guy…be my guest…I dismiss him as a nut job.

    Yes….especially when it is growing quietly and safely in its mothers womb and has done nothing to warrant being sucked out alive….torn into pieces…etc.

    Yes…it did not ask to be conceived…it was conceived by the actions of his parents.

    Yes. That is what you don't get.
     
  9. Gemini_Fyre

    Gemini_Fyre New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Churchmouse did you quit the other thread? Haven't heard back from you.
     
  10. churchmouse

    churchmouse New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2012
    Messages:
    4,739
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    0
    which one…..I am going to too many….tell me which post.
     
  11. Gemini_Fyre

    Gemini_Fyre New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,087
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
  12. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Everything is in the OP. Is this what you are after specifically:

    My Contention;
    Life of any kind only acquires value where it has an interest in its existence. Because of this fact, killing a fetus is morally acceptable because the fetus has no interest in its own existence.
     
  13. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please keep your comments to the debate. If you have a question or an argument, make it, else please dont say anything.
     
  14. Thinker

    Thinker New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2012
    Messages:
    761
    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    0
    But a fetus is a human correct? One that began with the start of a Human sperm entering into a Human egg right? I mean thats how humans are born, its not like a dog sperm can pregnate a woman right, if it did we would end up with another micheal moore. So that means the fetus is Human right?
     
  15. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Please read the whole thing through - CAREFULLY.

    Please refrain from attacking pro-choice people and ONLY attack MY ARGUMENT.

    We can include swearing if you wish. I will refrain from swearing.

    Logic.

    You havent understood the contention. Read it again. Value of your existence is not contingent on age - I never said this. You are attacking a strawman.

    You are again mistaken. An abortion doesn't WANT to kill - he/she simply accepts the logical right of the, mother to kill the fetus IF she wants to.

    Ok, let me rephrase for your pleasure:

    "So for this debate, abortion refers to the killing, that is ending of the life/existence/capacity to live of a fetus when it is still in the womb via means accepted by the mother. All other topics are thus irrelevant and all other applications of the term abortion and or perceived relevant meanings are not apart of this debate."

    Explain how it doesn't stand on ethical grounds.

    Ok so what? Of course this shapes all other ethical considerations - but so what? Do you object to this ethical position? If so, why?

    Why cant we come to an agreement? Do you not think your ethics are logical? If you use logic, or think you do, then you are on the same turf as me for saying what is right and wrong. Atheism, which I do not endorse, has nothing to do with my ethical position. If you are religious, you must prove why the religious position is correct. Dont run away - you need to validate your claims.

    Yes, I do else I wouldnt be talking here. You also have these characteristics - no fetus does.

    Could you elaborate on this point since I cannot make our your line of argument. Could you state your contention here clearly so I cna respond?

    Wrong. Only those beings with an interest in their existence have a right to life. If you disagree, debate my logic that justifies this.

    Not quite. A human life isnt equal to anything remember.

    Indeed but this doesnt mean I cant prove your position illogical and thus wrong.

    Correct because it isnt his body the fetus lives in.

    Correct.

    Do you not agree what is moral is that which is logical.

    Yep. Anyone without an interest in their existence. The others however have their own conditions as the fetus does so its often not that clear cut - as with coma particularly.

    Yes and yes.

    Yes if the parents of the child consent and it is shown the child has no self-awareness or capacity to realize it is alive.

    Pretty much.

    Medical fact.

    They obtain awareness after birth. Forget about the three months point, that was just to say that abortion should not be painful for the fetus, but it seems irrelevant to our discussion at this point.

    If you wish to dismiss him as a nutjob please validate this action by explaining, as an argument, why this position is false.

    It would care either way - it doesnt even know its alive.

    Make me get it - give an argument. Provide an argument and contention or go away please.
     
  16. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, totally.

    ps. I agree about Michael Moore.
     
  17. MisLed

    MisLed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,299
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    0
    just had to save this part.

    So for this debate, abortion refers to the termination of a fetus when it is still in the whom. All other topics are thus irrelevant and all other applications of the term abortion and or perceived relevant meanings are not apart of this debate.

    whom would that be?
     
  18. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's a stupid typo on my part. It should read womb.
     
  19. MisLed

    MisLed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,299
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    0
    too late. you should have proofread.
     
  20. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,290
    Likes Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Make me get it - prove it correct.
     

Share This Page