I've been lurking these forums a lot and something I'm noticed, used by both sides of the argument, is that their arguments are the most logical. I'm sorry, but that certainly seems like an idiotic thing to say. Abortion is always about personal belief, science, logic and rational thought have no real place when discussing it. It is a matter of societal standards, what is wrong, what is right, what is the value of human life, does a fetus infringe on the rights of a woman, does a fetus have the same rights as a human being, etc etc... It will forever be a matter of philosophy. The idea that a fetus is not a human during the first and second trimester is often taken as scientific fact, but it is simply a parameter for the law. And before you say, "But scientists said it was so!!!", no, a fetus is just as helpless as a newborn, they can't communicate their feelings on if they wish to live or not. If one used logic, we could come up with a million reasons to kill a person, but that doesn't answer if it is right or wrong. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that the debate on both sides is basically one big emotional debate. You defend who you feel deserves the most pity, the woman who has to carry the child for nine months, or the fetus who can't defend itself in any way. Saying your argument is more logical is nothing but a huge fallacy.
You can be as emotional as you like in forming your opinion about abortion, and in trying to convince others of your rightness. And you are correct about our forming our opinions emotionally. However, when it comes to law, and using the FORCE of law, something more than emotion must come into play. Law must be based on logic and how a particular law will affect the whiole of society. The rightness or wrongness of abortion isn't a matter for consideration when forming the LAW, it is only the effect of the law, and whether the act in question causes a disruption in society's order.
Well you are sadly mistaken. Abortion should be treated as a homicide, bacause logically that it what it is. Conception is the only non arbitrary beginning point that can be used as a threshold, that is logical.
Rubbish! You might be incapable of engaging in a logical debate on an emotive subject but that's no reason to impose that failing on everyone else. Logical arguments about abortion are as least as significant as your emotional responses.
There is a logical argument that can be used in the abortion debate and which is derived from the objective fact of self-ownership. That is, that a woman, since she owns herself, has the right to eject the unwanted child for trespassing on her property. If there's no other way to handle the matter other than abortion, then abortion is justifiable. If the unborn child is old enough to survive eviction, then it's the woman's responsibility to find someone who will take the child. However, it's not well received, I've found, because it's entirely unemotional and really, who wants to kill trespassers that were first invited on the property?? Most people prefer to avoid logic, instead relying on rhetoric and calling it logical. When called to account for their rhetoric, they become quite upset.
I see that as emotional rhetoric, not logic. Abortion may be homicide in your opinion, but it isn't in mine. If someone killls a baby after birth, that would certainly be homicide, but it's not homicide before then. Your opinion isn't logic; it's just an opinion.
The logic no abortion a child. Abortion no child. This means abortion is a mother killing her child that happened because of the mothers actions.
Thank you guys for proving my point. You guys are both trying to say your argument is logical, when both are just societal opinions. And all laws are opinions, only difference being they are shared by the majority. Rational thought goes into them of course, but at their core they are emotionally driven. Let's face it, like a person in another thread has said, logically, there isn't much value to a single human life. One could kill a thousand people, or even a million, and it still wouldn't effect life on the planet in any meaningful way. Life goes on(discounting a major planet-wide disaster). However, it does effect us emotionally, thus, despite possibly using this as a reason to act politically, there is no logical reason to act at all, as it doesn't really effect us personally. People don't want other people to die, that is an emotionally driven argument. People don't want their rights infringed, that is an emotionally driven argument. I'd like to say now that I'm incredibly pro-life, and think that no matter what reason, a unborn baby should always have a chance to live, except for one exception, that being if the mother's life has a more than likely chance of dying if she gives birth. In that situation, one person has to take priority, and I find that that should be the mother.
Well who can argue with such brilliant reasoning? A grade schooler perhaos, but we are attempting just a bit more intelligent debate here. Care to give it another try?
Obviously your operating definition of the term is intellectually and morally bankrupt. How about our descendants? Do they factor into it? Not in the least - although such claims will have a certain attraction to the shallow-minded, who think love and logic are somehow mutually exclusive, when in fact they are inextricably interwoven.
Possibly, but doesn't change the fact that I'm right. We're trying to defend the people we think deserve it the most, when there is no logical reason to do either. It's not our bodies, it's not our child, and yet we still try to defend the rights of the ones who deserve it the most. To tell you the truth, although I do believe that there are some political issues that do have obvious logical solutions, abortion isn't one of them, since it deals with the philosophical issue of the value of human life.
As long as Planned Parenthood can continue to keep the black population in check... (Oh, that jokes has gotten old.) How about this: As long as liberals continue to abort their babies... Okay... I got nothin'.
I never said I don't have morals, I would say my morals go far further in the other direction. I'm just arguing the point that one shouldn't call an opinion logic, when it is emotionally driven in the first place Logically, no, they don't. I wouldn't say that, but I'm arguing that in this case, it might be a bit hard to find a truly logical argument to back up your opinions in a clearly philosophical debate.
In your opinion, not in mine. I think you're wrong. In your opinion a mass of dividing cells has rights that supersede the mother whose body it requires to live. In my opinion that is misogynist. , If you are a man, that is right. It isn't your body. If you are a pregnant woman, however, your body is involved. It is your opinion about who deserves it most; not a fact, and therefore not logical. To give a fetus rights that infringe on a mother's right to control her own body devalues that woman's life and places a higher value on the unborn, so I can agree that this issue involves the value of human life.
It actually does prove that you are wrong. There is logic behind using fertilization as the beginning because science tells us definitively that fertilization is the physical beginning.
I never said you said that, and neither does it have any bearing on anything I did say. This is unintelligle. This is pointless repetition. Yeah, I figured; and it only serves to confirm what I said to begin with. Doesn't matter, because it's true all the same. You wouldn't know one if you saw one.
No I stated a fact. If you are pro abortion why do you have a problem with a mother killing her child after birth after all it is the same result a mother killing her child.