When Does Abortion Become Wrong?

[Darat]

Originally posted by merphie
Just the opposite. They force abortion on women who want the child. State mandated birth control.

I knew they'd used severe financial and social pressures to try and keep people to the "one child" per family policy that has since been abandoned but I didn’t know they forced abortions on woman. Have you any references for this?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by merphie


I think it's ignorant of you to assume it is nothing more than just a bad day.

Do you have statistical or psychological evidence to differentiate the trauma of being an unwilling mother vs being the unwilling mother of a criminal?

[Darat]

Originally posted by merphie
What a cold world you must live in. No definition I could possibly give would satisfy any of you. You regard a fetus as something that has no importance. So any reasoning I give for placing a value of that object would be meaningless to you. You would never see my point of view.


I don't live in a cold world at all. I live in a world full of love, life, happiness, hate, death and sadness. Probably the same world you live in.

And when have I said I regard a embryo/foetus/baby as something of no importance, perhaps you are being too eager to put anyone who questions you into a neat “group�? (Even if I had what has this to do with your argument of which abortion should be allowed or not?)

I have not asked you to explain your opinion, I have asked you to explain the following position you have put forward:

Abortion should only be available if conception was through rape.

I have asked you to explain what premises you use to come to this conclusion. As I said previously it can’t be because you believe a foetus has some fundamental, intrinsic right to life, since you are willing to kill some of them.

I therefore wonder what your objection to pregnancies being aborted that weren’t conceived through rape, the only answer I have seen you put forward so far is that a woman has acted irresponsibly to get pregnant when she didn't want to and therefore she should be denied the choice because of that "irresponsibility". (By the way in the case of rape - would you allow the woman to decide to abort at 8.9 months? ) It also seems strange to me that you want people who have been “irresponsible� to have children.


It's my opinion. I have given my reasons for my opinion. To be acceptible to people I either have to support all abortions or none at all. Then you would clearly say I am logical because it would fit your view of the world.


Not at all, I have already stated in this thread that I don’t think all abortions should be allowed.



I wouldn't not agree with someone who was completely anti-abortion. However I would respect their view of the matter. This is purely a moral issue which relies on the opinion individual.

Well I would not respect their view. But I would respect their right to have that view.

But doesn’t it concern you that there seems to be a logical contradiction in the opinion you hold?

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by merphie
What a cold world you must live in. No definition I could possibly give would satisfy any of you. You regard a fetus as something that has no importance.

You regard a fetus concieved by rape as something that has no importance. You are logically inconsistent.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Darat
I knew they'd used severe financial and social pressures to try and keep people to the "one child" per family policy that has since been abandoned but I didn’t know they forced abortions on woman. Have you any references for this?

No I don't have references. I have had discussions with a lady from China. I would have to look for web references.

[merphie]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Do you have statistical or psychological evidence to differentiate the trauma of being an unwilling mother vs being the unwilling mother of a criminal?

No, just first hand experience.

[merphie]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
You regard a fetus concieved by rape as something that has no importance. You are logically inconsistent.

That is your claim not mine.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Darat
I don't live in a cold world at all. I live in a world full of love, life, happiness, hate, death and sadness. Probably the same world you live in.

Perhaps.

And when have I said I regard a embryo/foetus/baby as something of no importance, perhaps you are being too eager to put anyone who questions you into a neat “group�? (Even if I had what has this to do with your argument of which abortion should be allowed or not?)

I don't group anyone. I assumed you had the same opinion as a couple others on here. If I am wrong then I apologize. It's just you are using the same argument as the others.

I have not asked you to explain your opinion, I have asked you to explain the following position you have put forward:

Abortion should only be available if conception was through rape.

Perhaps you are trying to put me into a neat group? I have not said that. I said abortion are acceptible in the case of the mother's health.

I have asked you to explain what premises you use to come to this conclusion. As I said previously it can’t be because you believe a foetus has some fundamental, intrinsic right to life, since you are willing to kill some of them.

I have tried to explain it. You and other have automatically dismissed any explaination and made character attacks. I don't know what else I could say to allow you to understand my point of view.

I therefore wonder what your objection to pregnancies being aborted that weren’t conceived through rape, the only answer I have seen you put forward so far is that a woman has acted irresponsibly to get pregnant when she didn't want to and therefore she should be denied the choice because of that "irresponsibility". (By the way in the case of rape - would you allow the woman to decide to abort at 8.9 months? ) It also seems strange to me that you want people who have been “irresponsible� to have children.

I would not want to endanger any child through irresponsible parents. However I do not see abortion as an acceptible method of birth control. I don't see the irresponsible parent argument as valid because there are plenty of parents out there who are irresponsible. I think if abortions were outlawed there would probably not be a dramatic increase in irresponsible parents. People who didn't want the pregnancy are not always just irresponsible.

I am divided on the issue so I could not force my view on others. It would prevent me personally from doing so.

I do not support partial birth abortions except in the event of the mother's health.

Not at all, I have already stated in this thread that I don’t think all abortions should be allowed.

Then what exactly is your view?

Well I would not respect their view. But I would respect their right to have that view.

Fair Enough.

But doesn’t it concern you that there seems to be a logical contradiction in the opinion you hold?

Yes I see it. There is contradictions in a lot of things. Why would I allow an abortion in the case where the mother's health was threatenend? Why chose the mother over the child?

If all humans are individuals and deserve life then how can anyone support war or the death penalty?

[Darat]

Originally posted by merphie

Perhaps you are trying to put me into a neat group? I have not said that. I said abortion are acceptible in the case of the mother's health.


Then I have somewhat misunderstood your position. However with that cleared up you are still left with what appears to be a logical inconsistency in your position.

If mental emotional problems are a "health" reason for an abortion then a woman who is pregnant and is not emotionally stable should be allowed to have an abortion?

Originally posted by merphie

I have tried to explain it. You and other have automatically dismissed any explaination and made character attacks. I don't know what else I could say to allow you to understand my point of view.


I have not made one character attack on you; I have not automatically dismissed your explanations. I have tried to understand what appeared to be a logical contradiction in your position. You have not explained why there is not a logical contradiction in your position. Do I take it that you agree there is a logical contradiction in the position you have stated?


Originally posted by merphie

I would not want to endanger any child through irresponsible parents. However I do not see abortion as an acceptible method of birth control.


This appears to contradict your above statement saying that abortion can be used for birth control if the woman’s health is at risk.

Do you or do you not think abortions should be carried out?


Originally posted by merphie

...snip...

I do not support partial birth abortions except in the event of the mother's health.




Then what exactly is your view?


At the moment I am running with the idea of "independent viability" being the determinate point where the foetus/baby acquires rights afforded to "people". (First couple of pages have my views expressed in more depth.)

Originally posted by merphie


Yes I see it. There is contradictions in a lot of things. Why would I allow an abortion in the case where the mother's health was threatenend? Why chose the mother over the child?


And why not chose the child over the mother? In this instance it is your views on the matter we are discussing so I'm interested in your reasoning for why the mother should live and the child be killed.


Originally posted by merphie


If all humans are individuals and deserve life then how can anyone support war or the death penalty?

Good questions - but probably out of the scope of this discussion.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Darat
Then I have somewhat misunderstood your position. However with that cleared up you are still left with what appears to be a logical inconsistency in your position.

If mental emotional problems are a "health" reason for an abortion then a woman who is pregnant and is not emotionally stable should be allowed to have an abortion?

I say health because a traumatic event such as rape would be quite different then a woman who doesn't want to ruin her figure or the father left. I believe people should take responsibility for their actions. I assume you would agree that a traumatic event would manifest into health problems.

I have not made one character attack on you; I have not automatically dismissed your explanations. I have tried to understand what appeared to be a logical contradiction in your position. You have not explained why there is not a logical contradiction in your position. Do I take it that you agree there is a logical contradiction in the position you have stated?

And why not chose the child over the mother? In this instance it is your views on the matter we are discussing so I'm interested in your reasoning for why the mother should live and the child be killed.

I don't mean to suggest that you have attacked me in anyway. The only problem with the logic I see is why choose the mother over the unborn? I couldn't really say. I am divided on the issue. I have not found an acceptible answer that would fit with my principles.

Should an acceptible abortion be considered when the mother is killed and the baby is saved? What if it were possible to kill the father to save the baby and mother? If a fetus has no value then why is Scott Peterson being tried for double murder? Couldn't it be considered an abortion?

This would not be acceptible to some of those on here because a fetus has no value. Since I place equal value on the fetus then the loss of either life would be tragic. So I guess it comes down to the mother should be saved because if the pregnancy is a health risk then both could suffer or die. I can not reasonable put the value of one life above another. I really don't have an answer. I would not say the mother's life is more valuable. Perhaps it's because the mother has a better chance of survival.

I should also say I do not define the fetus as begining with conception. I place it at the time when implantation has occurred and a successful pregnancy begins.

This appears to contradict your above statement saying that abortion can be used for birth control if the woman’s health is at risk.

We could assume that all abortions are a form of birth control. Which they are. However for the point of discussion it should be acceptible to loosen the definition. If not, then I would have to replace "abortion" with a paragraph to explain the exact terms everytime.

Do you or do you not think abortions should be carried out?

Under what terms? Do I think a law should be made to prevent abortions from being done completely? No. Do I think should only be performed under the circumstances I have outlined? No.

I do not favor any restrictions under the law for abortion. I am discussing my personal views.

At the moment I am running with the idea of "independent viability" being the determinate point where the foetus/baby acquires rights afforded to "people". (First couple of pages have my views expressed in more depth.)

Fair Enough.

Good questions - but probably out of the scope of this discussion.

I agree. I was merely stating them for example.