Using logic and reason to oppose abortion...

[questioner4]

Okay, even though I've been questioning my faith for over a year, I am still firmly pro-life - although I believe 'traditional' pro-lifers go about it the wrong way. I believe thast abortion is wrong, because I oppose discrimination on all grounds. I believe it is being discriminatory to deny basic human rights to the smallest humans, simply because they are still dependant on the mother. It really would be nice to hear people oppose abortion on grounds other than the Bible.

Anyway, what do you guys think? Are you a 'non-traditional pro-lifer'? If you are Christian and pro-life, can you think of any non-Biblical reasons to oppose abortion?

[Cephus]

If the foetus is extant prior to and sebsequent to the procedure it cannot be reasonably described as a by-product of the procedure, this would be comparable to suggesting that the car was a by-product of the crash.

Or the appendix was a by-product of the appendectomy? It's a bit hard to have an abortion or an appendectomy if what you're taking out doesn't exist, isn't it?

I never suggested that morality is absolute, that is the point of my argument, to change subjective morality. I find it strange that you claim that the woman has a right to do as she pleases with her own body and claim there is no case for absolute morality. How does "ownership" give rights of freedom? If I own a gun I am not free to shoot you and your family.

Sure, I can't stop you if you really want to go on a shooting rampage, but know that actions have consequences. If you go shoot someone, you're probably going to end up paying for it. It's called the law of the land. Currently, abortion is perfectly legal, hence a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, including removing unwelcome fetuses who have taken up residence against her wishes.

People should agree with me if they find it abhorrent given all the facts.

But the majority of Americans support a woman's right to abortion, so apparently they don't find it abhorrent.

You make a wild accusation that feelings should be disqualified from the argument when other laws are passed for exactly that reason.

I'm just trying to stay on topic here, the thread is specific about what kind of arguments he was looking for and emotionalism is beyond those conditions.

How is it logical or reasoned to allow empassioned arguments against slavery or take into account the gruesome details of a murder and deny the same when discussing abortion. From a purely scientific, sociological or psychological perspective could you adequately show that you should not be executed because Ms. X would find this preferable? Like myself, you hold no particular significance to anyone apart from your own small circle of supporters. If Ms. X had a vote in the senate, it would be consistent to give more weight to her wishes than your own. Logic is fine as long as it is consistent, which in the case of abortion it isn't.

Because how you feel about something has little to do with the objective facts of a thing. A slave is a slave, regardless of skin color, but if you ask a racist who thinks that blacks deserve to be slaves while whites do not, based on a purely emotional, racist feeling, how much worth does that have? A murder is a murder, but again, if you ask someone who has a psychological vendetta against a certain type of person, how does that change the fact that someone is dead? When you start to introduce your own personal feelings into your thinking, it just clouds your objective judgement. If X is legal, it's legal for all people. If X is illegal, it's illegal for all people. How you "feel" about it doesn't come into it at all.

[Curious]

Or the appendix was a by-product of the appendectomy? It's a bit hard to have an abortion or an appendectomy if what you're taking out doesn't exist, isn't it?

I think you miss the point somewhat. If an appendix was a by-product of an appendicectomy there would be no point of the operation as before the operation there could be no appendix. The appendicectomy did not really create the appendix and so the appendix was not ( as you previously stated) a by-product of the operation.

Sure, I can't stop you if you really want to go on a shooting rampage, but know that actions have consequences. If you go shoot someone, you're probably going to end up paying for it. It's called the law of the land. Currently, abortion is perfectly legal, hence a woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body, including removing unwelcome fetuses who have taken up residence against her wishes.

Then if the right of abortion is purely a legal right why on earth state that my opposition is anything other than a challenge against current legislation. Your previous arguments in support of abortion strongly suggest that you believe that women have a right greater than that of mere law.

People should agree with me if they find it abhorrent given all the facts.

But the majority of Americans support a woman's right to abortion, so apparently they don't find it abhorrent.

Well since the majority of Americans are so incredibly smart I guess that's the end of it.

You make a wild accusation that feelings should be disqualified from the argument when other laws are passed for exactly that reason.

I'm just trying to stay on topic here, the thread is specific about what kind of arguments he was looking for and emotionalism is beyond those conditions.

Logic and reason does not mean without emotional reference. If the formulation of certain laws considers certain factors then it is logical and reasonable that other laws should be made following similar criteria. You consistently reference the legality of the action but wish to discount legislative considerations.

Because how you feel about something has little to do with the objective facts of a thing...

But if we are talking about law, it is subjective not objective. You have previously stated that the woman has no right to have an abortion other than that afforded by law. This is a subjective right. It may be culturally or socially subjective but it is subjective nontheless. To say that my own feelings have nothing to do with the objective facts is true but my intention is not to alter objective fact. I only wish to alter the subjective view of the action. That you believe there is an objective position here undermines your whole argument concerning the rights of the individual. If you wish to retract your previous statements feel free to do so as we could perhaps discuss the inherent rights of the unborn child.

[Cephus]

I think you miss the point somewhat. If an appendix was a by-product of an appendicectomy there would be no point of the operation as before the operation there could be no appendix. The appendicectomy did not really create the appendix and so the appendix was not ( as you previously stated) a by-product of the operation.

No, and a fetus didn't create a fetus. You're trying to make a fetus something quantitatively different than an appendix and it isn't. You just have a greater attachment to a fetus than you do an appendix. Both are lumps of unwanted tissue, regardless of what one of them has a potential to become later.

Then if the right of abortion is purely a legal right why on earth state that my opposition is anything other than a challenge against current legislation. Your previous arguments in support of abortion strongly suggest that you believe that women have a right greater than that of mere law.

That's pretty much all they are when you get right down to it, but they are not a rational challenge, but purely an emotional one. They're on the level of PETA and Earth First in a lot of cases. You have to remember that rights exist solely because society says they do, either through legislation or through tradition.

Well since the majority of Americans are so incredibly smart I guess that's the end of it.

It doesn't matter how intelligent they are, it's majority rule. If you don't like abortion, don't get one. It's as simple as that.

Logic and reason does not mean without emotional reference. If the formulation of certain laws considers certain factors then it is logical and reasonable that other laws should be made following similar criteria. You consistently reference the legality of the action but wish to discount legislative considerations.

I'm not discounting anything, I've consistently said that abortion is necessary as an option, based on the consequences of getting rid of it, based on the utility of having it available, etc. So far, you haven't given us anything but emotionalism, you haven't shown why it is better, objectively, to have no abortion, or limited abortion, than it is to have the current situation. While I can appreciate your personal opinions on the matter, this isn't about personal opinions, it's about real, logical, objective reasons why abortion should be opposed.

But if we are talking about law, it is subjective not objective. You have previously stated that the woman has no right to have an abortion other than that afforded by law. This is a subjective right. It may be culturally or socially subjective but it is subjective nontheless. To say that my own feelings have nothing to do with the objective facts is true but my intention is not to alter objective fact. I only wish to alter the subjective view of the action. That you believe there is an objective position here undermines your whole argument concerning the rights of the individual. If you wish to retract your previous statements feel free to do so as we could perhaps discuss the inherent rights of the unborn child.

The law itself is not subjective. Something is legal or illegal, period. The law doesn't say that it should apply to one person and not to another, given the same set of circumstances. You're mistaking the law with societal dictates. Once something is codified into law, it stops being subjective, laws are a set of statements about how the legal aspects of a society will run and have nothing to do with how the society, as a whole, feels about any particular subject. Certainly, those feelings may color which laws are inacted, but they are not the same as the laws.

The fetus has no inherent rights. Never has, never will, simply because there are no 'inherent' rights.

[Curious]

No, and a fetus didn't create a fetus. You're trying to make a fetus something quantitatively different than an appendix and it isn't. You just have a greater attachment to a fetus than you do an appendix. Both are lumps of unwanted tissue, regardless of what one of them has a potential to become later.

No, but I will now state that the foetus is QUALITATIVELY different from an appendix, which it is. My main contention concerning this point was really your incorrect usage of the term by-product. Potential has nothing to do with my opposition to abortion. I oppose abortion of the foetus because of what it is, not because of what it might become.

Logic and reason does not mean without emotional reference. If the formulation of certain laws considers certain factors then it is logical and reasonable that other laws should be made following similar criteria. You consistently reference the legality of the action but wish to discount legislative considerations.

I'm not discounting anything, I've consistently said that abortion is necessary as an option, based on the consequences of getting rid of it, based on the utility of having it available, etc. So far, you haven't given us anything but emotionalism, you haven't shown why it is better, objectively, to have no abortion, or limited abortion, than it is to have the current situation. While I can appreciate your personal opinions on the matter, this isn't about personal opinions, it's about real, logical, objective reasons why abortion should be opposed.

I have given a very good reason why large scale abortion is far from ideal. The foetus suffers immensely during such an operation. My perspective of the world is far different to yours but I would not dream of denying you the rights and protection that I myself expect. Why would you wish to deny these same rights to those whose pespective of the world differs from yours, even if this perspective is little more than a feeling of warmth and the rythmic beating of a mother's heart? This is not emotionalism, it plain factualism. Any emotional content is from you and not from me. Surely a reduction in the number of abortions can only be a good thing. I have stated previously that the best method of birth control is simply not getting pregnant.
Abortion carries a risk as do all operations and is far more expensive than other methods of birth control.
Vast numbers of abortions are carried out on women who have taken absolutely no precautions against unwanted pregnancy and they should learn that they are accountable for their actions.
The acceptance of abortion makes it more prevalent than ever before. Pregnancy is not something that just happens, in the majority of cases it is completely avoidable. Concentrate on the problem rather than the solution.

The fetus has no inherent rights. Never has, never will, simply because there are no 'inherent' rights.

Then why assume the "rights" of the woman outweigh the rights of the unborn child? If it is purely on the grounds of what is lawful, then why abolish slavery or disallow the husband's priviledge of sex with a non-consenting wife?

[Cephus]

No, but I will now state that the foetus is QUALITATIVELY different from an appendix, which it is. My main contention concerning this point was really your incorrect usage of the term by-product. Potential has nothing to do with my opposition to abortion. I oppose abortion of the foetus because of what it is, not because of what it might become.

I'm glad that you can state it, but I don't think you can demonstrate it. You're right back to placing subjective values on things that have no objective value.

I have given a very good reason why large scale abortion is far from ideal. The foetus suffers immensely during such an operation. My perspective of the world is far different to yours but I would not dream of denying you the rights and protection that I myself expect. Why would you wish to deny these same rights to those whose pespective of the world differs from yours, even if this perspective is little more than a feeling of warmth and the rythmic beating of a mother's heart? This is not emotionalism, it plain factualism. Any emotional content is from you and not from me. Surely a reduction in the number of abortions can only be a good thing. I have stated previously that the best method of birth control is simply not getting pregnant.

Who is having their rights denied? No woman is forced to have an abortion against her will, is she? And fetuses have no rights. So please, tell us whose rights are being denied?

Abortion carries a risk as do all operations and is far more expensive than other methods of birth control.

And in a perfect world, all birth control would have a 0% risk of failure, would be used by everyone who did not wish to become pregnant and no one's situation would ever change. But we don't live in a perfect world. Birth control does fail or is used incorrectly. People's lives change, people change their minds, and abortion, like it or not, is necessary when these things happen.

Vast numbers of abortions are carried out on women who have taken absolutely no precautions against unwanted pregnancy and they should learn that they are accountable for their actions.

As much as you might not like that fact, it still remains a fact. And let's face it, are these the kind of women that you want raising a child? And don't go pointing at adoption, we both know there aren't nearly enough adoptive parents available, no matter how much you loosen restrictions or "fast-track" adoptions. So what's your solution?

The acceptance of abortion makes it more prevalent than ever before. Pregnancy is not something that just happens, in the majority of cases it is completely avoidable. Concentrate on the problem rather than the solution.

The problem is human nature and that's not something you're going to fix any time soon. Reality isn't going to bow to your whim just because you don't like what happens. People are going to want abortions, people have *ALWAYS* wanted abortions. They're just easier and safer to get today.

Then why assume the "rights" of the woman outweigh the rights of the unborn child? If it is purely on the grounds of what is lawful, then why abolish slavery or disallow the husband's priviledge of sex with a non-consenting wife?

Because a woman does have rights. You still don't understand the basic concepts here. We don't allow slavery because society decided we shouldn't. We don't allow rape because society decided we shouldn't. Society has not decided to give a fetus any rights, where they do give rights to a woman. If you don't like that, blame society.

[Curious]

I'm glad that you can state it, but I don't think you can demonstrate it. You're right back to placing subjective values on things that have no objective value.

....Who is having their rights denied? No woman is forced to have an abortion against her will, is she? And fetuses have no rights. So please, tell us whose rights are being denied?

...Because a woman does have rights. You still don't understand the basic concepts here. We don't allow slavery because society decided we shouldn't. We don't allow rape because society decided we shouldn't. Society has not decided to give a fetus any rights, where they do give rights to a woman. If you don't like that, blame society.

Make up your mind! If nobody has inherent rights then ALL RIGHTS GRANTED BY LAW ARE SUBJECTIVE. According to your reckoning, the only difference between the rights of the woman,the unborn child, the slave and the wife ARE SUBJECTIVE. I have attempted to explain why it is inconsistent in law to give the pre and post natal human different rights and have tried to be objective but you seem to stick to the point of law, which is purely subjective. So tell me, without being subjective, why does the right of the woman to abort take precedence over the right of the unborn to survive.

[Cephus]

Make up your mind! If nobody has inherent rights then ALL RIGHTS GRANTED BY LAW ARE SUBJECTIVE. According to your reckoning, the only difference between the rights of the woman,the unborn child, the slave and the wife ARE SUBJECTIVE. I have attempted to explain why it is inconsistent in law to give the pre and post natal human different rights and have tried to be objective but you seem to stick to the point of law, which is purely subjective. So tell me, without being subjective, why does the right of the woman to abort take precedence over the right of the unborn to survive.

It doesn't matter if it's inconsistent, the simple fact is that they *DO* give different rights between a fetus and a born individual. You might want to argue that they shouldn't, but the simple fact is that they do.

The woman's right has precedence because the woman's right EXISTS! Society has said so. The fetus has no rights, so there's nothing to take precedence over. It's like arguing that a person has more rights than a dog. Or a rock. Yes they do. So what?

[Curious]

The woman's right has precedence because the woman's right EXISTS! Society has said so. The fetus has no rights, so there's nothing to take precedence over. It's like arguing that a person has more rights than a dog. Or a rock. Yes they do. So what?

I hear what you are saying but the fact is that the rights remain purely subjective. We are close here to some sort of a beginning to a logical discourse if we can agree on certain points. Do you agree that the woman's rights exist subjectively rather than objectively?

[Cephus]

I hear what you are saying but the fact is that the rights remain purely subjective. We are close here to some sort of a beginning to a logical discourse if we can agree on certain points. Do you agree that the woman's rights exist subjectively rather than objectively?

Of course, I've said that since the beginning. *ALL* rights, without any exceptions, are granted by the society under which one lives. That means that, if society as a whole decided tomorrow that a fetus had rights, then the fetus would have rights. If it decided a woman had no rights, then a woman would have no rights. But at the moment, society has determined that a woman has rights and a fetus does not.

[Curious]

Do you agree that the woman's rights exist subjectively rather than objectively?

Of course, I've said that since the beginning. *ALL* rights, without any exceptions, are granted by the society under which one lives. That means that, if society as a whole decided tomorrow that a fetus had rights, then the fetus would have rights. If it decided a woman had no rights, then a woman would have no rights. But at the moment, society has determined that a woman has rights and a fetus does not.

Then if the woman's rights are subjective, the subjective rights of the unborn child are equally valid. It doesn't matter that "society" has given rights to a women and not to foetuses as the right of society to do so is also entirely subjective.
A woman having an abortion is using her subjective "right to abort" to deny the foetuses subjective "right to live". To ban abortion is to use the subjective "right to restrict" to deny the subjective right of the woman to abort.
Obviously it would be unworkable to grant every subjective right which is why a consensus is made and laws are passed (and frequently ammended as opinion changes). As a "rule"(but not always), laws allow rights so long as they do not restrict or deny the rights of others. Mainly, it is the rights of humans who are considered above the rights of other animals. If a foetus is human then the same consideration should be given it than to any other human. I don't mean here the right to vote, drive a car or drink alcohol as these are age dependent for very good reason. There is no good reason that I can think of for limiting the right to life to those of a particular age.
So why do you believe that the subjective right of the foetus is any less valid than that of the woman? If it is simply on the grounds of consensus or legislation, then what is the problem with attempting to ban abortion altogether if this is done within the legal framework? It is no good saying that the woman has a right to do as she pleases because this right is dependent upon her being given it. If the law says she has no such right then (by your own admission) she has no such right.