Abortion?

Hm... okay. That seems like a pretty flawed perspective, though, to just abide by current laws and not recognize when change needs to occur. I mean, slavery used to be legal, but that didn't make it right.

I don't want to start an argument or anything, but I'm just saying, I think you should look into what it is you fundamentally believe, and more importantly WHY you have those beliefs.

I agree there, I think that's a very important point for people to remember. I've heard some argue that if the brain hasn't developed yet, for example, that the child isn't a viable human being yet. They often equate that to pulling the plug on someone who was in some tragic accident and is now brain dead. But the issue with that argument is that they aren't equivalent at all, because the person in the accident is not going to become a perfectly functioning, viable human being again in a matter of weeks. And if they were, it probably wouldn't be legal for their family to pull the plug on them. Doctors would probably say no, you can't do that, just wait a few weeks. And that's the case with unborn babies. Even if they aren't "viable" YET, they will be very soon, barring a miscarriage or something. So it can't be equated with pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead and never going to be viable again.

I'm not trying to sound like a jerk here, but I think there are some major issues with your points here.

The thing is, IF a fetus is, in fact, a valid, human life, then would it not be reasonable for the government to tell women they can't end that life? I don't really see why that wouldn't be reasonable, for the same reason that it's perfectly reasonable for murder to be illegal.

I don't understand how you equate the issue of abortion with the issue of gay marriage, either. Gay marriage harms nobody, so of course the government should stay out of it (in my libertarian opinion). But abortion is not harmless. We've already pretty well established that, even if some may not consider a fetus to be a viable life YET, is certainly is at least the potential of a life. And to end that is, at the very least, morally questionable. I don't see how that can be put on the same level as gay marriage, when it comes to saying the government should stay out of it. I mean trust me, I'm all for limited government, but I'm not about to say that it's not the government's job to tell us what to do with our bodies WHEN the decision we are making effects someone else's well being. The government can't tell us who to have consensual sex with or not to eat junk food, for example, but then definitely CAN tell us not to rape or beat someone, or take someone's property or their life.

I really struggle to understand why people feel the way you do about abortion. And again, I'm not trying to sound rude or judgemental. I just really do struggle to wrap my head around how that view makes sense and where you would draw the line in saying that a woman is free to make her own choices, even when that choice drastically effects someone else who hasn't given them consent for their decision. I can't think of any scenario in which that would be acceptable, so I don't understand how people come to the conclusion that it's acceptable in regards to abortion. What's the difference? You say you can't stand there and tell a woman what she can do, but that's not true. I'm fairly certain, if you're a decent person and you saw a woman pointing a gun at a child, you wouldn't have any moral issue with telling that woman not to shoot that kid. So... women can and should be told what to do sometimes.

And it's not even a matter of what they can or can't do. It's a matter of what they can and can't do legally and without consequences. Technically speaking, we are all free to do basically whatever we want. We can murder people or rape people or steal people's stuff. But we aren't free to do those things legally and without consequence.

Also, you mention the Catholic church being against abortion, and the separation of church and state being a good thing. But the Catholic church is also against rape and murder, and I, for one, am pretty glad the state is with them on that. So that's not a very strong argument either.

 

Ah, very nice. No well idk if the fetus is a life, neither does anybody really. It's just what you believe in. The government would have to make that decision for us, which is bad. Maybe science would come out with a more realistic timeline from when it becomes a lifeform. If you're religious, you typically believe that life starts at the moment of conception (which would be bad to apply religion to gov). Who would decide... Congress?? *literally lmao* (one of the main opposition reasons)

The gay marriage was kinda out of the blue, just related a common issue in gov. But yeah, gay marriage doesn't harm anybody in real life. But alot of people are very sensitive and butthurt about same-sex marriage. I was just implying i don't think it should have been a discussion or debate for either issue on a governmental level. In other

**Do I think abortion is "wrong"? Sure, thats why I proposed to have a societal transition, instead of a governmental transition. Our world is, sadly, revolved around money nowadays. Make it a societal change to raise price of getting an abortion and lowering adoption costs, it would really balance itself out the other way (over decades). It's the same way I fell about drugs, gay marriage, etc.

The truth of the matter is I actually don't have no right to tell a woman what to do (double-negative), so I CAN tell a woman what to do. This is contradictory to my past belief, which i said the opposite because I WONT tell a woman whether or not she can get her baby aborted. I'll stop her if she's taking a life(shooting a child), but the fetus (possibly not even alive) is inside of her.

@CassTeaElle let's say, for example, life doesnt start at the moment of conception. Would you still make the argument because its a possibility of birth? Then you would have to be against condoms and birth control

***It's a problem, just not for the government to decide. There's better ways.

Also, i need to add that the government didn't get the no rape or murder law from the catholic church. There's been consequences for rape and murder in societies (typically murder) long, long, (long) before the catholic religion was even created. The Bible is by far, the most violent book out there (perhaps an exaggeration). My point is you can't pick and choose what you like out of the catholic religion, or any religion. This is something that has long bothered me about strong religious people (i dont think youre one of these people, just saying). You believe in it, then believe in it. Hate gay people, think woman are inferior, jump on the pope's...(maybe not on a anti-porn site), etc. Don't just cherry-pick what you want and go with it. (Again, i dont think you do this, just your last paragraph, had to be said).

 

@CassTeaElle basically it's not the governments place. Especially not to determine when it becomes "life." That's god's work

 

Either way, the government is making a decision. They are either deciding that the fetus isn't a life and can legally be killed, or that it is a life and legally cannot be killed. It's involved either way, whether you like it or not. Abortions being legal isn't just the default, it's a decision. And we aren't talking about religion or just the government, we are talking about science. The fact that scientists can't agree on where life begins should be all the more reason to just make abortion illegal all together, because it's better to be safe than sorry.

That makes zero sense to me. You just said you think abortion is wrong. There must be a reason you think it is wrong, right? What is that reason? Is it because you think it might be murder? If so, how can you justify believing that and not trying to stop it? But if you don't believe it's murder, then why do you feel like it's wrong? I think you need to think about these things a little more deeply, because you're contradicting yourself all over the place, and your views don't make logical, consistent sense.

This argument is used a lot, and its silly. Sperm cells on their own will never make a baby, and neither will eggs. An embryo is vastly different than simply sperm and eggs on their own, and literally ever scientist in the world will tell you that. To try to imply that life begins in sperm cells or eggs, alone, is infinitely more ridiculous than to argue that life begins at conception.

Again, this is contradictory. You say it's a problem, but WHY? If it's a problem because it might potentially be murdering a baby, then it's completely insane to not want the government to forbid it. If it's a problem for some other reason, I would love to hear what that reason is, because I can't think of one. There's a reason you think it's wrong and that its a problem, and you need to be honest with yourself about what that reason is.

I don't understand why you brought the Catholic church into this at all. The only reason I even responded to that is because it was another contradiction. You said that basically abortion shouldn't be illegal because the church wants it to be, which makes no sense, because "the church" also wants things like murder and rape to be illegal, and you're fine with those. I'm just pointing out your many contradictions. I haven't been talking about religion at all in this thread, at least not that I can remember. We are talking about logic and science and, to an extent, morality. None of that has to do with the Catholic church.

Again, that doesn't make sense for the reasons I've already said. But also, nobody is asking the government to decide when a fetus is life. We ask scientists to do that. The government us simply responding to the findings of science, not creating those findings.

 

I just want to say, I agree with this completely. But on the issue of abortion, that is not at all what people are doing. I don't think I know a single religious person who says that abortion should be illegal because "God says it's bad." It's not simply a religious argument, it's a scientific one. And to be clear, I'm perfectly able to admit when something is just a religious argument, but this is not. For example, there's a thread going on about the death penalty, and I was very upfront in that thread about the fact that most of my opposition of the death penalty is religiously based and that I understand why non-Christian people wouldn't feel the same way I do. But abortion is not the same in that respect. There are plenty of non-religious people who are against abortion, and plenty of religious people who are against it for valid reasons that aren't just "because God says so."

I've never heard a pro-life individual have any qualms about that question, and I don't either. Yes, of course, if the mothers life is at risk, she is a priority over the baby's life. That doesn't mean the baby isn't a baby and that its life doesn't matter, though. It's just a very unfortunate decision that must be made.

But honestly, that's kind of a strawman argument anyway. Nobody is trying to make that illegal. Prioritizing the mothers life over the child's, in an emergency situation, has pretty much always been a thing and nobody has any issues with that. But that's not what 90% of abortions are about. A vast majority of them are about convenience, not an emergency life or death situation.

 

@wethebest if you take nothing else from what I've said, I really want you to think about WHY you personally have an issue with abortion or think it's "wrong" or a "problem." Be completely honest with yourself and put it into words, and then see if it still makes sense for you to be against making it illegal. I really don't think you've allowed yourself to really understand why you think it's wrong. I would love to see you put that in words.

Because for me, here's what I would say.

I would say that I think abortion is wrong because I believe that a fetus inside a mother's womb is a human being, literally the most innocent among us, growing and living and developing in what is suppose to be the safest place in the world for him or her to develop. I believe that it's just a matter of location, whether we are talking about a fetus or a 1-day-old baby. One is still inside the mothers womb, one is outside, but they are both still human beings who have rights, the most important of which being the right to not be killed. And unfortunately these human beings don't have a voice to be able to fight for their own rights, so it's imperative that we, as a society, fight for them when necessary.

Now for me, being that that's what I believe, it would be absolutely psychotic of me to follow that up with "But it should be a womans choice, and who am I to tell her what to do? The government shouldn't be allowed to stop her, either." Whether or not you agree with me on anything else, I think we can both agree that if I firmly believe what I just said I believe about abortion, then I would be a psychopath to not want abortion to be illegal. It would be disgusting of me to believe that and not fight for it to be stopped.

So that's what I'm having trouble understanding with your views. I don't understand believing abortion is wrong, but not wrong enough to be illegal.

 

Well said. One could argue that we are all just a bundle of cells.

 

Lol yeah, I was thinking of that when I said that. He has some really solid arguments against abortion, for sure.

 

So you've never acted cowardly? You've never avoided the easier option?