Republicans move to redefine rape to limit taxpayer-funded abortions

"The unborn child is affected by it, not just the woman." - Anonym

"Unborn children," at least in the first or second semester, doesn't even have feelings yet. As far as experiences go, it's as if their life ended before it began.

That's how you define life, yes.

You do know that the entire reason why we avoid killing and excessively hurting others, including animals (to the point of making it a law), is because the victims generally get hurt, physically or emotionally, right?

If you put a tack on someone's chair, surely they will object hours later, when they sit down upon it.

That analogy made no sense...or even have any relevance...

Not to mention that if the fetus is aborted, they'll never have any REASON to object.

Had your analogy been about pregnant women who damage the fetus with alcohol or tobacco without aborting it, you may have had a point.

edited 10th Feb '11 6:48:11 PM by neoYTPism

It's gotten to the point where I can't even tell which abortion thread I'm in anymore.

Not to mention that if the fetus is aborted, they'll never have any REASON to object.

Had your analogy been about pregnant women who damage the fetus with alcohol or tobacco without aborting it, you may have had a point.

K'then. The tack is a land mine.

Essentially, using "cannot object" as justification looks rather shaky. Is it fine to pull the plug on a man who is in a coma, knowing they will awaken later? He cannot object, and has no feelings at this point, but still, it look rather distasteful.

After all, wouldn't you object to the idea of having been aborted? I certainly prefer being alive right now, I'm glad that I wasn't aborted. If I were, then I wouldn't be here. Same goes for you.

edited 10th Feb '11 7:14:28 PM by TheMightyAnonym

That's a bit of a poor argument. A dead person can't object, either, but we don't make murder legal.

As far as the doctors thing goes, well, a doctor takes the oath to do no harm. If he thinks that performing an abortion is doing harm, he must refuse. Further, to say he should be performing abortions assumes that you are correct in saying they are the right thing to do. Considering how contentious this issue is, this isn't that great of an assumption.

Similarly, to say a doctor should not be performing abortions assumes that you are correct in saying they are not the right thing to do. This is also not that great of an assumption... That is, if you'd like to keep with the argument that the validity of a line of reasoning can be based on how contentious the debate surrounding it is instead of on, say, deductive or inductive logic.

Yaaaaaaaaay, dualism!

edited 10th Feb '11 10:31:47 PM by darksidevoid

Unless I'm very much mistaken, I never said that doctors should not perform abortions. What I said was that the doctor should be allowed to choose not to. Two very different things.

Also, do tell me your logical argument that asserts doctors should be forced to perform abortions that doesn't proceed from the assumption that abortions are the right thing to do.

I'm afraid to say that you are very much mistaken, then, but not in the way you think I mean. I used the word dualism because of the logic involved in considering the worth of an assumption or statement based on how intense the debate surrounding it is, which, as I was trying to point out, would also mean that assuming one is correct about abortions being the wrong thing to do is invalid. If we were to reason with such logic, this entire thread would be pointless.

I don't think I've posted in this thread before now, so I can forgive you for assuming that my position is that doctors should be forced to perform abortions. However, that is not the case. All I want is for moral arguments in this thread to be based on sound reasoning and conclusions that follow from logical premises. Any moral argument has at least two premises and a conclusion:

• 1. At least one premise asserting a general moral norm or principle.
• 2. At least one nonmoral premise statement describing an action or circumstance.
• 3. The conclusion of the premises, expressing a moral judgement about a specific act or circumstance.

The order of 1 and 2 may be flipped at will. To use a textbook example:

• 1. It's wrong to take the life of an innocent person.
• 2. Abortion takes the life of an innocent person.
• 3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

I'm not asking that you all enumerate your points in lists like this, but please at least use proper logic so that your opponents actually have a premise to oppose. I am so incredibly tired of seeing people squabble over the semantics of useless anecdotes and poor analogies.

edited 10th Feb '11 11:17:00 PM by darksidevoid

@TMA: What if the mother doesn't abort, and the child later wishes she had? Should suicide be legal in that case? I've often wished that my mother had the balls to abort me instead of raising me in the shit-tastic hell hole of abuse because her religion dictated that it was better.

Okay so for example if you support conscious clauses you would make the following argument.

1. People shouldn't be forced to act against their beliefs.

2. Abortion is against a lot of people's beliefs.

3. Therefor making doctors perform or assist in abortions is wrong.

edited 11th Feb '11 12:21:24 AM by joeyjojo

Well, you'd have to actually ask someone who supports conscience clauses, but yeah, that's a close enough approximation of what I was talking about.

Also, I'd like to note that DG's anecdote is the kind I'm totally fine with, because it actually addresses the other side's argument (Anonym's nonmoral premise that everyone would always object to being aborted when they were still a fetus).

P.S.: The tense of that fragment in parentheses is weird... it's hard to figure out what to use for hypothetical alternate pasts, but you get what I meant.

edited 11th Feb '11 12:25:51 AM by darksidevoid

True, but that was her wanting to be aborted in retrospect. I'll never seen a suicidal foetus

edited 13th Feb '11 8:32:34 PM by joeyjojo

Hey, if you take issue with DG's anecdote, talk to DG about it, not me.

Maybe tomorrow I'll finally get around to posting something in this thread that doesn't involve loftily lecturing people about the use of logic...

What if the mother doesn't abort, and the child later wishes she had? Should suicide be legal in that case? I've often wished that my mother had the balls to abort me instead of raising me in the shit-tastic hell hole of abuse because her religion dictated that it was better.

However, not everyone is you.

By the by, that place you just called a hell-hole is my home, and I'm really quite fond of it. Don't be such a pessimist.

It has cookies, kittens, America, my crush, the moon, the stars, the sun, mountains, the ocean, air, ice-cream, Yumeiro Patissiere, TV Tropes, Chis Sweet Home, my sisters, Love, peace, and a whole lot of other really cool stuff.

I daresay that most folk much prefer to be alive. Trust me, you'll warm up to existence sooner or later, and when you do you'll be glad you weren't aborted.

Besides, you can't really mean what you said, otherwise you really would have committed suicide a long time ago.

Who are you to say that everyone would rather kill themselves?

It would appear that I am among those who lack similar optimism.

Ah well, to those of you who see cloudy skies, I say: "~You cannot change the world, but you can change yourself! By this simple choice you can make, others will follow; and if everyone follows, then a better world will be brought about!~"

There's no way anyone will take that seriously, is there?

edited 11th Feb '11 1:45:14 AM by TheMightyAnonym

It's a shame I have to wait until tomorrow◊, but I really need to get some sleep... blasted circadian rhythms! :/

like DG and TMA I was rise from a young age by my old school Irish catholic grandmama who taught me why suicide is such a grave sin.

In her words..

People shouldn't kill themselves when there are perfectly good jews, lesbians, witches, single mothers and atheists about the place to deal with first.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:37:02 AM by joeyjojo

I was always of the opinion that suicide is wrong because of the enormous negative effects it has on everyone that had anything to do with them.

Plus there's the fact that other people will be more likely to commit suicide after seeing someone else do so.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:40:23 AM by TheMightyAnonym

to darksidevoid

Yeah, I'm aware it makes the topic pointless, but to be honest I kind of think it is anyways. I've hashed through the "is abortion wrong" debate so many times, and it never goes anywhere.

But, I'm not taking a stand on that. The stand I am taking is that, since a doctor takes an oath to do no harm, he should not be required to do something that he feels violates that oath. I suppose that presupposes that he is qualified to make that judgement, but on the other hand, he *is* a doctor.

edited 11th Feb '11 1:58:01 AM by petrie911

Except that he is doing a tremendous amount of harm by refusing.

This one would not want to die right now, but this one sees absolutely nothing with not being born in the first place. Right now, there are things this one is rather fond of. Then, I didn't have them. I would not lose anything at all.

(sigh) Now, having something that is dear to you in life but then dying anyway - that is a cruel joke. Yet it is exactly what happens with all people

Anonym@ I dont know, I'd say the bad tends to outweigh the good in a lot of places in the world. By a longshot. And now you're also against people ending their own wretched existance becuase "it makes people around them sad?" What the hell dude, arent people allowed ANY control over their own fate?