Post by Insane_Zang on Mar 17, 2011 1:18:46 GMT -5
People who tend to believe that abortion is wrong:
1. Are deeply committed to their religious faith. Believe that human life is ultimately in the hands of some Divine Being. Abortion threatens such a belief by asserting that humans have authority over the course of God and Nature.
2. Because of their deep religious commitment, they also tend to be deterministic in their outlook. That is, they believe that there is a pre-ordained path for them to follow. Pregnancy cannot be an accident but is part of a life plan that is consistently being revealed to them by God over time.
3. Believe that society is too secular. They believe that there is a decline in the importance of traditional moral values. Abortion for them is a principle example of the encroachment of secular values like choice, selfishness and convenience over religious values like duty, obligation and responsibility.
People who believe that abortion should be a right:
1. Argue that human life is not at the hands of some Divine Being, but rather human life exists because of our capacity for reason and action. They believe that humans control the world, not God. As a consequence of this belief the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy should be made by individuals. Such a decision, they argue, does not offend or challenge the authority of nature or a higher power.
2. Another way of saying this is that people in favor of abortion are utilitarian. That is, they tend to evaluate moral questions not in term of absolute principles, but rather, in terms of weighing particular alternative outcomes of their decisions. For example, if you evaluate abortion in term of choice based on the predicted well-being of mother and child rather than on the basis of an absolute rule, then this is a utilitarian position. Put most brutally, utilitarianism prescribes the greatest good for the greatest number. If both mother and child suffer from the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, then abortion is a moral decision.
3. Finally, unlike those against abortion rights, those in favor value fairness. They believe that laws and moral principles must recognize the different situations of particular individuals. That is, they believe that an absolute prohibition on abortion is unfair because it doesn’t take into account the particular circumstances of particular pregnant women.
People who tend to believe that abortion is wrong:
Point 1: Wrong. Abortion is not seen as abhorrent because it gives human beings control over God and nature. Abortion is abhorrent because it terminates what could be a beautiful soul; the life of a child who could go on to become one of the world’s greatest men or women. Who could bring more precious souls into this world. Who could touch the lives of thousands. Who could improve this world.
Of course you negate that by implying in Point 1 that religion is, definitively, nothing more than a delusion, and that all the laws and morals inherent in religion exist simply to propagate and protect that delusion. For a debate that has been raging since the dawn of time that’s a pretty bold statement to make. Your personal beliefs should remain precisely that. Now you may claim the same in terms of my opinion on abortion and American policy concerning it, but I will address that later. I will present a debate below which will show you that even an atheist can be anti-abortion.
Point 2: Ignorant. Pardon the frankness of that statement, but it really is. While mainstream religion does indeed believe in predetermination, it also believes in free will. Men and women choose to engage in sexual activity. They choose whether or not to use protection. As for the potential argument of: “If men and women can choose to engage in intercourse, and can choose to use protection,” I respond that murder would also fall under that lurid justification. Again, I will explain below.
Point 3: Right on the money.
People who believe that abortion should be a right:
Point 1: It’s not always about the religious vs. the atheists. For example, I’m pretty sure we can agree that there are a few universal morals which everyone observes regardless of religious affiliation. Robbery, murder, dishonesty, to name a few. As such, why is it inconceivable that a non-religious person can be anti-abortion? Yet another unfounded, bold, and generalizing statement. Why must a higher power be offended for something to be considered wrong? Surely the offense of humanity is more than enough for the non-religious to find something abhorrent.
Point 2: That is, of course, assuming that abortion takes into account the true wellbeing of the child. I would posit that when a woman is considering an abortion she is not considering the wellbeing of the embryo/fetus at all, rather she is trying to find the quickest and easiest way out of a situation she brought on herself, regardless of consequence to herself or others. I will explain below. I will further explain why the wellbeing of the child must be taken into account.
Point 3: Possibly the most biased and ignorant statement of the lot. Biased: “unlike those against abortion rights, those in favor value fairness.” The implication of that statement is clear: Those who are opposed to abortion are completely unfair, and would throw a helpless woman under the bus simply because of doctrine. How about I place my own spin on it. “Unlike those who favor abortion, those who oppose it take the emotional effects of abortion, on the mother and her family, into account. Moreover, while those who are pro-abortion care not for the potential life that is now being snuffed from the world before it could even enter it, those who are anti-abortion are compassionate, and care for the future of every child, born or unborn.” Now that statement is debatable, but the bias is clear. Is that what debate is? Defense against bias?
Ignorant: You labor under the assumption that all religions and all factions of said religions oppose abortion unconditionally and unequivocally. As far as Judaism goes, and as far as some branches of Protestantism go, there are distinctions made between a standard abortion and abortions done in cases where the life of the mother would be jeopardized by the birth of that child. Others would even allow abortion in cases of rape or forced incest. To make such a broad statement about the opinions of all anti-abortion supporters is, once again, bold and incredibly ignorant.
Why I am anti-abortion.
For the sake of my argument I will concede that abortion is not murder in the classical sense, and that it is therefore irrelevant when life begins, at conception or at birth.
The core of the issue is responsibility. The question as to whether or not a mother should be allowed to forego the responsibility of child birth and child-raising. On the pro side of the argument you have the opinion that the responsibility of society to protect the rights of women who do not feel ready to give birth to and raise a child, and on the con side of the argument you have the contention that responsibility is paramount; that the responsibility of a mother to her potential child supersedes any qualms that she may have about the pregnancy. I am personally of the latter opinion.
Even the most ardent supporter of abortion would agree that any fertilized egg, if left at its status quo, will, most likely, become a child after the gestation period. Following that fact would be the fact that a potential for human life exists. Here is where the idea of responsibility comes in: granted that abortion would not be murder, but there is no denying that it is the termination of a potential life. That being said, why should the mother not be responsible for the potential that resulted from her actions? Our world is one controlled by cause and effect. I ask you, why should this instance be any difference?
When a woman engages in sexual intercourse she makes a conscious decision to do so and as such should be held responsible for the outcomes and consequences of that decision. Consider for a moment the implications of absolving the mother of her responsibility. Woman has sex. Woman gets pregnant. Woman realizes that she made a mistake. Woman regrets her decision. Considering her distress, society absolves her of her responsibility. Abortion. Now consider the following. Man goes to party. Man drinks, making a conscious decision to drink; the alcohol was in no way forced into him. Man gets drunk. Man gets in his car and drives while drunk. Man hits and kills neighbor. Man regrets it. Man begs society to absolve him of his responsibility. Following the logic that permits abortion, he should be absolved of his responsibility.
You might say that the argument I used is invalid because I likened abortion to murder when I clearly stated that it is not. Replace the dead neighbor with an injured neighbor. How about some simple cause and effect? You live, you breathe. You seek employment, you are given responsibility. You shirk the responsibility of that employment, you are fired. Responsibility. It is key in any functioning society.
Next comes the usual arguments of both sides; the child may be the next Hitler, or the next Gandhi. As to that argument, I say that the potential of the child is absolutely infinite and cannot be quantified until actually measured. The potential of a child cannot be measured until it is born. Therefore speculating on the kind of person the embryo/fetus could potentially be is absolutely pointless.
On to the next part of the argument: consideration of the potential’s wellbeing. Perhaps the potential will be better off never being born. After all, the traditional alternative to abortion is adoption; however the usual outcome for the child us a life of foster homes and orphanages. Is it fair to condemn a child to such a life? Surely it would be kinder to cut off the potential before it can actualize into a cruel world. Wrong.
Firstly, just like the potential for the child to be either the next Hitler or Gandhi is limitless, so is the potential for the child’s future. No one knows the future and as such no one has the right to speculate on the future of an unborn child. Secondly, quality of life is based on perspective. There are rich miserable people, and poor content people. Thirdly, just because you, personally, would not want to spend your formative years in foster homes and orphanages does not mean that lack of existence is a valid alternative. While I do not have the data to support this claim, I am willing to bet that if polled, the majority of children in orphanages and foster homes would choose life over nonexistence despite their living conditions. Perhaps even that data would be invalid. If you truly want to get a feel for the wellbeing of the potential life you must collect data from the full life span. I would posit that if polled, the majority of adults who came from orphanages and foster homes would rather choose life than retroactive nonexistence. I don’t think that the above assumption is too unreasonable.
The argument has been posed that banning abortion would not stop abortion, but would simply encourage backdoor and dangerous abortions in seedy clinics performed by unlicensed doctors with coat hangers. To this I respond that such is the nature of responsibility; it isn’t always pretty. After all, following that logic one could make the case for many other laws to be abolished, particularly the laws concerning dangerous mind altering substances, and traffic laws. Heroine is illegal. People take it anyway. Perhaps we should legalize it because as it is now, many addicts contract AIDS from unsanitary needle use. Legalize and regulate it; let people shoot up and give them the tools to do it. However there are reasons why Heroine is illegal. Under the influence of such substances, a person is more likely to commit violent crime. A person is more likely to injure themselves and those around them while under the influence of such substances. The likelihood of overdose is high.
How about traffic laws. Speeding is illegal and yet, it is oh so prevalent. Which driver hasn’t sped? Perhaps it should be legalized and regulated. Raise the speed limit to 120 miles per hour. Once again, there are reasons for traffic laws. A person loses control at such speeds and is more likely to injure or kill himself or those around him. To raise the speed limit to accommodate speeders who are annoyed with moving violations would be ridiculous. Try proposing the idea at your next town hall meeting; see what happens. You’ll get a couple of yahoos who will whoop and shout like a pack of mindless gorillas while the rest of the citizens would look around shocked. As well they should be.
Should a child be held responsible for their actions? Perhaps abortion should be banned unless you’re under the legal age of majority. To that I answer, that if it is possible for a minor to be prosecuted as an adult for a crime, then it should be possible for a minor to be held responsible for her actions. Obviously the legal system believes that a minor is capable of making conscious decisions and as such should not differentiate between instances simply because of personal expediency. It would do the child well to learn the consequences of her actions early in life when the repercussions are relatively small.
Some say that the anti-abortion argument is only championed by chauvinist men and backwards women who cannot or will not accept that the world is no longer a man’s word and therefore continue to subjugate women. To this I say that the role of the man is irrelevant in terms of abortion. Both the man and the woman involved in the conception are held responsible, but they each have different responsibilities. A man cannot give birth and can therefore not be held responsible for the responsibility of birth. It is not a matter of man vs. woman. A man just does not enter the equation where abortion is concerned.
If the father runs off, that is regrettable, and we do have laws in this country which force him to own up to his personal responsibility to the child; However just because a man might choose to abandon his responsibility does not make it OK for a woman to abandon hers. The man is condemnable as well, but in the context of abortion his lack of responsibility has no bearing on whether or not to legalize it. As cliché as it is, two wrongs do not make a right.
Now for the exceptions. Where a woman’s life would be endangered by the childbirth, and where the woman was forced to engage in intercourse against her will. In the first case, the choice made did not match the outcome, therefore the woman cannot be held responsible for the pregnancy as she never accepted that responsibility upon herself. Normally, when a woman engages in sexual intercourse, she chooses to, knowing full well that pregnancy is a possibility. She also makes the decision knowing what a normal pregnancy entails. She does not account for her death in the process, and therefore never made the conscious choice to engage in an activity which led to this result. As such she can hardly be held responsible. In a case of rape the woman never made the decision to engage in intercourse, rather it was forced on her. As such, once again, she cannot possibly be held responsible for a decision she never made.
The aforementioned argument was not intended as a debate between you and I, rather it was intended to demonstrate that it is in fact possible to argue the con side of the abortion debate without ever touching on God or religion. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you either remove the generalizing and bias from the resolution, or state clearly that the debate will be based on that resolution, but that the resolution is in no way factual at all. Debating assumptions is fine, however claiming those assumptions as fact and not stating that they are in fact assumptions, is very wrong.
Written by Asher Lovy
1. Are deeply committed to their religious faith. Believe that human life is ultimately in the hands of some Divine Being. Abortion threatens such a belief by asserting that humans have authority over the course of God and Nature.
2. Because of their deep religious commitment, they also tend to be deterministic in their outlook. That is, they believe that there is a pre-ordained path for them to follow. Pregnancy cannot be an accident but is part of a life plan that is consistently being revealed to them by God over time.
3. Believe that society is too secular. They believe that there is a decline in the importance of traditional moral values. Abortion for them is a principle example of the encroachment of secular values like choice, selfishness and convenience over religious values like duty, obligation and responsibility.
People who believe that abortion should be a right:
1. Argue that human life is not at the hands of some Divine Being, but rather human life exists because of our capacity for reason and action. They believe that humans control the world, not God. As a consequence of this belief the decision to continue or terminate a pregnancy should be made by individuals. Such a decision, they argue, does not offend or challenge the authority of nature or a higher power.
2. Another way of saying this is that people in favor of abortion are utilitarian. That is, they tend to evaluate moral questions not in term of absolute principles, but rather, in terms of weighing particular alternative outcomes of their decisions. For example, if you evaluate abortion in term of choice based on the predicted well-being of mother and child rather than on the basis of an absolute rule, then this is a utilitarian position. Put most brutally, utilitarianism prescribes the greatest good for the greatest number. If both mother and child suffer from the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, then abortion is a moral decision.
3. Finally, unlike those against abortion rights, those in favor value fairness. They believe that laws and moral principles must recognize the different situations of particular individuals. That is, they believe that an absolute prohibition on abortion is unfair because it doesn’t take into account the particular circumstances of particular pregnant women.
People who tend to believe that abortion is wrong:
Point 1: Wrong. Abortion is not seen as abhorrent because it gives human beings control over God and nature. Abortion is abhorrent because it terminates what could be a beautiful soul; the life of a child who could go on to become one of the world’s greatest men or women. Who could bring more precious souls into this world. Who could touch the lives of thousands. Who could improve this world.
Of course you negate that by implying in Point 1 that religion is, definitively, nothing more than a delusion, and that all the laws and morals inherent in religion exist simply to propagate and protect that delusion. For a debate that has been raging since the dawn of time that’s a pretty bold statement to make. Your personal beliefs should remain precisely that. Now you may claim the same in terms of my opinion on abortion and American policy concerning it, but I will address that later. I will present a debate below which will show you that even an atheist can be anti-abortion.
Point 2: Ignorant. Pardon the frankness of that statement, but it really is. While mainstream religion does indeed believe in predetermination, it also believes in free will. Men and women choose to engage in sexual activity. They choose whether or not to use protection. As for the potential argument of: “If men and women can choose to engage in intercourse, and can choose to use protection,” I respond that murder would also fall under that lurid justification. Again, I will explain below.
Point 3: Right on the money.
People who believe that abortion should be a right:
Point 1: It’s not always about the religious vs. the atheists. For example, I’m pretty sure we can agree that there are a few universal morals which everyone observes regardless of religious affiliation. Robbery, murder, dishonesty, to name a few. As such, why is it inconceivable that a non-religious person can be anti-abortion? Yet another unfounded, bold, and generalizing statement. Why must a higher power be offended for something to be considered wrong? Surely the offense of humanity is more than enough for the non-religious to find something abhorrent.
Point 2: That is, of course, assuming that abortion takes into account the true wellbeing of the child. I would posit that when a woman is considering an abortion she is not considering the wellbeing of the embryo/fetus at all, rather she is trying to find the quickest and easiest way out of a situation she brought on herself, regardless of consequence to herself or others. I will explain below. I will further explain why the wellbeing of the child must be taken into account.
Point 3: Possibly the most biased and ignorant statement of the lot. Biased: “unlike those against abortion rights, those in favor value fairness.” The implication of that statement is clear: Those who are opposed to abortion are completely unfair, and would throw a helpless woman under the bus simply because of doctrine. How about I place my own spin on it. “Unlike those who favor abortion, those who oppose it take the emotional effects of abortion, on the mother and her family, into account. Moreover, while those who are pro-abortion care not for the potential life that is now being snuffed from the world before it could even enter it, those who are anti-abortion are compassionate, and care for the future of every child, born or unborn.” Now that statement is debatable, but the bias is clear. Is that what debate is? Defense against bias?
Ignorant: You labor under the assumption that all religions and all factions of said religions oppose abortion unconditionally and unequivocally. As far as Judaism goes, and as far as some branches of Protestantism go, there are distinctions made between a standard abortion and abortions done in cases where the life of the mother would be jeopardized by the birth of that child. Others would even allow abortion in cases of rape or forced incest. To make such a broad statement about the opinions of all anti-abortion supporters is, once again, bold and incredibly ignorant.
Why I am anti-abortion.
For the sake of my argument I will concede that abortion is not murder in the classical sense, and that it is therefore irrelevant when life begins, at conception or at birth.
The core of the issue is responsibility. The question as to whether or not a mother should be allowed to forego the responsibility of child birth and child-raising. On the pro side of the argument you have the opinion that the responsibility of society to protect the rights of women who do not feel ready to give birth to and raise a child, and on the con side of the argument you have the contention that responsibility is paramount; that the responsibility of a mother to her potential child supersedes any qualms that she may have about the pregnancy. I am personally of the latter opinion.
Even the most ardent supporter of abortion would agree that any fertilized egg, if left at its status quo, will, most likely, become a child after the gestation period. Following that fact would be the fact that a potential for human life exists. Here is where the idea of responsibility comes in: granted that abortion would not be murder, but there is no denying that it is the termination of a potential life. That being said, why should the mother not be responsible for the potential that resulted from her actions? Our world is one controlled by cause and effect. I ask you, why should this instance be any difference?
When a woman engages in sexual intercourse she makes a conscious decision to do so and as such should be held responsible for the outcomes and consequences of that decision. Consider for a moment the implications of absolving the mother of her responsibility. Woman has sex. Woman gets pregnant. Woman realizes that she made a mistake. Woman regrets her decision. Considering her distress, society absolves her of her responsibility. Abortion. Now consider the following. Man goes to party. Man drinks, making a conscious decision to drink; the alcohol was in no way forced into him. Man gets drunk. Man gets in his car and drives while drunk. Man hits and kills neighbor. Man regrets it. Man begs society to absolve him of his responsibility. Following the logic that permits abortion, he should be absolved of his responsibility.
You might say that the argument I used is invalid because I likened abortion to murder when I clearly stated that it is not. Replace the dead neighbor with an injured neighbor. How about some simple cause and effect? You live, you breathe. You seek employment, you are given responsibility. You shirk the responsibility of that employment, you are fired. Responsibility. It is key in any functioning society.
Next comes the usual arguments of both sides; the child may be the next Hitler, or the next Gandhi. As to that argument, I say that the potential of the child is absolutely infinite and cannot be quantified until actually measured. The potential of a child cannot be measured until it is born. Therefore speculating on the kind of person the embryo/fetus could potentially be is absolutely pointless.
On to the next part of the argument: consideration of the potential’s wellbeing. Perhaps the potential will be better off never being born. After all, the traditional alternative to abortion is adoption; however the usual outcome for the child us a life of foster homes and orphanages. Is it fair to condemn a child to such a life? Surely it would be kinder to cut off the potential before it can actualize into a cruel world. Wrong.
Firstly, just like the potential for the child to be either the next Hitler or Gandhi is limitless, so is the potential for the child’s future. No one knows the future and as such no one has the right to speculate on the future of an unborn child. Secondly, quality of life is based on perspective. There are rich miserable people, and poor content people. Thirdly, just because you, personally, would not want to spend your formative years in foster homes and orphanages does not mean that lack of existence is a valid alternative. While I do not have the data to support this claim, I am willing to bet that if polled, the majority of children in orphanages and foster homes would choose life over nonexistence despite their living conditions. Perhaps even that data would be invalid. If you truly want to get a feel for the wellbeing of the potential life you must collect data from the full life span. I would posit that if polled, the majority of adults who came from orphanages and foster homes would rather choose life than retroactive nonexistence. I don’t think that the above assumption is too unreasonable.
The argument has been posed that banning abortion would not stop abortion, but would simply encourage backdoor and dangerous abortions in seedy clinics performed by unlicensed doctors with coat hangers. To this I respond that such is the nature of responsibility; it isn’t always pretty. After all, following that logic one could make the case for many other laws to be abolished, particularly the laws concerning dangerous mind altering substances, and traffic laws. Heroine is illegal. People take it anyway. Perhaps we should legalize it because as it is now, many addicts contract AIDS from unsanitary needle use. Legalize and regulate it; let people shoot up and give them the tools to do it. However there are reasons why Heroine is illegal. Under the influence of such substances, a person is more likely to commit violent crime. A person is more likely to injure themselves and those around them while under the influence of such substances. The likelihood of overdose is high.
How about traffic laws. Speeding is illegal and yet, it is oh so prevalent. Which driver hasn’t sped? Perhaps it should be legalized and regulated. Raise the speed limit to 120 miles per hour. Once again, there are reasons for traffic laws. A person loses control at such speeds and is more likely to injure or kill himself or those around him. To raise the speed limit to accommodate speeders who are annoyed with moving violations would be ridiculous. Try proposing the idea at your next town hall meeting; see what happens. You’ll get a couple of yahoos who will whoop and shout like a pack of mindless gorillas while the rest of the citizens would look around shocked. As well they should be.
Should a child be held responsible for their actions? Perhaps abortion should be banned unless you’re under the legal age of majority. To that I answer, that if it is possible for a minor to be prosecuted as an adult for a crime, then it should be possible for a minor to be held responsible for her actions. Obviously the legal system believes that a minor is capable of making conscious decisions and as such should not differentiate between instances simply because of personal expediency. It would do the child well to learn the consequences of her actions early in life when the repercussions are relatively small.
Some say that the anti-abortion argument is only championed by chauvinist men and backwards women who cannot or will not accept that the world is no longer a man’s word and therefore continue to subjugate women. To this I say that the role of the man is irrelevant in terms of abortion. Both the man and the woman involved in the conception are held responsible, but they each have different responsibilities. A man cannot give birth and can therefore not be held responsible for the responsibility of birth. It is not a matter of man vs. woman. A man just does not enter the equation where abortion is concerned.
If the father runs off, that is regrettable, and we do have laws in this country which force him to own up to his personal responsibility to the child; However just because a man might choose to abandon his responsibility does not make it OK for a woman to abandon hers. The man is condemnable as well, but in the context of abortion his lack of responsibility has no bearing on whether or not to legalize it. As cliché as it is, two wrongs do not make a right.
Now for the exceptions. Where a woman’s life would be endangered by the childbirth, and where the woman was forced to engage in intercourse against her will. In the first case, the choice made did not match the outcome, therefore the woman cannot be held responsible for the pregnancy as she never accepted that responsibility upon herself. Normally, when a woman engages in sexual intercourse, she chooses to, knowing full well that pregnancy is a possibility. She also makes the decision knowing what a normal pregnancy entails. She does not account for her death in the process, and therefore never made the conscious choice to engage in an activity which led to this result. As such she can hardly be held responsible. In a case of rape the woman never made the decision to engage in intercourse, rather it was forced on her. As such, once again, she cannot possibly be held responsible for a decision she never made.
The aforementioned argument was not intended as a debate between you and I, rather it was intended to demonstrate that it is in fact possible to argue the con side of the abortion debate without ever touching on God or religion. Therefore, I respectfully ask that you either remove the generalizing and bias from the resolution, or state clearly that the debate will be based on that resolution, but that the resolution is in no way factual at all. Debating assumptions is fine, however claiming those assumptions as fact and not stating that they are in fact assumptions, is very wrong.
Written by Asher Lovy
whether morals could truly exist without some higher consciousness or power. please dont go off topic though) assuming that abortion WAS murder, as it is seen by many, then perhaps it might in fact fall under the universal moral of "thou shalt not kill" after all, going back to your example, in the case of teh death penalty the guy deserved it. he killed someone. why does the embryo/fetus deserve an abortion? (dont spend too much time on this seeing as the main point wanst to prove that abortion is murder) 
i wonder where they got that information from...
if you notice i DID make exceptions for rape and danger to the mother. abortion because of faulty contraception i do NOT make exception for because it is so improbable that it is not worth making a loophole through which one can lie their way through to get an abortion. In theory though, according to the argument i posted above, you would be right. its just not practical though, and its such a minority that it's not ever worth considering. rape and danger to the mother is way more prevalent.
