Pro-life Or Pro-choice?
I've been getting into some heated debates on this. Curious to see what you guys think. I myself am pro-choice.
Let's not kill each other here, but some point of views would be nice to hear!
Let's not kill each other here, but some point of views would be nice to hear!
Pro-death and against choice: unconditional mandatory abortions for everyone.
In all seriousness, I once got into an argument with a family member because she was in favor of abortions for practical reasons (i.e. "if someone doesn't want a baby and they're pregnant, it's better for her to have an abortion"), but was against women younger than 16 being able to get abortions without permission from their parents. That to me is an absolutely nonsensical stance.
In all seriousness, I once got into an argument with a family member because she was in favor of abortions for practical reasons (i.e. "if someone doesn't want a baby and they're pregnant, it's better for her to have an abortion"), but was against women younger than 16 being able to get abortions without permission from their parents. That to me is an absolutely nonsensical stance.
| Pro-death and against choice: unconditional mandatory abortions for everyone. |
LOooOLL. Always a good laugh from you XD !
Yea, that sounds pretty dumb. I don't even understand what the logical basis of that condition would be. I try not to argue with my family since they all seem to be extremely hard headed with beliefs are refute logic pretty readily.
My mom is teaching her granddaughter (my niece), to say that her eyes and very body came from God. I told her that was stupid, it was biology that's well understood that did all this. She came up with some BS and said "God gave us the energy and (insert words).." So I told her that she may as well say that God painted the walls too if follow that logic.
Abortions should be allowed up to 16 years old.
And anyone who wants to "abort" the child can do so.
At any time.
For any reason.
And you should be able to shoot drunk people, too.
Sensible policies for a happier world.
And anyone who wants to "abort" the child can do so.
At any time.
For any reason.
And you should be able to shoot drunk people, too.
Sensible policies for a happier world.
Up to 16? May as well push it up to 24 if they keep living with their parents.
EDIT: The time drift has gone up to 6 minutes :(
EDIT: The time drift has gone up to 6 minutes :(
Last edited on
My personal problem with pro-choice is just when I follow it to the logical conclusion. "My child is 6 years old but I don't have time to care for them anymore — they're impacting on my lifestyle — so I will use my right to choice to kill them off to make sure my quality of life is not adversely affected."
Given that a baby born at 21 weeks can still survive and live a healthy life, but some parts of america have legal abortion at 24-28 weeks, it makes me wonder a little.
Given that a baby born at 21 weeks can still survive and live a healthy life, but some parts of america have legal abortion at 24-28 weeks, it makes me wonder a little.
Last edited on
My arguments have all passed by the question of abortion at the last trimester. I think there should be maybe more regulation at that point, but it's a different debate I'd say. On the whole though, abortion shouldn't be illegal.
You obviously wouldn't kill a 6 year old, but that's not the same as a fetus. A fetus is similar to a vegetable state person. It's lacking what we would expect a person to have to truly be "living".
You obviously wouldn't kill a 6 year old, but that's not the same as a fetus. A fetus is similar to a vegetable state person. It's lacking what we would expect a person to have to truly be "living".
That is the killer question. What would you say a person must have to have to be truly living? Someone unconscious may well not have it. People with relatively severe mental illness also may well not have it. Does that mean we can just kill them because they're troublesome?
A fœtus will progress to be living given time. I would argue that killing it before it becomes "a baby" is still killing it, no matter what stage.
A fœtus will progress to be living given time. I would argue that killing it before it becomes "a baby" is still killing it, no matter what stage.
Last edited on
Well, these people are taken care of by professionals that are paid to do this. People in permanent comas are also pulled the plug on at times.
The issue with pregnancy is that it interferes with the woman's life. We could go at this in several angles. We could see that life isn't fair, the woman can't afford to have this child and so she should be able to get an abortion. Otherwise, it could ruin her life ptotentially (9 months of interfering with college, work, responsibilities) and mothers DO get attached to their children. So after birth, you tell them to either put it in foster care or take care of it. These women shouldn't have to go through that, it should be their choice.
Other angle is viewing this as "rights". You say the fetus has the right to live, but the woman also has the right to do what she wants with her body. She also has the right to live life with a shot at "happiness". Which rights should prevail? Why is the fetus more important than the woman in this regard?
A lot of arguments have people saying you shouldn't kill it because it's "inconvenient". Dying is also inconvenient. They brush of pregnancy as just "inconvenience". Imagine being pregnant while you've got responsibilities. Bills to pay, College, Etc. . Maybe you even already have children that you can barely care for as it is. Sure, You can call it inconvenient to be pregnant in that situation, But it hides the emotional trauma that can come from this. The stress, Depression, Responsibility, The life that would arise from being FORCED to have that child. This is why I think it should be the mother's choice. It affects their life drastically.
Funny enough, most of these people are against abortions due to rape. They know I could break their whole argument if they concede that. Because if any inconvenience to the mother means nothing, then rape should be no exception. The rape aspect shouldn't be enough to forfeit the right of the fetus to live. But this is obviously inhumane in itself.
Lastly, at what point does a fetus become a human? Sure, we can say we killed the fetus, but is it the same as killing a person? If a person is in a vegetative state, killing them is still murder, but it's understandable. This person was alive technically, but not really living.
Pro-Life people like to say life begins at conception, but that's clearly false. A sperm in an egg isn't a human being by any definition.
The issue with pregnancy is that it interferes with the woman's life. We could go at this in several angles. We could see that life isn't fair, the woman can't afford to have this child and so she should be able to get an abortion. Otherwise, it could ruin her life ptotentially (9 months of interfering with college, work, responsibilities) and mothers DO get attached to their children. So after birth, you tell them to either put it in foster care or take care of it. These women shouldn't have to go through that, it should be their choice.
Other angle is viewing this as "rights". You say the fetus has the right to live, but the woman also has the right to do what she wants with her body. She also has the right to live life with a shot at "happiness". Which rights should prevail? Why is the fetus more important than the woman in this regard?
A lot of arguments have people saying you shouldn't kill it because it's "inconvenient". Dying is also inconvenient. They brush of pregnancy as just "inconvenience". Imagine being pregnant while you've got responsibilities. Bills to pay, College, Etc. . Maybe you even already have children that you can barely care for as it is. Sure, You can call it inconvenient to be pregnant in that situation, But it hides the emotional trauma that can come from this. The stress, Depression, Responsibility, The life that would arise from being FORCED to have that child. This is why I think it should be the mother's choice. It affects their life drastically.
Funny enough, most of these people are against abortions due to rape. They know I could break their whole argument if they concede that. Because if any inconvenience to the mother means nothing, then rape should be no exception. The rape aspect shouldn't be enough to forfeit the right of the fetus to live. But this is obviously inhumane in itself.
Lastly, at what point does a fetus become a human? Sure, we can say we killed the fetus, but is it the same as killing a person? If a person is in a vegetative state, killing them is still murder, but it's understandable. This person was alive technically, but not really living.
Pro-Life people like to say life begins at conception, but that's clearly false. A sperm in an egg isn't a human being by any definition.
| Lastly, at what point does a fetus become a human? |
The real question we need to ask is, why is killing humans normally unacceptable? Possible answers:
1. A society where murder is generally acceptable cannot maintain cohesion.
2. Death causes an economic loss to society at large, as well as bureaucratic load (the death has to be processed, possibly investigated, inheritance has to be distributed, etc.).
3. Death causes emotional pain to those who knew the deceased.
#1 is not relevant for anyone incapable of comprehending their own mortality, not to mention very young children aren't really a part of society.
#2 is partly irrelevant for anyone not part of the workforce. Bureaucracy is still somewhat of a problem, although it could be solved by allowing births to be registered much later (e.g. back when child mortality was much higher, children were given names well past when they learned to talk)
The only social connections a person has before they're a few years old are their parents and their direct family, so #3 isn't very relevant.
Thus, we can conclude that even infanticide of very young children is ethically defensible.
| Thus, we can conclude that even infanticide of very young children is ethically defensible. |
I'd argue that we don't kill other people also because they have a consciousness, they live, think, etc..
This is why vegetative state people and permanent comatose patients can be killed. Even a newborn is embodying these things.
A fetus, however, isn't like this, at least not around the end of the pregnancy. I like to point at this story:
https://mysteriousfacts.com/pregnant-man-sanju-bhagat/
This man had his brother in his stomach for 30+ years. He was never going to develop or become born. Eventually, he was surgically removed when it grew to the point where it endangered his life. But, if it never would have endangered his life, would it be unethical to remove it?
If one says life begins at conception, then to them this is still a human being, whether or not it would have a future.
| The question presupposes that only non-human things are acceptable to be killed (or to be allowed to die). But clearly there are cases where killing humans is acceptable and cases where killing non-humans isn't. |
I usually try to bring it to a chicken and egg thing. If you have a fertilized chicken egg and you eat it, did you just kill a chicken? Sure, you can call a fetus alive, it technically is, but it's not living as I am or even other animals are. I also bring it back to a right issue, where it IS acceptable to kill someone trespassing on your property in the U.S., depending a bit on situation and state law. Either the mother's rights or the fetus rights have to win the day.
| infanticide |
Now I wouldn't go that far, but it Rome prostitutes certainly dumped their babies in the trash. As someone who had a baby in the house from birth till now (she's 3), during that first year it did seem like the infant cared about much. It didn't understand enough to care about much. If you were to quickly kill it at that point, even if it saw it coming, it wouldn't even comprehend what was happening. But obviously that would be pretty inhumane. It still has a consciousness, it's drinking and breathing, cries, etc.. Not to mention the people that are now attached to it emotionally.
Last edited on
| It still has a consciousness, it's drinking and breathing, cries, etc. |
| Not to mention the people that are now attached to it emotionally. |
| Adult cows have more developed consciousnesses, and we still slaughter them. |
| Adult cows have more developed consciousnesses, and we still slaughter them. |
Killing for food is arguably different than just killing them.
| Are we talking about whether it would be ethical to arbitrarily kill someone else's child, or about whether it would be ethical for parents to decide to kill their own child? |
More like, is it ethical to kill an infant at all. The argument can be made as I've shown, but it wouldn't be very ethical of the parents. At least not in this modern society where you can just give it up for adoption or have had an abortion beforehand.
Before all that though, there maybe wasn't much choice. I doubt most families were happy to just dump their infants, but such was their situation.
| Killing for food is arguably different than just killing them. |
| The argument can be made as I've shown, but it wouldn't be very ethical of the parents. At least not in this modern society where you can just give it up for adoption or have had an abortion beforehand. |
"She could have had an abortion" is exactly the same argument pro-life people use. "She could have used contraception". The implication is that a point of no return has been passed, but the argument makes no attempt to explain how or why.
Finally, what if the baby was born with a condition that was undetected during pregnancy, and if it had been detected the doctor would have recommended an abortion?
| The fact remains that the level of consciousness of a being doesn't appear to be much of a factor when deciding whether killing is acceptable. |
Not so much "level" of consciousness but it's existence at all. We don't slaughter animals for the fun of it, we do it for food. If not for food, we probably wouldn't be killing them, there's no reason. Perhaps some would kill for fun, but many find that to be inhumane. For example, most would agree on not killing dogs/cats/apes/monkeys etc. unless they're out of control. We recognize them as beings with a certain level of intelligence, understanding, and emotions. So unless we're killing for food, I'd assume people in general wouldn't be for just running around and killing animals.
If there's a person in a permanent coma or vegetative state, we can pull the plug on them. Why? Because nobody is home in there. There's no longer a consciousness. No emotions, no thoughts, no understanding, etc..
| "She could have had an abortion" is exactly the same argument pro-life people use. "She could have used contraception". |
Yes, but the difference in this case is that she could have either had an abortion or afterwards she could give it up for adoption. However, once you find out you're pregnant, the only option if you don't want to go through it is an abortion.
Sure, the pregnancy could have been avoided, but there's always other reasons. Perhaps she wanted the baby thinking the guy would help support her but ditched, now she can't afford that child.
Moreover, the fetus, again, is alive but not like us. We could say bacteria is alive, but we kill it all the time. Plants are alive, and we cut down forest after forest. What's the difference if not for intelligence, consciousness, and all the other mentioned things?
| Finally, what if the baby was born with a condition that was undetected during pregnancy, and if it had been detected the doctor would have recommended an abortion? |
So something like mental retardation. I think that's a different discussion, we are talking about quality of life now. Again, the argument usually centers around whether a fetus is a human being. I think it should be the parent's decision on what to do depending on the defect.
You can look back to the story of the man with his brother in his stomach. Would it be better to leave him in there or kill him through surgical removal? If a fetus is a human being to someone who's pro-life, then they'd have to either compromise on a "human's" life and say it's alright to kill them (which is the loophole I like to use since they've established the right to life isn't some immovable object) or find some way to basically say no surgery without saying it because they know that's pretty dumb. They recognize that what's in there is barely human, it doesn't think or do anything, which is basically the state a fetus is in, but they wont concede that.
| Not so much "level" of consciousness but it's existence at all. |
| For example, most would agree on not killing dogs/cats/apes/monkeys etc. unless they're out of control. We recognize them as beings with a certain level of intelligence, understanding, and emotions. |
| However, once you find out you're pregnant, the only option if you don't want to go through it is an abortion. |
| Sure, the pregnancy could have been avoided, but there's always other reasons. Perhaps she wanted the baby thinking the guy would help support her but ditched, now she can't afford that child. |
| Moreover, the fetus, again, is alive but not like us. |
| So something like mental retardation. I think that's a different discussion, we are talking about quality of life now. Again, the argument usually centers around whether a fetus is a human being. |
| Well, that's just false. If the dividing line is between "no consciousness" and "some consciousness", then cockroaches are on the same side of that line as humans, yet people clearly don't feel the same when killing either. |
I figured you'd say that. The level of consciousness matters also, but it's the fact that it's there. Again, level of consciousness doesn't matter to people when killing for food. Cockroaches (bugs/insects/etc. in general) are disgusting so we don't tend to give a shit. The point is that killing a human is wrong in the eyes of pro-life. I argue a fetus isn't a human. When I bring up consciousness and such, I'm talking about separates bacteria from something that's truly living. A fetus wouldn't even be on the same level as a cockroach in this regard.
| Let's not kid ourselves: the reason most people object to killing dogs and cats has little to do with how intelligent they are. |
Lol, well for them anyway. Gorillas, pandas, monkeys, etc.. They're not the kind of animals we'd eat and such we shouldn't kill them if we don't have to.
| Not true. She could have the baby normally and then give it up for adoption. |
If you didn't want to go through the pregnancy I mean. After all, that's 9 months of your life.
| That exact same situation could develop after the birth. |
Adoption. We don't have to murder it these days. But lets say you had the baby in a Walking Dead style situation. If you're constantly on the move and trying to survive, you may find you simply can't be taking care of that baby. At this point, what do you do? There's no right or wrong answer. In a society like this where you can literally give this problem to someone else, there's no reason to try and kill it instead.
| Very young children are alive but also not like us. I think it's fair to say that if left alone by our respective parents for a few days, neither of us would have significantly increased chances of dying, right? Comparatively, a two year old can do basically nothing on its own, other than scream for help. Barely a step up from an unborn fetus. |
I never pointed at survival skills. After birth, they're different than being a fetus. I've never seen a fetus cry in the womb before! Lack of emotions, consciousness, etc.. It's like a person in a vegetative state.
| You just finished saying that most people object to killing dogs. What does it matter if something is human when deciding if it's acceptable to be killed? |
Even if consciousness and species aren't by themselves deciding factors, they all contribute to the overall decision making. Would it be more humane to kill someone trying to survive or kill someone in a vegetative state? If one had to choose between the life of a monkey and a human baby, which would they likely choose?
Are you pro-life or pro-choice? I don't like the naming convention but it's more expedient than trying to describe each position. I feel like you're pro-choice but you're arguing anyway !
Last edited on
| They're not the kind of animals we'd eat and such we shouldn't kill them if we don't have to. |
| In a society like this where you can literally give this problem to someone else, there's no reason to try and kill it instead. |
If it's only avoidable killing of humans that's unacceptable then that's special pleading.
| I've never seen a fetus cry in the womb before! |
| After birth, they're different than being a fetus. [...] Lack of emotions, consciousness, etc.. It's like a person in a vegetative state. |
| Would it be more humane to kill someone trying to survive or kill someone in a vegetative state? |
| If one had to choose between the life of a monkey and a human baby, which would they likely choose? |
| Are you pro-life or pro-choice? I don't like the naming convention but it's more expedient than trying to describe each position. I feel like you're pro-choice but you're arguing anyway ! |