Don't agree with it?

[tsukikage85]

I think I've heard people say things like "Don't agree with abortion? Then don't have one." Now, in my mind this seems like an incredibly simplistic way of looking of things. To those who don't agree with abortion, abortion is murder, an act which takes away the rights of a second party. Whereas saying "Don't agree with gay marriage? Then don'

Comments

[sew_me_shut_666]

i think it's logical and makes sense. comparing "don't like abortions, don't get one" to "don't like murder, don't kill someone" is silly. murder or theft or rape or slavery is against the law. abortion isn't.

[sew_me_shut_666]

true, except in those places, but i assume we're referring to places where abortion is legal

[puf_almighty]

So the crux of your argument is "what is legal is right, what is illegal is wrong"?

[cutout18]

I mean yeah. But this isn't the only short, cute, meaningless phrase in the repertoire of the Pro-Choice movement by a longshot. Nor are Pro-Lifers bereft of their cute, meaningless phrases that show a lack of understanding such as "Don't want a kid? Just give it up for adoption." No one should be justifying these statements because, well, frankly, they're statements made in ignorance, not in knowledge.

Good job, OP. I've been saying for YEARS that this kind of shit gets in the way of the two sides understanding each other. I'm glad someone agrees, and I'm sorry others just don't give a shit.

[schmishy]

I wholeheartedly agree witht his comment.

[neonchameleon]

If I thought the majority of the active so-called Pro-Lifers were arguing in good faith, I would agree with you.

[cutout18]

Fine, but understand that's your opinion, and I highly doubt you have a high enough sample size of objective proof that they're not to make such a claim about the majority. I can't change your mind about a pre-judgment, i.e. a prejudice.

[fair_haven]

Someone already pointed out the inconsistencies of your argument in terms of gay marriage. For people who are against it, it is almost always a religious argument (just like abortion) therefore, to allow it is awful for society

[cutout18]

I just want to raise that decisions are not made in the US based on science, and thankfully so; we wouldn't be able to have many laws. They're ethically based, like most laws, and unfortunately there's no single code of ethics to go by. Just to give an example, there's nothing scientifically invalid about killing your fellow man; as a matter of fact it's precedented in nature. But ethics says that it's wrong, and most people agree.

The crux of the issue is that science is capable of determining what an x-month old fetus is made of, and what it's capable of, but the term 'human' is a purely ethical invention with regards to rights and science is not able to determine what is human or not without the influence of ethics.

[fair_haven]

Yes, we have ethics, but ethics only go insofar as much as you can have ethics that do not establish one particular religion (or main religion and its denominations). Though that's not entirely true; we also admittedly have the problem that MANY religions are excluded in our government currently in the form of ethical representation.

The point I was making was when a certain "ethic" is not generally upheld cross-culturally and cross-religiously, we aren't supposed to make a defining situation any which-way. The best way to do that in that scenario is to try to come up with a point where something is at a point where it can live on its own.

In this case, it is very clear that there is no universal (or at least near universal) standard ethically speaking. Judaism certainly has a different opinion, and there are different opinions in many other religions as well, including for instance many forms of Buddhism, Paganism, and others. Therefore, the only way to not establish a religion in the decision making of the law (because the main

[moonshaz]

The crux of the issue is that science is capable of determining what an x-month old fetus is made of, and what it's capable of, but the term 'human' is a purely ethical invention with regards to rights and science is not able to determine what is human or not without the influence of ethics.

Excellent point.

[x_hypatia_x]

Abortion and murder are not the same, and anyone who believes that they are has a fundamental failure of logic. Murder is the act of deliberately killing another person. Refusing to allow your own body to be used to provide life to someone else is not murder; if it were, then we would all be obligated by law to give one of our kidneys to anyone who needed it.

That said, I think it's a pointless comment and not one that will ever persuade anyone.

[tsukikage85]

Abortion and murder are not the same, and anyone who believes that they are has a fundamental failure of logic. Murder is the act of deliberately killing another person. Refusing to allow your own body to be used to provide life to someone else is not murder
But it could also be considered as both not allowing your own body to be an incubator to a parasite and killing said parasite.

[ebay313]

Speaking of fundamental failures of logic...No. If the right to life trumps the right to bodily integrity, then for that to be consistent no person would be able to make a decision about their own body that would result in the death of another person- such as refusing to give a kidney to a match who would die without it. Of course most everyone excepts that that the right to bodily integrity trumps another person's right to life, except in the case of pregnant women and abortion. THAT is what is logically inconsistent. Even if we were to accept that a fetus has a right to life (which many do not agree with, but even if that was agreed upon), we would have to say that that right overrides the right of another person to decide whether or not to to allow their bodily resources to be used by that other person in order to justify making abortion illegal. And it is logically inconsistent to say that pregnant women must be forced to give bodily resources to support the life of another person but no one else has that obligation, and no one

[puf_almighty]

This is true: if you accept the position that a fetus is a person, then abortion is murder and you cannot but be against it. The difference between pro-choice and pro-life is whether you think the fetus is deserving of being treated like a "person". Fortunately that position doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. Any reasonable person has to eventually conclude that the fetus isn't a person.

[puf_almighty]

You don't think it's fair to regard them as "unreasonable," even though you just said their perspectives "aren't necessarily derivved from reason"?