Pro life VS Pro Choice

[leroy]

My argument against abortion is:

Premise 1: Its wrong to kill an innocent human being (unless you have no other choice)

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

Therefore killing embryo and fetus is wrong, Therefore Abortion is wrong

So if you are pro choice, I would like to know which of the 2 premises do you reject…and why

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Premise 3: Body autonomy supercedes the needs and desires of others. The mother has the right to control how her body is used. The embryo or fetus does not.

This is why you can't force someone to give blood or tissue, even if their own actions caused the need in someone else.

Premise 4: making abortion illegal except in life threatening conditions causes legal red tape that threatens the survival of women in peril. Such as Savita Halappanavar.

 

[Left Coast]

My argument against abortion is:

Premise 1: Its wrong to kill an innocent human being (unless you have no other choice)

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

Therefore killing embryo and fetus is wrong, Therefore Abortion is wrong

So if you are pro choice, I would like to know which of the 2 premises do you reject…and why

I reject the argument because Premise 1 does not describe abortion. While it is, generally speaking, unethical to kill an innocent person, the situation becomes more ethically complicated when that person is literally dependent on your body (your organs, your blood, etc.) to live. In such a situation, you are under no ethical obligation to keep another person alive, who would otherwise die, if you don't consent to your physical body being used as an incubator to keep the other person alive. On the contrary, it would be unethical to force a person to have their body used to keep someone else alive against their will.

 

[questfortruth]

Premise 1: Its wrong to kill an innocent human being (unless you have no other choice)

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

I am pro Life.
The saints are not going to hell. And it is always not good to murder a saint. Thus, the doctors must not murder their own patients, even if they suffer very much.
Dear brother in arms, Death is the name of satan (because the evil spirit of all, that does not come from God are the names of satan). The angel of death is satan. Thus, to give someone death is to serve satan. To kill the Adolf Hitler (or his fighting soldiers) at war is a good heroic deed, however it is an invitation to the angel of death to take the Hitler's dirty soul. If you divide the size of the planet Earth by the rate of death cases (look up the population meter in the web), you will realize, that angel of death has enough time to murder every human in history (his velocity is less than the speed of light, and he can freely fly inside the Earth magma): the satan has murdered every single human in past, present, and future history. That is why everybody fears the Death. Even saints do not enjoy the meeting with satan: "Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me."
John 14:30
One can not die, until the angel of death has arrived:

2. Fetus has Original Sin.

 

[Secret Chief]

There's a continuum. I don't consider a four cell blastula-stage embryo to be an "innocent human."

 

[joe1776]

My argument against abortion is:

Premise 1: Its wrong to kill an innocent human being (unless you have no other choice)

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

Therefore killing embryo and fetus is wrong, Therefore Abortion is wrong

So if you are pro choice, I would like to know which of the 2 premises do you reject…and why

My argument is that you are using your reasoning mind rather than relying on conscience to guide you morally. When we hear the facts in a case of a murder, the act immediately FEELS wrong. That is followed by an urge to severely PUNISH the wrongdoer. That urge to punish confirms our judgment of wrongness.

Your reasoning finds the woman who aborts guilty of murder but there's no urge to punish her. That missing urge should tell you that your reasoning is flawed. Absurdly, most people would punish the person aiding in the abortion but not the woman who aborts; which would be like punishing the accomplice but not the murderer.

 

[Brickjectivity]

My argument against abortion is personal, not legal; because laws aren't the way to regulate this. There is no need to be complicated about it. Its the kind of wrong thing that must be personal rather than political. Mothers have a natural and exclusive power. They aren't granted this power by the Constitution or by any law. Mothers also self regulate this power. They don't need to be told "Your child is valuable." In addition they are harmed in the birthing process. Harm comes to the mother, always. It is the nature of the process that they must have a choice of what to do.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

I don't know much about it, but is it true that the president just now had used regeneron? Does this contain stem cells , and if it does, do you think he should have used it?

 

[exchemist]

My argument against abortion is:

Premise 1: Its wrong to kill an innocent human being (unless you have no other choice)

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

Therefore killing embryo and fetus is wrong, Therefore Abortion is wrong

So if you are pro choice, I would like to know which of the 2 premises do you reject…and why

Embryos are not "innocent human beings".

 

[ppp]

My argument against abortion is:

Premise 1: Its wrong to kill an innocent human being (unless you have no other choice)

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

Therefore killing embryo and fetus is wrong, Therefore Abortion is wrong

So if you are pro choice, I would like to know which of the 2 premises do you reject…and why

I don't think anyone should be legally forced to lend their body to support the life of another human being. Anyone should have the choice to do so, to not do so, or to stop doing so as they will.

 

[sun rise]

I don't know much about it, but is it true that the president just now had used regeneron? Does this contain stem cells , and if it does, do you think he should have used it?

Yes some of the research used human stem cells.

 

[sun rise]

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

There's a continuum. I don't consider a four cell blastula-stage embryo to be an "innocent human."

If abortion is murder, than a woman who takes a drug to abort is a murderer and should be tried as anyone else who commits murder in the first degree.

I don't believe the soul enters the fetus at conception but later on. So to me, abortion after viability outside the womb (20+ weeks) should not be legal.

And in any event, I support all efforts to help prevent pregnancy and help the pregnant woman who might abort due to lack of money, lack of medical help, lack of job training etc. We should be helping woman to avoid getting into the position where they feel no choice in the matter.

 

[metis]

Let me just say the abortion is certainly not the only "pro-life" issue, and it bothers me that so many cite that but ignore other pro-life issues, such as capital punishment, climate change, war, disparity of income that leads to poverty, opposition to Obamacare minus a replacement, gun proliferation, etc.

 

[Altfish]

My argument against abortion is:

Premise 1: Its wrong to kill an innocent human being (unless you have no other choice)

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

Therefore killing embryo and fetus is wrong, Therefore Abortion is wrong

So if you are pro choice, I would like to know which of the 2 premises do you reject…and why

Since by far the biggest cause of abortions is a miscarriage - does that make god pro-abortion?

 

[Quintessence]

My argument against abortion is:

Premise 1: Its wrong to kill an innocent human being (unless you have no other choice)

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

Therefore killing embryo and fetus is wrong, Therefore Abortion is wrong

So if you are pro choice, I would like to know which of the 2 premises do you reject…and why

There's something very important I'd like to clarify about what you are proposing, if I may.

Do you believe that this argument against medically-induced abortions for humans means that governments should also criminalize it?

That's the part that really matters. To take this further, say we do favor criminalizing medically-induced abortion for humans. Who will be punished? The need for abortion requires at least two people at minimum - a human male and human female. Do they both get punished for irresponsible sex that created the need for abortion in the first place? Do we only punish the woman? Do we only punish the man? Do we also punish medical professionals? Any company that sells abortificants? What will the punishment be, exactly? What happens when refusing to grant abortion results in the death of a woman? Who is punished for that? Who pays for the childcare that the man and/or woman can't afford?

Bonus points: what about natural abortions? Will we hold investigative panels that interrogate people to be sure it was really natural?

 

[ChristineM]

My argument against abortion is:

Premise 1: Its wrong to kill an innocent human being (unless you have no other choice)

Premise 2 Embryos and Fetus are innocent humans

Therefore killing embryo and fetus is wrong, Therefore Abortion is wrong

So if you are pro choice, I would like to know which of the 2 premises do you reject…and why

Calling an embryo an innocent human being is an appeal to emotion, not medical knowledge.

Personally i would never have an abortion but i will defend every woman's right to make their own decisions concerning their own body.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Calling an embryo an innocent human being is an appeal to emotion, not medical knowledge.

Personally i would never have an abortion but i will defend every woman's right to make their own decisions concerning their own body.

With just a minor caveat (I'm too old to get pregnant --- not to mention the wrong gender), I echo ChristineM's thoughts.

I've said before, I'm no fan of abortion -- and especially not as a (sloppy) means of birth control. And even more especially when the fetus is likely viable ex-utero. But when push comes to shove, what any woman does with her own body is beyond my right to command.

 

[leroy]

Premise 3: Body autonomy supercedes the needs and desires of others. The mother has the right to control how her body is used. The embryo or fetus does not.]

I would argue that any parent has the moral obligation to supply for the basic needs of his child, even if you have to use your own body……for example if my 1yo daughter is hungry, it seems to me that I have the obligation to give her food, even if I have to use my own hands and cook some food with my hands..........

, If I don’t do that and I say “I let her starve to dead because I didn’t what to use my body (hands) to cook feed her” everybody would say that I am a moral monster. Nobody would accept “but its my body, my hands” as a valid justification.

This is why you can't force someone to give blood or tissue, even if their own actions caused the need in someone else.

2 things

1 I would argue that you do have the moral obligation to donate blood to your children if they need it to survive, especially if they are young innocent children.

2 There is a big difference between killing someone and not saving a life…killingn your child is worst than not saving his life

Premise 4: making abortion illegal except in life threatening conditions causes legal red tape that threatens the survival of women in peril. Such as Savita Halappanavar.

can you expalin more?

 

[ppp]

I would argue that any parent has the moral obligation to supply for the basic needs of his child, even if you have to use your own body……for example if my 1yo daughter is hungry, it seems to me that I have the obligation to give her food, even if I have to use my own feet, my own eyes and my own hands to cook food, If I don’t do that and I say “I let her starve to dead because I didn’t what to use my body (hands, legs, feet, eyes etc.) to feed her” everybody would say that I am a moral monster. Nobody would accept “but its my body” as a valid justification.

Who the hell would call you a moral monster for not feeding your child your body parts?!?! Even if the child was starving?!

 

[leroy]

Calli

Personally i would never have an abortion but i will defend every woman's right to make their own decisions concerning their own body.

You can do whatever you want with your own body as long as you don’t hurt (let alone kill) anyone else



And what if the woman decides to kill his baby one day after he was born? Would you defend her right?......
Obviously your answer is NO, but why? Why is the life of a baby valuable when its in the nursery of a hospital, and not so valuable when the baby is inside the uterus? Why is the geographical location of the baby relevant to determine his value?