I Finally Understand Why Abortion Can't Be Discussed Logically.

libertytoall

The only problem with your feminist cockamamie viewpoint on abortion is you fail to accept or admit the woman has the brunt of the blame and responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. You nonchalantly act as if getting pregnant is on par with getting the flu or catching a cold. You had to open your legs in order to get pregnant. You had to allow a male's organ to enter your hole... The female had to initiate the process. You can't just wake up one day pregnant like you're some innocent victim.. Sex is biologically for making babies. You can't have sex carrying out the natural steps to make a baby and then cry foul as if it's some sort of mistake when you end up pregnant. Lay in the bed you made for yourself. My biological mother was 15 and instead of abortion she carried me and gave me up for adoption. What a selfless act and the morally RIGHT thing to do. Killing the baby and throwing in the garbage is not a moral act any humane person can defend. And I bet your the same person who screams at animal abuse. You can never bring back the timeline of a life which would have so irresponsibly and heartlessly squashed.

I'm not religious in the slightest bit before you start calling me a bible humper or something. I simply have compassionate for human life and a lot of common sense.

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Im sorry, who are you to tell someone else what is morally acceptable?
Im confused, i didnt realize we had nominated someone to educate us in morals. I must have missed voting day????

SearchLightsInc

libertytoall

The only problem with your feminist cockamamie viewpoint on abortion is you fail to accept or admit the woman has the brunt of the blame and responsibility for the situation they find themselves in. You nonchalantly act as if getting pregnant is on par with getting the flu or catching a cold. You had to open your legs in order to get pregnant. You had to allow a male's organ to enter your hole... The female had to initiate the process. You can't just wake up one day pregnant like you're some innocent victim.. Sex is biologically for making babies. You can't have sex carrying out the natural steps to make a baby and then cry foul as if it's some sort of mistake when you end up pregnant. Lay in the bed you made for yourself. My biological mother was 15 and instead of abortion she carried me and gave me up for adoption. What a selfless act and the morally RIGHT thing to do. Killing the baby and throwing in the garbage is not a moral act any humane person can defend. And I bet your the same person who screams at animal abuse. You can never bring back the timeline of a life which would have so irresponsibly and heartlessly squashed.

I'm not religious in the slightest bit before you start calling me a bible humper or something. I simply have compassionate for human life and a lot of common sense.

edit on 14-9-2013 by libertytoall because: (no reason given)

Im sorry, who are you to tell someone else what is morally acceptable?
Im confused, i didnt realize we had nominated someone to educate us in morals. I must have missed voting day????

If I have to explain to you that killing something else is morally wrong I have nothing else to say to you.

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


To add to that, its the morals v logic thing, they dont always play nicely together, and the OP specified logic in the title. So the poster you responded to was not using logic in this case.

In fact that is really the reason why abortion cant be discussed logically, due to the juxtaposition it holds with the moral discussion. A good example of a divergence of morals and logic.

Tidnabnilims
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

To add to that, its the morals v logic thing, they dont always play nicely together, and the OP specified logic in the title. So the poster you responded to was not using logic in this case.

In fact that is really the reason why abortion cant be discussed logically, due to the juxtaposition it holds with the moral discussion. A good example of a divergence of morals and logic.

edit on 14-9-2013 by Tidnabnilims because: my first contribution to an OP !

I am not using logic? How so? It's illogical that people could actually believe a living thing that is GROWING is not actually alive. Good logic there!

reply to post by libertytoall


No your logic in that statement is correct, organically growing things are most commonly considered alive.

Morally, killing an unwanted living thing that is not a direct threat in most cases/cultures is bad morals ie squashing a harmless spider, killing a baby, this is generally a true statement. However it is a moral one, but one I agree with.

Logic is a far harsher mistress however.

Logically if the unwanted increase of the living things in a given environment would threaten the current limited stability of that environment and be an additional drain on its dwindling resources, then allowing that unwanted increase when it could be prevented would be bad logic. This is a logical statement.

So killing that unwanted living thing is the logical solution. Logic is not here to be nice.

The specifics in the title said 'logic' so I used logic.

My personal solution encompassing both moral and logical points is the prevention of the unwanted living thing in the first place by educating people on how to not get into the situation if they dont want to. I apply this to both genders liberally, and it would work too.





ETA :- Basically it can be discussed logically, just most people find the logical answers morally objectionable and there lies the dilemma.

reply to post by libertytoall


Whether or not a fetus is a living organism isn't really the debate. The question is whether or not it qualifies as being a person, and at which point does it become a person.

This was discussed on the previous page with a very good potato analogy, you may have missed it.

I have heard this argument so many times: The woman has no way to support a child. Who's going to help her care for it, feed it, provide for it? $$$$$$$

That is how these so-called debaters begin. In other aspects of life, these pro-abortionists may see the glass have full....but, ALWAYS, when it comes to aborting an unborn life, they see the glass as half empty.

I personally know two women that chose life over abortion during a time in their life when their financial and emotional circumstances seemed hopeless. One was 15 when she got pregnant and 16 when her child came into this world. The young teen's home life was an emotional hell. The father of the child was 16 himself and had no means to support the kid. The parental support was negligible and there seemed no way out. But, the girl chose life and that "baby" is a beautiful successful happy 23 yr. old today with more joy and appreciation for life than you can imagine. Her childhood was not without hardships, but she got through it.

The other woman was older, an alcoholic, and used drugs. She was raped while on a binge. She never even knew who the father was. It was her first pregnancy, and she chose to go through with it although she had no job, no money, and no permanent home. The "blessing" changed her life. That child became her saving grace and he is a sweet funny energetic little boy of five today with a clean mother and a new found love for life.

So, I guess it really is all about who and what the mother is. If all she sees is $$$ signs and a glass half empty and a burden she will have to bear, abortion looks enticing. If she understands the life she is blessed to bear is a beautiful responsibility, and she sees the glass half full, she'll find a way and choose life. It is, indeed, all up to the mother.

Tidnabnilims
reply to post by libertytoall

 

No your logic in that statement is correct, organically growing things are most commonly considered alive.

Morally, killing an unwanted living thing that is not a direct threat in most cases/cultures is bad morals ie squashing a harmless spider, killing a baby, this is generally a true statement. However it is a moral one, but one I agree with.

Logic is a far harsher mistress however.

Logically if the unwanted increase of the living things in a given environment would threaten the current limited stability of that environment and be an additional drain on its dwindling resources, then allowing that unwanted increase when it could be prevented would be bad logic. This is a logical statement.

So killing that unwanted living thing is the logical solution. Logic is not here to be nice.

That's fine but my statement is based on the premise the mother is healthy and no risk is at stake LIKE 99% of the abortions that take place. If you want to throw in a scenario that rarely takes place in order to refute the other 99% of hypocrisy I have nothing else to say to you either.. You can go play semantics someplace else.

The specifics in the title said 'logic' so I used logic.

Yes you used logic in your conclusion and any logical person would have come to the same conclusion but the amount of cases where abortion takes place in order to protect the mothers health is almost invisible when measured against all the healthy mothers and babies that are killed on a daily basis. Why are you ignoring that fact? It's perfectly logical when viewing a healthy mother and a healthy growing living child to call the mother a murderer for having an abortion.

reply to post by libertytoall


Thats not what my point is, you have not read my posts correctly, morality is what makes you look at it individually, my logical argument is futher up the thread, at no point did I say my logic was at the individual level.

Medically necessary abortions account for 17.5% of abortions per year, I also said this in the same post.

I will simplify, in the logic example, the unwanted living things are extra people, the environment is the planet, this one.

Logic is too cruel sometimes, fettering it with morality is part of what makes us human. That allows for things like my personal solution which I have mentioned twice which, while not being perfect, greatly reduces the problems of both sides while still allowing for choice via educated decisions.

Or you can keep trying to be black and white about it, good luck with that.



ETA:-
Your friends made a choice, and it worked for them. Kudos and more power to them. Whats important is that they had that choice.

Abortion can't be discussed logically because it's faith that decides if the child is considered human or not when he is in the womb.

Some believe it's a mass of cells while others believe it is a living creature with a soul of it's own.

I for one believe that it's absurdity to call abortion murder and to deny the rights and the choice of women because I personally have faith that fetuses have no feelings of right/wrong and life/death.

I could very well be wrong!

One thing I do know, no one should force the rights of an individual woman carrying a baby because no one else will live with the consequences of that choice.

Typically, conservatives are against abortion and they are also against socialization of wealth.
"You can not have an abortion but I will not help you if you decide to keep it."
Feeling over logic. Hypocrisy over compassion.

The legal right to obtain an abortion never had anything to do with whether we like/dislike the procedure.

It was more about getting rid of back alley medical procedures.

A 1st world country simply can't promote itself as being #1 in the medical industry if their women are seeking out the medical services of quacks.

It's the same reason we don't have "street dentists" which exist in some areas of India. It would make a complete mockery of our medical industry/modern society. Doctors were left cleaning up the mess from such quackery. I'm sure they were disgusted and I imagine they started using their influence/experience to initiate change.

After the depression women's health became the focus, so many had suffered horribly. Introducing formula/bottle feeding to mainstream American mothers wasn't just about getting women into the workforce as some believe today. it was more about helping women regain their health/stamina before another pregnancy occurred, which in turn impacts infant mortality rates. A 1st world society wants those numbers to reflect well.

Although things were getting better, women still had no say in family planning. For whatever reason they weren't abandoning back alley procedures. Something had to be done.

Addressing medical quackery at the time was considered a public/women's health issue. I guess they figured we'd work out the religious/morality aspect later and that's where we find ourselves today.

It was more about the times. People today are looking at it with a completely different set of eyes. So many of those depression era people are dying off we can't imagine what life was like for them. It's been forgotten and so many young women/men take their modern lives for granted that they have allowed abortion to be misused.

As sad as abortion is the fact that it was deemed necessary speaks volumes about the times. My grandma was depression era the only thing she had to look forward to was another mouth to feed every 9 months. She finally quit after the 10th baby left her bleeding to death in bed. A kind young doc donated his services, saved her life/got her to throw out her worthless husband and gave her a job. This was in the early 40's. Btw her mother, my great grandma, died in childbirth at 29.

I know times have changed but I don't want anyone to lose sight of what conditions were like for women back in the day. Yes I wholeheartedly agree we need to re-educate and possibly rethink the mentality surrounding modern abortion.

Women/men today need to be reminded of what our foremothers went through. Life for them was as serious as a heart attack, no playing around. it's a dishonor to their memory/suffering to act irresponsibly where abortion/reproduction is concerned. Acting like a bunch of irresponsible out of control hedonists was never the intent.

Safe legal medical practices are always needed in a civilized society. Irresponsibly misusing/abusing them is more about the society and not the procedure.

reply to post by libertytoall

You can go play semantics someplace else

If you want to throw in a scenario that rarely takes place

You clearly dont know what semantics means.

Your straw man is bad and your comprehension is bad.

Plucking numbers out of thin air is also bad.

If all non-necessary abortions just stopped without some balancing in birth control, it would be bad.

Trick is not to get up the duff, or someone up the duff in the first place, yah ?

Yes you used logic in your conclusion and any logical person would have come to the same conclusion

So either you are not listening as a logical person or this thread is not about the logical argument, but the moral one and thus mis-named and mis-represented as such by the OP.

Hint: I dont like killing babies but I think theres a better solution than increasing the world birth rate by 33-41.2 million per year too.

charles1952


Our laws put the boyfriend's life at stake for murder, but if the woman had taken the pill on her own it would not be murder. What kind of murder depends on who commits it?

We have all kinds of wishy washy, inconsistent rules on murder. If a soldier kills another soldier, we don't call it murder - we call it war, and it's okay. If a person kills someone who was trying to kill them, we don't call it murder - we call it self-defense, and it's okay. If the government kills a person who took another person's life, we don't call it murder - we call it justice, and it's okay. If a doctor aborts a fetus in order to save the mother's life, we don't call it murder - we call it medically necessary, and it's okay. Our society has decided that it is okay to end a life in certain circumstances. I don't even categorize legal abortion in that decision. To me, abortion is ending a "potential" life, and yes, according to our current laws, it is considered okay in certain circumstances.

I think my own opinion on abortion is known, but that's not the point of this thread. The pro-abortion argument is inconsistent and illogical under the laws of our country as they are.

I would agree that the laws as they are currently written may be inconsistent, but I don't necessarily agree that the pro-choice argument itself is inconsistent. Pro-choice means that the mother, and the mother alone, gets to make the decision on what happens inside HER body. The law discussed in this thread should be re-written to say that the mother has the sole choice of whether an abortion will be performed, and anyone that forces her in either direction is committing an unlawful act. In this case, the mother should have the right to charge the father with killing the "potential" life inside her. The punishment should be consistent with a traditional murder conviction at that point. This would make the law more consistent with the pro-choice argument.

Tidnabnilims
reply to post by libertytoall

 

Thats not what my point is, you have not read my posts correctly, morality is what makes you look at it individually, my logical argument is futher up the thread, at no point did I say my logic was at the individual level.

Medically necessary abortions account for 17.5% of abortions per year, I also said this in the same post.

I will simplify, in the logic example, the unwanted living things are extra people, the environment is the planet, this one.

Logic is too cruel sometimes, fettering it with morality is part of what makes us human. That allows for things like my personal solution which I have mentioned twice which, while not being perfect, greatly reduces the problems of both sides while still allowing for choice via educated decisions.

Or you can keep trying to be black and white about it, good luck with that.

edit on 14-9-2013 by Tidnabnilims because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by Tidnabnilims because: (no reason given)

ETA:-
Your friends made a choice, and it worked for them. Kudos and more power to them. Whats important is that they had that choice.

edit on 14-9-2013 by Tidnabnilims because: (no reason given)

Where does that kind of "logic" end though? You could also apply "your logic" to the mentally ill, the homeless, disabled, free loaders, or countless other groups. That kind of logic leads down a dark path. Would you prefer firing squads or gas chambers to rid the environment of the unwanted?

Quadrivium

Tidnabnilims
reply to post by libertytoall

 

Thats not what my point is, you have not read my posts correctly, morality is what makes you look at it individually, my logical argument is futher up the thread, at no point did I say my logic was at the individual level.

Medically necessary abortions account for 17.5% of abortions per year, I also said this in the same post.

I will simplify, in the logic example, the unwanted living things are extra people, the environment is the planet, this one.

Logic is too cruel sometimes, fettering it with morality is part of what makes us human. That allows for things like my personal solution which I have mentioned twice which, while not being perfect, greatly reduces the problems of both sides while still allowing for choice via educated decisions.

Or you can keep trying to be black and white about it, good luck with that.

edit on 14-9-2013 by Tidnabnilims because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-9-2013 by Tidnabnilims because: (no reason given)

ETA:-
Your friends made a choice, and it worked for them. Kudos and more power to them. Whats important is that they had that choice.

edit on 14-9-2013 by Tidnabnilims because: (no reason given)

Where does that kind of "logic" end though? You could also apply "your logic" to the mentally ill, the homeless, disabled, free loaders, or countless other groups. That kind of logic leads down a dark path. Would you prefer firing squads or gas chambers to rid the environment of the unwanted?

To me that's fairly simple. What ability do they have at providing for their children and themselves? If they are deemed to live below the financial means necessary to raise children they should be forced to give that child up for adoption. The only problem I see with this is mothers would stop caring if they smoke, drink, etc.. I mean women have already demonstrated their unwavering position that killing a baby is less important than an inconvenient 9 months. I have no doubt they would not give a flying sh^t about a baby in the womb while carrying it.

reply to post by FreedomEntered


Quite the contrary, what I was trying to say is that they both have a a stake in the process, why not make it so that both have an equal say in the matter. If I man clearly states he is not ready nor does he want any children, should he be obligated to pay? Is it fair?

I understand your point, just seems like a no win situation.

I am a man and can't really answer the abortion debate, I do believe a women has a right to choose, it is her body. That said, I would not want a girlfriend to get an abortion in the event of an accidental pregnancy. I try to pick my partners wisely and will not sleep with someone if I would not be okay having a child with her. Apparently this mentality is nonexistent in most guys I know.

I do support the charges levied against this boy(if he was a man then he would not have done this). His girlfriend wanted the baby and he knowingly and maliciously terminated the pregnancy. That is a case for murder imho.

I think this speak more about the inconsistency of abortion and foetal homicide laws than about right to choose. And correct me if I am wrong, but it is primarily those who are against abortion who push these stupid double standard laws making killing of foetuses a murder when it happens to be against the wishes of a woman. Pro-choice tend to oppose this. I certainly think abortion laws and foetal homicide laws should be harmonised, so that it is not murder when before the abortion limit. Indeed, that is the case in some states and it makes a lot of sense.

Happy1
reply to post by RealWoman

 

You are all about "subjective", aren't you? Nothing "objective" in your world.

However one "feels" is how it should be.

No. Very much the opposite. You simply do not get to call your subjectivity truth when it applies no further than your thinking. And are not allowed to impose your subjectivity on me.

Maslo
I think this speak more about the inconsistency of abortion and foetal homicide laws than about right to choose. And correct me if I am wrong, but it is primarily those who are against abortion who push these stupid double standard laws making killing of foetuses a murder when it happens to be against the wishes of a woman. Pro-choice tend to oppose this. I certainly think abortion laws and foetal homicide laws should be harmonised, so that it is not murder when before the abortion limit. Indeed, that is the case in some states and it makes a lot of sense.

Now this is a post that makes sense.