Zlinqx : Maybe yeah but like I said, every person (or fetus in this case) is unique so that would be the big down part. And I agree with

tornadocam : since you said that it should be done when the life of the mother or the fetus is in danger, which looks like the primary reason for me to use abortion.

Txgangsta : oh jesus you're brainwashed, no point of speaking with you anymore everything you said was twisted to suit your argument and also lunacy.

Txgangsta : Try again when you can make an argument not using logical fallacies as the basis.


UFC : Rather than dismiss his statements as twisted brainwashing and insulting him, actually engage him with facts and try to get him to understand your point of view. That is the point of this forum.

Elara : No I won't i've been through this too many times with too many people who take legitimate points like they are a brick wall and it's a waste of my time and effort. Just say you think abortions should be illegal because of a retarded ideology and that all babies that are born are gonna grow up in a nice household and or be a good person and that overpopulation of f%%%%%% humans is not problematic at all. If Txgangsta thinks all this then good I'm not gonna waste my time explaining why that's bullcrap and changing his mind which won't be changed anyways.   

Txgangsta: "Life is defined as "self-movement", and the most basic movement is growth." - Is it still alive if it can't do that independently? It's "growing" because of the mother, it would never be able to do self-movement with only itself.?

"Murder is a direct and deliberate action that kills another rational being" - Is it murder if the fetus isn't rational? Fetuses don't "think" until their later months of being in the womb. Before that, the brain doesn't function.

I believe in abortion to a certain extent. I'm talking about when the women did not have a choice whether she got pregnant or not, and this pertains mostly to rape victims. Now if your some idiot who decided to get a baby before you where ready, then you gotta deal with it. It was your stupid decision, so you have to deal with the "stupid" consequences.

UFC: If you don't feel like having a legitimate debate, don't come on here...nobody wants someone to get on a debate forum just to say that someone's opinion is false and twisted and then leave saying "oh, I don't want to waste my time explaining a better idea. I'll just leave after insulting everything you said, and provide absolutely nothing to the topic"...because that't what you did.

Monster post. Here it is.

Slythion :  

Nothing can grow independently. Including you. As for self-movement, you require things outside of yourself for your self-movement, such as oxygen.

The fetus is just as rational as you are when you are asleep or under anesthesia. You do not "think" until you wake up. During sleep, you're brain does not function the same. During anesthesia, you function even less. Would it be OK for the doctor to intentionally kill you on the surgery table?

As for rape victims, they have my greatest sympathy. That is a tragic event that even years of counseling may not solve. However, the child in the womb did not do anything wrong. I cannot support punishment for the child. The health of the mother is equally as important as the health of the child. The best thing to do is balance the two. If the mother is attempting to kill what is in her womb and is going bonkers, C-section at the earliest possible time that ensures reasonable survivability for both people. I don't want to harm the mother. The rapist harmed the mother. I can only do damage control at that point, which includes no aborted people. Except maybe the rapist. He can be aborted.

UFC :  

My point was not that "all babies that are born are gonna grow up in a nice household and or be a good person and that overpopulation of.... humans is not problematic at all". My point was "we can't kill someone simply because they inconvenience us". It doesn't matter if they grow up in a nice household, be a good person, or suck up limited resources. Quality of life is good and certainly something we should all strive for. But we should strive for quality for all persons. And the fetus is a person. And the "hood rat". And the racist. And even Hitler. We can't kill them for convenience. We might be able to kill them for other reasons, but not for convenience. 

Elara :  

First, thank you. You're calm rationality is appreciated. However, I don't think I see any logical fallacies... Would you point them out to me? Perhaps I should have said "degenerates society" rather than "restricts society", but other than that I really don't see what logical fallacy I made. Honestly, if I really do have a logical issue, please tell me. I'm totally open to changing my mind.

I'm bored and can't sleep, so I'll write my argument in a syllogism-like form. It makes it easy to find flaws, but if its not your cup of tea, don't worry about it. Unsupported premises are underlined; most should cause zero issue because they are simple observation, definition, or commonly agreed upon. Line numbers repeat because they're the same assertion.

1. The object in question is biological.
2. A biological object's species is recognized by characteristic DNA sequence.
3. The object in question's species is recognized by its characteristic DNA sequence.

4. The object in question is biologically growing.
5. Things that are biologically growing are alive.
6. The object in question is alive.

3. The object in question's species is recognized by its characteristic DNA sequence.
7. The recognized DNA sequence is human.
8. The object in question is human.

6. The object in question is alive.
8. The object in question is human.
9. The object in question is an alive human.

10. Alive humans are others.
9. The object in question is an alive human.
11. The alive human is an other.

12. There is a correct way humans should treat others. (synthesis of ethics and metaphysics)
10. Alive humans are others.
13. There is a correct way humans should treat alive humans.

13. There is a correct way humans should treat alive humans.
14. The just way is the correct way. (I'm only defining my term, these three are essentially meaningless)
15. Humans should treat alive humans justly.

15. Humans should treat alive humans justly.
16. Killing without merit is not just.
16. Humans should not kill alive humans without merit.

17. Humans should not kill alive humans without merit.
9. The object in question is an alive human.
18. Humans should not kill the object in question without merit.

The disagreements, if they remain the same here as they do in the academic field, will be with numbers 10 (limiting the moral community) and 12 (is/ought gap). Number 12 should probably just be assumed if you disagree with it and addressed in a new thread. Number 10 is Zlinqx's disagreement, but all of his limitations to the moral community have very adverse implications on adult humans as well. Ultimately, denying the dignity of the species undermines any concept of "moral community" at all. The "moral community" to a human is to other humans because of likeness. Theoretically, it actually applies to humans because we are rational beings, and the "moral community" is between all rational beings. So, if we were to find intelligent life on a distant planet, we would have to be moral to them. If apes were to evolve to become rational, we would have to be moral to them. Rational beings understand the other as like himself, and thus harmony is demanded. All else is irrelevant.

We aren't low on human stock we have plenty, in fact we have way too many and way too little resources. If someone doesn't want to have the baby that should be the end of discussion then and there. It's no ones right to tell someone else what they have to do.

UFC :

Oh, I totally agree with that. No one should be made to have a baby. Forcing pregnancy? How ridiculous! Unemployment is high enough! We shouldn't go around demanding that women get pregnant!

But once pregnancy begins, there is already is a baby. Responsibility has begun. Even if they don't want it, they cannot kill it. We can't just run around killing things we don't like.?

Txgangsta : yes we can go around killing things we don't like that's why war exists. The baby only becomes off limits to get rid of after its physically born. Try telling a woman even though you don't want this baby and there's the option to abort it you MUST go through with it and go through the 9 months of pain plus the torn vagina which is a very high rate plus either raising a kid you can't provide for, or don't want or give it up for adoption after going through all that crap.

No one has any obligation to keep a baby in fetus form, no abortions is precisely the reason why so many people have loveless childhoods and grow up messed up or in india and chinas case way too many kids or in africas case too many kids with no food and water around or in americas case lots of street trash or serial killers. But htat isn't even my point, my point was purely on making a woman go through everything to do with having  a kid as mentioned in detail.

UFC:

"I don't like you" is not a reason for war. War is unjust when it is based upon whims like that. I support England's decision to go to war against Germany because of their aggressive military expansion. I support America's decision to go to war in 1941 against Japan because they attacked our soldiers. I actually would have supported an American declaration of war against either for the aggressive military expansion. Just war is not a simple "I don't like you, lets kill each other". War is the international version of the fist fight, and only selfish children hit other because "they don't like them".

Moving on from your horrible justification of war...

Why does the baby gain "off limits" status once it's born? What's different about the baby? Seven month old fetus' is born premature, its now out so it's "off limits". A nine month old fetus, which is more developed, is not "off limits" because it is in the womb. So we can kill the nine month one and not the 7 month one.

Obviously, the above is ridiculous.

A child does not become independent in even the slightest sense until it can get a job and pay for something. Otherwise, something has to take care of it. There is no magical power granted except artificially in your head after birth.

Next, "a baby in fetus form" is only different from you and me because of size. It needs a safe and secure environment, I need a safe and secure environment. It needs people that feed it, and because I haven't learned how to photosynthesis yet, I too need people to grow food and deliver it to me. If "no one has any obligation to keep a baby in fetus form", why is there an obligation there on? Why can't we just kill whoever inconveniences us, regardless of age?

If a mother does not want to continue carrying the child, with present day technology I cannot do anything until about 7 months. I'm sorry that she doesn't want the child, but the mother's wants, even though true and legitimate, don't out weigh the life of another.

Finally, yes, overpopulation is a major issue in some countries. Overpopulation is a reason to increase contraception, not to kill people. You cannot ever justify killing the innocent. There are multiple ways reduce baby-making, including simply adding papaya extract to the water (male contraceptive). Once conception hits, there is a new life, a human life, that we cannot just kill. We can prevent new human life from forming (we're not hurting anything if there is nothing there to hurt), but we cannot take existing life and snuff it out.

Txgangsta : You are welcome. I do my best.



Fallacy Alert

"That doesn't mean we need to have a place where people can get their murder on so they don't serial kill people outside. Men have cheated on their wives since ancient times. Perhaps we should say it's fine for them to do so as long as we make a Brothel for them to cheat safely."



That comparison is a logical fallacy, Reductio ad absurdum. It's ludicrous! You know it. I know it. Starting off your response like that was a bad choice.



Now, let me present my logical reasoning.



If an organism is a living human, it is capable of rational thought.

A fetus is NOT capable of rational thought.

Therefore, a fetus is NOT a living human.



If an organism is a living human, it can survive outside the womb.

A fetus CANNOT survive outside the womb.

Therefore, a fetus is NOT living human.



If abortion is murder, society loses an active member

A fetus is not an active member of society

Therefore, abortion is not murder.





Now, these are ones that you and I will never agree on.



How about this?



If a woman wants to abort, and it is legal, she will go to a clinic.

Abortion is legal.

Therefore, she will go to a clinic.



If a woman wants to abort, and it is illegal/inaccessible, she will use dangerous methods (drugs, coat hangers, etc).

Abortion is legal/accessible.

Therefore, she will NOT use those methods



Now... I don't know if you have ever looked at statistics for the death rate for DIY abortions, but they are staggering and gruesome. They are more likely to kill themselves in the process than not.



So... here is the kicker:



Pregnant women are living humans. They are productive members of society. They are our friends, our sisters, cousins, daughters, nieces, aunts, etc. Their deaths are a loss to society because they are active members of it. They would, of course, not fall under the definition of murder or suicide, however. It would be a "tragic accident".



Remember that women who get abortions usually have damn good reasons for doing so. Their health is in danger, they were raped, they were sexually abused, the child cannot survive (genetic defects)... those are the main reasons that women seek to abort. It is not an easy decision to make, in fact it is probably one of the hardest choices that a person will ever have to make. So when they have made that choice, it is happening. I would prefer that it remain legal so we don't risk losing the woman getting the abortion in the process... because in the long run, that death is going to impact society far more than the termination of a fetus that is biologically no different than a tumor or parasite at that stage.



Now, it is 3am and I am falling asleep. Hopefully I caught all the typos.

Elara : Yes this is the exact point I've been trying to make before but you seemed to have explained better then I could.

Txgangsta: There is a huge difference between a baby and fetus...independence. A baby has a chance of survival if cut off from the rest of the world...a fetus...well not so much. It isn't even a fully-formed human, and it doesn't have feelings and rational thinking until the brain actually starts working. A baby has all of these things. To say the only difference is "size" is grossly incorrect. 

A baby has actual real-world experience
A fetus doesn't even know that anything exists

A baby is a fully-formed human
A fetus is not

A baby can communicate/have rational thought
A fetus cannot (early stages of fetuses anyways)


Also, people forget there is always the chance of a mother dying when giving birth. It happens, and that is one reason why an unwilling mother shouldn't be forced to face a possible fatal situation. Now if you willingly accepted to take on the responsibility, then ya, you need to carry out that decision. 

UFC : I believe you need a new look on "war". In no way has war ever been thought of a "good" thing, only "just", "necessary", and in some cases, "evil". AND just because war exists does NOT mean it is perfectly acceptable to "kill things we don't like". War may exist, but in no way, shape, or form should it desensitize you of killing things. 

From a purely logical standpoint, then the obvious choice would to pull a China and limit the population, and go as far as kill any over-productions. That didn't work to well for China...so hopefully you see the reasoning behind not doing that anywhere else.

Slythion : Let me explain to you people something about war because I highly doubt anyone here knows the history of war better than me. The main objective of war a lot of the time back in the day was colonial expansion. However that was always just a veil and part of the reason why they would invade and kill people.

Germany killed jews because they didn't like them and that's a fact, the allied forces killed germans because they didn't like that. The russians killed the germans because the germans didn't liked them either and tried to take over russia in a miserable attempt. The japanese slaughtered chinese and australians and americans because they hated all of us as well. Palestine and Israel kill eachother's citizens because they can't stand eachother either. This is all fact there is no disputing it at all, it's clear history.

And you know what good, it was good all these wars happened and you know why? Because the cold hard fact is if we didn't have those wars and wars now, the population would be much larger than it already is. Disease and war and murder are all horrible things to keep the population under control whether people wanna realise it or not.

UFC : I think you missed the point of my response...it seems that your trying to justify the mass killing of millions of humans through saying that it lowered the population. While that's true, there is a term in science called "carrying capacity" which is the limit of a population size in an ecosystem caused by environmental factors. We do not need a mass murder of heartless killing to limit ourselves.

   It worries me A LOT when you said that World War 2 had in upside. Do you honestly believe that World War 2 was GOOD? That it's benefits outweighed the costs? Do you think pearl harbor was good? How about any genocide you can think of? Where any of those good? Seriously, stop trying to justify war as being a good thing, because it isn't. The reason's behind war doesn't matter, and although I applaud you for being an "expert" on war, but in no way does that mean it's good.

- Germany killed Jews because they truly believed that "Aryans" where the superior race. A form of racism where they were "cleansing" the world or "making it better"

- Russia attacked Germany because they where attacked in the first place. They aren't just going to sit there and be attacked without doing anything

- (assuming you are talking about ww2) Japanese where under the impression they would receive immense wealth and power for assisting Hitler in the war

- Palestine and Israel  have been at war for a long time over a religious and land dispute. It is well known...I'm not sure why you thought otherwise

Now, here's the kicker:

Who would start a war against someone you don't like??? Seriously, that just doesn't make sense, does it? As I'm sure you know, wars are started in the attempt to gain something, not some petty grudge against someone. While disliking a country CAN be a reason, it is extremely unlikely that it is the MAIN reason. Think about it for a second...you don't just hate someone. You need a reason. Weather it is racism, jealousy, lust, whatever it may be, you need a reason. And so saying that people start wars because they dislike each other is false, they start wars because of why they dislike each other.

Not sure why it's not summoning you...hope you see this though.

Slythion : 1. I already said why russia didn't like germany and it's intentions so why you brought that up I haven't a clue.

2. They killed jews because Hitler just happened to be the world's greatest motivational speaker to big crowds and they all bought into it more than a few times even when they were well on the backfoot. Hitler wasn't even german he was austrian and he convinced them how useless the jews were and they must be eradicated and put in death camps.

3. That again was only part of Japan's Rationale they were cruel barstards who tortured anyone they could capture and enjoyed torturing them. Only when america said alright get effed we'll nuke you did they say oh sorry don't attack us but it was too late.

4. Yes clearly they hate eachother over land and religion but guess what once again that falls under hating eachother doesn't it? It all boils down to we hate you and this is how we like things to run and since you aren't like that you have to be eradicated. 

I don't need a history lesson I know the reasoning behind things and what happened, i'm delving into the main point of do people kill other people in wars because they don't like said opposition? And the answer is an overwhelming yes. You said it has to be a main reason why wars are started, well it sure as hell becomes one once battle starts and it doesn't need to be a main reason this isn't business as usual no hard feelings.

And you clearly didn't read my post because I clearly said that war,disease and murder are horrible ways to keep the population under control and it has for the longest time. I never said i was happy that people died or war is good or anything so don't stick words in my mouth like we are debating on fox news.

Elara: 

Reductio ad absurdum has to do with the consequence, not the comparison of premises. The fallacy you're looking for is "undistributed middle". I did not make it, but you've definitely pointed out where I did not support my argument well.

One of your statements was, "What Pro-Life people refuse to acknowledge is that women have been aborting pregnancies since ancient times, and just because it is illegal will not stop it. It will just force them to use dangerous methods that may end up killing them." The argument presented here is, "Some women will abort their pregnancies regardless of laws and/or safe access. Therefore, in order to reduce risk, we should provide a safe means for abortions". This was the argument I was attacking. If I understood you incorrectly, please tell me.

To refute the argument, I used Reductio ad absurdum. I have to take the exact same logic and apply it else where in order that you see the conclusions of said logic are ridiculous. I've thought of a better refute since I responded, so here's a new conclusion that completely parallels my summarized version of your argument:

"Some women will abort their pregnancies regardless of laws and/or safe access. This is dangerous. Therefore, in order to reduce risk, we should provide an alternative means for abortions"

"Some men will beat their wives regardless of harm caused. This is dangerous. Therefore, in order to reduce risk, we should provide an alternative means for domestic abuse.

Both arguments follow this pattern: "Some 'A' will do 'B'. 'B' is dangerous. Therefore, in order to decrease danger, we need to make a less dangerous version of 'B'." Replace A and B with sky diving and it works. Sky diving should be as safe as possible. However, it's not universal. We don't want domestic abuse at all. And I don't want abortion at all.

Your logical reasoning has multiple premises I disagree with right off the bat.

"If an organism is a living human, it is capable of rational thought". I don't think a 1 year old is capable of rational thought. If you make a person hungry enough, they aren't capable of rational thought. Certain drugs in the system can remove the capacity for rational thought (alcohol, being the easy one). 

"If an organism is a living human, it can survive outside the womb." This has nothing at all do to with either living or being human. The definition of living has nothing to do with a womb, nor does the definition of human. A corpse is still human, and live bacteria have nothing to do with a womb. Furthermore, adult humans still live in a womb. We need a very specific environment in order to live. If I place you on mars with lungs full of oxygen, you'll pass out in 3-5 minutes and be dead in, at most, 20 minutes.

"If abortion is murder, society loses an active member". Finally, we have one we agree on. But I'll say the fetus is an active member, and you do not. If the fetus were inactive, we couldn't call it "alive". Also, if we consider some island aborigines, they are not active members of our community. Therefore, if I grabbed an army regiment, I could go kill them, right? It's only murder if society loses an active member, and they are not part of my society...

As for the last bit, I addressed it in the beginning. I only wish to add that you seem to only be looking to solve the symptoms and not the problem itself. Why do women want abortions? Because they're scared. They're scared of the boyfriend, they're scared of their parents, they're scared they wont be good moms, they're scared they'll be made fun of, they're scared it will ruin their lives, and most of all, they're scared of the unknown that comes with pregnancy and children. You want to solve the fear by taking away the fetus. That isn't the main issue. The boyfriend or parents are unsupportive of the fetus, they have not been made to feel secure about their parenting skills, friends and society at large slanders unwedded mothers, and they think every life plan will disappear forever. Those are the things that should be fixed. The fetus isn't an issue at all. It's everything else.

Slythion :

A baby's brain is only 1 day better than a fetus. The difference is meaningless. Also, knowledge is pretty much irrelevant. A baby can have real world experience, yet be really dumb. The fetus could be worlds smarter, even though it hasn't had experience. Einstein was once a fetus, and when you were born, fetus Einstein was smarter than you.

A baby isn't close to fully formed. Males are not fully formed until 22-25 years of age, females around 20.

A baby cannot have rational thought. Rational thought doesn't begin until AT LEAST 2, but people will usually say 7. A fetus can communicate, it just happens to be in a womb. It's communications just aren't received. If the fetus is thrashing about for a long period of time, the fetus can be communicating there is something wrong.

Doctors prevent the large majority of deaths that could happen with giving birth. The odds of a mother dying in childbirth in the United states is .021%. 2 out of 10,000 births. Also, many of these mothers realize that there are problems long before childbirth. The number here is so small, this too is totally irrelevant.

Finally, thank you for your comment on war and overpopulation. I hope that what I wrote on the subject was equal to you.

UFC :

We're not talking about the reason people declare war. We're talking about what are reasons people should declare war. "I don't like you" is not a reason people should declare war. It is unjust.

I want to get in on this debate! I didn't even notice that a new abortion thread was made.

I don't understand how anyone could possibly say that abortion is ok. You are murdering an innocent child. And liberals call conservatives evil... Not only that, but more than 90% of the time the child is killed just because the mother doesn't want to give birth, or have to deal with the child. How damn selfish can you be? If it is ok to kill an unborn baby, then how come killing a baby that was born yesterday is considered a terrible crime? And don't say that it is different because one is alive. They are both alive. They both have heartbeats. They are both human life and should be treated the same.

To me, abortion is one sided for me, I would absolutely HATE any kind of action to do such a thing to an unborn child in any case. But what gets me in the middle is the case of rape. Yeah, it's still a human being, but some guy did some rape to someone, and that happens to get everyone confused. What my idea would probably be is to let the birth happen, and possibly put it up for adoption. But that's me.

Honestly, I am completely against abortion. Like pacman said, why kill the fetus when you can put it up for adoption? It seems many women either want to raise it on their own or not have it at all.  I think abortion is very wrong.