If Life begins at conception

[Symmetry]

People do what they want. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work, prohibition of drugs is a major failure. Prohibition of abortions would have the same results.

Most likely, it does make you wonder if people who want to make abortion illegal are actually opposed to abortion, or simply want to be able to feel morally superior without taking any kind of responsibility for the consequences. Evidence suggests that it wouldn't reduce rates of abortion, and might actually increase such rates, so it's probably not about abortion per se, but a bit more about punishing women who have abortions, and making it more dangerous.

As always, I'm up for looking at evidence to the contrary, but the arguments tend to go-

A: "I think abortion is murder and should be illega.l"
Sym: "Do you actually realise what that would entail?"
A: "I just think it's murder, and it should be illegal."

There's a culture among the pro-life crowd that rewards irresponsibility in terms of these arguments. Literally anything goes, you don't have to back up your thinking, or consider the consequences of your arguments. Abortion, hell- say it's like the holocaust, call it genocide. Nobody on the pro-life side is gonna call you out.

[Night Strike]

Just because people may go under the table to get other abortions doesn't mean it should stay legal. In fact, that's one of the worst arguments for keeping it legal. You make it illegal because it's the premeditated killing of an innocent life. If there are consequences to that decision, then let them fall. Protecting innocent people is still the right thing to do. That's why we outlawed murdering anybody after they were born; it's time to reinstate the ban on murdering people before they were born.

[Symmetry]

Just because people may go under the table to get other abortions doesn't mean it should stay legal. In fact, that's one of the worst arguments for keeping it legal. You make it illegal because it's the premeditated killing of an innocent life. If there are consequences to that decision, then let them fall. Protecting innocent people is still the right thing to do. That's why we outlawed murdering anybody after they were born; it's time to reinstate the ban on murdering people before they were born.

Not really a good argument if you're actually concerned about the fetuses though is it? As I said, it's more about punishing than actually dealing with something you don't want to happen.

It seems that you're arguing for making abortion dangerous and criminal, rather than actually caring about making it less common.

[Night Strike]

Just because people may go under the table to get other abortions doesn't mean it should stay legal. In fact, that's one of the worst arguments for keeping it legal. You make it illegal because it's the premeditated killing of an innocent life. If there are consequences to that decision, then let them fall. Protecting innocent people is still the right thing to do. That's why we outlawed murdering anybody after they were born; it's time to reinstate the ban on murdering people before they were born.

Not really a good argument if you're actually concerned about the fetuses though is it? As I said, it's more about punishing than actually dealing with something you don't want to happen.

It seems that you're arguing for making abortion dangerous and criminal, rather than actually caring about making it less common.

Abortion in its current form doesn't care for the fetus, so under your argumentation we'd actually be keeping the status quo. Even if abortion doesn't become less common when it's outlawed, it doesn't mean that we're doing the wrong thing. Premeditated murder should always be illegal, no matter how many people will keep doing it after it's outlawed. If we allow the murder of the unborn, why don't we allow the murder of those right after birth, or in a vegetative state, or near the end of their natural lives? How we treat the weakest of our society tells what we value as a society, and we currently value killing those who are by definition the weakest and most dependent.

[Symmetry]

Just because people may go under the table to get other abortions doesn't mean it should stay legal. In fact, that's one of the worst arguments for keeping it legal. You make it illegal because it's the premeditated killing of an innocent life. If there are consequences to that decision, then let them fall. Protecting innocent people is still the right thing to do. That's why we outlawed murdering anybody after they were born; it's time to reinstate the ban on murdering people before they were born.

Not really a good argument if you're actually concerned about the fetuses though is it? As I said, it's more about punishing than actually dealing with something you don't want to happen.

It seems that you're arguing for making abortion dangerous and criminal, rather than actually caring about making it less common.

Abortion in its current form doesn't care for the fetus, so under your argumentation we'd actually be keeping the status quo. Even if abortion doesn't become less common when it's outlawed, it doesn't mean that we're doing the wrong thing. Premeditated murder should always be illegal, no matter how many people will keep doing it after it's outlawed. If we allow the murder of the unborn, why don't we allow the murder of those right after birth, or in a vegetative state, or near the end of their natural lives? How we treat the weakest of our society tells what we value as a society, and we currently value killing those who are by definition the weakest and most dependent.

This all seems like you're avoiding the actual question of what would happen if abortion were treated as premeditated murder, and merely asking a bunch of different questions that will help you deflect the actual consequences of the society you're arguing for.

Now, I don't consider abortion to be premeditated murder, nor do I consider euthanasia to be premeditated murder. You're a bit vague on your other points, but they seem largely unrelated to the issue you're dodging.

I guess, to put it simply, are you more wedded to the idea that abortion should be treated as murder, or to actually decreasing the rates of abortion?

[saxitoxin]

I'm still unclear who in this thread, other than Symmetry, has called for women and/or doctors to be jailed for murder.

Every other prohibited medical procedure carries no penalty for the patient and invariably only non-criminal penalties for the provider (license revocation / suspension). I'm unclear who in this thread has advocated abortion be treated in a new and special way from other prohibited medical procedures.

I say this as a person who supports abortion rights but who believes there are more rational ways to argue in support of them than incessantly screaming "YOU WANT TO JAIL WOMEN!" over and over and over again until, apparently (I guess), everyone is hypnotized into believing it? I guess that's the strategy? Hypnotism?

[Night Strike]

I guess, to put it simply, are you more wedded to the idea that abortion should be treated as murder, or to actually decreasing the rates of abortion?

As a society, we should never allow a system that kills the innocent, especially when the killing is a matter of convenience and not self-defense. It doesn't even matter how the abortion rate changes (although it should go down because you won't have things like schools busing students to abortion clinics without parents knowing and other legally sanctioned pro-abortion actions). The role of the government is to protect the innocent, not allow their murder at will.

[Night Strike]

I'm still unclear who in this thread, other than Symmetry, has called for women and/or doctors to be jailed for murder.

Every other prohibited medical procedure carries no penalty for the patient and invariably only non-criminal penalties for the provider (license revocation / suspension). I'm unclear who in this thread has advocated abortion be treated in a new and special way from other prohibited medical procedures.

I say this as a person who supports abortion rights but who believes there are more rational ways to argue in support of them than incessantly screaming "YOU WANT TO JAIL WOMEN!" over and over and over again until, apparently (I guess), everyone is hypnotized into believing it? I guess that's the strategy? Hypnotism?

How many other prohibited medical procedures involve killing an innocent life? Most just involve under the table practices like selling kidneys and such. Abortion is unique in that regard. And doctors are prosecuted if their actions result in the willful (not accidental) death of a patient.

[saxitoxin]

I'm still unclear who in this thread, other than Symmetry, has called for women and/or doctors to be jailed for murder.

Every other prohibited medical procedure carries no penalty for the patient and invariably only non-criminal penalties for the provider (license revocation / suspension). I'm unclear who in this thread has advocated abortion be treated in a new and special way from other prohibited medical procedures.

I say this as a person who supports abortion rights but who believes there are more rational ways to argue in support of them than incessantly screaming "YOU WANT TO JAIL WOMEN!" over and over and over again until, apparently (I guess), everyone is hypnotized into believing it? I guess that's the strategy? Hypnotism?

How many other prohibited medical procedures involve killing an innocent life? Most just involve under the table practices like selling kidneys and such. Abortion is unique in that regard. And doctors are prosecuted if their actions result in the willful (not accidental) death of a patient.

I take it back, I guess Symmetry was right.

Apologies, Symmetry.

[Symmetry]

I'm still unclear who in this thread, other than Symmetry, has called for women and/or doctors to be jailed for murder.

Every other prohibited medical procedure carries no penalty for the patient and invariably only non-criminal penalties for the provider (license revocation / suspension). I'm unclear who in this thread has advocated abortion be treated in a new and special way from other prohibited medical procedures.

I say this as a person who supports abortion rights but who believes there are more rational ways to argue in support of them than incessantly screaming "YOU WANT TO JAIL WOMEN!" over and over and over again until, apparently (I guess), everyone is hypnotized into believing it? I guess that's the strategy? Hypnotism?

How many other prohibited medical procedures involve killing an innocent life? Most just involve under the table practices like selling kidneys and such. Abortion is unique in that regard. And doctors are prosecuted if their actions result in the willful (not accidental) death of a patient.

I take it back, I guess Symmetry was right.

Apologies, Symmetry.

It's been known to happen sometimes.

[comic boy]

I guess, to put it simply, are you more wedded to the idea that abortion should be treated as murder, or to actually decreasing the rates of abortion?

As a society, we should never allow a system that kills the innocent, especially when the killing is a matter of convenience and not self-defense. It doesn't even matter how the abortion rate changes (although it should go down because you won't have things like schools busing students to abortion clinics without parents knowing and other legally sanctioned pro-abortion actions). The role of the government is to protect the innocent, not allow their murder at will.

Abortion is not murder based on secular law , which in turn was driven by secular scientific opinion, any religious view is moot.

[john9blue]

why the f*ck do people pretend that science supports a pro-choice stance?

i derive all my political views from science and i'm pro-life.

fetuses can feel pain and have a future like ours. those are facts. SECULAR facts.

[Night Strike]

I guess, to put it simply, are you more wedded to the idea that abortion should be treated as murder, or to actually decreasing the rates of abortion?

As a society, we should never allow a system that kills the innocent, especially when the killing is a matter of convenience and not self-defense. It doesn't even matter how the abortion rate changes (although it should go down because you won't have things like schools busing students to abortion clinics without parents knowing and other legally sanctioned pro-abortion actions). The role of the government is to protect the innocent, not allow their murder at will.

Abortion is not murder based on secular law , which in turn was driven by secular scientific opinion, any religious view is moot.

It's based on an opinion of an arbitrary line of where live begins or doesn't begin, not by secular science. I don't think I have ever relied on a religious argument as a justification for why abortion is wrong (although they do exist). Life begins at conception based on the scientific fact that a new set of DNA that is completely different than the mother's set of DNA exists and should not be artificially terminated. However, I do think that the law should actually just apply to the point after implantation, which would actually allow for things like Plan B to exist, because the new human cannot survive without being implanted in the womb.

[Haggis_McMutton]

why the f*ck do people pretend that science supports a pro-choice stance?

i derive all my political views from science and i'm pro-life.

fetuses can feel pain and have a future like ours. those are facts. SECULAR facts.

feel pain + non-zero probability of becoming a person != is a person

also, do you believe abortion should be illegal immediately after conception (i.e. morning after pill is out)?

[pmchugh]

Life obviously begins at the cortical reaction. Belief of anything different is immoral and ignorant. You're all fools.

+1

First off, anyone pretending that abortions are not killings is lying to themselves. They may not be murder, but you are certainly killing a living being.

Now this is not always a bad thing (I wouldn't care if you killed a fly for example) but it certainly isn't morally white. I imagine that 6 nines of near abortees who are alive would tell you they were glad they didn't get aborted. It's up to us to decide what constitutes a living human being, but I would certainly argue that it happens before birth.

Personally I think that adoption sits far better on a moral compass than abortion.

I don't suggest locking up people for performing abortions but I personally would not be happy to have my unwanted child aborted.

[Symmetry]

Life obviously begins at the cortical reaction. Belief of anything different is immoral and ignorant. You're all fools.

+1

First off, anyone pretending that abortions are not killings is lying to themselves. They may not be murder, but you are certainly killing a living being against its will.

Now this is not always a bad thing (I wouldn't care if you killed a fly for example) but it certainly isn't morally white. I imagine that 6 nines of near abortees who are alive would tell you they were glad they didn't get aborted. It's up to us to decide what constitutes a living human being, but I would certainly argue that it happens before birth.

Personally I think that adoption sits far better on a moral compass than abortion.

I don't suggest locking up people for performing abortions but I personally would not be happy to have my unwanted child aborted.

Hmm, I guess first off, I call BS on your first off. I don't think a bunch of cells have a will. They might eventually develop into a person who has a will, but when a sperm meets an egg, it doesn't immediately develop a personal philosophy. So yeah, BS on that point, sorry.

On your other points, I think most pro-choicers would largely agree. Indeed, most abortion providers heavily promote other options. Sadly, the pro-life pols seem to want that kind of advice shut down and promote a conservative culture of irresponsibility where abortion should be illegal, criminal, just as common, and lethal to women as long as they don't have to take responsibility for the practical results of their arguments.

[Symmetry]

why the f*ck do people pretend that science supports a pro-choice stance?

i derive all my political views from science and i'm pro-life.

fetuses can feel pain and have a future like ours. those are facts. SECULAR facts.

Silliness, fetuses might well feel pain, but not all abortions are at the fetal level. Indeed the vast majority are not. Presumably, given that your views are drawn from science, you would be ok with abortions performed before the fetal stage- i.e. most of them?

[saxitoxin]

Silliness, fetuses might well feel pain, but not all abortions are at the fetal level. Indeed the vast majority are not. Presumably, given that your views are drawn from science, you would be ok with abortions performed before the fetal stage- i.e. most of them?

Are you saying you'd be okay with a ban on abortions after the embryonic stage (week 10)?

For the record, I think women should be able to terminate their pregnancy up until 60 seconds before they give birth. Abortion is definitely immoral killing but society has already established that preservation of life doesn't trump the right to bodily integrity -- I can't be compelled to donate a kidney to someone who would die without it.

[Symmetry]

Silliness, fetuses might well feel pain, but not all abortions are at the fetal level. Indeed the vast majority are not. Presumably, given that your views are drawn from science, you would be ok with abortions performed before the fetal stage- i.e. most of them?

Are you saying you'd be okay with a ban on abortions after the embryonic stage (week 10)?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Almost the opposite in fact, given that I was solely arguing that most abortions occur well before the scientific definition of a fetus.

[saxitoxin]

Silliness, fetuses might well feel pain, but not all abortions are at the fetal level. Indeed the vast majority are not. Presumably, given that your views are drawn from science, you would be ok with abortions performed before the fetal stage- i.e. most of them?

Are you saying you'd be okay with a ban on abortions after the embryonic stage (week 10)?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Almost the opposite in fact, given that I was solely arguing that most abortions occur well before the scientific definition of a fetus.

Is there a limit you'd place on abortion? Should a woman have an abortion the day before her due date?

[john9blue]

why the f*ck do people pretend that science supports a pro-choice stance?

i derive all my political views from science and i'm pro-life.

fetuses can feel pain and have a future like ours. those are facts. SECULAR facts.

Silliness, fetuses might well feel pain, but not all abortions are at the fetal level. Indeed the vast majority are not. Presumably, given that your views are drawn from science, you would be ok with abortions performed before the fetal stage- i.e. most of them?

are you referring to miscarriages or induced abortions?

my talks with player have taught me to ask this question right off the bat

[Symmetry]

why the f*ck do people pretend that science supports a pro-choice stance?

i derive all my political views from science and i'm pro-life.

fetuses can feel pain and have a future like ours. those are facts. SECULAR facts.

Silliness, fetuses might well feel pain, but not all abortions are at the fetal level. Indeed the vast majority are not. Presumably, given that your views are drawn from science, you would be ok with abortions performed before the fetal stage- i.e. most of them?

are you referring to miscarriages or induced abortions?

my talks with player have taught me to ask this question right off the bat

Abortions that don't involve fetuses. Induced.

[BigBallinStalin]

Silliness, fetuses might well feel pain, but not all abortions are at the fetal level. Indeed the vast majority are not. Presumably, given that your views are drawn from science, you would be ok with abortions performed before the fetal stage- i.e. most of them?

Are you saying you'd be okay with a ban on abortions after the embryonic stage (week 10)?

For the record, I think women should be able to terminate their pregnancy up until 60 seconds before they give birth. Abortion is definitely immoral killing but society has already established that preservation of life doesn't trump the right to bodily integrity -- I can't be compelled to donate a kidney to someone who would die without it.

I've been wanting two penises, but I can't seem to find any donors. Saxi, will you?

[saxitoxin]

Silliness, fetuses might well feel pain, but not all abortions are at the fetal level. Indeed the vast majority are not. Presumably, given that your views are drawn from science, you would be ok with abortions performed before the fetal stage- i.e. most of them?

Are you saying you'd be okay with a ban on abortions after the embryonic stage (week 10)?

For the record, I think women should be able to terminate their pregnancy up until 60 seconds before they give birth. Abortion is definitely immoral killing but society has already established that preservation of life doesn't trump the right to bodily integrity -- I can't be compelled to donate a kidney to someone who would die without it.

I've been wanting two penises, but I can't seem to find any donors. Saxi, will you?

No, I need all three of mine.

[kentington]

I believe that intentionally killing humans is murder.
Thus I accept Symmetry's response: Then you will have women endangering themselves and the baby when they take matters into their own hands. (my words, but I don't think I am mangling anything here)

My response to that is: They are already going to kill the baby. If they are committing murder and intentionally killing an innocent life, then I am not going to worry about their life. Callous? I think removing a baby from the womb and ending its life is callous. I think that injecting something into the baby to kill it is callous.

I don't think there should be any punishment for those who have acted while abortion is legal. If you made it illegal it would be any act carried out after that point which would be punishable.

BVP, Saxi - I abstained until 21. I like a challenge.