Is pro-choice a rational position?

[betsy]

That is part of the argument about abortion.

Women were having back alley abortions when it was illegal.

Slavery is one of the few things everybody on this site agrees it is wrong and is illegal but it still exists.

ww.freetheslaves.net/about-slavery/slavery-today/

so even when "same-minded people sitting in power,and popular ideology of the time" exists you can't stop when people want somethig.

It's a silly argument! Women were having back alley abortions when it was illegal.

Rpists are still raping even though rape is illegal!

Illegal, is not the same as legal.

There is a penalty for committing an illegal act.

Same-minded people sitting in power, and popular ideology of the time....can make it possible for the laws to be changed.

Edited August 6, 2016 by betsy

[Ash74]

It's a silly argument! Women were having back alley abortions when it was illegal.

Rpists are still raping even though rape is illegal!

Illegal, is not the same as legal.

There is a penalty for committing an illegal act.

Same-minded people sitting in power, and popular ideology of the time....can make it possible for the laws to be changed.

So popular opinion is not on your side on this and neither is science (at least the ones not being funded by a church)

http://globalnews.ca/news/2535846/6-in-10-canadians-support-abortion-under-any-circumstances-ipsos-poll/

Those are some heavy one sided numbers your up against.

[betsy]

So popular opinion is not on your side on this and neither is science (at least the ones not being funded by a church)

http://globalnews.ca/news/2535846/6-in-10-canadians-support-abortion-under-any-circumstances-ipsos-poll/

Those are some heavy one sided numbers your up against.

Of course science is on my side. Refer to the OP.

Take it, or leave it.

I guess we're done here since you aren't really giving anything new. You're just repeating your baseless opinion.

[Guest]

Slavery is one of the few things everybody on this site agrees it is wrong and is illegal but it still exists.

Apparently, the divine being who inspired the bible didn't agree that slavery was wrong. Omnipotence, ain't what it used to be...I blame those damn liberals and their teachin' of critical thinkn'. Oh and Obama of course.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Guest

[betsy]

Apparently, the divine being who inspired the bible didn't agree that slavery was wrong. Omnipotence, ain't what it used to be...I blame those damn liberals and their teachin' of critical thinkn'. Oh and Obama of course.

Stick to the topic please.

This thread is about abortion, and it's meant to focus on secular arguments/rebuttals.

If you want to discuss slavery in the Bible and the God who inspired it, create your own thread.

Edited August 7, 2016 by betsy

[dre]

Stick to the topic please.

This thread is about abortion, and it's meant to focus on secular arguments/rebuttals.

If you want to discuss slavery in the Bible and the God who inspired it, create your own thread.

I don't think anybody really likes abortion, but most believe its a choice that should be made by a woman and her doctor.

We should try to minimize it by encouraging contraception, and with sexual education. But the ironic thing is that you and your fellow Abrahamites protest THOSE things too. And by opposing those things, sky god cultists like yourself actually cause MORE abortions!. Talk about hypocritical.

Having a child at the wrong time can ruin the life of the mother, and almost guarantee a crappy life for the child. At the end of the day its just none of your god damn business what other women do with their bodies, and its not mine either. If you don't like abortion then don't have one. If you don't like contraception (which also kills the basic building blocks of human life) then don't use. Have a kid every time you have sex or don't fvck at all.

[Ash74]

Of course science is on my side. Refer to the OP.

Take it, or leave it.

I guess we're done here since you aren't really giving anything new. You're just repeating your baseless opinion.

Made the choice to leave it.

That is my right.

Just like it is a woman's right to choose

I have read the OP and yes it is like reading gun facts from the NRA so I have to say it is a little biased.

Popular decisions may very change laws but none of us know the future.

Take for example how well prohibition worked out.

[betsy]

I don't think anybody really likes abortion, but most believe its a choice that should be made by a woman and her doctor.

We should try to minimize it by encouraging contraception, and with sexual education. But the ironic thing is that you and your fellow Abrahamites protest THOSE things too. And by opposing those things, sky god cultists like yourself actually cause MORE abortions!. Talk about hypocritical.

Having a child at the wrong time can ruin the life of the mother, and almost guarantee a crappy life for the child. At the end of the day its just none of your god damn business what other women do with their bodies, and its not mine either. If you don't like abortion then don't have one. If you don't like contraception (which also kills the basic building blocks of human life) then don't use. Have a kid every time you have sex or don't fvck at all.

You're ignorant of this subject.

You have not followed the conversation, and therefore you are unaware that there are atheist and humanist groups too, that are pro-life. They have their own reasons for being pro-life........ SECULAR arguments that they invoke for being pro-life.

Dre, this is a thread that uses secular arguments. I can see you've got no rational ammunitions - you're desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel.

You can mock religion and God all you want, but it doesn't change the glaring fact that you're being ignorant, and you're simply ranting. Your post is irrelevant. You're simply bringing out the same -old arguments that were dealt with already.

You're redundant. All those so-called justifications you'd given, have already been dismissed.....and it's been explained, why.

If you truly understand what the pro-life essential argument, is....then, provide some rational counter.

What I find amusing is that in the end, pro-choice like yourself, inevitably turn to and point to religion since obviously.....you cannot defend your position with secular arguments!

If a religious like me can support my pro-life stance without invoking religion - you of all people, should be able to do the same! After all you're non-religious!

Secular argument should be to you what water is to fish! And yet, you can't even swim in your own muck!

You guys keep invoking religion!

Mind you it did occur to me that perhaps you don't know what secular is.

Just in case the definition of secular is lost to some of you......

SECULAR - (merriam)

• not spiritual : of or relating to the physical world and not the spiritual world

• : not religious

How can you guys be taken seriously?

Edited August 7, 2016 by betsy

[Peter F]

Cybercoma said, not 6 posts up the page,

I made a post pages ago about people, whether born or not, having absolutely no right to the use of another person's body medically or otherwise. It went unanswered because there is no rational defence of a position that holds someone's body hostage to the medical needs of another person. This makes anti-abortion positions an unethical violation of bodily autonomy.

And you, Betsy, are claiming that is not a secular argument?

What I find amusing is that in the end, pro-choice like yourself, inevitably turn to and point to religion since obviously.....you cannot defend your position with secular arguments!

You truly are willfully blind.

[betsy]

Cybercoma said, not 6 posts up the page,

And you, Betsy, are claiming that is not a secular argument?

You truly are willfully blind.

It's been rebutted!

It's you who's being wilfully blind. Here's Cyber's dysfunctional attempt at argument:

....having absolutely no right to the use of another person's body medically or otherwise.

What's "medically" about this? You're totally ignoring the right of another human being who never had a choice about the whole thing!

The woman has made her choice. Her pregnancy is the result of her own choice. Her right ends where it steps on the baby's right!

You and Cyber share the same dysfunctional thinking.

Edited August 7, 2016 by betsy

[Peter F]

Was Cybercomma's argument a secular argument or not?

[betsy]

Was Cybercomma's argument a secular argument or not?

It's a dysfunctional secular argument.....and it's been rebutted already.

He probably doesn't even realize that it's been rebutted.

Btw....

Why didn't you include this part when you quoted him?

Cybercoma

Betsy is unconvincable. It's not even worth discussing things with someone who holds dogmatic faith-based beliefs that defy logic.

I made a post pages ago about people, whether born or not, having absolutely no right to the use of another person's body medically or otherwise.

See? He's bringing in religion in his argument. He cannot even discern what's secular or not!

More like it was a fluke that he managed to give a secular argument!

That goes for you, too....since you held his post as a model.

Edited August 7, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Don't even think that that's all there is to this. Some folks have already started throwing ideas around....and it could very well be the next phase.

Killing babies no different from abortion, experts say

Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are “morally irrelevant” and ending their lives is no different to abortion, a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University has argued.

The article, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, says newborn babies are not “actual persons” and do not have a “moral right to life.” The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Edited August 7, 2016 by betsy

[Peter F]

Betsy you are the one making the religious argument. Cybercoma, amongst others, was pointing that out.

I most certainly do hold Cybercoma's argument as a model. A very good argument it is. I must admit that I never thought about Cybercoma's argument prior to becoming a convinced pro-abortionist.

The argument that convinced me is this: No state or citizen should have the legal right to compel a woman to remain pregnant and bear children when those women do not wish to do so. We recognize that no one can or should compel a woman to become pregnant against her will. We recognize that no one can or should compel a woman to end her pregnancy against her will. Why must they now remain pregnant against her will? According to me : We shouldn't. The woman's right to have some control over her own physical state is paramount over any supposed right of the unborn.

The unborn have no rights and they never have had rights. The unborn do not exist as human beings. They are, at the very most, potential human beings assuming the pregnancy is successfully carried to term. Then and only then do they become human beings. Up until that point the fetus/baby is part and parcel of mom and in no ways can be considered a separate being from mom.

Your concept of a human being originating at conception is religious - purely and completely.

[WestCoastRunner]

Don't even think that that's all there is to this. Some folks have already started throwing ideas around....and it could very well be the next phase.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html

Betsy. This was written as part of their thesis. They are philosophers. This idea was widely rejected and was not taken seriously by anyone.

In fact they never suggested for this practice to become legal. You should research your sources.it took me all of 5 minutes. You keep tripping up all over yourself.

http://www.snopes.com/after-birth-abortion/

[betsy]

Betsy you are the one making the religious argument. Cybercoma, amongst others, was pointing that out.

I most certainly do hold Cybercoma's argument as a model. A very good argument it is. I must admit that I never thought about Cybercoma's argument prior to becoming a convinced pro-abortionist.

The argument that convinced me is this: No state or citizen should have the legal right to compel a woman to remain pregnant and bear children when those women do not wish to do so. We recognize that no one can or should compel a woman to become pregnant against her will. We recognize that no one can or should compel a woman to end her pregnancy against her will. Why must they now remain pregnant against her will? According to me : We shouldn't. The woman's right to have some control over her own physical state is paramount over any supposed right of the unborn.

The unborn have no rights and they never have had rights. The unborn do not exist as human beings. They are, at the very most, potential human beings assuming the pregnancy is successfully carried to term. Then and only then do they become human beings. Up until that point the fetus/baby is part and parcel of mom and in no ways can be considered a separate being from mom.

Your concept of a human being originating at conception is religious - purely and completely.

Peter, you better read the OP, along with the articles provided. If you've already did read them, read them again.

Obviously you didn't get them. The basis for my argument is there (which everyone seems to choose to ignore).

As for your opinion, you're entitled to them. If you think that a woman should be licensed to murder her unborn child at whim.....that's your opinion. I personally think that's psychopatic, but that's my opinion.

Edited August 8, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy. This was written as part of their thesis. They are philosophers. This idea was widely rejected and was not taken seriously by anyone.

In fact they never suggested for this practice to become legal. You should research your sources.it took me all of 5 minutes. You keep tripping up all over yourself.

http://www.snopes.com/after-birth-abortion/

Who's saying that? I didn't say they're fighting to make it legal.

What makes you think I didn't read it?

Yeah it took you 5 minutes to read the whole article.....

.....but too bad, you didn't read well enough to understand something as simple as this:

Some folks have already started throwing ideas around.....

Your post is irrelevant!

Edited August 8, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

The unborn have no rights and they never have had rights. The unborn do not exist as human beings. They are, at the very most, potential human beings assuming the pregnancy is successfully carried to term. Then and only then do they become human beings. Up until that point the fetus/baby is part and parcel of mom and in no ways can be considered a separate being from mom.

Your concept of a human being originating at conception is religious - purely and completely.

My argument diverges with you here. I hold that it doesn't matter if the fetus is human or not. Even an adult has no right to the use of someone else's body to stay alive, Even if the woman is the cause of that person's predicament. Say a woman gets drunk and drives. She causes an accident and critically injured someone. He will die if she does not give him her kidney. The state cannot and does not force her to give her kidney. They cannot violate her bodily autonomy. We don't harvest organs against people's will. Extending this to pregnancy imagine losing bodily autonomy for 9 months then being forced to care for the person for another 18 years, all against your will. It's completely unethical.

Anyway, my argument is that it doesn't matter if you confer rights to the fetus or not. Nobody has the right to another person's body to keep themselves alive.

Edited August 8, 2016 by cybercoma

[Smeelious]

Peter, you better read the OP, along with the articles provided. If you've already did read them, read them again.

Obviously you didn't get them. The basis for my argument is there (which everyone seems to choose to ignore).

Life beginning at conception has no bearing on the argument you highlighted in Peter's post.

[cybercoma]

Peter, you better read the OP, along with the articles provided. If you've already did read them, read them again.

Obviously you didn't get them. The basis for my argument is there (which everyone seems to choose to ignore).

As for your opinion, you're entitled to them. If you think that a woman should be licensed to murder her unborn child at whim.....that's your opinion. I personally think that's psychopatic, but that's my opinion.

No one's ignoring your arguments. We've just thoroughly refuted them but in typical Betsy fashioned you're sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting, "LA LA LA!"

[betsy]

My argument diverges with you here. I hold that it doesn't matter if the fetus is human or not. Even an adult has no right to the use of someone else's body to stay alive, Even if the woman is the cause of that person's predicament. Say a woman gets drunk and drives. She causes an accident and critically injured someone. He will die if she does not give him her kidney. The state cannot and does not force her to give her kidney. They cannot violate her bodily autonomy. We don't harvest organs against people's will. Extending this to pregnancy imagine losing bodily autonomy for 9 months then being forced to care for the person for another 18 years, all against your will. It's completely unethical.

Anyway, my argument is that it doesn't matter if you confer rights to the fetus or not. Nobody has the right to another person's body to keep themselves alive.

First of all, the fetus is not an organ. The fetus is another human being.

Second, the fetus was created by the woman herself. The woman had made the choice to risk pregnancy the moment she decided to have sex. You may not believe it....but pregnancy is indeed a big possibility when you have unprotected sex.

Third, while the driver who died in your analogy has had the choice whether he'll get in the car or not, the fetus has no choice at all whether he wants to be created or not. So....that's a very poor analogy.

For someone who's pro-choice, it seems you hardly have any grasp about what choice is, and what constitutes choice.

Fourth, the woman is not forced to be responsible for the baby for 18 years. She's got the choice to give him up for adoption should she decide that she didn't want to keep him at all.

Your attempt at justifications are dysfunctional.

Edited August 8, 2016 by betsy

[WestCoastRunner]

Who's saying that? I didn't say they're fighting to make it legal.

What makes you think I didn't read it?

Yeah it took you 5 minutes to read the whole article.....

.....but too bad, you didn't read well enough to understand something as simple as this:

Some folks have already started throwing ideas around.....

I didn't mean your article. I meant the article the points out their ideas were taken completely out of context. Read the link i provided.

They are philosophers not policy makers.

Your post is irrelevant!

[dre]

Dre, this is a thread that uses secular arguments. I can see you've got no rational ammunitions - you're desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I did, as usual you just completely ignored them.

I made three rational arguments...

1. Other women's reproductive decisions are simply none of your business.

2. A women has complete DEFACTO control over her own body and all the processes that are part of it. If she wants to cut her leg off that's her choice. If she wants to end a pregnancy she can - no matter what the law says. It would even be legal for her to commit suicide.

3. These are personal decisions that need to be made on a case by case basis. By expressing your desire for some kind of ban, what you are really doing is saying that politicians that probably live thousands of miles away and knows absolutely nothing about the case - instead of the women and her family, and her doctor making reproductive decisions.

I also made it clear that conservative Christians cause MORE abortions to happen by opposing contraception, and sexual education. So give yourself a big pat on the back for extra dead "babies".

Edited August 8, 2016 by dre

[The_Squid]

Second, the fetus was created by the woman herself. The woman had made the choice to risk pregnancy the moment she decided to have sex. You may not believe it....but pregnancy is indeed a big possibility when you have unprotected sex.

So are you OK with abortions when there is rape and/or incest?

[betsy]

Blah-blah-blah....

You're all just regurgitating your worn-out dysfunctional arguments!

Bye for now, folks........