panda100 wrote: » So while I think abortion is fundamentaly wrong I think If there was a referendum on it tommorow I would probably vote to legalise abortion beacuse I would rather women have their abortions here then travelling overseas. What are the boardies thoughts?
Thaedydal wrote: » Why say pro life ? Why not say anti abortion ?
Thaedydal wrote: » Pro life is a loaded term for a lot of people due the fact that people who state they are that tend to be religious, anti contraception, anti sex before marriage and are bigoted in a lot of ways.
Rosita wrote: » I agree with you. They should say anti-abortion. In the same way that the others should be honest and say pro-abortion. That kind of unspeak is sickening.
Rosita wrote: » Other than that I find the nature of your views quite scary.
Rosita wrote: » I assume you will proof this one yourself?
The_Minister wrote: » Or, in a less inflamatory way it's a "We know that you don't think it has rights or life, but we think it does, and you can't just kill it or pull it out like a rotten tooth" movement. Liberalism is great, but if there is a disagreement about who human rights apply to (be it black people and slavery or foeti (?) and abortion) then you can't just say "oh its none of your business". If someone truely believes that a foetus is a baby, and then lets abortion be legal without question, then they are just like the Germans who kept quiet during the Holocaust (in that there was a dispute over humanity and they didn't make any noise). The it's none of your beeswax doesn't apply to abortion, because your asking people to stand by and let what amounts to murder (in their eyes) be committed, and no decent person will do that. NOTE: I don't believe abortion = murder, I just think that pretending that objecting to abortion is the same as objecting say, pornography, is childish. If people look at a foetus and see human life, then they have a duty to object to its destruction.
Thaedydal wrote: » I understand that JimiTime, I honestly do but what I don't is the lying about cancer, depression and abortion stastics.
Or is it ok to leave morals aside and lie and scare monger people about abortion ?
What else is it ok to leave morals aside for to prevent women from having abortions ? To imprison them ?
To shoot drs who preform them ?
To blow up clinics ?
Thaedydal wrote: » I am not pro abortion.
Rosita wrote: » So you support the continued outlawing of it in this country? This is a situation where human life is ended so people are either pro or anti, nothwithstanding their semantic gymnastics on the matter - there is no middle ground.
Rosita wrote: » So you support the continued outlawing of it in this country?
Rosita wrote: » This is a situation where human life is ended so people are either pro or anti, nothwithstanding their semantic gymnastics on the matter - there is no middle ground.
JC 2K3 wrote: » There's no moral middle ground, there is however a thing called tolerance which, in this imperfect world, is necessary for peace and harmony. I mean it might be sad and so terribly wrong in your opinion that people are having abortions, but think of the bigger picture and all of the wrongs in the world that you passively tolerate, probably unthinkingly, on a daily basis, and you'll realise that the deaths of a few unborn children are hugely insignificant compared to the suffering that exists in the world today. Despite the fact that you oppose abortion, is it really such a big deal for it to be legal? The abortions would most likely have happened anyway. So while they might be something you're deeply against, keeping them illegal isn't going to stop them happening.
Thaedydal wrote: » No, but with restrictions.
Rosita wrote: » I never said I opposed abortion. I just challenged some of the spurious arguments put up, some of which are exemplified by yourself. Would you agree with legalising murder on the basis that it'll "most likely happen" anyway? Would you agree with legalising murder on the grounds that while there is no moral middle ground, we must show "tolerance" of murderers in the interests of "peace and harmony"? Should Hitler have been shown "tolerance" even though there was no moral middle ground in relation to extermination camps? Would you agee with gunning down five people at a bus-stop on the grounds that there's loads of people suffering in Africa and in that context that number of death are "hugely insignificant"? Dou you think all laws should be chuck in the bin and a Hobbesian society allowed to develop in the area of all currently illegal acts, on the basis "keeping them illegal isn't going to stop them happening".
Rosita wrote: » Would you agree with legalising murder on the basis that it'll "most likely happen" anyway? Would you agree with legalising murder on the grounds that while there is no moral middle ground, we must show "tolerance" of murderers in the interests of "peace and harmony"?
Rosita wrote: » Should Hitler have been shown "tolerance" even though there was no moral middle ground in relation to extermination camps?
Rosita wrote: » Dou you think all laws should be chuck in the bin and a Hobbesian society allowed to develop in the area of all currently illegal acts, on the basis "keeping them illegal isn't going to stop them happening".
JC 2K3 wrote: » 1) No, because murder is axiomatically wrong, it's a cornerstone of our society. In fact, the whole abortion debate originates in this axiom. And he was for a good 4/5 years with the Allies' appeasement policy, but aside from that, Nazi Germany was a huge exception to the normal order of the world. All laws? No. Many laws? Yes. Abortion, prostitution, drugs etc.should all be legal IMO.
Thaedydal wrote: » This style of debate is more suited to the humanities forum.
Zaph wrote: » When the conversation starts turning into a debate that includes Hitler and the Nazis I am inclined to agree. Moved from The Ladies Lounge
Rosita wrote: » What restrictions? And how would those restrictions be policed and abortion be prevented from becoming de facto legalised on the slippery slope principle?
Rosita wrote: » I'm not sure this was necessary. It was hardly a major debate in the Nazis. It was simply brought up in a couple of posts alongside drink-driving, murder etc. in order to highlight inconsistencies on moral issues, which for many abortion is.
Rosita wrote: » 1) Then I presume you would acknowledge the weakness of your "tolerance" argument for those who believe that abortion too is axiomatically wrong?
Rosita wrote: » 2) Discussion of where the Nazis fit in the history book is a different matter. I simply asked if your idea that tolerance in the face of moral wrong-doing is ok in that situation, in order to show that you are far more inconsistent that your initial comments suggest. On an aside - it is ahistorical to confuse 1930s appeasement policies with my question about extermination camps which came much later.
Rosita wrote: » 3) On what basis do you think abortion should be made legal? You have implicitly eliminated 'choice' as an argument already as you accept that there needs to be laws without regard for what people might like to do and which impinge on choice, so what would your key arguments be?
Thaedydal wrote: » I would have no qualms about medical abortion via the abortion pill being available under prescription here.
JC 2K3 wrote: » 1) Believing abortion to be axiomatically wrong would be an odd moral position. I would have presumed most anti-abortion folk would be opposed to abortion becaue they think it's murder, rather than it being an entirely different moral wrong. And, to clarify, what I mean by "axiomatically wrong" is that it is something that is generally accepted as universally wrong. Murder is, abortion is not. 2) Well my key argument would be that there's nothing wrong with killing foetuses because I don't believe they're people. 3) At the end of the day, however, it comes down to democracy. Many people, myself included, think abortion is perfectly fine, or at least support its legalisation, and I suppose that is what it comes down to really. Respect for the beliefs and choices of others in relation to what is such an insignificant wrongdoing(in their eyes) would be my appeal to the anti-abortion crowd as well as the undecided to support its legalisation.
Rosita wrote: » 1) I am not sure about your axiomatic definitions. Plenty of people are perfectly happy to commit murder without moral qualm.
Rosita wrote: » 2) If they are not people what are they?
Rosita wrote: » 3) But the corollary of this is that a hit-man should legally entitled to kill people on the basis that he considers (presumably) it an insignificant wrong-doing. This is just whatever you are having yourself libertarianism which - when you strip away the superficial attraction and tolerance - tends to be deeply flawed and inconsistent.
JC 2K3 wrote: » 1) Yes, but I said "generally universally accepted". Society functions better and people feel more secure when moral deviants are deterred by laws. 2) Humans at such an early stage of development that the philosophical label of "personhood" and the societal protection and human rights that come with it do not apply to them. 3) The difference being, the death of a member of one's society is significant, whereas abortion has no negative impact on society.
Rosita wrote: » 1) Who decides who moral deviants are?
Rosita wrote: » 2) You have not answered the question. I asked you what they are, you are telling me what they are not.
Rosita wrote: » 3) Well that is, as the man said, an unknown unknown isn't it? We cannot measure its impact, that's all. Potentially some of the greatest contributors to the human race could have been victims of abortions.
JC 2K3 wrote: » 1) I did tell you what they were, read my post again. 2) You see, I don't see any difference between saying that or saying that potentially some of the greatest contributors to the human race could have been victims of girls refusing to have sex with me or me using a condom during sex.
