Abortion

[Individualist]

What do you all think about abortion? What right do people have to prevent a woman from killing her unborn child? Does an unborn child have a right not to be killed?

[Jnthn]

The irony that a self-identified "libertarian" does not extend the fundamental liberty of life to the unborn is not lost on me.

J

[Darth Executor]

The same right people have to prevent a robber from killing a gas station attendant.

[Raphael]

What do you all think about abortion?

It is taking a human life and therefore wrong.

What right do people have to prevent a woman from killing her unborn child?

As Darthie said, the same rights that we have of preventing any other murder.

Does an unborn child have a right not to be killed?

As much right as you have to not be murdered.

[cberman]

To reinterpret DE's post, people have the same right to abort a fetus that may cause harm to the mother as people have the right to prevent a robber from causing harm to a gas station attendant.

[Raphael]

To reinterpret DE's post, people have the same right to abort a fetus that may cause harm to the mother as people have the right to prevent a robber from causing harm to a gas station attendant.

The only time a situation like that would ever be justifiable is if the baby definitely will not survive, and the mother's life is also in danger (e.g. Ectopic Pregnancy).

Otherwise, abortion is murder done in the name of convenience.

[cberman]

The only time a situation like that would ever be justifiable is if the baby definitely will not survive, and the mother's life is also in danger (e.g. Ectopic Pregnancy).

Otherwise, abortion is murder done in the name of convenience.

I disagree. If the mother's life is endangered by the child, I think the mother's life (which is guaranteed) takes precedence over the life of the fetus.

Of course, if the mother chooses to die so that the fetus can be born, that's her own decision. But I see no reason to conclude that it is morally wrong for the mother to choose her own life over a fetus.

[Darth Executor]

cberman is a notorious sociopath around here. If you don't mind throwing up, read his crap in this thread:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=135210

[cberman]

Alternatively, I'm a twenty-year-old ministerial student interested in philosophy who plans to live a life of service, who comes from a somewhat different perspective on matters of the politics and ethics of abortion than others.

[Darth Executor]

your position is standard liberal drivel, except even most liberals wouldn't take time out of their busy schedule to defend the legality of strangling a born baby.

[cberman]

In that particular topic, I completely agree with you. It is not moral to strangle a born baby. It should not be legal to strangle a born baby. I was simply presenting the viewpoint of others who approach the topic differently than we do.

I do, however, think there are situations in which abortion is justified. It's a topic worth discussing. It's a very difficult issue. I don't think name-calling or insults will help.

[Dee Dee Warren]

What is Darth on about? Is he upset with you because you advocate that if the mother would die if the pregnancy is brought to term then abortion is justifiable?

That is a standard pro-life position. One which I hold, and I believe all of forum management holds as well. It is a small minority who would require the mother to die.

[Darth Executor]

What is Darth on about?Is he upset with you because you advocate that if the mother would die if the pregnancy is brought to term then abortion is justifiable?

First, that's not what he advocated. If you read his post carefully, he thinks people have the right to kill a fetus that MAY cause harm to the mother. Any fetus "may" cause harm to the mother, so his post is a standard pro choice position that since a fetus "may" cause harm to the mother, it's ok for people to kill it.

Second, he claims he "reinterpreted" my post, which in turn implies the above piece of crap ideology was somehow found in my post. I hope you don't need to figure out why that would "upset" me.

[Raphael]

To clarify, if it is a choice between the mother dying or choosing abortion, well if the mother dies, than in all likelihood the baby will die as well, If the baby is at the point of being able to survive outside of the womb, then the best option would be an emergency c-section.

I am however very wary of this: that may cause harm to the mother because it has been used here in New Zealand (where abortion has to be justified) to effectively grant abortion on demand.

Wording is very important, and the definition of "harm" can be stretched to it causing an interference with the mother's social life etc.

If it's abortion or the mother will die, then sadly abortion is the lesser of two evils, because one option will result in two deaths, and the other in one death.

[cberman]

First, that's not what he advocated. If you read his post carefully, he thinks people have the right to kill a fetus that MAY cause harm to the mother. Any fetus "may" cause harm to the mother, so his post is a standard pro choice position that since a fetus "may" cause harm to the mother, it's ok for people to kill it.

That's not at all what I said. Of course every pregnancy carries with it a degree of risk. I'm talking about very particular circumstances, where it looks very likely that, if a fetus is carried to term, the mother will die. In those circumstances, I think the woman is justified in aborting the fetus to protect her own life.

Second, he claims he "reinterpreted" my post, which in turn implies the above piece of crap ideology was somehow found in my post. I hope you don't need to figure out why that would "upset" me.

An interpretation is something that one person places upon another. Your original post was ambiguous enough to uphold my interpretation. To be honest, I wasn't sure what position you held, and your analogy was more than sufficient to support my interpretation, so I went with it.

No offense was meant.