[Discussion] Is Abortion An Innate Human Right?
- Thread starter Luther
- Start date
Lightbringer
Active member
And how does that contradict what I said? lolWeird, because with this you're exactly making philosophy
Whether consciousness is tied to the brain is not up for debate. What the relation is is another story. (A reductionist will say it is merely a byproduct of our senses while a dualist interactionist will mantain that consciousness uses the brain while being able to exist independantly) We're off topic though, so I'll see myself out.
You said that, unlike philosophy, science and only science deals with reality. This is not only an unscientific and unproven assumption, but also a specific philosophical worldview, namely scientism. Therefore, such a claim is self contradictory.
You also go on and say that philosophy is about metaphysical stuff, but this is heavily incorrect. There are entire branches of philosophy that completely dismiss metaphysics: scientism, materialism, rationalism and many others.
To claim that all philosophy deals with metaphysics is like to claim that all religions deal with the biblical God.
Lightbringer
Active member
When you're debating abortion using philosophy, it's metaphysical because you're not using science in this instance. People in this thread are citing things such as souls and the interpretation of free will to justify their argument.
I don't really see what's hard to understand here. That's not science.
Also, you misquoted me because in literally the first sentence I said, philosophy does not always represent reality. I never said it never does.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if I agree with you on the fact that if you debate something using philosophy you are being unscientific. Of course philosophy and science don't always agree, but it's inaccurate to say that they're opposed or mutually exclusive. For instance, there are several philosophers who ground their views on scientific evidence, and there are even philosophers of science.
As far as abortion is concerned, it's perfectly possible to argue for the validity of the pro-life position with a merely scientific approach, in the case you were claiming the opposite, without the need to bring things like soul and free will on the table.
If I misquoted you it's been my mistake, and I apologize for that, but it seems that it was your turn to misquote me, judging by your last paragraph. I've never said that science doesn't deal with reality, far from it. But if you say that science deals with facts and philosophy with theories, you are wrong. Take cosmology, for instance. Isn't it science? Of course it is. And what do you have there? A huge amount of theories and speculations, many of them borrowed by philosophy or analyzed using philosophical reasoning.
I would simply say that you move from an idealistic perspective of science and a mischaracterized conception of philosophy
Lightbringer
Active member
Well like I said in one of my previous comments. It depends on the situation.
As for abortion. Well, the arguments people gave me were unscientific in nature. I brought up the fact that abortions are only allowed before the third trimester and that consciousness doesn't develop until 5 months at the earliest.
Then all I get are responses about the soul and free will, which again, I don't care.
As for the rest of what you said, I really don't feel like going off topic. I've made my point about abortion as a right.
Pumpkin Ninja
Active member
Awards
The argument that it's her body is idiotic because if that was the case, you could use that to justify her killing a baby just days away from being born. You can't. It's not in an "innate human right", it's people stepping on the lives of others for convenience.
You can argue that there's a certain time in which the mother has the right to abort, in that case, I think it's a small window.
IMO, if the mother's life is not being threatened or if she can successfully raise the baby or find a place for it, then it is not her right to get rid of the baby.
However, I think it should remain legal because I know people are idiots and you can't stop them from trying to abort their kids and besides, if someone is the type to consider an abortion over trivial things, then they probably would be a shit parent in the first place.
You can argue that there's a certain time in which the mother has the right to abort, in that case, I think it's a small window.
IMO, if the mother's life is not being threatened or if she can successfully raise the baby or find a place for it, then it is not her right to get rid of the baby.
However, I think it should remain legal because I know people are idiots and you can't stop them from trying to abort their kids and besides, if someone is the type to consider an abortion over trivial things, then they probably would be a shit parent in the first place.
Are you allowed to remove a life support system from a relative if you cannot afford/want to provide it any longer? In most cases yes you can. Can you be forced to donate blood or any organ to another family member even if it's your father, mother, brother or wife? No. Then certainly a woman can refuse to let her body be used as a life support system or to be used by another person. Whether she should or not at that stage is another argument but yes as far as rights go it's she should have the right. It's all well and fine to preach but the only reason we even have these discussions is because it doesn't cost anything to a man's body thus rules of morality being indoctrinated by them as a tradition. That said people should be living more responsibly and take care of themselves better abortions aren't free of cost either and may lead to certain complications. So one must decide the pros or cons in the given situation. In certain conditions it would be utter selfish act and in some others it may be the most humane option.
Last edited:
Pumpkin Ninja
Active member
Awards
1. Because the dude on life support won't wake up anyways.
2. Yeah, because comparing losing an organ, to carrying a baby are the exact same.
3. We don't have these discussions because men aren't involved. That's like saying all women are pro choice, no that isn't the case, and still wouldn't be even if men had to carry a baby as well.
My point still stands, you cannot just abort a baby that is due in a few days, that IS killing a human, no way around it. The argument that it's a woman's choice because it's her body does not apply to this situation, so it's not really that great of an argument.
I agree with your overall statement though when you say it can be a completely selfish act or a humane option.
Last edited:
Depends on the case. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they can survive but are crippled and what not. Regardless of that it's the relatives that get to make the call.
I notice how you skip the blood donation part. And of course conveniently ignore that carrying a baby leave permanent physical implication the least and that pregnancy can be life threatening. One can end up losing her life not just an organ. And yep you get to decide which life saving processes are should be debated upon and which ones don't.
And not all men are against it either so? You fail to take in consideration that most the opposition comes from religious indoctrination for these women too. At the end of the day it's just forcing personal belief on another. People who call themselves Pro- life have shown utter
You must be registered for see links
over and over.That's actually completely pointless argument you are making since abortion at that stage are usually not even legal since it's risky for the mother's life too. In most cases if
You must be registered for see links
it would be only because someone is that desperate and people and law around them didn't let them do it earlier.OK. I just don't like sweeping personal moralizing over this issue since it can be very subjective.
HashiraMadara
Active member
Death penalty, Rape culture and now this:
All these have no absolute correct answer as the jaded mind of a woman can never be proven to on which side where the intentions based like the rest of the above topics e.g:
The argument that she cannot be allowed to kill a human since a days pre labor baby is a human is easily refutable by, "what is a human? As altricial creatures, a zygote, embryo or "baby" differ not as all are helpless separated by a few months meaning you cannot allow another to be aborted while another is not, seeing how neither of the mentioned can form any significance surpassing the other i.e A baby won't cry simply because it is days before labour when aborted, so why should it get a different classification from a zygote."
The argument that it's her body can be also succeed a loop of one and not anything greater than that.
So it's all a matter of subjectivity
All these have no absolute correct answer as the jaded mind of a woman can never be proven to on which side where the intentions based like the rest of the above topics e.g:
The argument that she cannot be allowed to kill a human since a days pre labor baby is a human is easily refutable by, "what is a human? As altricial creatures, a zygote, embryo or "baby" differ not as all are helpless separated by a few months meaning you cannot allow another to be aborted while another is not, seeing how neither of the mentioned can form any significance surpassing the other i.e A baby won't cry simply because it is days before labour when aborted, so why should it get a different classification from a zygote."
The argument that it's her body can be also succeed a loop of one and not anything greater than that.
So it's all a matter of subjectivity
Abortion is murder. Simply put.
What's the difference between a 5 year old child and an unborn baby? Time. At the moment of conception, all the DNA that is ever needed for creation is present in the child. Would you kill the 5 year old?
What's the difference between a 5 year old child and an unborn baby? Time. At the moment of conception, all the DNA that is ever needed for creation is present in the child. Would you kill the 5 year old?
You must be registered for see links
Lightbringer
Active member
So where do your decisions come from? Your butt or your brain? Consciousness is located in your brain.
It's a known fact at this point.
Lightbringer
Active member
Consciousness is literally defined as the state of being awake and aware of your surrounds....
I'm not sure what you're getting at here?
Sakura Michiko
Active member
Sasuke tyeezy
Active member
My morals only begin after the 1 trimester. Before that a baby is nothing but a decision to still be made. A choice on whether or not a baby will be allowed to develop. Babies can ruin people's life if they're not ready for it.