Debate Now Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

[TemplarKormac]

As was with my previous thread, there is no fancy thesis, or essay. Just a challenge to the readers to prove one way or the other whether the right to choose trumps the right to life or vise versa. To avoid being accused of bias, I will wait a bit before interjecting myself to this discussion. However, I reserve the right to enter the discussion at any point to argue from my point of view.

1. No ad hominem
2. No mention of any political party (Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, et cetera)
3. All arguments must be substantiated by citing credible and objective sources.
4. No arguments based on emotional viewpoints.
5. If there is a scientific argument for either side, site credible peer reviewed studies only.
6. Anyone who fails to back up their argument with a credible, objective, or in scientific assertions a credible study, will forfeit their point to their opponent.
7. You may use religious belief to contextualize your point, so long as it complies with rules 5 and 6
8. Attempts to derail this thread will be actively monitored and reported to forum staff.
9. This thread will be governed under Zone 1 rules.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nice format and seems eminently fair in structure.

I believe with the 75% of the citizens that we want some form of state regulation that governs abortion policies. Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Nonetheless, 34% of American believe that the laws should remain the same as they are now.

Personally, I believe in regulated abortion only in the cases of rape, incest, and life and health of the mother. I belive any child under 18 has the moral right to have a judge intercede on her behalf if her parents are forcing her against her will to have or not have an abortion.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.

It's not supposed to be. I created this thread so people could provide their diverse reasoning on the subject.

 

[Darkwind]

Abortion comes down to weighing the life of one against the life of another. A difficult judgment to weigh in on, and often with no right or wrong answer. So, that means an appeal to the emotional consideration of fairness, and morality must be brought into the conversation.

Abortion is the termination of life. Without this judgment, then the entire argument is moot. To classify that life as anything other than human is to dehumanize the entire concept of life, birth, and procreation and results in favoring one life as having a value over another. This also would render the discussion as moot because as a society, we have said that all life has value belief. To that end let's use a formula found in many legal briefs, without touching upon the statutes and laws. Why exclude them? Because the issue before us by the OP is for US to provide OUR reasoning for the case of Abortion, yea or nay.

The most fundamental aspect of a life is to survive. In fact, we have found ways to codify these beliefs in many aspects of society and law. For us, Common Law recognizes a person’s right to life and even our Constitution makes the right to life a natural right, given to us by our deity and not to be limited by institutions of men. However, is that natural right revocable? In the case of criminal acts, we have said yes. A person guilty of heinous crimes can have their natural right to life revoked, and they can be put to death. But what of an unborn child?

A child yet to draw breath is the criteria used by many societies as the demarcation line of rights and no rights. The passing of a single moment in time for an innocent life is the only determinant to a given right. The person does not change from that first moment to the next except in the eyes of law. This is not an arbitrary ling, but one well defined. Yet, it is a subject for a different thread. The issue before us is this.

Issue: Does one life have more merit over another?

Rule: We find in this case that rule is actually many rules, or more importantly, many justifications, as there really is only one rule that applies, in My opinion. Let's start with the justifications.

Analysis

The first is the one that is often used, yet is the one that provides the least consistency in attitude and life. “I cannot afford a baby right now," or “A baby at this time would interfere with my personal goals.” I say these attitudes are inconsistent because the people who make them would not hesitate to deny these very same attitudes to the other half of the species. A man who cannot afford a baby, or has other plans, simply cannot just deny the child he fathered (rightly so) for the sake of his convince. In the interest of fairness (a doctrine I mentioned earlier) the same principle should be applied equally to either parent. Since I will not argue for a man to demand an abortion of another living being, then the only option left is that the mother also not be permitted, with a single exception of which I’ll touch on later.

Another justification is one of the incest or rape. The justification for this is one that is emotional. Should a woman be required to carry a child who came about because her brother or father or even a stranger raped her? The claim is emotional distress. So, I am forced to conclude that the trauma of rape or incest is somehow magically eliminated thought the medical procedure of abortion. Yes, I know. It’s a ridiculous notion, but one I am being asked to believe. Rape or incest (I’m going with incestuous rape for this discussion because consensual incest is another issue completely) is a trauma that is so devastating that it can never be forgotten by the woman. It may be that time will heal such trauma, but that time is measured in years and decades, not months. So the impact of carrying a child of rape is NOT lessened by abortion. There is also the added burden of placing the punishment of the father upon the child.

As a society, we do not punish the innocent for the crimes of the guilty, nor do we hold responsible, the sins of the father to the son. A child, however, conceived, cannot be held responsible for the sins of the man who fathered him. This means that a child of rape or incest simply cannot be held responsible for the acts of the father. It is as if to say, “I will apply capital punishment to the child” because the father was a rapist.

That leaves only two other considerations regarding this issue. Malformation and the life of the Mother. Both are difficult and grey areas for Me.

To terminate a life because it is malformed seems callus and cruel on the level of “It will look different from us.” We already have laws that forbid us from discriminating on the basis if outward appearance. We cannot let someone we don’t look like be barred from eating a sandwich in a local café, but in the womb, we can simply end their lives. The inconsistency is boggling. This kind of thinking borders on playing God.

However, that is not to say that I cannot envision a valid reason for terminating a malformed person. Each case of malformation must be taken on a case by case basis. Having said that, if it can be determined that the probability of life is very short, or that the baby will be in extreme pain, I can accept that an abortion is the best option. Nevertheless, it is not one I would take lightly and exposes Me to hypocrisy as well for I was part of a group discussion on ending My mother-in-law’s life after heart surgery when the Doctors all agreed she would not pull through.

Last is the life of the mother. At the beginning, I stated that the right to life was a natural right, and in this I am torn, but confident that regardless of the choice, the right balance of lie was chosen. A mother who will abort for self-preservation is justified in My opinion. Though most mothers I have ever talked to about this would give up their life for their baby, I simply cannot ask it of them.

This entire response is My opinion and no sources are given because they are formed over a lifetime of reflection and based upon many sources of information; to numerous to list here.

The conclusion I reach is that the case for abortion is one that requires extreme justification and one that should be controlled by society with exceptions.

 

[Politico]

Prove your case! Abortion: Right to Choose or Right to Live?

The left and right are both wrong. Case and point.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.

Oh, I could not disagree more.

It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.

Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.

There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.

Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...

If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?

A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.

A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.

Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.

Oh, I could not disagree more.

It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.

Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.

There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.

Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...

If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?

A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.

A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.

Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.

No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We are a nation of law, and our laws provide specific rules regarding abortion. Issues such as Abortion, Capital Punishment and Euthanasia are more than moral choices, they are intricate to the liberty rights of all of us and deserve to be debated and not used by political factions as wedge issues to secure political advantage.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.

Oh, I could not disagree more.

It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.

Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.

There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.

Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...

If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?

A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.

A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.

Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.

No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.

No one seems to be able to state why the intrinsic rights of certain people should be suspended or why they should be controlled by either government or religion.

And, I notice you did not answer my questions:

If it were male's reproductive rights being discussed, would you have a different opinion? Would you be in favor of men being forced to reproduce? Should they then forced to support the resultant offspring?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.

Oh, I could not disagree more.

It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.

Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.

There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.

Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...

If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?

A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.

A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.

Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.

No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.

No one seems to be able to state why the intrinsic rights of certain people should be suspended or why they should be controlled by either government or religion.

And, I notice you did not answer my questions:

If it were male's reproductive rights being discussed, would you have a different opinion? Would you be in favor of men being forced to reproduce? Should they then forced to support the resultant offspring?

Nor do those opposed to abortion ever consider the consequences of their quest.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Abortion as a social problem would be lessened greatly if society would help the mothers become taxpayers through education and training.

Despite what the far right has to say, society will pay for this up front or on the back side. That will never change.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.

Oh, I could not disagree more.

It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.

Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.

There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.

Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...

If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?

A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.

A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.

Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.

No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.

No one seems to be able to state why the intrinsic rights of certain people should be suspended or why they should be controlled by either government or religion.

And, I notice you did not answer my questions:

If it were male's reproductive rights being discussed, would you have a different opinion? Would you be in favor of men being forced to reproduce? Should they then forced to support the resultant offspring?

Man can't reproduce so that becomes a moot point. No relevance. Yes, in most cases, individuals should have the right to speak for themselves. But, there are cases where immaturity, mental disabilities, etc. come into play.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So many of those opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control and/or certain kinds of birth control.

And, even though men are the cause of pregnancy, I have never seen one anti-freedom statement saying men should be held equally responsible.

Those who want women to be forced to breed never think beyond that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Abortion as a social problem would be lessened greatly if society would help the mothers become taxpayers through education and training.

Despite what the far right has to say, society will pay for this up front or on the back side. That will never change.

I agree, but you didn't go far enough. Education includes preparation for work but also practical applications, and especially age appropriate sex education as part of a comprehensive health curriculum - including a section on domestic violence.

 

[Sonny Clark]

So many of those opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control and/or certain kinds of birth control.

And, even though men are the cause of pregnancy, I have never seen one anti-freedom statement saying men should be held equally responsible.

Those who want women to be forced to breed never think beyond that.

Both men and women are responsible in most cases.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

So many of those opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control and/or certain kinds of birth control.

And, even though men are the cause of pregnancy, I have never seen one anti-freedom statement saying men should be held equally responsible.

Those who want women to be forced to breed never think beyond that.

Both men and women are responsible in most cases.

My guess is that you are referring to rape in which case, the man would be 100% responsible.

But again, you skirted the question:

Should men be held equally responsible for the production of a fetus as well as the life of a child?

 

[Sonny Clark]

So many of those opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control and/or certain kinds of birth control.

And, even though men are the cause of pregnancy, I have never seen one anti-freedom statement saying men should be held equally responsible.

Those who want women to be forced to breed never think beyond that.

Both men and women are responsible in most cases.

My guess is that you are referring to rape in which case, the man would be 100% responsible.

But again, you skirted the question:

Should men be held equally responsible for the production of a fetus as well as the life of a child?

I'm NOT referring to rape. I'm talking about men and women being responsible for their actions, in any situation, period. Also, I have already said that men can't get pregnant, so that question becomes a moot point. Why should I answer any other way when it's an impossible scenario to begin with?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.

Oh, I could not disagree more.

It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.

Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.

There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.

Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...

If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?

A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.

A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.

Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.

No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.

No one seems to be able to state why the intrinsic rights of certain people should be suspended or why they should be controlled by either government or religion.

And, I notice you did not answer my questions:

If it were male's reproductive rights being discussed, would you have a different opinion? Would you be in favor of men being forced to reproduce? Should they then forced to support the resultant offspring?

Man can't reproduce so that becomes a moot point. No relevance. Yes, in most cases, individuals should have the right to speak for themselves. But, there are cases where immaturity, mental disabilities, etc. come into play.

You wrote "man ..." but I suspect you meant "men".

Of course men can and do reproduce.

So many of those opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control and/or certain kinds of birth control.

And, even though men are the cause of pregnancy, I have never seen one anti-freedom statement saying men should be held equally responsible.

Those who want women to be forced to breed never think beyond that.

Both men and women are responsible in most cases.

My guess is that you are referring to rape in which case, the man would be 100% responsible.

But again, you skirted the question:

Should men be held equally responsible for the production of a fetus as well as the life of a child?

I'm NOT referring to rape. I'm talking about men and women being responsible for their actions, in any situation, period. Also, I have already said that men can't get pregnant, so that question becomes a moot point. Why should I answer any other way when it's an impossible scenario to begin with?

No, you said "Man can't reproduce ..."

Are you now changing that to "men can't get pregnant"? Those are two very different things. Are you saying that since they do not carry and bear children, they are not responsible?

In any event, men are not held responsible for their own offspring and women are punished for that.



Bottom line is still - Never mind what the circumstance night be, no one has the right or should have the right to force women to reproduce.

 

[Sonny Clark]

Abortions should be weighed case by case. For example: rape, incest, mentally handicapped, age, health issues, the chances of the baby being born with deformities and other abnormalities, risk factors such as the health of the mother, and a multitude of other factors. Abortion is not, and never has been a "cut and dry" question.

Oh, I could not disagree more.

It is VERY cut and dried, black and white, no grey, no ambiguity.

Abortion is never ever a question of rape, incest, handicap, sex of the fetus, risk to the woman or any of the other mud that is used to cloud the issue.

There is only one question: Does society have the right to force women to reproduce? The answer is a loud and resounding NO.

Perhaps if people looked at it differently ...

If it was male's reproduction that people wanted to control, would you feel the same? Would you want to force men to reproduce? If men were forced to support their offspring, would you look at abortion differently?

A man's body belongs to him. He can do and should be allowed to do anything he wants with it. If he wants to reproduce, he has that right. If he does not want offspring, he also has that right.

A woman's body belongs to her and her alone. If she wishes to reproduce, that's her decision and her inalienable right. If she wishes to abort, her reasons are no one's business but hers and abortion should be easily and readily available on demand.

Needless to say, safe and effective birth control should also be easily and readily available to anyone, regardless of age.

No problem. We can disagree, it's fine. Each of us is entitled to our opinion. No one sees every issue the same. But, I do stand by my opinion as I stated it.

No one seems to be able to state why the intrinsic rights of certain people should be suspended or why they should be controlled by either government or religion.

And, I notice you did not answer my questions:

If it were male's reproductive rights being discussed, would you have a different opinion? Would you be in favor of men being forced to reproduce? Should they then forced to support the resultant offspring?

Man can't reproduce so that becomes a moot point. No relevance. Yes, in most cases, individuals should have the right to speak for themselves. But, there are cases where immaturity, mental disabilities, etc. come into play.

You wrote "man ..." but I suspect you meant "men".

Of course men can and do reproduce.

So many of those opposed to abortion are also opposed to birth control and/or certain kinds of birth control.

And, even though men are the cause of pregnancy, I have never seen one anti-freedom statement saying men should be held equally responsible.

Those who want women to be forced to breed never think beyond that.

Both men and women are responsible in most cases.

My guess is that you are referring to rape in which case, the man would be 100% responsible.

But again, you skirted the question:

Should men be held equally responsible for the production of a fetus as well as the life of a child?

I'm NOT referring to rape. I'm talking about men and women being responsible for their actions, in any situation, period. Also, I have already said that men can't get pregnant, so that question becomes a moot point. Why should I answer any other way when it's an impossible scenario to begin with?

No, you said "Man can't reproduce ..."

Are you now changing that to "men can't get pregnant"? Those are two very different things. Are you saying that since they do not carry and bear children, they are not responsible?

In any event, men are not held responsible for their own offspring and women are punished for that.



Bottom line is still - Never mind what the circumstance night be, no one has the right or should have the right to force women to reproduce.

I have already said it several times. Please read and try to comprehend this time around, thanks. #1 - Men can not get pregnant. #2 - Men and women are both responsible in most cases of pregnancy. #3 - There are cases where rape occurs, and very young girls get pregnant. #4 - Rape of the mentally challenged, and others that can not understand what's going on, are exceptions to the rule of responsibility shared by both parties. NOTE: This stuff is common sense and doesn't take a college education to understand it.