Proving that Abortion is Immoral Using Logical Deduction

  • 183 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

#2 Posted by osirisx3 (1756 posts) -

pro life = pro fascism

#3 Edited by svenus97 (2289 posts) -

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

Well, there's the problem

Using that logic a corpse is still as much a human as a living one. A zygote is not a human, for the same reason a seed is not a tree or an egg isn't a chicken.

#4 Edited by speedfreak48t5p (6926 posts) -

TC secretly loves abortion confirmed.

#5 Edited by Aljosa23 (24739 posts) -

Immoral has no bearing on it being legal or not.

#6 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@svenus97 said:

@BluRayHiDef said:

Before we begin, we must agree on a premise, without which the following argument would have no basis.

Premise: To murder or kill an infant is immoral.

Argument: Despite the fact that an infant lacks consciousness in the first few months of its life, it is immoral to murder or kill an infant. As a zygote or fetus possesses all forty six chromosomes which are present in a fully developed Human, they are both Human lifeforms - despite a lack of consciousness, just as a newborn is a Human life-form regardless of whether it has reached the age at which it forms a consciousness or not. Hence, to abort a zygote or fetus is tantamount to murdering or killing a newborn which has yet to form a consciousness. So, as murdering or killing a newborn is immoral, so is aborting a zygote or fetus.

Conclusion: Abortion is immoral.

Well, there's the problem

Using that logic a corpse is still as much a human as a living one. A zygote is not a human, for the same reason a seed is not a tree or an egg isn't a chicken.

There is no problem. A corpse's cells are dead (i.e. non-functioning). However, the cells of a zygote or fetus are alive (i.e. functioning). Looks like I just sent your "rebuttal" packing. I hope it has a nice trip.

#7 Edited by deeliman (2387 posts) -

To answer your question we first need to know when a fetus becomes "human". If having 46 chromosomes is your only prerequisite for being human, than I guess you don't consider people with down syndrome humans, as they have 47 chromosomes.

#8 Edited by jasean79 (2357 posts) -
#9 Edited by Korvus (3201 posts) -

@deeliman said:

To answer your question we first need to know when a fetus becomes "human". If having 46 chromosomes is your only prerequisite for being human, than I guess you don't consider people with down syndrome humans, as they have 47 chromosomes.

That would also make some antelopes and other animals humans XD

#10 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@deeliman said:

To answer your question we first need to know when a fetus becomes "human". If having 46 chromosomes is your only prerequisite for being human, than I guess you don't consider people with down syndrome humans, as they have 47 chromosomes.

People with down syndrome are special cases - anomalies - and subsequently hold no bearing on whether zygotes or fetuses are Human.

#11 Edited by ferrari2001 (16811 posts) -

The abortion argument doesn't stem from whether or not the fetus or zygote is a human. Ask any biological scientist or doctor and they will tell you that a zygote or a fetus is simply a human in the earliest stages of it's development. Scientifically there is little difference between killing a child in the womb verses killing a child after birth, both are humans. If anyone says there is a difference then they oppose science and the argument can end there. No the argument is whether or not the child in the womb deserves personhood. That is the classification of a person. [n. a human being regarded as an individual.] If you do not believe that the human in the womb deserves personhood then you have to argue as to why that particular entity, doesn't deserve the status of person, this argument usually accounts for the fact that it does not yet have mental powers. If you argue for personhood then why does that zygote or fetus deserve the status of person, in this case you usually have to argue that it is more then mental powers that gives us personhood. So in the end the argument, if engaged intelligently, should come down to the importance of mental powers in determining personhood.

#12 Posted by Korvus (3201 posts) -

@ferrari2001: Smartest comment on this thread so far. Well done =)

#13 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@ferrari2001 said:

So in the end the argument, if engaged intelligently, should come down to the importance of mental powers in determining personhood.

If the importance of mental powers - as you put it - should not be the primary factor in determining whether a zygote or fetus deserves personhood, then what should be? If it should be, then as I explained in the OP, a newborn child should not be considered a person either and subsequently it would not be immoral to terminate it. However, if some other factor should be the primary one in determining whether a zygote or fetus is a person, I'm guessing it would be a religiously derived one such as the soul or spirit. However, as our constitution requires that there be a separation between religion and government, then said religiously derived factors cannot be used as grounds to define personhood, which would force a return to using the importance of mental powers as the determining factor in regard to whether a zygote or fetus is a person or not, which brings us back to the OP. Checkmate.

#15 Posted by foxhound_fox (87640 posts) -

To condense such a controversial and complicated discussion into such a tiny little statement does the entire thing a disservice.

Is it also immoral to allow a child to enter life with a genetic disorder that will cause every living day to be filled with unending pain and to die a prolonged death while still barely into their teenage years? What about allowing a child to enter a world of poverty and abuse that is caused by the mother being addicted to drugs, and the child never receiving the love and affection it deserves, only to grow up and repeat the same mistakes and continue the unending cycle?

Abortion isn't the best option, and definitely shouldn't be used as a form of retroactive birth control... but to call it immoral, full stop, without considering the ramifications of what a life for an unwanted child could be like, or one that will only be filled with suffering, is equally as immoral. And until we can discover a way to remove an unwanted foetus from the mother and either implant it into a willing mother, or raise it in an artificial environment (i.e. in a lab), in addition to providing the child with the necessary emotional and financial support to become a productive member of society, abortion should never be removed as an option for expecting mothers, no matter how "immoral" some people might believe it to be.

#16 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

To condense such a controversial and complicated discussion into such a tiny little statement does the entire thing a disservice.

Is it also immoral to allow a child to enter life with a genetic disorder that will cause every living day to be filled with unending pain and to die a prolonged death while still barely into their teenage years? What about allowing a child to enter a world of poverty and abuse that is caused by the mother being addicted to drugs, and the child never receiving the love and affection it deserves, only to grow up and repeat the same mistakes and continue the unending cycle?

Abortion isn't the best option, and definitely shouldn't be used as a form of retroactive birth control... but to call it immoral, full stop, without considering the ramifications of what a life for an unwanted child could be like, or one that will only be filled with suffering, is equally as immoral. And until we can discover a way to remove an unwanted foetus from the mother and either implant it into a willing mother, or raise it in an artificial environment (i.e. in a lab), in addition to providing the child with the necessary emotional and financial support to become a productive member of society, abortion should never be removed as an option for expecting mothers, no matter how "immoral" some people might believe it to be.

Whether or not it's controversial and considered complicated is irrelevant, because - quite frankly - it's very, very simple. People make it controversial and complicated. As for your analogies, they are irrelevant because they are entirely different issues. However, since you want to bring them up, I would argue that no one has the right to determine who lives and who dies, so the children in your analogies should live and be treated with the best medicine and walfare there is - we must do our best to support life.

#17 Edited by Boddicker (2511 posts) -

Oi Vey.

Maybe if you held these views to yourself and didn't start arguments on message boards more people would take a shine to you. BTW I've found that most gamers tend to be agnostics/atheists and pro-abortion (within limits) so I know you're just stirring the shit pot.

BOTTOM LINE: you're not going to change anyone's mind. Noone is going to have an epiphany and suddenly realize you're right.

I watched your latest Spiderman 2 youtube video. Pretty good. As usual I'll wait till it comes on TV to watch such trash.

#18 Edited by ferrari2001 (16811 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@ferrari2001 said:

So in the end the argument, if engaged intelligently, should come down to the importance of mental powers in determining personhood.

If the importance of mental powers - as you put it - should not be the primary factor in determining whether a zygote or fetus deserves personhood, then what should be? If it should be, then as I explained in the OP, a newborn child should not be considered a person either and subsequently it would not be immoral to terminate it. However, if some other factor should be the primary one in determining whether a zygote or fetus is a person, I'm guessing it would be a religiously derived one such as the soul or spirit. However, as our constitution requires that there be a separation between religion and government, then said religiously derived factors cannot be used as grounds to define personhood, which would force a return to using the importance of mental powers as the determining factor in regard to whether a zygote or fetus is a person or not, which brings us back to the OP. Checkmate.

A counter argument to metal powers as a measurement of personhood could be the example of someone being put into a comma. They do not have the ability to exercise mental powers. For all intensive purposes all their mental faculties have been taken away, their mental faculties at this point is at a level even lower then a new born. Does that mean they are no longer a person? If mental faculties is the only measurement of personhood then persons can stop being persons and then proceed to be persons again. That doesn't seem quite right.

#19 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

Oi Vey.

Maybe if you held these views to yourself and didn't start arguments on message boards more people would take a shine to you. BTW I've found that most gamers tend to be agnostics/atheists and pro-abortion (within limits) so I know you're just stirring the shit pot.

BOTTOM LINE: you're not going to change anyone's mind.

I watched your latest Spiderman 2 youtube video. Pretty good. As usual I'll wait till it comes on TV to watch such trash.

Why should I not create a thread that I want to create so that people like me? That's ridiculous. The entire point of a discussion board is to discuss things!

#20 Edited by foxhound_fox (87640 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

To condense such a controversial and complicated discussion into such a tiny little statement does the entire thing a disservice.

Is it also immoral to allow a child to enter life with a genetic disorder that will cause every living day to be filled with unending pain and to die a prolonged death while still barely into their teenage years? What about allowing a child to enter a world of poverty and abuse that is caused by the mother being addicted to drugs, and the child never receiving the love and affection it deserves, only to grow up and repeat the same mistakes and continue the unending cycle?

Abortion isn't the best option, and definitely shouldn't be used as a form of retroactive birth control... but to call it immoral, full stop, without considering the ramifications of what a life for an unwanted child could be like, or one that will only be filled with suffering, is equally as immoral. And until we can discover a way to remove an unwanted foetus from the mother and either implant it into a willing mother, or raise it in an artificial environment (i.e. in a lab), in addition to providing the child with the necessary emotional and financial support to become a productive member of society, abortion should never be removed as an option for expecting mothers, no matter how "immoral" some people might believe it to be.

Whether or not it's controversial and considered complicated is irrelevant, because - quite frankly - it's very, very simple. People make it controversial and complicated. As for your analogies, they are irrelevant because they are entirely different issues. However, since you want to bring them up, I would argue that no one has the right to determine who lives and who dies, so the children in your analogies should live and be treated with the best medicine and walfare there is - we must do our best to support life.

So naive and unrealistically optimistic you are. Yeah, it would be nice "if" we could give people with the best medicine and welfare... but that doesn't exist, even in the best countries in the world. I'm personally against abortion, and have been most of my life, but I don't choose to see the problem as entirely black and white or generalized as you do. Each situation for everyone who experiences it is different, and it is impossible to place an overarching standard on everyone. Also, it isn't any of our fucking business what a woman does with her body. Especially as men.

#21 Posted by Korvus (3201 posts) -

Why should I not create a thread that I want to create so that people like me? That's ridiculous. The entire point of a discussion board is to discuss things!

I agree with you but if I may, claiming to want to promote a discussion and replying to people with "Looks like I just sent your 'rebuttal' packing. I hope it has a nice trip." and "Checkmate" doesn't seem to go together. Even if you do have an actual interest in discussing the topic you come across as someone who made this thread as some sort of ego booster whenever you think you "bested" someone else's argument.

Now, I'm not saying you should do it differently, I'm just letting you know how it sounds to me and that if other people view it the same way, they might not feel so inclined to join the discussion =)

#22 Edited by magicalclick (22439 posts) -

The choice to keep a life is easy. But, the journey to raise a child with love, resources, and comfortable living conditions is hard.

Not all moms can raise her child if it was a mistake or trauma she has very difficult time to cope with everyday.

Give life is easy. Take a life is easy. As they are an instant decision that can be accomplished in a short time. But, life is much much longer than that.

#23 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@ferrari2001 said:

So in the end the argument, if engaged intelligently, should come down to the importance of mental powers in determining personhood.

If the importance of mental powers - as you put it - should not be the primary factor in determining whether a zygote or fetus deserves personhood, then what should be? If it should be, then as I explained in the OP, a newborn child should not be considered a person either and subsequently it would not be immoral to terminate it. However, if some other factor should be the primary one in determining whether a zygote or fetus is a person, I'm guessing it would be a religiously derived one such as the soul or spirit. However, as our constitution requires that there be a separation between religion and government, then said religiously derived factors cannot be used as grounds to define personhood, which would force a return to using the importance of mental powers as the determining factor in regard to whether a zygote or fetus is a person or not, which brings us back to the OP. Checkmate.

A counter argument to metal powers as a measurement of personhood could be the example of someone being put into a comma. They do not have the ability to exercise mental powers. For all intensive purposes all their mental faculties have been taken away, their mental faculties at this point is at a level even lower then a new born. Does that mean they are no longer a person? If mental faculties is the only measurement of personhood then persons can stop being persons and then proceed to be persons again. That doesn't seem quite right.

Your analogy of a person in a coma is flawed because comas are potentially temporary; a person can rise from a coma. Hence, a comatose individual is potentially a person and should be allowed to live until it is determined beyond a reasonable doubt that they will not awake from the coma. On the other hand, a zygote or a fetus - barring medical complications - will develop into a conscious being.

I'm sorry, friend, but my argument is infallible. It cannot be rebutted.

#24 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (857 posts) -

Counter-argument: Despite the fact that that the fetus has the ability to become a human life, it is not viable outside the womb. Therefore, it is an organism that requires a host for living existence. It is immoral to believe that that organism should take precedence over the decisions of the independently living host.

#25 Edited by Korvus (3201 posts) -

Also, it isn't any of our fucking business what a woman does with her body. Especially as men.

If it's your unborn child she's carrying then I hope you'd see it as your business =)

#26 Posted by foxhound_fox (87640 posts) -

@korvus said:

@foxhound_fox said:

Also, it isn't any of our fucking business what a woman does with her body. Especially as men.

If it's your unborn child she's carrying then I hope you'd see it as your business =)

It's not my body. Legally, I have no say in the situation (not that I agree with it).

#27 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

Counter-argument: Despite the fact that that the fetus has the ability to become a human life, it is not viable outside the womb. Therefore, it is an organism that requires a host for living existence. It is immoral to believe that that organism should take precedence over the decisions of the independently living host.

A newborn child is not viable without care from its parents or other, mature Humans. Hence, a newborn child is not an independently living being either - no more capable of caring for itself than a zygote or fetus.

My argument is infallible. It cannot be rebutted.

#28 Posted by Korvus (3201 posts) -

@foxhound_fox: I see your point. You meant it as "Nothing I can do" rather than "I don't give a damn" =)

#29 Edited by Master_Live (14170 posts) -

I don't care that this is post #29:

#30 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (857 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@vl4d_l3nin said:

Counter-argument: Despite the fact that that the fetus has the ability to become a human life, it is not viable outside the womb. Therefore, it is an organism that requires a host for living existence. It is immoral to believe that that organism should take precedence over the decisions of the independently living host.

A newborn child is not viable without care from its parents or other, mature Humans. Hence, a newborn child is not an independently living being either - no more capable of caring for itself than a zygote or fetus.

My argument is infallible. It cannot be rebutted.

Untrue

when the child is born, it does not need that specific person to care for it. There are plenty of other options for its survival, rather than one single woman.

#31 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

The choice to keep a life is easy. But, the journey to raise a child with love, resources, and comfortable living conditions is hard.

Not all moms can raise her child if it was a mistake or trauma she has very difficult time to cope with everyday.

Give life is easy. Take a life is easy. As they are an instant decision that can be accomplished in a short time. But, life is much much longer than that.

Adoption.

#32 Edited by ferrari2001 (16811 posts) -

Counter-argument: Despite the fact that that the fetus has the ability to become a human life, it is not viable outside the womb. Therefore, it is an organism that requires a host for living existence. It is immoral to believe that that organism should take precedence over the decisions of the independently living host.

What happens if we develop technology to allow a zygote to survive outside of the womb? The Zygote could technically then be considered viable, would killing it inside of the mother womb still be permissible? Also at what point does the fetus become viable? How can you create a definitive line where before that line the fetus is not viable but afterwards it is. It seems awfully difficult to determine the definition of viability and when dealing with questions of morality your definitions need to be precise.

#33 Edited by JangoWuzHere (16116 posts) -

I think its far more immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. Especially if she doesn't have the financial support or mental responsibility to take care of the child. A child should be welcomed into the world with care and open arms, it shouldn't be considered a mistake.

#34 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@vl4d_l3nin said:

Counter-argument: Despite the fact that that the fetus has the ability to become a human life, it is not viable outside the womb. Therefore, it is an organism that requires a host for living existence. It is immoral to believe that that organism should take precedence over the decisions of the independently living host.

A newborn child is not viable without care from its parents or other, mature Humans. Hence, a newborn child is not an independently living being either - no more capable of caring for itself than a zygote or fetus.

My argument is infallible. It cannot be rebutted.

Untrue

when the child is born, it does not need that specific person to care for it. There are plenty of other options for its survival, rather than one single woman.

Fail. I specifically said "from its parents or other, mature Humans." Now, perhaps non-Human animals could raise a newborn Human child as well, but you must realize that my overall point was that a newborn cannot survive on its own - it needs some other organism to take care of it.

C'mon, man. You know my argument can't be rebutted. Why do you persist?

#35 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

I think its far more immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. Especially if she doesn't have the financial support or mental responsibility to take care of the child. A child should be welcomed into the world with care and open arms, it shouldn't be considered a mistake.

There is always the option of adoption. Murder is wrong.

#36 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (857 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: because you are wrong. The only alternative to abortion is to force a woman to go through life altering changes in order to conceive a life against her will. No matter what, you are putting an organism incapable of independent life (fetus) in front of one that is (woman).

#37 Edited by ferrari2001 (16811 posts) -

I think its far more immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. Especially if she doesn't have the financial support or mental responsibility to take care of the child. A child should be welcomed into the world with care and open arms, it shouldn't be considered a mistake.

This isn't an argument as to what you consider to be more immoral but rather if abortion itself is moral or immoral. If it's immoral then according to Aristotle it ought to be avoided all the time.

#38 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@vl4d_l3nin said:

@BluRayHiDef: because you are wrong. The only alternative to abortion is to force a woman to go through life altering changes in order to conceive a life against her will. No matter what, you are putting an organism incapable of independent life (fetus) in front of one that is (woman).

The woman shouldn't have had sex; she should have been a sexually responsible person. In regard to cases of rape, I do not believe rape justifies abortion - which I consider to be murder; two wrongs do not make a right. Also, as I mentioned earlier, there is always the option of adoption.

#39 Edited by Dannystaples14 (946 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: What is immoral is letting a newborn ruin a life that is already self aware with its presence simply due to a mistake.

#40 Edited by JangoWuzHere (16116 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@JangoWuzHere said:

I think its far more immoral to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. Especially if she doesn't have the financial support or mental responsibility to take care of the child. A child should be welcomed into the world with care and open arms, it shouldn't be considered a mistake.

There is always the option of adoption. Murder is wrong.

I don't consider it murder because a fetus isn't a person. Also, there is a chance that a woman can die from giving child birth, especially if she isn't mentally prepared. At that point, you are trading one life for another, which isn't right.

#41 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: What is immoral is letting a newborn ruin a life that is already self aware with its presence simply due to a mistake.

How many times do I have to mention that putting the child up for adoption is an option? Furthermore, two wrongs do not make a right!

#42 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (857 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef said:

@vl4d_l3nin said:

@BluRayHiDef: because you are wrong. The only alternative to abortion is to force a woman to go through life altering changes in order to conceive a life against her will. No matter what, you are putting an organism incapable of independent life (fetus) in front of one that is (woman).

The woman shouldn't have had sex; she should have been a sexually responsible person. In regard to cases of rape, I do not believe rape justifies abortion - which I consider to be murder; two wrongs do not make a right. Also, as I mentioned earlier, there is always the option of adoption.

Dictating the personal experiences of people is immoral. In essence, you're saying childbirth is punishment for her lack of self-control.

Adoption is there for the woman who choose to go through the trauma of childbirth.

#43 Posted by Dannystaples14 (946 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: Yeah then you put more pressure on the adoption system that is already under pressure as it is, all when a lethal inject will do the job without dragging the problem out for the duration of the kids childhood and potentially its entire life.

It will find out sooner or later that its mum and dad aren't its biological parents. What happens if the news doesn't go down well and then it finds out that its mum simply didn't want it? You're okay with putting a human through that for the sake of morals?

Morals are your problem when there are real, good, kind people being killed for no good reason every day all around the world? You have the chance to take a life in order to make sure that it doesn't suffer and you won't go through with it? And you talk about it being immoral when you are risking sever emotional trauma to a person for many many years?

You gamble their well being just to make yourself feel better about yourself now. That makes you straight up selfish.

#44 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: Yeah then you put more pressure on the adoption system that is already under pressure as it is, all when a lethal inject will do the job without dragging the problem out for the duration of the kids childhood and potentially its entire life.

It will find out sooner or later that its mum and dad aren't its biological parents. What happens if the news doesn't go down well and then it finds out that its mum simply didn't want it? You're okay with putting a human through that for the sake of morals?

Morals are your problem when there are real, good, kind people being killed for no good reason every day all around the world? You have the chance to take a life in order to make sure that it doesn't suffer and you won't go through with it? And you talk about it being immoral when you are risking sever emotional trauma to a person for many many years?

You gamble their well being just to make yourself feel better about yourself now. That makes you straight up selfish.

Are you seriously arguing that putting more pressure on the adoption system is grounds for terminating Human life? Are you a sociopath?

#45 Edited by JangoWuzHere (16116 posts) -

@Dannystaples14 said:

@BluRayHiDef: Yeah then you put more pressure on the adoption system that is already under pressure as it is, all when a lethal inject will do the job without dragging the problem out for the duration of the kids childhood and potentially its entire life.

It will find out sooner or later that its mum and dad aren't its biological parents. What happens if the news doesn't go down well and then it finds out that its mum simply didn't want it? You're okay with putting a human through that for the sake of morals?

Morals are your problem when there are real, good, kind people being killed for no good reason every day all around the world? You have the chance to take a life in order to make sure that it doesn't suffer and you won't go through with it? And you talk about it being immoral when you are risking sever emotional trauma to a person for many many years?

You gamble their well being just to make yourself feel better about yourself now. That makes you straight up selfish.

Are you seriously arguing that putting more pressure on the adoption system is grounds for terminating Human life? Are you a sociopath?

Can you make a logical discussion work without sounding immature?

#47 Edited by Barbariser (6724 posts) -

TC's argument is literally "unborn humans have the same number of chromosomes as other humans (not necessarily true), so there's a moral equivalence between killing infants and killing unborn humans". A fucking human fetus can see that those two statement aren't related to and don't support each other at all and that this is in fact a non sequitur. So nope, it's a logically fallacious argument.

#48 Edited by Dannystaples14 (946 posts) -

@BluRayHiDef: Wait a minute out of all that you chose to put emphasis on the adoption part? I'm not saying adoption is the reason to allow abortion but I am saying if everyone thought like you the adoption process would be swamped and there would be a lot more miserable people in the world.

Ever seen a teenage girl with a kid? It is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of being out enjoying their youth they are tied down with a kid. I wonder what they would choose given a do over?

Terminating someone's life when the overall benefit is for good, whether it is to prevent hardship in terms of abortion or to end someone's life who is in pain i.e. euthanasia, I have no problems with.

Naturally with the euthanasia stuff there is the problem of knowing WHEN to terminate life. People have made miraculous recoveries before. But as an example Michael Schumacker is currently in a coma and probably (if he recovers at all) will be bound to a wheel chair for the rest of his life being fed and having his nappy changed FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE. I'd vote to terminate in that case. I'd WANT someone to do the same for me in the same situation.

#49 Posted by mattykovax (22693 posts) -

You lost me on the premise. I don't even think its murder so how can it be immoral. And I get what you say about the chromosomes but under that logic pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead is murder and I don't think that is either. Humanity is self awareness and conscious not genes and chromosomes.

#50 Edited by BluRayHiDef (10838 posts) -

As my argument is flawless and subsequently impervious to all counter-arguments, I hereby rebut all further counter-arguments in advance and declare myself winner of this thread.

Sincerely, BluRayHiDef - The Undefeated Master Debater