Defining the Abortion Debate

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by lixluke, Mar 27, 2006.

  1. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    ABORTION


    This article is NOT an attempt to come to a conclusion about the “abortion debate”. My purpose is to describe what is being debated regarding the “abortion debate”.

    Regarding the so called “abortion debate” between those who call themselves “pro-choice” and those who call themselves “pro-life”,
    I shall begin by posing this question:
    What exactly is it that is being debated?


    Before I answer this question, I shall address a few things.
    First, I will provide a brief explanation about the reason I feel the need to clarify what exactly it is that is being debated.
    Second, I will describe the difference between a political debate and a realistic debate.
    Third, I will point out why the statement “The abortion debate has already been defined.” is irrelevant to this topic.


    1. Why am I writing this?
    It is in my experience that the so-called “abortion debate” is often perforated with inconsistencies due to different understanding about what exactly is being debated. It is in my experience people tend to jump into debates without first defining what it is they are debating. In order for a debate to work, each party must come to an agreement on the definition of the debate. The definition of the debate is no more than a yes/no question. When both parties understand the question, they take a position. Upon taking a position, they use points to support their position.

    For example: Is Tiger Woods gay?
    This question is the definition of the debate. Opposing parties take their position on the debate. Each opposing party provides points to support their position.

    If both opposing parties in a debate do not define what they are debating, there is really no debate. I am writing this because I do not feel that people have a clear understanding of what is being debated regarding the abortion issue. Therefore, people without yet agreeing on what it is that is being debated, take positions on separate definitions.

    For example: Do bananas taste good or bad?
    Person A versus Person B.
    Person A: Apples taste good.
    Person B: Wrong! Oranges taste bad.

    Both Person A and Person B taking positions with no relation to the definition of the debate: Do bananas taste good or bad?

    My purpose here is to clarify the definition of the abortion debate.


    2. What is the difference between a political debate and a real debate?
    I am including this section because a friend mentioned that a political debate is not a real debate. A political debate is not about coming to a conclusion. It’s all about winning, and using whichever tactic you can to win. It is not necessary in a political debate to even believe in your position. A real debate is about coming to a conclusion. You have concluded that your position is right, and your opposition’s position is wrong. It is each party’s objective to provide points to support their position, and at the same time understand your opposing party’s point of view. Both parties are interested in discovering flaws in their own arguments, and willing change their position if they find that their opposition is valid.


    3. The abortion debate has already been defined? Therefore, there is no need for me to provide the definition here?
    There is no certified definition of the abortion debate as established by some great official. There is however a definition of the abortion debate as I will provide here. This definition did not come from any so-called official source. Just as a dictionary to the best of its ability provides us with definitions for words, I shall to the best of my ability provide the definition of the abortion debate. The definition of the abortion debate is a yes/no question. What is this question that is being debated by the opposing parties?

    There is no source that I know of that has clearly defined the definition for the abortion debate. There need not be any official certified definition. That is because the definition exists beyond any ability to officialize it. The debate exist solely because parties have taken opposing positions of a specifically defined question. It is also important to note that individuals sharing the same position, may have different reasons for taking their position. I shall now provide the question that defines the abortion debate.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    4.
    THE QUESTION
    Does an unborn child have an ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law without exception?


    POSTIONS:
    Pro Life: Yes.
    Pro Choice: No.


    ELABORATION OF POSITIONS:
    Pro Life: Yes. There is no exception. An unborn child has an ethical right to life which should be protected by law in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law.

    Pro Choice: No. There exists exception(s). An unborn child does not have an ethical right to life which should be protected by law in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law.


    The abortion debate itself is an argument as defined by the above question.
    There are 2 opposing positions. There are also 2 more positions (or non-positions I should say): Abstain and Present.
    The Abstain position feels that the information is sufficient, but refuses to take a position. The Present position feels that the information is insufficient, and therefore cannot presently take a position.




    SAMPLE OPINIONS REGARDING ABORTION
    These are opinions that either given position of the argument may hold.


    1. An unborn child has life just as a born individual has life.

    2. An unborn child is alive, but not in the same way a born individual is alive. An unborn child is a parasite.

    3. An unborn child is not alive. It is an entity with potential for life.

    4. A born individual has the ethical inalienable right to life. Such life is, and justifiably should be protected by law without exception.

    5. A born individual does not have any ethical inalienable right to life. Human life should not be protected by law.

    7. An unborn child does not have any ethical inalienable right to life. Human or potential human life should not be protected by law.

    8. An unborn child is occupying a host parent’s body. Therefore, a host parent’s rights are ethically absolute in comparison to their unborn child’s rights. Therefore, a host parent may extinguish their unborn child for any reason. Therefore, an unborn child’s rights are not ethically equal to a born individual’s rights.

    9. A host parent’s rights are not ethically absolute in comparison to their unborn child’s rights. However, host parents should have the right to extinguish their unborn child only under exceptional circumstances which should be determined by law. Therefore, an unborn child’s rights are ethically not equal to a born individual’s rights.

    10. An unborn child has ethically equal rights to a born individual. Therefore, an unborn child has the ethical inalienable right to life. Such life should be protected by law without exception. Therefore, a host parent may not violate an unborn child’s right to life for any reason.

    11. An unborn child’s right to life or potential life is important, but not as important as their host parents right to extinguish them.

    12. In terms of life and equality, some people’s lives are ethically more valuable than others depending on what they do. If they are exceptional and of high status, their life is ethically more valuable than a common person’s life. Everybody’s life is ethically more valuable than Osama’s life.

    13. In terms of life in equality, no individual’s life is ethically more valuable than any other individual’s life. Therefore, regardless of who somebody is or what they do, even if they are Osama, everybody’s lives are equally valuable.

    14. The value of an unborn child’s life is ethically equal to the value of their host parent’s life. An unborn child’s life is not more valuable than their host parent’s life. Nor is a host parent’s life more valuable than their unborn child’s life. Their rights to life are ethically of equal value, and should be equally protected by law.

    15. A host parent’s life is ethically more valuable than their unborn child’s life. Therefore, a host parent’s life should have more protection by law than their unborn child’s life.

    16. An unborn child is occupying a host parent’s body. Therefore, the ability to discontinue hosting their unborn child is ethically more valuable than an unborn child’s right to life. Therefore, an unborn child’s rights are ethically not equal to a born individual’s rights.

    17. A baby does not have life until it comes out their host parent’s hole. Until then, an unborn child is no more human than a plant.

    18. A sperm attaching to an egg signifies human life. Whether 2 seconds after the event or 50 years after the event, human life should have equal protection from being extinguished. The value of equal human rights ethically supersedes a host parent’s right to extinguish a human right for any reason.

    19. A non-host parent should have equal say as host parent regarding the right to decide the existential fate of the unborn child.
    20. A non-host parent should not have equal say as host parent regarding the right to decide the existential fate of the unborn child.
    Scenarios:
    Host Parent: I wish to keep my unborn child.
    Non-host Parent: I wish to keep my unborn child.

    Host Parent: I wish to keep my unborn child.
    Non-host Parent: I wish to obliterate/extinguish my unborn child.

    Host Parent: I wish to obliterate/extinguish my unborn child.
    Non-host Parent: I wish to keep my unborn child.

    Host Parent: I wish to obliterate/extinguish my unborn child.
    Non-host Parent: I wish to obliterate/extinguish my unborn child.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cottontop3000 Death Beckoned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,959
    I know you are being serious...so am I. FUCK the abortion debate. Seriously, FUCK the abortion debate. You can't tell me we need 4-6 pages worth of material to frame a debate that shouldn't even exist. Each individual should have and will retain the right to decide for themselves. Religious right, die off.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    If one does not know what the definition of the debate is, how can one say the debate is not legitimate.

    In order to make a decision on the legitimacy of a debate the definition must be clear. If everybody agrees on one answer, there is no need for debate. The debate should not exist. If people take opposing positions, the debate will exist whether anybody thinks it should or not.

    Either way, what exactly the question is should be clear.
     
  8. jax0509 The non-believer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    111
    Should be totally up to the parents rather than some people who 'think they know best'. what the fuck do they know, situations differ in EACH and EVERY case.
     
  9. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    An unborn child does not have an ethical right to life which should be protected by law in a manner equal to a born individual’s ethical right to life which should be protected by law. Simply by being the parent, the parent is ethically bestowed with the authority to govern the existential fate of their unborn child. This authority supercedes any ethical right to life an unborn child may or may not have. Therefore, an unborn child’s rights are ethically not equal to a born individual’s rights.
     
  10. The Devil Inside Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,213
    if fetuses could communicate with the outside world, i imagine the issue would have a different framework for sure.

    i am personally against abortion in all forms, but it should be a personal decision. noone has the right to make that decision for anyone else. to do so is to impose morality on someone.

    consequences and benefits--------->leave it to the genetic parents, not laws.
     
  11. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    I was trying to find the picture I saw the other day in a book. It showed a comparison of a human, dog, bird, and fish foetus. They looked almost exactly alike, except for the fish, which was slightly different.
     
  12. Arkantos Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    142
    Abortion is the extermination or elimination of undesirables. A "woman's right to choose" is disguised and misleading language. If you use that language than you have to give men the right to choose or at least not pay for the child, since it does contain half of his DNA. It's unqual to deny him this right in those terms.

    As far as social justice goes, this is the suppression and elimination of one class, the unborn, for the advancement and privelege of another, women. It's anathema to social justice.

    It's also against the founding document of the USA, if you are in America, which states the rights of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. It's the destruction of life and can therefore be considered murder, which is against the law. It has nothing to do with imposing morality on others, unless you too believe that a law against murder should be repealed for imposing morality on others.
     
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2006
  13. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    I'm not too clear about your statement, but I would probably guess it would be this:

    You state that it should be a personal decision that noone has the right to make for anyone else.
    Therefore, you believe that the life of the unborn child is solely a personal decision of the unborn child alone. Nobody has the right to make such a decision for anybody else. Therefore not even the parent has the right to make the decision for their unborn child.

    You go further to claim it should be left to the genetic parents, and not the law. The law is involved either way whether they consider the unborn child to have rights to be protected or not, it is the law that upholds whatever democratic decision is currently in effect.
     
  14. lixluke Refined Reinvention Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,072
    What is misleading is that it is not an issue regarding a "woman's right to choose". That statement is loaded. It is very misleading because this is has little to do with the actual abortion debate. Which is why there are so many inconsistensies in many debates as a result of lack of each party coming to a common understanding of what exactly it is that is being debated. In this case, it is a 2 sided debate with 2 possible positions. Any other opinion is not a separate position, but a support of either of the 2 opposing positions.
     

Share This Page