I just saw this quote on a forum, and decided to produce a counter argument against it in notepad. Here it is:
"I voted against abortion, both because it's murder and I think a Woman's ( or Man's ) Right to Choose is a load of crock.
"Nonetheless, it doesn't bother me much, because a lot of worse things happen ( although I have no doubt it is excruciatingly painful for the baby ). I'd be a lot happier with the killers if they cheerfully said 'Yes, it is murder: but it many circumstances we believe murder's the way to go.'"
Assertions:
1. Abortion is murder.
2. A woman should not have the right to abort.
3. A man should not have the right to abort.
4. The unborn child is subjected to excruiciating pain when aborted.
5. Proponents of abortion believe it is murder and that murder is circumstantially acceptable.
6. Those who are for abortion are to be labelled 'killers', whereas those that take the life of any other life form are not.
Required definitions
The definition of 'murder':
1.Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
The definition of 'abortion':
1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.
2. any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, esp. during the first six months.
My points:
1. Murder is a crime according to the law. If the law accepts that an unborn child is a human being, then abortion is indeed murder. The law does not, thus abortion is not murder. (Additionally, the definition of abortion above does not define it to be murder in any sense of the word.)
2. If the law does not class an unborn child as a human being, what then? By what means are the rights of one living thing decided?
3. Endangered species of animals are granted the right to live. They are important to us somewhat.
4. Dogs, cats, horses and other domesticated creatures are given the right to live, somewhat. For example, to shoot a dog may be described as cruelty to animals. However, a dog without an owner or place to live is commonly to be put down as it serves no other use.
5. To harm another person's pet is against the law, covered by the damaging of another person's property.
6. Vermin, mice, rats, voles, etc. are pests, unimportant. They are allowed to be killed freely by anyone. Additionally, apart from the lack of the right to live, they do not have the right to live in comfort, that is, they may be abused, tortured and subject to experimentation.
7. Insects, at least, those which are not endangered, are even moreso rightless. They are barely considered to be worthy of life, instead some natural phenomena which may be observed, admired, played with, dissected or destroyed. In spite of this, insects are not thoughtless: they have the brains; they have the ability to think; they can feel pain; they can be afraid. Characteristics which we may observe in ourselves, yet we acknowledge and choose to ignore.
8. Foxes are one animal which, previously considered vermin, have recently been given the right to live in some comfort. More precisely, the sport which was to hunt down and kill foxes using dogs has been made illegal because activists have spoken against it for some time based on the premise that foxes are subjected to horrible torture and sometimes pain. It is debated whether or not a fox feels pain when a dog takes its life. The kill is quick and efficient, when done properly. When done improperly, the fox may still live and be subjected to agony. Irrespective of this debate, what is important is that people have given an animal which previously had little to no rights the right to be exempt from the subject of hunting. However, this is not universal. The rights of all other life forms are still as they were. This is one specific species which appealed to the sympathy of people. The rest have not.
9. In law, rights which are given to life forms can be given universally, e.g. endangered species are given rights to live, and infringment of those rights is punishable by the state. The rights of other life forms are not discussed or mentioned, such as insects, and it is at the discrection of the individual to apply whatever rights he deems suitable.
Covered in (1) is that the law is clear in that abortion is not murder. And that the dictionary definition of 'abortion' is by no means defined in terms of 'murder'. (This addresses assertion (1).) In (2) I begin to question the seemingly arbitrary criteria according to which a living thing is given rights. (3) makes the assertion that we as a people seek to perserve the existance of life form species, because of this characteristic we deem those species which are in danger of becoming extinct to be important, and resultingly the individual creatures of that species are given appriopriate rights. Additionally, some species are important to the function of human endeavour, such as bees to the pollination of crops. In (4) I am attempting to illustrate that animals we favour to be amusing (dog, cat, horse), to provide companionship (dog, cat, horse), to provide labour (dog, horse), or by any means useful, are promptly assigned rights. Also, that (5) pets can also be assigned rights if they are the property of a human being. Otherwise, these rights are unapplicable. This demonstrates further that rights given to life forms are in the interest of human beings, and not the life forms themselves.
By (6), I begin to move on to live forms that we do not cherish and on which we do not place value. Vermin do not have the right to live. I assert that vermin do not have the right to live because they are of no direct use to human beings alive, which is an essential critereon. However, the meaning of 'use' has some flexbility; this may include amusement, companionship, labour, entertainment, betting, sport, produce (e.g. cow milk) and others. The rights of animals, just like humans, are altered circumstantially. If a chicken is no longer able to produce eggs, that chicken may lose the right to live and be sent to the slaughter to be used as food. If they are not fit for eating due to illness or poor condition, they are put to death and disposed of.
(7) tries to illustrate man's complete apathy towards the insect order of life forms. Unless the species itself is endangered, or provides use, the individual insect has no right to live. We are completely and utterly unsympathetic towards these life forms. However, in (8), I discuss a species of animal which has been given rights based on the sympathy of man. We understand that spiders feel pain when we pull their legs off, and that when it runs away, it does not want to die, and further, that when it curls up into a ball it does so to protect itself because it fears for its life. This is called empathy. We understand the perspective of something; we recognise thoughts, feelings or attitudes of another. However, we are not sympathetic. The anguish of an insect does not in tern incite anguish in ourselves. We do not feel for these live forms. However, sympathy can be chosen. We feel sick when we see someone break their bones, but we can choose whether we sympathise for an insect, or any animal, or indeed, human being.
Clearly, in the previously discussed points, as a race, humans do not universally value life. We are selective. We are selective based on criteria, it has been demonstrated that criteria for value of a life form include use, sympathy and others which are subject to circumstance, culture, emotional state, upbringing, and so forth.
I will now discuss (1) what implication this has on the value of an unborn child, and (2) whether a woman has the right to abort the unborn child, or even perhaps, (3) whether the unborn child posesses the right to live.
A relationship between an unborn child and a carrier is parasitical. I will now provide the definition of 'parasite':
1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2.
1. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
It is a take relationship. All take, no give. The parasite takes from the host, often to the detriment of the host. For example, a pregnant woman experiences morning sickness, must eat more, and experiences other physically and psychologically negative effects.
This precisely describes the physical relationship between an unborn child and the pregnant woman hosting it.
In order for this to be meaningful, the psychological relationship between an unborn child and the pregnant woman hosting it must be similar to that of a life form suffering at the hands of a parasite. That is to say, the host resents the parasite and does not want it. However, in exploring this it will be demonstrated that this is not always the case, and is especially not always the case in the unborn child-host relationship. For example, if the parasite is wanted, it is no longer a parasite, but a symbiote; it provides something to the host, physical or otherwise. E.g. we use leeches to remove poison from our blood, etc.
Referring back to (9), the rights of an unborn child are much less universal than they are dictated by individual discretion. In some sense, the child is the property of the parent, as a dog or cat is the property of its owner, and as such, laws that state the property of an owner is not to be damaged, covers dogs, cats, and babies. Additionally, it is therefore at the discretion of the owner as to the rights he deems suitable, except where universal laws such as cruetly to animals, cruetly to children, and so forth apply and override. (This addresses assertion (2) and (3).)
Due to the lack of universal rights given to the unborn child, it is therefore left to the owner (parent), and no one else. The crucial point of whether the child has rights is decided, therefore, in its value. Why is there a lack of abortion in some states? I propose that it is because the child has no value to society as a whole. If it cannot work, produce or entertain, how does it benefit society? If someone who is valued by society wants it and professes ownership of it, then the thing itself then inherits what rights a piece of property can attain, or at least, what the owner decides to provide. If the life form is useless, then there is also the factor of sympathy. I have demonstrated that there is an arbitrary sensor in man which decides on his sympathy of life forms. One man may have feelings for a life form, another may not, a whole group of people or even the state may possess this sympathy. But unless the state does possess sympathy for the unborn child, e.g. if the state is religious and the religion dictates that all human life is to be valued, the unborn child's last hope is appealing to the owner's (parent's) sympathy.
To summarise the previous paragraph, if the life form is useless, which most unborn children tend to be, it falls on the sympathy of the owner (parent) which dictates whether the unborn child has the right to live or not.
If the state has sympathy for the pain of the unborn child, then it will be made so that pain is reduced. This may even involve not aborting the unborn child all together. If the state does not sympathise, then it is up to the mother's sympathy. This means that it is at the discretion of the individual mother. No one else. (This addresses assertion (4).)
Proponents of abortion certainly are not proponents of murder by definition, unless abortion is defined in terms of murder, which it is not. (This addresses assertion (5)).
(Assertion (6) is hypocritical and therefore uninteresting.)
In the USA, natural citizenship is defined by birth. If the so-called Pro-Lifers get their way, the fetus will be of anti-citizenship, which is absurd. Rationally, then, we conclude that the natural right of abortion belongs to the mother.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 5:24 ID:z9kZuEXg
You wasted your time. You could have crushed him in debate with the following sentence.
"Killing sapient beings should be illegal."
This pretty much sums up the entire abortion debate, there is no logical counter-argument to it. The only unknown is what we should consider sapient which can only be defined scientifically and as we are not omnipotent there is no line where we can say "this is sapient, now this is not sapient". What we have is a grey area between the following 2 certainties.
A cluster of cells is not sapient.
A 4 month old fetus has a miniscule brain, it is not sapient.
If the fetus is older than 6 months it can survive outside the womb and it's brain activity is the same as that of a new born baby. Aborting a 6 month fetus is the equivalent of standing in front of a woman giving birth and shooting the baby when it's head appears.
The grey area lies between 5 months and 6 months therefore as this is the period where it's human brain first becomes active.
Anyone who disagrees is a vicious lesbian feminist on her period or a retarded bible camp closet faggot with the ability to adapt of an oak board.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 17:58 ID:y3NLLn+N
Abortion is wrong because we need more people for the inevitable war over world domination.
The chinks must not win!
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 19:37 ID:HqLSSP9o
Early pregnancy abortion = :thumbsup:
Late abortion = :thumbsdown:
Men having a say / way out = :thumbsup:
Once men start getting a way to opt out of a childs life, the sooner women will stop being so overly slutty as they have become.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 20:32 ID:ruvM9Ck3
Fucking kill it when it comes out, I have no problems with this because I'm an atheist and I hate Conservatives.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 20:35 ID:C1whzLgt
>>6
Best Idea:
1. Mandatory paternity tests at birth.
2. ???
3. Whores on Welfare!
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 21:04 ID:l/CMxuwt
tl;dr
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 21:21 ID:MABzD4s1
Isn't it hypocritical to supprot abortion when you've allready been born?
Isn't it hypocritical to support masturbation when you've already been born?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 23:19 ID:vCyLfEmd
Meh I think that you can add all the text and definitions to it you want that doesn't stop the act or change the emotional value of the situation.
The simple fact of the matter is abortion as birthcontrol equates to people fucking up and then wanting to get off easy. That is wrong. That is like saying "there should be no reprocussions for our actions". You got pregnant because you fucked around simple as that.
With that said in the case of rape it is not nessicerly your fault you were raped so should you decide to abort that is perfectly natural and probably the best ultimate choice. What child wants to realise he (or she) is the product of someones overwhelming need to control an unsuspecting person?
In the case of severe birth defects abortion saves the unborn child (and possible mother) a most likely short life full of trama and eventual possibly extremely painful death.
Abortion should not and never equate to birth control. However, in the event there is a REAL reason for it then I support it.
If a whore gets knocked up.. force her to have the child and give it up for adoption.
No, #10, it's not hypocritical to support abortion when you've already been born, since your birth was always up to the mother to decide. If you're here, then she decided to tolerate your birth.
I do believe that it was much more a moment of "choice" when legs were spread and some oaf's sore-encrusted cock was pushed into a fuckslit. That was a very important period when choice was expressed. HOWEVER, a fetus is the mother's property from all physical evidence. We COULD arbitrarily decide in law that life begins at conception, or at the start of the 2nd trimester, etc. But the law has not expressed such, and so we go through these largely pointless arguments. You should consider when protected life really begins, and when the mother's real rights are, and then inform your legislative representative accordingly. Think carefully, choose wisely, and come to a decision.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 16:00 ID:c2i0/o98
RULE 1:
NO RIGHTS (INCLUDING LIFE) UNLESS YOU HAVE A SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
RULE 2:
NO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER UNLESS YOU 1) LOOK HUMAN** AND 2) LACK AN UMBILICAL CORD
*OR A FEDERAL TAX NUMBER, OR A LOT OF GUNS
**MUST LOOK AS HUMAN AS MOTHER OR GREATER
RULE 3:
IF YOU ARE AGAINST ABORTION, A PORTION OF YOUR INCOME SHOULD BE TAKEN TO SUPPORT ALL THE UNWANTED CHILDREN THAT THEREBY COME TO BE BECAUSE OF YOUR POINT OF VIEW. IF NOT, YOU ARE THE SAME AS A DEADBEAT DAD, I.E. **YOU REALLY DON'T GIVE A FUCK***. PUT UP (YOUR MONEY)** OR SHUT UP. ENJOY BEING BROKE.
***OR A LOT OF GUNS
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-23 16:01 ID:c2i0/o98
I FAIL AT FOOTNOTES, BUT YOU* GET** THE IDEA***
*NOT ME
**SHOVED DOWN YOUR THROAT
***RAUCOUS SMATTERING OF TEXT
>>4 >>17
Well, you put value on life as soon as it becomes sapient, I got that, but only that of human beings. Any other life form, sapient or not, nobody gives a shit.
It's selective. Whereas I am not. I'd abort an eight year old.
English common law allowed for abortions up to the quickening. That's just a fine a termination point as any. No pun intended. But no! The zealots on either side -- "every sperm is sacred," or "gimme a mirror, I want to see you jam the rod into its skull," those zealots -- won't give a fucking inch.
I'm mostly pro-life, but I can think of about 530 members of Congress whose mothers' should have had abortions. It'd make my life easier, and I wouldn't have the urge to abort myself in the 90something trimester.
Fetuses aren't even physically aware of themselves, they won't even notice a difference if they're dead since they were never really "living" in the first place. Also, what about victims of rape or people who have used contraceptives/prohpylactics that failed? What about to-be parents which can't financially support their supposed children? And what of those who know ahead of time that their child will be deformed/crippled and never lead a full or satisfying life? People don't get abortions just for the hell of it, or because they didn't feel like paying a for condoms or birth control pills. They have legitimate reasons which you have completely disregarded. What an idiot.