Abortion Should Be Used To Save Life And Not Destroy It

@Wireman I will value your judgement when you are pregnant

@Wireman Sex is important aspect of humanity. Literally people have issues with sexual dysfunction and it screws with their hormones, depression, mental illness, anxieties around sex. We have these natural feelings for a reason so no we shouldn't wait till marriage, the alternative is repression.

@SatanBurger Depends on how much you value your actions. You should be choosy and particular, even animals are.

@Wireman Well yeah but even with being choosy you have no idea who is going to hurt you or not. There's stories of women who were with men who wanted to have babies with them. By the time they got pregnant the men turned around and left literally. That story is kind of common, even in marriage. Other partners going away for work and turns out they have whole other families etc etc.

There's an 80/20 rule to life, 80% success and 20% could go wrong. You can't predict future outcomes and have everything in a neat little bow.

@SatanBurger Still no reason to murder the unborn or newly borns. Be glad your mother choose well.

@Wireman From the Phil archive, can't really copy the link it's a download, it's titled 11 Common Arguments Against Abortion, you can look it up.

“Murder” means “wrongful killing,” and so this definition implies that abortion is wrong by definition, which it isn’t. This definition means that to know that abortion is wrong, we’d just need to reflect on the meaning of the word, and not give any reasons to think this. Murder is wrong by definition, but to know That any particular killing is murder, we need arguments. (Compare someone who calls the death penalty
murder: we know it’s killing, but is it wrongful killing? We can’t just appeal to the definition of
“murder”: we need arguments that this is wrongful killing).

This definition also means that someone who claims that abortion is not wrong says that “Wrongful killing is not wrong,” which makes no sense. We can even call this a “question-begging” definition, since it assumes that abortion is wrong, which can’t be assumed.

So this definition is problematic, even if abortion is wrong.

Definition 1 also describes fetuses as “babies” or “children.” While people are usually free to use whatever words how they want, people can say things that are false: calling something something doesn’t mean it’s really that thing.

And the beginnings of something are usually not that thing: a pile of lumber and supplies is not a house; fabric, buttons and thread are not a shirt, and an embryo or early fetus is not a baby or child. So it’s false and misleading to call embryos and early fetuses “babies” or
“children.”

Defining abortion in terms of “babies” seems to again result in a “question-begging” definition that assumes that abortion is wrong, since it is widely and correctly believed that it’s wrong to kill babies.

We understand, however, that it’s wrong to kill babies because we think about born babies who are conscious and feeling and have other baby-like characteristics: these are the babies we have in mind when we think about the wrongness of killing babies, not early fetuses.

Describing early fetuses as “babies” characterizes them either as something they are not or, at least, assumes things that need to
argued for, which is misleading, both factually (in terms of what fetuses are like) and morally (insofar as it’s assumed that the rules about how babies should be treated clearly and straightforwardly apply to, say, embryos).

Part of the problem with this definition is that terms like “babies” and “children” encourage strong emotional responses. Babies and children are associated with value-laden terms such as innocence, vulnerability, preciousness, cuteness, and more

....

(1) abortion is murder;
(2) abortion is killing babies or children;
(3) adoption is a better option than abortion;
(4) pregnant women just must keep the pregnancy and give birth;
(5) abortion should not be used as ‘birth control’;
(6) women who have abortions are irresponsible;
(7) a good person wouldn’t have an abortion;
(8) women who have abortions feel guilty.
These premises all assume that abortion is wrong.

To explain:

(1) assumes that killing fetuses is wrong, since “murder” means wrongful killing;
(2) assumes that fetuses are like babies and children and so are similarly wrong to kill;
(3) assumes that abortion is a worse or bad option, since it assumes it is wrong;
(4) assumes that women must not have abortions since it assumes they are wrong;
(5) assumes that abortion is wrong: but if it is not wrong, while it might not be an ideal form
of “birth control” it could permissibly be used for that purpose;
(6) assumes that women who have abortions are doing what they are not supposed to do,
doing wrong, and so are “irresponsible”;
(7) assumes that abortion is wrong and so good people, who avoid wrongdoing, wouldn’t
have one;
(8) assumes that abortion is wrong and so assumes that some women feel guilty because they
have done something wrong: however, people can feel guilty even if they haven’t done
anything wrong, so guilt feelings aren’t perfect evidence of wrongdoing (just as not
feeling guilty doesn’t mean you did something that was OK).
People would believe these claims only if they already believed abortion is wrong, so these claims
should not sway anyone who wants to think critically about the issues.

@SatanBurger I hope you don't believe this scientific explanations.

@Wireman Just to reiterate a point:

And the beginnings of something are usually not that thing: a pile of lumber and supplies is not a house; fabric, buttons and thread are not a shirt, and an embryo or early fetus is not a baby or child. So it’s false and misleading to call embryos and early fetuses “babies” or
“children.”

@SatanBurger You are one of those!

@Wireman It's better than not understanding something and using an emotional response to take away women's rights. You should believe the scientific definition for that reason and think critically about something rather than the idea of an embryo as a potential baby in the future. You should just admit you are emotionally making decisions rather than logically and it's not good to take away people's rights when you're emotionally involved.

@SatanBurger It'true then what the new order stands for, you are nothing special. There are many more of you. Human rights took over from human values, enjoy your ideas.

@Wireman There's no new order, there's been abortion since biblical times. You just have confirmation bias so you see what you want. If you're skipping over anything I said previously and not considering anything then you're just biased clearly.

@SatanBurger Yes, I am biased. And against murdering babies so the fetus could be sold at a profit. I am proud of my race, and of my mother for not taking the easy way out. Regarding the new world order, you are correct. It is so old some people love the idea.

@Wireman
The beginnings of something are usually not that thing: a pile of lumber and supplies is not a house; fabric, buttons and thread are not a shirt, and an embryo or early fetus is not a baby or child. So it’s false and misleading to call embryos and early fetuses “babies” or
“children.”

Defining abortion in terms of “babies” seems to again result in a “question-begging” definition that assumes that abortion is wrong, since it is widely and correctly believed that it’s wrong to kill babies.

We understand, however, that it’s wrong to kill babies because we think about born babies who are conscious and feeling and have other baby-like characteristics: these are the babies we have in mind when we think about the wrongness of killing babies, not early fetuses.


You assume that people who have abortions don't have any other children so technically no it's not the easy way out. There's no free child care in the United States. Many women have children and work full time jobs. Many women who get abortions also have a kid later in life.

That's not the easy way out but even if it was, a woman can decide to put her priorities above it all as it's her life and her happiness.


That doesn't even make sense. Anyways the Bible has abortion in it.

@SatanBurger Maybe it's a way of getting rid of a bad bloodline, but I am truly sorry for the innocent babies.

@Wireman An embryo is not a baby.

@SatanBurger The easy way out.

@Wireman You assume that people who have abortions don't have any other children so technically no it's not the easy way out. There's no free child care in the United States. Many women have children and work full time jobs. Many women who get abortions also have a kid later in life.

That's not the easy way out but even if it was, a woman can decide to put her priorities above it all as it's her life and her happiness.

@Diotrephes
It was never human nature in the beginning when God created man and woman.

@GodSpeed63 Religion doesn't matter here, we're in 2024. The fact of the matter is that you can't force someone to raise a kid they don't want. That creates resentment and in the end, they could potentially abuse their kid or neglect them, at the very least. There's many forms of neglect, you don't have to necessarily be abusive to neglect something.

@SatanBurger Something like selling baby parts? Surely some abortions are needed, but not murdering for money.

@SatanBurger
Of course not, so, why are you bringing it up?

@GodSpeed63 I was responding to your comment bringing religion into it, why would I bring it up if you didn't? Are you okay over there.