As a Christian man I believe that those who believe in the lord are held to a higher standard. For whatever reason some people are pro-choice because they believe abortions will happen no matter what. Thus, they argue to forget about the law and address people on a grass rots level. I do whole-heartedly believe that on any issue we should deal with the person and realize the law will make little difference. For that I believe abortion is a violation of natural law and should be banned. Not that it will stop all abortions, but it will certainly limit them and it is simply the right thing to do. When people ask me what about those "special circumstances". I answer that we have an ethical responsibility to reject any idea of abortion. Essentially what these people are saying is that they aren't going to take a stance on the issue. They will defend that abortion might be wrong, but that a women still has a right to them. Logically is this not consistence. It would be like me saying that I am a pacifist but for the war in Iraq. I guess at the end of the day what you believe is up to you though.
A Touchy Subject
By jraft00 - Posted on October 1st, 2008
*sighs* Another abortion blog, and I'm sucked into answering it...
I, personally, favor the life of the mother over the life of the child. Christians tend to go with the opposite. I do not believe a woman should be asked to give up her life so she can have a child; the existing children and husband she has are more important than any future child she may have because they are already living and depend on her.
Do I think abortion should be as widely spread as it is now? No, I think women should be more educated about what other options there are. But I also recognize that the adoption system isn't great by any means, and some women just don't have that choice.
So, tell me, why should the fetus, who is not yet born and a citizen, have more rights over that of the woman carrying it, who has been alive and is a citizen of somewhere?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I'm not sure that's what he's saying: "The child has more rights than the mother; unborn wins over born."
While I do agree with the fact that abortion is wrong, Christians put emphasis on both lives: the mother and the child. Though we put extra emphasis on the child, as that's what the issue is about (abort or live/adopt), Christians, don't make hierarchies out of this issue.
The "fetus" (if that's the word you want to go with; I prefer "child") is just as important to society as the mother. Just because the mother has actually played a part in society doesn't mean that the child is unimportant. The child hasn't had a chance to live and play a part in society; because someone hasn't had the chance, does that make them unimportant?
Besides, it's like killing birds while they're still in the egg. We recognize that birds come from eggs, and we also have huge respect for birds. Why don't we have the same respect, if not more, for a human being?
But that's exactly what he's saying if he says abortion should be outlawed completely. If the mother's life is in danger, he would force her to carry it to term, because abortion would be outlawed completely. Thus, he is forcing the mother to give up her own life for the life of her yet unborn child. Some women will make this choice voluntarily, but for those who don't... the organism (since you don't like the medically relevant term) growing inside her would have more of a right to live than she would, under his suggestion. It's one thing to say that the woman should give the child up for adoption if she does not want to raise it after birth, it's another to say that she has to carry it to term, no matter what, even if it causes the loss of both lives as a result.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The "fetus" (if that's the word you want to go with; I prefer "child") is just as important to society as the mother.
I would suggest that the reason you prefer the term "child," is because it evokes an emotional response...one that interferes with any objective consideration of the issue. As the Court stated in Roe...
If you can't make your argument without appealing to the emotions of your audience, you will never gain any ground for your position in regards to the legality of women seeking abortions.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
Appealing to emotions is one of the best ways to win an arguement. That's why even pro-choice folk, who tend to be more scientifically minded will use arguments like, "What if it was your daughter who had been raped?"
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
Such arguments however do not have any effect on the legality of induced abortions.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
What is a "Real American?"
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
I think that's what we'd like to think, that the best way to win is to use logical arguments. But look at this site. Look at any forum for arguments and people use emotion to sway their opponent. Maybe its not as solid, but its a lot faster.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
...there are very few issues of any import that are decided in internet forums. In regards to this issue especially, the body which determines the legality of induced abortions is unlikely to be swayed by emotional appeals.
As for this site, there are and I suspect will always be those who minds are influenced less by reason than by emotion, but I think that if you look at those who have survived the longest and been the most successful here at ProU you will find few who meet that description.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
What is a "Real American?"
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
If the author's purpose was to change law, then that's where this argument would have gone. And maybe it did, I don't know. But most arguments have a basis in emotion. Atheists argue that there is no god because how could god let bad things happen? Use of cancer and natural disasters appeal to emotion. So do a lot of arguments for gay marriage. Law makers appeal to emotions just like anyone else when trying to win their case.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
If the author's purpose was to change law, then that's where this argument would have gone.
Ahem...jraft00 said (emphasis mine), "For that I believe abortion is a violation of natural law and should be banned." How would you suggest that abortions be "banned" in any meaningful fashion, that would not involve the use of a legal prohibition?
But most arguments have a basis in emotion.
Perhaps you need to surround yourself with a more intelligent group of friends and associates. Like most things, there always seems to be more chaff than wheat.
Atheists argue that there is no god because how could god let bad things happen?
"Atheists" aren't immune to making bad arguments.
Use of cancer and natural disasters appeal to emotion. So do a lot of arguments for gay marriage. Law makers appeal to emotions just like anyone else when trying to win their case.
As I said...there are LOTS of bad arguments out there in the market-place of ideas. And as with any market-place, there are poorly educated consumers who unfortunately fall prey to this kind of low-minded crap. FORTUNATELY, our Courts are specifically designed to limit the influence of emotion in our Laws.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
What is a "Real American?"
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
In my opinion, which is how good and bad are determined, opinion that is, not mine specifically, a good argument is one that wins. Appealing to emotion wins arguments.
Ok, so I missed that statement about legality, but since when was being emotionless required for being a lawmaker? Making a person feel guilty certainly helps your case. And since when does appealing to emotion make a person unintelligent? If that's what wins the argument, then it seems like a smart move to me.
Listen to a few arguments once in awhile, I think you'll see what I mean.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
...when you are debating those who are ignorant of the illogical nature of your argument. And, the fact that induced abortions remain legal in this country--despite the seeming endless stream of mindless emotional appeals that continue to circulate against it--would seem to suggest that your observation is not true.
...since when was being emotionless required for being a lawmaker?
A judge is not a lawmaker. Constitutional jurisprudence exists (in part) to prevent emotionally based arguments from contravening the Rule of Law. As for the origin of the concept, have you ever heard of Blind Justice? The earliest known example of this concept dates back to Code of Hammurabi (1728 B.C.E.), and the basic idea has been a part of virtually all of the legal systems enacted since in Western Civilization.
On a more philosophical level, the concept dates back at least to the 5th Century B.C.E. when Socrates criticized the argumentum ad populum during his trial, refusing to display his family before his judges even though the practice of doing so in order to evoke sympathy for the accused was common-place.
Relying on emotional arguments doesn't necessarily make you unintelligent, but it does bespeak a certain amount of ignorance about the discipline of logic, and I think that your confidence in actual sucess of this tactic is woefully misplaced. You may indeed win the occasional argument based on an emotional appeal when your only opponent(s) and audience are equally ignorant of the art of rational argumentation, but you will likely find yourself falling short should you encounter an opponent who is rather skilled in this regard.
To quote one of my own mentors...
TTFN,
Blackout
---
What is a "Real American?"
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
I could argue for a long time about this, but since I'm not getting any points for the scholarship, this is pretty useless. I won't change your mind, and you won't change yours. Whether you like it or not, most people are pretty irrational, or at least have their irrational moments. And logic will only get you so far. And any argument about what is "right" or "wrong" can only be based on emotion by its nature.
So we both wasted plenty of each other's time, and I'm calling it quits and accomplished nothing. If we were in senate, one of us would have probably accomplished the goal of preventing action. If nothing else, we distracted from the actual argument.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
...to teach people how to think and express themselves more effectively.
I won't change your mind, and you won't change yours.
This really isn't about you (or me). Rather, I see this as a teaching moment for everyone else who is reading this disussion. After all, it is our readers who will ultimately decide which of our arguments was the most effective.
So we both wasted plenty of each other's time, and I'm calling it quits and accomplished nothing.
I would suggest that your acquiesence only adds weight to my contention that emotional argumentation invariably fails when confronted with logical and reasonable rebuttals.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
What is a "Real American?"
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the ProU community.
Since I stated I was done debating, I'll only say this. I didn't quit because I ran out of arguments or I got too emotional. Frankly, I didn't think my arguments were any more irrational than yours. I just couldn't be bothered with it any more. I have a life beyond this site.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
I eat eggs all the time. I have seen people eat Balut, but i wouldnt eat it.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
I would suggest that there are few "simple" arguments on either side of this debate. I must also counter your claims about the most pro-choice positions, which I feel you have seriously mischaracterized. The reason why many of us feel that anti-abortion laws are inappropriate (and unconstitutional) is that our Constitution does not permit the State to arbitrarily tread upon the basic rights of citizens (in this case, the rights to basic liberty, self-determination and privacy of pregnant women) without the demonstration of a compelling, objective justification for that infringement. And whether one likes it or not, the idea that human zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses are "human persons" (with all of the legal rights and privledges that are associated therewith) from the moment of their conception, is simply not objectively supportable in any sense that is consistent with the common legal, historical and even ethical principles that inform our Constitution. In the lack of any objective consensus among the relevant experts in the field of human development that would suggest otherwise, it is inappropriate for the State to arbitrarily impose one point-of-view (especially one which is based solely in a religious belief...something that our Constitution specifically forbids, and which your comment above seems to strongly imply) over all others. Thus, citizens are left to make their own choices, free of any unwarranted government interference.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
For that I believe abortion is a violation of natural law and should be banned.
Natural law? Please.
There's nothing at all natural about society at large telling women what they should do about their pregnancies. Pregnancy has always been a woman's prerogative: she's the first person to know she's pregnant, and if she doesn't want it, she can get rid of it without anyone else knowing. That's natural law.
Women have been aborting unwanted pregnancies since the dawn of time. It's every bit as natural as birth or menstruation.
If you have a problem with things that violate natural law, you ought to be opposed to adoption, not abortion. Giving birth to a baby and giving it to a stranger is completely against natural law. Mothers are hard-wired to want their babies after birth. Mothers are meant to feed their babies for a year after birth. Adoption is far more traumatic to women than abortion.
Why else do you think -- given the choice -- most women choose to keep their babies or to abort, while very, very few choose adoption?
Never heard of a BS in Natural Law, but good arguments.
A woman CHOOSES to do what she does to get pregnant. In the case of rape, you can wipe out everything to ensure the egg doesn't get fertiized the day after the incident. But in all actuality most women who get abortions just don't want a baby. A baby's nervous system is formed 1 month into the pregnancy. The nervous system allows us to feel.
Women, if you don't want a kid, don't have sex.
You do have the right to choose =]
i read an article about women who have had abortions a few months ago. And some of those women did want children. A few were even married and/or on birth control. It was often a matter of personal health, finances, or it plain wasn't a good time. There is never one sweeping statement to describe all the cases. Some women might not be able to access the day after pill or even have much knowledge about it.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711