FacebookTwitterYoutube

An Abortion Debate

Jesse: Or you could let people make their own choices, instead of force feeding them your "right answer".

21 hours ago · Like · 3.

Jonathon: i never forced anyone i was simply drawing a comparison

21 hours ago · Like · 2.

Alex: slavery and abortion? Sorry but there is NO comparison, thats ridiculous.

11 hours ago · Like.

Jonathon:

Defenders of slavery in America justified it by asserting that African-Americans were not fully persons, particularly in comparison to other races. Likewise, abortion advocates assert that the unborn baby is not fully a person, particularly in comparison to those living outside of the womb. It is in denying the personhood of the African-American and of the unborn that one finds the justification for enslaving the one and murdering the other.

When one recognizes that the foundational argument for slavery is the same for abortion, one is better equipped to see through the reasoning used for the latter. For instance, the most common argument for legalized abortion is that women should have the choice to do with their body as they wish. But this is in essence no different than a pro-slavery partisan proclaiming in the 1850s that the slave-owner should have the freedom to do as he wishes with his "property" — a human slave.

One is free to do as he wishes with the unborn baby, and the slave, only when neither of them are deemed to be human. But the moment you recognize the humanity — the personhood — of the slave and of the unborn, you forfeit the right to treat (or rather, mistreat) either one any way you wish.

11 hours ago · Unlike · 2.

Alex: ‎"Slaves, obey your masters"(Collosians 3:22)

10 hours ago · Like · 1.

Jonathon: the way slaves are treated in the bible were far different than how they were treated in america slaves in the bible were more like paid employees much like ourselves slaves in america were killed and live in total poverty

10 hours ago · Like.

Alex: ‎... acceptable slavery... seems legit.

10 hours ago · Like.

Jonathon: but I ask you is not working at a job considered acceptable slavery you are paying someone to do work so that you do not have to do it

10 hours ago · Like.

Jonathon:

oh and if you want to quite scripture please do not take it out of context as it goes on to say"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for human masters, 24 since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. 25 Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for their wrongs, and there is no favoritism."

10 hours ago · Like.

Justin:

Although I'm technically pro-life, there are some issues with comparing slavery to abortion. To claim that all those who support abortion were "born" is problematic, as well as claiming that all who supported slavery were "free." It's a little simplistic and leaves your oppression dichotomy a little open-ended. Sure, those who supported slavery were free, but those most supportive of emancipation were also free (primarily in the northern States). Those who are pro-life (like you and me) were also born; everyone born holds diverse views about the world. Thus, these categorizations are ambiguous and do not wholly coincide with the narrow framework of "born=pro-choice and free=pro slavery." Oppression is much more complex phenomenon not solely characterized by birth and freedom. A better pro-life argument is to examine the notion that life begins at conception (and by the time a woman knows she's pregnant, that child has already begun developing organs). Also, examine the opposing term "pro CHOICE." Who's choice is it? Who determines whether an unborn child's choice is being overlooked by those who support abortion? A fetus's unconsciousness does not negate its most basic survivalist instincts, that is, to be born and begin to make choices of his/her own. :)

10 hours ago · Like · 1.

Jonathon: thank you Justin I think the point of this picture is to draw the comparisons between these two issues

10 hours ago · Like.

Justin: But there is no absolute comparison between the two :s. That was my argument.

10 hours ago · Like.

Jonathon: oh I know but you have to admit that the person hood issue is present

10 hours ago · Like.

Alex:

Well said Justin, that was my original point although I did not anticipate Johns comparison between women who chose to abort and slave owners.

The real oppression is people who take it upon themselves to shame others for choices that don't ...See More

9 hours ago · Like · 1.

Justin:

I have to agree; however, with much less of a confrontational tone than Alex...lol. Choice is what we make of it, our own views cannot speak entirely for the diversity of issues in the world. That's why if I had to vote on the issue, I'd make it legal (what was that?!?! A roman catholic voting in favor of abortion?! OMG!!). If under the circumstances, I would never ever make the decision to abort, I don't think Alex would, i know Jon wouldn't and thats awesome. If someone chooses to abort, deep down I think it was the wrong choice, but it's not for me to decide for them or judge them on their decisions. All choices (regarding the person him/herself) should be left to the individual, even if some choices may be problematic. If you don't believe in abortion, don't do it. If you don't believe in eurhanasia, don't do it. But don't isolate these options for others on the basis of what a group of people think, because no single group can speak for the complexity of human experience.

9 hours ago · Like · 2.

Alex: Very well said and I apologize if I came off confrontational. To each his own.

9 hours ago · Like.

Christopher: To both Alex and Justin, if you take a subjective approach to your argument, "Human experience", and "I do not determine what is right or what is wrong", you can justify any act as being good so long as it confirms to your own experience. Abortion is one of those objective moral truths, not a subjective one as you both would seem to imply.

9 hours ago · Like.

Justin: The nazis thought "kill the Jews" was an objective moral truth, justified through eugenics...

9 hours ago · Like.

Justin: Objective moral truths do not exist

9 hours ago · Like.

Christopher: exactly "thought" that isn't a moral truth, and yes they do exist, otherwise, killing a grown adult would be legal for any reason, along with pedophilia, and a host of other harmful things.

9 hours ago · Like.

Alex: like slavery?

9 hours ago · Like.

Justin: I want you to travel to Afghanistan, where a woman can be stoned to death on the legal grounds of infidelity. Completey justified in the eyes of a religious extremist, unjustifiable for most logical humans. The fact that abortion is such a two-sided argument centered on understanding what is "right" and "wrong" indicates its subjectivity.

8 hours ago · Like.

Christopher: Hold on a sec, I thought there was no objective moral truths according to you...If what you say is true, then stoning someone to death is okay.

8 hours ago · Like.

Justin: Absolutely not! My point is that it isn't ok! I'm illustrating how subjective "moral acts" can be under different world views.

8 hours ago · Like.

Alex: How do you get "stoning someone to death is okay" from that?

8 hours ago · Like.

Christopher: Absolutely so! If it is based on what your subjective reasoning is, then it is okay, because their are no objective truths right ???

8 hours ago · Like.

Christopher: And if it isn't okay, who is claiming that it is not? Who gets to decide what is good or not, without an objective moral truth?

8 hours ago · Like.

Olivia: All of the people arguing right now are men, thats how oppression works.

8 hours ago · Like.

Alex: Chris its all about perspective, from their perspective, it's not wrong, it's justified. From ours it is, based on our culture, and upbringing (among other things). The point is that just about anything is justifiable from someone's perspective, even if it's wrong to you, me, or the laws in our country.

8 hours ago · Unlike · 1.

Jonathon: so morally if in the future I had children I could beat them right? because I claim it to be morally okay?

8 hours ago · Unlike · 1.

Alex: I or the law wouldn't give you permission to do so even if you think its okay.

8 hours ago · Like.

Jonathon: but who are you to force your morality onto me? right because as you said there is no objective truth so you may think it's wrong but I say it should be legal

8 hours ago · Unlike · 1.

Alex: Then start a political party on that basis, and once you're elected you can change the law.

8 hours ago · Like.

Jonathon: but do you see how the argument doesn't hold up when we talk about someone who has already been born? the problem with the abortion issue has and never will be if it is right or wrong... no the issue has always been how do we classify the unborn because if they are persons then we have to defend them from abortion because it is murder but if they are not human persons then there is no argument

8 hours ago · Like.

Aaron: Jonathon just cause you don't get laid and therefore would never need to choose the option doesn't mean you should shovel your bullshit down other peoples throats.

8 hours ago · Like.

Jonathon: well thank you Aaron for your insightful contribution to this debate go troll someplace else friend

8 hours ago · Like.

Aaron: and another thing... who calls themselves "jonathon" anymore... its john. That just screams that your square

8 hours ago · Like.

Jonathon: ummmm my Parents called me that so if you have an issue with my name take it up with them

8 hours ago · Like.

Aaron: This is the most ridiculous pro-life comparison... So your saying an eleven year old girl gets raped by her disturbed creepy uncle... she ends up pregnant and its morally wrong for her to choose to abort the baby? The true slavery there would be her having to care for the child she never chose to have for the rest of her life.

8 hours ago · Like.

Justin:

To Olivia: :

How is this oppression, none of us here are excluding women to argue? If you want to make a point on the issue, please do! We're not stopping you. Oppression is the limitation of actions or opinions which are enforced from one group onto another. We're not enforcing anything, that's not oppression, it's called egalitarianism. Oh, and if your comment is meant to allude to the fact that men are debating on behalf of something women, not men, have to deal with, then please remember that Alex and I are debating in favor of your right to choose. Where's the oppression in men debating that?

6 hours ago · Like.

Justin:

To Chris and Jon: The point is not to determine exactly what is right and wrong in OUR eyes, it's to illustrate that morality is subjective. Unfortunately, I don't think Chris was capable of passing his grade 10 literacy test because he seems to have misread, embellished and/or bastardized any opinion that didn't conform to his own. I'm not saying stoning, raping, beating or murder is OK; I'm saying that anything (yes, ANYTHING!) can be morally justified within differing worldviews and that does not suggest I personally agree with what is being done. Half of Chris's comments reinforce this notion, as he is pointing out that individuals justify certain actions as moral whereas others would not. My advice to Chris? Read a book on rhetoric, you might learn a thing or two.

6 hours ago · Like · 1.

Olivia: I'm not saying you're excluding women but it's a woman's body and I don't think it's fair that men pretend to know about the issue. I also think it's a gross violation of a womens rights that male politicians are in charge of creating the laws that surround abortion. That's all I'm sayin'!!

6 hours ago · Like · 2.

Justin: Good point, overall it should be women, not men, who are the principle authorities on the issue. But at the same time I don't think men should be totally excluded in debating the issue.

6 hours ago · Like.

Olivia: And I agree, I'm not saying you shouldn't have an opinion. It just shouldnt be the authoritative opinion on the matter.

6 hours ago · Like.

Alex: I am 100% behind you on the idea that old politicians and Catholic Bishops in the US are the last people who should determine the rights of women be it on the matter of contraception, abortion etc.

5 hours ago · Like.

Christopher:

Justin maybe you should be reading the book, the logical fallacies in this thread and in your own posts are astounding. I could care less of your ad hominem attack on me, or Aaron's on John, because it has no basis or evidence. Perhaps if you knew something about me that would discredit my argument, but since you don't, it is irrelevent. These attacks are a clear indicator that the pro-choice side of the debate has degraded into a emotional plea, rather than a debate.

My whole line of questioning and Jonathon's was to point out yes everything about abortion from a pro choice view is subjective. I am glad you see this.

However; this is where the argument falls flat on its face.

A claim that morality is strictly is and only a subjective thing, negates the very act of morality, it ceases to be morality. By it's very definition it is a judgment of what is good or bad. If it were to be a subjective thing, there can then be nothing that is good or bad, and would simply be is; up to the individual to decide.

We can all agree that pushing someone out of a plane at 10k feet without a parachute is most likely going to result in death for the person involved and if they do die, it would be murder. We can know this because of objective things like gravity, a physical human person is involved, and that we have a deliberate action taken by someone else. Would the person doing the pushing be justified in their action because it may of been in their best intrest to do so (perhaps they really hated the person)? Are you also going to argue with me that killing a child, adult, or senior is also a subjective thing to be done on a whim?

Despite this we have the same principles in the pro-choice debate but somehow come to a different conclusion.

1> We have a human being (not a cow, not a single cell organism, not some unevolved cluster of random cells, but a human with human dna, and human features. A human that is unable to survive on it's own)

2> We have some instrument or abortifact that the human is unable to avoid because of their situation.

3> We have someone willing to partake in the action, and normally someone who will do the action.

4> And we have a objective moral act, that yes murdering someone is wrong.

Yet despite the same type of situation the pro-choice argument is to simply throw all this away for personal and subjective reasoning.

11 minutes ago · Like