Question by Dark Helmet: Pro Choice is an immoral position. Find out why.?
First off, I tend to vote Democrat and could not be more against the Iraq War. Visit some other discussions on this site. You’ll see that I have big issues with conservative political policies. Secondly, Lawful does NOT = Right nor does it = correct! Your argument for relative morality I will agree does make sense on a grand scale. Peoples’ sense of morals can differ and still fall within the acceptable societal norm. However, for specific issues, morals are not relative, but concretely static! One of those morals is the right to live your life without it being intentionally taken away from you by another human being. Imagine your reaction if you were having a discussion with someone and they told you, with all sincerity, that they didn’t think killing or ending human life was morally wrong. Would you consider this person moral? Would you still talk to this person? My bet is that you would not. An overwhelming majority of people would think that this person was off their rocker and would avoid them like the plague. Furthermore, I still get a kick out of fellow debaters trying to discount my argument because they say I’ve based my belief on my religion. I have done no such thing (I haven’t gone to church regularly in years). I’ve used deductive logic, with science and the basic moral principle that I just mentioned above concerning right to life as my benchmarks, to form my conclusion. Science tells us that at conception, a living human cell is formed. It begins a process called mitosis, which is the process of cell division, or growth. Science also tells us that dead cells cannot divide and grow. If these cells are human cells, and they are growing, then from the above we can logically conclude that we do, in fact, have human life. And if we can, from above, mutually agree that human life has the right to complete their existence without being eliminated in an intentional way (society’s basic agreement on right to life), then we can conclude that abortion is morally wrong. It’s not a hard argument to follow. I do appreciate your history lesson with regards to the Courts rulings (I’m aware of the Court’s rulings, thank you), but again, they don’t really apply in our discussion. I never argued that abortion was illegal, or that women didn’t have the legal right to have them done. What I did was say they didn’t have the moral right. What I did was call them immoral, based on irrefutable scientific fact, an irrefutable and binding societal contract to not end human life, and deductive reasoning. That’s actually ironic when you think about it. Here we have, as I said above, far left liberals arguing ethics and moral standards when it comes to economic and political matters, such as minimum wage fairness, characteristics of the free market, CEO golden parachutes, gaps in compensation between the elitists and proletariats, and desired government intervention during the oil price surge ( just to name a few). Yet, they can’t see how their own argument and position in this discussion is violating the most basic societal contract. There’s HUGE inconsistency on the left when it comes to a discussion about morals. But the real kicker is this: while there are pro lifers out there that are whacked and clearly have gone off the deep end, many pro lifers cite the same arguments I have, and we get accused of trying to set up a sectarian form of government to push our religious beliefs. And on the other hand, you have the pro choicers who contend that life doesn’t begin until birth. Of what are they basing that on in this MORAL argument? Science rejects their claim. So what then are they basing it on? The only thing that’s left is…faith.
you’re right G. But in the example you state, you haven’t eliminated the whole, in abortion you have. Not the same thing.
Best answer:
Answer by nowyouknow
I like your argument. I am pro life.
Give your answer to this question below!
9 Responses
blah blah blah blah blah. Another forgotten diatribe by Captain Holier Than Thou.
Looking forward to being amused in the future. Keep ’em coming.
Well I don’t know about all that BS you wrote but there are five good reasons to keep abortion legal:
Hillary Clinton
Bill Clinton
Al Sharpton
Al Gore
John Kerry
and many more to many to put in here. To bad the knife missed it’s target with respect to the above motioned names.
I am pro life and I totally agree with you.
I have to agree with you and have posted similiar arguments regarding abortion. Im a conservative and I too feel the need to restore morals here in America. Unfortunately, the Dem leaders will not go pro-life. The Reps had the chance to take out at least birth control abortion and did nothing. Many Senators, on both sides, appear corrupted, for facts will not sway their decision. As for the war in Iraq, I am iffy. Should we be at war? Absolutely, we would be doing our citizens a disservice otherwise. Should we have waged that war in iraq? I dont know. Evidence shows that the Pentagon had falsified documents and exaggerated the link between Saddam and Osama. This is not good, the public should not be lied to or decieved. I know they cant know everything (top secret stuff), but the general aspects should be well known. What we should do is go ahead and finish the war (not prematurely like some Senators are asking) and finish the war properly.
Couple of comments – first, a lot of people think it is okay to end a human life, proponents of expediting the execution of convicts come to mind; it’s real easy to tget them to admit that it’s okay to occasionally execute an innocent person if that’s what it takes to kill the bad guys. Then there are those who explain away collateral damage in a war.
Second – being pro choice is not the same as being pro abortion. I oppose laws against abortion because of the motivation, it has always been more about letting men in authority control the reproductive lives of women, that old male supremacy thing rearing its ugly head. I am opposed to abortion and completely able to decide on my own not to have one. If you strip it down to its basics those making a “religious” argument against abortion are in fact making an argument that society should be in control of women.
Thank you for your concern, please keep your morals to yourself where they can’t damage someone else. When I listen to people who say pro-choice is immoral, I tend to stay away from that type also. Why do people always want to save others from themselves by imposing their moral standard on everyone?
well… it really comes down to your idea of “life”… and what constitutes life…
I see your point… but some don’t agree… and define life differently… that’s all it really comes down too..
some believe that it’s not life until it can live (process it’s own oxygen and food) on it’s own… withouot the direct physical connection of it’s mother…
I have many human cells growing in me constantly, but cutting off my arm wouldn’t be considered murder, even though it is made up of many living, growing cells… my arm can’t live on it’s own… it can’t sustain it’s self or process it’s own oxygen…
that’s basically how many look at it… it’s not ideal to cut your arm off, but not murder either…
EDIT: most don’t consider it “a whole” until it’s able to do those things that I mention… it’s only part of a woman’s body until that point… like an arm… so it’s not killing the woman…
I mean it’s just a totally different way of looking at it…
The government does not have the right to interfere in any medical decision between a woman and her physician, the argument is not abortion, many of us do not agree with abortion, but it is not my right to force my moral outlook on another citizen’s medical decision.
ok first of all anybody declaring that anything is “immoral” or “moral” is already a misnomer. the very definition of those words relies on the subjective point of view of the user. therefore, we all can have oppinions and a moral center from which we operate which can greatly differ from person to person. i think we can agree on most things, but really, it’s only based on subjective perspectives.
i agree that from a moral perspective, the right to live life and not have it taken away from you is the right way to be, and should be embraced by society as a whole. it’s my singular opinion though. where this concept gets tricky is within the concept of “at what point does a dividing cellular mass become a human being”. your argument is that the mature ovum is alive, therefore human, and therefore it is immoral to end it’s life based on the concept of a right to live. the claim that science agrees with this concept is false. no science has ever declared that a fertilized egg is a human being. is a living group of human stem cells in a culture in a lab not “alive”? is this cluster of human stem cells a human? does this cluster of cells have rights? are the individual living cells in any part of your body a human being? furthermore, from a moral perspective i think the concept is relative to the nature of humans general moral consideration of other life forms on this planet. consider a fly: this is a multi cellular life form with fully formed physiological functions. ie. capable of reproducing, capable of evolving, capable of adapting to an environment etc.. yet, to use your words, “an overwhelming majority of people would” kill a fly without a second thought. expand this now to the meat industry, hunting, fishing, etc. why is it that all other life is so expendable yet human life is so precious? i don’t really see a difference between ending the life of a small cluster of cells within a woman’s body and killing a cow. why are humans so special ? we are basically bald apes that can talk and wear clothes. my point of view is that people should have time to decide if they want to have a baby. it should be a grave decision and should be based on research, soul searching, communication and awareness. but again, that is an opinion. after reading on the stages of embryonic growth, my perspective is that it would be morally wrong to end a pregnancy after the third month. but this is why it is good to have a choice. it’s my point of view based on the combination of what science has shown us and my moral perspective. some could consider the cut off point to be 8 weeks, some 5 months. as wonderful as science is, it cannot say for sure when a cluster of cells becomes a human, and therefore it is up to each person to use their own brains, their own moral centers and thier own examination of their life and how a baby would fit into it to decide what is right and wrong. perhaps over a dinner of steak tips.