Gallup Pro-life/choice

jmac3 wrote: Darur, why would the fetus have to die because the mother will? I am pretty sure it is possible for the fetus to live in a situation that the mother may die.

Fairly often, actually. A huge portion of live births, even just a century ago, left the mother dead, but the baby alive.

jmac3 wrote: perfectly legitimate hypothetical example used to prove a point?

Again, it's not a legitimate example, and doesn't prove a point, because it's not based in reality in any way.


That's like saying

"When aliens invade, should we sacrifice 999 fetus' to save 999 people?"





Eclampsia kills women because of a baby being inside of them. The only way to stop eclampsia is to remove the cause--- the baby. Be it by Cesarean or by abortion, the baby has to be removed to save the moms life.

Edited by Linus - 21 May 2009 at 9:38pm

jmac3 wrote: You people are legitimately retarded if you don't get the point of what PP was saying.

Oh bravo.

choopie911 wrote: We do get the point, but hypotheticals dont work in every situation. Abortion is a very black or white issue, and hypotheticals don't work.

Moral issues are only black and white if you let them be that way. The entire fact that a good portion of the population supports abortion rights if the life of the mother is in danger shows that it is not a black and white issue.

mbro wrote: choopie911 wrote: We do get the point, but hypotheticals dont work in every situation. Abortion is a very black or white issue, and hypotheticals don't work. Moral issues are only black and white if you let them be that way. The entire fact that a good portion of the population supports abortion rights if the life of the mother is in danger shows that it is not a black and white issue.

Yes.....it is. Either abortion is allowed, or it's not.

choopie911 wrote: mbro wrote: choopie911 wrote: We do get the point, but hypotheticals dont work in every situation. Abortion is a very black or white issue, and hypotheticals don't work. Moral issues are only black and white if you let them be that way. The entire fact that a good portion of the population supports abortion rights if the life of the mother is in danger shows that it is not a black and white issue. Yes.....it is. Either abortion is allowed, or it's not.

Umm,most people support abortion rights in very limited circumstances. This is because of their morals. It doesn't matter if it is currently legally allowed or outlawed. It is a matter of personal moral judgment.
-
There are shades of gray to every argument.

Choop, that is the issue.

Some people say OMG ABORTION IS BAD. They support it in certain circumstances though.

choopie911 wrote: Yes, but the argument is about abortion being ok. It either is allowed, or its not. There cannot be a grey area where "some abortions are ok" It's a yes or no answer regardless of if your moral ground says "maybe"

 . . . What?

No it isn't.

Is killing ok always, yes or no?

War?

Stealing?

There's a reason laws exist for various situations.


Edited by Darur - 21 May 2009 at 10:26pm

NO THEY ARE NOT.

They are moral questions not legal ones.

They are all acceptable in certain situations but not in every situation. There are gray areas, that is what is debated.

I really cannot figure out what is so hard to understand about this.

ITT: Choopie is a dense as FE.

Edited by mbro - 21 May 2009 at 10:41pm

choopie911 wrote: I guess I'm debating the legality, which is the real issue, and others are debating the morality, which everyone will have their own opinion, and get nowhere with.

Even with legality there could be situations in the laws where this moral debate comes into play. If they allow abortions in the case of rape, incest or threats to the mothers life, then it is not an, is it legal or not situation. It is a, it's legal in these situations argument and that argument is framed by moral hypotheticals. they are what laws for sticky situations like this are based on. It is the entire basis for the legal debate around whether or not it shoudl be allowed.

choopie911 wrote: mbro wrote: choopie911 wrote: I guess I'm debating the legality, which is the real issue, and others are debating the morality, which everyone will have their own opinion, and get nowhere with. Even with legality there could be situations in the laws where this moral debate comes into play. If they allow abortions in the case of rape, incest or threats to the mothers life, then it is not an, is it legal or not situation. It is a, it's legal in these situations argument and that argument is framed by moral hypotheticals. they are what laws for sticky situations like this are based on. It is the entire basis for the legal debate around whether or not it shoudl be allowed. But what then stops a woman who doesn't want her baby from saying she was raped, or lie about who the father is? And if professional abortions aren't available, more desperate cases will turn to unsafe and illegal means of getting rid of the child, whether it's in the womb or not, whether that be dumping it in a river, dumpster, someones doorstop, etc. That's not even a hypothetical, those things happen where abortions cannot.

Which is part of the moral debate as well as the legal debate. You took your argument and went straight for the conclusion without engaging in the debate first. It should have gone something like this:

Endless bickering with hypothetical situations back and forth.

Finally someone says it should be made illegal in every situation or in certain situations.

You then counter with, well illegal or not mothers will still get them. Cite pre 1972 statistics about mothers driving over state lines to get abortions in other states or mothers getting unsafe abortions and dying, or cases of mothers lying about their circumstances.

Then there needs to be a counter punch of they should be treated like criminals or something of the similar then you contend that point and the debate goes on.

You reached the conclusion without the middle ground where the hypothetical comes into play.