Definative sexuality.

Like I said, you could use that statement (slightly modified) to escape making any ethical judgements on any activity whatsoever. And in this case you are using it so that you do not need to make an ethical judgement of a complicated situation. AKA dodging the issue.

I'm not dodging the issue, I'm saying its the mom's decision.

Like I said, you could use that statement (slightly modified) to escape making any ethical judgements on any activity whatsoever. And in this case you are using it so that you do not need to make an ethical judgement of a complicated situation. AKA dodging the issue.

It's only complicated because people make it that way. Put simply, the fetus is in the possession of the mother. Therefore, it is up to the mother to decide. Besides, where is the loss for the father? He produces millions of sperm cells every day. If the mother disposes of the embryo, all he has to do is shoot some more semen in her to start the process back up again.

Leaving it to the mother follows the simple rule of "if it's in your possession, it's your responsibility." Until its birth, the child belongs to the mother and no one else. If the mother doesn't want the baby, the father doesn't have a right to infringe on that, as he's not the one who has to nurture the child for 9 months and then deliver it. Any father who thinks he DOES in fact have a right to tell the mother what she can and can't do is an inconsiderate and pretentious prick, end of story.

This isn't dodging the issue, this is providing a simple answer to a simple question made complicated by a bunch of "white collared wifebeaters" who think they have a right to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body. I don't find it particularly coincidental that I have yet to hear a woman present herself as anti-abortion.

I believe that the fetus is human, as does anybody who is against abortion. I have already stated my abridged reasons for that belief; namely birth is too arbitrary to assign the concept of humanity (as this is ambiguous, I am referring to the concept of inalienable rights; rights given simply for being human with no other justification and rights that cannot be taken away, no matter what actions the individual pursues) to an organism. If the fetus does not belong to the human species, what is it? The issue is not, in my mind, whether or not it's the mother's choice or the father and mother's choice.At the very least, the issue of the fetus as human or not human is complicated enough to warrant some thought.  I think that for you to hold that opinion, you have to make some kind of argument to justify the belief that it is not human in order to condone it's killing, rather than saying "it's not my problem; let people who get pregnant deal with it and leave me out of it".  To me, that seems like dodging the issue.

EDIT::

And really, you haven't heard women who identify as anti-abortion? Where do you live? I live in Canada, which is more liberal than the States, and I've heard plenty of women say they are anti-abortion, even young women.

I think that for you to hold that opinion, you have to make some kind of argument to justify the belief that it is not human in order to condone it's killing, rather than saying "it's not my problem; let people who get pregnant deal with it and leave me out of it".

I think it's human; I just don't care if it is or not. What does one life matter, especially when it's unable to biologically support itself? Let's look at it from a demographic point of view. If you were to outlaw abortion, every one of the millions of fetuses that would have been aborted would only add to the already insanely high world population. A population that's increasing exponentially, I might add. One life, and a sub-life at that, matters very little in the long run. The more people there are, the more strain is put on the planet to support said people, and eventually the world is going to overcrowd to the point where it becomes nearly impossible to sustain oneself. If you truly value human life, wouldn't that bother you?

That's why I said the final say should be left to the mother. Put simply, you have no right to dictate how much SHE has to value the life of her own fetus. In the end, it should be left for her to decide. The United States is a country rooted in freedom and privilege, which I'm sure you understand, even if you're not from here. There is no reason why a woman shouldn't be allowed the choice to not have to go through the hardships and pain of bearing a child. Does it really matter THAT much that a baby who hasn't even been born yet be disposed of?

If you're planning on asking me to put myself in the fetus' shoes, so to speak, then I'll tell you the honest truth. I was an accidental conception, and I could very well have been aborted. Does it bother me that I might not have been able to live? Not at all. If I hadn't been allowed to live, I wouldn't have even had the ability to be bothered. I would have simply ceased to exist. My life is nothing more or less than anyone else's, or any other creature on the planet for that matter. I think people give human life a lot more credit than it really deserves, because we're really nothing more than
animals with exceptional intelligence. But that's straying into religious territory, so I won't go on much more about that.

Basically, I'm not at all saying "it's not my problem; let people who get pregnant deal with it and leave me out of it" to  dodge the question. I'm saying it because it's not my business, so I'm not going to put my two cents in where it doesn't belong. My only biological "job" is to impregnate females. After doing that, the rest is for them to decide.

See, even if a WOMAN is anti-abortion, then she should only be able to anti-abortion for HERSELF. She has no right to say, I DON'T WANT TO DO IT, SO YOU CAN'T DO IT EITHER.

That's my philosophy here. TO EACH THEIR OWN.

I'll preface this post by saying I am a humanist, though I should say that I am not a Humanist in the sense of the actual philosophy of Humanism. I just think the word suits my own belief system better than any other word does. I believe in the supremacy of humanity over all other forms of life on earth. I assign value to other things in the world only based on the way they effect humans. I believe that the human intellect can eventually overcome any barriers, even ones that seem insurmountable currently. I realize that I would be in your category of people who give human life more credit than is deserved, and I don't think I can make an argument that would make you come around, so maybe the argument to follow is pointless. But despite that, I will try. This probably seems out of place but I think it provides context for my argument.

I'll start with:

I think it's human; I just don't care if it is or not. What does one life matter, especially when it's unable to biologically support itself? Let's look at it from a demographic point of view. If you were to outlaw abortion, every one of the millions of fetuses that would have been aborted would only add to the already insanely high world population. A population that's increasing exponentially, I might add. One life, and a sub-life at that, matters very little in the long run. The more people there are, the more strain is put on the planet to support said people, and eventually the world is going to overcrowd to the point where it becomes nearly impossible to sustain oneself. If you truly value human life, wouldn't that bother you?

This is not necessarily a bad argument, but I think it suffers because it requires that you divorce yourself from your own humanity. It could just as well provide a justification for murder. Could you feel comfortable making that argument to justify the actions of a murderer? Because there is nothing in that paragraph (except 'sub-life') that localizes it to the fetus case, and most of it, such as the insignificance of human life and overpopulation, would apply equallly well in any circumstance of murder. In fact, if we are looking at the long run, then not only one life does not matter, every human life doesn't matter. It is inevitable at some point that humanity should be extinct. What does it matter if it happens sooner or later? One life is infintesimally insignificant in terms of the universe; A thousand infintesimally insignificant lives added together is still infinitesimally insignificant, and the entire population of the earth is still insignificant in the universal framework. Under that logic, war, genocide, every atrocity thinkable becomes justifiable. So, even if your argument is technically sound, it is inapplicable without denying the entire notion of Ethics and ethical behaviour.

As to the final question of your paragraph, the answer is no. I believe Life > Death. Even starving; scraping for a meal, I would rather be alive than dead (a vacuous statement, considering that I am not in that position, but I am sincere as far as that can be useful). This is not universally applicable, as suicide exists, but I think that the least statement which can be made is that it is better to have the choice. Aside from which, I have already stated my belief on science and the human intellect. Canada could use a billion people. Tell them to come here Overpopulation exists in India already, but I think it will be a long time before overpopulation can become a planetary phenomenon and I think that science will find a way to feed people regardless. Already, it is easier to grow more crops in less space, and those crops are more resilient to natural phenomenon like cold spells and the like. Eventually, I think food production will become much easier and I think that humanity is more likely to go extinct from other things before overpopulation becomes a problem like you describe, even if science fails us in that regard.

The United States is a country rooted in freedom and privilege

This is of course, true. The U.S. is based on a conception of inalienable human rights, and among them is the right to liberty. Also among them is the right to life, and that trumps liberty IMO. It is particularly the arbitrary assignment of these rights that I am contesting. I do not see why birth is held as the time when you magically receive your rights, and in particular I cannot see any legitimate reason surrounding birth which would make it impossible to assign these rights later in life. Whereas, I can see why you could assign these rights to conception. MY argument has always been that if human life means anything, it must logically mean something from conception, because there is nothing about birth that seems special enough to suddenly assign meaning to human life.

And of course, the reason why I do not believe that the mother has the right to kill her child is rooted in the belief that human life matters and that nobody has the right to take that life from another human being. I can't really expect this to sway you, having read your argument, but that is my view on the issue. I have to go right now, but if I missed any of your points that you thought were particularly compelling, or if you feel I misinterpreted part of your argument, please tell me and I will try to rectify that in whatever way possible.


@Arrow: I wasn't making any claim that because some women are anti-abortion, it must by necessity be wrong. And as I have argued in the above post and in previous posts, I do not think "to each their own" is a compelling argument in a case which directly threatens the life of another human being. It certainly would be ineffective in a courtroom if yoe happen to be defending a murderer. And I do consider it to be murder, as I believe it is a human life.

not only one life does not matter, every human life doesn't matter. It is inevitable at some point that humanity should be extinct. What does it matter if it happens sooner or later? One life is infintesimally insignificant in terms of the universe; A thousand infintesimally insignificant lives added together is still infinitesimally insignificant, and the entire population of the earth is still insignificant in the universal framework.

This is exactly how I feel. However, murder isn't justifiable because people still have a right to their own life, as insignificant as it may be. And really, at that point we stand opposed. I don't consider a fetus human until it is able to survive without direct support of another. A fetus cannot live unless it is attached to its mother, because it will not be able to survive outside the womb until the third trimester of pregnancy. As long as the child is in prenatal development, and relies completely on its mother to grow until it is capable of survival in the outside world, I don't consider it deserving of the same rights as you and me.