Difference between revisions of "Anti-abortion"

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Discussion: reshare)
(12 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Overview==
+
<hide>
−
[[category:viewpoints]]The [[anti-abortion]] viewpoint, most commonly found under the larger umbrella of the more appealing term "[[pro-life]]", refers to the view that [[abortion]] is wrong, regardless of the reason, and should be illegal in most if not all cases{{seed}}
+
[[page type::article]]
 +
[[thing type::position]]
 +
[[category:positions]]
 +
</hide>
 +
==About==
 +
The [[anti-abortion]] viewpoint, most commonly found under the larger umbrella of the more appealing term "[[pro-life]]", refers to the view that [[abortion]] is wrong, regardless of the reason, and should be illegal in most if not all cases{{seed}}
 +
==Arguments==
 +
* [[/arguments]]: structured arguments starting with anti-abortion positions
 +
* [[abortion/black genocide]]: some argue that abortion clinics target black women, with the goal of reducing or eliminating black people.
 
==Groups==
 
==Groups==
 
* [[Army of God]]: "a pro-life organization that honors those who murder abortion providers as 'heroes'" according to [http://www.alternet.org/rights/36371/]
 
* [[Army of God]]: "a pro-life organization that honors those who murder abortion providers as 'heroes'" according to [http://www.alternet.org/rights/36371/]
 +
* [[Center for Bio-Ethical Reform]]
 
* [[L.E.A.R.N. Inc.]] and [[Operation Rescue]]: see [[Durham MZCC abortion truck]]
 
* [[L.E.A.R.N. Inc.]] and [[Operation Rescue]]: see [[Durham MZCC abortion truck]]
−
 
−
==Slogans==
 
−
...and discussion thereof.[[category:debates]]
 
−
* {{arg.mainpoint|"[[Life is a gift, not a choice]]."}}
 
−
* {{arg.mainpoint|"Abortion stops a beating heart."}}
 
−
** {{arg.counterpoint|only if the embryo is old enough to have one (apparently happens sometime during weeks 3-5 of pregnancy)}}
 
−
*** <s>{{arg.supportpoint|According to medical and scientific literature, the heart is in place and beating at ''3'' weeks after conception.}}</s> ''Above claim corrected based on [[Human pre-birth development|research]] in response to this counterclaim''
 
−
** {{arg.counterpoint|...and so does [[capital punishment]], slaughtering animals for food, hunting (for sport or food), and running over animals with a car (deliberately or not). Also, certain medical procedures require stopping the heart temporarily. In other words, the stopping of a heart ''per se'' is not morally significant; the context and results of that stoppage are what matters.}}
 
−
***{{arg.supportpoint|An animal being killed for food and a living, breathing human being, who just has yet to leave the mother's uterus is a completely different thing. And capital punishment is used only on sick, disgusting, and violent murderers like John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, etc., who had their chance to not kill people, and blew it. What I don't understand is how you people can defend rapists and murderers on death row, but support the murder of innocent children.}}
 
−
* {{arg.mainpoint|"Your mother chose life."}}
 
−
** {{arg.counterpoint|Just because my mother chose it doesn't mean that this was the morally correct/best choice. (Not everyone is happy with having been born, for example.)}}
 
−
** {{arg.counterpoint|What if my mother also voted or campaigned for legal abortions? (Arguably, the legality of abortion ''should'' be decided entirely by potential and actual mothers...) What if my mother would have chosen not to risk having children if abortion were illegal? In that case, the legality of abortion made it possible for me to be alive.}}
 
−
** {{arg.counterpoint|How is this an argument against abortion? If it were illegal, I might grow up never being ''sure'' that "my mother chose life", because she ''had'' no choice.}}
 
−
** {{arg.counterpoint|What about someone whose mother later committed [[suicide]]? (I know one example personally; did ''her'' mother "choose life"?)}}
 
−
* {{arg.mainpoint|"Abortion: the worst kind of child abuse."}}
 
−
** {{arg.counterpoint|Killing an entity with no nerves, much less consciousness, is worse than child abuse?}}
 
−
*** {{arg.supportpoint|This entity is a human being whose nervous system is developing at about 3-5 weeks after conception; abortion is in fact a form of child abuse, though, no less and no more grave than any other child killed.}}
 
−
**** {{arg.info|This argument doesn't really answer the original point except by re-stating that abortion is child abuse and going further to assert (without justification) that it is [[abortion is murder|murder]] &ndash; though it does introduce the implicit question of the [[morality of aborting an ennervated embryo|morality of abortion after the nervous system has begun operation]].}}
 
−
**** {{arg.info|We'll take it as agreed that [[morality of aborting a non-ennervated embryo|killing an embryo with no nervous system]], if the mother wishes it, should not be regarded as any more immoral than killing a plant &ndash; never mind being comparable to the [[child abuse|abuse of a fully-formed child]] who not only feels physical pain but can also feel the loss of love and hope. Claiming that the former is even ''equivalent'' to the latter would show tremendous insensitivity toward children. If anyone is seriously proposing that abortion should be illegal before the nervous system has gone into operation, please post [[morality of aborting a non-ennervated embryo|here]] or on the {{talkpage}}.}}
 
−
* {{arg.mainpoint|"As a former fetus, I oppose abortion."}}
 
−
** {{arg.counterpoint|As former fetuses, many people [[pro-choice|support the right to keep it legal]]. Nobody ''likes'' abortion.}}
 
  
 
==Positions==
 
==Positions==
Line 33: Line 21:
 
</blockquote>
 
</blockquote>
 
I'll second that, to the point of agreeing that criminalization of abortion is not a valid position to take ''unless'' you are also proposing a system for providing care to the mother and child as Robert describes. There would need to be some additional conditions on such systems, however, such as "no religious proselytizing". --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 
I'll second that, to the point of agreeing that criminalization of abortion is not a valid position to take ''unless'' you are also proposing a system for providing care to the mother and child as Robert describes. There would need to be some additional conditions on such systems, however, such as "no religious proselytizing". --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 +
 +
: {{anonuser|198.166.22.233}} said: You're both douchebags, and that asian style smilie just confirms it. If you recognized that a person's life begins at conception, your argument would be completely baseless. Because then you might as well support the mother's right to kill her child anytime before adulthood. So I guess people who are against infanticide don't have valid positions either unless they are prepared to cover the child's expenses through adulthood.
 +
:: Actually, even if I recognized that a person's life begins at conception, that would only undermine that argument if I agreed that the baby's life was more important than the mother's (which I don't). As it happens,though, I think the question of when life has or hasn't started is a very artificial distinction to make. Some people say "life begins at forty" -- obviously they're not talking about "life" in the same way we are here, but that's my point: "life" has lots of different aspects to it, and they begin at different times, and none of them is like flipping a switch. When does the brain start working? When does the heart start beating? When does the proto-baby become aware? At what point does it acquire a will to live?
 +
:: I'm willing to draw the line at birth, or perhaps at the point of viability. Regardless of that, I wouldn't want to be a baby whose mother ''wanted to abort me'' and was told it was illegal. Life's screwed up enough as it is. =^.^= (Hello Kitty loves you too.) --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 +
 
==Links==
 
==Links==
 
===Filed Links===
 
===Filed Links===
Line 40: Line 33:
 
===Videos===
 
===Videos===
 
* '''2007-07-30''' [[youtube:Uk6t_tdOkwo|Libertyville Abortion Demonstration]]: the image on the posters hauled out of the van at the beginning of the video may be the same as [[:Image:2008-05-27 100 3769 abortion truck left.web.jpg|this image]]
 
* '''2007-07-30''' [[youtube:Uk6t_tdOkwo|Libertyville Abortion Demonstration]]: the image on the posters hauled out of the van at the beginning of the video may be the same as [[:Image:2008-05-27 100 3769 abortion truck left.web.jpg|this image]]
 +
===Discussion===
 +
* [https://plus.google.com/u/0/115008414718496561293/posts/7GdaaNxccYW "I stand with Planned Parenthood (image)"]: discussion starts with an anti-abortion image
 +
** [https://plus.google.com/u/0/102282887764745350285/posts/eUqtaTZnqj6 reshare]

Revision as of 01:00, 19 August 2013

About

The anti-abortion viewpoint, most commonly found under the larger umbrella of the more appealing term "pro-life", refers to the view that abortion is wrong, regardless of the reason, and should be illegal in most if not all cases

This page is a seed article. You can help Issuepedia water it: make a request to expand a given page and/or donate to help give us more writing-hours!

Arguments

  • /arguments: structured arguments starting with anti-abortion positions
  • abortion/black genocide: some argue that abortion clinics target black women, with the goal of reducing or eliminating black people.

Groups

Positions

Robert, a commenter on Contrary Brin, said, on or about 2008-10-18:

I've long been a believer that the only people who have a right to demand abortions be made illegal are those who are willing to spend their own money to take in a young expectant mother, pay for their medical bills and insurance costs, pay for the child's costs, and provide the woman with a stipend to help make ends meet. If someone is willing to do all of that... then they can insist abortions be made illegal.

Not a single one has risen to my challenge. =^-^=

I'll second that, to the point of agreeing that criminalization of abortion is not a valid position to take unless you are also proposing a system for providing care to the mother and child as Robert describes. There would need to be some additional conditions on such systems, however, such as "no religious proselytizing". --Woozle 16:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

anonymous user 198.166.22.233 said: You're both douchebags, and that asian style smilie just confirms it. If you recognized that a person's life begins at conception, your argument would be completely baseless. Because then you might as well support the mother's right to kill her child anytime before adulthood. So I guess people who are against infanticide don't have valid positions either unless they are prepared to cover the child's expenses through adulthood.
Actually, even if I recognized that a person's life begins at conception, that would only undermine that argument if I agreed that the baby's life was more important than the mother's (which I don't). As it happens,though, I think the question of when life has or hasn't started is a very artificial distinction to make. Some people say "life begins at forty" -- obviously they're not talking about "life" in the same way we are here, but that's my point: "life" has lots of different aspects to it, and they begin at different times, and none of them is like flipping a switch. When does the brain start working? When does the heart start beating? When does the proto-baby become aware? At what point does it acquire a will to live?
I'm willing to draw the line at birth, or perhaps at the point of viability. Regardless of that, I wouldn't want to be a baby whose mother wanted to abort me and was told it was illegal. Life's screwed up enough as it is. =^.^= (Hello Kitty loves you too.) --Woozle 11:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Links

Filed Links

  1. redirect template:links/smw

News & Views

  • 2007-11-06 A Fresh Challenge to the Religious Right's View of Abortion by Frederick Clarkson: according to a new book by Gary Willis, "Much of the debate over abortion is based on a misconception, that this is a religious issue, that the pro-life advocates are acting out of religious conviction. It is not a theological matter at all. There is no theological basis for either defending or condemning abortion. Even the popes have said that it is a matter of natural law, to be decided by natural reason."

Videos

Discussion

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=Anti-abortion&oldid=31981"