Abortion debate - organs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerok
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jerok

Guest
I am discussing abortion on a facebook discussion board (lol) and they say if I am pro-life I must want to donate my organs and it must be mandatory that the government makes everyone.

Here’s some of it, I want to see what you think about this guy’s logic 😃
Me: Just curious… how are you comparing organ donation to abortion? They are obviously completely different matters, but you seem to think that if I am pro-life I should be scrambling to find someone to give my kidney to, or willing to let the government remove my organ without my permission. Why?

Jan Rodak:
David, have you ever heard of “analogy?”

Obviously, if you believe a living organism with human DNA must be kept alive at all costs, even if it means using another person’s anatomical resources, then to be consistent you need to support mandatory donation of organs and bone marrow.

Me:
“Obviously, if you believe a living organism with human DNA must be kept alive at all costs”

Please show me where I said this, as I do not believe in this.

Jan Rodak:
David, did you read the word “IF” in my sentence?

Jesus.

Me:
Okay… I don’t know of any people who believe that we must keep a human alive at all costs. lol. If there are people who do, I’d like to chat with them 🙂

If someone DOES believe in that, then yes, they should believe in mandatory organ donations, etc.

Jan Rodak:
Great. Good to know you’re pro-choice.

Me:
Qwha?

Can you show this to me logically? (or someone else if you don’t have the time) I’m not following
I can’t wait to hear his response when I wake up! Good night all :rolleyes:
 
It continued… to be quite worthless. I hope more posters show up tommorrow.
Jan Rodak

Oh, sorry, I just assumed you were pro-choice since you agreed with my premise.

Me: I agree with your premise, yup. If you believe in saving all human life no matter what, you must donate organs etc.

Noone (I hope) who is pro-life believes in the same way of your premise.

So the premise is not connected to being pro-life, it’s an unconnected fact. I want someone to connect it to being pro-life. Do you see what I mean?

Jan Rodak:
Well, life is life.​

 
Here are the fallacies of their arguments since what they are doing is arguing an emotional debate with cold logic to make someone spout off and look like an idiot:
  1. Not all things with DNA have life - by scientific rules there are 9 other premises that must be met - by Biblical rules the requirement has to do with the soul being present. Unless you are Buddhist you really cannot argue that a soul is not present in a fetus, a zygote, an organ recipient, and a living organ donor.
  2. Living organ donation risks the life of the donor not just the life of the recipient if they do not receive. That is why donor should have the choice. Same with blood donation. Imagine giving blood and then being in a car wreck. You are at greater risk.
  3. Morality cannot be discussed with someone who wants to take the Lords name in vain while discussing Christian morality or any morality for that matter.
 
You’re debating about abortion on Face book. Whew! Buddy. That place is like a nasty hornet/snake/spider’s nest. I’ll give you credit for doing so, but they are huge in numbers.

In my experience, you say one thing and then several logic majors, and other pro-abortion people all over you.

It’s battle you can win, you just need to out smart them, but it is not a one man battle. My advice is come with several of your strong Catholic friends. Several minds work better than one. Trust me, these people are Pharisees, who just want to trap you in your own words. And another part is just intimidation/attitude. People think attitude is in the voice, but it is not. Learn to pick certain words that come across as you being confident, instead of finding the simplest ones. When you find they make false argument, be little it and clearly point out the redundancy of it without being a total jerk. Remember many of these people are there to argue for the sake of it. When we prepare of battle we must choose are weapons wisely for type of combat you will be in.

Good luck. 👍 🙂
 
Abortion isn’t simply “letting a person die” because they didn’t receive an organ transplant. It’s about actively, bloodily, killing a complete (albeit developing) human being with medical instruments and suction hose.

The woman doesn’t have to donate a part of her body to keep the child alive. The umbilical cord comes from the baby, and the outer layers of the placenta come from him/her as well. The woman’s uterus and organs associated with pregnancy are designed to help the baby develop.

All the parts of the woman that she had before the child will be there after the child is born. This guy doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about. He acts like pregnancy is some extraordinary action taken to keep a human alive, when it is the absolutely most natural thing a woman’s body does. This is what our society has come to- where pregnancy is viewed as an unnatural, unplanned disaster of sex, with the result being a parasitic host on a woman’s life and body. 🤷

As a side note, people like this guy aren’t interested in discussion. All they want to do is get a “high” off of making someone else look stupid. It’s strikingly obvious in his language like “have you ever heard of an analogy?” and “did you read the word IF in my sentence?”. It gives them a rush to feed their pride and belittle others, when all it really does is make them look like children.
 

Here we go, someone intelligent I can write back to​

Hayley Briand:

‘Just curious… how are you comparing organ donation to abortion? They are obviously completely different matters, but you seem to think that if I am pro-life I should be scrambling to find someone to give my kidney to, or willing to let the government remove my organ without my permission. Why?’

Because it’s consistent. If life is so sacred, so valuable, then one must do anything in their power to preserve it. That power rests with all of us, yet few of us really exercise it.

It comes down to this. If you’re anti abortion but pro mandated organ donation you’re consistent. You may very well value life. You seek to preserve all life; not just fetal life. If you are anti abortion but don’t give a whit about organ donation you are simply pro fetal life and seek to punish women, explicitly, for the phantom crime of engaging in sex and not wanting to carry out a resulting pregnancy.

Hayley Briand:

And another thing, a very few countries have banned abortion, so it’s not an impossibility, and discussing it isn’t a total waste of time. Good night!’

Do you know what happens in those countries, David?

Women die due to illegal and unsafe procedures, or they travel elsewhere if they have enough money.

I could give you some articles that are based on Sub Saharan Africa, if you’d like.

Hayley Briand:

‘So the premise is not connected to being pro-life, it’s an unconnected fact. I want someone to connect it to being pro-life. Do you see what I mean?’

It actually is.

If one is pro life they are pro all life - all human life, anyway.

The idea of organ donorship is closely linked to pregnancy due to bodily domain and autonomy.

One doesn’t have the right to another’s body against their will. For any length of time, for any reason. This is a standard in the western world.

If one seeks to mandate that women gestate unwanted pregnancies, in order to save the lives of fetuses, it’s only consistent that those same individuals seek to mandate lives of born people in need of donorship, be it by blood, marrow or organs.

Life is life, and if life is sacred all life should be sacred. Otherwise it’s pro fetal life, at which point is discriminatory towards women and not really about life at all.
 
Hayley Briand:

Indonesia-

english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2008/01/2008525184720566515.html

'Despite tough anti-abortion laws in Indonesia, an estimated 1.3 million women have them each year, sometimes with painful consequences.

Most of them are done illegally - some by doctors, others by traditional healers using herbal remedies and vigorous massage - because abortion is only permitted to save a mother’s life.’

Mozambique -

feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=10355

‘In order to improve the health and safety of women, policymakers in Mozambique have announced that they will consider lifting the country’s ban on abortion. Mozambique’s Health Ministry finds that, while illegal abortions are greatly underreported and the true numbers are probably much higher, some 100 women die annually from botched abortions, while many more suffer serious health problems. About 11 percent of all maternal deaths registered in the nation’s capitol are a result of illegal abortions, making it the third leading cause of maternal mortality in Mozambique, which has one of the highest maternal death rates in the world. Legislators hope that, by lifting the ban, women will be able to seek safe abortions in well-equipped facilities.’

Portugal -

Last February Portugal’s prime minister announced that he would try to enact more liberal abortion laws. Originally the procedure was only allowed in cases of rape, fetal malformation, or if a mother’s health was in peril (and only in first 12 weeks of pregnancy) and around 10,000 women were hospitalized every year with complications from botched back-street abortions. (Later in the year, the parliament approved a motion to hold a referendum on the decriminalization of abortion).

ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=35170

Philippines -

nytimes.com/2005/05/15/world/asia/15iht-phils.html?_r=1

Official estimates in 2005 put annual abortions at 400,000 to 500,000, and rising. The World Health Organization estimate put the figure at nearly 800,000, one of the highest rates of unsafe abortions in Asia. Seventy percent of unwanted pregnancies in the Philippines end in abortion according to the World Health Organization. One of four pregnancies in the Philippines end in abortion, according to Pro-Life Philippines, an anti-abortion group. According to the Department of Health, nearly 100,000 women who have unsafe abortions every year end up in the hospital. Some hospitals would refuse to treat women for abortion-related illnesses like profuse bleeding because they view them as “sinners” and in a few instances doctors have performed post-abortion dilation and curettage without anesthesia as a punishment for these women’s sins.

Nicaragua, Chile, El Salvador, Malta, Vatican City:

Abortion in these countries is illegal without exception. This means that you cannot legally have an abortion if you are a victim of rape or incest. You cannot legally have an abortion if you suffer complications that threaten your health or future fertility. You cannot legally have an abortion if you suffer life-threatening complications. Women go to jail, suffer, and die because of the laws of their land.

When abortion is banned or severely restricted women die and children suffer. Women will still obtain abortions - with or without legislation.

However, I would presume you wouldn’t want the above to happen in your own country.

That said, here is what happens when countries liberalize the laws:

South Africa’s maternal death rate due to abortion dropped 91% when they legalized it in '97.

David:

I’ll talk about organ donation - abortion a bit later when I’ve thought it through.

What I want to bring up is that we can’t allow evil acts to happen for the good of preventing evil acts in the future.

Those articles show that banning abortion can create an environment unsafe,illegal abortions, causing women to die if they decide to have one. However, again, we should not be forced to allow the abortion of fetuses just because if we don’t allow them, many women will still seek them out, just unsafe. It’s bad moral thinking.

Also, I treat the mother’s and the fetus’s life as equal, and if the mother’s life is in danger, so that if she doesn’t abort the baby she will surely die, it is morally acceptable to have the abortion. I didn’t know that you cannot legally have an abortion if you suffer life-threatening complications and I will read more about that. I agree it’s horrible that hospitals turn away ‘abortion-like’ complications, and these problems can all be fixed, but again, we can’t allow the abortion of millions now to prevent these things from happening. There are other ways to prevent them from happening than murdering millions.​

 
Abortion is outlawed- A pair of people engage in act with the full knowledge that this act may result in a human being completely dependent on one of them for survival. They choose to do so anyway. A person becomes completely dependent on one of them. The government forces the person who is being depended upon to allow the relationship to continue until the dependent person is no longer dependent.

Mandatory Organ Donation- A person becomes dependent on another person by forces outside the other person’s control. The government forces the depended upon person to help the dependent person.

One situation forces a person to deal with the results of their actions, the other forces a person to deal with the result of some other circumstances.
 
We want the government to make abortion illegal. Not force people to give up their organs.

The whole argument revolves around not tampering with what belongs to God.
 

Lol! Jan Rodak seems to be a conclusion-jumper… but then again, I guess the pro-choice side has to deal with this from the pro-life side too :rolleyes:​

Also, I treat the mother’s and the fetus’s life as equal, <<
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Good, then we’re in agreement. One can’t trump the other. The only one with the ability to separate from the other reigns supreme.

This is a pro-choice position.

And whether you want to admit it or not, women have and will abort using any means necessary. You can call it an “evil” if you wish; up to you. Obviously it’s not “evil” to the tens of millions of women who’ve done it.

So, really, I don’t know who the hell you think you are.​

 
Hayley Briand
‘What I want to bring up is that we can’t allow evil acts to happen for the good of preventing evil acts in the future.’

Loaded language for the lose.

‘Those articles show that banning abortion can create an environment unsafe,illegal abortions, causing women to die if they decide to have one. However, again, we should not be forced to allow the abortion of fetuses just because if we don’t allow them, many women will still seek them out, just unsafe. It’s bad moral thinking.’

So to hell with women, right?

So just because it makes you queasy we should just allow women to obtain what they’re going to obtain anyway and deal with the consequences because it’s better to act like it doesn’t happen than to admit that it does and approach it in a realistic and equitable fashion. Got it.

Regardless of YOUR morals, David, not everyone shares them. Especially desperate pregnant women. Stop fooling yourself.

It’s a matter of maternal health, which you lack any knowledge about nor do you care about.

‘Also, I treat the mother’s and the fetus’s life as equal, and if the mother’s life is in danger, so that if she doesn’t abort the baby she will surely die, it is morally acceptable to have the abortion. I didn’t know that you cannot legally have an abortion if you suffer life-threatening complications and I will read more about that. I agree it’s horrible that hospitals turn away ‘abortion-like’ complications, and these problems can all be fixed, but again, we can’t allow the abortion of millions now to prevent these things from happening. There are other ways to prevent them from happening than murdering millions.’

It’s not about what you find moral.

I happen to find abortion moral. Now what?

It’s also nor murder, or do I have to explain that to you again? Come on, David. You’re not this obtuse.

Me:

To those who find abortion moral, I would then argue, using the Principle of Double Effect, that it is immoral, which I did on page 3 of this discussion. And many people have done finding it is immoral. So if you have any argument about the morality of abortion, please refute my use of this principle.

Again, this is all contingent on your belief that the fetus is human; if it is, then abortion is immoral. If you don’t believe the fetus is human, then you need to figure out what is human, because if a fetus, which will mature into an adult and has human DNA isn’t human, then I don’t know what is. Perhaps a baby isn’t human? Or a toddler? Or a fetus? I just don’t get it.

And abortion IS murder if it is human! It is appalling that so many people condone this! Unless the abortion is an indirect cause of an operation trying to save the mother’s life, the abortion is immoral, as both life’s are equal. Killing a fetus to prevent suffering places a higher value on the ‘stopping of suffering’ of a woman than the ‘life of a baby.’ And frankly, the life of a baby is of greater worth than the supposed ‘stoppage of suffering.’

Not to mention there are many women who absolutely regret having the abortion and feel they would have been much happier having the baby - obviously preventing the suffering is not an absolute effect of abortion, whereas saving the baby’ life is.

To those who say I don’t respect women’s rights? I do! I respect men’s rights too, all HUMAN rights. 50% of the fetus’s are women after all, how are you respecting their right to live? I believe the right to live is paramount and takes precedence over the right to abortion.

“It’s a matter of maternal health, which you lack any knowledge about nor do you care about.”

It’s a matter of saving millions of lives too, which you don’t seem to care about.

Me:
Again, this is all contingent on your belief that the fetus is human; if it is, then abortion is immoral. <<
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Its species is irrelevant. Its stage of development and dependence on one single individual is relevant.

Stop telling me what my morals are. MOST people support abortion rights. You are in the minority.

Jan Rodak:
It’s a matter of saving millions of lives too, which you don’t seem to care about. <<
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Funny, I’m having that same argument with the wingnuts who oppose universal healthcare, and who support our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Jan Rodak:
To those who say I don’t respect women’s rights? I do! I respect men’s rights too, all HUMAN rights. 50% of the fetus’s are women after all, <<
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
This is the most laughable argument for anti-choice I’ve ever heard, and I’m hearing it more often these days.
 
I see where this is going - they want some ignorant person to stumble out with an unthough-out “we can learn to replace the organs with manufactured ones eventually” which will lead to stem cell research which will lead to pro-lifers arguing for good uses of abortion. It is circular reasoning with a lot of logical fallicy but a common trick on these types of sites.
 
Nope: She just attacked me personally and said we’re done. No elaborate traps, just good ol fashioned ad hominem 😛
Hayley Briand
To those who find abortion moral, I would then argue, using the Principle of Double Effect, that it is immoral, which I did on page 3 of this discussion. And many people have done finding it is immoral. So if you have any argument about the morality of abortion, please refute my use of this principle.’

Simple. Morality is contingent and subjective. What one finds moral the other does not. Morals are not cross cultural, nor are they interpersonal. They are entirely subjective and individual.

‘Again, this is all contingent on your belief that the fetus is human; if it is, then abortion is immoral. If you don’t believe the fetus is human, then you need to figure out what is human, because if a fetus, which will mature into an adult and has human DNA isn’t human, then I don’t know what is. Perhaps a baby isn’t human? Or a toddler? Or a fetus? I just don’t get it.’

Why is it immoral solely if it is human? No human being has the right to another’s body. By your argument I should take your organs by force If I need them.

‘And abortion IS murder if it is human! It is appalling that so many people condone this! Unless the abortion is an indirect cause of an operation trying to save the mother’s life, the abortion is immoral, as both life’s are equal. Killing a fetus to prevent suffering places a higher value on the ‘stopping of suffering’ of a woman than the ‘life of a baby.’ And frankly, the life of a baby is of greater worth than the supposed ‘stoppage of suffering.’’

Murder is a legal term and not all killing of humans is applicable to murder.

Frankly, the lives of born people are greater than the lives of unborn fetii.

Neither one of us can prove that statement. You can’t prove it’s greater; I can’t prove it’s not. I can, however, use pretty universal documentation and legislation globally in order to support my statement. Any such evidence supporting yours just kills women.

If it’s murder and so immoral then why does Amnesty International and numerous other human rights organizations fight for more liberal abortion legislation in developing countries?

‘Not to mention there are many women who absolutely regret having the abortion and feel they would have been much happier having the baby - obviously preventing the suffering is not an absolute effect of abortion, whereas saving the baby’ life is.’

And there are many women who don’t. I used to be a counselor for crisis pregnancies, David. I’ve spoken to countless women. Most actually don’t regret it, and are relieved when it’s over.

How long should I wait to regret my abortion, which was a little over a decade ago?

Many people can regret a lot of things. I suppose we should be making purchasing real estate, gambling, alcohol and marriage illegal too. The potentiality of regret isn’t a good foundation for legislation.

‘To those who say I don’t respect women’s rights? I do! I respect men’s rights too, all HUMAN rights. 50% of the fetus’s are women after all, how are you respecting their right to live? I believe the right to live is paramount and takes precedence over the right to abortion.’

No, actually, you don’t. You’re perfectly comfortable putting womens’ lives at risk to suit your personal morality and agenda, and that makes me sick.

‘It’s a matter of saving millions of lives too, which you don’t seem to care about.’

Here’s the difference between me and you, David.

I don’t care about fetal life if the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy. I value women. If you can just ADMIT that you don’t care about maternal life, and be consistent, you wouldn’t appear to so ****ing inane.

I’m done with you. It’s like talking to a snail but a snail has better critical thinking skills.
 
Shane Puskar:

“Again, this is all contingent on your belief that the fetus is human; if it is, then abortion is immoral. If you don’t believe the fetus is human, then you need to figure out what is human, because if a fetus, which will mature into an adult and has human DNA isn’t human, then I don’t know what is. Perhaps a baby isn’t human? Or a toddler? Or a fetus? I just don’t get it.”

Anyone who says the a fetus isn’t a human, or, a member of the species homosapien, is an idiot. Certainly, the fetus is a living human. What I don’t get, is your point!

In the end, one question comes up: What makes killing wrong? Just being a human? That doesn’t seem justifiable. The poster above said, “the lives of born people are greater than the lives of unborn fetii.” Well, why is that? It’s because the “born people” are persons. They have a sense of the future, a sense of the past, self-awareness, the capacity to relate to others, and a concern for/about others. A fetus has none of these capabilities. Therefore, I don’t find it morally unnacceptable to abort a fetus, because it doesn’t qualify as a person.

I anticipate two counter-arguments from you. The first would be in reaction to my statements that because a fetus has none of those properties listed above, he’s not a person. You might argue that infants can’t hold these qualities either. I have a simple response: I know. I don’t find it morally unnacceptable to kill an infant either, so long as the intention isn’t to cause the infant gratuitous amounts of pain.

The second counter-argument I expect has to do with the potential of the fetus. You might reply that a fetus has the potential to have all of those qualities listed above. Again, I concede, but that doesn’t mean that you give fetus’ the rights of persons. To quote Peter Singer, “There is no rule that says that a potential X has the same value as an X or has all the rights of an X…To drop a live chicken into a pot of boiling water would be much worse than doing the same to an egg.” Think about this: Just because every oak tree was once an acorn, it does not make sense for me to consider acorns oak trees, and it follows that just because an animal eats an acorn, I shouldn’t consider it the loss of an oak tree.

The person above said morality was subjective. Now, I don’t think that’s right, but I don’t think she was correct when she described morality as contingent. Our values (I.E. it’s wrong to kill human beings, steal, ect.) are not absolute. They often come in conflict, and we must decipher our way through the often muddy-waters, so to speak. In closing, holding the view that killing innocent life is wrong, is a respectable view point, but it is not something we should or even can follow absolutely. With each different situation we tend to prioritize our ethical views, and try to make logical conclusions.

Jan Rodak:
I have a simple response: I know. I don’t find it morally unnacceptable to kill an infant either, so long as the intention isn’t to cause the infant gratuitous amounts of pain. <<
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You are where I am, even with respect to animals (different debate, but analagous). I abhor animal abuse and I go out of my way to report it and even intervene. That makes some ask how I can have as a friend a devout bird-hunter. My answer is that subjecting a dog to years of cruelty in a cage is far different from felling a bird with a single shot through the head. For me it’s the concept of sustained torture that defines where I draw my line.

That’s why I cringe when I read these stories of young girls being sent to prison for killing their newborns following pregnancies they may not have even known about. The letter of the law on that is “if it took a breath.” Meh, big deal. There are stages to life, and a being who just survived a harrowing trip through the birth canal does not have the same sensory experiences that we do.

Me:

Okay Hayley. You seem to enjoy ad hominem arguments, saying my thinking is like that of a snails. That shows what kind of debater you are and what kind of person you are. I think you support murder but I don’t call you a murderer or an idiot, because I valued open discussion and showing you what I think, you think you could show that courtesy to me too. Guess not.

I guess the talk’s over then.

Sigh… don’t ‘cast pearls before swine’ I suppose. Have a good an honest life everyone. God bless!​

Well that was a fun and unfruitful debate. Thanks for tuning in all 🤷
 
Jerok said:
I am discussing abortion on a facebook discussion board (lol) and they say if I am pro-life I must want to donate my organs and it must be mandatory that the government makes everyone.

:
Click to expand...
He’s got a point. If you believe that preserving life trumps autonomy and that is the basis of your pro-life beliefs, then you should agree with mandatory organ donation. In fact he could have gone further.
 
The woman give the child permission to use her body when she has sex. She doesn’t have to give permission, aka she can just not have sex. Also, it doesn’t leave the mother with anything less than she started with.

That’s why they are not the same. The mother has a choice to not have sex. And an organ donation leaves the donor missing a part of his/her body.
 
I think it’s a good point. If you say that a woman must give her bodily resources to the fetus so that it may live, why wouldn’t you say that people in general must give their bodily resources so that others may live (at the very least bone marrow, blood)?

I notice some are bringing consent to sex into the picture, but does it mean then that you think rape victims should be able to abort? If you don’t think rape victims should be able to abort, why aren’t you donating bone marrow?
 
angelerulastiel said:
The woman give the child permission to use her body when she has sex. She doesn’t have to give permission, aka she can just not have sex. Also, it doesn’t leave the mother with anything less than she started with.

That’s why they are not the same. The mother has a choice to not have sex. And an organ donation leaves the donor missing a part of his/her body.
Click to expand...
…except when she’s raped:confused:
 
Take a look at the number of abortions performed because of a rape. It’s tiny. Oh and it doesn’t cover the fact that a woman has to act to kill her child. Someone who doesn’t donate allows what happens naturally. They are taking a knife to the person who needs organs.
 
angelerulastiel said:
Take a look at the number of abortions performed because of a rape. It’s tiny. Oh and it doesn’t cover the fact that a woman has to act to kill her child. Someone who doesn’t donate allows what happens naturally. They are taking a knife to the person who needs organs.
Click to expand...
But does it mean you think it would be okay for a raped woman to say, insert a barrier into the blood vessels that go to the baby and say that she does not want to share her blood with the baby she didn’t choose to have?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top