Abortion should not only be allowed, but sometimes encouraged
Based on a scene I saw in the first episode of the new season of "Orange is the New Black" - one of the characters was arguing to her colleague-woman-inmate that her children are better off dead than living the shitty life they would've had if she had brought them to life.
Even if you agree, you can try to find arguments to contradict what I'm saying
8 years ago by bogdan
with
24 comments
Join the Discussion
Life is a previous, rare occurrence that took billions of years to establish itself on our little planet, not to mention we have been having a real hard time finding any sign of it elsewhere. Deciding who gets to live or die before that future person has any way to participate in that decision is an act of cowardice and selfishness. I can argue, whats the point of me being alive if some day I am going to be dead anyway. Even mother nature isn't that cruel, and she can be such a cruel bitch.
Not only is she that cruel, she's often times far more cruel. More pregnancies end by natural causes than through artificial means, often long before a woman knows she's even pregnant.
The only difference is that those happen due to complications, disease and other factors beyond our control. Abortions happen because of want, inconvenience and selfishness.
Yes, that's what we call "mother nature."
That's a bit of a straw man argument. Nobody likes getting an abortion, but sometimes it's the best of bad choices. Other times it's a medical necessity, which are typically the abortions cited by anti-choice groups lambasting doctors who perform second or third trimester pregnancies.
We can come up with hundreds of perfectly solid arguments for why abortion is good for the person having it and good for the person that doesn't get to live a life they were destined to live. At the end of the day though, you're still making a decision for someone that wasn't able to defend itself from being killed before it even had a chance to truly exist. Our understanding of what life really is is primitive, we don't even know what exactly makes us, "us", yet we go around thinking we are taking the high ground with a decision that in my opinion is being taken much too lightly.
True, but again you opened this by saying "mother nature isn't that cruel" when in fact it's worse.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...pregnant-monkeys-abort-when-new-males-arrive/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/baby-animals-rescued-mothers/
When resources are scarce and times are stressful, animals will not only spontaneously abort but they'll even kill their own young. Humans doing so becomes neither unusually cruel nor unnatural but a difficult choice when faced with untenable choices. Blaming women simply because they're not rich enough to afford the cost of pregnancy or raising another child is unacceptable.
Easy for you to say.
Are you comparing the decisions of monkeys and other predatory animals driven by instinct to that of human beings? Do we seriously have that little faith in humanity? I thought we as humanity were more than that, I thought that we finally escaped the cruel clutches of mother nature and started making our own decisions, ones that don't involve killing for convenience.
As for blaming, I don't believe I've ever uttered that word. The point of this exercise was to play devils advocate, and thus far I was under the impression that that is what I was doing. I would never in a million years blame anyone for such a difficult decision, at the end of the day it is up to that person to decide the faith of their unborn child.
I am, because you did.
Yes, we are capable of making our own decisions. But sometimes the only choices open to us are bad ones. Sometimes people make decisions that you don't approve of, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make them. They're the ones who have to live with the consequences of their decisions, not you. If we had the kind of universal support to ensure that families have all the food, shelter, education, health care and everything else needed to make a good life for themselves I'd agree with you. Yes, absolutely, abortion shouldn't even be a question except in cases of dire medical need. But that's not the world we live in. The women most likely to have abortions are women who already have children and can't handle another, women who are at risk because they're pregnant and women who can't afford to take care of themselves let alone the high cost of medical care during and after pregnancy.
In a perfect world abortion could be considered nothing but immoral. We don't live in that world, which is why no one has the right to tell a woman she has to stay pregnant when she decides it's not right for her or her family.
Actually not really. I'm arguing against abortion because I though that was the point of this whole exercise, to come up with the best argument possible that my mind can dish out. I don't think this concept is being understood in the way I understood it should have gone down... I shall end my "devils advocate" role as of this moment. Thx all.
Thank you for this. This is exactly what I believe. Im finished my role of playing the DA, it actually made me feel like shit. :D
It's a really hard role to play, and you did it remarkably well. I was trying very hard not to use language that would address your arguments rather than attacking you and I see at one point I failed to do so.
I hate the role, but felt it was needed so that we can get the real true answers out there. I hope that even one person will read this and make the realization.
I'm sorry you felt like shit. I did too when I played the role.
It really makes me wonder how some people like lawyers are able to defend clients that they know are in the wrong.
Do forgive.
Nothing to forgive. Much love.
I know right, it must be difficult to argue for hours and years for what you may be totally against. I guess these people get desensitized to those feelings over the years.
A categorical, absolute statement from someone relatively unlikely to have been impregnated by a close relative molester.
Even if you agree, you can try to find arguments to contradict what I'm saying
I think you missed the point of this exercise.
I got it, and it must seem like I let you have it, but the devil’s advocate — like the agent-of-karma — is in the picture, not given some magical immunity. Why is one reason why it is always, and ought to be, so hard.
Oh, don't get me wrong, when playing the DA I don't mind a good ass whooping (just look at the exchange with me and /u/spaceghoti) otherwise I wouldn't have done it in the first place. No way would I even imply that I am exempt with some magical immunity, but when arguments get personal, it becomes nothing but an exercise in futility. Either way, I haven't done this very often, and felt that if I did jump in we would have a good discussion on the subject. Happy with the results, even though I felt dirty taking part :)
The point was personal, like the topic and that devil’s advocate’s mistake. I regret nothing about putting the argument that way other than you feeling the sharpness of it, scornful downvotes or no.
Isn't the point of a good argument not to make things personal? As for the scornful down votes, I had no part in that.
Oh, I know. No complaints. What good are useless Internet points if you never use them? As for good arguments never being personal, my intuition is that rule of thumb may not hold true, especially in personal subjects. One might as well claim good arguments can only be abstract, but never concrete.