Prager University on Abortion.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Here's the vid.

What do you think?

[Darth Ovious]

Interesting video. When he mentions the idea of a woman aborting a gay fetus and whether that would be moral or immoral I've also heard instances of aborting a fetus if it's male.

[Jesse]

I thought it was a great video. Always loved Prager.

[seer]

Very good...

[Psychic Missile]

Argument one is true. I can't see anyone disagreeing with it.

At argument two it is said that the right of a woman to abort "under any circumstance, for any reason, at any time in her pregnancy" is moral only if the fetus has no intrinsic worth. At argument three, it is said that a woman's right to control her body doesn't concern the fetus because it is a separate body.

Again, this is a case of anti-abortion advocates not understanding pro-abortion arguments. The fetus does or does not have a right to life, like it is said, based on whether the woman desires it. This is because if the woman does not desire it, the fetus is occupying the woman's body against her will. Since everyone owns their own body, the woman is within her rights to abort, since this is the only way to expel the fetus, and if it isn't the only way, it is the safest.

Argument four, which is fallacious, would not be made by someone who understands this concept, because once the baby is born it is no longer occupying a woman's body against her will, and therefore there is no issue.

As for his two scenarios, aborting a fetus because it is female or gay, the abortion wouldn't be immoral. The sexism or homophobia driving the decision would be immoral.

[Teallaura]

ArgUement ft one is true. I can't see anyone disagreeing with it.

At argument two it is said that the right of a woman to abort "under any circumstance, for any reason, at any time in her pregnancy" is moral only if the fetus has no intrinsic worth. At argument three, it is said that a woman's right to control her body doesn't concern the fetus because it is a separate body.

Again, this is a case of anti-abortion advocates not understanding pro-abortion arguments. The fetus does or does not have a right to life, like it is said, based on whether the woman desires it. This is because if the does not desire it, the fetus is occupying the woman's body against her will. Since everyone owns their own body, the woman is within her rights to abort, since this is the only way to expel the fetus, and if it isn't the only way, it is the safest.

Argument four, which is fallacious, would not be made by someone who understands this concept, because once the baby is born it is no longer occupying a woman's body against her will, and therefore there is no issue.

As for his two scenarios, aborting a fetus because it is female or gay, the abortion wouldn't be immoral. The sexism or homophobia driving the decision would be immoral.

Which would mean that pro abortion advocates don't grasp basic constitutional law. A child's right to live begins when it achieves whatever personhood is. Once it is a legal person its right to live supersedes the mother's right to privacy and to kill it. It also means that pro abortion advocates don't grasp basic biology. The baby is not an invader but an invited guest. From the instant of conception the mother's body protects and nurtures the child. It serves a vital purpose and cannot be reasonably mistaken for anything other than what it is her child.

Pro abortion advocates are very fond of redefining reality to suit their own ghoulish desires. Pro life advocates are under no obligation to kowtow to their delusions.

[Jedidiah]

Pro abortion advocates are very fond of redefining reality to suit their own ghoulish desires. Pro life advocates are under no obligation to kowtow to their delusions.

I especially like this sentence. It is more and more true every day.

[Darth Ovious]

Again, this is a case of anti-abortion advocates not understanding pro-abortion arguments. The fetus does or does not have a right to life, like it is said, based on whether the woman desires it. This is because if the woman does not desire it, the fetus is occupying the woman's body against her will. Since everyone owns their own body, the woman is within her rights to abort, since this is the only way to expel the fetus, and if it isn't the only way, it is the safest.

This is pro-choice reasoning right here. The term "the fetus is occupying the woman's body against her will" seems to suggest that the fetus has some sort evil plan to hold the woman hostage. This is like saying that an animal, for instance a cat, who enters your house uninvited is entering it "against your will" and thus you should be allowed to kill it. Now lets say that the cat is there because you adopted it but now you no longer want it and thus it is there "against your will", apparently it's still OK to kill it or lastly lets say you left your door open and the cat walked into your house, it's there "against your will" and so you can kill it.

Argument four, which is fallacious, would not be made by someone who understands this concept, because once the baby is born it is no longer occupying a woman's body against her will, and therefore there is no issue.

People are made to do things "against their will" all the time. People who get sent to prison go there "against their will". In fact we have more laws in Western society than we've ever had that make people do things "against their will". This is not an argument for taking a life.

[Mountain Man]

The fetus does or does not have a right to life, like it is said, based on whether the woman desires it. This is because if the woman does not desire it, the fetus is occupying the woman's body against her will. Since everyone owns their own body, the woman is within her rights to abort, since this is the only way to expel the fetus, and if it isn't the only way, it is the safest.

Here are three facts to consider:

1) At the moment of conception, an organism is formed that meets even the most conservative scientific definition of life.
2) This life has human DNA so it is human life.
3) This human life is not guilty of any wrongdoing so it is innocent human life.

So the question becomes, does a woman's right over her own body supersede the innocent human life's right to life?

And it's hard to argue that the fetus is some sort of hostile invader who exists against the woman's will since the overwhelming majority of pregancies are the result of two people willingly engaging in an act that has a very good chance of causing the woman to become pregnant.

[mossrose]

This is pro-choice reasoning right here. The term "the fetus is occupying the woman's body against her will" seems to suggest that the fetus has some sort evil plan to hold the woman hostage. This is like saying that an animal, for instance a cat, who enters your house uninvited is entering it "against your will" and thus you should be allowed to kill it. Now lets say that the cat is there because you adopted it but now you no longer want it and thus it is there "against your will", apparently it's still OK to kill it or lastly lets say you left your door open and the cat walked into your house, it's there "against your will" and so you can kill it.



People are made to do things "against their will" all the time. People who get sent to prison go there "against their will". In fact we have more laws in Western society than we've ever had that make people do things "against their will". This is not an argument for taking a life.

Amen! Oh, and I am forced to pay for abortions against my will! Precisely your point.

[Teallaura]

Actually, in the vast majority of cases the woman has knowingly and willingly engaged in the act which is physiologically designed for the purpose of exchanging genetic material to produce a new individual. It is the height of both hypocrisy and irrationality to claim the child is somehow an invader or an alien. Lack of foresight does not create a right to murder.

[Sea of red]

Which would mean that pro abortion advocates don't grasp basic constitutional law. A child's right to live begins when it achieves whatever personhood is. Once it is a legal person its right to live supersedes the mother's right to privacy and to kill it. It also means that pro abortion advocates don't grasp basic biology. The baby is not an invader but an invited guest. From the instant of conception the mother's body protects and nurtures the child. It serves a vital purpose and cannot be reasonably mistaken for anything other than what it is her child.

Pro abortion advocates are very fond of redefining reality to suit their own ghoulish desires. Pro life advocates are under no obligation to kowtow to their delusions.

Only problem is, personhood doesn't begin at conception. Such a definition that qualifies a fertilized egg as a human being no different than myself or a baby, is a purely philosophical idea at best, and a religious concept at worst. I see no reason to call a fertilized egg a human being any more than I see a reason to call a hickory nut a tree - or a call an egg chicken, or call a seed a flower. It's playing with words to call an embryo a human, and I'm not a "ghoul" because I won't accept what is an obviously religious concept.

[Sea of red]

Actually, in the vast majority of cases the woman has knowingly and willingly engaged in the act which is physiologically designed for the purpose of exchanging genetic material to produce a new individual. It is the height of both hypocrisy and irrationality to claim the child is somehow an invader or an alien. Lack of foresight does not create a right to murder.

More than a few women are drugged, beaten, or attacked before being raped. Incest is also a very common occurrence out there and due to it's taboo nature, women naturally are afraid to discuss such a circumstance. Rape is an awful thing to go through man or women. Being told you must give birth to a child simply because some people have a religious concept that absurdly gives such an organism legal rights superseding that of the womans.

[mossrose]

Only problem is, personhood doesn't begin at conception. Such a definition that qualifies a fertilized egg as a human being no different than myself or a baby, is a purely philosophical idea at best, and a religious concept at worst. I see no reason to call a fertilized egg a human being any more than I see a reason to call a hickory nut a tree - or a call an egg chicken, or call a seed a flower. It's playing with words to call an embryo a human, and I'm not a "ghoul" because I won't accept what is an obviously religious concept.

It's not a religious concept to assume that a hickory nut will grow into a hickory tree, or a chicken egg with become a chicken, or a daffodil bulb will develop into a flower......if these things are left to progress as they were made to do.

An human embryo WILL become a person, unless it is interrupted. That is a scientific fact.

[Sea of red]

It's not a religious concept to assume that a hickory nut will grow into a hickory tree, or a chicken egg with become a chicken, or a daffodil bulb will develop into a flower......if these things are left to progress as they were made to do.

An human embryo WILL become a person, unless it is interrupted. That is a scientific fact.

But there you go. The hickory nut is a tree yet, or an egg a chicken yet. These things are not made to progress. They are opportunistic organisms that given the right conditions, will develop into higher organisms. We cut down trees, we eat animals, we kill innocent people in war as collateral damage.