Welcome to Gaia! ::

Wow. That's kind of...messed up, but it does make sense. Think how often you hear "It's not a person; it's tissue." If they don't understand that pro-life people are trying to defend the lives of innocent people, what other conclusion can they draw? To them, there's not another person in the equation, only the pro-lifer, so any reasons they have for defending "tissue" would have to be selfish.

Of course philosophy belongs in this debate!

Philosophy is based on logic. Any logical argument that relies on premises that ultimately lead to a conclusion are philosophical. MOST of the arguments in the abortion debate are philosophical in nature anyway (what does it mean to be a human being/person, what rights do we give others, what do these rights mean in application, what does the right to life permit or not permit).

Where science can anser the biological questions (at what point does a fetus feel, at what point is a fetus viable, at what point do specific organs start forming, finish forming) philosophy is needed to answer the moral questions that result from that.

The one thing I have noticed, and that I completely disagree with, is the notion that if you can't have a baby, your opinion doesn't matter. There are justifications for *WHY* their opinions do not matter (ie a husband gets no say in a woman's abortion because ultimately it is her body carrying the pregnancy, one could argue), but the mere fact one is unable to have a child (a man lacks a uterus) meaning he gets to have no opinion on the topic is revolting to me... I lack a p***s, but I sure as hell can have philosophical/moral opions about the rightness/wrongness of circumcision at infantcy and express factual scientific studies/data about them.

There's two types of philosophy - personal philosophy and "real" philosophy (ie Kant, Hume, and published writers). Personal philosophy is "I believe this because of blah" but it isn't something that could be considered on par with real philosophy. I was thinking the question referred to the "real" type, not the personal type.

Many see the term "pro-life feminist" and equate it with "I support women and women's rights over their bodies, their destinies, their futures and their lives... except when I don't." I know because generally that's how I think of people who claim to be both pro-life and feminist. To me, claiming to be both is an apparent conflict of interests: You support a woman's right to choose to be a housewife or get a career, go to college, dress as she pleases, live as she pleases, get married or remain unmarried, her right to vote, her right to choose just about anything in the world that relates to her own personal life... everything except abortion which is quite possibly one of the largests, most important and life-impacting decisions of her entire life, which you would take away because of a personal philosophy - hence the "I support a woman's rights except when I don't" view I tend to hold towards pro-life feminists.

Also, it doesn't help that most of the people who claim to be both that I have dealt with or encountered in the past tend present pro-"life" arguments that generally are anti-women (ie the rape exception, "if you had sex you deserve it, but if you were raped it's a-ok" which is not a real pro-life stance at all). They are shamefull for either sides of the debate to give serious consideration to u.u;

Though I am curious to know what your view is about abortion being degrading to women.

Talon-chan: It's not "Rape is a-okay," it's "the fetus is a human being, whether it was placed there by rape or not;" You are looking at this from a Pro-Choice viewpoint, not a Pro-Life viewpoint.

You are not taking into account at all the fact that we believe the fetus to be a human being, deserving of the same rights that a born person is. And, yes, if for some reason, a born human being relied absolutely on another born human being for a certain period of time, due to something the second human being did, I believe they should have the same rights as a fetus.

You are only seeing it as a woman's right to have an abortion; You are not accepting the fact that we do not believe it is a woman's right to have an abortion, or shouldn't be; Not because we want to put women down, but because a woman's rights shouldn't be over the right to life of another human being.

So it's not, "I support a woman's rights except when I don't." Because they don't believe that that is a woman's right. It's, "I support a woman's rights, but this is not one of them."

That's what happened to me in the abortion thread in the ED, just because I'm prolife, they have to consider every single thing I say complete bullshit. And then they try to teach me how to debate...

First, make fun of everything the other person says...then ignore any point you can't find an answer for. Top it off with making fun of their religion. If they don't have a religion, pretend they do, because without making fun of someone's religion there can be no abortion debate.

Lymelady, I would question whether it is the abortion that is degrading to women or society. If a woman feels pressured to abort in order to be equal to a man then it is society that is pressuring her and society that is degrading her and society that is saying she must choose on eor the other... the act of abortion, and having that option available, doesn't degrade the woman.... it would be the people pressuring her to abort that degrade her by saying she must choose one or the other, not the option and the actual act of aborting. If you wanted to argue, instead, that the option of abortion being available gives room for such pressure to be applied... I would agree completely. Because abortion exists people are able to pressure a woman to choose between the two... but I would question whether this is reason enough to consider it degrading to have said option available.

I.Am, there are people who claim to be pro-life who believe an abortion exception for rape is just fine an dandy because the woman did not choose sex. A person who believes this is not truly pro-life, because the crime of the father is never an excuse to kill the child. One cannot believe a fetus is the equivalent of a born child with a right to life and say it is perfectly fine to abort it so long as the mother did not consent. They aren't pro-life, though they would claim to be so, they are anti-consentual-sex. While rape is a traumatizing experience, and the unwanted pregnancy to follow may also be traumatizing... these things do not remove the right to life.

Just as I would not call people like that pro-life, I think it is clear why you should not want to call them pro-life either. They don't believe a fetus has a right to life, or at least if they do it is a sickening view where that right is solely contingent upon the consent of the sex act or the crime of the father. Aborting a rape fetus, from a truly pro-life view, should be just as reprehensible as killing a child of 5 years because the father raped a woman.

As for real philosophy versus personal philosophy... I state publication as a criteria because a personal philosophy has not been truly criticized and critiqued by able-minded peers. If other great thinkers have not criticized your view, pointed out where it is wrong, and you have not defended it against real philosophers of prestige (ie people well respected as critical thinkers) then your personal philosophy could be quite flimsy and not worth listening to.

Anyone who makes a rape exception, for example... has the personal philosophy that rape exceptions are ok. With an ameteur critique of this view we can see some glaringly bad conclusions that can be drawn from such a philosophy... hence the rape exception personal philosophy would not be equivalent with say... a published philosopher who has regularly had his views challenged (and regularly defended them).

"Published" was probably too vague. The intent was that published philosophers have their views regularly challenged and they must rebutt such challenges. Their works have generally passed the "if this mistake is obvious to a five year old" test (as well as much harder tests)... and as such is worth more than some random person shouting "it is my intuition that XYZ must always be good/bad!" where said person has never had their view challenged, rebutted, or defended against such challenges.