Backdoor Abortion

[Beskar]

Main issues in the thread and on topics of Abortion is this.

There are many genuine and ethical concerns which forces the situation that make abortion legal. This is to provide legal high quality healthcare services to people that really need them through difficult times.

While on the issue of morality, Abortion is never "good", it is simply at best "lesser of two evils". No one should ever celebrate the fact they are having an abortion, it is simply an unpleasant reality.

The best time for the abortion is the beginning, when it is simply a bunch of cells. Late-term abortion however is pretty disgusting, as there are hardly any important factors as to why the fetus wasn't disposed of at a far earlier when it was far less developed and it borders on negligence.

Outlawing abortion altogether is another form of negligence. It is the authoritarian placing of social order on top of a far different reality.

There are arguments such as "Let them get adopted!" however, there are far more children than people wanting to adopt, and these same people want to discriminate against other race/homosexuals from adopting, further depriving the children. These same people also do not want to fund the support for these children, generally arguing against the welfare of others, stating mantras such as "Get a juub!" As this generalized example of people get everything they want, there is a very depressing Charles Dickin's picture occurring for these children.

Many people just look at the specific argument and not the wider picture.

In short, abortion is an unfortunate reality in an unfair world.

[Ironside]

I don't understand the logic with basing it off functioning independently though. A lot of babies born the normal way still end up hooked up on machines keeping them alive for a while. What about babies born prematurely? Does the fact that they were born prematurely mean they can't be killed (or whatever you want to call it) in the time period when if they had not been born prematurely, they would still have been in the womb and could have been aborted?

Taking PVC:s suggestion about "hedging your bet", it either forces you to try to save those natural miscarriages (leaving people to die is illegal in most countries) or still makes you consider a embryo as something lesser than a person. Really, no position succeds with being fully coherent on the issue.

tbh I find the whole abortion argument kind of surreal. I think many of these "reasoned" and "logical" argument for abortion will one day be looked at the same way when we today look at the "reasoned" and "logical" arguments people gave to support institutions like slavery. Screw the greater social good, it's just wrong.*

They'll be busy with more complicated questions. Is it wrong to genetically (this is done before the egg is fertilized in this case) create a functional human body without a brain and harvest it for the organs? It certainly feels uncomfortable for me, but try to have a black and white argument on the issue.
You already admitted that it isn't a human being and never was. So how many brain functions can we add before it becomes a human?

Besides, the pill and abortion gave females the control of their own sexuality. They also got a bit more power nowadays.

*disclaimer - this is just a gut feeling I have on the matter, and people will no doubt think it is ridiculous, but I think this is one of those issues where peoples norms are very much defined by those of their particular time and place, and those from another time and place might take a very different perspective...

Maybe, but it feels more to be an issue like suecide instead of slavery. Certainly nothing to celebrate, but to accept that it exists and happens is still better than denying it. For example, mothers killing their children dropped to around half when they stopped getting executed for that crime. Need I mention that suecide was considered worse than murder?

[ajaxfetish]

Disallowing all abortion is a way of "hedging you bet", you don't know when life begins so you take ther earliest point possible to avoid ever sanctioning homocide.

I'm not sure that 'hedging your bet' is an adequate justification for making something an all-or-nothing issue. Going to prison for a crime you didn't commit, or even getting a criminal record, can be devastating and have lifelong ramifications, and our criminal justice system is rarely if ever able to achieve 100% certainty of guilt. Should we hedge our bets by not prosecuting crimes, since we don't know if they really did it, so as to have no chance of destroying the lives of innocents? I think the benefits to public order justify prosecuting in spite of uncertainty, though the system should certainly be nuanced to try to avoid injustice as much as possible. Similarly, prohibiting abortion from the moment of conception means we know we won't be taking a human life, but it sacrifices the woman's rights to self determination and control of her body. I think that's too great a sacrifice to make, just to be 100% sure. I think again we need a nuanced system to try to avoid destroying the lives of innocents to the best of our knowledge and understanding while still operating in that gray area between conception and birth. (we need to be convinced it's not yet a human being beyond 'reasonable doubt', as it were)

Ajax

[Goofball]

Vuk you have to get over this fascination of comparing everything with the national socialist movement from mid-20th Century Germany. Just because the Nazis did bad things doesn't mean everything they did was bad, there's got to be one of those latin terms for such a fallacy...



You are forgetting that a foetus is just a lump of cells. We, of course, are far more than that, because we magically gained a soul when we popped out a vagina.

Really, who is more superstitious when it comes to abortion, doesn't look like the pro-lifers to me...

Erm... That makes no sense. I don't think I have ever heard a pro-choice type use whether or not the baby has a soul as an argument for or against abortion rights, that is almost completely the domain of pro-life types. I am pro-choice and certainly don't believe a baby magically gains a soul upon being born. I do, however, believe it is now a person and no longer a fetus.

[Rhyfelwyr]

And why does the foetus acquire personhood upon passing through a vagina?

[Goofball]

I do not see anything sane about drawing arbitrary lines on something as important as human life.

Sure you do. The arbitrary line you have chosen is "conception," when at the moment of conception the clump of cells that exists is clearly not a human being. Why is yours any more right or wrong than anyone else's arbitrary line?

[Goofball]

And why does the foetus acquire personhood upon passing through a vagina?

For me personally, it doesn't. It acquires personhood when it would be viable outside of the womb. I do not support late term abortion rights except where there is a serious health risk to the mother.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure that 'hedging your bet' is an adequate justification for making something an all-or-nothing issue. Going to prison for a crime you didn't commit, or even getting a criminal record, can be devastating and have lifelong ramifications, and our criminal justice system is rarely if ever able to achieve 100% certainty of guilt. Should we hedge our bets by not prosecuting crimes, since we don't know if they really did it, so as to have no chance of destroying the lives of innocents? I think the benefits to public order justify prosecuting in spite of uncertainty, though the system should certainly be nuanced to try to avoid injustice as much as possible. Similarly, prohibiting abortion from the moment of conception means we know we won't be taking a human life, but it sacrifices the woman's rights to self determination and control of her body. I think that's too great a sacrifice to make, just to be 100% sure. I think again we need a nuanced system to try to avoid destroying the lives of innocents to the best of our knowledge and understanding while still operating in that gray area between conception and birth. (we need to be convinced it's not yet a human being beyond 'reasonable doubt', as it were)

Ajax

Homocide is an all or nothing issue, so if it might be homocide is that a chance that you can morally justify taking?

Also, right to life clearly trumps right to self determination - that's a no brainer.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sure you do. The arbitrary line you have chosen is "conception," when at the moment of conception the clump of cells that exists is clearly not a human being. Why is yours any more right or wrong than anyone else's arbitrary line?

Well that is the points when all the ingredients that make you are put together.

For me personally, it doesn't. It acquires personhood when it would be viable outside of the womb. I do not support late term abortion rights except where there is a serious health risk to the mother.

But why is viability the best way to determine things? Why should the ability to survive independently be needed for someone to have the right to life?

[Goofball]

Well that is the points when all the ingredients that make you are put together.

A bowl of eggs, flour, cocoa, milk and sugar is not a chocolate cake. It has to bake in a warm place for a while before it becomes one.

But why is viability the best way to determine things? Why should the ability to survive independently be needed for someone to have the right to life?

I don't say it's the best. I say it's what I believe. And my belief is just as valid as yours. In fact, it's much more rationally and logically supportable than using conception as the arbitrary line. With my line, aborting the baby at that stage is actually killing something that at that moment could actually survive as a human being on it's own. Aborting a week-old growth of cells is very different.

[Rhyfelwyr]

A bowl of eggs, flour, cocoa, milk and sugar is not a chocolate cake. It has to bake in a warm place for a while before it becomes one.

Flawed analogy is flawed.

I don't say it's the best. I say it's what I believe. And my belief is just as valid as yours. In fact, it's much more rationally and logically supportable than using conception as the arbitrary line. With my line, aborting the baby at that stage is actually killing something that at that moment could actually survive as a human being on it's own. Aborting a week-old growth of cells is very different.

But again why does it matter that it can survive on its own?

[Goofball]

Flawed analogy is flawed.

Actually that analogy is perfect. Both making a baby and a cake require ingredients, then gestating/cooking before you have the finished product. I don't see how you can say that is a flawed analogy (other than because it obliterates your argument and it's a pure gesture of self-defence). ;)

But again why does it matter that it can survive on its own?

As I have already said, because IMO at that point you are taking a human life. Before that you aren't.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Actually that analogy is perfect. Both making a baby and a cake require ingredients, then gestating/cooking before you have the finished product. I don't see how you can say that is a flawed analogy (other than because it obliterates your argument and it's a pure gesture of self-defence). ;)

The analogy is flawed because we all agree that a cake is only created when the ingredients are prepared in a certain way, but it is not accepted by everyone that the biological matter that we are composed of only makes us human at a certain point in its development... that is the whole point of the debate.

As I have already said, because IMO at that point you are taking a human life. Before that you aren't.

But... why is that when it become a human life?

[ajaxfetish]

Homocide is an all or nothing issue, so if it might be homocide is that a chance that you can morally justify taking?

Also, right to life clearly trumps right to self determination - that's a no brainer.

When the probability that a homicide is taking place approaches zero, its ability to trump other rights does the same.

Ajax

[ajaxfetish]

The analogy is flawed because we all agree that a cake is only created when the ingredients are prepared in a certain way, but it is not accepted by everyone that the biological matter that we are composed of only makes us human at a certain point in its development... that is the whole point of the debate.

I don't think I could say when exactly in the baking process a cake becomes a cake. Bring it out too soon and it'll still be gooey; but what is the exact moment when it is sufficiently done to qualify as a cake? Another gray area, just like fetal development.

Ajax

[Tuuvi]

The ingredients of a cake sitting in a bowl are more analogous to some sperm and unfertilized eggs sitting in a test tube than they are to a newly conceived fetus.

[Sarmatian]

Nonsense. A zygote is a living cell. It is not a rock.

Sperms are cells, they are alive. Does that mean that when I masturbate I'm committing genocide?

I'm pro-abortion, but within limits. Legal until fetus becomes conscious. It's that simple. (Not counting when it is serious hazard for mother's life, in case of rape etc...)

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sperms are cells, they are alive. Does that mean that when I masturbate I'm committing genocide?

For some reason, you appear to be extrapolating my argument to characterise me as pro-life.

Cells are alive. What that status confers in regard to rights is the subject of this debate. You posit the idea that rights come with consciousness. I would disagree, since that's not something that can easily be measured. I am happy with the idea that rights accrue on the basis of viability, which is the position taken by the vast majority of legal systems.

[Viking]

Legal until fetus becomes conscious.

When's that?

[Sarmatian]

For some reason, you appear to be extrapolating my argument to characterise me as pro-life.

Cells are alive. What that status confers in regard to rights is the subject of this debate. You posit the idea that rights come with consciousness. I would disagree, since that's not something that can easily be measured. I am happy with the idea that rights accrue on the basis of viability, which is the position taken by the vast majority of legal systems.

So if someone burns my hand and kills some of the cells in my body he will answer for murder? That's pretty thin...

When's that?

IIRC, 14 weeks...

[Viking]

IIRC, 14 weeks...

Source?

[Sarmatian]

Source?

Mommy dearest, M.D.

[Banquo's Ghost]

So if someone burns my hand and kills some of the cells in my body he will answer for murder? That's pretty thin...

I'd agree.

What we have here is, to paraphrase, a failure to communicate. Instructively, it shows the devilry inherent in this debate, where people use otherwise quite clear terms to muddy the waters, 'life' being pre-eminent among these confusions.

[Vuk]

So if someone burns my hand and kills some of the cells in my body he will answer for murder? That's pretty thin...

It is not murder unless you kill all the cells in the organism, or destroy the conscious part. For instance, if someone incinerated your body, that would be murder.

[Scienter]

In short, abortion is an unfortunate reality in an unfair world.

Beskar is right. No one wants to have an abortion, it is not a decision taken lightly.

Further, our laws should not be based upon the religious beliefs of a group of citizens. The decision to have an abortion should be up to the pregnant woman, her partner (if he is involved in her life), her doctor, and her clergy person if she is religious. It shouldn't be dictated by law. I agree with some of the others above that there is a certain point that abortions should not be allowed. However, I also believe that when a woman is early enough in her pregnancy, she should be provided with swift access to abortion services and not be faced with heavy handed attempts to guilt her into changing her mind (i.e. ultrasound bills, bills requiring doctors to read scientifically invalid "facts" about abortion, etc). Women are not emotional infants who lack the agency to make their own decisions.

Reproductive rights policy in the US is beyond screwed up right now. The vast majority of women who have abortions are not haphazardly using it as a method of birth control. Contraception fails sometimes. Further, if people are not properly educated on HOW to use a contraceptive device, it has an increased likelihood of failing. The majority of women who get abortions have incomes that are under the Federal poverty level. Policymakers in this country seek to chip away at access to abortion, which, like it or not, is currently legal in the United States. On top of that, they also seek to reduce access and affordability of contraceptives to people who could not otherwise afford them. We give mountains of cash to abstinence based education in public schools, some of which provide blatantly false information. Some states seek to define the Birth Control Pill as an abortifacient, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. This is so, so wrong. If we want to reduce the number of abortions, the logical and realistic thing to do would be to increase access, education, and affordability of contraceptives.

People can get on their moral high horses about abstinence all they want. The reality of life is that people are going to have sex. People in the US need to get over themselves and realize this. Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through contraception = fewer abortions.