Abortion or not?

[Seth1968]

This new thread is due to the so called thread derail of that Trump inauguration thread.

Uh huh. A thread derail is just natural. Not sure why it was a thing in the Trump thread. Oh wait.

Anyway, on the topic of abortion, I'll ask this again, but as usual, I won't expect an answer from the pro life people (whatever the hell they mean by "pro life").

Here we go:

"Killing" isn't by necessity, a bad thing. In the specific regard to abortion, would it be ok for a woman to abort a fetus that has no limbs and no cerebral cortex?

[sputnik]

This is a stupid debate because it fails to recognize that both groups are coming from COMPLETELY different angles.

The pro-choice side sees abortion as a "women's reproductive rights" issue basically stating that women should be able to choose everything that happens within their bodies.

The pro-life side sees abortion as a "unborn child rights" issue with the belief that the child in its unborn state has the right to live. Then we can muddy the waters further by adding in the group that believes that the unborn child is just as much the fathers child as the mothers. So there is a "father's rights" angle too.

Then you also end up with a confused law where if a pregnant woman is murdered the murderer can be charged with double homicide. I guess the fetus WAS a person after all? Who knew?

Add on the compassionate reasons (severely unhealthy fetus, rape victims, potential risks to mother etc) and it gets even worse.

This issue is far from a binary black/white or yes/no issue.

If you want to talk about this issue with anyone you have to be willing to not get defensive or emotional about it because everyone sees it from a VERY different viewpoint.

[max_boost]

Abortion - Yes

I don't even see what the big deal is.

[NoPulp]

Pro Choice 100%

I wouldn't personally like to go the abortion route, but that doesn't mean I get to make that same decision for other people. They have to live with the consequences, not me.
Government shouldn't make that decision either, however providing education/resources would be good.

[Tenkara Way]

If it involves not having this thread started by Seth1968. I'll be pro-abortion and Seth1968 will not exist.

[HiTempguy1]

Originally posted by sputnik
This is a stupid debate because it fails to recognize that both groups are coming from COMPLETELY different angles.

The pro-choice side sees abortion as a "women's reproductive rights" issue basically stating that women should be able to choose everything that happens within their bodies.

The pro-life side sees abortion as a "unborn child rights" issue with the belief that the child in its unborn state has the right to live. Then we can muddy the waters further by adding in the group that believes that the unborn child is just as much the fathers child as the mothers. So there is a "father's rights" angle too.

Then you also end up with a confused law where if a pregnant woman is murdered the murderer can be charged with double homicide. I guess the fetus WAS a person after all? Who knew?

Add on the compassionate reasons (severely unhealthy fetus, rape victims, potential risks to mother etc) and it gets even worse.

This issue is far from a binary black/white or yes/no issue.

If you want to talk about this issue with anyone you have to be willing to not get defensive or emotional about it because everyone sees it from a VERY different viewpoint.

Rare that I completely agree with Sputnik, but there really isn't much more to say on the topic.

I would suggest that government DOES enforce/legislate certain aspects of morality, and those that suggest otherwise are not being truthful with themselves.

[Kloubek]

Originally posted by sputnik
This issue is far from a binary black/white or yes/no issue.

You pretty much summed it up for me.

This is going to be a debate forever, since both sides have supporting reasons for feeling the way that they do, so both sides are correct, given their viewpoints. Those viewpoints are also completely wrong if you own the opposite perspective.

In the end, I have my own thoughts but due to the fact I am open enough to see both sides, I just don't get involved. Far safer that way.

[Gestalt]

Abortions are disgusting, and should definitely be illegal.

I posted the statistics in the other thread. Only 2% are for what the US considers hard cases, meaning rape or health issues.

That means it is being used as birth control in 98% of cases.

50% of abortion are the same offenders having more than one abortion.

How someone can claim they have ultimate say and responsibility for their body, and can then justify abortion is silly.

I don't see what there is to discuss. If you are responsible enough to terminate life, then you should have been responsible enough to use the dozen options to prevent pregnancy.

No abortions, unless in hard cases. or compassionate reasons as sputnik called them above.

[Tenkara Way]

Originally posted by Gestalt
Abortions are disgusting, and should definitely be illegal.

I posted the statistics in the other thread. Only 2% are for what the US considers hard cases, meaning rape or health issues.

That means it is being used as birth control in 98% of cases.

50% of abortion are the same offenders having more than one abortion.

How someone can claim they have ultimate say and responsibility for their body, and can then justify abortion is silly.

I don't see what there is to discuss. If you are responsible enough to terminate life, then you should have been responsible enough to use the dozen options to prevent pregnancy.

No abortions, unless in hard cases. or compassionate reasons as sputnik called them above.

Does your god dictate this stance?

[Gestalt]

Originally posted by Tenkara Way



Does your god dictate this stance?

No, I am agnostic. Simple ethics or morality really.

Claim you are responsible for your body, but only after an unwanted pregnancy

[Tenkara Way]

Originally posted by Gestalt


No, I am agnostic. Simple morality really.

Claim you are responsible for your body, but only after an unwanted pregnancy

Agnostic, so you've not settled on a team as of yet and remain certain there is some hope of a team for your beliefs.

Morality, you'd have your morals as the rule of the land as they are just, true and the only path?

Noticed you tossed "ethics" in there after pressing Save Changes. Interestingly this is the word you forgot in your first draft.

I love how so many hold firm to what they believe as the right way and others are just plain wrong. Must be a gratified day in the house of glass.

[Gestalt]

Whatever you need to call it. Im pointing out the ridiculous excuse that Its my body, my decision is.

Is it a oxymoron, hypocrisy, un ethical. I don't know what you call selective or only when it's convenient claims of responsibility.

[J-hop]

I think gestalt believes a full grown human and a fertilized egg are no different when it comes to aborting/killing so I wouldn't read much into it.

Sputnik hit the nail on the head. I would say for me at least there is the added complexity of what exactly defines consciousness and where we draw that line.

Saying aborting a fertilized egg is murdering a human is the same thing as considering eating lab grown chicken meat to be the same as slaughtering a chicken on a farm

[Gestalt]

It doesn't have to be the same to be wrong.

Its life, on its way to a thinking feeling organism.

And you seem to be equating to no more than trash to be thrown out.

[J-hop]

Originally posted by Gestalt
It doesn't have to be the same to be wrong.

Its life, on its way to a thinking feeling organism.

And you seem to be equating to no more than trash to be thrown out.

So do you believe eating lab grown meat is wrong? Why or why not? What aspect does the lab grown meat contain or not contain that would lead you to draw your conclusion.

I'm assuming you're vegan. If not then that is a whole other can of worms. You then have to define why eating a conscious cow is different than "killing" a fertilized egg which objectively speaking has zero consciousness at all.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by sputnik

Add on the compassionate reasons (severely unhealthy fetus, rape victims, potential risks to mother etc) and it gets even worse.

Normally we don't allow babies to be killed, but because the father* committed a crime we've decided to waive this human's right to life. Out of compassion.

Kind of a dubious moral stance isn't it?


*Would we allow a compassion abortion if it were the mother that admitted to raping a man and then becoming pregnant?

[g-m]

And you seem to be equating to no more than trash to be thrown out. [/B]

Yea, that's right.

It's easy enough to make a new one. No effort or resources have been expended on it. It has no value

Edit:. It's like having a wart removed. It's an unwanted growth

[Modelexis]

I believe a woman owns her own body, and if there is a child growing in her (let's say just for the sake of argument that I draw the line at a heartbeat) she has the right to evict that unwanted heart beating fetus but she doesn't have the right to end the life.

I look at the situation as two separate actions, the first is eviction and the second is killing.

If we had the technology to remove a heart beating (usually 3 weeks) baby from the womb and have it complete it's growing process outside the mother I would be in favor of the womans right to have the eviction proceedure completed.

Since we don't yet have that technology and the odds are 100% that the eviction will result in death I don't approve of a women electing this procedure.

So you could say I'm pro choice since I'm in favor of womens right to choose eviction or birth, but I'm also pro life in the sense that I don't grant what I consider to be a form of murder as a logical result of a womans choice.

exceptions: rape and some other rare situations.
Obviously I'm not opposed to birth control or even the day after pill.
I would draw the line somewhere around 3 weeks, it's open for debate.

The theory is lifted from Walter Block.

The imperfect analogy I would use is if you own a train and while the train is at a stop near a school with children getting out at the end of the day and you don't take any precautions to make sure a child doesn't board the train and you end up with a child aboard the train.

If the train is still in the station, you can have the child leave and the mistake is rectified, but if you find the child aboard and wait to decide whether to have him/her leave until it's going 100kms/h or you don't find the child until it's going high speeds that is your fault and not the child's fault.
You have the right to remove the child from the train, but not when it's going ultra fast which at the moment it is impossible to do without grave risk to the childs life.

[Gestalt]

So the stance is defined.

It's trash

Or its a human life form.

I don't care, as long as we dont try and claim some silly its my body my choice bs only after conception.

[Tenkara Way]

So Gestalt, where do you stand on capital punishment? Let's probe the depths of your right to life rabbit hole.