How do you feel about abortion?

[DeadlyFoez]

Ehh. I stated what I believed. I feel no need to go into a huge discussion of how and why I came to what I believe and then have a bunch of people tear it apart and try to belittle me just because they disagree. Figure I will take the high road before I end up getting pissed off over this discussion.

Have a good day guys.

 

[FAST6191]

Does not have to be, we can have different tolerances of risk, different analyses of the baseline concept (I use lessening suffering, others seem to get hung up on what is and what is the value of life at various points, others still go in for development) and a multitude of other factors that can influence things. However are you not curious how two people with essentially the same approaches to a concept wind up with so very different end results? The discussion of such things I find to be productive (far more so than "because my book says so", though even there as mentioned earlier a framework for a discussion can still be established, and kind of has to be if we are doing societies like we presently do) and what I seek in threads like this.

There is always reasoning with me, at least assuming I have time and we are sitting across a table or behind keyboards. I can not say I pride myself on the notion but it is certainly something I would consider a fundamental aspect of my character and approach to the world at large. Indeed I am not entirely sure how you came to the opposite conclusion. I can be fairly relentless in it and try to always argue from a strong position, something which some find tiring, but that is somewhat besides the point.

Edit
"I feel no need to go into a huge discussion of how and why I came to what I believe and then have a bunch of people tear it apart"
A pity, I kind of like a good discussion.

 

[Deleted User]

Deleted

 

[DeadlyFoez]

Does not have to be, we can have different tolerances of risk, different analyses of the baseline concept (I use lessening suffering, others seem to get hung up on what is and what is the value of life at various points, others still go in for development) and a multitude of other factors that can influence things. However are you not curious how two people with essentially the same approaches to a concept wind up with so very different end results? The discussion of such things I find to be productive (far more so than "because my book says so", though even there as mentioned earlier a framework for a discussion can still be established, and kind of has to be if we are doing societies like we presently do) and what I seek in threads like this.

There is always reasoning with me, at least assuming I have time and we are sitting across a table or behind keyboards. I can not say I pride myself on the notion but it is certainly something I would consider a fundamental aspect of my character and approach to the world at large. Indeed I am not entirely sure how you came to the opposite conclusion. I can be fairly relentless in it and try to always argue from a strong position, something which some find tiring, but that is somewhat besides the point.

Edit
"I feel no need to go into a huge discussion of how and why I came to what I believe and then have a bunch of people tear it apart"
A pity, I kind of like a good discussion.

The thing is, I am reeeaaalllyyy hung over right now and my brain is not working so well. So half of what I am reading is just not making too much sense to me at the moment. So a proper discussion is out of the question at this time.

 

[granville]

Legitimate question, but if you can make an exception for rape or health reasons, why not just allow it in any case that a woman deems necessary?

Or, on the flip side, if you have such a moral objection to it, why even make the exceptions in the first place?

Curious, but would you RATHER I be on the "no abortions, no exceptions" side?

I figured with the debate centering around "choice", the different contexts and morals of consensual sex vs rape would be fairly clear. A woman consenting to sex made a deliberate choice, acknowledging all associated risks, including a possible pregnancy. In rape, choice, the ability to consent and accept the consequences and responsibility are thrown out entirely. The woman is forced into the situation, it's the reason we punish men who rape women. And I side with having empathy in the exception where an unwilling victim was forced into a situation they couldn't control. Similar situation if giving birth is determined to be life threatening for the mother, I consider the mother's life a higher priority in that case. It's not that I don't still view abortion as horrid regardless, i simply try for a more nuanced position on the matter than the no-exceptions hard yes or hard no. Not sure if I could explain my reasoning any better.

There's not any analog to this situation either. I had several other analogies I considered bringing up, but none really factor in the termination of a developing human and so aren't exactly fair to compare.

Incidentally, an interesting aspect about the debate on abortion was reading up on Norma McCorvey, AKA Jane Roe from the Roe vs Wade case that changed US abortion laws. Norma McCorvey became pregnant as a teen in what she then claimed was rape. She filed a lawsuit to try to obtain an abortion. What is interesting is how the lawsuit ended up diverting course away from her and her wishes. She apparently didn't have much involvement in the courtrooms even early on (I don't even know if she ever appeared) and she became upset with her lawyers and felt they were lying to her. Norma eventually gave birth during the proceedings and changed her mind about abortion entirely. Her lawyers proceeded with the case however and continued to use her given pseudonym to promote the legalization of abortion. In the 1980s, McCorvey ended up confessing that she had lied about the rape (though I don't think she or her legal team received any punishment for lying to the courts) and she became an outspoken voice for the pro-life argument. I'm not personally interested in using her as an example against abortion (I fundamentally disagree with her on some key aspects). But the details of her life behind the scenes are still very interesting. Especially her legal team and many others pushing her "Jane Roe" identity as the mascot for the movement icon. And continuing to do so decades after she changed sides.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Curious, but would you RATHER I be on the "no abortions, no exceptions" side?

I figured with the debate centering around "choice", the different contexts and morals of consensual sex vs rape would be fairly clear. A woman consenting to sex made a deliberate choice, acknowledging all associated risks, including a possible pregnancy. In rape, choice, the ability to consent and accept the consequences and responsibility are thrown out entirely. The woman is forced into the situation, it's the reason we punish men who rape women. And I side with having empathy in the exception where an unwilling victim was forced into a situation they couldn't control. Similar situation if giving birth is determined to be life threatening for the mother, I consider the mother's life a higher priority in that case. It's not that I don't still view abortion as horrid regardless, i simply try for a more nuanced position on the matter than the no-exceptions hard yes or hard no. Not sure if I could explain my reasoning any better.

There's not any analog to this situation either. I had several other analogies I considered bringing up, but none really factor in the termination of a developing human and so aren't exactly fair to compare.

Incidentally, an interesting aspect about the debate on abortion was reading up on Norma McCorvey, AKA Jane Roe from the Roe vs Wade case that changed US abortion laws. Norma McCorvey became pregnant as a teen in what she then claimed was rape. She filed a lawsuit to try to obtain an abortion. What is interesting is how the lawsuit ended up diverting course away from her and her wishes. She apparently didn't have much involvement in the courtrooms even early on (I don't even know if she ever appeared) and she became upset with her lawyers and felt they were lying to her. Norma eventually gave birth during the proceedings and changed her mind about abortion entirely. Her lawyers proceeded with the case however and continued to use her given pseudonym to promote the legalization of abortion. In the 1980s, McCorvey ended up confessing that she had lied about the rape (though I don't think she or her legal team received any punishment for lying to the courts) and she became an outspoken voice for the pro-life argument. I'm not personally interested in using her as an example against abortion (I fundamentally disagree with her on some key aspects). But the details of her life behind the scenes are still very interesting. Especially her legal team and many others pushing her "Jane Roe" identity as the mascot for the movement icon. And continuing to do so decades after she changed sides.

I mean, I wouldn't, but I'm trying to find a consistency in your position, since until recently I held more or less the same one until someone brought something up to me: if you can accept that a woman has a choice to get an abortion if she's been raped, you can accept that a woman has a choice to keep the child, period. Every woman that seriously considers having an abortion has her own personal reasons for wanting one, and even though there are times where people may regret it later, that doesn't take away from the fact that in the end, the choice remains theirs

The bit on Roe v Wade is interesting, though, I wasn't aware of that aspect of the case specifically (although I had heard of the "Jane Roe is now pro-life so how about THAT" argument before now), but in the end, other than a gross and unethical overstep of her personal interests by her lawyers, if that is the case, I really don't think that in the grand scheme of things it really changes anything, at least not morality-wise

 

[FAST6191]

A woman consenting to sex made a deliberate choice, acknowledging all associated risks, including a possible pregnancy.

The modern world affords many tried and tested methods to avoid pregnancy though and they get to be considered in that, why then is the ability to end it if prevention failed (it is cheap and easy after all) not a part of that analysis?
That then lands us back at the "what is bad about it and what lines might you draw and why?" discussion.

 

[RandomUser]

I may be old fashioned, but the way I see it, if she cannot keep her legs shut, then she should bare the burden of having a child regardless if pregnancy is voluntary or involuntary. Wile may not able to 100% prevent pregnancy, their is drugs to prevent this.
The same for guys, if he cannot think with his big head and let his little head rule over him, then he should bare the burden of having a child regardless if pregnancy is voluntary or involuntary. Unless sperm jacking happens, then that is a whole 'nother issue and falls on the woman's responsibility when she used the said sperm to impregnate herself with.

 

[cots]

i don't even understand why there should be a debate on the matter.
if it's not in your body or not your baby then what in the world makes you think you've got the right to mingle?

* you don't know what's the state of mind of another human beïng.
* you don't know her history.
* you don't know how she got pregnant.

what makes your oppinion worth that much?

yes abortion is ending hope for an unborn life, but that doesn't make it your problem.
for all you know she might not had a free will in getting pregnant in the first place, it could've been rape, abuse, or (having the idea of) not having any other option at beforehand.
she might know she's carrying a deathly desease so there's no hope for her to be born baby to have a happy life.
or what if she's not able to give the primairy needs for a baby?

even if it's none of these, then still what's your excuse to have to mingle?

I agree with you about it being none of anyone else's business. It seems to be okay now to tell other people what to do with their own bodies; too much government control if you ask me. I also believe that abortion is murder and the reasoning behind the murder makes no difference. If you murder someone in self defense it's justified, but it's still murder and the person responsible still has to live with that for the rest of their life.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I may be old fashioned, but the way I see it, if she cannot keep her legs shut, then she should bare the burden of having a child regardless if pregnancy is voluntary or involuntary. Wile may not able to 100% prevent pregnancy, their is drugs to prevent this.
The same for guys, if he cannot think with his big head and let his little head rule over him, then he should bare the burden of having a child regardless if pregnancy is voluntary or involuntary. Unless sperm jacking happens, then that is a whole 'nother issue and falls on the woman's responsibility when she used the said sperm to impregnate herself with.

I think you addressed this yourself: there are very effective forms of birth control that allows a person to have sex recreationally rather than for reproductive purposes. However, there is also an incredibly small chance that the birth control will fail, in which case a woman shouldn't be expecting to carry out a pregnancy that she neither wanted nor was planning for. Now, that doesn't automatically mean that a pregnancy should be terminated, but the woman should have the choice as to whether or not she should have to carry the pregnancy to term

 

[RandomUser]

I think you addressed this yourself: there are very effective forms of birth control that allows a person to have sex recreationally rather than for reproductive purposes. However, there is also an incredibly small chance that the birth control will fail, in which case a woman shouldn't be expecting to carry out a pregnancy that she neither wanted nor was planning for. Now, that doesn't automatically mean that a pregnancy should be terminated, but the woman should have the choice as to whether or not she should have to carry the pregnancy to term

Well, I did say I may be old fashioned. That is how I was raised, marriage first then sex later. But now that birth control drugs are available, this allows both men and women to be reckless, given that every women should know that there is a small chance of failure, should not excuse her from having the baby even by a small margin she did get pregnant. This is the risk he and she has to take if they want sex, simple as that, and no take back, or a shortcut way out. Kinda like gambling, you can expect to lose money, but should not expect the casino or establishment to give you back the money you lost. That isn't how gambling work. Essentially you would be taking a gamble when having sex. Therefor abortion isn't needed, unless life or death situation and perhaps even rape.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Well, I did say I may be old fashioned. That is how I was raised, marriage first then sex later. But now that birth control drugs are available, this allows both men and women to be reckless, given that every women should know that there is a small chance of failure, should not excuse her from having the baby even by a small margin she did get pregnant. This is the risk he and she has to take if they want sex, simple as that, and no take back, or a shortcut way out. Kinda like gambling, you can expect to lose money, but should not expect the casino or establishment to give you back the money you lost. That isn't how gambling work. Essentially you would be taking a gamble when having sex. Therefor abortion isn't needed, unless life or death situation and perhaps even rape.

So... You feel as though having a child should be something like a punishment for having sex?...

 

[Jack Daniels]

I agree with you about it being none of anyone else's business. It seems to be okay now to tell other people what to do with their own bodies; too much government control if you ask me. I also believe that abortion is murder and the reasoning behind the murder makes no difference. If you murder someone in self defense it's justified, but it's still murder and the person responsible still has to live with that for the rest of their life.

yes, i agree... but understand, if you end a life iand you're in the right mind even if you don't know the person it will be a burden...
yes it's possible to abort a pregnancy, but it will come with a price to most people that will haunt them the rest of her life...
each time the person sees another kid growing up it will somehow think back of how this kid she never met would've be if she didn't abort.
ifyes you can abort, and it should be a right of the person to do so, just don't forget that it's gonna cost a lifetime...
murder is a hard word to use, i'd say kill. Since i still stand by the idea it never been alive if done within law, so it's the end of a dream to be.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

yes, i agree... but understand, if you end a life iand you're in the right mind even if you don't know the person it will be a burden...
yes it's possible to abort a pregnancy, but it will come with a price to most people that will haunt them the rest of her life...
each time the person sees another kid growing up it will somehow think back of how this kid she never met would've be if she didn't abort.
ifyes you can abort, and it should be a right of the person to do so, just don't forget that it's gonna cost a lifetime...

Which is exactly why hotline networks like Exhale exist

 

[FAST6191]

"but it will come with a price to most people that will haunt them the rest of her life..."
Only in the same way that some people seem traumatised by dentists, injections, contact lenses and similar such things. Indeed I would assign about as much mental energy to getting an abortion as I would any of those things mentioned (important to do properly, hopefully not enough to permeate your every thought).

If someone is so afflicted then absolutely do treat it as per standard practices but expecting it to be a normal/common outcome... nope, not even close and I dare say the stats and practices of abortion clinics (they don't typically recommend counselling or similar for run of the mill abortions) would back it.

Equally there is a line of logic (the freakonomics people that did the frequently referenced abortions vs crime thing) that says abortions don't result in fewer babies, just them being delayed a few years. That might then make being paralysed by what ifs an even sillier thing to do.

 

[RandomUser]

So... You feel as though having a child should be something like a punishment for having sex?...

Something like that, but if it was planned to have a child then it would be a joyous occasion. There is options that can be done to outright 100% prevent pregnancy, that man and women can do, but the bad is that it tends to be permanent, but hay if you support women riding the cock carousel, that fine I am not going to judge and you're entitled to your opinion.
More bluntly put:
If you cannot handle the consequences, then don't do it. It is just that simple. That child should have the right to live regardless if unborn or not. Like all things in life some actions have consequences, and like always if you don't want the consequences, again don't do it unless you know for 100% certain the outcome is favorable to you.
So if both partners want sex, then they should expect even by a small chance to have a child. After all, that is what sex is originally intended for, reproduction by nature.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Something like that, but if it was planned to have a child then it would be a joyous occasion. There is options that can be done to outright 100% prevent pregnancy, that man and women can do, but the bad is that it tends to be permanent, but hay if you support women riding the cock carousel, that fine I am not going to judge and you're entitled to your opinion.
More bluntly put:
If you cannot handle the consequences, then don't do it. It is just that simple. That child should have the right to live regardless if unborn or not. Like all things in life some actions have consequences, and like always if you don't want the consequences, again don't do it unless you know for 100% certain the outcome is favorable to you.
So if both partners want sex, then they should expect even by a small chance to have a child. After all, that is what sex is originally intended for, reproduction by nature.

I mean... I understand your sentiment, but I hope you realize that if a child is a punishment for something, either the child will treat themselves as such or the mother will treat herself that way. A kid is a rather permanent thing to have, and if a parent isn't capable of taking care of one properly they should have the choice to not

And I know you're going to say "adoption", but I'd say that before we even think about opening that up as an option, we need to work through a good chunk of the kids that are in the system already first

 

[FAST6191]

If you cannot handle the consequences, then don't do it. It is just that simple. That child should have the right to live regardless if unborn or not. Like all things in life some actions have consequences, and like always if you don't want the consequences, again don't do it unless you know for 100% certain the outcome is favorable to you.
So if both partners want sex, then they should expect even by a small chance to have a child. After all, that is what sex is originally intended for, reproduction by nature.

Is not a consequence that you need to get an abortion? Why is that not an option in the decision tree?

When does this thing become a child that is worthy of protection and whatnot?

Also why do I care what nature "intended"? Most of human technology and progress aims at rendering nature almost obsolete, or maybe just a small component of a larger whole.

 

[Lacius]

If you cannot handle the consequences, then don't do it. It is just that simple.

Sex is not consent to carry a baby to term. Nothing, including engagement in consensual sex, violates bodily autonomy rights.

Edit: Even if sex carried a 99% pregnancy risk, that wouldn't violate bodily autonomy rights.

That child should have the right to live regardless if unborn or not.

An embryo or fetus doesn't have anymore rights than an unfertilized egg and a sperm together in a petri dish. It's not a person.

Like all things in life some actions have consequences, and like always if you don't want the consequences, again don't do it unless you know for 100% certain the outcome is favorable to you.
So if both partners want sex, then they should expect even by a small chance to have a child. After all, that is what sex is originally intended for, reproduction by nature.

I agree wholeheartedly that a person needs to be able to accept the possible consequences of an action before willfully engaging in an action. That doesn't negate the existence of mitigation strategies. A possible consequence of sex is contracting an STI, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to take penicillin.

After all, that is what sex is originally intended for, reproduction by nature.

Over 99.9% of the human sex that happens on this planet is for purposes unrelated to reproduction. It's not the primary purpose of sex. Using the phrase "intended for" is also a misnomer, because that implies agency where there is none.

 

[RandomUser]

Sex is not consent to carry a baby to term. Nothing, including engagement in consensual sex, violates bodily autonomy rights.

Edit: Even if sex carried a 99% pregnancy risk, that wouldn't violate bodily autonomy rights.

It may not violate the right, but you cannot change biology. If you have 99% chance of pregnancy risk, and don't want children, then people should be looking for something else and more productive things to do with their time.

An embryo or fetus doesn't have anymore rights than an unfertilized egg and a sperm together in a petri dish. It's not a person.

Fair enough

I agree wholeheartedly that a person needs to be able to accept the possible consequences of an action before willfully engaging in an action. That doesn't negate the existence of mitigation strategies. A possible consequence of sex is contracting an STI, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to take penicillin.

So what happens when said strategy fails?

Over 99.9% of the human sex that happens on this planet is for purposes unrelated to reproduction. It's not the primary purpose of sex. Using the phrase "intended for" is also a misnomer, because that implies agency where there is none.

Are you sure? The very primary purpose of sex is reproduction, without it, you wouldn't even be on alive and on this forum. Pleasure from sex is not a primary function, it is more of a reward system then anything else.