How do you feel about abortion?

[the_randomizer]

Having sex without a condom feels better. Thats a good incentive to knock up a lady.

Wow, that's the most bullshit argument I've heard today. Sod off.

If you block people you can't see quotes, either. He's going to have to just click the "show ignored content" button

I couldn't care less about what he thinks, we had a falling out, why the hell should I care with what he replies?

 

[SG854]

For some people, the primary purpose of sex is reproduction. For most people, however, the primary purpose of sex is social bonding, pleasure, etc.—in other words, non-reproductive purposes. If you want to look at human sex as a whole on this planet, 99.999% of the sex we're having is for non-reproductive purposes, so that's why I confidently said the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. You need only look at infertile couples, elderly couples, gay couples, etc. to see that the primary purpose of sex is not reproduction. The fact that I wouldn't be here if it weren't for sex that resulted in reproduction is irrelevant to sex's primary purpose.

Honestly, the conversation about the purpose of sex can and should end here, since a thing only has as much purpose as we subjectively give it. However, if you want to talk about the evolution of sex in humans, it should be noted that the evolution of sex in humans happened in conjunction with our evolution to become social animals. Sex is an important part of that social bonding. It's pleasurable, it causes the brain to do all sorts of things related to social bonding, and human women specifically evolved the ability to have sex even when they're infertile or already pregnant. A person who says the primary purpose of sex is reproduction probably isn't doing it right.

I don’t think Durex Performax Intense condoms was available to our ancestors Australopithecus Africanus.

Most sex was done without any pills or birth control stuff we have today. So you always had a risk of pregnancy. So a lot of sex was for reproduction. And people had an average of 9 kids back then.

Having as many kids as you can increased the survival chance of our species when population was lower. And when kids had higher chance of dying because of predators, harsh environment, and low food. Populations didn’t really explode until recently during the agriculture revolution.

 

[Lacius]

I don’t think Durex Performax Intense condoms was available to our ancestors Australopithecus Africanus.

Most sex was done without any pills or birth control stuff we have today. So you always had a risk of pregnancy. So a lot of sex was for reproduction. And people had an average of 9 kids back then.

Having as many kids as you can increased the survival chance of our species when population was lower. And when kids had higher chance of dying because of predators, harsh environment, and low food. Populations didn’t really explode until recently during the agriculture revolution.

Not that any of this is relevant to whether or not abortion should be legal, but it's highly unlikely that there was any point in human history when, globally, sex wasn't for non-reproductive purposes 99.9% of the time, despite what the pregnancy risk was or how many kids women gave birth to. A lot of the sex that has occurred throughout all of human history has also had a 0% chance of pregnancy, including but not limited to sex while the woman isn't ovulating, infertility, menopause, homosexuality, sex acts that aren't PIV, and sex while the woman is already pregnant.

While the primary purpose of sex may vary from person to person or even encounter to encounter, the primary purpose of human sex worldwide is definitely not reproduction, and it never has been.

 

[FAST6191]

Blocking people on a site like this feels akin to admitting defeat but play it how you will.

What's it going to take to get people to agree to disagree?

If you are advocating for legal changes to a very useful concept or that their morality/ethics are seriously questionable then quite a lot. You are almost inevitably going to have to start from the fundamentals of why you might hold the position you do, and as a common one here is "it's life" which is something I find to be quite absurd (from where I sit then it is merely the potential to be life, and if you are going to advocate for other methods then I am curious why sperm and eggs are free to be blocked and destroyed all you like but fertilisation or possibly implantation somehow changes things) then it tends to take a little while.
Sadly a lot of the fundamental differences in base position boil down to "I just believe", "I was raised" or "because my religion (or the interpretation I was told to have of it) apparently says so" which is not very persuasive but I press on in the hope that something else may arise. We started getting somewhere in the "what is life?", "is life a meaningful term?" and "what is suffering and is that a better metric?" discussions but they seem to have stalled for the time being.


There are debates where we can differ on percentages, likelihoods and more in our considerations and numbers we run where we try to figure out how to maximise benefits for a given cost, possibly going on to figure out where the savings would be better spent or levels of acceptable harms (ethics is so very rarely easy). Some had something like that here when discussing time limits and edge cases but if you are starting with a fundamentally different assessment of the situation then we are back to figuring out why the positions held are the ones being held. I can't speak for others but never the less feel comfortable bundling them in this but I want to hear something new as far as arguments/reasoning, I want to see a solid run of reasoning whether it aligns with my own or not, I want someone to take a run at mine and attempt to show where my reasoning might be flawed, where the reasoning used by the governing structures might be flawed or in need of refinement and so forth. A good way to do that is if someone posts a brief assessment or statement of their opinions that you start pulling it apart, posing hypotheticals that might show a flaw or contradiction in the reasoning given, and it seems many are doing just that. Being as that is arguably the point of a discussion/debate then yeah.

 

[bitjacker]

Ok what are you going to do to get people to use rubbers? ask them nicely? You gonna rally like minded people to beg the government to take away peoples freedom? Anyone who is not presenting the solution should refrain from commenting. Go ahead and tell me off. you are so tough sitting behind your computer. pussy.

 

[FAST6191]

Does there need to be a "solution", and indeed is it a concept that can even see one? An idea of the thoughts, logic and discussion current state of affairs is, or at least could be, a useful thing and we have seemingly have that, debates as to the usefulness may have to be left for later.

 

[PoppaDre]

I think it’s stupid used as birth control. Shouldn’t be used by girls who don’t use other forms of protection. But also I don’t want a kid. At least not yet so I’m for it if it is in my favour. Otherwise I’d rather it didn’t happen. But there are also stupid people out there that should be sterilized. But that’s another topic

 

[FAST6191]

While I agree this would be a fine example of "an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure", and similarly would absolutely encourage the use of viable preventative methods and chastise someone for using it as their primary means, I can't get beyond it being a quick and easy medical procedure, one about as morally troubling as going to the dentist. The very same logic that allows it to happen in the first place (it optionally not being counted as life for the purposes of medicine) would seem to lead to that position.

 

[bitjacker]

Why is there so much value placed on a life? People get murdered all the time.

 

[x65943]

Why is there so much value placed on a life? People get murdered all the time.

yes, but murder is illegal.

I really don't understand your point.

If you're equating abortion to murder, then they should be punished equally.

(Not my own opinion, just the logical conclusion of yours)

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Ok what are you going to do to get people to use rubbers? ask them nicely? You gonna rally like minded people to beg the government to take away peoples freedom? Anyone who is not presenting the solution should refrain from commenting. Go ahead and tell me off. you are so tough sitting behind your computer. pussy.

I have a great idea that everyone is going to hate for some reason:

Just give the suckers out for free. No, seriously. It works. Other countries have proven it. Just make it part of a public health initiative to pass out free birth control

 

[guitarheroknight]

Abortion is tricky. But everyone should be able to do whatever they want to do with their own body.

 

[bitjacker]

Is a life that is dependent on its host any less of a life? Is a person who has been born who needs meds to survive any less a citizen? Tell me the logic. Who gets to be the decider? We (humans everywhere) are screwed if we let insurance be a decider. My pops needs oxygen. The va decides his fate. Someday when I am ill they will decide mine too. With abortion illegal, there will still be abortions happening in bad ways that kill both host and parasite (or mother and baby).
No solution. Legalization equals insurance being a decider on who gets to live. Illegal equals a black market.
I guess I dont know what to think about anyones stance because it is a sort of a paradox. The government needs no power over our lives.

 

[Smoker1]

Should ONLY be for Victims of Rape, Incest, or if the Pregnancy will result in harm to the Mother and/or the Baby. That's it.

 

[DeadlyFoez]

I am fully pro life, except for @garyopa's parents. He should have been aborted.

 

[emigre]

Interesting seeing this thread as it looks like Ireland have voted to liberalise their abortion laws in a landslide. Catholicism's grip on Irish society is slipping hard and fast.

Personally, I'm pro-choice. I think women should have the right to be able to access safe legal abortions and have the support if they choose to continue the pregnancy. I wouldn't judge anyone if they decided to have an abortion, making a decision like that is hard and one I'm glad I won't ever be in.

 

[Deleted-355425]

Anti-abortion campaign concedes defeat in Ireland

see: https://news.sky.com/story/irish-abortion-vote-live-we-will-make-history-11385747

 

[emigre]

Now that's what I call the will of the people! The general thinking was it would be very close. I don't think anyone foresaw the landslide.

 

[elliwigy]

it should be for whatever the mother decides to do with her own body..

one day there will be so many ppl in the world abortions will be mandatory lol

Should ONLY be for Victims of Rape, Incest, or if the Pregnancy will result in harm to the Mother and/or the Baby. That's it.

If you're not first you're last!

 

[FAST6191]

Interesting results in Republic of Ireland. I did also wonder what would happen. Breakdown of the results seems within reason as well.

Is a life that is dependent on its host any less of a life? Is a person who has been born who needs meds to survive any less a citizen? Tell me the logic. Who gets to be the decider? We (humans everywhere) are screwed if we let insurance be a decider. My pops needs oxygen. The va decides his fate. Someday when I am ill they will decide mine too. With abortion illegal, there will still be abortions happening in bad ways that kill both host and parasite (or mother and baby).
No solution. Legalization equals insurance being a decider on who gets to live. Illegal equals a black market.
I guess I dont know what to think about anyones stance because it is a sort of a paradox. The government needs no power over our lives.

Is it a life in the first place?
Even if it was though I would usually use suffering that might be caused to host and parasite, capacity for choice and the like to start to make decisions. "less of a life" is then a fairly meaningless concept here for me.

Citizen? Do you mean person? I am not sure it is a particularly useful thought experiment and if running through the suffering thing before -- before a certain point the foetus lacks the capacity to feel things, presumably have any kind of thoughts and so forth.

I don't think insurance particularly decides abortions and ethics thereof, I imagine they are pretty much for it though (simple and cheap procedure vs the cost of a pregnancy, far higher and more serious complications and the whole birth thing -- https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/16/why-does-it-cost-32093-just-to-give-birth-in-america ). Similarly many places seem to do abortions for out of pocket type charging scenarios and thus insurance is not involved. Though I would agree if you allow a concern to handle healthcare decisions that is primarily interested in its bottom line it is going to get messy, as indeed it demonstrably has.