How do you feel about abortion?

[Sheimi]

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

But then big pharma wouldn't get any money.

I couldn't have kids because it would kill me. It is up to the mother who wants a abortion.

 

[RandomUser]

I am still not sure the foetus counts as alive or at least should be accorded the same rights in the same way a puppy or deformed person is -- it is a ball of cells (you yourself said it can't think), compared to its host which will likely have had thousands of hours of time, effort and huge volumes of resources invested in them. Equally if I can abide the male chicks being slaughtered and various animal shelters doing their thing I would have to extend that to puppies (by the way that could fall under the appeal to emotion idea, also a puppy may well have some agency of its own).

The deformed person thing goes on a case by case basis and is usually determined by quality of life that they enjoy. Equally yes we or indeed I have stood back or prevented medical intervention that may have allowed certain people to continue living, and I would similarly support euthanasia. As a general societal practice then that requires a lot of thought, probably only exists on the extreme end (I have similarly seen many people with some hideous conditions still manage to enjoy some life which makes "by default" a harder thing), and has a lot of overrides should those with powers have a say.

Well, I was going by your previous reply based on the logic that you presented in your previous reply. It sounded like even if a child have a cleft lip, the mother has the right to kill the child even thought it is treatable/fixable via surgery. Perhaps I may have misinterpreted but that is what it sounded like to me.

You can argue that the morally right thing to do in this hypothetical situation is allow the person to be bonded with you in order to save his or her life, and I might even agree with you, but don't call it murder it someone chooses not to.

If a person needs a kidney and is matched to you, it's not murder to say no. A person will never be obligated to hand over his or her kidney to someone else, and that's because of one's right to bodily autonomy.

As I've already said, this is all beside the point as well when a fetus is not a person. My above point was that it also wouldn't matter if a fetus were hypothetically a person, which it's not.

Well, this time you presented your point across better then all the previous reply, but I still stand by my own opinion that abortion is not needed. Even though that @TotalInsanity4 brought up some good points about the child will treat themselves as a punishment, but I hold no sympathy for the mother. Keep in mind that abortion could really throw the women in for a spin as far as hormone department goes.

 

[chrisrlink]

kindda ironic how conservitives (some of them not all) are pro war without provocation but are against abortion talk about a double standard, like Iraq had initially no part of 9/11 but we attacked them anyways which was a bad move cause it led to IS rise to power in the region due to instability

 

[Lacius]

Well, this time you presented your point across better then all the previous reply, but I still stand by my own opinion that abortion is not needed. Even though that @TotalInsanity4 brought up some good points about the child will treat themselves as a punishment, but I hold no sympathy for the mother. Keep in mind that abortion could really throw the women in for a spin as far as hormone department goes.

Really, this whole conversation can be distilled down to a few quick points.

1. Do you think abortion should be legal? Your opinion about abortion doesn't concern me nearly as much as your opinion about abortion law.
2. If no, how can you reconcile a world where one cannot receive a legal abortion but also isn't legally mandated to donate kidneys?
3. In addition, how can you argue that a fetus is a person without citing a religious belief, which would in essence be legislating your religious beliefs onto others?

That's really all there is to it.

 

[RandomUser]

Really, this whole conversation can be distilled down to a few quick points.

1. Do you think abortion should be legal? Your opinion about abortion doesn't concern me nearly as much as your opinion about abortion law.
2. If no, how can you reconcile a world where one cannot receive a legal abortion but also isn't legally mandated to donate kidneys?
3. In addition, how can you argue that a fetus is a person without citing a religious belief, which would in essence be legislating your religious beliefs onto others?

That's really all there is to it.

Lacius, give it up already, you're not going to change my opinion law or no, I even stated in previous post that in certain circumstances abortion is okay, go back and re-read it if you want. As much as you're trying to shove your opinion down my throat, you're failing miserably at it. Their is other preventive measure that can be taken place and ergo renders abortion not needed, except for that said certain circumstances.
as far as 3. is concerned, umm, the child is the fetus? Seriously everyone knows this. Heck even you started out as a fetus, no need to cite religious belief when it is proven by observable reality.

 

[Lacius]

Lacius, give it up already, you're not going to change my opinion law or no, I even stated in previous post that in certain circumstances abortion is okay, go back and re-read it if you want. As much as you're trying to shove your opinion down my throat, you're failing miserably at it.

My primary goal isn't to change your opinion. My goal is to understand where you're coming from, hence the questions. If you're going to call my posts shoving my opinion down your throat, you should a.) look in a mirror, because I haven't done anything you haven't done, and b.) get out of the discourse business.

Their is other preventive measure that can be taken place and ergo renders abortion not needed, except for that said certain circumstances.

Contraception is rarely 100% effective, and there are many reasons why a pregnancy might need to be terminated despite not using contraception.

as far as 3. is concerned, umm, the child is the fetus? Seriously everyone knows this. Heck even you started out as a fetus, no need to cite religious belief when it is proven by observable reality.

It's not as simple as you think. When does something become a child? Is it when the sperm hits the egg? Is it when the baby is born? Is it when unspecialized cells become specialized? Is an embryo consisting of eight cells a child? If I have an embryo in a petri dish, is that a child? If I have a sperm and egg in a petri dish, seconds away from coming together, is that a child? I started out as all of these things, so I'm not sure where you're drawing the line.

I would honestly love to continue having this polite conversation with you. However, in order to be able to do that, you are going to need to do two things for me:

1. Please don't hypocritically say I'm shoving my opinion down anybody's throat, particularlly when the post you're responding to merely asks three questions.
2. Please answer the questions in this post and my last one.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Keep in mind that abortion could really throw the women in for a spin as far as hormone department goes.

Not to be crass, but there are a lot of things that can throw a lot of people's hormones for a spin. Again, that's why services like Exhale exist

 

[tunip3]

Abortions RULE! We need them, and they need to be mandatory for people with more than 2 kids on welfare. We're over-populated as fuck, so we should start regulating babies like China does. Besides, kids are annoying fuckbags anyways. They're gross, whiny, needy, they stink, they're dumber than rocks, and expensive as fuck to raise. No thanks... ABORT! ABORT! ABORT!

You were a kid once lmao abortion should be legal but not mandatory and to do with the father situation that is simply not right

 

[Lacius]

Not to be crass, but there are a lot of things that can throw a lot of people's hormones for a spin. Again, that's why services like Exhale exist

Oh, thank you. I meant to respond to this but got distracted.

Keep in mind that abortion could really throw the women in for a spin as far as hormone department goes.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, so please note that I'm not accusing you of anything nor putting words in your mouth, but I can think of two likely options.

1. You're arguing that abortion has a detrimental physiological effect on women, despite a.) abortion being proven time and time again to be a relatively safe medical procedure, and b.) abortion being much safer than pregnancy/childbirth.
2. You're arguing that abortion leads to hormonal changes that have an effect on the emotional state of women, and since women can't be trusted with getting overly emotional, legal abortion shouldn't exist.

I really hope you meant the former.

 

[tunip3]

Think about this, If you crush an egg moments before a chick comes out its its fine but the moment it does it's murder

 

[RandomUser]

My primary goal isn't to change your opinion. My goal is to understand where you're coming from, hence the questions. If you're going to call my posts shoving my opinion down your throat, you should a.) look in a mirror, because I haven't done anything you haven't done, and b.) get out of the discourse business.

a.) look in a mirror, because I haven't done anything you haven't done
Are sure about that?
b.) get out of the discourse business.
My my who died and made you king? Did you kill your own king to become one?
My goal is to understand where you're coming from
Answered your question as well, so what are you missing?

Contraception is rarely 100% effective, and there are many reasons why a pregnancy might need to be terminated despite not using contraception.

Sure their is, it just not practice very much today like it was back then.

It's not as simple as you think. When does something become a child? Is it when the sperm hits the egg? Is it when the baby is born? Is it when unspecialized cells become specialized? Is an embryo consisting of eight cells a child? If I have an embryo in a petri dish, is that a child? If I have a sperm and egg in a petri dish, seconds away from coming together, is that a child? I started out as all of these things, so I'm not sure where you're drawing the line.

I would honestly love to continue having this polite conversation with you. However, in order to be able to do that, you are going to need to do two things for me:

1. Please don't hypocritically say I'm shoving my opinion down anybody's throat, particularlly when the post you're responding to merely asks three questions.
2. Please answer the questions in this post and my last one.

Therein lies the problem, no one really knows. So it is better to assume life, even if not yet developed.
As for the questions, Already did answered your questions.
To be frank I'm glad their is some form of laws regarding to abortion, especially beyond the 22 weeks maternity. Having some laws is better then having none. If we had no laws, then it would be possible for women to have abortion even in their last trimester. At 24 weeks it is possible for the fetus to feel pain. However they may begin to feel something in as little as 7.5 and 15 weeks of pregnancy, at least for the receptors to develop.
Again I will repeat: The child or fetus cannot think for themselves, whereas the donor can and are generally are informed of the choice. The fetus cannot be informed of the choice to live or die, and yet the people engaging the activity are informed of the possible of pregnancy. Their is 100% way to prevent pregnancy, however it appears that nobody practice that anymore.
Does this help further answer your question?

Oh, thank you. I meant to respond to this but got distracted.


I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, so please note that I'm not accusing you of anything nor putting words in your mouth, but I can think of two likely options.

1. You're arguing that abortion has a detrimental physiological effect on women, despite a.) abortion being proven time and time again to be a relatively safe medical procedure, and b.) abortion being much safer than pregnancy/childbirth.
2. You're arguing that abortion leads to hormonal changes that have an effect on the emotional state of women, and since women can't be trusted with getting overly emotional, legal abortion shouldn't exist.

I really hope you meant the former.

Welp I guess that went over your head. Re-read my previous reply, I did say abortion is okay for certain circumstances, not okay for recreational uses. I don't know how you missed that.

 

[tunip3]

Pregnancy IS a potential consequence of sexual intercourse. Not a punishment, but it is a potential consequence. Simple cause and effect of the human condition. You can inject laws and medical procedures to erase that consequence, but if one party to creating the pregnancy is allowed by law to end the consequence to themselves, then the other party should have that same opportunity. That approach IS morally consistent. If a pregnancy results from consensual sex then the woman has the choice to terminate the pregnancy and her parental obligation, within the conditions set by law. The male should have the same opportunity, but I didn't say it was absolute. If he is informed of the pregnancy, he should have a limited time in which to decide if he's going to be on board. Maybe a month. Maybe less. If he doesn't opt out before the time runs out, then he's "in," irrevocably, for parental rights, child support, etc. If he decides he doesn't want to take part in raising the child or providing financial support for the child, then he's out, but she still has the choice to have the baby or not. They both took part in the consensual act that created the pregnancy. If one has the right to decide whether it affects their future or not, that choice should extend to both. Nothing sexist about it. If anything, the way things work now is "incredibly sexist."

Males shouldn't be able to force an abortion but they should be able to give up visitation and child support and the mother should have the same opertunity both parties should agree on abortion

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Sure their is, it just not practice very much today like it was back then.

You... Actually think there was a time when abstinence was actually practiced?...

 

[tunip3]

You... Actually think there was a time when abstinence was actually practiced?...

Uh yes

 

[TotalInsanity4]

Uh yes

Oof

 

[tunip3]

Oof

Lol you didn't specify by how many and for how long

 

[Axido]

Lol you didn't specify by how many and for how long

Fair point tbh.

 

[netovsk]

Next thing I know we are talking about not ejaculating for reasons other than to procreate and treating wasted sperm as potential "great citizens" of the future.

Weird right? This is how the conservative agenda goes on, inch by inch advancing against individual liberties.

The fact that some people are considering reasonable arresting women for abortion goes beyond reason. Are they arresting the potential father too? Or is it supposed to be only against women?

If i'm not mistaken the reason abortion was made legal in the United States was because women would abort anyways, so they better do it with the proper medical attention rather than with a butcher (for those who are poor).

Seeing this kind of discussion in 2018 makes feel like we are winding the clock back half a century.

 

[tunip3]

Next thing I know we are talking about not ejaculating for reasons other than to procreate and treating wasted sperm as potential "great citizens" of the future.

Weird right? This is how the conservative agenda goes on, inch by inch advancing against individual liberties.

The fact that some people are considering reasonable arresting women for abortion goes beyond reason. Are they arresting the potential father too? Or is it supposed to be only against women?

If i'm not mistaken the reason abortion was made legal in the United States was because women would abort anyways, so they better do it with the proper medical attention rather than with a butcher (for those who are poor).

Seeing this kind of discussion in 2018 makes feel like we are winding the clock back half a century.

As a rule of thumb as soon as it can do anything a living organism can do it's a living organism and it becomes murder

 

[Lacius]

Are sure about that?

I'm very sure, yes.

My my who died and made you king? Did you kill your own king to become one?

My point was that if you don't want to hear my thoughts on something, don't participate in discourse, the exchange of thoughts and ideas. It's not an unreasonable point to make.

Answered your question as well, so what are you missing?

You skipped a lot of my questions.

Sure their is, it just not practice very much today like it was back then.

I'm a strong proponent of contraception and will tout its efficacy all day long if provoked, but I'd like to hear about your magical contraception method that is 100% effective, easily accessible to all socioeconomic backgrounds, and effectively ends any need for an abortion. Two quick points:

1. That's not going to happen, as a world with such a method of contraception still doesn't account for cases of pregnancy that were initially intended, becoming pregnant during a sexual encounter against one's will, etc.
2. If abstinence is your magical contraception method, you're mistaken. It might work for some people, and it's a perfectly fine thing to choose for oneself, but as far as its efficacy on society, it's one of the worst forms of birth control. It was also never widely practiced.

Therein lies the problem, no one really knows. So it is better to assume life, even if not yet developed.

Ignoring for a second that the time personhood begins is irrelevant because one's right to bodily autonomy still exists, I have a couple points to make:

1. We don't make policy based on imaginary things that might or might not exist.
2. If you can't answer the question about when something becomes a child, then you probably shouldn't advocate for policy that's contingent upon such a definition. If you're going to impose restrictions on reproductive rights, such a classification needs to be defined. Depending on how you answer the question, pulling out could be illegal.

As for the questions, Already did answered your questions.

You didn't answer some of my questions. I'll repeat the ones you didn't answer, if you want me to.

To be frank I'm glad their is some form of laws regarding to abortion, especially beyond the 22 weeks maternity. Having some laws is better then having none. If we had no laws, then it would be possible for women to have abortion even in their last trimester. At 24 weeks it is possible for the fetus to feel pain. However they may begin to feel something in as little as 7.5 and 15 weeks of pregnancy, at least for the receptors to develop.

Are you saying now that it's not a child before 22-24 weeks of pregnancy? I'm confused where you stand.

Again I will repeat: The child or fetus cannot think for themselves, whereas the donor can and are generally are informed of the choice.

You seem to have misunderstood the comparison. The organ donor is analogous to the pregnant woman, not the fetus. The person who needs the organ transplant to live is analogous to the fetus.

Edit: You're touting the importance of the donor to become informed of the choice and make the choice himself/herself. Considering the donor is analogous to the pregnant woman, that's kind of my points.

Their is 100% way to prevent pregnancy, however it appears that nobody practice that anymore.

As I said above, abstinence is a perfectly fine choice to make. However, we've evolved to have sex, and it's a good thing one shouldn't deprive oneself of if he or she wants to have it. Considering the biological drive that exists to have sex, it's unrealistic to say the existence of abstinence as a choice is reason enough not to have legal abortion. It works for some individuals, but abstinence is a failure globally.

Does this help further answer your question?

Welp I guess that went over your head. Re-read my previous reply, I did say abortion is okay for certain circumstances, not okay for recreational uses. I don't know how you missed that.

You skipped a lot of my questions about when something becomes a child, rationalizing a worldview that forbids abortion but allows for voluntary organ donation, etc.