How do you feel about abortion?

[Alexander1970]

Here in Austria we have an "hot" discussion with this topic at the moment.

(German text)
https://vorarlberg.orf.at/news/stories/2964937/

In detail it says:

If a foetal is affected by "down syndrom",it´s LEGAL to do an abortation til birth means an late-time abortion.....

 

[IncredulousP]

If you ever get a concept, of the child being part of the mothers body for 9 months, and the mothers decisions affecting whatever happens to her child as well - and a combined concept, that if that spirals into despair, no one is helped - you've undersstood our side of the argument. You simply cant devide them, and put the unborn child separate for the childs sake. You have no idea what women will take upon themselves to decide what happens to their bodies in less than ideal situations like that. We try to deal with that in a way thats at least somewhat reasonable.

Many people abhor aborting fetuses before birth, yet simultaneously could not care less what quality of life will be experienced by the born. Adoption is hardly an answer, seeing as far too many orphaned children in the US alone are neglected and abused, not adopted, and suffer mental trauma and illness that they will likely never get adequate care for thanks to our for-profit medical system. That only leaves us with having the mother keep the child, but if it is shown that, for whatever reason, she feels she is inadequate to raise it (she wanted an abortion in the first place) then is it very likely that the child will not be raised with the proper care it needs. I'm sure not many would argue against the notion that children need a loving, stable home with proper care and attention. This is demonstrably false with adoption, and likely not to occur in the household that considered not carrying the child to term in the first place.

It is this that I consider abortion a humane solution for preventing further suffering, mental illness, and poverty, regardless of whether it is considered murder or not. And this is not even considering where abortion is medically necessary for the mother or the fetus.

 

[nashismo]

Here in Austria we have an "hot" discussion with this topic at the moment.

(German text)
https://vorarlberg.orf.at/news/stories/2964937/

In detail it says:

If a foetal is affected by "down syndrom",it´s LEGAL to do an abortation til birth means an late-time abortion.....

And it just so happens that "down syndrome" people are one of the most wonderful people you'll ever known. Some will say it is a burden (pieces of shit) and others will say it is a blessing to have them.

I think the governments should not promote abortion, it is sick and people should stop defending it with the "women have the right, etc" If they want to kill, do it, no one is stopping them, but the consequences should be there for killing someone who cant do nothing about it, it makes it even more sick when you think about it like that.

 

[notimp]

it very likely that the child will not be raised with the proper care it needs

Thats too harsh. There's still the possibility, that she (her family) can manage. Thats a chance that people might take. And thats not bad.

But as soon as the decision for not wanting the child has manifested, and can not be met, we are straight into trauma inducing territory. (Disassociation, separation, societal pressures telling her the exact opposite of what she believes thats needed, ... - Good luck.) Thats what needs to be prevented/mitigated.

On the other hand, and lets at least mention that aspect as well, I'm absolutely against advertising the 'easiness' of abortion towards a younger demographic, f.e. it should be seen as an end of the line option, but it has to be there.

 

[IncredulousP]

Thats too harsh. Therese still the possibility, that she (her family) can manage. Thats a chance that people take. And thats not bad.

But as soon as the decision for not wanting the child has manifested, and can not be met, we are straight into trauma inducing territory. (Disassociation, separation, societal pressures telling her the exact opposite of what she believes thats needed, ... - Good luck.) Thats what needs to be prevented/mitigated.

On the other hand, and lets at least mention that aspect as well, I'm absolutely against advertising the 'easiness' of abortion towards a younger demographic, f.e. it should be seen as an end of the line option, but it has to be there.

I believe the possibility that the mother can manage to provide basic necessities for the child exists, but I am largely skeptical that there is a good chance the child will have ALL needs taken care of that leads to a comfortable, trauma-free life. I agree with your following points.

 

[granville]

A big part of the issue is also that these days people use political terminology poorly.

Conservatives have traditionally been liberal (case in point being the Republican party in the US opposing slavery). The opposite of conservative is progressive. And true liberals interested in classical liberalism are libertarians. i.e. what many call conservative.

Yet many in these times, apparently including you, consider liberals and conservatives opposites.

I have no idea how this flip happened.

The flip happened gradually and over the course of decades worth of change. But a major catalyst was the fallout of the Civil Rights era and passing of the anti-racist legislation during the 60s. Many racist southern Democrats turned on their party, Richard Nixon (and other GOP leaders) jumped on the chance to court these people to vote for him. It was called the Southern Strategy, it succeeded in beginning to reshape the Republican party to what it is today in terms of social issues.

The words conservative and liberal are just convenient political labels. Their meanings as words may be clear, but as political ideologies they have always been shifted around to fit whatever people want them to mean.

 

[Deleted-479522]

Sure, I agree with your first point, many people do indeed throw terms around. It's a natural reaction for people to categorize things without much thought.
However, your brief overview of some historical use of such terms was hardly supporting of your claim and is, quite frankly, ironic, as you boldly define large groups, "true liberals", without considering the nuance of political alignment. Isn't such gate-keeping part of using political terminology poorly?
Also, I would love for you to quote me where I said liberals and conservatives are opposites, because I don't remember posting that.

It's what I inferred from your response to the guy saying that GBAtemp was full of conservatives and is now full of liberals. I assumed you were agreeing with him when you responded about propaganda. But if you take conservativism and liberalism to be orthogonal concepts it doesn't make sense.

But you know what they say about assumptions so I fully accept I might inferred incorrectly.

Still, conservatism is about sticking to traditional values "conserving", the opposite is progressivism which is about reform and change.

Liberalism is about liberty which has no bearing on the conservatism/reformist spectrum.

The opposite of Liberalism is Authoritarianism.

These are the general polsci definitions of the terms. Without getting into the prescriptivist/descriptivist debate about language.

A true liberal prizes personal liberty (either positive or negative liberty).



TL;DR Political Science definition of terms are very different from current usage which makes the idea that liberals are increasing at the expense of conservatives nonsensical.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Here in Austria we have an "hot" discussion with this topic at the moment.

(German text)
https://vorarlberg.orf.at/news/stories/2964937/

In detail it says:

If a foetal is affected by "down syndrom",it´s LEGAL to do an abortation til birth means an late-time abortion.....

I think it's sad, and perhaps we can all agree, that eugenics is becoming conflated with the right to bodily autonomy.

Legislation should not make mention of the purpose of abortion.

 

[IncredulousP]

Some will say it is a burden (pieces of shit) and others will say it is a blessing to have them.

This is quite harsh. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's safe to assume you have no idea what it is like to raise a child that requires such immense, constant support. I'm sure you know and like the persons you know, but you are not with them 24/7. You are not taking care of them 24/7, either. It is a colossal obligation and I applaud families that do spend the rest of their lives constantly taking care of the handicapped. But I also believe that it is natural to have feelings of burden. It is their entire life and daily concentration put into one entity. They have to forgo every freedom they otherwise would have had were it not for constantly taking care of the child. I would not call them pieces of shit, unless they were to neglect or abuse the child.

Onto the point of murder, assuming abortion can be deemed as such, you are saying you prefer a fetus develop the conscious and sentient ability to experience pain and suffering just to endure a lifetime of such pain and suffering? Wouldn't it make sense to curb the potential suffering by preventing it, before the fetus can experience it?
Additionally, what makes abortion murder? Is it the termination of life? The definition of life is already dubious and philosophically debated. How can we definitely make laws about something that is not widely agreed upon in the first place?
Do you consider viruses and bacteria living? According to the current scientific definitions of life, viruses are not alive since they cannot self-reproduce; they require hijacking the structures of other self-reproducing lifeforms (bacteria, animals, etc.). Does this make them lifeless? Do they have a soul? Do the lifeforms they hijack have a soul? The viruses are organic and move on their own, so shouldn't it follow that all organic beings are considered life? The definition of life is really quite hard to pinpoint. Following that, how can you be sure something is murder if you are not sure the victim is even a person, let alone "life"?

Ultimately, is a single cell a person? Where is the line drawn? Can a single cell even "suffer"? Does a life have to have x number of cells before being considered a person able to suffer? Is Plan B murder? Is male masturbation involving the death of millions of sperm murder? If we do not know the answer, how can we say what is or isn't ethical? How can we say what should or shouldn't, nay, CAN or CANNOT be done without fear of legal punishment?

 

[PrettyFly]

Abortion is between a woman and her body.

No one else.

I can have my ear wax cleaned out. No difference.

 

[sarkwalvein]

Abortion is between a woman and her body.

No one else.

I can have my ear wax cleaned out. No difference.

Tough I dislike the idea of abortion, I agree that it should be legal to avoid the worse real consequence of clandestine abortion.

That said I consider the "not my business" attitude an irresponsible coward cop out.

I don't see that attitude any different than e.g. answering to "black people being persecuted and homosexuals being hanged" with an attitude like "not my business, I am white and straight".

 

[PrettyFly]

Tough I dislike the idea of abortion, I agree that it should be legal to avoid the worse real consecutive of clandestine abortion.

That said I consider the "not my business" attitude an irresponsible coward cop out.

I don't see that attitude any different than e.g. answering to "black people being persecuted and homosexuals being hanged" with an attitude like "not my business, I am white and straight".

Not my business is the backbone of libertarianism is it really worth throwing it out?

 

[sarkwalvein]

Not my business is the backbone of libertarianism is it really worth throwing it out?

Yep

 

[spotanjo3]

Abortion is between a woman and her body.

No one else.

I can have my ear wax cleaned out. No difference.

Why did women open their legs for ? STUPID AND DUMBASS!

Really? Then a woman is a killer and a murderer. She has no right to abortion something inside her body. What a scum they are if they wants to abortion it. Disgusting human being like that. Sad!

 

[PrettyFly]

Why did women open their legs for ? STUPID AND DUMBASS!

Really? Then a woman is a killer and a murderer. She has no right to abortion something inside her body. What a scum they are if they wants to abortion it. Disgusting human being like that. Sad!

I'm hearing a lot of anger and it seems directed at sex and those who have it.

What's the root of that?

Because imho there is nothing wrong with having sex and it's far from purely procreation in humans.

 

[IncredulousP]

Why did women open their legs for ?

You can have sex with legs closed

 

[FAST6191]

Not my business is the backbone of libertarianism is it really worth throwing it out?

Possibly not but is it actually a case of "not my business"? I still maintain there is scope for a debate on the initial concept, and while I (and seemingly most of the legislators in the developed world) ultimately would say there is nothing there and it is not life as much as matters for these purposes I still have to acknowledge the logical scope for the initial question.

 

[spotanjo3]

You can have sex with legs closed

LOL!

I'm hearing a lot of anger and it seems directed at sex and those who have it.

What's the root of that?

Because imho there is nothing wrong with having sex and it's far from purely procreation in humans.

Come on.. Condom exists or birth control. They can used it. No excuse.

 

[PrettyFly]

Come on.. Condom exists or birth control. They can used it. No excuse.

Both are far from perfect, the pill has real world effective rates of ~91%.

That means 1 pregnancy per year for every 10 women using it as birth control.

Ignoring that for a moment, this is a debate about abortion not reasons for abortion. So the birth control idea, or the no sex before marriage idea, or only having sex to procreate ideas are all irrelevant.

Again it just sounds like the is an underlying desire that having sex should have consequences, or run a risk and not purely be for fun.

That strikes me as odd.

 

[spotanjo3]

Both are far from perfect, the pill has real world effective rates of ~91%.

That means 1 pregnancy per year for every 10 women using it as birth control.

Ignoring that for a moment, this is a debate about abortion not reasons for abortion. So the birth control idea, or the no sex before marriage idea, or only having sex to procreate ideas are all irrelevant.

Again it just sounds like the is an underlying desire that having sex should have consequences, or run a risk and not purely be for fun.

That strikes me as odd.

I understand but they should anyway! My three sisters used birth controls and dont have a problem and they got married and have children after. So it is effective. No excuse, really. I dont care about women's own bodies. They are dumbass and they are an idiot.

 

[Fates-Blade-900]

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!

Imagine If you were that baby! They have a right to life, like you do, how would you feel if I said you suck so DIE! DIE! DIE! And then you just die? Wouldn't be fair would it? (Don't you think they deserve a chance to live, like you have a chance?)