U.S. Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion rights decision

[appleburger]

I would argue that dehumanising the fetus (using terms like “clump of cells”, for instance) serves to desensitise in regards to the idea of terminating pregnancy. That was my only point. I hear it all the time, some acknowledgement of what’s actually going on would be more honest. I’ve touched upon this before in the thread.

The idea that being against one thing automatically means being for another thing is a logical leap. It’s called a false dilemma - “either you’re for abortion, or you’re against children’s well-being”. Those are two separate issues - you can care about not terminating pregnancies, care about the well-being of the resulting children and recognise that they’re not your responsibility. The responsibility falls squarely on the parents.

Speaking for myself, when I refer to a "clump of cells" it's because the fetus isn't considered to have formed until eight weeks into the pregnancy. It's in response to the notion of "a baby" being present throughout the entire course of a pregnancy.

I think both sides are just trying to say "this is when life starts" when they say "clump of cells" or "murder a baby". We're trying to draw that line of when human life begins. It's a colorful way to say it, but I've always interpreted each as a response to the other side disagreeing on what is or isn't a "human life".

 

[Foxi4]

At what point is a baby, a baby, and not a clump of cells to you?

A baby is a baby when it’s born. The cycle of human development is fairly well-defined. “Clump of cells” isn’t a defined stage in that cycle. You’re a clump of cells too, that’s irrelevant to whether you deserve legal protections or not.

Except in this case it's more being either pro-life, substantiating all life, regardless of current period of growth, and being pro-choice, meaning you believe people should have a choice in having an abortion or not. When you have someone claim they're pro-life, it's an accepted expectation to think that they mean all life, not just unborn fetuses. Maybe if people labeled themselves as pro-birthers and identified themselves as only caring about babies being born and not hiding behind tiny veiled constructs of pro-life lies, there'd probably be less confusion.

There is no confusion, pro lifers recognise fetuses as human life because that’s what they are - that’s not the problem. The problem is that they’re not willing to make reasonable concessions that minimise unnecessary loss of human life while maximising prosperity and human happiness. Conversely, pro choice people do not recognise fetuses as human life and often dehumanise, or otherwise deny personhood of unborn offspring regardless of stage of development. There’s a point in time between conception and birth when a fetus begins to display rapid neuron growth and measurable brain activity - logically that’s the point when we should probably start caring about it a little bit more than as if it were a “clump of cells”. That point can be determined scientifically, and usually occurs in the third trimester. Things won’t move forward until both sides can come to an agreement when exactly we should grant the offspring protection.

 

[The Catboy]

It’s the definition of a logical leap, actually. There’s a significant gap in your argument. To reiterate the previous analogy, most people care about people not getting stabbed in the middle of the street. As such, we have moral objections about murdering the homeless. That fact alone doesn’t mean that we must necessarily make an effort to reduce homelessness. Those two things are disconnected. Your argument is no different. You don’t have to be “sorry” about it, I’m just pointing out that it’s not a logical argument - it’s just how you feel about the issue.

My logic is simple, don’t want abortions, then support programs that prevent them. You can’t claim to care about the children, then toss them out to dry. Claiming to be against abortion, while also being against the means to preventing them is bullshit. It’s not an argument against abortion, it’s an argument for forced-birth and controlling the lives and bodies of people.

 

[Foxi4]

You're missing his point entirely. He's not talking about whether abortion should be allowed or not. He's saying that you shouldn't sugarcoat what's going on. A fetus is inevitably going to become a baby given enough time and lack of pregnancy complications, so calling it a "clump of cells" to make yourself feel better about killing it is intellectually dishonest. The fact that you're killing a human in the early stages of development cannot be denied, so don't try. The question is whether that fetus is enough of a person yet to make killing it wrong. There is widespread disagreement on the second point. There is no intellectually honest disagreement on the first.

10 points for Griffindor.

My logic is simple, don’t want abortions, then support programs that prevent them. You can’t claim to care about the children, then toss them out to dry. Claiming to be against abortion, while also being against the means to preventing them is bullshit. It’s not an argument against abortion, it’s an argument for forced-birth and controlling the lives and bodies of people.

Then you don’t actually have a point. One doesn’t follow from the other. You’re not obligated to pay for other people’s mistakes, even if you’re actively advocating for preventing more mistakes from being made.

Speaking for myself, when I refer to a "clump of cells" it's because the fetus isn't considered to have formed until eight weeks into the pregnancy. It's in response to the notion of "a baby" being present throughout the entire course of a pregnancy.

I think both sides are just trying to say "this is when life starts" when they say "clump of cells" or "murder a baby". We're trying to draw that line of when human life begins. It's a colorful way to say it, but I've always interpreted each as a response to the other side disagreeing on what is or isn't a "human life".

I think a developing human organism based on a completely unique combination of DNA that’s in the process of growth deserves more reverence than that - we should identify it for what it is, otherwise the whole discussion is dishonest. Pretending that it’s anything else, or lying through omission, serves no purpose than tricking yourself to make yourself feel better about the whole ordeal. It’s not something that should be celebrated, it’s an extreme measure one opts for when forced by their circumstances, stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

[tabzer]

Then you only care about forcing a life into the world, it’s not a leap that’s just a matter of fact. If you don’t support programs that lower the need for abortions, then you don’t care about the children nor the parents. Sorry, not sorry

I think I already posed the suggestion that everyone agrees that less demand for abortion would be a good thing. How that is approached can be another highly debated topic.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Literally only in the sense that how many pro lifers view these situations. "Didn't want a kid? Too late now". "Boyfriend left you? Too bad, shouldn't have had sex". Stupid comments like that. I don't know. I probably didn't necessarily choose my words the right way. I can't foresee a woman ever getting an abortion as convenience, but I don't want that to ever become an issue, either. Like realistically, moreso than just assumed pro lifer mindsets.



That particular article stems from what is already prominently inherently pro republican website (bias does not equal fact), not to mention those statistics are from 6 states, not indicative of the greater population, and if I remember correctly those states in particular are pretty harsh on abortions in general, which means they most likely took very specific statistics from a particular subset of Americans that still doesn't represent the larger portion.

Good try though.

Edit*

I don't know why it took me three different glances to notice its a CHRISTIAN website, so... definitely some bias there, huh?

Just because you are bias against Christians and don't like how the statistics came to be doesn't mean they are inaccurate. It's probably in the top results of search engines because it holds some weight.

Here's another result from the top of the search engine results, which features similar figures.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589

What do you think should happen in cases of rape? Most of your arguments revolve around personal responsibility of the parents, but the woman is not responsible when she is impregnated against her will. Should she be forced to carry the baby to term, at which point the rapist is forced to carry all the responsibility of raising the child? What do you do if the rapist is never caught and cannot be held responsible for his actions? If your stance is that the woman is even partially responsible for the resulting life, that would seem to go against your "it's not my job to raise other people's kids or give them money" argument, because a rape victim bears no responsibility for that life, at least after birth, since she gave no consent for becoming a parent.

It's not the baby's fault that it got created. No abortion should be performed and if possible the father should be financially responsible to help aid the life he created.

 

[The Catboy]

Then you don’t actually have a point. One doesn’t follow from the other. You’re not obligated to pay for other people’s mistakes, even if you’re actively advocating for preventing more mistakes from being made.

Then people should be allowed to have abortions. If they aren’t allowed means of being helped, then they should an out. People aren’t going to stop having abortions, no laws will change that. So the options are, they have safe abortions in a professional setting. Or they get help preventing abortions or taking care of their child. Or they have abortions in motels and more kids end up abused and neglected. This is what was like in the past, this is what it’s like in countries that outlawed abortions, and this is what pro-lifers seem to want to go back to. My logic is simple, either keep abortions safe or deal with the consequences.

 

[AleronIves]

It's not the baby's fault that it got created. No abortion should be performed and if possible the father should be financially responsible to help aid the life he created.

Yes, but that's only a partial answer to my question. What do you do if the father can't be held responsible? Is adoption the only option in your eyes?

 

[appleburger]

I think a growing human organism based on a completely unique combination of DNA that’s in the process of growth deserves more reverence than that - we should identify it for what it is, otherwise the whole discussion is dishonest. Pretending that it’s anything else, or lying through omission, serves no purpose than to trick yourself to make yourself feel better about the whole ordeal. It’s not something that should be celebrated, it’s an extreme measure one opts for when forced by their circumstances, stuck between a rock and a hard place.

It depends on the intent with the language - I think this is literally semantic, although still important to address.

I don't think it's much different than your use of "celebrated" in your response. I of course recognize that you don't literally mean "celebrate", because nobody is arguing that abortion is to be celebrated, of course, but it's effective in communicating the idea of your post. You're trying to say that this decision comes with a high degree of consequence either way, from what I can tell.

While I'm sure there are weak pro-choice arguments calling early pregnancies "just a pool of cells", my response was pointing out that in some cases it's an oxymoron in response to calling the early stages "a baby" rather than trying to actually de-humanize early pregnancies. To be a bit more fair to myself, I tend to go the "it's more of a blueprint at that stage" angle for this reason, to your point.

 

[The Catboy]

hey, would you kill homeless people? No? Then you better take them into your home and give them all your money, or you don't care about homeless people nor the homeless veterans who helped you keep your freedom. Sorry, not sorry

I actually do want homeless people to have programs to help get them off the streets and I am willing to pay for those programs.

 

[tabzer]

I actually do want homeless people to have programs to help get them off the streets and I am willing to pay for those programs.

This is about your accusation that people who don't pay for programs "don't care". It was rhetorical and should be enough to demonstrate the fault in your line of logic.

"If you don't join the CPS, then you must hate children."

 

[ChibiMofo]

I don't really care at all. But, it'll be fun to see how people react.

I feel the same way about genocide. But in fairness no gamer should care about abortion because it couldn't possibly affect them.

 

[Foxi4]

Then people should be allowed to have abortions. If they aren’t allowed means of being helped, then they should an out. People aren’t going to stop having abortions, no laws will change that. So the options are, they have safe abortions in a professional setting. Or they get help preventing abortions or taking care of their child. Or they have abortions in motels and more kids end up abused and neglected. This is what was like in the past, this is what it’s like in countries that outlawed abortions, and this is what pro-lifers seem to want to go back to. My logic is simple, either keep abortions safe or deal with the consequences.

It’s rich that you speak of consequences when discussing abortion - a medical procedure explicitly designed to prevent facing the consequences of one’s irresponsible actions. Abortions of pregnancies resulting from rape, the only instance in which the woman had no say in the matter, constitute about 2% of the total, last I checked. In all other instances the woman made a series of poor decisions that led to her becoming pregnant. Your penchant for facing consequences is very selective, and only concerns the side of the argument you don’t like. Not that it matters anyway since complete strangers are not required to face the consequences of the action of other people. Slice the pie however you want - those are not my babies. For the sake of an argument, let’s say that I’m now vehemently against abortion - give me one *good* reason why I should pay for those kids? I didn’t even get to participate in the fun part, what gives? All I’m saying is that you shouldn’t be killing them - what you do with them is not my problem.

 

[Lacius]

This is about your accusation that people who don't pay for programs "don't care".

They don't.

 

[Foxi4]

I feel the same way about genocide. But in fairness no gamer should care about abortion because it couldn't possibly affect them.

You right, ain’t nobody in this thread getting laid, thread locked.

 

[Deleted member 559230]

Yes, but that's only a partial answer to my question. What do you do if the father can't be held responsible? Is adoption the only option in your eyes?

I said "if possible" regarding having the father support the child. If it's possible then he should have to pay child support and if not then there are other possibilities, such as the women marrying someone or raising the child by herself. Adoption is irrelevant, the women could give the child up for adoption or keep it, but that decision would have no bearing on the fact that she should not be getting an abortion.

 

[tabzer]

They don't.

They care more about their ideological approaches. It's not the same to say that they don't care about the issues.

 

[SyphenFreht]

Just because you are bias against Christians and don't like how the statistics came to be doesn't mean they are inaccurate. It's probably in the top results of search engines because it holds some weight.

Here's another result from the top of the search engine results, which features similar figures.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/reasons-for-abortion-906589

https://www.axios.com/2022/05/04/abortion-surpreme-court-women-map

https://theconversation.com/less-th...rd-trimester-heres-why-people-get-them-182580

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/better-birth-control-hasnt-made-abortion-obsolete/

Your argument about not liking statistics and being biased holds no weight considering a few comments ago you were denying the origins of racism in political parties despite evidence showing otherwise, showing your bias against Democrats and not liking the data that's been painfully abundant.

And yes, bias does not make good news. Is it news? Of course. Is it reliable? Well, it's a Christian website pushing a notably Christian agenda, and is primarily aimed at Christians. So yeah, I'd say more than happily that it's using doctored data to prove a point.

"It's probably in the top search results because it holds some weight"

Yeah, probably to the tune of paid advertisements. Try harder next time.

...If it's possible then he should have to pay child support and if not then there are other possibilities, such as the women marrying someone or raising the child by herself...

"I'm so sorry you got raped, but instead of an abortion, why don't you just go get married and make some other man raise it? "

Wow.

 

[Lacius]

It's not the same to say that they don't care about the issues.

Yes it is.

 

[AleronIves]

Adoption is irrelevant, the women could give the child up for adoption or keep it, but that decision would have no bearing on the fact that she should not be getting an abortion.

I already assumed abortion was not an option, because I was directly asking you what you think should happen, and I already know that abortion is not an option you will accept. I'm asking you, "Since abortion is not an option in your view, what should the solution be in this situation?"

I said "if possible" regarding having the father support the child. If it's possible then he should have to pay child support and if not then there are other possibilities, such as the women marrying someone or raising the child by herself.

Are you seriously saying that if the rapist cannot be located that the woman has to either raise the rapist's baby herself or with some other person? That sounds to me like you're violating your rule of "it's not my job to raise other people's kids or give them money to help them raise theirs". The man bears sole responsibility if the woman had no say in whether to become pregnant, yet you want her to take responsibility for the man's actions and raise/pay for his child.