How do you feel about abortion?

[kuwanger]

Personally I believe early in pregnancy - particularly at the morula stage - when the embryo is still a mass of unorganized cells - that abortion does not constitute murder. It's not much different than removing a mole at that point.

I understand what you're arguing at one level, but moles don't grow into a separate human being. That's pretty much the dividing line to me: there's simply not a process that moles, cancer, etc will become intelligent, and so we have to treat an embryo or a fetus like we would a whole human. We don't tend to argue that dolphins that are young enough don't qualify as dolphins, so we can kill them as we please.

I mean, as far as being able to survive and general intelligence, how old does a human tend to have to be to make it alone? At least five or six years? Humans are pretty insanely defenseless as very young children, even in a very benign environment. It seems pretty clear we're conveniently twisting our standards to overcome the moral objects of ending a human's life, yet we don't spend remotely the same effort to kill a more intelligent animal--pick just about any non-primate at one year old.

So, yea, if we as a society recognize we'd rather have abortions than have more unwanted/abused/neglected children, then that's really a pragmatic compromise we're making. If we're argue it's just a matter of instantaneous biology on intelligence or viability of life without support, we need to make some actual standard and apply it across the board. Maybe that means a one year old pig has more right to live than a one year old human. Then again, I don't think humans are any more special than humans make themselves to be, at the behest of defense from other humans most often.

 

[Hanafuda]

Now hang on, something you need to understand is that bringing someone into this world should not be a consequence. Someone should only birth a child if they feel as though they are ready to take care of one. If you see carrying a pregnancy to term as "punishment" for sex, even if the parents are, for instance, financially unable to support a child, then there are bigger issues that need to be addressed on top of that. Especially the fact that that "punishment" WILL trickle down to the child

Another thing, though, is that I find that there's a moral inconsistency in your argument that I HOPE you realize isn't there. In your above argument, you say that the father should be able to opt out of child support if he didn't support keeping the child, which implies that you're forgiving him for having unsafe sex with his partner. However, below that, you then state that if a mother chooses to have consensual sex and conceives, she should take responsibility. I hate to pull the term "sexist" out and wave it around, because I really hate using "isms" in arguments because many people think that it's a buzzword, but even if you yourself are not intending it to be so, I'd say that your argument is rooted in an incredibly sexist thought process

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."

 

[xpoverzion]

Abortion is great!! Humans are a destructive cancer to the earth. The last thing the earth needs is more destructive, cancerous humans. The more abortions, the better!

 

[invaderyoyo]

It's absolutely the woman's choice. The fetus's neural pathways aren't even formed, yet.

Even if it was a person, a woman's right to her own body trumps the fetus's rights. It's literally inside the woman. If she no longer wants it in there, it has to go.

It may sound harsh to "pro life" people, but that's how I see it.

George Carlin does a great routine on abortion.

Spoiler: George Carlin on abortion

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I understand what you're arguing at one level, but moles don't grow into a separate human being. That's pretty much the dividing line to me: there's simply not a process that moles, cancer, etc will become intelligent, and so we have to treat an embryo or a fetus like we would a whole human. We don't tend to argue that dolphins that are young enough don't qualify as dolphins, so we can kill them as we please.

You seem to be conflating the idea of a fetus with the that of a child that's already been born (or whatever you're trying to get across with your "dolphin" argument, I honestly don't understand it). The reality of the matter is that until roughly 22 weeks into the pregnancy, the thing that's inside a woman's body ISN'T human; or at least not a separate biological entity capable of surviving without being connected directly to the mechanisms meant to keep it alive inside the womb. Until that point, a fetus is effectively a grouping of stem cells that has no conscious thought or idea of what goes on in its surroundings. And saying "it grows into a human" is simply a non-argument, due to the fact that not only are there many times throughout the early pregnancy stages where a "fetus" could self-terminate without the mother even knowing (a prime example of this would be a fertilized egg dislodging from the uterine wall and leaving the body with the next period), you're also effectively saying that every sperm cell and every egg has a right to life. Which is absurd, there's nothing that would classify either of those as "human," despite that they are what multiply into an embryo.

I mean, as far as being able to survive and general intelligence, how old does a human tend to have to be to make it alone? At least five or six years? Humans are pretty insanely defenseless as very young children, even in a very benign environment. It seems pretty clear we're conveniently twisting our standards to overcome the moral objects of ending a human's life, yet we don't spend remotely the same effort to kill a more intelligent animal--pick just about any non-primate at one year old.

You're implying that the responsibility of taking care of your birthed child is in any way equivalent to the involuntary process a woman's body goes through to develop offspring throughout the stages of pregnancy; it isn't.

So, yea, if we as a society recognize we'd rather have abortions than have more unwanted/abused/neglected children, then that's really a pragmatic compromise we're making. If we're argue it's just a matter of instantaneous biology on intelligence or viability of life without support, we need to make some actual standard and apply it across the board. Maybe that means a one year old pig has more right to live than a one year old human. Then again, I don't think humans are any more special than humans make themselves to be, at the behest of defense from other humans most often.

You seem to think that the idea you're proposing is absurd, when really it's quite practical. I don't see why you brought pigs into the argument, though

 

[SG854]

Legally he has no say. But ethically he should have some say about what happens to his child - if the decision to have a child was consensual.

I wish guys can say the same. For women its my body my choice. For the male draft its my body not my choice. Or even when it comes to abortion.
Its your body when you have to work a job support that child. Its your body when you have to expose yourself to the dangers of work. Some guys that don't have a college degree have to work and are pushed to a higher paying more dangerous job so that can make enough to support that child. And dangerous jobs more often males take and suffer majority of work related injuries and death. Pregnancy and delivery may last nine months, but try a dangerous job for 18 yrs. Women may provide the womb. But men provide the financial womb.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

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."

Hm...

That's an interesting addition. I'll have to think on that one a bit

 

[dpad_5678]

Mother wants to abort child because of tough financial issues > abortion is illegal > mother asks for benefits from the government > gets called a skank and a moocher

 

[Hanafuda]

Hm...

That's an interesting addition. I'll have to think on that one a bit

It's okay. I never ask or expect anyone to agree with me. Just responding to what you said, and I thought about it before responding too. Even if you and I disagree on a lot of things I always respect that you have thought about your position and feel strongly about it.

 

[x65943]

I understand what you're arguing at one level, but moles don't grow into a separate human being. That's pretty much the dividing line to me: there's simply not a process that moles, cancer, etc will become intelligent, and so we have to treat an embryo or a fetus like we would a whole human. We don't tend to argue that dolphins that are young enough don't qualify as dolphins, so we can kill them as we please.

I mean, as far as being able to survive and general intelligence, how old does a human tend to have to be to make it alone? At least five or six years? Humans are pretty insanely defenseless as very young children, even in a very benign environment. It seems pretty clear we're conveniently twisting our standards to overcome the moral objects of ending a human's life, yet we don't spend remotely the same effort to kill a more intelligent animal--pick just about any non-primate at one year old.

So, yea, if we as a society recognize we'd rather have abortions than have more unwanted/abused/neglected children, then that's really a pragmatic compromise we're making. If we're argue it's just a matter of instantaneous biology on intelligence or viability of life without support, we need to make some actual standard and apply it across the board. Maybe that means a one year old pig has more right to live than a one year old human. Then again, I don't think humans are any more special than humans make themselves to be, at the behest of defense from other humans most often.

Sure moles don't grow into separate human beings on their own. But actually it's possible to create a human being from a mole. You can insert the nucleus from a mole in an unfertilized egg and produce something capable of becoming human. Further - if you supplied the right growth factors to a mole cell itself you could ditch the fertilized egg entirely.

Now let's talk about a sperm. Given the right circumstances it too can create human life. Does it matter that it's only one half? Should we be concerned with protecting the life of a sperm?

Viewed from this angle - the early embryo is nothing more than simple cellular machinery. No more special than any other machinery.

I get your dolphin point - but we kill other animals all the time for meat so I don't think it's very significant. Not to mention literally no one would be upset about a dolphin abortion, especially early in pregnancy.

I understand your point about the shifting line for children - and when it's okay to kill them. But with all due respect I don't think that has much to do with basic faceless cellular machinery resembling a mole. But with regard to that - there were times in human culture when it was normal to leave a child to die even after birth. - This isn't wrong or right, such terms don't exist universally. In the relative morality of the day it was right. But there is no universal right. We would most likely say this is wrong today, but our judgement has little bearing on how others lead their lives.

As for abortion for economic and criminal reduction - I don't think there are many people advocating this idea. Most of the arguments for abortion are more about the choice of the mother.

 

[TotalInsanity4]

I wish guys can say the same. For women its my body my choice. For the male draft its my body not my choice. Or even when it comes to abortion.

Funny you should bring the draft into it, because I think you'll find that the people who support a women's right to abortion also coincide with people who think that the draft should be dismantled

Its your body when you have to work a job support that child.

As many women do

Its your body when you have to expose yourself to the dangers of work. Some guys that don't have a college degree have to work and are pushed to a higher paying more dangerous job so that can make enough to support that child.

Correct. That's another issue entirely, though, that I think you'll find has been exhaustively discussed in the "Capitalism vs Communism" thread

And dangerous jobs more often males take and suffer majority of work related injuries and death. Pregnancy and delivery may last nine months, but try a dangerous job for 18 yrs. Women may provide the womb. But men provide the financial womb.

 

[x65943]

I wish guys can say the same. For women its my body my choice. For the male draft its my body not my choice. Or even when it comes to abortion.
Its your body when you have to work a job support that child. Its your body when you have to expose yourself to the dangers of work. Some guys that don't have a college degree have to work and are pushed to a higher paying more dangerous job so that can make enough to support that child. And dangerous jobs more often males take and suffer majority of work related injuries and death. Pregnancy and delivery may last nine months, but try a dangerous job for 18 yrs. Women may provide the womb. But men provide the financial womb.

Thing is this is a medical procedure.

The "my body my choice" thing applies to medical procedures for both men and women. No one can take your organ for example.

Let's say you have a child who needs a kidney to survive, you're a perfect match, and you decide not to give the kid your kidney. It's a decision similar to abortion - you let your child die because you didn't want to make a bodily sacrifice. Men are allowed to not give their children their kidneys - and so I would say the matter is fair on both sides.

 

[SG854]

Funny you should bring the draft into it, because I think you'll find that the people who support a women's right to abortion also coincide with people who think that the draft should be dismantled

As many women do

Correct. That's another issue entirely, though, that I think you'll find has been exhaustively discussed in the "Capitalism vs Communism" thread

Not a different issue when you have to support that child.

"And dangerous jobs more often males take and suffer majority of work related injuries and death. Pregnancy and delivery may last nine months, but try a dangerous job for 18 yrs. Women may provide the womb. But men provide the financial womb."

I don't see anything wrong with this at all. Males suffer majority of work related injures and suffer 93% of job deaths.

 

[ov3rkill]

Abortions should be legal up to 10 years old. or 15? or 18? maybe? haha j/k

On a serious note, it should be legal under certain circumstances like choosing the life between the mother and the child.
If the life of the mother is in danger of giving birth and abortion is the only option so she could live, then I think abortion is fine.
If it's 50-50, then it's a tough choice for the couple, but for me, I'd choose my wife.
If the survivability is in favour of the child, then I'm gonna choose the life of the child.
There are issues. It sucks. That's life. It will probably fuck anyone's mind when it comes to that.

As for rape victims, they should just consider adoption.
There are people who want children but aren't blessed with.
That way it won't eat up with their conscience.

At the end of the day, it's a woman's choice or the couple.
People should just respect that and not make a big fuzz about it.
I don't know how the world will end be it overpopulation, nuclear war, pollution, global warming, all of the above, etc.
Just enjoy life. Live it. Procreate. Natural selection will find its way.

Anyone saw the movie 'What Happened to Monday'?

 

[Xzi]

Abortion is murder. Discussions about legalizing abortion are discussions about legalizing murder. Except in cases where carrying the child puts the mother's life in jeopardy, in which case it's self defense.

Abortion is, has been, and must be legal. It's an option, not a requirement, and a much-needed option in areas of the country where sex ed isn't granted or contraceptives are frowned upon for some stupid reason. Before it was legal, people would go to back-alley abortionists if they were desperate, and (obviously) the rate of medical complications/malpractice were much higher.

What I dislike about the anti-abortion crowd is that they're all too often eager to send 18-year-olds fresh out of high school to their deaths in unnecessary wars, and it's usually the disenfranchised kids without any other option.

 

[x65943]

Abortions should be legal up to 10 years old. or 15? or 18? maybe? haha j/k

On a serious note, it should be legal under certain circumstances like choosing the life between the mother and the child.
If the life of the mother is in danger of giving birth and abortion is the only option so she could live, then I think abortion is fine.
If it's 50-50, then it's a tough choice for the couple, but for me, I'd choose my wife.
If the survivability is in favour of the child, then I'm gonna choose the life of the child.
There are issues. It sucks. That's life. It will probably fuck anyone's mind when it comes to that.

As for rape victims, they should just consider adoption.
There are people who want children but aren't blessed with.
That way it won't eat up with their conscience.

At the end of the day, it's a woman's choice or the couple.
People should just respect that and not make a big fuzz about it.
I don't know how the world will end be it overpopulation, nuclear war, pollution, global warming, all of the above, etc.
Just enjoy life. Live it. Procreate. Natural selection will find its way.

Anyone saw the movie 'What Happened to Monday'?

Honestly the best cure for overpopulation is birth control. Look at Western Europe. When given the choice people seem to prefer not to have kids.

I almost think the world could end with underpopulation - unless we develop artificial wombs. In which case this whole abortion debate can finally be done with.

 

[invaderyoyo]

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."

I can understand this, but I feel like more risk goes to the woman. Maybe the couple was planning on raising a kid together, but the guy gets cold feet and wants out. Now the woman is stuck in a crappy situation. If the woman gets cold feet, there's no real risk for the guy.

 

[DKB]

I say it's fine until the baby is viable (20-24 weeks?), afterwards, no.

 

[SG854]

@TotalInsanity4 And I never said women didn't work. But the difference is the types of jobs males and females take. With males more often going to the dangerous professions. And financial womb wasn't meant to be literal, its metaphorical.

 

[x65943]

@TotalInsanity4 And I never said women didn't work. But the difference is the types of jobs males and females take. With males more often going to the dangerous professions. And financial womb wasn't meant to be literal, its metaphorical.

To be clear though, men choose those jobs. Yes they are over represented - but that's because they prefer the higher pay that usually accompanies the more dangerous jobs. Men also tend to go more into STEM, which is a very safe field. Most politicians are men too.

Bottom line - you can't blame women for men's decisions. Just as you can't blame men for women's. We're not the reason women choose lesser paying careers and perpetuate the gender pay gap.