Finally opening up about abortion on this forum

[Dom]

Out of curiosity, where do people come down on the mother drinking/drugging during her pregnancy?  Is that still a my body my choice situation?

I dare speculate that a happy woman, looking forward to a child she longs for, is less likely to do things that harm the embryo than a woman who is forced to incubate, be that by law or culture or whatever.

[jerryg]

Out of curiosity, where do people come down on the mother drinking/drugging during her pregnancy?  Is that still a my body my choice situation?

I dare speculate that a happy woman, looking forward to a child she longs for, is less likely to do things that harm the embryo than a woman who is forced to incubate, be that by law or culture or whatever.

That's not really the question I asked though.  I'm pro choice.  We agree abortion is our friend.  

I'm just curious about rationalizing the my body my choice and the lack of fetus rights with the woman being able to break the fetus' brain.  It's just a little awkward ethically speaking, I thought, combining the two ideas.  Not making an anti-abortion case, just curious how people deal with that idea.

[SYZ]

People keep going on about the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus. While important, those arguments ignore the single most important thing about the abortion argument...

As a matter of fact, you do. Your "single most important thing" could apply to an infant, toddler, and even beyond. Should we contemplate the right to kill them?

This is probably one of the silliest comments I've seen on this thread. For someone to even say this
sort of thing—apparently in all seriousness—indicates a stunted mind and a total absence of any logic.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

People keep going on about the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus. While important, those arguments ignore the single most important thing about the abortion argument...

As a matter of fact, you do. Your "single most important thing" could apply to an infant, toddler, and even beyond. Should we contemplate the right to kill them?

This is probably one of the silliest comments I've seen on this thread.  For someone to even say this
sort of thing—apparently in all seriousness—indicates a stunted mind and a total absence of any logic.

It's too bad that Stevie won't be back to this thread to defend his views. But, I dropped a couple f-bombs on him and in his sad little mind that's less civil than misrepresenting others arguments to better suit his narrative. 

Not to worry, though. He's infected other threads with his arrogant condescension, poor logic, and bad use of outdated science.

I find it especially funny, and hypocritical, that he wants to stretch the definition of murder to cover zygotes in the womb but cry's like a butt-hurt school-girl stood up by her prom date when anyone wants to include same sex couples in the definition of marriage.

[Mark]

I think it was on Bill Maher's Real Time last week that he quoted someone as saying of abortion that it should be affordable, safe and rare.

Affordable, because no matter how one feels about it, it can't be more okay for the wealthy than for the poor.  Safe, because anyone who is pro-life shouldn't be eager for women to die needlessly.  Apparently, I think the conversation went, where the first two are true, abortion becomes more rare.  Too bad we can't be one of the smart countries.

[Dom]

Out of curiosity, where do people come down on the mother drinking/drugging during her pregnancy?  Is that still a my body my choice situation?

I dare speculate that a happy woman, looking forward to a child she longs for, is less likely to do things that harm the embryo than a woman who is forced to incubate, be that by law or culture or whatever.

That's not really the question I asked though.  I'm pro choice.  We agree abortion is our friend.  

I'm just curious about rationalizing the my body my choice and the lack of fetus rights with the woman being able to break the fetus' brain.  It's just a little awkward ethically speaking, I thought, combining the two ideas.  Not making an anti-abortion case, just curious how people deal with that idea.

This answer is not directed at you in specific, Jerry, nor was the previous one. I am just quoting earlier posts so my comments don't look totally out of context. Sorry about that. These statements are not directed at anyone in specific.

Here goes: Why don't we just jail pregnant women until after they give birth. That way we know she won't abort or otherwise hurt an embryo. 

[Minimalist]

Don't give the republicunts any ideas, Dom.  They would so love to be more extreme than the Taliban at something.

[Ausländer]

This issue breaks my heart so much, and is a personal thing for me for multiple reasons that I may or may not get into on this thread. I've mostly avoided this topic for the past couple of years because it's become such a trigger for me, and even seeing thread titles referencing it here makes me flinch. (Yes, I am, as they say a "snow flake"... I know.)  

Weirdly enough, as hard as it is to see/hear stuff about abortion, it's also hard not to say anything when I do. Now that the abortion talk seems to be everywhere (given current events) I'm finally caving and wanted to say some things here. I don't expect to change anyone's mind on the topic (especially not overnight), but I do hope to maybe bring some understanding and offer some perspective, coming from the pro life side of things.

Unfortunately, I don't think our society is ready yet to completely outlaw all abortion from one day to the next. As much as I wish it were, it just isn't. It has to be a process. We need to put more emphasis on the consequences of sex, how it isn't something to be taken lightly, and how to avoid pregnancy. We need better care and support for women who find themselves in crisis pregnancies, so that they don't have to worry about a single thing more than that. We need more help for single mothers - health insurance for her and her kid, day care so she can work or go to school, food, shelter, etc. We need an understanding, as a society, the value of human life in all its stages. Not just know that, but understand it - just like we came to understand here in America that blacks are not less human than whites. That process all takes time, education, and proactive work. (And I hate saying that because I think of all the innocent lives that are being lost in the mean time... and yet, it's no skin off my back, because I was out of the womb 33 years ago, so my life is protected now. It makes me feel like I'm saying "it takes time" from a place of privilege because it's not MY right to life that's being taken away.) 

Am I anti feminist for being pro life? I don't understand this argument because half of all fetuses are girls. Do the feminists not think my little girl has a right to life? What about my half sister's life, when she was almost aborted? No feminists standing up for her rights? Now, it is true that women have a right to not be pregnant if they don't want to be. But it is also true that, as a human being, her fetus has the right to live. When there is a conflict of rights like this, you have to look at both rights to see which right takes precedence over the other. And the right to life trumps all other rights, because without it, no other rights would make sense. The right to life is the most basic and fundamental of all human rights. Emotions aside, at the end of the day, this is really what it comes down to for me.

I do not know how much do you go to church. My wife is catholic and she goes regularly on sunday morning, but she is in favour of abort law, divorce and euthanasia.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

God wants people to control other people's bodies.

[Minimalist]

World population as of 7/1/20

7,794,798,739


There is no shortage.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

[Chas]

Where are you getting that a fetus has a right to live from?

From the same place that all humans have the right to life. 

Things like slavery, the holocaust, the wiping out of the Native Americans, etc, were all founded on the belief at the time that those people weren't really human or weren't *as* human... and therefore they didn't posses basic human rights. Some of the worst atrocities and crimes against humanity throughout history were done based on the notion that certain groups shouldn't be counted as human beings. I guess we must have a tendency to do that, because it is something that has happened since as far back as we know history. It's a road and a type of thinking that we need to strive to turn away from as we become more civilized and gain a better understanding of the dignity of human life.

A ball of cells is not a human.   No brain, no central nervous system, not a person.

You need to separate an image of a tiny child in utero and what there actually is in the first trimester.
Besides, a large proportion of pregnancies never come to term as they are aborted naturally. On average, about 40% of fertilized eggs do not develop into human beings;
Younger and older women have higher rates of miscarriage.

[Dānu]

Catholic Lady hasn't been here since March. You're replying to a ghost.

[Minimalist]

And when she successfully gave birth to her daughter I was genuinely overjoyed for her, but, the irony of her making her choice but denying that right to choose to someone else never seems to have sunk in with her.

[JJonas93]

 
Am I anti-feminist for being pro life? I don't understand this argument because half of all fetuses are girls. Do the feminists not think my little girl has a right to life? What about my half sister's life, when she was almost aborted? No feminists standing up for her rights?

 So far all persons giving birth are female (or trans male).  So there is some logic saying pro-choice is a feminist stance.  It is very clear in the case of rape. Not allowing abortion following a rape forces women to submit to sharing genetic material with an intruder and to bear a child against her will. Here, the woman's choice to be pregnant or not is clearly taken away.

Now, it is true that women have a right to not be pregnant if they don't want to be. But it is also true that, as a human being, her fetus has the right to live. When there is a conflict of rights like this, you have to look at both rights to see which right takes precedence over the other. And the right to life trumps all other rights, because without it, no other rights would make sense. The right to life is the most basic and fundamental of all human rights. Emotions aside, at the end of the day, this is really what it comes down to for me.

  The fetus is different than a child for part of its existence in terms of its viability. I think it is reasonable to limit abortion after a fetus is viable.  When it can live on its own, why should the mother be able to kill it?  The fact that the fetus is draining resources of the mother is also relevant. When the pregnancy did not occur by rape, then premature birth is preferably to abortion.  When the mother had a volitional part in the birth, the genetic transfer is a chosen risk that she should accept.

A fetus is human life and should have rights at conception, but all the rights of personhood should not attach until viability.  The mother's health is relevant. A human should not be forced to risk life and health despite fetal rights.  A fetus is a loafer and is prone to eviction.  I think of a situation when a building collapses and two persons are pinned together. If unpinned, one will survive and the other will die. Being pinned will forestall the death of the more injured party. How long is the healthier party to be expected to remain pinned with risk of further rubble collapse when freedom can be engineered?

[Minimalist]

[JJonas93]

x

Instead of throwing cold water on a potentially interesting discussion, perhaps encourage discourse and offer substantive input.  This forum is very slow and bland.

[Bucky Ball]

The fetus is different than a child for part of its existence in terms of its viability. I think it is reasonable to limit abortion after a fetus is viable.  When it can live on its own, why should the mother be able to kill it?  The fact that the fetus is draining resources of the mother is also relevant. When the pregnancy did not occur by rape, then premature birth is preferably to abortion.  When the mother had a volitional part in the birth, the genetic transfer is a chosen risk that she should accept.

A fetus is human life and should have rights at conception, but all the rights of personhood should not attach until viability.  The mother's health is relevant. A human should not be forced to risk life and health despite fetal rights.  A fetus is a loafer and is prone to eviction.  I think of a situation when a building collapses and two persons are pinned together. If unpinned, one will survive and the other will die. Being pinned will forestall the death of the more injured party. How long is the healthier party to be expected to remain pinned with risk of further rubble collapse when freedom can be engineered?

There is no "moment of conception", (and no OBGYN organization agrees with all the others when that even is), so you're going to have to cook one up and get the professionals to agree.
The cells on my arm that slough off, are human life too. Should they have rights ? Should all human cells with stem cells have rights ? They are every bit a potential person as a fetus or embryo is. Why should a clump of cells with no brain, no neural tube, and no heart have rights ? It's not a human .... yet. It's a potential human. Humans have brains and hearts and eyes and hands and feet. Should oocytes (egg cells) and sperm cells have rights ? They are parts of potential persons ? Should an oocyte that has completed 1/2 of DNA replication have rights ? 3/4 replication ? traveling down the tube to implantation ? Children born prematurely, (soon after viability, around 24 weeks) have huge and multiple problems ALL THEIR LIVES. Many cannot hear, and never will, they consume VAST resources (100's of thousands of dollars, if not millions EACH , just in the initial ICU stay), many with life-long problems which require intensive life-long support, ... while many other children get no health care, at all. Yeah. No.

"Babies born earlier have more problems. They are more likely to be seriously underweight and need intensive support in their initial days of life, including ventilator support and blood pressure support. And their risk of medical complications and long-term developmental problems increases the earlier they are born."

[Inkubus]

Instead of throwing cold water on a potentially interesting discussion, perhaps encourage discourse and offer substantive input.  This forum is very slow and bland.

Bland! Nothing bland about this, this is some fascinating stuff.

A fetus is human life and should have rights at conception, but all the rights of personhood should not attach until viability.  The mother's health is relevant. A human should not be forced to risk life and health despite fetal rights.  A fetus is a loafer and is prone to eviction.  I think of a situation when a building collapses and two persons are pinned together. If unpinned, one will survive and the other will die. Being pinned will forestall the death of the more injured party. How long is the healthier party to be expected to remain pinned with risk of further rubble collapse when freedom can be engineered?

[Thumpalumpacus]

A fetus is a loafer and is prone to eviction.

We are all evicted around nine months after insemination (eight, in my case).

Granting the argument that a zygote immediately has rights as a person, does it have the right to commandeer a woman's body as apposed to her own right to control her body?

I think this is where the right-to-life crowd finds reefs and shoals.

[Minimalist]

x

Instead of throwing cold water on a potentially interesting discussion, perhaps encourage discourse and offer substantive input.  This forum is very slow and bland.

Actually, this discussion has never been anything but an opportunity for religitards to tell us all about what their fucking god wants.  I say, let god get off his ass and tell us himself instead of sending some self-righteous asshole to do his dirty work.

[JJonas93]

There is no "moment of  conception", (and no OBGYN organization agrees with all the others when that even is), so you're going to have to cook one up and get the professionals to agree.

I am not going to have to do anything of the kind. I can have a theoretical discussion without yet operationalizing the definition.  There is a point where a biological process that could lead to a human being is set in motion in the right location.  This event is more meaningful than a cancer taking hold, and should be treated differently. A modicum of respect and consideration is all I am suggesting.  A fetus is not yet a human individual so all the rights need not be conferred, but it is a unique entity that is more sacred  than other clumps of cells.

The cells on my arm that slough off, are human life too.  Should all human cells with stem cells have rights ? They are every bit a potential person as a fetus or embryo is. Why should a clump of cells with no brain, no neural tube, and no heart have rights ? It's not a human .... yet. It's a potential human.

  When fetuses start popping out of your arm pits, I will grant you the point. 

Humans have brains and hearts and eyes and hands and feet.

So do fetuses in later stages. 

Should oocytes (egg cells) and sperm cells have rights ? They are parts of potential persons?

They do not have the fusion of genetics and are not situated like a fetus.   So, no they do not have rights apart from the human who produced them.  They will not become a human life without the counterpart.

Should an oocyte that has completed 1/2 of DNA replication have rights ? 3/4 replication ? traveling down the tube to implantation?

Maybe.

Children born prematurely, (soon after viability, around 24 weeks) have huge and multiple problems ALL THEIR LIVES. Many cannot hear, and never will, they consume VAST resources (100's of thousands of dollars, if not millions EACH , just in the initial ICU stay), many with life-long problems which require intensive life-long support, ... while many other children get no health care, at all. Yeah. No.

Prematurity does carry risks and costs, but it varies.  When human development has commenced, we should be careful to not be callous about it.  Cost should be borne by the unwilling parents to some degree and the state if the state prohibited abortion.  The cost will encourage better birth control and the development of a more efficient artificial womb.  Health care costs are so inflated, it is hard to fathom its actual worth.

[JJonas93]

 Actually, this discussion has never been anything but an opportunity for religitards to tell us all about what their fucking god wants.  I say, let god get off his ass and tell us himself instead of sending some self-righteous asshole to do his dirty work.

It is time for that to change. No theists are currently in this thread.  My stance is that abortion is immoral, but a necessary evil under some circumstances, and a shamefully callous choice in others.  I am pro-choice in regard to legality.  I prefer the U. S. Supreme Courts previous distinction of allowing it for any reason in the first trimester and not allowing it in the third.  Second trimester abortions would need review by a judge.

[julep]

 Actually, this discussion has never been anything but an opportunity for religitards to tell us all about what their fucking god wants.  I say, let god get off his ass and tell us himself instead of sending some self-righteous asshole to do his dirty work.

It is time for that to change. No theists are currently in this thread.  My stance is that abortion is immoral, but a necessary evil under some circumstances, and a shamefully callous choice in others.  I am pro-choice in regard to legality.  I prefer the U. S. Supreme Courts previous distinction of allowing it for any reason in the first trimester and not allowing it in the third.  Second trimester abortions would need review by a judge.

A pregnant person should have the absolute right to choose the options of least risk to their person. Carrying a pregnancy to term almost always involves a higher morbidity rate than terminating the pregnancy, by the way. This should not be a choice anyone but the pregnant person makes. If it turns you queasy don’t impregnate your partner without talking matters over beforehand. 

Late term abortions are a straw man, as they’re almost without exception wanted pregnancies that go deeply wrong for the fetus, the mother, or both. Fuck off your high horse. Regarding second trimester abortions: fuck off also. First a person has to realize they’re pregnant, then they have to arrange for a procedure, scrape up the money, etc. Also as with many big decisions, people might not want to make it until they’ve had time to think about it. The fetus still doesn’t have a developed a nervous system, and also various birth defects can’t be detected until this time. Adding impediments like judicial review is sexist (don’t let a woman make her own decisions) and classist (too expensive for poor women, forcing them to have children they don’t want and can’t afford, while rich girls skip off to a more permissive state or country to have their inconveniences fixed). 

What’s way more immoral than terminating a fetus past the first trimester IMO is bringing an unwanted child into the world.

[Fireball]

Some people need to keep their noses out of women's uteri, yes?