A Non-Religious Case Against Abortion

[SteveII]

But being wrong never stopped them from running their mouths.

I don’t necessarily think Steve is wrong to feel about abortion as he does.  What he can’t accept is that many others don’t think the same way and are unmoved by his arguments. If certain people consider a product of conception as something that should never be aborted, I’m ok with this point of view.  What I can not tolerate is presumption that we must agree with him and follow his laws.  Sorry, I do not view the fetus as deserving any special rights especially over the mother’s free will for autonomy. It’s the “you must think the same as me” crap that is completely unacceptable.

When someone commits a crime, we assume it has a detriment to society in some fashion.  When a mother has an abortion, the only person it might be detrimental to is herself…that’s why she makes that decision for herself and, believe me, no woman takes it lightly.  Society isn’t involved.

You bring up a great point.

Because this is an issue of morality, there is a certain asymmetry between the two sides. As I explained just above in the post to Alan, I can't be just okay with the pro-abortion opinion because it is a moral issue. I understand this may come across as intolerance or arrogance, but it is the nature of all consequential moral positions.

The asymmetry (and perhaps irony) comes in because it is only the pro-abortion side that can be tolerant of the pro-life view. Of course if you think preventing abortion is akin to slavery, then you probably can't, but most people probably could.

To your last point, I would say that society has a responsibility to create a culture where life is valued (morally and pragmatically). The concept of abortion is a devaluing of life. These are worldview concepts and take a long time to form in a culture. Legislating morality is a component of worldview shifts.

[epronovost]

To your last point, I would say that society has a responsibility to create a culture where life is valued (morally and pragmatically). The concept of abortion is a devaluing of life. These are worldview concepts and take a long time to form in a culture. Legislating morality is a component of worldview shifts.

The problem with your position is that forbidding abortions doesn't make abortion less likely and it actively destroys more life by making pregnancy more dangerous, abortions more dangerous and women poverty more common. It thus devalue life morally and pragmatically to forbid abortions because we know the consequences of such bans. If what you want is a culture that value life highly, then you must find another avenue than forbidding abortion. You should legislate away the circumstances that lead women to abortion like outlawing poverty, lack of access to effective and reliable contraception, making education mandatory, mandating lengthy and generous child and parents wellfare programs, making housing a right, radically changing work conditions, etc. These are all legal changes you could be fighting for and these laws all scream "life is valuable and important". These would not only make abortion less likely, especially elective abortions, but also make having children more desirable.

I, and many others on this thread, have formulated many arguments that demonstrate that by valuing fetal lives as much as women's lives you are actually devaluating human lives.

[Mathilda]

Incorrect. The foetus is not an individual

I just wrote over 1000 words on why it is.

A thousand words of fluff. I refuse to play your game and instead I'm calling you out on your tactics.

You turn the most fundamental human rights into a pseudo-intellectual debate so people argue about pointless semantic fluff instead of the fact that you're advocating for the removal of their human rights. This is why it's part of the Christo-fascist playbook to equivocate between definitions.

None of it changes the fact that you are actively working to strip the fundamental human rights of more than half the population. Not for yourself though, only others. Nor does it change the fact that
forced birthing is a modern form of slavery. You think a woman forced to give up work and her financial dependence to look after a child she never wanted cares about the semantic difference between personhood and individual?

No, she and the rest of us care about body autonomy and the capacity to suffer. A subject you avoid like the plague because it destroys your entire argument.

What you are doing is just providing more extreme bodily autonomy rhetoric

"extreme bodily autonomy rhetoric"

And you still claim to be against slavery in principle?

If you don't have body autonomy then you lack your most basic freedom that comes before all other rights.

Only a privileged white Christian man would assume otherwise.

[Szuchow]

I just wrote over 1000 words on why it is.

A thousand words of fluff. I refuse to play your game and instead I'm calling you out on your tactics.

You turn the most fundamental human rights into a pseudo-intellectual debate so people argue about pointless semantic fluff instead of the fact that you're advocating for the removal of their human rights. This is why it's part of the Christo-fascist playbook to equivocate between definitions.

None of it changes the fact that you are actively working to strip the fundamental human rights of more than half the population. Not for yourself though, only others. Nor does it change the fact that
forced birthing is a modern form of slavery. You think a woman forced to give up work and her financial dependence to look after a child she never wanted cares about the semantic difference between personhood and individual?

No, she and the rest of us care about body autonomy and the capacity to suffer. A subject you avoid like the plague because it destroys your entire argument.

What you are doing is just providing more extreme bodily autonomy rhetoric

"extreme bodily autonomy rhetoric"

And you still claim to be against slavery in principle?

If you don't have body autonomy then you lack your most basic freedom that comes before all other rights.

Only a privileged white Christian man would assume otherwise.

I don't know what you expect from worshipper of space Hitler? Of course he will want to oppress women, fascists like him deem them chattel or silly things who need a man (preferably in black skirt/dress) to tell them how to live. Whatever valid points you will make he will lie about, misinterpret or skip because he is interested in preaching his aborrent, anti-human ideology and not a honest debate.

[Rhythmcs]

If you're worried about innocent people being killed you might wanna pull your head outta that uterus and take a peep on death row Steve.

[Deesse23]

What you are doing is just providing more extreme bodily autonomy rhetoric

And what Steve was doing here, again, is poisoning the well. A clear sign he has understood that his position just got defeated.

[Mathilda]

I don't know what you expect from worshipper of space Hitler? Of course he will want to oppress women, fascists like him deem them chattel or silly things who need a man (preferably in black skirt/dress) to tell them how to live. Whatever valid points you will make he will lie about, misinterpret or skip because he is interested in preaching his aborrent, anti-human ideology and not a honest debate.

To be honest I don't expect anything from him. Christo-facists will never understand the need to fight oppression because they are the oppressors.

It's part of the fascist playbook to create a single idea and then debate it to control the narrative. All the while you're debating their idea, everyone is reinforcing it regardless of whether they are arguing for or against. It's why you should never give a holocaust denier public space for example. It's in their interests to spread doubt about it so people become more open to their extreme ideology.

You can't kill an idea but you can counter it with a different one that is more relevant. So I prefer instead to use Stevell in spreading the idea that forced birthing is a modern form of slavery. That's far more pertinent to everyone's daily life than some irrelevant definition that Christo-fascists want to concentrate on.

It's always the thin end of the wedge with fascists. Once they remove the rights of one demographic they work on removing the rights of the next until no one is free.

Body autonomy isn't just an issue for fertile women. It affects us all. We all need to defend the freedom to stay healthy, survive and to live our own lives.

[Szuchow]

I don't know what you expect from worshipper of space Hitler? Of course he will want to oppress women, fascists like him deem them chattel or silly things who need a man (preferably in black skirt/dress) to tell them how to live. Whatever valid points you will make he will lie about, misinterpret or skip because he is interested in preaching his aborrent, anti-human ideology and not a honest debate.

To be honest I don't expect anything from him. Christo-facists will never understand the need to fight oppression because they are the oppressors.

It's part of the fascist playbook to create a single idea and then debate it to control the narrative. All the while you're debating their idea, everyone is reinforcing it regardless of whether they are arguing for or against. It's why you should never give a holocaust denier public space for example. It's in their interests to spread doubt about it so people are more open to their extreme ideology.

You can't kill an idea but you can counter it with a different one that is more relevant. So I prefer instead to use Stevell in spreading the idea that forced birthing is a modern form of slavery. That's far more pertinent to everyone's daily life than some irrelevant definition that Christo-fascists want to concentrate on.

It's always the thin end of the wedge with fascists. Once they remove the rights of one demographic they work on removing the rights of the next until no one is free.

Body autonomy isn't just an issue for fertile women. It affects us all. We all need to defend the freedom to stay healthy, survive and to live our own lives.

From my pov by engaging with him and his piss poor "arguments" you give him unearned legitimacy. Clown like him should be laughed at or ignored I think. 

There might be some merit in countering his aboreent ideas but I don't find it to be worthy of bother. People subscribing to pro-death* (as childbirth is more dangerous to women life than [legal] abortion) ideology are abhorrent trash, impervious to reason and high on their imagined righteousness. Only personal experience might change their view I would say and even then they will probably made up some reason for which their abortion will be moral.

*https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/

[Rhythmcs]

One has to wonder what non-extreme bodily autonomy would be, exactly. Is that where you have autonomy with respect to your right arm and left ankle but nothing else? If we added a knee (just one) would that tip the scales into extreme bodily autonomy, or would we have to add more? How many body parts, and which ones..or is it just a uterus that's "extreme"?

[Mathilda]

From my pov by engaging with him and his piss poor "arguments" you give him unearned legitimacy. Clown like him should be laughed at or ignored I think. 

You have a valid point and I don't disagree. In my defence though I feel like I've managed to develop and road test a useful counter argument. Discussing these things can help formulate my own thoughts.

Ive said what I need to though and don't intend to continue debating him otherwise he'll just drown out my points in more semantic fluff.

[Szuchow]

From my pov by engaging with him and his piss poor "arguments" you give him unearned legitimacy. Clown like him should be laughed at or ignored I think. 

You have a valid point and I don't disagree. In my defence though I feel like I've managed to develop and road test a useful counter argument. Discussing these things can help formulate my own thoughts.

Ive said what I need to though and don't intend to continue debating him otherwise he'll just drown out my points in more semantic fluff.

Argument was brilliant but it's casting pearls before swine. Still if you got benefit from it then all is good.

[SteveII]

Continuity of Identity: From conception to natural death, there is a continuous biological and genetic identity. This continuity suggests a constant 'personhood' as the individual evolves and develops, supporting the idea that personhood is not a status acquired at a certain stage but an inherent attribute of human existence. For example, it makes sense to say 'I would have been aborted if my mother's family had not been Catholic.' This statement implicitly recognizes the continuity of my identity from conception onwards, unlike the phrase 'The fetus that would become me would have been aborted...' which implies a transformation into 'me' at some later stage. From conception, there has been no separate entity; the fetus was always 'me' in a fundamental, unbroken continuum of personhood.

The continuity of identity is a proposition that draws it's origin on the philosophy of the mind. It's actually something that relate to our mental experiences and memory to assess that who we are is based on the continuous thought and memory we form of ourselves. It states that basically our person is our mind; this proposition is actually in opposition to the idea that the fetus is a person since it doesn't have a consciousness. Also, a mind and concept of identity is not determined predominantly or even mainly by genes alone; this genetical essentialism has been soundly rejected decades ago. It's not related to genetic identity at all and using it as such is ridiculous since it would imply that if I give or receive blood (or an organ), have body chimerism (rather common, especially for women) that I am in several places at the same time since there is a full copy of my DNA in all of my cells. I suppose that, according to your usage of that theory, I am on my chair, in my workplace in about a dozen people on my husband and on my dogs all at once. It seems I am a busier guy than I thought.  

PS: I would note that in your example, both sentence are used by people depending on their beliefs. It's not really indicative of anything.

I was not making a philosophy of mind argument. I was making a metaphysical argument about the nature of identity. It also has nothing to do with genetic essentialism.

Philosophy of Mind
Primarily concerned with the nature of the mind, mental events, mental functions, consciousness, and their relationship to the physical body, particularly the brain.

Metaphysics
Concerned with the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. It involves the study of existence, objects, and their properties, space, time, causality, and possibility.

Specifically, I was discussing what constitutes the essence of a being or entity throughout its existence. You shifted to philosophy of mind because that is the metric you are using for personhood. But I am was building a cumulative case and this is the first brick and contains the broadest concept. No one uses the second sentence naturally. We recognize that the entity that is us existed before we had rational thought capacity.

Think of it in smaller chucks. Was the 29 week old fetus the same entity as the 28, the same as the 16, the same as the 8? Your view requires there to be a particular cell division where the old entity become a new entity because of a minute change in capacity. That does not make sense. It is simply a property of the entity that it develops in a particular way.

Potentiality Principle: The potential to develop characteristics typically associated with personhood (rationality, consciousness, moral agency) exists from the moment of conception. This potentiality is a significant factor in ascribing moral and ethical value to human life at all stages. Even a newborn has not achieved any significant level of abilities (way less than the family pet) yet we recognize tremendous value. The reason is bound up in the concept of potential.

Potentiality principle doesn't equal nor supersede the actuality principle, on the contrary. A potential (something that could be, but might not be) is always treated as inferior, less important, of lower order than an actual (something that is). By presenting this argument you are ascribing a lower order of value to a fetus than a human being because they are only a potential person. Thus, while you might make the argument that fetuses should have rights, those rights will always be considered as inferior to the rights and interest of women since women's nature and dignity is actual while the fetuses' are only potential. Thus, in a position where a women's fundamental right to liberty and body autonomy conflicts with a fetus right to life, a woman should always triumph because of the potentiality principle.

If you want to make a moral argument that women must carry to term a fetus because the fetus has rights, never ever imply that the fetus should have rights by the virtue that it has the potential to develop those characteristics. You must make the case that the fetus possesses the same characteristics than a woman else we will always priories the later over the former in every conflict. 

A baby, being not an adult, has less rights than an adult precisely because they do not have many characteristics of adults. That's why they have no political, judicial and plenty of other social rights. They simply don't have the characteristics to act upon those rights, but they do have a series of rights including a right to life and safety as well as rights that adults don't have since they don't need them like a right to a caregiver. The baby has a right to life because he exist as an individual, has a consciousness, human feelings and emotions. A fetus doesn't have those traits. It doesn't possess, at that moment, the traits, even at an "embryonic stage", that grants, according to you, human life special value, but a baby does. A baby seeks truth because they are curious of everything; a baby learns. A fetus cannot, at least, not until late in their development, well after abortions are taken. Thus, a fetus doesn't have one of the trait that makes human life special and valuable according to you (seeking truth in that case).

Potential is another argument in a cumulative case.

Potentiality in my argument is not about being 'less than' actuality but about recognizing the inherent trajectory and nature of human development. The potential of a fetus is not a lesser state but a different stage in the continuous process of becoming. These are obvious truths about the world.

While a fetus or a baby may have different rights compared to an adult due to developmental stages, these rights are not necessarily lesser. They are appropriate to their stage in life and serve to protect their growth and development.

What rights should a fetus have? A right to life.
What rights should an infant have? A right to life, basic needs, health, protection from abuse, neglect
What rights should a toddler have? All of the above plus education, developmental resources
What rights should an older child have? All of the above plus formal education, socialization, developmental resources appropriate for their age
What rights should an adolescent have? All of the above plus information on how their bodies are changing, some level of independence
What rights should teens have? All of the above plus voting, working, increasing measure of independence
and then we get to adults where all the rest of our rights are realized.

Regarding your point "You must make the case that the fetus possesses the same characteristics than a woman else we will always prioritize the later over the former in every conflict", you don't really mean just prioritize. Since when does prioritize mean ability to kill? I do not need to show that the mother and fetus have similar rights, I need to show that the fetus has enough rights not to die.

[epronovost]

Delete post. repetitive.

[SteveII]

To your last point, I would say that society has a responsibility to create a culture where life is valued (morally and pragmatically). The concept of abortion is a devaluing of life. These are worldview concepts and take a long time to form in a culture. Legislating morality is a component of worldview shifts.

The problem with your position is that forbidding abortions doesn't make abortion less likely and it actively destroys more life by making pregnancy more dangerous, abortions more dangerous and women poverty more common. It thus devalue life morally and pragmatically to forbid abortions because we know the consequences of such bans. If what you want is a culture that value life highly, then you must find another avenue than forbidding abortion. You should legislate away the circumstances that lead women to abortion like outlawing poverty, lack of access to effective and reliable contraception, making education mandatory, mandating lengthy and generous child and parents wellfare programs, making housing a right, radically changing work conditions, etc. These are all legal changes you could be fighting for and these laws all scream "life is valuable and important". These would not only make abortion less likely, especially elective abortions, but also make having children more desirable.

I, and many others on this thread, have formulated many arguments that demonstrate that by valuing fetal lives as much as women's lives you are actually devaluating human lives.

You don't overcome a moral argument with pragmatic reasoning. It shows you don't understand the pro-life position.

I am not opposed to any of those solutions if executed effectively and they work. But here's a test. If we managed to provide a quality safety net for every woman and child, would you join me in outlawing all elective abortion? I don't think so. Your reliance on the bodily autonomy issue prevents that.

So, unless you want to cop to a red herring or a tu quoque argument, your long list of ills above are pragmatic reasons to kill. Its distasteful to admit to oneself that you have pragmatic reasons to kill so it get's couched in language that makes it more palatable.

[Mathilda]

One has to wonder what non-extreme bodily autonomy would be, exactly.  Is that where you have autonomy with respect to your right arm and left ankle but nothing else?  If we added a knee (just one) would that tip the scales into extreme bodily autonomy, or would we have to add more?  How many body parts, and which ones..or is it just a uterus that's "extreme"?

You go to work one day to find your cubicle has been fitted with a milking machine because your boss wants to to get into bear bile farming but thinks it's cheaper to use humans, and then calls you a body autonomy extremist when you object.  

[epronovost]

You don't overcome a moral argument with pragmatic reasoning. It shows you don't understand the pro-life position.

Yes you can. Morality is not divorced of reality. Why would I let you kill women for no fetus saved and let you call this "a moral defense of the protection of life and dignity of humans". You just made human life and dignity worst. You have blood on your hand and nothing to show for it. How is that a moral argument? You have made no argument for the superiority of your deontological form of ethics; how by making philosophical pronouncements you make something real and tangible, life and human dignity, better and safer.

I am not opposed to any of those solutions if executed effectively and they work. But here's a test. If we managed to provide a quality safety net for every woman and child, would you join me in outlawing all elective abortion? I don't think so.

If you managed to build a democratic, socialist and feminist utopia, I don't even think the question of elective abortion would even ask itself anymore. We have never abolished the laws against witchcraft in my country; nobody would ever try to enforce them because they are stupid and go against religious freedom provisions in our bill of rights, but the law against witchcraft is still on the book. In a society described above, I believe there would basically no need for elective abortions, thus no need to make abortion illegal just like there is no need to make a law that prevents us to take klingons and elves as slaves. There would simply be no elective abortions. Sure there would still be medical abortions and perhapse abortions in case of rape or incest (though these two would also be very, very rare and already are today), but I think you are fine with abortion of medical necessity and in case of rape and incest. Of course, for me to join you, you would have to provide and deliver on promises first. In other words, yes I think that if you build a world where elective abortions are completely useless in hte eyes of women, then we would have no disagreements. But, you are not trying to build that world at all though. 

The fact you are unwilling to fight and argue for other means makes your argument against the morality of abortion a philosophical fig leaf. You do not care about women and fetuses. You care about something else, I suspect you care about your personal sense of righteousness above the lives of others and hold, deeply close to your heart, the belief that women are meant to be mothers and that any "rebellion" against that is simply immoral. The arguments you formulate, are not only fairly contradictory, but also purely self-serving. They exist to make you feel righteous not to make humanity better and human lives more plentiful and more dignified.

[Rhythmcs]

The argument that abortion should be criminalized is not a moral argument. It is a legal argument. Arguing that abortion is immoral will -never- lead to a conclusion that abortion is criminal. I think we would all agree..no matter what our moral views.... that a great many good things are criminal and a great many bad things are legal. No one even needs an argument to sit in private judgement of women they deem murderous whores who've made their choices™. You can sit on your porch and glower all damned day.

[Astreja]

What you are doing is just providing more extreme bodily autonomy rhetoric...

Either someone has bodily autonomy, or they don't.  You can't respect someone's rights "except in this one particular case" without committing a rights violation.

[pattylt]

To your last point, I would say that society has a responsibility to create a culture where life is valued (morally and pragmatically). The concept of abortion is a devaluing of life. These are worldview concepts and take a long time to form in a culture. Legislating morality is a component of worldview shifts.

I find it funny that you think this is a valid point when in fact, we have evidence of countries that value all their citizens much more than we do. They also have liberal abortion laws yet have much lower rates of abortion than we do. Look at the Netherlands and Sweden. Why are their abortion numbers lower than ours? Because they provide the things needed to encourage and value children as well as comprehensive birth control to help assure that wanted children will prosper and unwanted pregnancies are much lower.

You think abortion devalues human life, I think you’re wrong. It’s everything else society does to show value of their citizens and pregnant women that’s much more life affirming.

[pocaracas]

To sum up, given society as we know it today, abortion is a necessary evil.

Steve, note that no one is saying it's a good thing. We just say it's something that people feel the need to do... and will do, even if illegal, even at great risk to their own lives.

There are many ways to improve people's lives and consequently make this debate about abortion nearly meaningless. But I see that you touched on none of them.... you remain in your quest to render abortion as imoral, as the killing of a human being, as a crime punishable like any other murder.
But society knows that's not the case. Most people throughout the ages have been aware of the need for abortions and of who to contact should that need arise, while turning a blind eye to whatever law pounishes the practice. Society has acknowledged that it is a necessary evil and has in the 20th century removed those laws in most civilized countries... only to have puritans come into power and undo that, returning us (in some US states) to the nasty old times.
One problem is that these puritans are well funded and gather a huge support (hence why they are turning the law around in some places) which suggests that this is part of a ploy from big-business to get the common folk to breed more and at an earlier stage in life which is also a stage where they are in a position to make less money thus leading to poorer families from where will stem more compliat workers... Businesses just want to keep on raking in their ever increasing profits and this is one avenue to accomplish it.

Why spend money on social state-wide programs, when you can just get more and more people paying taxes and increasing profit margins? Simultaneously, keep those immigrants away to keep the vacancies for low paying jobs for this stream of new nationals who are willing to subject themselves to those demeaning wages.
So, Steve, what is more important to you - Corporations making money or people's welfare?

[Rhythmcs]

Doesn't have anything to do with any of that. In living memory abortifacients grew in our yards, could be ordered by mail, and the the pro-life side really was that. Pro life. Largely secular and deeply humanist, they made the case for child friendly policies as a means to prevent economic abortions - seeing this as a failure of our society and not the person seeking medical care. The same case that we make now. There were religious nuts, ofc, mostly catholic and a minority at that. Then the real demographic decline that informs forced birtherism presented itself. Christians realized that they were no longer a credible power bloc, they invented the contemporary idea of monolithic american christianity as a political tool - and in the bartering process between previously warring sub sects of abrahamics the thing mockingly called "the catholic issue" by everyone else was absorbed into political christianity.

It's not about babies. It's not about murder. It's not about sex..hell, it's not even about controlling women, specifically. It's like iraq. The point of it is doing it to show that they can, and the only weay they can really show how powerful they are is by manipulating a huge issue no matter the specifics or cost or consequences.

[pattylt]

I agree it’s partly a power play by a diminishing segment, the religious. It is, however also about control. One thing common amongst religions is various controls over sex. Since men don’t pay the pregnancy penalty except occasionally financially, they’re happy to let women bear the burden and the religions still control the right to sex. It’s why single pregnant women have been ostracized by society for generations. She’s the one that’s supposed to deny her sexuality while men hide theirs yet seem to have it more often than women. It’s why they try to control homosexuality because there’s no pregnancy punishment for it.

When the 60’s started the sexual revolution, it scared the crap out of religions…they were losing their moral control over people and had nothing but ancient views to counter it…and they lost, big time. We all discovered we had every right to have and enjoy sex and, with the pill, no heavy consequences. Even STIs are easily treated when we have an educated public. Another reason the religious will be fighting the pill. They want all consequences to fall on the woman. Include HIV treatments after that so those homosexuals will have a penalty, too. Then they’ll point to pregnant single women and homosexuals and think it’s because their god is punishing us…please send money…

[Rhythmcs]

The patriarchy targets men and women alike, and usually along the same disingenuous lines of attack. In the us, for example, it's pretty shitty to be a poor mom-to-be, but also pretty shitty to be a poor dad-to-be. Especially if you don't want to be one..and we tend not to think that these bodily autonomy and slavery arguments hold much water there. We think that because our views have been shaped by generations of patriarchs shitting on other men. Perhaps the real marker for "extreme bodily autonomy" doesn't have a thing to do with a uterus. Maybe it's men telling women they don't consent to fatherhood.

It's a mistake to think that the reich wing wants all consequences to fall on women. Women of color, sure. Liberal women, absolutely...but never reich wing women..no matter what they do. At least not until they run out of men that tick those boxes first, and then men and women who are part of their own movement but lower down the rungs. Political religion in the us took a hard turn in the 90s. There wasn't really any choice, a breeding generation after that wave in the 60's had left them with very few people to turn the lights out after service - and they knew even then they were never going to get any of those folks back.

Forced birtherism is just one part of a legitimate anti-majoritarian movement in the united states that has, unfortunately, done alot of the groundwork that would be required to establish perpetual minority rule in a quasi-legal fashion. The so called lawyers coup or autogulpe. They're not going to honor the rule of the peener havers club if they grab that ring. They never did before.

Let me put this another way, more lighthearted. If Marjorie Taylor Greene is what controlling our women looks like, then we're further on the way to true egalitarianism than we think.

[Rhythmcs]

-Adding to the above - it might help to consider the men/women split thing being a subtle part of the reich wing disinformation campaign. That..if you happen to be a man who thinks that stuff like this is detestable..you might still feel the motivation to lie about it to yourself, to your spouse, to everyone..and vote for it or support it because it's presented either earnestly or cynically as "good for men, gives men control" It's not good for men, it doesn't give men control. Never has. It places men within a system of control that there is history and no credible expectation of benefit from. Mostly, as a member of the group which law binds but does not protect - as opposed to the group that the law protects but does not bind - who this sort of stuff is actually for.

Ultimately, whatever they're doing to other people™ is only ever practice for what they will inevitably do to you.

[Aractus]

Wow. My God Steve you are out of touch with reality: out of touch with reality.

Hard Cases
Cases of rape and incest have special trauma associated with them. However, this is usually a red herring because if the reply were "Let's grant the exception in the case of rape or incest. Will you join us in opposing all other abortion?" the answer will most likely be no. While I would be willing to compromise to bring more people together against the vast majority of abortions, I do not see how these exceptions overcome the larger argument I have laid out above.

“These exceptions”? Friends of mine that worked in a remote aboriginal community in the NT, a multi-day car trip from the nearest major hospital, had four registered and (previously convicted and released) paedophiles in their community numbering less than 100. A ten year old child was visibly pregnant: ten. Not 11, not 12, not 14, not 15, ten years old. Are you saying a 10 year old child should carry her rapists child to term?

P1. It is morally wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being because human life has inherent dignity and value based on the capacity of the species

Yes most people agree with this, human life is valued above all other life.

P2. Human life begins at conception (scientifically established)

In Support of Premise 2:
• At the moment of conception, a unique genetic identity is formed, combining DNA from both the egg and sperm, creating a distinct human organism with its own individual and unrepeatable genetic code, separate from both the mother and father. Scientifically, conception marks the beginning of a continuous developmental process; the zygote, the earliest stage of human development, fulfills the basic biological criteria for life, including the ability to grow, metabolize, respond to stimuli, and reproduce cells. The zygote, formed at conception, is the initial stage of a human being's life cycle, initiating a complex process of development that, if uninterrupted by natural or external factors, will lead to the birth of a human child.

Pfft, no. That is not at all “scientifically established” and you're clearly unaware of the embryos that get discarded well before miscarriage or termination. Most human embryos never make it to term, so how does that fit into your view that “human life begins at conception”?

What you're saying is not scientific at all. Clinicians were saying, and this is in the scientific literature, going right back to the 19th century, that restrictions based on “quivering” or whatever else had no relevance to clinical science. Whether it moves or not, whether it has a heartbeat or not, it cannot survive outside a human body through to developing into a normal person (without birth deformities) until 24 weeks, and the survival rate is less than 50% at that stage.

P4. Abortion is the killing of a human life

C. Therefore abortion is morally wrong.

So if a woman is diagnosed with stage 3 cancer or stage 4 cancer and needs a termination in order to begin treatment it's “morally wrong?” What about anencephaly? No foetus with anencephaly has ever been born alive and survived for more than an hour or two.

This goes to demonstrate how out of touch you are. In America this is a political and religious issue, here in Australia it is not. In America you talk about possible exceptions for the life of the mother, but not the health of the mother like here in Australia, like in Canada, like in New Zealand, like in the United Kingdom, like in deeply-religious Ireland, and like in every singe European Union country. The US is the ONLY one that is arguing over drawing the line at “life of the mother” instead of “health of the mother”.

Maybe let that truth sink in for a moment, and maybe consider that when the rest of the democratic world all agrees about something that only the US doesn't, that maybe your position is archaic and unsubstantiated today.

Bodily Autonomy
The argument of bodily autonomy (the woman has a right to control what happens or does not happen to her body), while significant in many areas of ethics and law, faces limitations when considered against the right to life of the unborn. One major contention is the uniqueness of pregnancy as it involves two interconnected lives - the mother and the unborn child. The principle of bodily autonomy asserts an individual’s right to self-governance over their own body without coercion or interference. However, this principle becomes complex when one's autonomous decisions directly impact another life. In the case of pregnancy, the unborn child is uniquely dependent on the mother's body, creating a scenario where the rights of two individuals are deeply intertwined. Unlike other situations where bodily autonomy is invoked, pregnancy represents a unique biological relationship where the decisions of one individual (the mother) directly affect the survival of another (the unborn child). Pro-life advocates argue that the right to life of the unborn child should take precedence, as the right to life is a fundamental right from which all other rights emanate. Without life, no subsequent rights can exist, making it a primary right that should be protected.

Furthermore, the argument for bodily autonomy often overlooks the inherent responsibility that comes with the capacity to create life. The pro-life perspective emphasizes that engaging in actions that can result in creating a new human life carries with it a responsibility to that life. This is particularly significant in the context of human reproduction, which inherently involves the potential for creating a dependent life that requires protection and care. The right to life argument suggests that once a new human life is conceived, it possesses its own rights, including the fundamental right to life. The contention is that the unborn child's right to life cannot be overridden by the mother's right to bodily autonomy because the right to life is more fundamental and should be given priority in ethical considerations, especially when the unborn child is considered an innocent and defenseless being. This line of reasoning sees the right to bodily autonomy as not absolute but rather as one that must be balanced against the rights of the unborn, particularly in situations where exercising bodily autonomy means ending a life.

I'm not going to bother with this argument because it's not that strong of an argument, but also most “elective terminations” are early anyway so I don't see what the problem is.

Quality of Life (of Child)
The "quality of life" argument against the pro-life position, which posits that a child should not be brought into the world if their quality of life is expected to be poor, encounters several ethical challenges. Firstly, this argument inherently assumes the ability to accurately predict and judge the future quality of life of an unborn child, which is fraught with uncertainties and subjective biases. Life circumstances, medical advancements, and personal resilience play significant roles in determining one's quality of life, and these factors can change unpredictably. Moreover, the premise that a lower quality of life justifies ending a life before birth is ethically problematic, as it implies a valuation of human lives based on external conditions or abilities, rather than on inherent human dignity. Such a stance risks devaluing the lives of individuals living with disabilities or in challenging circumstances, promoting a potentially discriminatory view of human worth. The pro-life counterargument emphasizes the inherent value of every human life, regardless of the predicted quality of life, advocating for a societal responsibility to support and improve the lives of all, rather than preemptively ending them based on presumed future hardships.

Furthermore, the quality of life argument often overlooks the potential for positive outcomes and societal contributions that can arise from lives initially perceived as disadvantaged. History is replete with examples of individuals who, despite significant adversities, have not only lived meaningful lives but have also enriched the lives of others. This perspective advocates for a more inclusive and hopeful view of human potential, one that recognizes the unpredictability of life trajectories and the capacity for growth, resilience, and contribution in even the most challenging circumstances. It also calls for a broader societal commitment to improving conditions for all lives, rather than selectively deeming some lives as unworthy of a chance to begin. This approach is consistent with the principle that every human life has value and potential, and that society should work towards creating supportive environments and opportunities for all individuals to thrive, regardless of the challenges they may face from the outset.

This too falls under “elective termination”.

Needed for Equality with Men
The argument that abortion is necessary to ensure equality between men and women is counter to the ideas of classical feminism, which emphasizes the empowerment and value of women's unique biological and social roles, rather than seeking parity through negating these roles. Classical feminism advocates for recognizing and celebrating the distinct capabilities of women, including their potential for motherhood, as a source of strength and not as a hindrance to equality. This perspective suggests that true equality is not achieved by enabling women to imitate men or by downplaying uniquely female experiences, such as pregnancy and childbirth, but by valuing these experiences and ensuring that society accommodates and supports women in these roles. By insisting that women must have the option to terminate a pregnancy to compete with men on an equal footing, there's an implicit suggestion that the natural biological functions of women are a disadvantage or an impediment. Classical feminism would argue for a society where women's reproductive capabilities are not seen as a barrier to their success but are respected and supported, enabling women to thrive both in their professional and personal lives without having to sacrifice one for the other.

Furthermore, the notion that abortion is necessary for women's equality can be seen as a capitulation to a societal structure that fails to adequately support women, particularly in the realms of maternity leave, childcare, and workplace flexibility. Instead of advocating for the right to opt out of motherhood through abortion, classical feminism would call for systemic changes that genuinely level the playing field – such as robust parental leave policies, affordable child care, and workplace accommodations for pregnant and parenting women. This approach lifts women up by addressing the root of the inequality, rather than accepting a societal framework that inherently disadvantages them for their reproductive capabilities. Classical feminism seeks to empower women to embrace their womanhood in all its facets, advocating for societal shifts that honor and support women's roles as both bearers and nurturers of life, thereby promoting true equality that celebrates, rather than diminishes, what it means to be a woman.

Wow you are so out of touch with reality. Good luck bringing a child to work in my workplace, that just would not be safe for the child no matter so-called “workplace flexibility”. If our employer made a decision that parents could bring their children to work then I can almost guarantee a child would die within a year, even if the only children allowed were infants and toddlers breastfeeding.

Hard Cases
Cases of rape and incest have special trauma associated with them. However, this is usually a red herring because if the reply were "Let's grant the exception in the case of rape or incest. Will you join us in opposing all other abortion?" the answer will most likely be no. While I would be willing to compromise to bring more people together against the vast majority of abortions, I do not see how these exceptions overcome the larger argument I have laid out above.

So back to where we started, and you're wrong. MOST Australians support sensible restrictions on termination, and most would support the restrictions being clinical guidelines and not in the criminal code.

THAT is how far away you are from the rest of us, and how out of touch you are with reality.

The way to prevent elective terminations is to promote contraception.

Rape and Incest exceptions only - are you serious? What about health of the mother, what about anencephaly - do you really want women giving preventable stillbirths? What about the sex workers who fall pregnant? They have rights too and every right not to carry a child they conceived while working to a client!!! That should be a no-brainer, unless you want to go back to biblical times where the contraceptive method for sex workers was to take it up the ass.

And I might add they had termination in biblical times. Numbers 5:11-31 details how a rabbi shall (that is a shall, not a may) induce a termination through the use of an abortifacient when an allegation about an unfaithful wife is made to him. Yes you read that right, or just read your Bible please: no investigation into who the father is, even if the father may be the husband, if he makes an allegation the rabbi shall induce the termination, or as you Yanks say: abortion.