Abortion or No abortion. What's right and what's moral, etc

[ChristineM]

Claiming a right to do what you wish with your own body doesn't apply to someone else's body, and the fœtus is a someone else.

I think it does if that someone elses body is living off your body. It is up to the first person whether they provide nourishment or not

Your argument doesn't counter, or even address, their argument.

I don't really care, when they (most of whom are male) can get pregnant then they can come back and try their argument again

I'd define human as having a human genome -- which would apply even to a zygote.

Shall we say a person then?

That's where the relevant issue lies. Not in a mother's bodily integrity, but in the personhood of the fœtus.

The big sticking point. Luckily the law in civilised countries does not work on bronze age religion and emotion but modern medical facts.

 

[Valjean]

Say I tell you not put you hand in the fire or you will get burnt. You hear my warning, by you ignore the warning and burn yourself. It is not my fault for telling you how to avoid danger. My warning you may have hurt your ego by appearing to limit you choices. So you ignored the warning and suffer the consequences. You cannot blame me or nature for your choice to ignore natural cause and affect.

When it comes to sex, we're talking less rational planners and more moths. As Guitar's cry pointed out, the sexual urge can be practically irresistible. People are going to have sex impulsively. You're punishing human nature.

The Left has made it their quest to teach little children sex education, reproduction and birth control. They start young and have birth control pills in the shape of cartoon characters. I cannot see how anyone, who was supportive of that, and who lived through these lessons, can just ignore what was taught.

The same reason prey animals will throw all caution to the wind and have sex in plain view of any predators: hormones.

There appears to be correlation between sex education and the rise in sexual irrationality. Maybe as a test since the Left assumes guns are bad for culture, we can teach safe gun use in schools, to see is this type of education makes the problem of irrationality better or worse.

The correlation was established decades ago: Promiscuity and careless sex are inversely related to sex education, ie: the more sex education people get, the less casual, unprotected sex they have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The big sticking point. Luckily the law in civilised countries does not work on bronze age religion and emotion but modern medical facts.

It is not even a bronze age religion, but rather a modern reinterpretation of one. The Bible doesn't support this antiabortion nonsense. The Bible supports personhood at birth. They had a superstitious belief about breathing. The breath of life etc.. Exodus 21 22 has a strike causing a miscarriage. The result was a fine, not a death. Women were pretty much just property. If her pregnancy was ended that was a financial loss. Christians in the US changed that interpretation after Roe v Wade.

 

[Valjean]

I think it does if that someone elses body is living off your body. It is up to the first person whether they provide nourishment or not.

Please keep in mind that I'm playing devil's advocate here, and explaining the position of the anti-abortionists. We're in agreement about the right to abortion.

I don't really care, when they (most of whom are male) can get pregnant then they can come back and try their argument again

If you want your argument to have any impact, you should care. The argument you're presenting does not even address, much less counter, the argument of the right-to-lifers.

Shall we say a person then?

Yes. The concept of personhood, rather than species, is at the crux of the argument.

The big sticking point. Luckily the law in civilised countries does not work on bronze age religion and emotion but modern medical facts.

ROFL!!! Would that were true....

 

[Valjean]

If I'm reading it right, she was suggesting the anti-abortion religious (few) shouldn't get to dictate to the many (women). Whereas you're more generally arguing that the powerless need to be protected from the powerful.
In a sense I'd agree with you both, depending on context, and you seem to both be pro-choice but with different rationales.

Tickles my admittedly warped funny bone is all.

We're using different arguments to support a position we both agree with. I'm simply saying that the bodily integrity argument is irrelevant to someone who considers the fœtus not a part of the woman's body, but a separate individual with a God-given right to life. To such a believer, abortion would constitute murder, and be legitimately forbidden.

 

[ChristineM]

Please keep in mind that I'm playing devil's advocate here,

Yes, u understand that. Good game

If you want your argument to have any impact, you should care.. The argument you're presenting does not even address, much less counter, the argument of the right-to-lifers.

It does in my view, also in the view of many lawmakers. US religion that represents a few % of world population doesn't really have a say except in its own back yard

Yes. The concept of personhood, rather than species, is at the crux of the argument.

Yup

ROFL!!! Would that were true....

Again i am referring to civilised countries

 

[Valjean]

Yes, u understand that. Good game

???

It does in my view, also in the view of many lawmakers. US religion that represents a few % of world population doesn't really have a say except in its own back yard

Depends whom you're addressing. Are you arguing to lawmakers, or to anti-abortionists? People who believe the fœtus is not a part of the woman's body aren't going to be swayed by an argument that addresses only the woman, but not the fœtus.

Again i am referring to civilised countries

And I'm at a loss to think of any completely rational, "civilized" country, entirely free of religious influence.
Vulcan, perhaps?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Yes, that's a very good point. Nevertheless, the list of people who want to adopt a baby is long, so adoption is a solution. That is why abortion is a right that women have, but women are expected to know all the alternatives, before going through the procedure. We are speaking of healthy mothers carrying a healthy baby.

Yeah, but I don't want my genes to go forward, to be frank. My line is full of alcohol-prone, aggressive people who dislike each other. Seriously, they are nutty as hell. I can't handle the idea of creating someone who might be naturally angry and rebel, or be standoffish and paranoid etc. None of my dad's sibling get along with each other, or their kids, from what I can tell.

 

[ChristineM]

People who believe the fœtus is not a part of the woman's body aren't going to be swayed by an argument that addresses only the woman, but not the fœtus.

Hitting them on the head with a woman who is pregnant by gang rape wont sway them either so why bother? I'll take medical and scientific evidence over religion and emotion any day.

And I'm at a loss to think of any completely rational, "civilized" country, entirely free of religious influence.
Vulcan, perhaps?

Depends on the degree of religious influence. In America religion is making waves and forcing through laws that benefit s specific few and the exclusion of women's rights. Rather like sharia countries in my view

 

[Valjean]

Hitting them on the head with a woman who is pregnant by gang rape wont sway them either so why bother? I'll take medical and scientific evidence over religion and emotion any day.

I bother because my argument directly addresses the foundation of their argument, and may make them stop and think about it, rather than just promote religious dogma.

Depends on the degree of religious influence. In America religion is making waves and forcing through laws that benefit s specific few and the exclusion of women's rights. Rather like sharia countries in my view

Amen, sister.

 

[ChristineM]

I bother because my argument directly addresses the foundation of their argument, and may make them stop and think about it, rather than just promote religious dogma

I doubt it, no argument would make them stop and think about what that are doing, their righteous belief is all that matters

Amen, sister.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yeah, but I don't want my genes to go forward, to be frank. My line is full of alcohol-prone, aggressive people who dislike each other. Seriously, they are nutty as hell. I can't handle the idea of creating someone who might be naturally angry and rebel, or be standoffish and paranoid etc. None of my dad's sibling get along with each other, or their kids, from what I can tell.

My best friend has been with the same partner for decades. She told me she has never stopped taking the pill and her husband uses contraception too.
She has never got pregnant. Contraception works

 

[Subduction Zone]

My best friend has been with the same partner for decades. She told me she has never stopped taking the pill and her husband uses contraception too.
She has never got pregnant. Contraception works

No, contraception works most of the time. You did not prove that it always works.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

My best friend has been with the same partner for decades. She told me she has never stopped taking the pill and her husband uses contraception too.
She has never got pregnant. Contraception works

It also fails.
Your friend is unusual (and smart) in using multiple forms.

Pill fail rate with typical usage is around 9% annually. Condoms are around 18%. (ie. Not each time used...just an approximation across a year of 'typical' use.)

Sexually active couples can use contraception and get pregnant.

Source : Birth control pill: Side effects, risks, alternatives, and the shot

 

[amorphous_constellation]

My best friend has been with the same partner for decades. She told me she has never stopped taking the pill and her husband uses contraception too.
She has never got pregnant. Contraception works

Your anecdote isn't exactly comparable to the use of baye's theorem, or something

 

[Estro Felino]

Your anecdote isn't exactly comparable to the use of baye's theorem, or something

Casuistry shows that the pill taken regularly and for many years, is effective.
Of course there are so many factors, most of all the male's fertility. If it is particularly high, the pill becomes less effective.

 

[syo]

Women should have the right to abortion.

What you don't understand???

 

[Willamena]

It means that since the State makes contraception available and affordable, women are expected not to have an irresponsible sex life. And since the State takes care of the children that mothers decide to give for adoption, abortion cannot be considered a solution, unless the pregnancy and delivery jeopardize the psychic and physical health of the mother.

As well the men.

It's worded awkwardly in English, though.

 

[Willamena]

And so is violating the rights of the few by majority. Isn't it wrong to deny the rights of the weak or powerless, just because they inconvenience the powerful?

I don't think it's wrong, I think it's democracy.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Casuistry shows that the pill taken regularly and for many years, is effective.
Of course there are so many factors, most of all the male's fertility. If it is particularly high, the pill becomes less effective.

It might also show infertility somewhere, that is undetected, because a couple thinks the birth control works. Did you study statistics and logical outcomes in your education, because I think all of this might be based in math questions, that are somewhat advanced