Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because what is moral for us is designed specifically for us, or rather we are designed for what is moral for us. Which is a truism: we are designed to behave congruent with the manner with which we are designed to behave.

Product specifications don't define morality.

You said we are responsible for any foreseeable outcomes of our decisions. It is a reasonable foreseeable outcome that for every x amount of money and time we do not donate to stopping death through hunger a certain amount of people will die as a result, of which a certain percentage will be children(a high one if I am to believe the information I have read).

I disagree that this is a reasonable foreseeable outcome.

Throwing money at African poverty has created more problems than it's solved over the decades. I've heard firsthand accounts from friends who have done aid and development work in Africa of harm that's happened because of well-meaning but poorly executed programs when people just try to throw money at the problems of hunger and poverty. I think a good case can be made that most of the "charity" money that's flowed into Africa over the last century or so has had a net negative effect.

Also, limited human beings have to worry about something that an all-powerful god doesn't: opportunity cost. I only have a finite amount of time and money. A dollar or an hour that I devote to an African charity means that it won't go to whatever else I would've used that time or money for. Would the world get more net benefit from $1 for an NGO working in Africa than, say, $1 for some charity that's local to me? I don't know.

Your god, OTOH, wouldn't need to deprive one person to help another, would he?

All that being said, yes, there's definitely more I could do for good causes. For instance, while I use most of my vacation time for volunteer work, I've booked a week off this year for my honeymoon. Does this make me imperfect? Probably. But I don't claim to be perfect.

God is responsible for miscarriage as you are responsible for child deaths due to hunger.

I don't believe either is responsible on any meaningful level.

So... someone who causes a child to be born knowing it will starve, and then could easily feed the child but chooses not to is not not responsible for the child's death?

If such a person isn't responsible for their actions, who is?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Props to those of you who are arguing the inherent sexism of the absolutist anti-choice position concerning abortion at any point after conception. Women in these positions are not considered moral enough to make such a decision for her body because the existence of a fetus trumps her own bodily rights.

The argument of bodily autonomy of women is laughed off by anti-choicers. We as women are thought of as property once we are pregnant if not already before pregnancy. Even women who are married and exhibit a strong ethical framework in their lives are still not considered moral enough to have self-agency in their reproductive health.

This is why I fight. It's for our humanity and our equality for women's bodily autonomy to be the same as men's bodily autonomy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Really? ... Could you write me the legal or moral reasons why its illegal? If you dont mind of course.

Some info on the legal status of counselling.....
State Abortion Counseling Policies and the Fundamental Principles of Informed Consent

Some states require it, & some don't.
The fed (currently) allows requiring it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm so sorry you had to endure such evil from people.
Uhh, I HATE pro life protestors (outside of medical facilities.) They just take things way too far. There's a time and a place for that sort of thing and it's not outside of places of medicine. The people who have the audacity and the arrogance to judge people there should not only be barred from medical facilities (excluding medical reasons, obviously) but should be brought up on charges of harassment, imo.

And think of the harm done to the facility's landlord by those protesters!
I've had to use brutal means to get rid of these thugs.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Props to those of you who are arguing the inherent sexism of the absolutist anti-choice position concerning abortion at any point after conception. Women in these positions are not considered moral enough to make such a decision for her body because the existence of a fetus trumps her own bodily rights.

The argument of bodily autonomy of women is laughed off by anti-choicers. We as women are thought of as property once we are pregnant if not already before pregnancy. Even women who are married and exhibit a strong ethical framework in their lives are still not considered moral enough to have self-agency in their reproductive health.

This is why I fight. It's for our humanity and our equality for women's bodily autonomy to be the same as men's bodily autonomy.

Besides the fact that about half the people I care about are women, one of my motives here is selfish: I can't come up with any rational justification for why I should have any more bodily autonomy than a pregnant woman, so any threat to these rights for pregnant women is a threat to my rights, too.

 

[Sundance]

I've heard it said anti-abortion individuals believe that bodily autonomy is a facetious matter. If that's true, then judging by the sentiments (to the tune of "that's not a human being, just a collection of cells") of some pro-abortion individuals, they don't fare too better, do they? Concerning the particular statement aforementioned, does it not contradict basic human biology? Is it a cruel accusation? Does it not ultimately defeat the entire concept of bodily autonomy, being essentially that every member of the human race exists solely for his or her own ends, and that no person may infringe, in any fashion whatsoever, upon that irrevocable right? The answer to all of these questions is yes.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've heard it said anti-abortion individuals believe that bodily autonomy is a facetious matter. If that's true, then judging by the sentiments (to the tune of "that's not a human being, just a collection of cells") of some pro-abortion individuals, they don't fare too better, do they? Concerning the particular statement aforementioned, does it not contradict basic human biology? Is it a cruel accusation? Does it not ultimately defeat the entire concept of bodily autonomy, being essentially that every member of the human race exists solely for his or her own ends, and that no person may infringe, in any fashion whatsoever, upon that irrevocable right? The answer to all of these questions is yes.

It depends on how easily it is to deny women bodily security in regards to harassment, sexual assault, reproductive health and access to contraceptives, and abortion. If women are considered in any degree to be culpable for their own harm toward themselves, in that women are somehow deserving of a punishment or consequence for her provocation or situation in the form of physical pain, it's very easy to see a fetus as more deserving of merely existing than a woman deciding she doesn't want to be in pain or to be sick.

This is why a fetus simply existing is innocent, a violent husband was provoked and is partially innocent, a rapist must be avoided and therefore isn't totally guilty when given an opening, and that in each of these situations, a woman harmed or punished is par for the course for the audacity to own her reproductive organs on her own terms.

If you wish to compare rights, compare the rights protected for women and men. Not women and fetuses.

I never - not once - have seen somebody bemoan how men have more rights than a fetus and rally around having equal rights for a fetus to have with a man. Stop and think why that is the case.

 

[BilliardsBall]

To use dishonest tactics is using dishonest tactics.
Your appeal to emotion is a dishonest tactic.
Now, since you are now merely trying to justify your dishonesty....

You aren't the reincarnation of Leonard Nimoy, are you? Mister Spock, we humans require emotions. They help us to seek out new life, new civilizations.

If you're in America you may have noticed that in recent presidential and vice presidential debates, audience members wanted some more emotion to be shown.

Now, I do think God authored emotions. If you disobey your emotions, there are times when you will get into trouble.

Also, it's not a dishonest tactic to tell you I'm appealing to emotion. It's dishonest to tell you I'm appealing solely to facts when I'm appealing to emotion. Have you participated in any formal debate?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've heard it said anti-abortion individuals believe that bodily autonomy is a facetious matter. If that's true, then judging by the sentiments (to the tune of "that's not a human being, just a collection of cells") of some pro-abortion individuals, they don't fare too better, do they? Concerning the particular statement aforementioned, does it not contradict basic human biology? Is it a cruel accusation? Does it not ultimately defeat the entire concept of bodily autonomy, being essentially that every member of the human race exists solely for his or her own ends, and that no person may infringe, in any fashion whatsoever, upon that irrevocable right? The answer to all of these questions is yes.

Bodily autonomy is a modernist concept. Some say we've left the dark ages behind with good riddance, and I'd agree, but the Christian is to live for others, live for the Lord. For us, it's not a curse of motherhood, but a blessing. Same with fatherhood.

Now, I'll throw a question out there. How do you feel about deadbeat dads? Loser dads? Fathers who are baby daddies but not DADS?

"...Don't they have bodily autonomy, too?"

 

[Sundance]

It depends on how easily it is to deny women bodily security in regards to harassment, sexual assault, reproductive health and access to contraceptives, and abortion. If women are considered in any degree to be culpable for their own harm toward themselves, in that women are somehow deserving of a punishment or consequence for her provocation or situation in the form of physical pain, it's very easy to see a fetus as more deserving of merely existing than a woman deciding she doesn't want to be in pain or to be sick.

This is why a fetus simply existing is innocent, a violent husband was provoked and is partially innocent, a rapist must be avoided and therefore isn't totally guilty when given an opening, and that in each of these situations, a woman harmed or punished is par for the course for the audacity to own her reproductive organs on her own terms.

If you wish to compare rights, compare the rights protected for women and men. Not women and fetuses.

I never - not once - have seen somebody bemoan how men have more rights than a fetus and rally around having equal rights for a fetus to have with a man. Stop and think why that is the case.

Thank you, dearest Mystic. I truly appreciate your reply to my post. To respond, I'll be brief. I am not making a comparison between whose rights are more important. All I'm saying is that a human being has the right not to be deprived of his or her life for any unjust reason, and that he or she is not a mean to any other person's end. Now, as far as the rights of women and men are concerned, I personally believe that the husband being provoked does not justify violence and as such, he must be held accountable. Same for the rapist! So, tell me, why go after the innocent child and not the rapist if you truly wish for justice in the case of rape? I mean, he is very much guilty, not the child.

 

[Mister Emu]

Sorry, but that seems evasive. Would you prefer that a woman needing an abortion go to a hospital, or an alley? Say it was your daughter, she has an ectopic pregnancy and will die unless the foetus is aborted. Alley or clinic?

If an abortion is needed, of course a hospital. I have no issue with the legality of abortion as a life saving measure.

Sorry to doubt, but that seems a deeply misguided claim - where did you get that statistic from?

The Guttmacher Institute, a study done in 2004. I apologize as well, the numbers changed with that study(the one that informed my statement was from 1998. The total raised from 2.8 percent to 4 percent. (Which, in my opinion, is a good thing). Still, taking out rape, incest, and medical necessity, 95% of abortions are still left, ~950,000 out of ~1mm abortions are based on laziness and irresponsibility. I just can't find that acceptable no matter how you slice it.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

I am terribly sorry that your former girlfriend and you had that experience. That is not how people should be treated or how to uphold the dignity of humanity.

If your plan/goal is to put a blanket ban on every single type/kind/etc. abortion, then yes.

Well that isn't my plan or goal...

Really? ... Could you write me the legal or moral reasons why its illegal?

It's not illegal. He's nuts

In no way is it illegal to have counseling before an abortion.

Yes, it is illegal for a counseling session to be required by law before abortion is given. The Supreme Court has struck down laws that instituted such requirements as an unreasonable burden.

And yes, he loves a book more than people.

Please, I don't need a book to tell me its ****ed in the head to want to kill your own child.

He has no real regard for human life, his answer to this question makes that clear.

Says the person who supports free-for-all slaughter... I'm not sure it is possible to be more hypocritical even if someone were trying.

The problem with issues of morality, which Emu doesn't understand (as his reply to Bunyip vis a vis "bad actions" makes clear) is that it cannot be legislated.

So you don't believe in laws against theft, drug use, ivory trade, murder, physical assault, etc. etc. etc. etc. Our laws are full of and are informed by morality and it is an obscene pretense to act otherwise.

People like Emu don't have a problem

I cut short the B.S. you posted. You don't know me and every conclusion you made following this line is incorrect. Last, I'll give you the same advice I gave selina when she was arm chair analyzing me: stop, you are embarrassing yourself.

Imagining someone thinking that a 6 year old or even a 14 year old is a **** is incomprehensible to me.

Please don't agree with her lies. I never once considered, said, or even suggested that I might believe that the victims of rape are sluts, that a 6 year old could be a ****. That is egregious slander against my character.

Product specifications don't define morality.

I tend to disagree. Morality is defined by our willful ability to perform or reject our human nature.

I disagree that this is a reasonable foreseeable outcome.

While I agree there are questions about the efficacy of African charity, I don't think it is reasonable to deny that it helps at all.

Also, limited human beings have to worry about something that an all-powerful god doesn't: opportunity cost.

I'd say God does have an opportunity cost to worry about. Our moral growth, which would be denied opportunity.

Women in these positions are not considered moral enough to make such a decision for her body because the existence of a fetus trumps her own bodily rights.

Come now, it isn't that they are women, and honestly, that sentence doesn't even make sense. No one is "moral enough" to make the decision to kill their offspring, whatever you think that means.

This is why I fight. It's for our humanity

Then why degrade it so?

The fed (currently) allows requiring it.

Maybe I was mistaken, I last read that the SCotUS ruled them illegal... maybe it was a more narrow definition.

This is why a fetus simply existing is innocent, a violent husband was provoked and is partially innocent, a rapist must be avoided and therefore isn't totally guilty when given an opening,

This is ridiculous, trying to tie pro-life philosophy with domestic abuse and rape apology. The fetus is innocent because it is innocent of any crime or wrongdoing. I really think that there needs to be something like Godwin's law for abortion debates observing that as an abortion debate progresses the probability that the pro-life side will be slandered approaches 1.

If you wish to compare rights, compare the rights protected for women and men.

Neither men not women have full bodily autonomy as a right. Compared. None of us, in the U.S. are allowed to inject ourselves with whatever drugs we wish, we don't have full sexual freedom to choose our partners until at least middle adolescence(depends on state), we don't even have the right to kill ourselves, why on earth should anyone think they have the right to kill another human for their own convenience. It is a sham, a mockery of the very concepts of rights and liberty, a disgrace of justice, and the desolation of our humanity and dignity as people that this is sanctioned.

I never - not once - have seen somebody bemoan how men have more rights than a fetus and rally around having equal rights for a fetus to have with a man. Stop and think why that is the case.

Men aren't considered to have the routine right to slaughter said fetuses on whim... maybe that is why?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Thank you, dearest Mystic. I truly appreciate your reply to my post. To respond, I'll be brief. I am not making a comparison between whose rights are more important. All I'm saying is that a human being has the right not to be deprived of his or her life for any unjust reason, and that he or she is not a mean to any other person's end. Now, as far as the rights of women and men are concerned, I personally believe that the husband being provoked does not justify violence and as such, he must be held accountable. Same for the rapist! So, tell me, why go after the innocent child and not the rapist if you truly wish for justice in the case of rape? I mean, he is very much guilty, not the child.

The concept of determining innocence and guilt typically falls on the burden of the woman. That is why I brought up those terms of guilt and innocence. It's still very much a sexist world where women typically find themselves at odds with a culture that does not wish to grant them absolute authority over their own bodies.

Women who terminate a pregnancy are not "going after a child" regardless of how much one wishes to demonize a woman deciding the state of her health. They are people who are exercising their right to determine their physical health at the very least.

 

[Mister Emu]

For instance, while I use most of my vacation time for volunteer work, I've booked a week off this year for my honeymoon. Does this make me imperfect? Probably. But I don't claim to be perfect.

9-10ths, I wasn't intending my post to be shaming or say you didn't do enough or volunteer enough or donate enough to charity. I'm sorry if it came off that way. I don't agree that you are responsible in any way for the tragedies caused by others.

I don't think taking a week's vacation for your honeymoon, or even for a true vacation, makes or adds to your imperfection either, and my faith doesn't inform me otherwise either.

I guess I just wanted to say I wasn't trying to impugn your character in any way with that line of argument.

 

[JoStories]

I've heard it said anti-abortion individuals believe that bodily autonomy is a facetious matter. If that's true, then judging by the sentiments (to the tune of "that's not a human being, just a collection of cells") of some pro-abortion individuals, they don't fare too better, do they? Concerning the particular statement aforementioned, does it not contradict basic human biology? Is it a cruel accusation? Does it not ultimately defeat the entire concept of bodily autonomy, being essentially that every member of the human race exists solely for his or her own ends, and that no person may infringe, in any fashion whatsoever, upon that irrevocable right? The answer to all of these questions is yes.

No, it doesn't because the woman is a living and breathing individual with rights. Th fetus is neither breathing nor does it have rights. Th fetus, particularly in the early first trimester, IS a collection of cells. That may constitute life but by law, it's not legal life. A cruel accusation seems a bit much to me. The bottom line is that the fetus has no rights whatsoever until it takes a breath.

 

[JoStories]

You aren't the reincarnation of Leonard Nimoy, are you? Mister Spock, we humans require emotions. They help us to seek out new life, new civilizations.

If you're in America you may have noticed that in recent presidential and vice presidential debates, audience members wanted some more emotion to be shown.

Now, I do think God authored emotions. If you disobey your emotions, there are times when you will get into trouble.

Also, it's not a dishonest tactic to tell you I'm appealing to emotion. It's dishonest to tell you I'm appealing solely to facts when I'm appealing to emotion. Have you participated in any formal debate?

As a professor, I have and in any debate I have assigned to my students, emotions had no part. One can be passionate about the topic but the minute that emotions become the catalyst for their arguments they have failed.

 

[Marisa]

Bodily autonomy is a modernist concept. Some say we've left the dark ages behind with good riddance, and I'd agree, but the Christian is to live for others, live for the Lord. For us, it's not a curse of motherhood, but a blessing. Same with fatherhood.

Now, I'll throw a question out there. How do you feel about deadbeat dads? Loser dads? Fathers who are baby daddies but not DADS?

"...Don't they have bodily autonomy, too?"

Which part of the man's body does the fetus require for continued development?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Come now, it isn't that they are women, and honestly, that sentence doesn't even make sense. No one is "moral enough" to make the decision to kill their offspring, whatever you think that means.

You know what, Emu. You're a friend, but ffs, knock off the condescending attitude toward women who want to terminate their pregnancies. There are far more pregnant women who do not want to carry to term than you are aware of.

Then why degrade it so?

I certainly don't. I once shared your thoughts. And the misogyny I held was full of condemnation for women who didn't regard the fetus more so than their own lives.

But the anti-choice position surely degrades the humanity of women. Through and through.

Maybe I was mistaken, I last read that the SCotUS ruled them illegal... maybe it was a more narrow definition.

Of? These breaks in quotes can get lost in translation.

If it's that it's illegal to rape. Yes. To abuse a spouse. Yes. To force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term? Well, it isn't criminalized but it's the same concept against the rights of women.

This is ridiculous, trying to tie pro-life philosophy with domestic abuse and rape apology. The fetus is innocent because it is innocent of any crime or wrongdoing. I really think that there needs to be something like Godwin's law for abortion debates observing that as an abortion debate progresses the probability that the pro-life side will be slandered approaches 1.

Shocking. You equate pro-choice people with murderers and free-for-all-slaughter advocates? And you have the audacity to complain about being slandered and want pro-choice to handle your arguments with kiddie gloves? No way. Deal with it, bro.

Neither men not women have full bodily autonomy as a right. Compared. None of us, in the U.S. are allowed to inject ourselves with whatever drugs we wish, we don't have full sexual freedom to choose our partners until at least middle adolescence(depends on state), we don't even have the right to kill ourselves, why on earth should anyone think they have the right to kill another human for their own convenience. It is a sham, a mockery of the very concepts of rights and liberty, a disgrace of justice, and the desolation of our humanity and dignity as people that this is sanctioned.

False equivalence is dripping from your post here. The use of your body without your consent is what is at issue here, Emu. What you listed are what ALL of us are equally subjected to. That's a measure of equality. When it comes to sexuality and reproductive health, it's full force against women when it comes to contraceptives, family planning services, cultural honor/shame tactics (those purity balls where dad has ownership of his daughters chastity and sexuality? Ugh..), and including abortions as an option for women who do not want to be pregnant. Men are not subjected to the same level of bodily autonomy in regards to sex and reproductive health.

My husband changed his mind on getting a vasectomy at 40 in spite of our years of agreement beforehand. And you know what? It's his body. How dare I or anybody else think he was obligated to follow through no matter how many times we talked about in in our thirties. He changed his mind. I supported him (and still support him) 100%.

Men aren't considered to have the routine right to slaughter said fetuses on whim... maybe that is why?

Because your biology is yours. I want the same level of autonomy as you. I have Roe vs Wade thankfully to provide the best compromise between fetal viability and women's right to determine her reproductive health.

I don't tolerate circumstantial autonomy over my own body.

 

[SomeRandom]

And think of the harm done to the facility's landlord by those protesters!
I've had to use brutal means to get rid of these thugs.

True! The fact these lowlife bullies get away with this is sickening!

 

[Mister Emu]

You know what, Emu. You're a friend, but ffs, knock off the condescending attitude toward women who want to terminate their pregnancies. There are far more pregnant women who do not want to carry to term than you are aware of.

Yeah, I can get a bit caustic, but I stepped into being called a liar, because you know, no one can have an honest disagreement about the morality and legality of abortion, we all have to hate women and want to repress their sexuality. It only got worse from there. Even you called me as good as a rape apologist. I deal with people attacking me like that with condescension; quite frankly, its what I think attacks like that deserve. If you won't engage me for who and what I actually am and have to make **** up like I'd call a 6 year old rape victim a **** or that I'd apologize for a rapist, or people want to falsely analyze me and say I'm pretty much a walking piece of **** that doesn't care about people, well that isn't a very fair discussion to begin with, now is it. I'm human and I'm going to lash out in situations like this when I am so attacked.

I certainly don't. I once shared your thoughts. And the misogyny

But the anti-choice position surely degrades the humanity of women.

I disagree. The pro-life(a request upocoming) position uplifts and embraces humanity, while the pro-choice position rejects and casts it down. Also, I'll request that we both have the common courtesy to use the accepted monikers each side has chosen. Pro-life isn't a wildly inappropriate, meaningless, or deceptively dishonest appellation. It is just further down that path where it is automatically assumed that I, and anyone like-minded, is acting in bad faith; that the goal isn't really the protection of life, but the removal of the choices of women.

Of?

Sorry, I try to be comprehensive, and I don't like posting multiple times in a row... I knew the reply was getting unwieldy, I'll have to break it up better next time. I was talking about requirements by law to have counseling before abortion. I know that the SCotUS has struck some of them down, and I assumed it was a general ban on the practice.

Shocking. You equate pro-choice people with murderers and free-for-all-slaughter advocates? And you have the audacity to complain about being slandered and want pro-choice to handle your arguments with kiddie gloves? No way.

I think elective abortion is murder... that is my sincerely held belief, and while it isn't a pleasant one, we couldn't have an real discussion if I didn't express it. If you believe that makes me a monster fine, I can deal with that. But the free-for-all slaughter bombastic statement and real massive condescending attitude came after the slander, after the lies about me and my positions, not before. Do you not see the difference between belief that an act you defend is evil and the assumption that I am discussing in bad faith, that I don't want to defend what I view as innocent life, but rather I'm informed by misogyny and a desire to control women?

When it comes to sexuality and reproductive health, it's full force against women when it comes to contraceptives, family planning services, cultural honor/shame tactics (those purity balls where dad has ownership of his daughters chastity and sexuality? Ugh..), and including abortions as an option for women who do not want to be pregnant.

But we're not talking about access to contraceptives, and family planning, and cultural honor and purity balls and islam or all those other things.

My husband changed his mind on getting a vasectomy at 40 in spite of our years of agreement beforehand. And you know what? It's his body. How dare I or anybody else think he was obligated to follow through no matter how many times we talked about in in our thirties. He changed his mind. I supported him (and still support him) 100%.

There are no exact equivalencies to abortion, there is nothing else like pregnancy, and this example is no less a false one than mine were. If you want to sterilize yourself, go for it, more power to you if its reversible and you make that decision. My point was that none of us have or can expect to have absolute bodily autonomy, male or female. That pregnancy is a biological scenario unique to women doesn't make it anti-woman to discuss or desire banning the ending of pregnancies with elective abortion.

Because your biology is yours. I want the same level of autonomy as you.

You want a special autonomy granted for pregnancy, it is special because pregnancy is special and unique; I just can't agree that you should have it, that the authority to take life is handed out like that.

To sum up what I consider the important thoughts: We can have strongly held beliefs that diverge greatly, they can even be harsh beliefs. But we should assume that the other is coming in good faith to the discussion. Further, if you(anyone) want to point out somewhere that I haven't addressed that you view I was being overly harsh(as I said, I know in debates I can be caustic and sometimes I don't realize if I've crossed the line), unfair or represented someone's view incorrectly I will review it and respond.

 

[Revoltingest]

Maybe I was mistaken, I last read that the SCotUS ruled them illegal... maybe it was a more narrow definition.

It's possible that some forms of counseling masquerading as onerous discouragement of abortion were ruled illegal.
Just guess'n here.