Abortion

[A Vestigial Mote]

Actually the term pro-choice came about as a response to conservatives deciding to call themselves pro-life and wanting to paint liberals as pro-death in the process. The use of pro-choice wasn't intended to hide things to be ashamed of. It was simply an attempt to clarify that they are not pro-death, but rather support the right of a woman to make such a personal decision for themselves.

I understand exactly why the term "pro-choice" was selected... However, considering what actually goes on with an abortion, the term "pro-death" is somewhat accurate, and "pro-choice" is a euphemism - which, in my opinion - and what I have actually been arguing without necessarily realizing it - represents the situation to far less a degree.

 

[McBell]

Again, I have a feeling this is only a difference in what you define to be a "right". You seem to be building in the "societally/communally accepted" aspect, which I am not taking into account, by default. By the definition I posited, I believe that I have "just claim" over my thoughts. I have "just claim" over control of my extremities. Whether or not you consider "just claim" to be "illusion" is up to you - but it is not an objective position by any means.

Rights are a concept that is applied arbitrarily.
Declaring you have the "right" only means that others agree that you should be allowed to do something.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Actually in the case of things like my own motor function, controlling my own thoughts, seeking out sustenance - I do not need the agreement of others that those things should be mine to do/control. The impetus lies with myself, objectively. I don't even need anyone else to be present on the Earth in order to exercise my dominion over those items.

The truth is that if someone puts you in a straight jacket then you DO need the agreement of whoever put you in the straight jacket to exercise your control over your motor functions. If you're locked up and have no access to food then you DO need the agreement of others to control whether or not you eat. I can stop you from controlling your own thoughts by pumping you full of drugs that make rational thought impossible. And if society doesn't agree that you should be afforded such rights then you're not going to get them. The reality is that you'd almost have to be the only person present of Earth to ensure that you could exercise such rights unimpeded. If you live is a society then you DO need the agreement of others in order to exercise such controls.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I understand exactly why the term "pro-choice" was selected... However, considering what actually goes on with an abortion, the term "pro-death" is somewhat accurate, and "pro-choice" is a euphemism - which, in my opinion - and what I have actually been arguing without necessarily realizing it - represents the situation to far less a degree.

I couldn't agree with you less. Saying that pro-death is more accurate suggests that anyone who thinks a woman should be able to make this choice for themselves believes that the woman SHOULD choose to end the pregnancy. I and those who support a woman's right to choose do NOT hope that women will end their pregnancies, we simply believe it's a choice that should be left to the woman in question to make. Pro-choice indicates PRECISELY what those who support a woman's right to choose are advocating for. Pro-death most certainly does NOT.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Rights are a concept that is applied arbitrarily.
Declaring you have the "right" only means that others agree that you should be allowed to do something.

Again, your usage of "right" is noted. And I will continue to adhere to my own usage for my own purposes.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

The truth is that if someone puts you in a straight jacket then you DO need the agreement of whoever put you in the straight jacket to exercise your control over your motor functions. If you're locked up and have no access to food then you DO need the agreement of others to control whether or not you eat. I can stop you from controlling your own thoughts by pumping you full of drugs that make rational thought impossible. And if society doesn't agree that you should be afforded such rights then you're not going to get them. The reality is that you'd almost have to be the only person present of Earth to ensure that you could exercise such rights unimpeded. If you live is a society then you DO need the agreement of others in order to exercise such controls.

Even within the straight-jacket, whatever control is being exercised on a person's musculature is their own. It does not belong to the person who put them in the straight-jacket.

Note that I only ever said "seeking sustenance" was your right. Not that a person has the right to sustenance.

If you have altered the state of my mind to the point that I can no longer think, then have you really controlled "me", or taken away my rights? Or have you altered me into something other than myself, to the point that you still aren't really in control of "me"? Look at it this way... if you had the means to stop my thinking processes completely, and you took away that "right", when you released me, do you think I would even be aware that you had impeded my "right" to think in the first place? And at that point, would it have mattered that you controlled my "rights" thus?

 

[Stevicus]

My thoughts on abortion is that, while I wouldn't call it "murder," I don't think it's so simple as just having a cyst removed or something like that. I suppose it might be closer to a vicarious form of "suicide" more than actual premeditated "murder."

I don't really think the state needs to get involved in it either. It's a personal, private medical issue between the patient and doctor.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I couldn't agree with you less. Saying that pro-death is more accurate suggests that anyone who thinks a woman should be able to make this choice for themselves believes that the woman SHOULD choose to end the pregnancy. I and those who support a woman's right to choose do NOT hope that women will end their pregnancies, we simply believe it's a choice that should be left to the woman in question to make. Pro-choice indicates PRECISELY what those who support a woman's right to choose are advocating for. Pro-death most certainly does NOT.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. Does the act of abortion involve more choice, or more death? Which do you think? Which is the more important aspect of it? Neither? Then why argue for the term "pro-choice" when it is obviously just a "nice way" of putting it?

I am also "pro-choice". Likely for different reasons than most. But my stance on the matter, and my support for the legality of abortion will never change my understanding of what it is at its most fundamental level.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I also argue that any pregnancy nowadays IS invited and permission for the fetus to live within the womb IS given when the man and woman involved have consensual sex, especially if the very, VERY effective contraceptive methods available to them are not used, or not used properly.

I'm just gonna slip in here and massively disagree. Even with the contraceptive methods that we have, there are bound to be failures and mistakes. The quality of a pill can be ineffective - the really good ones are far more expensive, and not everyone can afford that. Same with condoms; cheaper ones are less durable, and if you've got a latex allergy then you're going to be spending more on allergy friendly Snickers wrappers. But even then, condoms can break. Pills can not be effective. The simple act of a man and woman having sex does not grant a baby permission to the womb, the two saying "Let's have a baby" does.

There is no scientific grounds to denying other people abortions. Even without religion, it relies on ethics and personal morals, which are beliefs. "I believe this is wrong, so what you're doing that has no effect on me should be illegal."

 

[Milton Platt]

Are people dumb?

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

So I guess spontaneous abortions, which are far more frequent in god commiting murder? What are the legal rights of a zygot, anyway?

 

[McBell]

It doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. Does the act of abortion involve more choice, or more death? Which do you think? Which is the more important aspect of it? Neither? Then why argue for the term "pro-choice" when it is obviously just a "nice way" of putting it?

I am also "pro-choice". Likely for different reasons than most. But my stance on the matter, and my support for the legality of abortion will never change my understanding of what it is at its most fundamental level.

Pro-choice actually describes the situation more precisely.
The "debate" is about whether or not a woman is allowed to make the choice.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And people who espouses every sperm is needed

IT HAS BEEN SAID, and is now obligatory.

 

[arthra]

Are people dumb?

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

I believe that scientific discoveries have been used to develop weapons of mass destruction as well as in the case of abortion facilitating those who want to end the lives of unwanted children... that is the tools developed by scientific discoveries are being misused.

Example: aborting fetuses that are the "wrong" sex in India...

Selective Abortion Of Female Fetuses In India Creating Gender Imbalance Crisis

Aborting fetuses just because they are not wanted should be outlawed..

Some conditions of abortion can be necessary according to medical practitioners...

Medical reasons for abortion, while not as common, present much more difficult choices for the pregnant woman. Some women end up choosing abortion to prevent the birth of a child with serious medical problems while others have their own medical issues that could mean risking death or severe injury if the pregnancy is carried to term.

see:

Medical Reasons for Abortion

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Pro-choice actually describes the situation more precisely.
The "debate" is about whether or not a woman is allowed to make the choice.

The debate is also about whether or not the woman is allowed to impose the death.

 

[dianaiad]

I'm just gonna slip in here and massively disagree. Even with the contraceptive methods that we have, there are bound to be failures and mistakes. The quality of a pill can be ineffective - the really good ones are far more expensive, and not everyone can afford that. Same with condoms; cheaper ones are less durable, and if you've got a latex allergy then you're going to be spending more on allergy friendly Snickers wrappers. But even then, condoms can break. Pills can not be effective. The simple act of a man and woman having sex does not grant a baby permission to the womb, the two saying "Let's have a baby" does.

There is no scientific grounds to denying other people abortions. Even without religion, it relies on ethics and personal morals, which are beliefs. "I believe this is wrong, so what you're doing that has no effect on me should be illegal."

First....yes. Individual methods of birth control can fail. This is why multiple forms should be used. Look up the statistics; what are the odds that a woman's 'pill' will fail (she had a cold this month) AND the condom breaks, AND the spermicide didn't get all the little swimmers, AND the diaphragm ripped?

Personally, I think that a baby that shows up in the face of all that obstruction absolutely has earned the right to see if it can live through the next nine months.

Second: if we were talking about gay marriage or smoking pot or polygamy or a whole host of other things, I would agree with you. Those do not (in general) affect me. However, abortion?

Would you watch a woman put her newborn in a nest of rattlesnakes and do nothing because it 'doesn't affect you?" It doesn't, y'know.

Some things we resist because those things do affect our freedoms. Some things we resist because they injure the innocent--and can there be a more innocent (as in; completely free of guilt or responsibility for) human than a newly conceived human? I can't think of one.

BTW, I don't necessarily want to see abortion made illegal. At least, that's what my position used to be. I still want it UNTHINKABLE, so that the only time it is even considered is when the pregnancy causes grave risk to Mom, and even then it should be considered a tragedy and something to mourn, not celebrate over. Except for that, it should have a social stigma akin to putting roast toddler on the menu.

The longer I live, though, the more I think that a 'law against it' might be the only way to get there. Maybe if there was a 'law against it,' with very real consequences for both male and female involved, people might be more willing to actually think before they go have their jollies, and be more responsible about the birth control issue.

By the way, in cases of rape, I have come to think that, if the woman simply cannot handle the idea of bearing the child of her attacker and decides to abort the pregnancy, the rapist should be charged with murder.

 

[Scott C.]

Are people dumb?

I mean really when I was a non Christian Science clearly showed me abortion was murder

Regardless of any arguments as to when life starts and when a child should have "rights", based on science, religion, or ethics, I've never been able to understand how a woman can of her own free will ask someone to abort her child. It seems so contrary to human love and compassion and motherly instincts.

 

[dianaiad]

So I guess spontaneous abortions, which are far more frequent in god commiting murder? What are the legal rights of a zygot, anyway?

I see. So....because everybody eventually dies, it's ok for us to kill folks?

Or how about this one: I saw a story about a couple of volcanologists (a married couple) got too close to their work and were literally burned to death. Does that mean it is now acceptable for us to throw unwanted people into Mt. St. Helens the next time it acts up? Perhaps with a few chants and offerings of pineapples?

.....or....

Oh, never mind. The legal rights of a zygote are what the folks around it say they are. I think that a zygote should have one right; the right not to be killed simply because Mom doesn't want to be pregnant right at the moment. The right to TRY to live through the nine most dangerous months of its existence.

Just that: the right not to be killed because someone finds its life inconvenient.

 

[David1967]

I agree. I rationalize it like this. In all parts of the person's growth is essential to be a person. If you stop the process early is no different than stopping the process of aging by killing a mid-aged man. Once conception begins, life does. Our brains don't have to be completely formed for us to have life.

Well said Carlita.

 

[Curious George]

How so?

Actions show thought and belief.

 

[Curious George]

It doesn't matter whether you agree with me or not. Does the act of abortion involve more choice, or more death? Which do you think? Which is the more important aspect of it? Neither? Then why argue for the term "pro-choice" when it is obviously just a "nice way" of putting it?

I am also "pro-choice". Likely for different reasons than most. But my stance on the matter, and my support for the legality of abortion will never change my understanding of what it is at its most fundamental level.

Choice is more involved in the act of abortion than death. As the fetus is not alive anymore than a single cell is alive.