Abortion

[dianaiad]

You may feel that way but people who feel it is ok to allow the choice obviously don't think it's murder. I wouldn't want an abortion but it's not my call to choose how people live and believe. Besides God kills way more fetuses than humans anyway.

1. Do you think that, if you run into a culture that honestly believes that killing and eating anybody they don't like is perfectly acceptable, would you just shrug your shoulders and say that it wasn't your call to choose how people live and believe? Now, I'm not talking about polygamy, or Saturday orgies, or dancing nude under the library steps at midnight while calling upon the ghost of Edgar Allen Poe, or gay marriage, or any belief or act that involves only themselves and willing, consensual volunteers. I'm talking about acts that affect and harm those who did NOT volunteer for the event. You know, like raiding the next town over for candidates for human sacrifices. That sort of thing. I'm willing to guess that you would not be all that blase' about it.

2. "God kills way more fetuses than humans anyway." my argument against abortion has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the existence of God. In fact, I think that it's more important to us as a species to stop this practice if there is NOT a God than it is if there is. If there IS, there is some hope that these humans have a possible existence elsewhere/when. If there isn't, if the atheists are correct, then they have absolutely no chance at all for a life, and idav? I find the callous wiping out of human life, if this life is all we get, as quite possibly the worst thing we humans do. As well, this argument strikes me as...what...sorry, chemobrain is giving me problems this morning. WHAT is the proper term for something this cynical and, frankly, illogical?

What you are arguing here is something like saying that BECAUSE that first nine months of human life is so dangerous, that this makes it OK to kill the survivors? I can imagine someone standing on the beach with an assault rifle aimed at the survivors of a shipwreck, shooting any of those who actually made the shore, excusing himself by saying that since so many of them did NOT survive, it's just fine and dandy to kill the ones who did.

These arguments, which I have seen many times, have never left me with anything but a very sour taste, and utter wonder at the capacity of humans to rationalize any horrific act.

 

[Thanda]

These arguments, which I have seen many times, have never left me with anything but a very sour taste, and utter wonder at the capacity of humans to rationalize any horrific act.

It's about expedience. When Europeans came to Africa they were well aware that we black people are as fully human as they are. Other than the shade of our skin (they themselves we not of the same skin colour) and our cultural practices (they also had differing cultural practices among themselves) there was nothing that made us different from them. However they needed our land and resources and we were an impediment to their goals. So they decided to tell themselves that we were not quite human so it would make it okay to kill us and enslave us. So the dehumanisation was not the result of a considered argument about the worth of a black man's life - the dehumanisation was a necessary step in allowing them to justify killing us so they could loot our land.

 

[Thanda]

It's about expedience. When Europeans came to Africa they were well aware that we black people are as fully human as they are. Other than the shade of our skin (they themselves we not of the same skin colour) and our cultural practices (they also had differing cultural practices among themselves) there was nothing that made us different from them. However they needed our land and resources and we were an impediment to their goals. So they decided to tell themselves that we were not quite human so it would make it okay to kill us and enslave us. So the dehumanisation was not the result of a considered argument about the worth of a black man's life - the dehumanisation was a necessary step in allowing them to justify killing us so they could loot our land.

Moral of the story? Many people have an vested interest in allowing the right to terminate a pregnancy they don't want. It is this that causes them to systematically dehumanise an unborn child so as to allow them to achieve their goal.

 

[Curious George]

Interestingly, part of the pain many women feel after having a miscarriage is caused by the fact that so many people tell her it's not so bad because it was just a fetus. In fact, I would wager that if society normalized (with attendant rituals) mourning for a miscarriage as much as they do for a newborn (or a human of any other, older, age) it would greatly assist women in their psychological and emotional recovery from the ordeal.

Another interesting point is that funeral insurance companies give much less for the funeral of a child - say a three year-old - than they do the funeral of a legal adult (over 18 or 21). So clearly humans are a bit ageist. But it may also have to do with the fact that a child knows and is known by less people than an adult - and therefore the expected number of people at their funeral is much less. In the same line of thinking then it may be that the reason they won't provide any funeral services at all for a fetus is because no one other than the mother has any direct relationship with the child.

The point is, all these reasons point to the fact that the reason fetuses are treated differently is not because they are not considered human. And there is actually a case to be made that it would in women's best interest for funerals to be normalized for fetuses.

And my point is, that when people start treating zygote and fetuses as humans in death rites, thenergized they will have removed an internal inconsistency if they wish to argue that they see them equal.

 

[Thanda]

And my point is, that when people start treating zygote and fetuses as humans in death rites, thenergized they will have removed an internal inconsistency if they wish to argue that they see them equal.

And my point is, our current internal inconsistency in which we treat a fetus differently from a new born when they die is what adds to the heartache women feel during a miscarriage .

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Cross posting from the other thread.

I don't believe human status, or even personhood status, is relevant to the discussion of legal abortion and body autonomy. As far as I'm concerned, it could be a fully adult person crawled up in there and the mother would still have the legal and moral right to have them removed. The only difference is an adult would be viable outside the womb, so should be removed live. With a non-viable embryo, live extraction would be pointless (at our current technology level anyway.

 

[Thanda]

Cross posting from the other thread.

It is important to note that when a woman goes to an abortion clinic for a lifestyle abortion, she fully intends to kill the baby and is not merely excercising her right to have the baby removed from her body.
Only women who have medically necessary abortions are hoping the baby would be able to survive outside her womb - the others are hoping the exact opposite .

 

[Curious George]

And my point is, our current internal inconsistency in which we treat a fetus differently from a new born when they die is what adds to the heartache women feel during a miscarriage .

Which might have merit. Yet, you are speaking of how society at large treats women, and I am speaking of how individuals treat remains.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It is important to note that when a woman goes to an abortion clinic for a lifestyle abortion, she fully intends to kill the baby and is not merely excercising her right to have the baby removed from her body.
Only women who have medically necessary abortions are hoping the baby would be able to survive outside her womb - the others are hoping the exact opposite .

I don't really care what the mothers reasoning is, though I think 'lifestyle abortion' is an eye roll worthy term invented for demeaning purposes. But again, I don't care if she just doesn't want stretch marks, as far as if abortions should be legally permissible.

 

[Thanda]

Which might have merit. Yet, you are speaking of how society at large treats women, and I am speaking of how individuals treat remains.

I'm talking about how society treats dead fetuses and how the inconsistency traumatizes women

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm talking about how society treats dead fetuses and how the inconsistency traumatizes women

Which is no more relevant than how much emotional value people put into pets. Does it traumatize people to learn that there is inconsistent support when a snake someone has had for 15 years dies? Saying 'it was just a snake' or 'I hate snakes' would be disrespectful to the person going through a grieving process, regardless of how you or society at large values snakes as pets.

 

[Thanda]

I don't really care what the mothers reasoning is, though I think 'lifestyle abortion' is an eye roll worthy term invented for demeaning purposes. But again, I don't care if she just doesn't want stretch marks, as far as if abortions should be legally permissible.

Oh I know you don't care. I'm just pointing out that the reasons you are putting forth as justification don't cross most women's minds when they go for an abortion. Their intent is to kill not to remove from their body. Infact they couldn't care less if the foetus didn't eventually leave their body as long as it was dead and wouldn't end up in being born as the baby they didn't want. So true is this in fact that these type of women would not be happy if there were an option to remove the baby without harm only for it to be given to them once it had matured.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Oh I know you don't care. I'm just pointing out that the reasons you are putting forth as justification don't cross most women's minds when they go for an abortion. Their intent is to kill not to remove from their body. Infact they couldn't care less if the foetus didn't eventually leave their body as long as it was dead and wouldn't end up in being born as the baby they didn't want. So true is this in fact that these type of women would not be happy if there were an option to remove the baby without harm only for it to be given to them once it had matured.

Oh really, you know what does and doesn't cross most women's mind eh?
Again, this just screams a sleazy call to emotion and personal defamation. Why not go conduct a poll, asking women who have undergone abortions if they would have preferred the embryo/fetus could have been kept alive outside their body and get back to me.

 

[Thanda]

Which is no more relevant than how much emotional value people put into pets. Does it traumatize people to learn that there is inconsistent support when a snake someone has had for 15 years dies? Saying 'it was just a snake' or 'I hate snakes' would be disrespectful to the person going through a grieving process, regardless of how you or society at large values snakes as pets.

Maybe, but the value of a life does not exist independently of other human beings. So how people feel about a thing matters (in truth it is all that matters ). And as it happens in some countries you can kill most animals without penalty while it others it is a criminal offence. It is all about value you see.

 

[Thanda]

Oh really, you know what does and doesn't cross most women's mind eh?
Again, this just screams a sleazy call to emotion and personal defamation. Why not go conduct a poll, asking women who have undergone abortions if they would have preferred the embryo/fetus could have been kept alive outside their body and get back to me.

Yes

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Yes

Very compelling.

 

[Thanda]

Oh really, you know what does and doesn't cross most women's mind eh?
Again, this just screams a sleazy call to emotion and personal defamation. Why not go conduct a poll, asking women who have undergone abortions if they would have preferred the embryo/fetus could have been kept alive outside their body and get back to me.

I don't need to. Studies already show that most women have abortion for birth control reasons. Ergo they want the baby dead.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I don't need to. Studies already show that most women have abortion for birth control reasons. Ergo they want the baby dead.

Sure if you're reducing 'birth control' to a semantical 'stops birth from happening through control methods' which would include everyone who has an abortion. While we're reducing the absurd, women who get life saving abortions also want the fetus dead, because they don't want to die.

Back to reality, should I ever get an abortion due to failure of my birth control and not being ready or willing to complete a pregnancy wouldn't change that I want live extraction to be successful. Ergo I don't want the fetus dead, but I'm still getting an abortion.

 

[Thanda]

Sure if you're reducing 'birth control' to a semantical 'stops birth from happening through control methods' which would include everyone who has an abortion. While we're reducing the absurd, women who get life saving abortions also want the fetus dead, because they don't want to die.

No they, those women (having medically necessary abortions) want the fetus removed though they know doing so will result in the baby's death. They, and only they, wish the baby could survive but know it won't. It is life for life and they are choosing their own life over the life of the baby - i.e. it is the self-defense argument.

Back to reality, should I ever get an abortion due to failure of my birth control and not being ready or willing to complete a pregnancy wouldn't change that I want live extraction to be successful. Ergo I don't want the fetus dead, but I'm still getting an abortion.

No you wouldn't want live extraction to be successful. This is given away by the fact they you are willingly (through no medical necessity) exposing the fetus to conditions you know for certain will kill it. Therefore you want the fetus dead and you know it - no amount of sophistry will change that fact.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No they, those women (having medically necessary abortions) want the fetus removed though they know doing so will result in the baby's death. They, and only they, wish the baby could survive but know it won't. It is life for life and they are choosing their own life over the life of the baby - i.e. it is the self-defense argument.




No you wouldn't want live extraction to be successful. This is given away by the fact they you are willingly (through no medical necessity) exposing the fetus to conditions you know for certain will kill it. Therefore you want the fetus dead and you know it - no amount of sophistry will change that fact.

Nope, according to your own ridiculous sophistry, women getting medical abortions would rather survive than giving the fetus the chance to survive without them, even if it means dying. Therefore they want the fetus to die. If they didn't, they would sacrifice themselves so that the fetus can live*.

*obviously doesn't apply to ectopic pregnancies where mutual destruction would be assured, but in situations like severe seizure or thrombosis or other situations where childbirth would only jeopardize the mother.

Anyway, I'm done. There's no point in continuing with your cheap calls to emotion and defamation.