Abortion

[GoodAttention]

What is it until it becomes human?

A part of its mother, who does have rights.

I mean, with a HUMAN sperm fertilizing a HUMAN egg and all...

Neither human sperm, nor ova, have rights either...

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Neither human sperm, nor ova, have rights either...

OMG! Imagine if they did! There'd have to be a whole government department monitoring and collecting after every male orgasm, and arranging for fair distribution to every ovum that bursts forth from it's nest in an ovary. Of course, fewer than 0.000000001% of all those sperm have a chance, but may the best man (??) win, as it were.

 

[GoodAttention]

OMG! Imagine if they did! There'd have to be a whole government department monitoring and collecting after every male orgasm, and arranging for fair distribution to every ovum that bursts forth from it's nest in an ovary. Of course, fewer than 0.000000001% of all those sperm have a chance, but may the best man (??) win, as it were.

That's how it starts, and when you don't comply they will come for your testicles and give them a better home pickling in a jar in an undergroung warehouse next to Area 51.

 

[McBell]

If you were being consistent, you would be arguing for similar treatment - legal or ethical - of unfertilized eggs, sperm, and embryos.

... unless you don't consider your definition of "personhood" to have a bearing on treatment of a thing. Is that the case?

then I am being inconsistent.

 

[McBell]

Right — we force on all unborn babies the right of living. How terrible of us.

If this is all the better you can do, then you got nothing and no further discourse is required to dismiss your opinion as nothing more than faciful wishing.

Have A Nice Day.

 

[McBell]

i have to guess that you don't think that is a person but are just not mature enough to say so.

So why isn't it a person? It's obviously a Homo sapiens and it's an individual...

Yiou are free to make what ever guesses you like.

I am done with the one way inerogation.
Until you get caught up with the answering of questions, I will not be answering any more of yours.

If in your mind that is what it is to be "immature" then so be it.

I do, however, wonder how immature you would find your behaviour towards me if you were the one on the receiving end.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not loving a baby doesn't mean the caregiver doesn't fulfill the baby's basic needs (unless love is counted as one).

It is considered a need, along with a supportive and stable environment amd consistent discipline, for optimal development.

 

[Argentbear]

Yiou are free to make what ever guesses you like.

I am done with the one way inerogation.
Until you get caught up with the answering of questions, I will not be answering any more of yours.

If in your mind that is what it is to be "immature" then so be it.

I do, however, wonder how immature you would find your behaviour towards me if you were the one on the receiving end.

I probably wouldn't feel it an adult response to take my ball and run home to mother.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Women. They're pregnant women. I don't do anything to them. I say it's wrong of them to get themselves pregnant and then to abort because "they're not ready" or whatever.

How do you know that or it is just your opinion?

 

[McBell]

I probably wouldn't feel it an adult response to take my ball and run home to mother.

And still you run tail tucked from the meat of the posts you respond to...

 

[Ponder This]

Touchy topic, I know.

I am making this thread because I would like pro-choicers to help me better understand the pro-choice position.

Progressive society says abortion is ok. I am against abortion. What I mean is I don't think it is a good thing. But I am open to understand why progressive society as well as many people in my life are okay with it. I struggle to fathom it.

@Quintessence said in another thread "forced birth is disgusting no matter how you slice it" and I guess that makes sense. The one thing I am SO GLAD I will never under any circumstances experience is birth. If I was female, I STILL wouldn't give birth. Screw that, I'm not getting torn apart. Birth is absolutely terrifying and the only reason it isn't relatively fatal is because modern technology.

Anyways, can you guys offer me your perspectives on what makes abortion acceptable?

My perspective is that I wouldn't strangle a baby, nor advocate for it. So why would I advocate for abortion?

But I realize now that there is much more nuance to it.

Yet I defy the assertion that it is not human life. If you are going to participate in a conversation on this thread here with me, justify the murder of the unborn human, but do not deny that it is an unborn human. I won't have it in this thread. Help me understand what makes it right to kill those yet born without dehumanizing the victims.

Spoiler: My abortion

I was married to a girl once. Pregnant we got. Schizophrenic I am. Unstable and unmedicated at the time I was. Wife didn't want "her kid coming out like me" (a valid fear of genetically passing on schizo) as well as she didn't want to be stuck with me in her life because of a kid. So she got rid of it despite all of my crying and pleading. Took me years to be even cordial with her again. But I support her decision now. She did what was best for her.

Most distraught I ever was. Years later I still mourn the death of my child. Yet people in my life don't understand. Coworkers congratulated me on the abortion. Therapist was baffled I was sad about it, as it was a "fetus". Friends told me I shouldn't feel bad for I never had a child.

How dare this society take away my right to mourn.

I have accepted that abortion is ok. Not because I think it is ok, but society has told me it is ok. And I am tired of hating society.

I just don't understand why. Why shouldn't I mourn the death of my child? And why is abortion ok?/SPOILER]

The primary pro-life argument is that abortion is generally immoral, which is why you ought not to do it. It's a very compelling argument.

That's why I think the best argument for pro-choice is not to argue whether or not abortion itself is moral, but instead argue as to who decides whether or not to abort.
Ownership is a major part of the question of who decides a matter. For example, if I own property and there is a tree on the property, then I am, generally, the one who decides whether or not to cut it down. It might be a terrible thing to cut down a perfectly heathy, beautiful tree that uplifts all who see it, but because I own the tree, the primary decision is, generally, mine. If I own a cow or a sheep, it is generally my decision if I want to kill it. If I own a dog or a cat, it is generally my decision if I want to kill it. Whether I kill the animal myself or hire someone else to kill it for me, I decide if it lives or dies regardless of the objections others may have to the slaying of these living creatures.

This is the best argument for pro-choice: they argue the woman is the sole owner and therefore the sole arbiter of the life or death of the fetus, or of the baby, or of the child, or of whatever it is being called. And this is why you can have people who generally agree that abortion is immoral, but the woman gets to decide to do it anyway.

Granted the woman is not actually the sole owner, because the man is also a contributor in any meaningful relationship. Such meaningful relationships come with implicit agreements. But the argument from the pro-choice point of view is, generally, to disregard the rights of any men involved in the procreation process and claim it is solely the purview of the woman. However, the reality is that procreation is, properly, the joint decision of a man and woman together and not simply a decision that one of them gets to make and the other has no say in.

There are also other people who may have a say in the matter, grandparents, other family members, other members of society, or even the souls of the unborn. The prochoice generally argue that the woman is the sole arbiter and that she has no obligation to anyone else.

 

[McBell]

A part of its mother, who does have rights.

At what point, exactly, does the mother become something other than human?
Follow up question, at what point, exactly, does the mother become human again?
Follow up question 2, what exactly does the mother become when she stops being human?

Neither human sperm, nor ova, have rights either...

So what, exactly, is the problem?

 

[an anarchist]

The primary pro-life argument is that abortion is generally immoral, which is why you ought not to do it. It's a very compelling argument.

That's why I think the best argument for pro-choice is not to argue whether or not abortion itself is moral, but instead argue as to who decides whether or not to abort.
Ownership is a major part of the question of who decides a matter. For example, if I own property and there is a tree on the property, then I am, generally, the one who decides whether or not to cut it down. It might be a terrible thing to cut down a perfectly heathy, beautiful tree that uplifts all who see it, but because I own the tree, the primary decision is, generally, mine. If I own a cow or a sheep, it is generally my decision if I want to kill it. If I own a dog or a cat, it is generally my decision if I want to kill it. Whether I kill the animal myself or hire someone else to kill it for me, I decide if it lives or dies regardless of the objections others may have to the slaying of these living creatures.

This is the best argument for pro-choice: they argue the woman is the sole owner and therefore the sole arbiter of the life or death of the fetus, or of the baby, or of the child, or of whatever it is being called. And this is why you can have people who generally agree that abortion is immoral, but the woman gets to decide to do it anyway.

Granted the woman is not actually the sole owner, because the man is also a contributor in any meaningful relationship. Such meaningful relationships come with implicit agreements. But the argument from the pro-choice point of view is, generally, to disregard the rights of any men involved in the procreation process and claim it is solely the purview of the woman. However, the reality is that procreation is, properly, the joint decision of a man and woman together and not simply a decision that one of them gets to make and the other has no say in.

There are also other people who may have a say in the matter, grandparents, other family members, other members of society, or even the souls of the unborn. The prochoice generally argue that the woman is the sole arbiter and that she has no obligation to anyone else.

To be fair, the mother is the one who has to be pregnant and go through the terrifying and sometimes fatal birth process. Perhaps this alone is enough to disregard the father's say in the matter. But yes, I do find myself disagreeable with the lack of consideration for the father's opinion, but then again, this may be necessary.

 

[GoodAttention]

At what point, exactly, does the mother become something other than human?
Follow up question, at what point, exactly, does the mother become human again?
Follow up question 2, what exactly does the mother become when she stops being human?

A human only has rights once they are born. Hence why we all get a birth certificate.

A human has no rights once they are dead. Hence why we all get a death certificate one day.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

So what, exactly, is the problem?

I have no problem, but I think your problem is that unborn humans have no rights, which is, ironically, the same as a dead human.

 

[McBell]

A human only has rights once they are born. Hence why we all get a birth certificate.

A human has no rights once they are dead. Hence why we all get a death certificate one day.

I'm not sure what you are asking.

You said the unborn is not human because it is a part of its mother.
Even the mothers toenail is human.
But the unborn child is not.
Thus meaning that at some point the mother had to stop being human.
Otherwise the unborn would be human regardless of, like the mothers toes, it is part of the mother.

So once again:

At what point, exactly, does the mother become something other than human?​

Follow up question, at what point, exactly, does the mother become human again?​

Follow up question 2, what exactly does the mother become when she stops being human?​

​

​

I have no problem, but I think your problem is that unborn humans have no rights, which is, ironically, the same as a dead human.

I do not have a problem with the unborn not having rights.

Nor do I have a problem with the dead not having rights.

 

[GoodAttention]

You said the unborn is not human because it is a part of its mother.
Even the mothers toenail is human.
But the unborn child is not.
Thus meaning that at some point the mother had to stop being human.
Otherwise the unborn would be human regardless of, like the mothers toes, it is part of the mother.

So once again:

At what point, exactly, does the mother become something other than human?​

Follow up question, at what point, exactly, does the mother become human again?​

Follow up question 2, what exactly does the mother become when she stops being human?​

I never said the unborn is not human, I said "if it was a human it would have rights".

In this debate I sit on the fence (gathering blisters no less), so my comments tend to be double entendre.

Humans have rights, an unborn human does not, so how do we justify this? We call it a blastocyst, or an embryo. Once we get to fetus it gets difficult, so that was the point I was making.

I do not have a problem with the unborn not having rights.

Nor do I have a problem with the dead not having rights.

I agree with you here.

 

[Pawpatrol]

And what do you say to the victims of rape?

They can have an abortion.

Yet, women should also take measures to protect themselves against it.

 

[Pawpatrol]

And there it is: rapist mentality.

Consent to one thing isn't consent to just that thing and not anything else.

Consent to sex isn't consent to pregnancy, just as someone inviting you into their apartment isn't consent to sex.

Hmm.. wearing a necklace of genuine diamonds in a neighborhood that is known for muggings, robbery and other violence isn't a consent to being robbed. Certainly not, but is the person who does so acting intelligently?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And what do you say to the victims of rape?

They can have an abortion.

Yet, women should also take measures to protect themselves against it.

And what do you say about victims of incest?

 

[Pawpatrol]

I find arguements laced with such moral indignation vastly inferior. Weak? Incapable? Keep her pants on? Committs? Such holier-than-thou approaches and verbage, especially for something that doesn't effect you, need not apply for proper morality.

It affects me very much. I have to live in this world you know.