• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Can we compromise on abortion?

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
A woman is an adult female human being
An overly simplistic lay dictionary definition that isn't how the medical community defines woman. Which makes the distinction between AFAB and AMAB (as well as CAFAB/CAMAB for intersex). An AMAB person can still be a woman on all medical documentation.
A transwoman is an adult male that has sought social and/or medical expression that correlates with their sense of self that differs from their actual biology.
Not sure how trans women got looped into this. But psychology is a part of biology and gender, while also including social and cultural concepts, is not removed from psychological concepts which are biological. E.g. transwomen are still biological women. They're just not (often) female sexed at birth.
Intersex persons are a very tiny percentage
Inclusive language exists to keep small groups from being excluded, which does a disservice to them and the medical practice at large. And besides, not nearly as rare as a lot of other rare conditions we do modify medical language use for.
As I said before, pregnancy occurs in women and transmen because they are both biological females. A transman may socially self-identify as a man but he is still, biologically speaking, an adult female - i.e., a woman. It's one of those instances when their biology doesn't mesh with their self-identity.
See previous. To recap, woman =/= female, psychology is biology, and sex is bimodal and not reduced to either chromosomal, gonadal or both. Gender is not sex and all trans men's paperwork will and should say 'male AFAB'.
 

Callisto

Hellenismos, BTW
An overly simplistic lay dictionary definition that isn't how the medical community defines woman. Which makes the distinction between AFAB and AMAB (as well as CAFAB/CAMAB for intersex). An AMAB person can still be a woman on all medical documentation.

Not sure how trans women got looped into this. But psychology is a part of biology and gender, while also including social and cultural concepts, is not removed from psychological concepts which are biological. E.g. transwomen are still biological women. They're just not (often) female sexed at birth.

Inclusive language exists to keep small groups from being excluded, which does a disservice to them and the medical practice at large. And besides, not nearly as rare as a lot of other rare conditions we do modify medical language use for.

See previous. To recap, woman =/= female, psychology is biology, and sex is bimodal and not reduced to either chromosomal, gonadal or both. Gender is not sex and all trans men's paperwork will and should say 'male AFAB'.

Not overly simplistic, just simply factual. As for the medical and psychiatric communities, if you don't think there's profiteering at the expense of transpersons going on then, well... let's just say trying to have any real discourse is moot. And I say that as someone who's had friends who are trans going back to the late '80s and 1990s.

Biology persists regardless of a person's mental state or self-identification. E.g., people with body dysphoria aren't however it is they perceive themselves to be; people with other mental health issues, therians, and otherkins are still biological humans, either male or female, regardless of what they perceive themselves to be.

Transwomen are not biological women, they are still biological males and still have to contend with health issues that arise from their maleness and from issues that arise from what develops due to HRT and other treatments due to their biological maleness.

If any of our remains are found 1000 years from now, scientists will only be able to tell whether the person was a biological male or female, not how the person may have self-identified.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
As for the medical and psychiatric communities, if you don't think there's profiteering at the expense of transpersons going on then, well... let's just say trying to have any real discourse is moot.
While any for profit medicine can be predatory, this is a very common conspiracy theory to simply delegitimize trans people. People who are trans are far and away not trans because they've been taken advantage of, and it's incredibly infantilizing to suggest they are.
And I say that as someone who's had friends who are trans going back to the late '80s and 1990s.
"My best friend is black."
therians, and otherkins
Not comparable to trans people, and does not have the staggeringly large body of evidence pointing to brain-body mismatch that is not merely self-identity but has to do with sex, gender, psychology, endocrinology and neuroscience. That's why being trans is also biological, because neuroscience is biological and the biological components of being a sex, while still an ongoing study, do appear to match trans identities. It is not merely a matter of 'how they perceive themselves.'

If any of our remains are found 1000 years from now, scientists will only be able to tell whether the person was a biological male or female, not how the person may have self-identified.
Neverminding for the moment that we have evidence of genderqueer, gender non-conforming, and third gender going back centuries because remains are taken with the context of how, where and with what they're buried, anthropology is remarkably bad at sexing remains. With something like a 30% 'undetermined' rate, and many major finds having been sexed incorrectly for decades.

Plus, not being able to find something in remains doesn't mean it's not biological. They won't find my autism in my remains either but it's still biological.

But anyway, this can be picked up in another thread more specifically about this topic. I'm out for now.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Incorrect, if particular terminology wasn't being foisted in the first place then I wouldn't have responded.

If you're done threadjacking over the thread not being sufficiently anti-trans for your liking, maybe you'd like to answer the question from the start of the tangent... modified just for you:

What do you think an ideal level of dehumanization for pregnant women would be?
 

Callisto

Hellenismos, BTW
While any for profit medicine can be predatory, this is a very common conspiracy theory to simply delegitimize trans people. People who are trans are far and away not trans because they've been taken advantage of, and it's incredibly infantilizing to suggest they are.
I don't dabble in conspiracy theories.
"My best friend is black."
Weak effort to be dismissive, but what's new? Btw, I'm half-black, just so you know. The point is I've had personal relationships with transpersons for 30 years and know more than a little about the issues that are dealt with and what happens because people tend to be honest when privately discussing personal issues. I see the amount of sheer ideological bs that's emerged in the last few years via transactivists and it's not helpful to the needs of transpersons and contributes to the growing hostility they face and it costs allies.

Not comparable to trans people, and does not have the staggeringly large body of evidence pointing to brain-body mismatch that is not merely self-identity but has to do with sex, gender, psychology, endocrinology and neuroscience. That's why being trans is also biological, because neuroscience is biological and the biological components of being a sex, while still an ongoing study, do appear to match trans identities. It is not merely a matter of 'how they perceive themselves.'

Neverminding for the moment that we have evidence of genderqueer, gender non-conforming, and third gender going back centuries because remains are taken with the context of how, where and with what they're buried, anthropology is remarkably bad at sexing remains. With something like a 30% 'undetermined' rate, and many major finds having been sexed incorrectly for decades.

Plus, not being able to find something in remains doesn't mean it's not biological. They won't find my autism in my remains either but it's still biological.

But anyway, this can be picked up in another thread more specifically about this topic. I'm out for now.

Autism isn't gender specific, both males and females have autism. It does not always influence facial appearance. So no, it's not biological in the same way sex is; it's also not definitive on a genetic level. Someone's remains could be examined which might, upon genetic analysis, indicate whether they had risks for having developed autism. Whereas whether they had been male or female would be a definite.

There's nothing to pick apart the end result remains: a person is either a biological male or female. If trans = biological there would be no need to transition. A person not being the sex they identify with is why they take steps to appear so (that is, those with gender dysphoria), to alleviate the mental symptoms and to feel more at ease in their own skin.

There isn't any point in picking it up elsewhere as you seem to be indicating this is something you can't or don't want to process.
 

Callisto

Hellenismos, BTW
If you're done threadjacking over the thread not being sufficiently anti-trans for your liking, maybe you'd like to answer the question from the start of the tangent... modified just for you:

What do you think an ideal level of dehumanization for pregnant women would be?
It wasn't my intent to hijack, I questioned the use of "pregnant persons". That would have been the end of it except other posts went off on the trans matter.

There is nothing "anti-trans" about my statements nor my opinion of transpersons.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It wasn't my intent to hijack, I questioned the use of "pregnant persons". That would have been the end of it except other posts went off on the trans matter.

There is nothing "anti-trans" about my statements nor my opinion of transpersons.
Right.

Back to the question: care to answer? Or at least post something relevant to the thread?
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It's the side that wants everyone to make their own choices for themselves, whatever those choices may be. Hence the name.
That sounds like the best "compromise" to me.

The problem here is that the mothers are not just chosing for themselves. Their choice impacts someone else directly.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
It's an accurate way of framing it, and you're right.



They don't need to.

Again: it comes down to bodily autonomy. A parent of an actual child, post-birth, has the absolute right to refuse the child the use of their organs or tissue, even if the child will certainly die as a result. Anti-choicers argue that a pregnancy person should not be able to do the same. The implication is that either:

1. The pregnant person should have fewer rights than a normal person, or

2. A fetus should have more rights than a normal person.

I never hear anyone arguing for option 2, which leads me to think that they're going for option 1.

... and this is no more "dehumanizing" for the fetus than being able to refuse, say, a bone marrow donation is dehumanizing for the recipient.

I argue for #2, or close enough. However, I am neither pro life nor pro choice exactly (mostly pro choice though). It is trivial to say that different people are entitled to different rights/treatment on the basis of their peculiar condition: affirmative action and preferential lines, for instance.
 

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
The problem here is that the mothers are not just chosing for themselves. Their choice impacts someone else directly.
Sure. Their choice has impact. But it is still their choice. You can't say that just because someones choice has impact you can take that choice way from them. You don't really want to go down that road.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
Sure. Their choice has impact. But it is still their choice. You can't say that just because someones choice has impact you can take that choice way from them. You don't really want to go down that road.

Nope, not take down that choice just because it directly impacts someone else. I am saying it ceases to be a private/strictly personal matter when it directly involves someone else, and therefore it can be regulated.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
Yup. No compromise.

The pro-lifers claim that pro-choicers want abortion up until the moment of birth (some are kooky enough to claim even after)

The pro-choicers say the pro-lifers want to ban abortion outright -- no exceptions; "life begins at conception."

22 weeks is the compromise.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
Nope, not take down that choice just because it directly impacts someone else. I am saying it ceases to be a private/strictly personal matter when it directly involves someone else, and therefore it can be regulated.

It already is regulated. Why do you think it's not?
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I argue for #2, or close enough.

But you recognize that no mainstream anti-choice group argues for this, right?

However, I am neither pro life nor pro choice exactly (mostly pro choice though). It is trivial to say that different people are entitled to different rights/treatment on the basis of their peculiar condition: affirmative action and preferential lines, for instance.

If the fetus had more rights than a normal person, don't you think this would be expressed in other ways, though?

I mean, set aside things like right to a nationality and inheritance rights (neither of which fetuses enjoy); they don't get to trump the rights of other individuals besides those of the pregnant person. I mean, if a fetus were to surely die without a blood transfusion from the father, the father could still refuse.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The pro-lifers claim that pro-choicers want abortion up until the moment of birth (some are kooky enough to claim even after)

Personally, my position is that the pregnant person should have the right to end the pregnancy at any point.

Close to the due date, it's a medical question as to whether it should be terminated by abortion or by inducing a live birth.
 

Koldo

Outstanding Member
The pro-lifers claim that pro-choicers want abortion up until the moment of birth (some are kooky enough to claim even after)

The pro-choicers say the pro-lifers want to ban abortion outright -- no exceptions; "life begins at conception."

22 weeks is the compromise.

Except that up to 22 weeks is where the vast majority of abortions happened already. Which means one side is getting pretty much what they want, and the other isn't.
 
Top