Can we compromise on abortion?

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Not that the fetus is even capable of making a decision before the frontal cortex activates by taking its first breath.

Ok, that may be true I don't know. How is this relevant?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do when you say you cannot be pro life if you don't have your same stance on other issues unrelated to abortion. That is ridiculous. It just amounts to a word game.

No, it shows that the anti-abortion people are only playing word games. You keep getting arguments backwards. To be prolife you have to be prolife across the spectrum. Not in one area only. They are really just anti-abortionists.

I have not changed the question you have when you introduce other requirements for being prolife that have nothing to do with abortion.

You do that all of the time. And don't you know how to use the "Reply" button? Just answer the questions as asked. That is not too much to ask. Or else explain why you cannot answer them. That is a legitimate object too.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

ding ding ding ding

It should be obvious that the well being of the fetus depends on the choices of the parents and how responsible the parents are. Nothing to do with punishing women.

 

[fantome profane]

It should be obvious that the well being of the fetus depends on the choices of the parents and how responsible the parents are. Nothing to do with punishing women.

On the question of abortions, do you think there should be an exception for rape?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

No, it shows that the anti-abortion people are only playing word games. You keep getting arguments backwards. To be prolife you have to be prolife across the spectrum. Not in one area only. They are really just anti-abortionists.

This is ridiculous. You are playing word games. Are you pro choice across the spectrum, if not, you cannot be pro choice. From now on just call me pro likky and that should solve the problem. pro likky is defined as against abortion. Is that better?

You do that all of the time. And don't you know how to use the "Reply" button? Just answer the questions as asked. That is not too much to ask. Or else explain why you cannot answer them. That is a legitimate object too.

What questions have I not answered? I believe I responded to all of your posts so far.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

On the question of abortions, do you think there should be an exception for rape?

I would leave that up to the woman. Although I would hope she would choose to give birth to the child if possible.

 

[crossfire]

Ok, that may be true I don't know. How is this relevant?

The inability for an embryo to make a decision about being created is not relevant, as an embryo is physically and developmentally incapable of making any decisions. You can't lose what you have never had.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The inability for an embryo to make a decision about being created is not relevant, as an embryo is physically and developmentally incapable of making any decisions. You can't lose what you have never had.

This is my point. They should be protected because they did not make the decision to be created.

 

[fantome profane]

I would leave that up to the woman. Although I would hope she would choose to give birth to the child if possible.

Ok, so what is the difference? What is the difference between a fetus conceived through rape and a fetus conceived through consensual sex?

Obviously the difference is that the women didn't consent. Meaning that in the case of rape the woman did not do anything that you think she should be punished for. But the woman who consented to sex, well she deserves what is coming to her.

Is that basically it?

 

[crossfire]

This is my point. They should be protected because they did not make the decision to be created.

I am not following you. Of course an embryo did not decide to be created. It doesn't know that it exists. Nor will it miss its short existence if it is erased. Not only does it not know, it does not even have the capacity to know before it develops that capacity and ability. A corpse once had that capacity, so any decisions it made while sentient should be honored. An embryo doesn't even have that yet.

A pregnant woman currently has both life and sentience, yet you want her to have fewer rights than a corpse, based upon something (an embryo) that hasn't even achieved the sentience a corpse once had?

 

[Koldo]

In the same way that deciding to drive a car isn't consent to being in a car crash, deciding to have sex isn't consent to pregnancy.

And even when someone consents to pregnancy, consent can be withdrawn.

While punishing people for withdrawing consent to have their body parts used by someone else is fairly unique and the acting in accordance to that (performing an abortion), that doesn't have to be the thing being punished.

Just as easily what could be punished here is the act of willfully engaging in a sexual act that ends up leading to abortion. Think of it in terms of punishing speeding but only when a car crash actually happens.

I am not suggesting that to be the case, by the way. Just saying it escapes the whole unusual punishing for withdrawing consent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is ridiculous. You are playing word games. Are you pro choice across the spectrum, if not, you cannot be pro choice. From now on just call me pro likky and that should solve the problem. pro likky is defined as against abortion. Is that better?

Yes, I am prochoice across the spectrum. But I doubt if you understand what that means. So called prolife people tend to be prolife only when it comes to abortion. That is playing word games. Like I said, backwards again.

What questions have I not answered? I believe I responded to all of your posts so far.

When you use a strawman argument you have not answered the question given to you. How can you not know this?

 

[Alien826]

I see the compromising is going nowhere.
More polarized than ever.

Truly, I'm not surprised.

 

[Heyo]

I believe most human life has more value than other life. I do believe at conception a human life begins.


I was not in favor of mask mandates or lockdowns after about 4 weeks. It was obvious it was ineffective and restricting peoples freedoms unessesarily. I am against a draft because it is immoral to force someone to kill another human.


I don't think protecting human life is extreme or it should not be. An extreme position is abortion up until birth.

Your position, no abortion from conception on, is the extreme on the one end; abortion up until birth is the extreme on the other end.
The question is whether those extremists can compromise.
I'm exactly in the middle between the extremes.

????

I wanted to be sure I understand your position so I tried to steel-man it.

I found it to be understandable and consistent, if a bit naïve.

But then you posted:

I would leave that up to the woman. Although I would hope she would choose to give birth to the child if possible.

So, your "life over choice" position is not as absolute as you laid it down. That's good as I see that as a possibility you might be able to compromise after all.


To argue for a compromise, I like to point out that we are not discussing whether a woman should or should not have an abortion. That is, after all, a moral decision. If you don't like abortions - don't have one.
We are discussion whether abortion should be legal and if, under which circumstances. This requires compromise or the law would likely change all four years between no regulation and total ban. A practical solution can't be an extreme one.
And a practical solution takes the reality into account. A total ban of abortions doesn't lead to no abortions, it just leads to unsafe abortions. In fact, countries where abortion is legal and accessible, have fewer abortions than those with heavy restrictions. So, if you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should want to have abortions to be legal. That is, if you can think practically not in a naïve, absolutist legal way.

Does that make sense to you?

P.S.: like @Subduction Zone, I'd prefer you use the reply function as I treat posts that are directed to me (and trigger a notification) with preference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What irritates me about this is that a ban on abortions is not an Abrahamic concept. I cannot speak for other religions. But the current hysteria against abortions by many Christian churches is not due to religious beliefs, but political ones. There appears to have been a rather nasty backdoor deal between Republicans and some of the churches of the Old South as part of the Southern Strategy. The Republicans got a very stable political base and churches got another tool to control their congregations. What is very disturbing is the changes went so far as to rewrite at least part of the Bible. Don't trust me. Check out 1960's versions of Exodus 21 22. You would think that Christians would take those changes very seriously. But those changes show that it was never about religious beliefs.

And many of us who were Christians still feel that pressure. But there is no rational reason to treat either a zygote or an embryo as a human being. One is getting closet at a fetus, but if one does not treat all mammals at least as well as they treat a fetus they are being inconsistent in their reasoning. And it is almost always men that oppose this right for women because they will never have to undergo pregnancy. When one tries to find analogies that are even milder they simply go into denial.

 

[crossfire]

What irritates me about this is that a ban on abortions is not an Abrahamic concept. I cannot speak for other religions. But the current hysteria against abortions by many Christian churches is not due to religious beliefs, but political ones. There appears to have been a rather nasty backdoor deal between Republicans and some of the churches of the Old South as part of the Southern Strategy. The Republicans got a very stable political base and churches got another tool to control their congregations. What is very disturbing is the changes went so far as to rewrite at least part of the Bible. Don't trust me. Check out 1960's versions of Exodus 21 22. You would think that Christians would take those changes very seriously. But those changes show that it was never about religious beliefs.

And many of us who were Christians still feel that pressure. But there is no rational reason to treat either a zygote or an embryo as a human being. One is getting closet at a fetus, but if one does not treat all mammals at least as well as they treat a fetus they are being inconsistent in their reasoning. And it is almost always men that oppose this right for women because they will never have to undergo pregnancy. When one tries to find analogies that are even milder they simply go into denial.

Indeed, the anti-abortion stance has been increasing amongst men over 50. All other groups have seen an increase of pro-choice stances.

The only demographic in America that reliably opposes abortion access is older men

More men over the age of 50 identify as pro-life over pro-choice, according to Gallup's annual survey on abortion.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Ok, so what is the difference? What is the difference between a fetus conceived through rape and a fetus conceived through consensual sex?

Obviously the difference is that the women didn't consent. Meaning that in the case of rape the woman did not do anything that you think she should be punished for. But the woman who consented to sex, well she deserves what is coming to her.

Is that basically it?

No, What do I want to punish a woman for?

It has to do with the no win situation. I have no idea what it would be like to be raped and then be pregnant from that rape. I really don't know what is best in the situation so I will defer to the woman. It seems like they do not have an obligation to take care of the eventual child if they did not choose actions to create the child.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I am not following you. Of course an embryo did not decide to be created. It doesn't know that it exists. Nor will it miss its short existence if it is erased. Not only does it not know, it does not even have the capacity to know before it develops that capacity and ability. A corpse once had that capacity, so any decisions it made while sentient should be honored. An embryo doesn't even have that yet.

A pregnant woman currently has both life and sentience, yet you want her to have fewer rights than a corpse, based upon something (an embryo) that hasn't even achieved the sentience a corpse once had?

So your reason for terminating the human life is that it cannot make decisions or that it does not know it exists? That is not the potential child's fault. That is the way biology works. The parents have an obligation to protect the human life because of the actions they freely chose.

 

[Alien826]

To argue for a compromise, I like to point out that we are not discussing whether a woman should or should not have an abortion. That is, after all, a moral decision. If you don't like abortions - don't have one.
We are discussion whether abortion should be legal and if, under which circumstances. This requires compromise or the law would likely change all four years between no regulation and total ban. A practical solution can't be an extreme one.
And a practical solution takes the reality into account. A total ban of abortions doesn't lead to no abortions, it just leads to unsafe abortions. In fact, countries where abortion is legal and accessible, have fewer abortions than those with heavy restrictions. So, if you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should want to have abortions to be legal. That is, if you can think practically not in a naïve, absolutist legal way.

Just when I thought my attempt to talk about compromise was dead in the water, here comes someone that gets it.

This place will never cease to surprise me.

 

[Alien826]

Just as easily what could be punished here is the act of willfully engaging in a sexual act that ends up leading to abortion. Think of it in terms of punishing speeding but only when a car crash actually happens.

To be an exact parallel with driving laws, having sex that could lead to pregnancy and abortion would be illegal. The offense would be "shagging while fertile" (SWF).