The abortion debate: a pro-life perspective

[Father Heathen]

Hmm let’s hone in on these two issues. So I’m sure you and I would disagree about the best way to distribute health care and wealth. I would advocate that a free market system is the most efficient system at doing this and best for the consumer, while universal healthcare implies that a socialist system is best for the consumer. We both have the same goals, but would advocate for different methods achieving this goal. So would you not consider me pro life if I’m against universal healthcare?

Nope. For profit healthcare is a predatory racket that has driven many people into debt and even into their graves. Those who live in nations with universal healthcare consider our system ghoulish and abhorrent, so no, not "best for the consumer".

 

[an anarchist]

Nope. For profit healthcare is a predatory racket that has driven many people into debt and even into their graves. Those who live in nations with universal healthcare consider our system ghoulish and abhorrent, so no, not "best for the consumer".

That's not TrUe CaPiTaLiSm ! I say. There needs to be absolutely no state for their to be a true free market system. But that's another topic. I'm of the opinion that true free markets would hypothetically provide better than universal healthcare, but those of differing opinions have the same goal. They just disagree on economics. That doesn't make one not pro life, as I can levy the same criticism against universal healthcare that it is a predatory racket done by the State.

 

[Father Heathen]

The anti-choicers are failing hard when it comes to being effectively pro life. But they win at misogyny and it makes me wonder if that is the real goal.

Given that they oppose social programs that would aid mothers and their children, and oppose education and practices that would help prevent unwanted pregnancies, it certainly appears so. Apparently the sanctity of life starts at conception and ends at birth.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's not TrUe CaPiTaLiSm ! I say. There needs to be absolutely no state for their to be a true free market system. But that's another topic. I'm of the opinion that true free markets would hypothetically provide better than universal healthcare, but those of differing opinions have the same goal. They just disagree on economics. That doesn't make one not pro life, as I can levy the same criticism against universal healthcare that it is a predatory racket done by the State.

If people don't have access to medical necessities due to price gouging, inflated co-pays and premiums, etc. then it's not pro-life. Imagine of fire departments were privatized in the same manner. Letting houses burn unless the homeowner paid some exorbitant fee.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

My view is that personhood is irrelevant to my pro-choice stance. It could be a Nobel prize winning fully adult human being attached to that umbilical cord and I'd still support the mother's right to stop the pregnancy.

To me, bad things happen in a society which makes body autonomy selectively respected. Nobody's choice or choices should ever mean your body can be used by someone else against your will.

It's this viewpoint that makes me anti medical testing on criminals, too, or forced organ donations, non-medical body modification without consent, anti-slavery, etc.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

In a thread I made earlier on circumcision, the topic of abortion has been debated.
I would like to offer my pro-life perspective, and I am curious about the perspective of pro-choicers. I would like to understand the opposing viewpoint better, and am willing to be convinced to be pro-choice. Though my conviction on this subject is strong.
The perspective of a pro-lifer is that a fetus is equivalent to a human being. So it is viewed that all these abortions are essentially genocide on the mass scale. Such is the reason such strong convictions are developed on the subject by pro-lifers. If this is your perspective, how can you not feel ever so strongly about it and want to be vocal in your opposition to abortion?
Yet I understand that this thinking could be flawed. I have dozens of outfits, all made probably in a sweatshop halfway across the world. I pay taxes, and my taxes pay for bombs that bomb people. So, do I accuse all taxpayers of beings mass murderers? Do I accuse people who wear clothes of being child abusers? Probably not.
Personally, though I am a pro-lifer, I have the unique perspective of having aborted my own child with my own hands. (In Mexico where it's legal) I’m mentally ill you see, and my wife at the time didn’t want that to be passed on. Do pro-choice people believe that abortion is a mercy killing? Saving the child from poor circumstances and possibly disease. Are we allowed to do these mercy killings, like, is it right to kill out of mercy. I am deeply conflicted.
Bodily autonomy. What can I do when my child is in my wife’s body? Her body, her choice. When I fret about the abortion in the present day, my current partner will remind me these things.
- I had no control over what my wife did with her body
- there was nothing I could have done to prevent it, as my wife had decided what was best for her
- I was not ready to be a father, and could not have provided well for my child

I have not fully accepted these points yet, but I must I think.
I just wanted to offer my perspective and what I have learned on the subject. I would like to get some pro choice perspectives on the topic of abortion.
I think the issue is deeply divisive, at least here in the USA. Whole political and religious divides are because of abortion. It turns people against each other. Let’s understand each other instead.

Disclaimer, I haven't contemplated or researched this topic much.
I am pro choice. I would absolutely have no problem aborting sperm, eggs, embryos, or a 1 month old fetus. They are just nowhere near a human being. Yet I would be venomously opposed to aborting an 8 month old fetus, or if someone killed a mother that far along in a pregnancy.
The tricky thing is determining where the line is. I think scientifically, about 4 month old fetus is developed enough to have a good chance of surviving full term pregnancy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hmm let’s hone in on these two issues. So I’m sure you and I would disagree about the best way to distribute health care and wealth. I would advocate that a free market system is the most efficient system at doing this and best for the consumer, while universal healthcare implies that a socialist system is best for the consumer. We both have the same goals, but would advocate for different methods achieving this goal. So would you not consider me pro life if I’m against universal healthcare?

If the way you measure how good a health care system is economic efficiency and not, say, how good a job it does as preserving lives and quality of life, then I would say that your have decided not to recognize any innate value in human life.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

I'd also like to add (after a quick Google search) that a 1 month old "baby" has about 200 cells. Compare this to an ant that has about 250,000 brain cells

 

[rational experiences]

Human memory said once two parents owned a choice. They made the choice for human babies conception as spiritual humans.

Memory.

The topic choice.

Men's own topic I force. I claim you deserve. I want to. You own no say or body rights in sex. You're born female for sex.

Yet a lot of young girls don't want sex. I remember.

So you say life is wrong. As it is. By topic the review.

Hence abortion was introduced as life is wrong. Yet it's subjective.

So abortion applied rules. Rape. Sick illness foetus.

Then another topic is introduced. Sick dying starving adults have sex produced a baby to die sick and starving.

As choices human own Multi topics.

Human claim when challenged if one baby survives my human race survives.

Starving human...nature garden balanced removed historic causes....from rich man's science history. Says it's our fault. Yet he makes a rich organisation out of assisting the starving minimally.

So in fact he should give up his riches as it's his karma why.

Totally thought summation.

Women stood little chance to be allowed to just be theirselves by his man choices.

As always its male human dictatorship.

A medical procedure is no different from a woman's body rejecting the foetus itself.

The cruelty is some women who want babies can't grow them. So they get angered at life in a subject.

I own personal feelings I don't like any harm. But I'm not living anyone elses personal experience hence I respect that truth. None of my business. Yet I can relate the truth to a humans right in argument.

The baby never existed until the sex act caused its existence. All life dies.

Science is subjective as humans wisdom.

If abortion is a murder and not a medical procedure the human conscious life has to live feeling owning the choice themselves.

I would not want personally to be subjected to that choice my wisdom. Live and let live but don't judge. As choice is personal.

Lots of human choices are involved and it began with the first human man.

No sex no problems inherited.

 

[an anarchist]

If the way you measure how good a health care system is economic efficiency and not, say, how good a job it does as preserving lives and quality of life, then I would say that your have decided not to recognize any innate value in human life.

Hold on now I’m supposing that the free market system of healthcare would do the best job at preserving lives and the quality of it. We may disagree on this, but we both want the same thing I think.

 

[Estro Felino]

Nope. For profit healthcare is a predatory racket that has driven many people into debt and even into their graves. Those who live in nations with universal healthcare consider our system ghoulish and abhorrent, so no, not "best for the consumer".

Here we have already low birth rates, but neither State hospitals nor private hospitals charge women who deliver a baby.
(The private clinic will be reimbursed by the State).

 

[Estro Felino]

Hold on now I’m supposing that the free market system of healthcare would do the best job at preserving lives and the quality of it. We may disagree on this, but we both want the same thing I think.

In universal single payer healthcare countries there are also private hospitals for the rich, where quality might be better (only apparently, in some regions the quality is the same).

So we have something more. Both systems, public and private hospitals.
The US has something less.

 

[Father Heathen]

Hold on now I’m supposing that the free market system of healthcare would do the best job at preserving lives and the quality of it. We may disagree on this, but we both want the same thing I think.

The "Free market" system makes healthcare an inaccessable luxury for many.

 

[Heyo]

I'd also like to add (after a quick Google search) that a 1 month old "baby" has about 200 cells.

[citation needed]
That sounds not right. I don't know how many cells there are but after 1 month it's an embryo, no longer a blastocyst and the first organs are forming. Also 2⁸ is 256, i.e. one cleavage every 4 days, seems too slow for me.

 

[Heyo]

Hold on now I’m supposing that the free market system of healthcare would do the best job at preserving lives and the quality of it. We may disagree on this, but we both want the same thing I think.

That may even function with the right incentive. When you pay the doctors only when you are healthy, they are motivated to keep you in good health and end illness as soon as possible. And they are going to treat communicable diseases even in people not paying them.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

We also use it to eliminate genetic diseases from the population, if that genetic disease appears on a prenatal screen. For instance, places like Iceland are basically Down Syndrome free because of that.

They're not Down's free, they just kill all the babies ("fetuses") with it or highly suspected to have it. If you kill all the people with clinical depression or alcoholism, sure, you'll be "free" from those things! I think eugenics is totally disgusting and a crime against humanity. Many people with Down's live happy lives. They even get married. Some are actors and artists. Why should they be killed before they even get a chance? It's so sick.

 

[rational experiences]

The teaching human reality.

No scientist

Just humans. Just adult humans family accepting pregnancy birth.

A memory.

Human body naturally aborted babies that died.

Female body owner. Taught.

Hence said nature causes it naturally I'm not wrong. My body.

Science then did it as a medical procedure as woman can die in charge of birth or aborted baby life.

Common logic.

Nature is now under humans civilisation control.

Think about what's best for life continuance.

Also expressed as rich men the term life is over populated.

Women always inherit what your personal belief is.

Women never had a status what I don't want.

Preaching. I choose a celibate no sex life ..
as I was taught how wrong my original adult father choice was as sex.

Already learnt already taught.

Now you have sex with children.

Abortion in comparison is a lesser evil.

 

[viole]

They're not Down's free, they just kill all the babies ("fetuses") with it or highly suspected to have it. If you kill all the people with clinical depression or alcoholism, sure, you'll be "free" from those things! I think eugenics is totally disgusting and a crime against humanity. Many people with Down's live happy lives. They even get married. Some are actors and artists. Why should they be killed before they even get a chance? It's so sick.

Oh dear, we are pretty emotional, aren't we? First of all, abortion is not an issue here. Therefore, the motivations are not relevant, since, again, we do not consider wrong, in general, the termination of unconscious foetuses. And if a potential mother decides to terminate on account of reason X, that is uniquely her choice and right to do so, and the motivations are, again, irrelevant. There is no state mandate to terminate foetuses with genetic diseases.

Now, let me ask this. Suppose we had the technology to fix genetic diseases of a faetus directly in the womb, instead of terminating and retrying, would you accept it as morally tenable?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh dear, we are pretty emotional, aren't we? First of all, abortion is not an issue here. Therefore, the motivations are not relevant, since, again, we do not consider wrong, in general, the termination of unconscious foetuses. And if a potential mother decides to terminate on account of reason X, that is uniquely her choice and right to do so, and the motivations are, again, irrelevant. There is no state mandate to terminate foetuses with genetic diseases.

Now, let me ask this. Suppose we had the technology to fix genetic diseases of a faetus directly in the womb, instead of terminating and retrying, would you accept it as morally tenable?

Ciao

- viole

There's nothing wrong with emotion in of itself, such as righteous indignation, which is anger directed towards injustice. My point was still clear, that a society isn't "free" from anything just because you kill the people who have these problems. The state may not privilege it, but I'm sure it's socially encouraged as it seems to be a point of pride for many in Scandinavian society, from what I've seen about it.

As for genetic cures, I am not totally opposed to such things (it would be an awesome thing if they delivered as promised), but I am wary of the consequences of such technology.

 

[Valjean]

What other pro life issues are you thinking?

When I think"pro-life," I think Social Contract, as in, the purpose people organize themselves into societies is mutual self-help; everyone pulling together in common cause, coöperating, for mutual benefit.
Pro-life issues would include public guarantees, like those in the US constitution: "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Pro-life is a social safety net, guaranteeing food, shelter, safety and healthcare to everyone.