The abortion debate: a pro-life perspective

[viole]

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.

The assumption is that the technology is available, safe, and reliable. And delivers what promised. And let's see if we can keep the discussion free of emotional thinking. Emotions are probably the worst epistemic tools known to (wo)man.

Well, but doing that will also produce a different human being. For sure with different physical and mental characteristics, including psychology, skills, aspirations, dreams, etc. What is the difference then from terminating, while still an unconscious bunch of cells, and making a new one?

Side question: what about the contrary? A mom would like a kid with Down Syndrome and changes the genes in the womb to produce that. Still OK? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Valjean]

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?

But a survey the free market in healthcare shows a negative correlation between the US free market system and both costs and outcomes.

Neoliberal, free-market economics encourage exploitation and, despite doctrinal protestations to the contrary, lead to monopolies. American, for-profit healthcare is the most expensive in the world, yet has poor outcomes. In the US people actually avoid seeing the doctor for fear of costs, or even bankruptcy.
Where else in the developed world does anyone see this?

The US government spends maybe twice as much taxpayer income per capita than Britain does, for example, and Americans still have to pay high insurance premiums and out-of-pocket costs. The Brits never see a medical bill, and prescriptions cost £9.35, no matter the medication. Plus Britain has better healthcare outcomes.

So.... with a socialized system, Americans could both reduce their income taxes and have basically free healthcare, but they fear "gubment healthcare" would exploit them and yield poor outcomes.

 

[Valjean]

If they'd put that onto billboards and made it well known, then we probably wouldn't have had such a terrible political divide over it for the last forty years. Its a very clear and understandable comment.

The political divide over abortion is actually a fairly new thing. The Roe-vs-Wade ruling did not ignite any great political controversy at first. It was only after the Republican party realized their public support was waning and that they could gain political support from evangelical Christians by embracing pro-religious issues that the great schism was born.

 

[Brickjectivity]

The political divide over abortion is actually a fairly new thing. The Roe-vs-Wade ruling did not ignite any great political controversy at first. It was only after the Republican party realized their public support was waning and that they could gain political support from evangelical Christians by embracing pro-religious issues that the great schism was born.

All my life this has been the center of the divide. This in the 70's became the razor edge, beginning with the Religious Right movement but becoming the pro life movement. This was when many pro conservative Christians began to become active in politics, and I think this had a lot to do with television and radio ministers.
Religious Right

You can see in the article that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were a big part of getting that going in the 70's. I remember this though I was a child. I remember attending an anti abortion rally with my parents, and it felt less political and more like it was a holy thing. We were fighting Satan, who was trying to bring a spirit of murder into the country.

What began as a general movement about various things such as prayer in schools became a die on this hill anti abortion movement. The Religious Right chose the Republican party. I don't know how that came to be, but they impacted it by doing so. It adopted the pro life plank not long after.

 

[Valjean]

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".

 

[Valjean]

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.

Americans actually have to pay to have a baby -- and it ain't cheap.
Nor do they have any mandated parental leave, after the delivery.

 

[Valjean]

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.

We did have a free market, laissez-faire system, and it led to an era of predatory robber-barons and, eventually, the Great Depression.

 

[Valjean]

All my life this has been the center of the divide. This in the 70's became the razor edge, beginning with the Religious Right movement but becoming the pro life movement. This was when many pro conservative Christians began to become active in politics, and I think this had a lot to do with television and radio ministers.
Religious Right

You can see in the article that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were a big part of getting that going in the 70's. I remember this though I was a child. I remember attending an anti abortion rally with my parents, and it felt less political and more like it was a holy thing. We were fighting Satan, who was trying to bring a spirit of murder into the country.

What began as a general movement about various things such as prayer in schools became a die on this hill anti abortion movement. The Religious Right chose the Republican party. I don't know how that came to be, but they impacted it by doing so. It adopted the pro life plank not long after.

The religious have always opposed abortion, but it was only after the Republicans began pandering to the religious, that the 'religious right' became a political thing.
It was the Republican Party that chose the Religious Right, more than the religious choosing the Republicans. The Republicans had no problem with abortion till they realized it could be a large and influential voting bloc.

 

[Valjean]

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.

For me, personhood is the crux of the matter.
I believe major underlying issues are self-awareness, anticipation of futurity, and the capacity to experience fear, pain and suffering. These define personhood and, with it, a claim for moral consideration.

It's sentience, not sapience, that confers personhood, and it's personhood, not species, that confers self-interest and a claim of moral consideration.

 

[Valjean]

[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.

I don't see number of cells, even number of brain cells, being particularly relevant to the issue.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

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.

Dear Xavier Graham SA

My question is rather, that even if one is pro-life and considers abortion to be a sin that oneself (if woman/person to give birth (in case I’ve not kept up and science has outrun my understanding of stuff)) would never do; why would one think that entitles one to stop others from committing such a sin?

Within worldliness, there is plenty of sin and -if taken seriously - it is rather a full time job not to sin oneself. Surely, one’s focus ought to be on one’s own agency and one’s own sinfulness…?

If we think about it, attempting to control the choices (and sins) of others, could in itself be somewhat sinful because in truth, we only hold power - and responsibility - over our own actions and contributions and each have very personal lessons to learn in life.


Humbly
Hermit

 

[metis]

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.

I don't know if you live here in the States, but out healthcare system leaves a great many out of the loop because ours is the most expensive in the world but delivers less that most other industrialized countries. I lost a brother-in-law prematurely because he was low income, didn't have any insurance, and he hadn't been able to get Medicaid. And on top of this it's getting worse even for middle income families.

Meanwhile, in Canada, not only does everyone have access to healthcare, their outcomes is better. You might consider checking the W.H.O. stats on comparing countries in this area.

I am for having a free market, but we also need to deal with the reality of what works versus doesn't work, and ours badly needs fixing. Why can I drive 20 minutes from here and go into Canada and buy insulin at only 10% of what the cost is here? Fortunately, even though I'm a diabetic, I don't yet need insulin.

So would you not consider me pro life if I’m against universal healthcare?

In this specific area, yes.

How about dealing with climate change and gun laws?

 

[metis]

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).

I can vouch for that as my wife & I visited one of my wife's cousins who was in a hospital in Trapani whereas I checked out the system there including cost.

 

[an anarchist]

I don't know if you live here in the States, but out healthcare system leaves a great many out of the loop because ours is the most expensive in the world but delivers less that most other industrialized countries. I lost a brother-in-law prematurely because he was low income, didn't have any insurance and hadn't been able to get Medicaid. And on top of this it;s getting worse even for middle income families.

Meanwhile, i Canada, not only does everyone have access to healthcare, their outcomes is better. You might consider checking the W.H.O. stats on comparing countries in this area.

I am for having a free market, but we also need to deal with the reality of what works versus doesn't work, and ours badly needs fixing. Why can I drive 20 minutes from here and go onto Canada and buy insulin at only 10% of what the cost is here? Fortunately, even though I'm a diabetic, I don't yet need insulin.

In this specific area, yes.

How about dealing with climate change and gun laws?

I’m thinking “anti-abortion” is the term I should use instead of “pro-life”, for the purpose of debating abortion.
Well, I think the fact we have laws and a government at all is a detriment to every aspect of our economy, but I tend to be radical in my thinking. I believe the government has created the illusion that universal healthcare is the best way to provide for everyone, and therefore “pro-life”.
I get what you mean though. I’m on my local state health insurance for low income people, and before I was insured by the government, I would drive 20 minutes to Mexico and pick up a month prescription for like 10$ over the counter. Couldn’t do that private insurance. But then again, I think that the existence of government itself prevents there from being any type of healthy free market. Maybe I’m unrealistic, maybe I’m idealistic.
Though I’m politically against government, that doesn’t make me not pro life I think. We just have different mindsets and perceptions.

 

[metis]

I’m thinking “anti-abortion” is the term I should use instead of “pro-life”, for the purpose of debating abortion.

I agree.

I believe the government has created the illusion that universal healthcare is the best way to provide for everyone, and therefore “pro-life”.

Not true, as the stats I'm referring to were compiled by an independent agency. But even official government stats show the same.

Though I’m politically against government, that doesn’t make me not pro life I think. We just have different mindsets and perceptions.

Anarchy has never worked nor ever will as everything then becomes a societal free-for-all, which historically got replaced mostly by totalitarian regimes. All "government" is is decision making, so the only question is who is going to do it?

There's an old English adage that goes "If two English men were stranded alone on a desert island, the first thing they'd do is to choose a government". Someone has to make decisions for the society no matter how large or how small they we or are, and hunting & gathering societies well knew and know that.

 

[rational experiences]

The human review of men the scientist.

Men the medical scientist who changed natural life health support into a money making scheme.

Men.

Said I realised I didn't get pregnant but I sure love man sex.

Having sex with men doesn't cause a problem for me. Yet I still want babies. I expect that female woman to produce a baby for me even when I don't have man sex with her.

So I said okay let's be fair. Woman bleeding before my baby man Jesus life sacrificed of did ....caused me to think about sex and babies life....as Inherited life out of a woman's body as man.

Is she stops being pregnant I won't inherit life. I will force her to keep pregnant he says.

So as man I changed my belief and said don't have sex be celibate.

Yet I own no sexual control as is proven.

I even have sex with babies and children as forced sex...very innocent life.

In fact my own innocent memory I forced my erection onto an innocent woman myself. First. I know I did.

Hence if she first wants to be pregnant then I'm not to argue as I don't get pregnant.

Was my own man realisations.

Woman body rights. To be or not be pregnant. Her rights as my body doesn't own the pregnancy.

Man's thought about self proof to his medical profession.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The assumption is that the technology is available, safe, and reliable. And delivers what promised. And let's see if we can keep the discussion free of emotional thinking. Emotions are probably the worst epistemic tools known to (wo)man.

Well, but doing that will also produce a different human being. For sure with different physical and mental characteristics, including psychology, skills, aspirations, dreams, etc. What is the difference then from terminating, while still an unconscious bunch of cells, and making a new one?

Side question: what about the contrary? A mom would like a kid with Down Syndrome and changes the genes in the womb to produce that. Still OK? If not, why not?

Ciao

- viole

What you're describing sounds like it's from a eugenicist science fiction dystopia, so I'm going to to pass on all those scenarios. Best to keep humans natural and not screw around with their DNA, probably. Oh, and keep your problems with emotions to yourself. They're not my problems.

 

[Sand Dancer]

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.

The USA makes a mess of things in regard to abortion. If people really wanted to reduce abortion, they would focus on sex education, easily obtained birth control and help for the single mom, so she wouldn't resort to abortion. But since many are not open to these things, abortions will happen too
often. It's pointless to close a door on opportunity without opening a door for other opportunities.

 

[Valjean]

Well, I think the fact we have laws and a government at all is a detriment to every aspect of our economy, but I tend to be radical in my thinking. I believe the government has created the illusion that universal healthcare is the best way to provide for everyone, and therefore “pro-life”.

No -- the government has been actively suppressing the idea of universal healthcare, while supporting and promoting the business model of healthcare as a commodity, supplied by a for-profit healthcare industry.
Most Americans aren't even aware of the other three healthcare models, used successfully by virtually every other developed country.

I get what you mean though. I’m on my local state health insurance for low income people, and before I was insured by the government, I would drive 20 minutes to Mexico and pick up a month prescription for like 10$ over the counter. Couldn’t do that private insurance. But then again, I think that the existence of government itself prevents there from being any type of healthy free market. Maybe I’m unrealistic, maybe I’m idealistic.

"Healthy free market" strikes me as a bit of an oxymoron, inasmuch as our largely unregulated medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries have produced the world's most convoluted, expensive, exploitative, and widely inaccessible "system," as well as one with comparatively poor outcomes.