What's the Abortion Debate Really About?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I cant do anything to prevent her from killing her unborn.

If anything, it would be propaganda. There is not much more one can do.

I would completely support legal punishment if it worked though. The justification is simple: you made an innocent life depend on you in the first place. Now, of course you shouldnt kill it.

You say "of course" as if everyone will agree with you, but the fact that you'd be in favour of forcing your views on people who disagree suggests you realize that they won't.

Again: what makes it moral for you to impose your views on people against their will?

 

[Me Myself]

You say "of course" as if everyone will agree with you, but the fact that you'd be in favour of forcing your views on people who disagree suggests you realize that they won't.

Again: what makes it moral for you to impose your views on people against their will?

"Me"?

Society imposes morals upon us. The morals we as a society choose to be acceptable.

I always find it funny when people say "you shouldnt impose your morality on other people" . Even that should or shouldnt is a form of impossition.

You disagree with my value of the unborn. That is the specific subject in which we disagree.

There are plenty of other moralities we agree should be imposed on others.

In any case, after some at least admited to the obvious that many pro lifers do, indeed are so because of their value to the life of the unborn, I think I am done here.

I ve debated the topic before and am pretty much bored with it. It doesnt lead anywhere anyways and I have said multiple times what I have wanted to say.

 

[Revoltingest]

Society imposes morals upon us. The morals we as a society choose to be acceptable.
I always find it funny when people say "you shouldnt impose your morality on other people".

Most people think they personally have THE TRUTH, while other people only have "their morals", which shouldn't be imposed upon others. Society's morals are an uneasy & ever changing negotiated compromise.

In a thread I started a while ago, we saw that even staunch pro-abortion types wanted to restrict what a woman could do with her body....when their own truth required it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Most people think they personally have THE TRUTH, while other people only have "their morals", which shouldn't be imposed upon others. Society's morals are an uneasy & ever changing negotiated compromise.

In a thread I started a while ago, we saw that even staunch pro-abortion types wanted to restrict what a woman could do with her body....when their own truth required it.

You're so funny when you play the contrarian.

If those restrictions are the same as the restrictions imposed on a man, it isn't about controlling women's reproductive choices. We don't put restrictions legally on when a man can wear a condom or get a vasectomy. And it would be silly to do just that to a man.

If we're talking about if a woman can sell one of her kidneys on an open market, that falls under the same general freedoms a man can have with his body, too.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're so funny when you play the contrarian.

It comes naturally!

If those restrictions are the same as the restrictions imposed on a man, it isn't about controlling women's reproductive choices. We don't put restrictions legally on when a man can wear a condom or get a vasectomy. And it would be silly to do just that to a man.

Of course, I don't favor contraceptive restrictions on anyone. (We'll skip exploring the rare exceptions for now.)
Life is terribly unfair to impose the burden of pregnancy solely upon women, but we must face the fact that there are many who believe the fetus is a human being, & that they will place restrictions upon the mother because it affects the life of another. This just doesn't strike me as a "war on women".

If we're talking about if a woman can sell one of her kidneys on an open market, that falls under the same general freedoms a man can have with his body, too.

You know me....I'm in favor of organ selling.
(Alas, I've no buyers for any of mine.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It comes naturally!

Which is why you're so funny. You don't even try to be a contrarian. It's the whole "You say goodbye, and I say hello" thing.

Of course, I don't favor contraceptive restrictions on anyone. (We'll skip exploring the rare exceptions for now.)
Life is terribly unfair to impose the burden of pregnancy solely upon women, but we must face the fact that there are many who believe the fetus is a human being, & that they will place restrictions upon the mother because it affects the life of another. This just doesn't strike me as a "war on women".

It does to me. Though "war on women" is certainly a caustic way of putting it and can rub people on the other side the wrong way.

Saying life is unfair to impose the burden of pregnancy solely upon women diminishes the experience of pregnancy women have. It's a medical condition first and foremost, that OB/GYN doctors understand, and that the woman's health, her blood pressure, her blood sugar level, her weight gain, her fatigue, her stress levels, her hormones, etc. that is being monitored first, and then the development of the fetus is considered.

Culturally, however, pro-lifers overlook the health and welfare of the woman and consider the health and welfare of the "baby" inside her. They fail to see pregnancy as a medical condition of the woman, and instead see pregnancy as an opportunity to introduce another person into the world.

I see pro-lifers as opportunistic and would say to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy "Well, too bad for you. Suck it up." The healthy and autonomy of the woman is always glossed over when considering the existence of the fetus first. Again, everybody is saying the same thing about abortion: a woman's pregnancy isn't about her. One side is saying that's a good thing, and the other is saying that's a bad thing. Pro-lifers are saying it's a good thing to take away a woman's bodily autonomy for the duration of the pregnancy. I argue against that.

You know me....I'm in favor of organ selling.
(Alas, I've no buyers for any of mine.)

Maybe it's because you don't wear underwear when you have your kilt on? Just a thought.

 

[idav]

Which is why you're so funny. You don't even try to be a contrarian. It's the whole "You say goodbye, and I say hello" thing.



It does to me. Though "war on women" is certainly a caustic way of putting it and can rub people on the other side the wrong way.

Saying life is unfair to impose the burden of pregnancy solely upon women diminishes the experience of pregnancy women have. It's a medical condition first and foremost, that OB/GYN doctors understand, and that the woman's health, her blood pressure, her blood sugar level, her weight gain, her fatigue, her stress levels, her hormones, etc. that is being monitored first, and then the development of the fetus is considered.

Culturally, however, pro-lifers overlook the health and welfare of the woman and consider the health and welfare of the "baby" inside her. They fail to see pregnancy as a medical condition of the woman, and instead see pregnancy as an opportunity to introduce another person into the world.

I see pro-lifers as opportunistic and would say to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy "Well, too bad for you. Suck it up." The healthy and autonomy of the woman is always glossed over when considering the existence of the fetus first. Again, everybody is saying the same thing about abortion: a woman's pregnancy isn't about her. One side is saying that's a good thing, and the other is saying that's a bad thing. Pro-lifers are saying it's a good thing to take away a woman's bodily autonomy for the duration of the pregnancy. I argue against that.

Pro-lifers are concerned for both the woman and the fetus. However even pro-lifers put the life of the woman before the fetus. Just being sensitive to the the fact that the fetus is a potential life doesn not make us forget about the concern for the well being of the woman. People can be both pro life and pro choice considering everything, especially the health of mom and baby. Though that is an interesting point that pregnancy is a Medical condition but we arent exactly talking about a parasite, although debatable. It is both, a medical condition that can result in new life.

 

[Revoltingest]

Saying life is unfair to impose the burden of pregnancy solely upon women diminishes the experience of pregnancy women have.

I refer to the burden of societal interference with the mother's autonomy.
(But I like to diminish the value of anything anyone values.)

It's a medical condition first and foremost, that OB/GYN doctors understand, and that the woman's health, her blood pressure, her blood sugar level, her weight gain, her fatigue, her stress levels, her hormones, etc. that is being monitored first, and then the development of the fetus is considered.

Culturally, however, pro-lifers overlook the health and welfare of the woman and consider the health and welfare of the "baby" inside her. They fail to see pregnancy as a medical condition of the woman, and instead see pregnancy as an opportunity to introduce another person into the world.

I don't view pro-lifers that way. I know many of'm who see all the things you do (including health of the mother), but they differ in the rights they'd extend to the fetus, & this means balancing the rights of both parties (mom & fetus). I see this not as anti-woman, but rather as a consequence of women being the ones who carry the fetus.

I see pro-lifers as opportunistic and would say to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy "Well, too bad for you. Suck it up." The healthy and autonomy of the woman is always glossed over when considering the existence of the fetus first. Again, everybody is saying the same thing about abortion: a woman's pregnancy isn't about her. One side is saying that's a good thing, and the other is saying that's a bad thing. Pro-lifers are saying it's a good thing to take away a woman's bodily autonomy for the duration of the pregnancy. I argue against that.

Of course, we're on the same side regarding body autonomy, & the mother's needs & wants taking precedence over the fetus. (Again here, I'm avoiding complications we've covered elsewhere.) This discussion is about how we view the opposition.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Pro-lifers are concerned for both the woman and the fetus. However even pro-lifers put the life of the woman before the fetus. Just being sensitive to the the fact that the fetus is a potential life doesn not make us forget about the concern for the well being of the woman. People can be both pro life and pro choice considering everything, especially the health of mom and baby. Though that is an interesting point that pregnancy is a Medical condition but we arent exactly talking about a parasite, although debatable. It is both, a medical condition that can result in new life.

So, then, a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy. She has a family history of diabetes, and she does not want the elevated risk of gestational diabetes. Nor had she ever planned on being pregnant.

How is the concern for her manifested from pro-lifers? Monitor her blood sugar levels, and cross the fingers and hope for the best?

 

[Sunstone]

How is the concern for her manifested from pro-lifers?

I think they send her "congratulations on your new baby" cards from Hallmark. It's a touching show of sensitivity and solidarity with her.

 

[idav]

So, then, a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy. She has a family history of diabetes, and she does not want the elevated risk of gestational diabetes. Nor had she ever planned on being pregnant.

How is the concern for her manifested from pro-lifers? Monitor her blood sugar levels, and cross the fingers and hope for the best?

My sis went through pregnancy diabetes which certainly didnt sound fun with all the complications the poor girl had. I wouldnt wish that on an enemy. My sis wanted the baby but it is the womens choice ultimately. We are all well aware that pregnancies can and often will have complications which is bad for both woman and fetus and this has to be balanced based on the needs of the patient. The fetus doesnt count as a patient until delivery is eminent. I agree that at the doctors first concern should be for the potential mother, when that is who the patient is.

 

[Me Myself]

You're so funny when you play the contrarian.

If those restrictions are the same as the restrictions imposed on a man, it isn't about controlling women's reproductive choices. We don't put restrictions legally on when a man can wear a condom or get a vasectomy. And it would be silly to do just that to a man.

If we're talking about if a woman can sell one of her kidneys on an open market, that falls under the same general freedoms a man can have with his body, too.

If making a vasectomy made innocents be killed, I would be against that too.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

My sis went through pregnancy diabetes which certainly didnt sound fun with all the complications the poor girl had. I wouldnt wish that on an enemy. My sis wanted the baby but it is the womens choice ultimately. We are all well aware that pregnancies can and often will have complications which is bad for both woman and fetus and this has to be balanced based on the needs of the patient. The fetus doesnt count as a patient until delivery is eminent. I agree that at the doctors first concern should be for the potential mother, when that is who the patient is.

Granted, complications do not always happen with a pregnancy, but there are health risks that are elevated just by being pregnant. Not diet, not sun exposure, not anything else except the very presence of a pregnancy with a woman.

If a person is smoking cigarettes, and wishes to stop because they don't want the elevated risk of lung cancer or heart disease, we don't force them to continue smoking because we see ourselves as moral agents protecting the livelihoods of the cigarette company CEO's.

Yeah, I know that's a silly example, but bear with me.

Where many people gloss over is that women who are the one gender that biologically is capable of being pregnant assumes all the risks and complications that can and do occur by agreeing to follow through with the pregnancy.

In some debates, including here at RF, when presenting this as an important point, I have received answers such as, "Yeah. So what?"

This is precisely why I suggest that the woman, upon becoming pregnant, becomes more invisible and unworthy of making decisions that impact her own body according to the anti-choice crowd. She's at risk for gestational diabetes. Yeah, so what? She's at risk for an elevated blood pressure. Yeah, so what? She is at risk for this complication and that complication.....yeah, so what?

What's more important? Keeping that innocent fetus in there so she can give birth to it. Her health is not her choice to make.

If making a vasectomy made innocents be killed, I would be against that too.

Those poor innocent sperm cells that will never be because of the heartless decision to terminate sperm production. Damn all those menz to hell.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Me"?

Society imposes morals upon us. The morals we as a society choose to be acceptable.

I always find it funny when people say "you shouldnt impose your morality on other people" . Even that should or shouldnt is a form of impossition.

I never said "you shouldn't impose your morality on other people"; I just pointed out that this is what you're talking about doing.

My actual position is that in a free society, limitations on the freedom of others must be properly justified. You are proposing a limitation on the freedom of others, so it's up to you to properly justify it.

You disagree with my value of the unborn. That is the specific subject in which we disagree.

That's right. And until you can demonstrate why the values of people who disagree with you must be wrong, then we accommodate both your values and theirs by allowing everyone to follow the dictates of their own conscience.

There are plenty of other moralities we agree should be imposed on others.

This doesn't mean that I should be okay with any imposition you want to put on others.

In any case, after some at least admited to the obvious that many pro lifers do, indeed are so because of their value to the life of the unborn, I think I am done here.

I disagree with your assessment... at least in general. There are probably some logically consistent anti-choicers, but they certainly aren't in the majority.

I ve debated the topic before and am pretty much bored with it. It doesnt lead anywhere anyways and I have said multiple times what I have wanted to say.

And you've yet to give a compelling case.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Is the abortion debate really all about the morality or immorality of killing fetuses, or is it more about controlling women's reproductive choices? What do you think?

And if it is really about the morality or immorality of killing fetuses, then why do so many people who oppose abortion also oppose contraception? Especially, contraceptives that have nothing to do with abortion?

If someone opposes both abortion and non-aborting contraceptives, isn't their position more consistent with a desire to control women's reproductive choices than it is consistent with a desire to merely prevent the killing of fetuses?

When you use the word "killing" it indirectly substantiates the claim of sentience. Not saying you're saying this, but those who are saying this have that mindset. It perplexes me to know from some pro-lifers that a zygote has the same rights as a dog or a small infant.