When you prevent an abortion...

[Polymath257]

Abortion is a guarantee of death.

An unborn baby lives most of the time.

Most abortions are not at the 'unborn baby' stage (which is very late in pregnancy). Most are in the 'clump of cells starting to get some tissues' stage.

And yes, that mass of cells and developing tissues does. So? it isn't a person:

Think of it like this: we say death occurs at brain death: when there are no higher cerebral functions in evidence.

Why not have 'life' be when those higher cerebral functions *start*? And that occurs after the 20th week of pregnancy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You save a human life.


Does anyone disagree?

I don't really like abortion, but I also don't like what I see as authoritarian laws that strip choice from people and tell them what they can and cannot do regarding their own bodies.

I am curious though, considering the tenor of your post. Do you sympathize with the similar position in the anti-gun lobby, since, theoretically, eliminating guns would save human life?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Abortion is a guarantee of death.

An unborn baby lives most of the time.

70 to 90 percent of the time based on known evidence of natural abortion. Sometimes those occur unnoticed. We do not really know how often that is.

 

[SomeRandom]

In these cases there is no reason the baby can’t be removed alive..

in the rare case where this is not possible then abortions are always legal and always will be.

Do…do you know what an ectopic pregnancy is? It’s when the egg fails to attach to the uterus.
It’s not considered a viable fetus in the first place and is typically surgically removed (or medication is given, depending on the circumstances) to ensure the mother doesn’t die and her fertility rate is kept optimal. If that is indeed a concern for the patient.
Ectopic Pregnancy: Symptoms, Causes, and Treatments

Also like I alluded to earlier, late term abortions are among the most medically necessary out of all abortions. Since there are some medical issues that simply cannot be picked up until the later stages of pregnancy.

You would rather a fetus suffer in agony for a few minutes, than give it a merciful and quick death?
Really? You want to optimise suffering in such a scenario? I sincerely hope not

 

[Polymath257]

Everyday we try to avoid unwanted things/accidents.
If someone doesn't want a baby, they should take steps to avoid getting pregnant.
It isn't hard.

And those steps can fail.

 

[Polymath257]

Let's turn your question around. Use the same reasoning you use in your OP to answer this question.


A guy's kidneys are fried. He needs a kidney or he'll die.
You are compatible. You refuse to give up a kidney.

The guy dies due to organ failure.
Should you be charged with murder?


Why or why not?

We can go even further. Suppose you originally agreed to hook yourself up to a machine so he can use your kidneys. He requires this in order to continue living.

Do you have the right to separate yourself from the machine?

I say yes.

 

[VoidCat]

Im not concerned with the life of a possible someone who ain't even been born yet a maybe life since everyone argues on if they are a life or not. They are not a life until a certian point in my eyes but since that's debatable I ain't going into that. Im more concerned with those of us who are already born and their lives those of us who are for sure alive. And abortion laws lead to the needless deaths of folks with uteruses and punish folk for traumatic events like abortion or a natural miscarriage. I can't support abortion laws. You know on Facebook people are telling folk with uteruses in the US if they have a period tracker to get rid of it in case they have an irregular period cuz of the fact there's data trackers online? I don't know how likely it is for a person to get arrested for having an irregular period and accused of having a miscarriage when they didn't but if it's a possibility that's not a good thing. The fact folk are even worried about this even if it's an unlikely thing shows how messed up this all is.

 

[F1fan]

Everyday we try to avoid unwanted things/accidents.
If someone doesn't want a baby, they should take steps to avoid getting pregnant.
It isn't hard.

It not being hard is why it's so easy for you.

But other people?

What is easy for women who are raped and then forced to carry the evidence of the rape to term?
Or when contraception fails?

 

[F1fan]

Yet a person can be charged with two counts of murder/manslaughter for the death of a pregnant woman.
If it isn't a human life, how can one be charged with two counts of murder/manslaughter?

Yeah, those laws are designed to aggravate the consequences of murder.

None of this has an impact of women's reproductive rights as guaranteed by Roe.

Plus with desired pregnancies there is an expectation of the parents of that child being born. There's no guarantee of live birth, or that children don't die soon after birth. It's a very problematic phenomenon, and a lot can go wrong naturally.

 

[F1fan]

I've found that if I assume that the so-called "pro-life" movement is motivated by a desire to save what they consider to be human life, their actions are full of hypocrisy and contradiction.

OTOH, if I assume that their actions are motivated by a desire to punish women for having sex they disapprove of, everything falls into place and nothing is inconsistent.

This is why I find the motives of the Christian right to be immoral and fraud.

The anti-choice movement is promoted as a moral crusade but it is so narrow and limited in its application that it ignores the ancillary harm this idea causes. They want to end abortion, some say completely, no excuses, yet have not set any policies that will absorb the consequences. They want to solve their moral dilemma by causing more social problems, and then perhaps they will address the problems they caused. This is irresponsible, and to my mind, cruel.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is why I find the motives of the Christian right to be immoral and fraud.

The anti-choice movement is promoted as a moral crusade but it is so narrow and limited in its application that it ignores the ancillary harm this idea causes. They want to end abortion, some say completely, no excuses, yet have not set any policies that will absorb the consequences. They want to solve their moral dilemma by causing more social problems, and then perhaps they will address the problems they caused. This is irresponsible, and to my mind, cruel.

Even setting aside the consequences, I've found they aren't even that interested in ending abortion.

There's a lot they could do to dramatically reduce the number of abortions. A lot of it would have good support from the pro-choice side... but they aren't interested.

- proper sex ed? They're against it.
- condoms in high schools? They're against it.
- universal health care, subsidized child care, reasonable parental leave, and all the other things that would make it easier to afford a child financially? They're generally against them.

As far as I can tell, they're generally against measures that would prevent abortions unless the measure would also inflict cruelty or harm on a pregnant person.

This suggests to me that the cruelty and harm is the point, not "saving babies." If they could save a "baby," but it would have the side effect of making a pregnant person better off or happier, they aren't interested.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

when-you-prevent-an-abortion You save a human life. Does anyone disagree?

I agree. But that fact doesn't make me want to criminalize abortion. Those who offer it as an argument against abortion, or similar arguments surrounding when life begins, or whether a fetus is a person or a baby or whatever else one wants to call it, seem to assume that these ideas demand that the fetus be protected by the state.

Those aren't my values, and apparently not the values of the majority, who want this freedom protected, not fetuses. Forcing women to deliver fetuses at the end of unwanted pregnancies is not a proper role for government, and not the virtue the OP implies. The government's role is to facilitate her pursuit of happiness as she understands it. You might disagree.

The only consideration that enters into my moral calculus is who makes the choice about whether the pregnancy is allowed to come to term or aborted, the pregnant woman, or the church using the power of the state. Calling the fetus human or a child doesn't change anything, nor does calling its termination murder or sin. Words don't change the moral status of the act, however evocative they may be. If I said that fetuses weren't people or citizens, would that change you opinion? Probably not, just as others calling them human doesn't change mine. Decisions like these should not be made based in nomenclature and definitions.

The idea that every birth is a good thing is outdated. It probably comes from a time when more people were needed, perhaps as cannon fodder, or to work fields and farms, and life was shorter and and a wound could easily be lethal. Sons were needed to work and fight, and daughters were needed to generate and raise them. These are practical reasons that reflect the needs of another time, not timeless moral imperatives. Today, the problem is the opposite: overpopulation. Governments forcing the birth of unwanted babies is neither moral, nor justified, nor helpful.

This is the more natural moral position. The outrage against it is manufactured by the church, which is why it is concentrated in those who subject themselves to its teaching. Organic outrage is distributed across multiple demographics, such as the outrage we are witnessing directed at the prospect of the state recriminalizing abortion, which is being angrily objected to in large numbers even among Christians and other faiths. That's what spontaneous outrage looks like. We see it with the reaction to what the Russians are doing. The whole world objects, and nobody needs to tell them to object in a sermon. It's a natural moral judgment, so it is disseminated across the population. Look who shows up at abortion clinics to protest. Where are the secular humanists, pagans, and Wiccans? Not at these protests. Why? They have not been brought into the fold because they don't go to churches. Their moral judgments are the natural ones. These below are manufactured through religious indoctrination:

 

[F1fan]

Even setting aside the consequences, I've found they aren't even that interested in ending abortion.

There's a lot they could do to dramatically reduce the number of abortions. A lot of it would have good support from the pro-choice side... but they aren't interested.

- proper sex ed? They're against it.
- condoms in high schools? They're against it.
- universal health care, subsidized child care, reasonable parental leave, and all the other things that would make it easier to afford a child financially? They're generally against them.

As far as I can tell, they're generally against measures that would prevent abortions unless the measure would also inflict cruelty or harm on a pregnant person.

This suggests to me that the cruelty and harm is the point, not "saving babies." If they could save a "baby," but it would have the side effect of making a pregnant person better off or happier, they aren't interested.

That is what zombies for an authoritarian government think.

It's almost as is these Christian extremists want to create a sort of Eden, where the people are blindly obedient to the authoritarian leader and his rules, who himself answers to God. And it is all theater.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

You save a human life.


Does anyone disagree?

Maybe, sometimes, Often not.

But what else do you do? What does the "pro-life" party support? Prenatal care? Nope. Child-care? Nope. Paid leave? Nope. So once born, that human life is, for this party, "on its own." They are not "pro-life," they are "pro-birth" and nothing else. (By the way, they generally support the death penalty, too, so give me a break on "pro-life.")

But what else do you do? You might totally ruin another life -- that of a girl who made a mistake, was perhaps pressured into it, or perhaps even raped into it. That's the "trade off," and it seems, to me at least, that you are more than thrilled to make -- on her behalf.

This does not impress me in the slightest.

 

[Polymath257]

Even setting aside the consequences, I've found they aren't even that interested in ending abortion.

There's a lot they could do to dramatically reduce the number of abortions. A lot of it would have good support from the pro-choice side... but they aren't interested.

- proper sex ed? They're against it.
- condoms in high schools? They're against it.
- universal health care, subsidized child care, reasonable parental leave, and all the other things that would make it easier to afford a child financially? They're generally against them.

As far as I can tell, they're generally against measures that would prevent abortions unless the measure would also inflict cruelty or harm on a pregnant person.

This suggests to me that the cruelty and harm is the point, not "saving babies." If they could save a "baby," but it would have the side effect of making a pregnant person better off or happier, they aren't interested.

Ultimately, they are opposed to sex except that which is allowed by their religion. They don't want teenagers to know about sex because they think that promotes sex, but even more so, because they think that discussing sex at all outside of the family is bad.

This is why they are against sex education, why they are against contraception, why they are against homosexuals, why they are against trans gender, etc.

They simply don't want *anything* that is different than a family unit consisting of one husband, one wife, and a bunch of children. Also, if they can have the couple ignorant, that means they will have more children.

So, no, they don't care about whether anyone is happy with their sex lives: it is literally irrelevant to them. There is a plan and nobody gets to question it. They don't care if the children are properly taken care of--that isn't their business, but is instead something to keep the parents from asking too many questions because they are so busy. They don't care about preventing abortion if that also means preventing pregnancies in the first place: they want those who have sex to be punished for doing so.

 

[Sand Dancer]

You save a human life.


Does anyone disagree?

If the first trimester, which most abortions occur, abortion is safer than childbirth.

 

[We Never Know]

It not being hard is why it's so easy for you.

But other people?

What is easy for women who are raped and then forced to carry the evidence of the rape to term?
Or when contraception fails?

We have conditioned ourselves to do what we want if there is an easy to get solution to avoid the consequences. Abortion is one of those easy to get solutions to avoid the consequences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You save a human life.


Does anyone disagree?

When you use a condom to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, you prevent an abortion.

Do you disagree?

 

[We Never Know]

When you use a condom to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, you prevent an abortion.

Do you disagree?

No I don't agree. Condoms aren't 100%
However condoms do cut down the chances of pregnancy so in turn cut down abortions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No I don't agree. Condoms aren't 100%
However condoms do cut down the chances of pregnancy so in turn cut down abortions.

If you reread that he did not imply that condoms were 100% effective. He gave one case where a pregnancy was avoided. That does not say or imply that they will work 100% of the time. It is rather hard to get a per use efficiency since most of the studies I have seen cover how likely a pregnancy is in a year without saying how often the people had sex.