Would this Change your Position on Abortion?

[Thanda]

You are truly clueless.

Lol!

 

[RRex]

I don't give a damn about entitled women, to be sure.

Misogynist.

 

[Thanda]

Misogynist.

Lol! You're a laugh a minute.

 

[Kori]

I don't give a damn about entitled women, to be sure.

And how are they entitled?

Also the way you made this thread shows you wanted to both start a fight and to fight. If you would have just posted the info you found and wanted thoughts that is one thing but no you just had to do it in a way to challenge people and have people squabble in factions. You knew what would happen.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I've been thinking: if I understand correctly the main argument behind abortion is the bodily autonomy of a woman. Basically the thought process is that a woman shouldn't be forced to house another human being in her body.

In line with this thinking is the belief that if a child relies on a woman's body to live then they are not actually fully human yet and she should be allowed to cease supporting the child's existence by having an abortion.
Now as technology develops it may become possible for fetuses to be transferred from the earliest stages (a few weeks) to some machine that can help the fetuses develop into a fully viable baby.

Should such a system become available would you, if you currently support abortions, cease to support them as the baby is now no longer solely dependent on the mother's body for survival but the baby now has an option to develop independently from the mother through science?

Autonomy doesn't include removing another's autonomy! This would be the sole human right that is "forwarded" by ending a life form.

Autonomy doesn't really work in relationship between two persons. I will not accept, nor should I accept, that I'm faithful to my spouse but she can cheat on me because she has "bodily autonomy".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here we go again...

You have neither the knowledge to assert this, nor the capacity to determine it. Rephrased, it has no discernible connection to reality, it is just fanciful nonsense.

It's a reasonable inference from the most common anti-choice sets of positions.

Thanda has been talking about that Guttmacher survey of the reasons women cite for having abortions. The top three reasons cited were:

- having a child would interfere with the woman's education, work, or the ability to care for dependents (74%)
- not being able to afford a baby now (73%)
- the woman did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%)

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

When was the last time that a major anti-abortion group advocated measures or policies that addressed ANY of these issues? When has any anti-choice group supported, say, longer paid maternity leave or better financial support for children and parents?

Even taking into account the right-leaning nature of most of the anti-choice movement, what about measures that wouldn't make more "big government"... like de-stigmatizing single motherhood?

Mainstream anti-choice groups don't do this. They skip over the measures that would be most effective, and that would even get mutual support from pro-choice groups, and instead go way down the list to the measures that are less effective but maximize the cost and harm to the women involved.

It's hard to avoid inferring from this that preventing abortions isn't the top priority.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Autonomy doesn't include removing another's autonomy! This would be the sole human right that is "forwarded" by ending a life form.

It does include this, actually. You aren't forced to give up your kidney, a pint of blood, or even a hair on your head even if someone will certainly die without it.

Autonomy doesn't really work in relationship between two persons. I will not accept, nor should I accept, that I'm faithful to my spouse but she can cheat on me because she has "bodily autonomy".

Again: this really has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It does include this, actually. You aren't forced to give up your kidney, a pint of blood, or even a hair on your head even if someone will certainly die without it.

I'm not specifically interested in the abortion debate as a matter of legal law or legal precedent, more of a moral/spiritual plane. How would you FEEL about someone who said, "Sure, I can spare a pint of blood to save that baby's life, but I won't!" I understand you will champion their legal right to let someone die, but how would you feel about sparing a pint yourself to save someone? Would you hold back?

Again: this really has nothing to do with bodily autonomy.

Relationships have nothing to do with bodily autonomy? Wow, bodily autonomy sounds pretty bad, then!

In 2004, Melissa Rowland was prosecuted for refusing an emergency caesarian section to save the lives of her unborn twins. According to the hospital staff, Rowland refused the C-section because of the scar it would leave on her body. She stated she preferred to “lose one of the babies than be cut like that.” Nevertheless, emergency room doctors and nurses repeatedly tried to persuade Rowland to have the C-section, but she insisted on going outside for a smoke instead. She finally yielded to their demands, but by then it was too late: One baby died and the other required intense medical intervention to survive. The surviving twin, like his mother, tested positive for cocaine. The medical examiner’s report stated that had Rowland consented to the surgery when doctors originally urged her to, the baby would have survived. Rowland was subsequently charged with murder.

Kim Gandy of the National Organization for Women said she was “aghast” that Rowland was criminally charged. She’s got a point. If unborn humans have no legitimate claims on their mothers’ bodies, why not let a drug addict mom avoid the scar?

 

[Mister Emu]

@9-10ths_Penguin

I can genuinely assent that I believe people when they give their motives, and I ask for the same respect in return.

With the addendum that it isn't worth discussing with someone if they can't offer it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin


With the addendum that it isn't worth discussing with someone if they can't offer it.

It seems bizarre to me to assume that people never have ulterior motives, but okay: let's assume for argument's sake that anti-abortion activists really are sincere.

Since this is true, they *must* be doing something to address the biggest reason women seek abortions:

- having a child would interfere with the woman's education, work, or the ability to care for dependents (74%)

So what is it? What meaningful change is the anti-abortion movement pushing for on this issue?

 

[Mister Emu]

@9-10ths_Penguin
You know the fundamentalists who say that atheists know God is real and lie to themselves and everyone else, what are your opinions on them and their arguments?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@9-10ths_Penguin
You know the fundamentalists who say that atheists know God is real and lie to themselves and everyone else, what are your opinions on them and their arguments?

I think they believe it for doctrinal reasons (they MUST be aware that God exists, or it wouldn't be just to send them to Hell) and not evidence. They ignore the fact that atheist behaviour is entirely consistent with not believing that God exists.

I also think their arguments aren't focused on abortion, which is the topic of this thread.

... but I've already accepted your position about anti-abortion motives (at least for argument's sake): I concede that the anti-abortion movement is hard at work on the top reason why women seek abortions. Even though I've seen no sign of this, I accept that this is because I just haven't noticed and not because they aren't doing it.

So can you help me recognize all this work that I haven't noticed?

Edit: because you haven't answered already, I'm guessing you probably won't. If you prefer, feel free to give your explanation of WHY anti-abortion groups aren't addressing the biggest reason why women seek abortions and how this can be reconciled with their goal of reducing abortions.

 

[Mister Emu]

but I've already accepted your position about anti-abortion motives (at least for argument's sake):

I'm not here for feigned basic respect for the sake of argument. I've already noted, if you aren't going to engage in a good faith discussion, it isn't worth discussing.

Unfortunately, you seem incapable of that on this topic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not here for feigned basic respect for the sake of argument. I've already noted, if you aren't going to engage in a good faith discussion, it isn't worth discussing.

Unfortunately, you seem incapable of that on this topic.

I've given you as much respect as I can muster. The anti-choice movement is harmful and hypocritical; I'm being as charitable as I can be by allowing for the possibility that the harm and hypocrisy comes from negligence and thoughtlessness instead of wilfulness. If that's not good enough for you and you're happy to let my accusation of hypocrisy stand unchallenged because you don't like my attitude, that's your choice.

 

[BilliardsBall]

@9-10ths_Penguin
You know the fundamentalists who say that atheists know God is real and lie to themselves and everyone else, what are your opinions on them and their arguments?

I don't know if this was addressed to me. I will say that not all atheists "know God is real and lie to themselves." There are some atheists who are yet to encounter God. The question for them is the question for all persons. When God does indeed step into their life, will they trust Him or reject Him?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know if this was addressed to me.

It was addressed to me. Mister Emu was trying to make a point about me questioning the motives of the anti-choice movement.

 

[Thanda]

When was the last time that a major anti-abortion group advocated measures or policies that addressed ANY of these issues? When has any anti-choice group supported, say, longer paid maternity leave or better financial support for children and parents?

This is a poor argument. How do you know whether the people who are part of the anti-abortion are not (individually) also part of groups that support measures that will make a mothers life easier. I know from my side that I would support many measures that would help.

having a child would interfere with the woman's education, work, or the ability to care for dependents (74%)

I support companies paying everybody better, including women. I also support policies that are aimed at job creation.
Lastly I also support changing societies mentality so that children are not looked at as an interference but rather as a blessing, and gift and a sacred responsibility.

- not being able to afford a baby now (73%)

Refer above - I fully support policies that help people raise their children. Btw, I'm not American - I'm a black South African man. So don't confuse my anti abortion position with other positions those on the right may have in America.

- the woman did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%)

I would support making counselling sessions more readily available for everyone especially couples with or expecting children.

But above all this I submit that abortion is a heinous act and the non-availability of these solutions right now, or the failure of the solutions to solve everyone's problems justifies no one to kill an innocent baby.

 

[Thanda]

I think they believe it for doctrinal reasons (they MUST be aware that God exists, or it wouldn't be just to send them to Hell) and not evidence. They ignore the fact that atheist behaviour is entirely consistent with not believing that God exists.

I also think their arguments aren't focused on abortion, which is the topic of this thread.

... but I've already accepted your position about anti-abortion motives (at least for argument's sake): I concede that the anti-abortion movement is hard at work on the top reason why women seek abortions. Even though I've seen no sign of this, I accept that this is because I just haven't noticed and not because they aren't doing it.

So can you help me recognize all this work that I haven't noticed?

Edit: because you haven't answered already, I'm guessing you probably won't. If you prefer, feel free to give your explanation of WHY anti-abortion groups aren't addressing the biggest reason why women seek abortions and how this can be reconciled with their goal of reducing abortions.

Okay, suppose I live in a country where it is legal to grab a random woman and rape her so long as she is alone outside her home. And suppose the studies show that the men who are most likely to engage in this are the unemployed men in the country.

If I start an anti-rape group, should that anti-rape group work towards finding men employment or should it work towards challenging the law, and protecting women and shaming the men who are engaged in that despicable behaviour?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, suppose I live in a country where it is legal to grab a random woman and rape her so long as she is alone outside her home. And suppose the studies show that the men who are most likely to engage in this are the unemployed men in the country.

If I start an anti-rape group, should that anti-rape group work towards finding men employment or should it work towards challenging the law, and protecting women and shaming the men who are engaged in that despicable behaviour?

Not really a good analogy. Even anti-choice people can recognize that many of the reasons that women seek abortions are valid, serious concerns even if they disagree with using abortion to address them.

... and comparing women who seek abortions to rapists doesn't really help your case that you're not out to vilify these women.

 

[Thanda]

Not really a good analogy. Even anti-choice people can recognize that many of the reasons that women seek abortions are valid, serious concerns even if they disagree with using abortion to address them.

... and comparing women who seek abortions to rapists doesn't really help your case that you're not out to vilify these women.

And I'm sure even you recognize that the dignity of having a job and the opportunity it grants including the ability to find mates and release sexual tensions are also valid, serious concerns.

With every crime there are always a set of factors that contribute. Most violent crime happens in or is committed by people who are from poor communities. And I'm sure we all realise the need to improve the lives of the poor - but in the meantime we still have laws and we still prosecute those who commit them. We do this because we realise that while circumstances may make certain actions more likely - no one is made to do anything by their circumstances (the evidence being many of those who are in the same situation making different choices).

So while certain circumstances may make a man more likely to rape - no man is made to rape and so we have outlawed it. Ditto abortion.