Let's Talk About: Abortion

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

12 pages and everything focuses on the baby/fetus, and nothing on forcing a woman to effectively be varying degrees of somewhat to violently ill for 9 months.

Where's the autonomy concerns over not throwing away the better part of a year of your life feeling like total garbage (not even mentioning the 3-4 weeks of wearing diapers, constant bleeding, blood clots, incontinence and other fun factors that come after the birth).

This is not a universal experience.


Also, what if you are anti-abortion but pro killing babies?




http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=regressive

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

This is not a universal experience.


Also, what if you are anti-abortion but pro killing babies?




http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=regressive

Yeah, sometimes it's worse and the mother tears from her V to her A and has to deal with perineum recovery, or the months of healing associated with a c-section. Or sometimes she gets hyperemesis gravidarum and vomits for 9 months straight.

[DuffMan]

as seen on the internet today

"the only heartbeat I care about is Ruth Bader Ginsburgs"

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

The zygote is a human being, biologically speaking, just at very early development. For the 4th time in this thread, my issue with abortion is intentional ending of life and not natural miscarriage.

You're going to have to move off of this claim, as it is not accurate. A zygote is NOT a human being - in any shape or form. At best it carries the genetic code of a human being, but it is no where near a human being.

It's like buying a blueprint for a house and a bunch of 2x4s and claiming you bought a house. You don't have anything until it is developed, complete, and has actually been inspected and certified for occupancy. In the instance of a zygote there is massive amounts of development to take place before it can be classified as anything. Until their are actual tissues and support systems that could sustain life on its own, there is no life.

This is why embryonic stem cells are considered the holy grail in bio-engineering as the cells have yet to develop into anything specific and can be used to build almost anything in the human body. The zygote has not yet developed any specific cells or structures that would define a system in a human being, and has definitely not developed the systems that would allow the zygote to survive without the host. It is NOT human in any recognizable way, except that it carries genetic code capable of developing a human.

Cathy Newman, is that you? Never did I say that laws mean nothing to me unless I accept them. Am I not allowed to express disagreement with an aspect of some philosophical view or approach that informs some laws? This is a democracy after all. My philosophical approach to human rights is that all individual human beings deserve the right to life, the most basic and fundamental of all human rights. I accept that you reject the fetus to be a human life. I respect that. But I believe pro-lifers and others have a valid biological claim to argue otherwise which is why we'll continue to defend that view in the public conversation.

Well, you keep running away from the fact that fetuses are not recognized by any government or legal authority as a human being, nor afforded protections in any shape or form. The reality is that a "human" does not have rights until it is born and recognized by the legal authority as being an individual. "Rights" are not afforded to that individual until they are cognitively aware of their surroundings and can be determined to be competent to process information and make determinations of right or wrong. A fetus does not meet any standard for the protections afforded humans. The woman carrying the fetus is recognized as a human and has the right of self determination.

I'm trying to get you to land on a space where the ground is solid. You're suggesting that a woman's rights can be infringed upon - by your religious-based belief - for the benefit of a yet to be determined legal entity. There is no support for this anywhere.

The comparison of the zygote to cancer cells is so disingenuous let alone disgusting. If you allow cancer cells to grow, a fully developed human is not going to suddenly emerge in the body of the patient at some point. Why is it that women who are expecting and are happy about it never compare the life in their womb to just a bunch of cancer cells or glops of cells? Yet, when the baby is unwanted they'll use euphemisms to disguise the reality of what the life really is?

This is directly related to your definition of "life." Your claim of cells carrying unique DNA makes it a unique individual and worthy of protection, even at the stage where it is just a glop of cells and has no resemblance to a human being. So if you take that stance you must also defend that any live cells that carry human DNA must also be worthy of protection, allowing them to develop and mature into what they are. This is part of this debate that is so frustrating because the pro-life side will go to incredible lengths to define life, but when you use the same definitions to determine the counter side of the argument, they cry foul.

And there are no guarantees that a zygote is going to develop into a fully functional human being. As has been mentioned numerous times, 66% of zygotes never implant or spontaneously abort. Again, I would really like to find some solid ground in the definition of what human life is, because your definition does not hold water.

Frame and misrepresent the pro-life view any way you like. For many in the pro-life cause it is about protecting human lives. Just as I see nothing wrong with you arguing your view of morality in the public space, I see nothing wrong with pro-lifers doing the same. Democracy. Isn't it beautiful? The laws are currently the way they are and I respect that. Doesn't mean I cant disagree and push for changes. Myself and others who care deeply about the pro-life cause will do everything within the bounds of law and public discourse to protect ALL human lives. I expect no less from those who disagree with us, or about any other issue, to do the same.

I'm all about protecting human life, but I tend to protect the living and breathing over everything else. This is actually what the laws do, and they do a good job at protecting our rights and liberty. They allow for self determination and don't allow for small minority collectives to force their views on the majority. That is democracy in action and we need to protect that so we will maintain our rights and not allow the fringe to rule.

Well at least you acknowledge the life in the womb is a body.

Definition time.

Body: the main, central, or principal part: such as
(1) architecture : the nave of a church
(2) : the bed or box of a vehicle on or in which the load is placed
(3) : the enclosed or partly enclosed part of an automobile

a mass of matter distinct from other masses or an organizational until to define a collection.

Not what you think I said.

Regardless of the body's dependence on the mother, I still don't see that as an argument to terminate its life. Both ought to be protected. With your logic, is it fair to say that you support abortion right up to just before birth?

That's actually not my stance. My stance is that we need a definition of when a fetus becomes a viable self-sustaining entity. We need science to determine what that date is, and do so off of scientific evidence. I firmly believe that for a fetus to become a person they must be able to sustain their primary bodily functions on their own, without the aid of technological assistance. The "baby" needs to be free from the umbilical and be able to breath on its own.

Why is it important that the "baby" be able to do this without technological assistance? Because this establishes an imbalance between the haves and the have-nots. Those with money will be able to pay for such sustenance and provide yet another imbalance in society.

My stance is that a fetus becomes a "baby" when they have reached the stage of development where they have a better than 80% chance of survival once detached from the umbilical. Based on research, that is at about 26 weeks.

Again, your view makes sense if the life in the womb is not a human being. However, pro-lifers reject that view and the science would agree too. Argue viability, lack of development or use any euphemism to try and downplay... fine. Doesn't change the fact that it's a human being.

Reject away. Just like I will reject your claims of scientific agreement on your terms. Science does not agree with that. You continue to make that claim, but that is why science refers to the fetus in specific terms and in specific developmental periods. It is important to recognize that the arguments are stacked up against your perspective. Science has a very different view of what you're presenting. The law has a very different perspective on things. These are the things we should be using as a basis for our discussion rather than dismissing because your religious doctrine says something else.

As for your end rant, it's hard not to take as anything else but an attempt to shut down debate on this issue. Not to mention that it does nothing to address the actual arguments. I never understand how people expressing alternative views is taken as some kind of aggressive attack on liberty. There's tons of things I disagree with but all the power to people who make those views known. In fact, I love to hear it. It keeps us from being complacent. It allows us to be engaged. Moreover, I don't know everything and I can probably bet that neither does anyone else... so we should be open to the possibility that we might be wrong. Lastly, it's the sign of a great democracy to have all these views.

It is clearly an attempt to show that there are those with more skin in the game, and that people should not have a say or influence in areas where they have no stake. Women deserve to have the say of what happens over their bodies, and men should take a back seat in this discussion. We can be that back seat driver, but the skin we have in the game is so limited that it is unfair that our voices dominate a discussion about a decision that we as men will never have to truly wrestle with. I too love the discussion, but we men should allow the women to be the decision makers here. It affects them a lot more than it will ever affect us.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

Well we've got plenty of historical atrocities to learn from where a certain class of people were disregarded as less than humans based on some arbitrary selection of characteristics.

This is rather rich given the position you are supporting considers women inferior and consequently should have no control over their own bodies.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by GGG

I absolutely agree with you that adoption needs to be improved and sold as an option between keep the baby and abortion. However it doesn’t solve the abortion issue even if you can get past the ethics forcing women to carry to term. We have a surplus of fetuses.

I realize that as there is a lot of evidence to suggest that adoption rates, despite falling over the last 50 years have very little to do with abortion rates.

[Badgers Nose]

Rather than aborting unwanted fetuses, the State will transplant them into synthetic wombs and incubate them to be raised as wardens of the State.

On maturity they will form the muscled arm of the authority, learning how to beat radicals, dissidents, worshippers, democrats and people that don't pick up after their dogs.

Problem solved, and we finally get some peace and order around here.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

The zygote is a human being, biologically speaking, just at very early development. For the 4th time in this thread, my issue with abortion is intentional ending of life and not natural miscarriage.

Is a tadpole a frog, or is it a tadpole? Is a caterpillar a butterfly, or is it a caterpillar? Is a zygote a human being, or is it a zygote?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

12 pages and everything focuses on the baby/fetus, and nothing on forcing a woman to effectively be varying degrees of somewhat to violently ill for 9 months.

Where's the autonomy concerns over not throwing away the better part of a year of your life feeling like total garbage (not even mentioning the 3-4 weeks of wearing diapers, constant bleeding, blood clots, incontinence and other fun factors that come after the birth).

Well if it’s life with equal standing then the calculus is simple. 1 year plus x% chance of death < 100 years - x% chance of death.

Life begins at conception with no exceptions people have a very simple and correct basis for their argument. They just have a flawed premise that a zygote is equal to a person.

The same can be said of the extreme pro choice of its not a life until it takes a breath. The logic is sound that abortion should always be okay again just based on a flawed premise.

The rest of us get to live in shades of grey where the debate of when it becomes a life is the paramount question because once it is a life the calculus becomes simple. The abortion debate is just the Trolly problem.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well if it’s life with equal standing then the calculus is simple. 1 year plus x% chance of death < 100 years - x% chance of death.

Life begins at conception with no exceptions people have a very simple and correct basis for their argument. They just have a flawed premise that a zygote is equal to a person.

The same can be said of the extreme pro choice of its not a life until it takes a breath. The logic is sound that abortion should always be okay again just based on a flawed premise.

The rest of us get to live in shades of grey where the debate of when it becomes a life is the paramount question because once it is a life the calculus becomes simple. The abortion debate is just the Trolly problem.

How many people would be willing to sacrifice a year of their lives (and possibly, their career) to save the life of someone they don't know?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by GGG

Well if it’s life with equal standing then the calculus is simple. 1 year plus x% chance of death < 100 years - x% chance of death.

Life begins at conception with no exceptions people have a very simple and correct basis for their argument. They just have a flawed premise that a zygote is equal to a person.

The same can be said of the extreme pro choice of its not a life until it takes a breath. The logic is sound that abortion should always be okay again just based on a flawed premise.

The rest of us get to live in shades of grey where the debate of when it becomes a life is the paramount question because once it is a life the calculus becomes simple. The abortion debate is just the Trolly problem.

The two extremes are logical and testable. People arguing about when life begins between those posts don’t have a factual answer so are essentially rationalizing to avoid the true question - when does the mother’s life and lifetime override the fetus’ (potential) life.

The answer to that question is moral, ethical and I believe ultimately personal, with no correct answer. Having a legal standard based on viability is arbitrary but as good as any - but no one should believe that the fetus is actually less human the day before vs the day after 26 weeks. In fact allowing a woman’s right to trump the fetus’ right up until birth is just as valid - the chance of survival shouldn’t really enter into the decision, otherwise people are just using the firing squad model - there’s a chance my gun didn’t have a real bullet.

I don’t have a particular point here, I’d just prefer it if the debate was about the rights of the mother vs the rights of the fetus rather than focusing on when life begins and avoiding the real question.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

How many people would be willing to sacrifice a year of their lives (and possibly, their career) to save the life of someone they don't know?

That’s a good way to put the question but not quite correct. The comparison implies inaction rather than action. So correctly stated would be how many people would sacrifice a year of their lives to not kill someone. Or how many people would sacrifice a year of their lives to save a baby. The value society puts on that life makes the answer to that question quite variable.

I would say the closer you put a real life in front of the person as opposed to an abstract life the closer that gets to 100%. So if you had to look the person in the eye and tell them you aren’t saving their life I don’t think you get many takers.

[Azure]

I would imagine the overwhelming majority of people who opt to save a person's life if it only required a 'year' of sacrifice.

But you are not really saying what that year will involve. Are we talking an kidney donation with a year of recovery? 1 year of caring for someone who is going to be on life support?

What kind of sacrifice is involved?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Azure

I would imagine the overwhelming majority of people who opt to save a person's life if it only required a 'year' of sacrifice.

I think you significantly overestimate the level of empathy in the general population.

Sacrificing your time, body and life is hard, posting anti-Abortion memes on Facebook and voting in regressives is easy.

[Azure]

Exactly why I'm asking about kind of sacrifice is required....

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

I think you significantly overestimate the level of empathy in the general population.

Sacrificing your time, body and life is hard, posting anti-Abortion memes on Facebook and voting in regressives is easy.

Can't say that I get what you are driving at here. Lots of women have had children and are pro-life so...

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Azure

Exactly why I'm asking about kind of sacrifice is required....

Basically what happens during pregnancy, obviously.

The sacrifice could be anything as minimal as a slow degradation in mobility, physical pain and nausea. It could be as extreme as life threatening kidney, liver and other organ complications, vomiting 10x-20x a day for 9 months, constant migraine headaches, intense back, neck and shoulder pain, loss of the ability to control your bladder and bowels, and months spent hospitalized.

Peripherally, it is minimally a minor inconvenience for those at your workplace (depending on your job), or being unable to perform your job altogether for upwards of 15 months (when including the time after-birth) and being removed from projects or potentially losing your job (though indirectly, it still occurs).

Originally Posted by Ark2

Can't say that I get what you are driving at here. Lots of women have had children and are pro-life so...

This is just another instance of personal experience driving opinion, rather than collective knowledge. "It was easy for me!" doesn't mean it's easy for other women, or beyond that, that a woman wants to deal with what another woman considers "easy".

Ultimately, forcing someone to at minimum, suffer pain and inconvenience for 9 months, and at worst, be put in a life threatening situation that may cause many health issues for their future (completely discluding mental effects, which are quite massive in some women), in unconscionable.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

This is just another instance of personal experience driving opinion, rather than collective knowledge. "It was easy for me!" doesn't mean it's easy for other women, or beyond that, that a woman wants to deal with what another woman considers "easy".

So those women are only pro-choice because it was easy for them? Correct me if I am wrong here, but your point seems to be that people are only pro-life because they are ignorant as to what actually happens to a woman's body during pregnancy. Kind of a 'if they possessed your "collective knowledge" they would change their minds on abortion' sort of thing?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Ultimately, forcing someone to at minimum, suffer pain and inconvenience for 9 months, and at worst, be put in a life threatening situation that may cause many health issues for their future (completely discluding mental effects, which are quite massive in some women), in unconscionable.

Do you feel that the draft is also unconscionable?

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

So those women are only pro-choice because it was easy for them? Correct me if I am wrong here, but your point seems to be that people are only pro-life because they are ignorant as to what actually happens to a woman's body during pregnancy. Kind of a 'if they possessed your "collective knowledge" they would change their minds on abortion' sort of thing?

So you've ignored the 4 posts I made previous to that?

I'm just promoting the exploration of a different angle of discussion RE: the effect on the mother and their physical toll.

Most anti-abortion sentiment stems from concern for a fetus, and the mothers concern is discarded.

Originally Posted by Ark2

Do you feel that the draft is also unconscionable?

Is this a real question? Yes. Obviously.