Choose life

[El_Machinae]

Before Roe there were not as many people aborting babies, but now we have millions each year being killed due to their mothers treating them as property.

That's a poor choice as a statistic. There are simply just more people, so you'd expect the number of any cohort (i.e., aborting women) to grow with simple population growth. Since Roe, there are more nutritionally deficient people, for example.

I'm like smellincoffee, I find 'brain development' to be an important moral consideration. To the best of my knowledge (and it's pretty significant), there's no sentience before 22 weeks. Not saying there's sentience at 22 weeks, just that there isn't beforehand. And so, I find pre-22 week abortions to be mostly morally inconsequential.

 

[TrafficJam]

It's ironic C_H uses the word choose, given that he wants to rob women of that very right to do what they want with their babies' bodies.

FIFY

I don't think most pro-lifers are against the right of a woman to choose to do what she wants with her own body. The problem comes when the choice that the woman makes has an impact on the baby's body.

 

[Traitorfish]

A foetus isn't necessarily a "baby", though, is it? Babies are sentient beings, while a foetus isn't necessarily anything more than a small bundle of cells. Surely you see how that complicates the anti-abortion position?

 

[Kyriakos]

A foetus isn't necessarily a "baby", though, is it? Babies are sentient beings, while a foetus isn't necessarily anything more than a small bundle of cells. Surely you see how that complicates the anti-abortion position?

I didn't know of that spelling of fetus. Maybe it should be called sinisterling instead

 

[Traitorfish]

It's a British spelling, I think, but I can't really bring myself to spell it "fetus". Just looks like somebody trying to come up with a name for their death metal band but really intent that it has to have a Led Zeppelin-style misspelling.

"Hullo, we're Rapid Fetuz, and this is our new song, 'Buggering the Corpse of Christ with Satan's Lawnmower'!" #dirdirdirdirdirdirdirdirdirdirdir#

 

[Farm Boy]

That you'd never find people to adopt all the orphans we'd have on our hands if abortion were illegal?

Well, at least now that the March of Life has a decent theme, maybe I'll read more articles from a pro-life stance like I did a couple days ago. One which slammed people who are pro-birth, but not actually pro-life. People who vote against access to abortion while simultaneously voting to strip away assistance to low-income pregnant women and mothers, voting to block things such as minimum wage protections from single mothers working desperately in part time jobs to make ends meet. Maybe, just maybe(I can pray, right?) people who find abortions an abhorrent choice might start demanding that society actually, you know, do something about many of the conditions that cause abortion to be an attractive choice in the first damned place.

Warpus, there's a lot more play in the infant adoption pool to accept newborns than is being used. I still don't hear this issue come up nearly as often as it darn well should. I can't find the link I plunked in a year or two ago for SS-ICBM that indicated nearly half of Americans consider adopting a child at some point in their lives, while certainly not half of people would ever actually go through with it, if the process wasn't so largely ignored, so surprisingly expensive, so grindingly slow, so persistently uncertain, and perniciously still a vestigial taboo, I think we could actualize on way, way more people willing to adopt infants.

 

[TrafficJam]

A foetus isn't necessarily a "baby", though, is it? Babies are sentient beings, while a foetus isn't necessarily anything more than a small bundle of cells. Surely you see how that complicates the anti-abortion position?

Well, I consider life to start at conception, so yes, I'd say a fetus is a baby, or a human at least. It's at the fetus-stage of development, just like a 2-year old is at the toddler-stage of development.

But, yes, I can see how those who do not share my view of life starting at conception would find this to be a complicating factor.

 

[warpus]

Well, at least now that the March of Life has a decent theme, maybe I'll read more articles from a pro-life stance like I did a couple days ago. One which slammed people who are pro-birth, but not actually pro-life. People who vote against access to abortion while simultaneously voting to strip away assistance to low-income pregnant women and mothers, voting to block things such as minimum wage protections from single mothers working desperately in part time jobs to make ends meet. Maybe, just maybe(I can pray, right?) people who find abortions an abhorrent choice might start demanding that society actually, you know, do something about many of the conditions that cause abortion to be an attractive choice in the first damned place.

Warpus, there's a lot more play in the infant adoption pool to accept newborns than is being used. I still don't hear this issue come up nearly as often as it darn well should. I can't find the link I plunked in a year or two ago for SS-ICBM that indicated nearly half of Americans consider adopting a child at some point in their lives, while certainly not half of people would ever actually go through with it, if the process wasn't so largely ignored, so surprisingly expensive, so grindingly slow, so persistently uncertain, and perniciously still a vestigial taboo, I think we could actualize on way, way more people willing to adopt infants.

All good points! It seems like this is something the U.S. needs to have a long big discussion about, but nobody except a minority of people are willing to have an honest one.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm still waiting for the technology that will allow a fetus to be implanted in the wombs of these women who supposedly wish to adopt every single aborted fetus. That would be a "win-win" for both camps.

But I bet it won't happen. Many of these couples are so selective they won't even think about adopting older children who now have to live in Foster homes and institutions until they reach adulthood.

 

[Ajidica]

Well, I consider life to start at conception, so yes, I'd say a fetus is a baby, or a human at least. It's at the fetus-stage of development, just like a 2-year old is at the toddler-stage of development.

The difference is that unlike a toddler, an early stage fetus has about the same level of sentience as my left thumb.

 

[Farm Boy]

Many of these couples are so selective they won't even think about adopting older children who now have to live in Foster homes and institutions until they reach adulthood.

That's a problem, but have you watched the lives of people active in the foster system? It's brutally hard work. It's emotionally draining. I've seen a couple very tough families bow out of that work after a couple placements/removals. We do need more people that tough, that brave and resilient, but I'll be the first to admit I've not been up to it. Are you? I think it's drastically unfair to blur the lines between to two and characterize this as an issue of people being "so selective." It's also an issue not very firmly linked to that of abortion. Foster placements and homes are almost always involved in situations where the children are removed from their parents. Sometimes also in situations where the child has severe disabilities. But oftentimes even infants with severe and likely terminal disabilities are more likely to find a placement than is a healthy pair of brothers aged 12 and 8. Or 15 and 12. It's a different sort of game.

 

[El_Machinae]

"Fused oocytes" is an intuitive heuristic to use when considering personhood. I think it's a reasonable place to start one's thinking, as long as we realize that it's merely an opinion based off an intuitive heuristic. This is why 'pro-choice' matters, because it recognises that this opinion isn't iron-clad; it's just a starting point when debating one's viewpoints.

 

[Tahuti]

A foetus isn't necessarily a "baby", though, is it? Babies are sentient beings, while a foetus isn't necessarily anything more than a small bundle of cells. Surely you see how that complicates the anti-abortion position?

It is a matter of population. Anti-abortionists allow Muslims, Jews, Negroids and other undesirables to fecund themselves into the majority population. They are complicit in the annihilation of the White Race!

 

[timtofly]

The difference is that unlike a toddler, an early stage fetus has about the same level of sentience as my left thumb.

The definition of a toddler is a 1 to 3 year old. Compared to a fetus, intercourse is still months away. Your thumb may still be relatively smart.

It is a matter of population. Anti-abortionists allow Muslims, Jews, Negroids and other undesirables to fecund themselves into the majority population. They are complicit in the annihilation of the White Race!

That could also imply that those people groups are wiser than pro-choice people.

 

[Gigaz]

(I clearly stated that I was ok with the government taking something from me, if it would save a life.)

Do you think that if someone needs a kidney, the goverment should take one from a fitting donator, by force, if necessary?

I would not give the government such power.

I do not agree with your premise that a government taking something without my consent has anything to do with a fetus taking something from the mother without her consent...

I think you do not yet understand my argument. This is not about the fetus taking something from the mother.
Still, you clearly said that a person should have the right to decide what happens with his or her body, regardless of the consequences for someone else.

 

[Silurian]

I'm still waiting for the technology that will allow a fetus to be implanted in the wombs of these women who supposedly wish to adopt every single aborted fetus. That would be a "win-win" for both camps.

But I bet it won't happen. Many of these couples are so selective they won't even think about adopting older children who now have to live in Foster homes and institutions until they reach adulthood.

Well they have transplanted wombs, so I suppose they could transplant one with a foetus inside now.

 

[Formaldehyde]

That's a problem, but have you watched the lives of people active in the foster system? It's brutally hard work. It's emotionally draining. I've seen a couple very tough families bow out of that work after a couple placements/removals. We do need more people that tough, that brave and resilient, but I'll be the first to admit I've not been up to it. Are you? I think it's drastically unfair to blur the lines between to two and characterize this as an issue of people being "so selective." It's also an issue not very firmly linked to that of abortion. Foster placements and homes are almost always involved in situations where the children are removed from their parents. Sometimes also in situations where the child has severe disabilities. But oftentimes even infants with severe and likely terminal disabilities are more likely to find a placement than is a healthy pair of brothers aged 12 and 8. Or 15 and 12. It's a different sort of game.

I'm not referring to those who are older and have close to zero chance of being adopted. Many are so selective that they demand an infant or even a newborn.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well they have transplanted wombs, so I suppose they could transplant one with a foetus inside now.

That seems like the sort of operation that neither person would typically agree. ButI think eventually that procedures and drugs can be developed which allow a fetus to be removed from one uterus and placed in the other on an outpatient basis. That it could be refined to be not all that different in physical stress and risk from current early-term abortions.

Then let's see how many women are willing to step forward to ensure that no fetus is aborted instead.

 

[Silurian]

That seems like the sort of operation that neither person would typically agree. ButI think eventually that procedures and drugs can be developed which allow a fetus to be removed from one uterus and placed in the other on an outpatient basis. That it could be refined to be not all that different in physical stress and risk from current early-term abortions.

Then let's see how many women are willing to step forward to ensure that no fetus is aborted instead.

You would have to move the placenta as well which is attached.
But it may well be possible in ten or twenty years.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not referring to those who are older and have close to zero chance of being adopted. Many are so selective that they demand an infant or even a newborn.

The way this plays out on the ground in domestic adoptions within the US, with relatively few exceptions, is you either get a newborn infant, or one that is under a month or 3, because the birth mother either formed an adoption plan while pregnant or changed her mind about further parenting(since after 9 months you can't claim she's opted out of parenting, she's already invested a lot into that life whatever comes after). Outside of of the infant stage, what children are available in the system? Even if I were so inclined I can't drop my imminently-to-be 2 year-old off at the fire station anymore. That's abandonment at this age. Even if I could, I and most parents wouldn't dream of actually doing it. So children past infancy are almost always wards of the state by force. They're seized through suspension or termination of parental rights. Maybe they'll eventually be placed back with their biological parents, maybe they never will be, maybe they'll bounce back and forth over the course of several years(which is really fun for foster parents). But they are still likely to be older at that point.