Choose life

[Ziggy Stardust]

Hmm, that kind of reaction I generally associate with people who are, well, not you Farm Boy.

 

[Farm Boy]

Great. Knock yourself out.

Ps. The idiom, not the literal.

 

[Cutlass]

I think it's pretty unfair to blame "conservative" policies when places like Utah, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, hardly hotbeds of liberalism, have better mortality rates than places like Pennsylvania, Washington D.C., and Michigan.

You can criticize the health care and other things in the states with higher infant mortality rates, but I'd appreciate it if you can explain why "conservative" policies are at fault rather than the individual state policies if there is a wide variance amongst conservative states. I guess it would also help to know what exactly is the general cause of death amongst said infants.

It's also seems pretty unfair to me to harp on infant mortality rates and decry lost opportunity while glossing an aborted fetus, but I suppose that's why we still have these kind of the discussions after all these years.

It's also really not helpful to call people "anti-life" any more than it is to call them "pro-abortion" :/

You are right that not all 'conservative' states are doing worse than the more 'liberal' states. But when you look at the other factors, the first significant factor in where infant mortality is the worst is there being a very large number of very poor people. Where the states you mentioned simply lack having a really large number of people, period. And the second factor is policies, heavily favored by conservatives, which are particularly harsh against the poor.

So what you have is that the policies favored by conservatives maximize poverty, maximize family disruption, and maximize the prevention of all sorts of opportunities. This leads to more at risk pregnancies and at risk children.

If these conservatives were 'pro-life', then there is no way that they would be so hostile to all the things children need in order to live and thrive. Yet conservative policies across the board in the US are, at best, utterly indifferent to whether the children, once born, live or die. So if they were in fact 'pro-life', they would not be so anti-welfare. And they would not be so anti-labor. And they would not be so anti-family. But yet they are.

So if they are anti-welfare, and anti-labor, then they cannot be pro life. They can only be anti-choice.

 

[classical_hero]

That isn't actually true. Take an embryo out of a womb and plop it down on a tabletop, it'll be dead in minutes. Bringing it to term requires an active, ongoing and quite deliberate effort on the part of the mother. You can't erase that reality simply because it is rhetorically convenient for you to do so.

I mean, the whole thing is basically drivel, sub-amateur metaphysics by somebody skimmed a bit of Aristotle but didn't really understand what was going on, but this claim in particular is just factually incorrect, simply and flatly untrue, so it seemed an appropriate issue to raise.

You could take a disabled person and leave them alone and they will die with out care. What about a person in hospital in a coma, take away life support and in minutes they will be dead? So are they not persons either?

It's more than that. Take my 'scratched skin cells' from upthread, in the right environment, they'd grow to become people. That doesn't mean that they're people even though they fit scarabu's first five criteria too.

The problem with this is that you need a third party to make it "work". Skin cells don't normally do that and it takes many special procedures to even get close what happens naturally with just two people. When an egg and sperm combine it naturally becomes human, whereas you example is not natural. Once the embryo starts dividing, it is doing what life is meant to do.

Okay, let's just grant that 'convenience' is one of the putative motives. I'll even grant that it's true for some women. It's not the only potential motivation.
1) Concern for the well-being of the infant, where you want the quality-of-life of the baby (and future adult) to be good if you're going to create it.
2) Concern for the well-being of your other loved ones. Maybe your current kids/spouse cannot handle having another kid, and you're already stretched too thin. And, there's their emotions to consider as well, so you're taking their feelings into consideration.

And I'm sure there are others, just like there are many women. I'm just a guy spit-balling, but the idea that 'convenience' is the goto reason is just ... wrong.

The vast majority of women who do get abortions, convenience is the main reason. Many women who go for an abortion have already had one before and many are more than once. It is simply a lifestyle decision.

I'll take the pro-life movement seriously when they start actually being pro-life for people outside of the womb. I.e supporting war, the death penalty, cutting back food stamps and free health care isn't really pro-life.

There is a massive difference between innocent life and non innocent life. Also just because some people believe the government shouldn't be doing such things, doesn't mean they want people to die, but just allow the right organisations to give people real help, rather than government dependence. The weird thing is that innocent life can be taken away without due process, but gong through due process is wrong when the end result if the termination of a guilty life. Crazy logic if you ask me.

So many things to unpack in that statement.

Using science to determine when the life becomes more than a life is silly. But using religion is fine.

Look at any embryology book and they will state the case that life begins as soon as it starts dividing and that the embryo is a unique human being/ The only objection people come up with are "philosophical" but so were the arguments used by slavery supporters.

What are your current thoughts on singles and homosexual couples being able to adopt?

Only those who try via the natural method of conception should be allowed to adopt, so singles and homosexuals need not to apply.

Hi there! 2 miscarriages here, one at 7 weeks the other at 12. Thanks for speaking for me by assuming that we cried because we thought we lost a child on 2 separate occasions!

You're right. We didn't cry because of the disappointment associated with a major life setback, that's for sure. We didn't cry because of the feelings of biological inadequacy associated with being incapable of starting a family once we decided we were finally ready. We didn't cry because we now had to tell everyone in our lives that we had bad news, nor because of the multiple nights of labor contractions, inability to sleep or eat, hours upon hours spent in the bathtub hemorrhaging this failed pregnancy, nor the three utterly awful, humiliating, and painful trips to the emergency room. Nope, none of those reasons!

Seriously, I'm sure some people feel that way, but not us. And we're not outliers, as we know from extensive conversations on this subject.

Here's the view my wife and I share:

It really was just a blob of cells. I know - I was looking for it in the bathtub drain. It wasn't a person, it wasn't anything I would call human. That clot of cells had the *potential* to grow into a person, but neither me nor my wife went through this awful experience thinking that we actually had a kid die.

We cried because our future lives wouldn't be like we had planned. We had to start over - yet again - and with no guarantee that we wouldn't be bleeding out in the bathtub one more time in another "few" months.

But thanks for speaking for me anyway

Now this is the woman's body making the choice. The female body knows when something is wrong and will thus get rid of the unborn baby. The body knows how to make the choice and will never get rid of a healthy baby.

Using the term "clump of cells" is a great way to dehumanise, just like how the Nazi's and slave traders did so they could do what they wanted to do.

There are lots of things I think should be legal but which I don't actually support. For example, I think burning flags should be legal, but I don't support that. I think religions like Islam and Scientology should be legal, but I don't support them. And I think abortion should be legal but I'm not telling anyone they should go get an abortion. That makes me pro-choice, because I'm on the side of freedom, but not pro-abortion.

What about the freedom of the child?

The term pro-choice is simply more descriptive of my position than pro-abortion. Now you're free to ignore that or not believe me or disagree. But please spare me the nonsense about having to find a positive to be pro about.

So should the woman pay for her choice?

One thing about the rhetoric about the pro-choice groups is the absurd claim that Transvaginal ultrasounds are rape. Transvaginal ultrasounds:Why pro choice advocates shouldn't call them rape.

“Are we now going to have to convince our patients we are not raping them?” A long time abortion provider posed that question to colleagues on a listserv this week, and it demonstrates what is wrong headed about the rhetoric that abortion rights supporters have been using to oppose ultrasound laws. In the short run, the labelling has sent pro-life legislators running. But in the long run, it risks turning a benign and routine part of the abortion procedure into cause for alarm.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Slavery supporters

 

[Traitorfish]

You could take a disabled person and leave them alone and they will die with out care. What about a person in hospital in a coma, take away life support and in minutes they will be dead? So are they not persons either?

I don't think you've understand the argument.

 

[El_Machinae]

Eh, it's a cop out. You have to find a positive to be "pro" for, especially when you are advocating a policy that allows for destruction of our young.

I snipped the part where you discussed the legal necessity, because of travesty. Yeah, no disagreement there. And, yeah, abortion has certainly 'expanded' from being a reaction to 'travesty' to more resembling convenience. I mean, I don't fully agree with the whole 'convenience' tag, it's awfully callous and one-size-fits-all, but there's certainly a vibe in that direction. So, what's to be 'pro-' for in 'pro-choice'?
Well, it's certainly 'pro-freedom', given how sticky of a question it is. We leave it up to our individual consciousnesses and senses of desperation. Now, I personally find my own line to be reasonable (sentience), but there are many lines that people seem to feel are intuitive (viability outside the womb; conception). Is there a 'right' answer here? Probably, but durned if I know what it is. So, along with 'pro-freedom', it's also clearly 'anti-poverty'. Is it all that effective? I dunno, suspect not. But, it's certainly not 'pro-poverty'. But even that's a sidebar, it's really being 'pro-' about the 'pro-choice'.

The problem with this is that you need a third party to make it "work". Skin cells don't normally do that and it takes many special procedures to even get close what happens naturally with just two people. When an egg and sperm combine it naturally becomes human, whereas you example is not natural. Once the embryo starts dividing, it is doing what life is meant to do.

I don't find arguments from naturalism to be compelling. When people look to nature for 'meant to be', they have decent odds of just being wrong. The 'personhood' status of the organism is equal regardless of how it got there? If we go back a few cell-cycle divisions, does it change. Does a skin cell magically become a person when you put it in a petri-dish? That strikes me as too arbitrary.

Look at any embryology book and they will state the case that life begins as soon as it starts dividing and that the embryo is a unique human being/ The only objection people come up with are "philosophical" but so were the arguments used by slavery supporters.

I wouldn't call it "philosophical". "Sentience" is an actual biological trait. I daresay, it's the major reason we toss the placenta but keep the baby. If we thought the placenta experienced a slow death through suffocation and dessication, we'd tread it differently.

 

[Senethro]

What is this convenience BS? Inconvenient is the local shop being out of milk so you have to go across town. Having a child is a serious medical event leading to the creation of a dependent and what will probably be a lifelong relationship for one of you. They're kind of on different scales.

What kind of gigantic douchepoodle tries to sum up recognising being in a poor position for the latter in terms of convenience? Probably Hitler and the Confederate states, thats who!

 

[warpus]

Someone who supports slavery

 

[Farm Boy]

It sure is a serious event. Takes prit near a year too. Its not a minor thing. But it only takes a lifetime of investment if you choose it to. It only yields a child that is dependent on you if you choose it to. Just like this only becomes a moral conundrum when people want to get their screw on, and neither avoiding risky behavior nor the outcome of that behavior is preferable to ending a life. Because, you know, it's the 21st century, we're so over responsibility.

Warpus, this is one of the reasons I check out on 'honest' discussions after I've tried for a while, and yes I realize I'm getting snarky, is because no matter how often I bring up adoption being super prevalent for infants and adoptive support for expectant birth mothers, people will keep spewing ''a lifetime of expense,'' ''a new lifelong dependent,'' and tripe along those lines. Not to short sell the massive investment that is pregnancy/birth/recovery themselves, but the common repeating strains of poverty/expense of children means either indicates people don't read, or if they do they just refuse to consider infant adoption to actually be a 'thing.' Then, you know, 'slavery' sums it up. Great. Sure. You nailed it there alright.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, don't tire. I must admit some selective blindness on my part. When I see "lifetime of slavery", I just see hyperbole or even exaggeration. But, you're right, it's incorrect. In choosing to not abort, there certainly is a slavery component (until the birth, at least), but adoption should continue to be an option.
I mean, I'm no monster. There are plenty of girls who don't have the stomach for abortion, who could probably use adoption as their 'least worst' option. I don't think anyone wants to vilify such a choice, even if we forget to emphasise it.

 

[Senethro]

It sure is a serious event. Takes prit near a year too. Its not a minor thing. But it only takes a lifetime of investment if you choose it to. It only yields a child that is dependent on you if you choose it to. Just like this only becomes a moral conundrum when people want to get their screw on, and neither avoiding risky behavior nor the outcome of that behavior is preferable to ending a life. Because, you know, it's the 21st century, we're so over responsibility.

Warpus, this is one of the reasons I check out on 'honest' discussions after I've tried for a while, and yes I realize I'm getting snarky, is because no matter how often I bring up adoption being super prevalent for infants and adoptive support for expectant birth mothers, people will keep spewing ''a lifetime of expense,'' ''a new lifelong dependent,'' and tripe along those lines. Not to short sell the massive investment that is pregnancy/birth/recovery themselves, but the common repeating strains of poverty/expense of children means either indicates people don't read, or if they do they just refuse to consider infant adoption to actually be a 'thing.' Then, you know, 'slavery' sums it up. Great. Sure. You nailed it there alright.

So why is it pro-life groups are frequently anti-education (and so therefore responsibility) and anti-contraception? And like CH just a bit above, why do they want to limit the possibilities for adoption by excluding some groups from it? It gives the impression that their punitive code of sexual propriety takes precedence over concerns for life and opportunities to decrease the number of abortions.

 

[El_Machinae]

Please don't conflate different groups merely because they're pro-life. That's a giant mistake. Farm boy cannot answer for those people, he's not one of them. Their existence doesn't change his stance, either.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't know Senethro. I've said for years that gay married men are probably some of the best allies the pro life and adoptive moments could have. But hate from multiple sides draws the 'battle lines' wrong. I'd put money that acrimony and selfishness will win over time here, and surrogacy will creep in as the option of ''choice.'' And I won't even be able to get mad at the gay guys, simply the enormous F ing opportunity lost to normalize something better.

 

[Samson]

The problem with this is that you need a third party to make it "work". Skin cells don't normally do that and it takes many special procedures to even get close what happens naturally with just two people. When an egg and sperm combine it naturally becomes human, whereas you example is not natural. Once the embryo starts dividing, it is doing what life is meant to do.

I would suggest it needs fewer people to do what is suggested, one (properly trained and equiped) person can create a child from a somatic cell, it take 2 to make one naturally. I see no reason why "natural" process should be in any way favoured, many of them are pretty bad.

There is a massive difference between innocent life and non innocent life. Also just because some people believe the government shouldn't be doing such things, doesn't mean they want people to die, but just allow the right organisations to give people real help, rather than government dependence. The weird thing is that innocent life can be taken away without due process, but gong through due process is wrong when the end result if the termination of a guilty life. Crazy logic if you ask me.

Who are the guilty (non-innocent) lives you are talking about in reference to war, cutting back food stamps and free health care?

As "due process" means "the legal requirement that the state must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person" how is abortion not going through due process?

Look at any embryology book and they will state the case that life begins as soon as it starts dividing and that the embryo is a unique human being/ The only objection people come up with are "philosophical" but so were the arguments used by slavery supporters.

Perhaps you could point us at 1 embryology book that says "life begins as soon as it starts dividing". You could probably restrict your list to proper books, perhaps ones on a medical school reading list, for example there is a search function here.

Only those who try via the natural method of conception should be allowed to adopt, so singles and homosexuals need not to apply.

Why?

Now this is the woman's body making the choice. The female body knows when something is wrong and will thus get rid of the unborn baby. The body knows how to make the choice and will never get rid of a healthy baby.

This is spectacularly insensitive as well as flat out wrong. There are some cases where this could be roughly justified (for some values of "body making the choice") but certainly not most.

 

[El_Machinae]

The concept of innocence is interesting. In what way can a non-sentient organism be innocent? And there's certainly the difference between an 'innocence' incapable of mens rea and a mind that just chooses to not be evil.
edit: am I'm sure that, if pressed, CH doesn't actually believe in innocent humans.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

and yes I realize I'm getting snarky, is because no matter how often I bring up adoption being super prevalent for infants and adoptive support for expectant birth mothers, people will keep spewing ''a lifetime of expense,'' ''a new lifelong dependent,'' and tripe along those lines.

I can see the reason for your snarkiness and might even join in on it. Instead you're also directing it at those who have personal and emotional reasons for abortions. And I have been there for two people who had those reasons (which I will not go into before you ask), so I hope you'll understand that snarkiness will always cause a response from me since you're aiming at at people who I know do not deserve it.

Which I regret, because I remember having productive discussions with you on this subject

Please don't conflate different groups merely because they're pro-life.

Or pro-choice.

 

[peter grimes]

You could take a disabled person and leave them alone and they will die with out care. What about a person in hospital in a coma, take away life support and in minutes they will be dead? So are they not persons either?

The problem with this is that you need a third party to make it "work". Skin cells don't normally do that and it takes many special procedures to even get close what happens naturally with just two people. When an egg and sperm combine it naturally becomes human, whereas you example is not natural. Once the embryo starts dividing, it is doing what life is meant to do.

The vast majority of women who do get abortions, convenience is the main reason. Many women who go for an abortion have already had one before and many are more than once. It is simply a lifestyle decision.

There is a massive difference between innocent life and non innocent life. Also just because some people believe the government shouldn't be doing such things, doesn't mean they want people to die, but just allow the right organisations to give people real help, rather than government dependence. The weird thing is that innocent life can be taken away without due process, but gong through due process is wrong when the end result if the termination of a guilty life. Crazy logic if you ask me.

Look at any embryology book and they will state the case that life begins as soon as it starts dividing and that the embryo is a unique human being/ The only objection people come up with are "philosophical" but so were the arguments used by slavery supporters.

Only those who try via the natural method of conception should be allowed to adopt, so singles and homosexuals need not to apply.

Now this is the woman's body making the choice. The female body knows when something is wrong and will thus get rid of the unborn baby. The body knows how to make the choice and will never get rid of a healthy baby.

Using the term "clump of cells" is a great way to dehumanise, just like how the Nazi's and slave traders did so they could do what they wanted to do.

What about the freedom of the child?


So should the woman pay for her choice?

One thing about the rhetoric about the pro-choice groups is the absurd claim that Transvaginal ultrasounds are rape. Transvaginal ultrasounds:Why pro choice advocates shouldn't call them rape.

There's a lot of incorrect stuff in this post. I'll leave it to others who have more interest than I to reply.

 

[Traitorfish]

"A lot" implies there's any substantial part of it that isn't.

 

[JollyRoger]

Only those who try via the natural method of conception should be allowed to adopt, so singles and homosexuals need not to apply.

The OP seems to suggest adoption as the solution if abortion were outlawed. Why would you want to restrict adoption so severely? Should a single mother have her child taken away from her because she does not fit your model?