[RD] Thoughts on Abortion (split off from Very Many Questions XXXII)

[Mouthwash]

Yes it does, because most pro-choice people are anti-abortion.

So they're okay with someone having an abortion if they want to but don't agree with abortion? I think you're very wrong here.

edit: Question to you, why does the label matter to you?

Infuriates me to see people talking about reproductive rights and how those conservatives just want to control women's uteruses. Their "rights" come at the expense of others. You'd feel the same if slaveowners talked about their property rights being trampled.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I remember someone getting all angry at me on here about a year ago (or more) because I casually said "pro-abortion". I seem to remember that argument raging for pages too. The analogy I was presented with was that nobody would be "pro-amputation" for example. My answer to that being... yes they would.

(Edit: Oh look what Ziggy said as I was typing this...)

(Edit 2: The discussion in question starts here)

Pro- or anti- abortion seems like much better terminology to me because it encompasses the whole thing and all moral questions contained within it. "Pro-choice" and "pro-life" are both biased terms that purposely exclude half of the moral equation, just as Mouthwash said.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Okay, here's my stance. The decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is nobody's business but that of the woman and her doctor, and the only say her doctor gets is to tell her the facts and risks so she can make an informed decision about what to do - minus any nonsense of forcing her to watch a film, ultrasound, or listen to any religious "counseling" about "sin."

My opinion as to whether or not some other woman should choose to abort or carry to term is irrelevant. I don't live in her body, I don't walk in her shoes, I don't know what her innermost thoughts are. It is simply not my business.

As I've reminded people on another site where abortion arguments come up, the right to choose also means the right to choose to continue the pregnancy. I would hope that the same people who are pro-pregnancy (ie. anti-choice, as in they don't believe that women should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason) would also be pro-social programs to help the mother raise a child with adequate food, shelter, medical care, and education rather than scorning women who are teen mothers, working poor, or on welfare.

I would hope that these same people would be sympathetic to women or teenage girls who are told by the father, husband, or boyfriend (upon discovering the pregnancy) that if they don't get an abortion, they'll be kicked out of the house, divorced, or abandoned. Some really do have to make the choice between an abortion and being abandoned to live on the streets because the male who was involved decided not to step and take responsibility for his part in the pregnancy, or a teenage girl's father decided he was too embarrassed by his "sinful" or "wild" daughter to allow her to remain in the family home and be helped through the whole thing.

Far too many of these people are fine with a woman being pregnant, but if she's among the poor who needs welfare or food stamps, the refrain heard is often very judgmental, even cruelly blaming her for choosing to get pregnant when she's not in a financial situation to be able to afford to raise a child. This is even more cruel if the pregnancy was the result of rape. I would hope such anti-choice individuals would support increased access to contraception and women's health programs so women have more resources and information to help them make better decisions about their own health. After all, there will be far less worry about whether she might want an abortion if there was never a conception in the first place.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

So they're okay with someone having an abortion if they want to but don't agree with abortion? I think you're very wrong here.

You cannot "agree with abortion". I am anti-sbortion because it's a very unpleasant procedure for all involved. But I understand the alternatives can be worse.

So they're ok with someone chosing abortion.

 

[Mouthwash]

Okay, here's my stance. The decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is nobody's business but that of the woman and her doctor, and the only say her doctor gets is to tell her the facts and risks so she can make an informed decision about what to do - minus any nonsense of forcing her to watch a film, ultrasound, or listen to any religious "counseling" about "sin."

My opinion as to whether or not some other woman should choose to abort or carry to term is irrelevant. I don't live in her body, I don't walk in her shoes, I don't know what her innermost thoughts are. It is simply not my business.

As I've reminded people on another site where abortion arguments come up, the right to choose also means the right to choose to continue the pregnancy. I would hope that the same people who are pro-pregnancy (ie. anti-choice, as in they don't believe that women should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason) would also be pro-social programs to help the mother raise a child with adequate food, shelter, medical care, and education rather than scorning women who are teen mothers, working poor, or on welfare.

I would hope that these same people would be sympathetic to women or teenage girls who are told by the father, husband, or boyfriend (upon discovering the pregnancy) that if they don't get an abortion, they'll be kicked out of the house, divorced, or abandoned. Some really do have to make the choice between an abortion and being abandoned to live on the streets because the male who was involved decided not to step and take responsibility for his part in the pregnancy, or a teenage girl's father decided he was too embarrassed by his "sinful" or "wild" daughter to allow her to remain in the family home and be helped through the whole thing.

Far too many of these people are fine with a woman being pregnant, but if she's among the poor who needs welfare or food stamps, the refrain heard is often very judgmental, even cruelly blaming her for choosing to get pregnant when she's not in a financial situation to be able to afford to raise a child. This is even more cruel if the pregnancy was the result of rape. I would hope such anti-choice individuals would support increased access to contraception and women's health programs so women have more resources and information to help them make better decisions about their own health. After all, there will be far less worry about whether she might want an abortion if there was never a conception in the first place.

Thanks for your opinion, but how does it address the topic, exactly? This is not simply an abortion debate thread.

You cannot "agree with abortion". I am anti-sbortion because it's a very unpleasant procedure for all involved. But I understand the alternatives can be worse.

When someone claim "not be for" a particular action, it's implied that they consider the action to be immoral/harmful. Otherwise, I could claim to oppose wealth redistribution on the grounds that wealth disparities should never occur in the first place.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

When someone claim "not be for" a particular action, it's implied that they consider the action to be immoral/harmful. Otherwise, I could claim to oppose wealth redistribution on the grounds that wealth disparities should never occur in the first place.

Abortion is harmful.

"But I understand the alternatives can be worse"

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Thanks for your opinion, but how does it address the topic, exactly? This is not simply an abortion debate thread.

The topic title is "Thoughts on Abortion."

I gave you my thoughts (considerably condensed from other times I've posted in abortion threads here). All of them have to do with abortion; therefore, I am not off-topic.

So if you're using some definition of "abortion" other than one that means "terminating a pregnancy," feel free to define it more precisely.

 

[Mouthwash]

Abortion is harmful.

The disagreement is over the legality of abortion. In a political context, having a position on "abortion" just tells you whether or not you think it should be allowed to happen.

The topic title is "Thoughts on Abortion."

I gave you my thoughts (considerably condensed from other times I've posted in abortion threads here). All of them have to do with abortion; therefore, I am not off-topic.

So if you're using some definition of "abortion" other than one that means "terminating a pregnancy," feel free to define it more precisely.

Oh, sorry. Thread wasn't created by me, remember. I just want to debate what I consider to be unfair terminology.

Okay, here's my stance. The decision of whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term is nobody's business but that of the woman and her doctor, and the only say her doctor gets is to tell her the facts and risks so she can make an informed decision about what to do - minus any nonsense of forcing her to watch a film, ultrasound, or listen to any religious "counseling" about "sin."

Mere inconvenience often seems sufficient to deter suicides and mass shootings. So the emotional impact of watching a film or ultrasound, or hearing a religious perspective may stop an abortion.

As for mere information, it's overrated. Imagine that the government was rounding up the mentally incapacitated to execute. Would believers in this policy be more likely to turn over their neighbors/family after hearing words like "termination of undesirables" or "killing the helpless?" If the victims were drugged and had masks so you couldn't see their faces, or if they struggled and cried on the way to the chair?

My opinion as to whether or not some other woman should choose to abort or carry to term is irrelevant. I don't live in her body, I don't walk in her shoes, I don't know what her innermost thoughts are. It is simply not my business.

But that is not relevant. The same thing applies to everyone, no matter what they do.

As I've reminded people on another site where abortion arguments come up, the right to choose also means the right to choose to continue the pregnancy. I would hope that the same people who are pro-pregnancy (ie. anti-choice, as in they don't believe that women should be allowed to have an abortion for any reason) would also be pro-social programs to help the mother raise a child with adequate food, shelter, medical care, and education rather than scorning women who are teen mothers, working poor, or on welfare.

Not providing them with help doesn't automatically mean they're scorning them. And if they act to save lives, then don't offer financial assistance to the people they saved as they grow up, it doesn't mean they were wrong to save them in the first place.

I would hope that these same people would be sympathetic to women or teenage girls who are told by the father, husband, or boyfriend (upon discovering the pregnancy) that if they don't get an abortion, they'll be kicked out of the house, divorced, or abandoned. Some really do have to make the choice between an abortion and being abandoned to live on the streets because the male who was involved decided not to step and take responsibility for his part in the pregnancy, or a teenage girl's father decided he was too embarrassed by his "sinful" or "wild" daughter to allow her to remain in the family home and be helped through the whole thing.

Of course I'm sympathetic. Why does that have to mean I'm okay with it? Are they one and the same to you?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The disagreement is over the legality of abortion. In a political context, having a position on "abortion" just tells you whether or not you think it should be allowed to happen.

Indeed. And allowing something to happen doesn't mean you have to be "pro"-that thing that happens. It means you are pro-allowing something to happen. The allowance, not what it allows.

I am pro-religious freedom, but I hate organised religion so I am anti-organised religion.

 

[Mouthwash]

Indeed. And allowing something to happen doesn't mean you have to be "pro"-that thing that happens. It means you are pro-allowing something to happen. The allowance, not what it allows.

Have you listened to a word that I said?

The political context. Is. Everything.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Have you listened to a word that I said?

Yeah. I reacted to it.

If that's not good enough for you, fairy muff, it was nice talking to you.

I could have known, since the condition in the OP

This is not defensible.

So you already decided that from the get go, and this is just going through the motions.

Have a good weekend

 

[Ryika]

I would take the pro-abortion label without hesitation.

Most people probably wouldn't because it can be used against them.

 

[Mouthwash]

Have a good weekend

Good to see you again, too.

I would take the pro-abortion label without hesitation.

Most people probably wouldn't because it can be used against them.

How?

 

[Ryika]

How?

The way you described in your opening post. "Oh, so you think abortions are a good thing, you evil person!" That's obviously a non-argument, as only a very limited number of people actually thinks abortions are a good thing, most people would say it is good that abortions are there as an option for people who have gotten into a situation where they're pregnant but don't feel like they can care for the child. But to people who are on the side saying it, it will feel like it is a great zinger.

 

[Samson]

There are lots of things I think the world would be better off if they were never necessary, but I think should not be criminalised. Two that are relevant to this discussion are bringing a child into the world without the emotional and financial means to care for it, and abortion. Others (just off the top of my head) include unbalanced employment conditions, starvation, emotional exploitation (or gaslighting) and hard drug use. Do you really feel that my position is most accurately represented by me being pro- these things, anti- these things or pro- people being able to make a choice in these things?

As others have said, the most accurate description is going to run to a sentence, paragraph or thesis length. These sort of description do not work as labels.

 

[Mouthwash]

The way you described in your opening post. "Oh, so you think abortions are a good thing, you evil person!" That's obviously a non-argument, as only a very limited number of people actually thinks abortions are a good thing, most people would say it is good that abortions are there as an option for people who have gotten into a situation where they're pregnant but don't feel like they can care for the child. But to people who are on the side saying it, it will feel like it is a great zinger.

Point it out:

"The last thing I'm trying to do here is kick off an abortion flamefest, but I am very confused about the behavior of (apparently) intelligent, honest people that I see advocating abortion. Now, both sides have used propagandistic terminology - pro-life doesn't convey the moral ambiguity of killing a nonsentient, and pro-choice suggests that the personal freedom of women is the only issue - but the pro-abortion people have a real fetish for it. I have never (outside of the Andrew Schlafly crowd) heard abortion advocates being called "pro-death," or "pro-baby-murder," while they feel free to label the other side "anti-choice" and recently further relabeled their position to "reproductive rights." And there's one thing I can never understand: whenever I use the term "pro-abortion," they universally respond that they are not, that they are only pro-choice, and then go on to define "pro-abortion" as meaning "thinks that all babies everywhere should be aborted."

This is not defensible. "Pro-gay-marriage" does not mean "thinks everyone should get married to a person of the same sex." "Pro-torture" does not mean "thinks everyone should be tortured on a daily basis." "Pro-euthanasia" does not mean "thinks all humans should be euthanized immediately." I have a suspicion that the reason is that abortion advocates, while consciously fine with the practice, don't really want to label themselves as such - and so rationalize up a weird definition for the term. Perhaps that's just my biased perspective, but I have no other explanation. Could anyone shed light on the reasons for it?"

There are lots of things I think the world would be better off if they were never necessary, but I think should not be criminalised. Two that are relevant to this discussion are bringing a child into the world without the emotional and financial means to care for it, and abortion. Others (just off the top of my head) include unbalanced employment conditions, starvation, emotional exploitation (or gaslighting) and hard drug use. Do you really feel that my position is most accurately represented by me being pro- these things, anti- these things or pro- people being able to make a choice in these things?

As others have said, the most accurate description is going to run to a sentence, paragraph or thesis length. These sort of description do not work as labels.

Not always, but it does when there is a very clear and partisan divide between two positions. Even if I conceded that pro/anti aren't the best descriptors in general, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are distracting from the real issue (and serving as an insult to the other side).

 

[Samson]

Not always, but it does when there is a very clear and partisan divide between two positions. Even if I conceded that pro/anti aren't the best descriptors in general, "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are distracting from the real issue (and serving as an insult to the other side).

I am trying hard to work out what "it" (4th word) is in the above quote. That my position is most accurately represented by me being pro- these things? I cannot see how that can be the case, perhaps you can explain?

 

[Lexicus]

So they're okay with someone having an abortion if they want to but don't agree with abortion? I think you're very wrong here.

More like, they might think abortion is nothing to celebrate, but believe that society is better off allowing women to do it safely.

 

[Akka]

Wow, an abortion thread. Must have been several years since I hadn't seen one, it was all the rage in the days.

The "debate" is really simple, though.
A fertilized egg is called an "embryo" up to about 12 weeks, at which point it becomes a fetus.
An embryo has no neural system. At such it's not only nonsentient, but even nonthinking and nonfeeling.
As such it's not a being, just a blob of cells.
Blob of cells have (and shouldn't have) rights.
As such abortion is morally acceptable.

That's it, nothing can be argued about it unless one enters into religious argument and start to bring the "soul" in the equation.

 

[El_Machinae]

I liked the OP, because the word evolution really is interesting. The connotations of the word 'pro-abortion' wouldn't track onto the equivalent in (say) 'pro-gay-marriage'. I also find the mainstream word 'pro-choice' to be insufficient. It doesn't match my opinion on the topic, and when I am talking about abortion, I will say things like "I am kinda pro-choice". I live in a country (Canada) where our laws don't really reflect a true "pro-choice" position. We're more "pro-life", but only after a certain stage of development.