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

[Manfred Belheim]

Then their so-called "pro-life" stance is nothing but a sham. If you're going to proclaim yourself as pro-life, you should be in favor of making sure that once the baby is born, it's not going to be afflicted with illnesses or death due to malnutrition/starvation, preventable diseases, inadequate access to doctors and hospitals, and that it has the necessities such as shelter (ie. properly insulated, not run-down, not rife with toxic mold, has proper heating, plumbing, clean water, electricity). And that doesn't even include the necessity of access to adequate schools, literacy (ie. access to libraries), and safe places for recreation.

Nope. That's like saying you can't be against murder without being massively concerned with the future lives of anyone who surived a thwarted murder attempt. Also, again, you seem to be asserting that anyone who takes the pro-life stance is necessarily against pretty much all social programs or humanitarian acts. Is that the case?

Sorry, but if I don't want you to be murdered, that doesn't mean I'm obligated to fight for your public libraries and parks. And it absolutely definitely doesn't mean that if you were in imminent danger of being murdered that I should concentrate on your libraries and parks as the primary method of saving your life.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Got it. You hate babies being killed but don't care about the causes of babies being killed. You've said as much already.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Uh huh and instead of supporting causes that will dramatically decrease the numbers of abortions, you'd rather talk about killing babies. That's sad and kind of sick when you think about it.

I don't see how you don't get it. If you have a problem with the death penalty as a punishment for criminals, then supporting programs to hopefully reduce the number of criminals is all well and good, but it doesn't address the problem that the state still sanctions the death penalty. If you find that morally abhorrent then that is what you concentrate on. You can't just tell other people what their priorities are.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Got it. You hate babies being killed but don't care about the causes of babies being killed. You've said as much already.

I love babies being killed man. This isn't about me, this is about your attitude towards people who see abortion as killing babies. I never said I was one of those people. I'm not one of those people.

(I'll just flag this up as yet another example of someone claiming I said something I never said at all, which apparently never happens on CFC. Other than the multiple times per day that it happens.)

 

[Farm Boy]

"Bro What?"

WHEN is the decision to abort relevant? It's important to the mechanics of how it works, and Valka, while correct about the status of the foster system - is demonstrating why it is important to know. The humans who are aborted not the same subsection of humans whose custody winds up seized by the state, which is who foster children are. They are not the same humans. Foster children are irrelevant to abortion. They're already too old to kill to fix.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't see how you don't get it. If you have a problem with the death penalty as a punishment for criminals, then supporting programs to hopefully reduce the number of criminals is all well and good, but it doesn't address the problem that the state still sanctions the death penalty. If you find that morally abhorrent then that is what you concentrate on. You can't just tell other people what their priorities are.

I can certainly point out that there are concrete steps to decrease the incidence of abortion that are also good for society as a whole. But instead the anti-choice crowd wants to fixate on the choice and nothing but.

I love babies being killed man. This isn't about me, this is about your attitude towards people who see abortion as killing babies. I never said I was one of those people. I'm not one of those people.

(I'll just flag this up as yet another example of someone claiming I said something I never said at all, which apparently never happens on CFC. Other than the multiple times per day that it happens.)

Uh huh and here I thought this was about the attitude of pro-lifers that don't support actual pro-life initiatives and policies.

"Bro What?"

WHEN is the decision to abort relevant? It's important to the mechanics of how it works, and Valka, while correct about the status of the foster system - is demonstrating why it is important to know. The humans who are aborted not the same subsection of humans whose custody winds up seized by the state, which is who foster children are. They are not the same humans. Foster children are irrelevant to abortion. They're already too old to kill to fix.

When is this relevant to supporting children and families so that abortions go down? Oh right I used the word need so let's attempt to clinically diagnose that term instead of talking about the actual issues at hand.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I can certainly point out that there are concrete steps to decrease the incidence of abortion that are also good for society as a whole. But instead the anti-choice crowd wants to fixate on the choice and nothing but.

I think they want to fixate on the life part actually, hence the "pro-life" moniker.

Uh huh and here I thought this was about the attitude of pro-lifers that don't support actual pro-life initiatives and policies

Well you're not one of those people, and I'm clearly addressing what you have said, so how could it possibly be about that?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Because I brought up the point that was explicitly about that which in turn lead us down this rabbit hole?

 

[Farm Boy]

When is this relevant to supporting children and families so that abortions go down? Oh right I used the word need so let's attempt to clinically diagnose that term instead of talking about the actual issues at hand.

Ok, you won't answer the question so I can't walk you through it, and I'm the one that needs decoding. Well, it's intentional then. Good to know.

 

[Cassius Critzer]

See, it is exactly posts like this one that demonstrate that you have no willingness to be on the moral high ground. Since you feel so comfortable taking the low road, it becomes impossible to believe that you have ever even considered the right or the wrong of the situation.

People who actually believe themselves to be on god's side would not ever consider making the arguments that you make. So since we know that the people making those arguments know themselves to be enemies of god, then how can we take seriously their 'religious convictions' about abortion?


And, btw, I notice you give no attention to the millions of born Americans that the policies pushed by 'pro-life' politicians and voters cause the deaths of. Why is the fetus the most important thing in the world, but the child can be killed with no attention paid whatsoever?

Really??? You are pulling the classic "no true Scotsman ploy" here. It presumes that a person on main side of an issue must totally be agreement whereas on complicated issues there is this enormous continuum of belief which diverse individuals subscribe to.

What is even worse is the weird tactic of not capitalizing God when discussing spirituality that you disagree with.

Muslims do not believe in allah. They believe in Allah. In mythology and spirituality, a god is a known human construct that was formerly worshipped. Whereas God is a term which is typically defined as arising from the Abrahmic religions.

god is NOT nor ever will be God. The error is fallacial as they are defined as differently as their versus there versus they're.

Capitalizing deities is done regardless of implied belief. I need not believe in Thoth to capitalize the name.

And this little strange aspect is very relevent to abortion as the crux of the pro-life is typically based upon spirituality and morality.

Whatever I believe about Jesus really doesn't matter regarding being a citizen and discussing abortion. I cannot impose my will on another by speaking for legislation and thus neutering abortion. Each person chooses to believe what they believe.

That old paradigm went away by most with Prohibition and dry counties. That is foisting morality on others because you think you have the right to do so. It is nonsensical.

As far as I know, the mainstream Christians in America are not willing to make abortion illegal but will do nothing to help promote it like government funding.

Only a miniscule amount in the pro-life movement would abolish it. They are at a quandry in fundamentalism due to being apart from the world versus an integral part of it. So you are talking about vehement Roman Catholics which is rather small in number.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Because I brought up the point that was explicitly about that which in turn lead us down this rabbit hole?

Yeah exactly. You brought up the "point" that other people who don't think the same as you should, for some bizarre reason, prioritise things exactly the same as you do. You didn't try to persuade or anything like that, you just baldly stated it, because "you know best" I guess?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yeah exactly. You brought up the "point" that other people who don't think the same as you should, for some bizarre reason, prioritise things exactly the same as you do. You didn't try to persuade or anything like that, you just baldly stated it, because "you know best" I guess?

Basically yes. I find the attitudes and actions of the anti-choice crowd to be offensive, hypocritical and counter productive. I don't have to prove my opinion on the matter.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You still don't get to tell other people what to think. If they are of the opinion that abortion is state-sanctioned baby murder, and that this is completely morally indefensible, you don't get to tell them that their top priority should be endorsing social programs to reduce the numbers of people taking the state up on their offer to murder their babies for them. It's actually a really stupid thing to even request.

 

[Borachio]

Putting to one side the moral arguments against abortion for the moment, I'm really not sure I understand why there are so many abortions.

Haven't people heard of birth control?

Or even the morning after pill (still abortion I know, but such an early abortion, and who's to say there is even a pregnancy there at all, in any particular case?).

I don't get it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/may/17/abortion-rate-england-and-wales-five-year-high

It's almost as if some women are using abortion instead of birth control.

And the biggest recent increase is in women who are 30 to 40. So it's not like anyone can claim they're dippy teenagers who don't know what's what.

Still, I don't know. If ~1.5% of women are having abortions each year. And ~50% of them are sexually active 3 times a week, and the likelihood of them getting pregnant on each occasion is ~1%....

No. I give up. I can't do the maths. For all I know, it's all entirely reasonable.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

At least in the US abortion rates drop pretty steeply when access to birth control methods are improved. Of course that's an affront to God so the anti-choice crowd has a huge overlap with the anti-birth control crowd which goes back to my earlier point. It's more important apparently to stand against killing babies than to do anything to prevent it other than outlawing abortion.

 

[Farm Boy]

The value of which is immense, surely.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You still don't get to tell other people what to think. If they are of the opinion that abortion is state-sanctioned baby murder, and that this is completely morally indefensible, you don't get to tell them that their top priority should be endorsing social programs to reduce the numbers of people taking the state up on their offer to murder their babies for them. It's actually a really stupid thing to even request.

Man how many times have I been called stupid here? lol

Ok yeah because you say so dude.

 

[metalhead]

All of the morality arguments rather miss the point.

The idea that a human being exists the moment a zygote attaches to the wall of a uterus (or maybe even before attachment, but that would make a lot of people involuntary manslaughterers) is totally arbitrary. It's also fundamentally a religious belief, and as such would be improperly foisted upon the public-at-large in violation of the First Amendment, were it allowed to happen.

Now such an arbitrary cut-off might be permissible - if there were no competing interests involved. But there are, beginning with the imposition on the mother of both carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering a baby, things which come both with risks as well as lifelong changes to the woman's health and bodily well-being. Then there are the 18 additional years of financial and other obligations imposed on both parents as a result of the child being born - obligations which can be extinguished, but not without some difficulty, and such is never a guarantee. Then there is of course the fact that in most cases, mothers (and sometimes fathers) will relinquish self-determination as a result of having a baby.

So, I mean, we can pretend that the final word on the matter should be something that fundamentalist pastors made up as a basis for public policy. Or we can recognize that there are competing interests and maybe base policy on a definition of "human life" that is both less arbitrary, and better balances the interests involved.

You still don't get to tell other people what to think. If they are of the opinion that abortion is state-sanctioned baby murder, and that this is completely morally indefensible, you don't get to tell them that their top priority should be endorsing social programs to reduce the numbers of people taking the state up on their offer to murder their babies for them. It's actually a really stupid thing to even request.

But neither do they have a right to have society adopt abortion policy specifically tailored to their individual beliefs. They are free to believe whatever they want, but that doesn't mean their beliefs have any place in serving as a basis upon which actual policy and laws ought to be made.

 

[Cutlass]

Really??? You are pulling the classic "no true Scotsman ploy" here. It presumes that a person on main side of an issue must totally be agreement whereas on complicated issues there is this enormous continuum of belief which diverse individuals subscribe to.

And this is different from what you're doing how?

What is even worse is the weird tactic of not capitalizing God when discussing spirituality that you disagree with.

Muslims do not believe in allah. They believe in Allah. In mythology and spirituality, a god is a known human construct that was formerly worshipped. Whereas God is a term which is typically defined as arising from the Abrahmic religions.

god is NOT nor ever will be God. The error is fallacial as they are defined as differently as their versus there versus they're.

Capitalizing deities is done regardless of implied belief. I need not believe in Thoth to capitalize the name.

And this little strange aspect is very relevent to abortion as the crux of the pro-life is typically based upon spirituality and morality.

Seriously? This is what you're concerned about? Christianity has failed in the far right of the US. That failure to me is far more critical than my punctuation.

Whatever I believe about Jesus really doesn't matter regarding being a citizen and discussing abortion. I cannot impose my will on another be speaking for legislation and thus neutering abortion. Each person chooses to believe what they believe.

That old paradigm went away by most with Prohibition and dry counties. That is foisting morality on others because you think you have the right to do so. It is nonsensical.

People imposing their will on others with their religion for a justification is the only reason why abortion is a political issue in the US in the first place.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Man how many times have I been called stupid here? lol

In what I just said? I count zero times. What do you get?

 

[Cutlass]

You still don't get to tell other people what to think. If they are of the opinion that abortion is state-sanctioned baby murder, and that this is completely morally indefensible, you don't get to tell them that their top priority should be endorsing social programs to reduce the numbers of people taking the state up on their offer to murder their babies for them. It's actually a really stupid thing to even request.

I don't think you're seeing our point the way we intend it. Some people may, in your words, "are of the opinion that abortion is state-sanctioned baby murder, and that this is completely morally indefensible." But if that is true, then how can the same people be so indifferent to the suffering and deaths of those same children? The fact that the hard core anti-choice voters has an almost complete overlap with the hard core kill them all and let God sort them out voter really makes it impossible for many of us to believe that the child matters to them at all.