Yet Another Abortion Debate Thread

[Ajidica]

Of course it would cause costs to go up, but in one area that is cheaper and less morally grey than the other area (which is more expensive and morally grey).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ignoring for a moment the cellular and sentience aspects that definition fails to address, does that mean if the body self-aborts the fetus* it commited involuntary manslaughter?

*Let's hope I am remembering 9th grade Sex Ed correctly right now.

It's called a miscarriage. It's a thing. And yes, according to conservatives, it's murder.

I must be an idiot to wade into an issue like this but I'll throw my two cents in. I use common sense with regard to that. Find the developmental point at which the vast majority of premature babies survive and make that the line. Likely to survive outside the womb = no abortion. Before that is "ok". Find that line, 20 weeks, 22, 24, whatever and stick to it.

What about the fact that technology allows younger and younger premature babies to survive. I think a more, how do I say this, 'fair'(?) law would be when it could survive outside the womb naturally.

It's funny how conservatives thrash against "playing god" when it comes to these kinds of issues when the ones who hook up the dying support in the first place are playing god.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It won't be free. Having everyone covered will cause costs to go up not down.

?????
No, I think forcing people to pay for health insurance beforehand instead of showing up at the hospital when they are hit by a bus and expecting treatment even though they aren't covered will drive down costs considerably. You know, stopping people from freeloading off the rest of us. Don't you believe in personal responsibility? Also, what the poster above me said.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg.

Ridiculous.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Ignoring for a moment the cellular and sentience aspects that definition fails to address, does that mean if the body self-aborts the fetus* it commited involuntary manslaughter?

No, because that occurs naturally. And even though abortion is illegal in many countries, oddly enough, that question has never popped up.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

No, because that occurs naturally. And even though abortion is illegal in many countries, oddly enough, that question has never popped up.

Cancer occurs naturally, so does drought and to sin is quite natural to.

 

[Ajidica]

No, because that occurs naturally.

Still involuntary, though.

Moving on from that line of thought, makes makes a blastocyst (not yet a fetus) a human person when the only characteristics it shares with me or you is a functionaly identical DNA structure? My foot is also biologically human, yet I doubt you would object on grounds of personhood if I were to cut it off. (Object on grounds of insanity, perhaps.)

 

[NBAfan]

I must be an idiot to wade into an issue like this but I'll throw my two cents in. I use common sense with regard to that. Find the developmental point at which the vast majority of premature babies survive and make that the line. Likely to survive outside the womb = no abortion. Before that is "ok". Find that line, 20 weeks, 22, 24, whatever and stick to it.

I have two objections. One, the pro-choice side needs to have a solid point when human life begins. There is no room for ambiguity. Two, with modern means, a baby can survive outside the womb from conception to term.


Fertilization is the most logical start place for human life. No growth takes place before, while explosive cell growth takes place right after fertilization. This assumes that you believe human rights come from just being a live human.

 

[utgotye]

It's called a miscarriage. It's a thing. And yes, according to conservatives, it's murder.


What about the fact that technology allows younger and younger premature babies to survive. I think a more, how do I say this, 'fair'(?) law would be when it could survive outside the womb naturally.

It's funny how conservatives thrash against "playing god" when it comes to these kinds of issues when the ones who hook up the dying support in the first place are playing god.

I can agree with that but then you would have to define "natural" as well.

 

[Flying Pig]

I have two objections. One, the pro-choice side needs to have a solid point when human life begins. There is no room for ambiguity. Two, with modern means, a baby can survive outside the womb from conception to term.

Yes there is. We say 'we don't know exactly when it begins, but we can all that by the end of about the second trimester, life has definitely begun, so we'll take off a bit and say no abortions after that date, without a damned good reason'.

 

[El_Machinae]

I said I wouldnt post again but Ill post this here. But basically figuring out why pregnancies were unwanted and doing things to change that. No birth control? Increase access and coverage for that. Genetic diseases? Put more medical research into finding ways to fix that. Unable to afford the cost of the medical costs associated with pregnancy? More help for that. Basically stuff like that. Instead of just saying, "nope, you can't have an abortion, deal with it."

That sounds really hard!

 

[Patroklos]

Quite a few people on this board are okay with abortion seconds before birth, so don't be so hasty there...

 

[useless]

Or urinating on the corpses of dead people

 

[History_Buff]

Quite a few people on this board are okay with abortion seconds before birth, so don't be so hasty there...

Who are these people?

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

That sounds really hard!

Probably worth it in the long run, though, decreasing unwanted/unhealthy pregnancies results in less abortions.

I always love how every abortion debate on this forum seems to be about at what stage of pregnancy even though Im talking more about social-policy-making than biological stuff in the OP.

 

[IdiotsOpposite]

I must be an idiot to wade into an issue like this but I'll throw my two cents in. I use common sense with regard to that. Find the developmental point at which the vast majority of premature babies survive and make that the line. Likely to survive outside the womb = no abortion. Before that is "ok". Find that line, 20 weeks, 22, 24, whatever and stick to it.

Hey, I do the same thing!

Quite a few people on this board are okay with abortion seconds before birth, so don't be so hasty there...

Or urinating on the corpses of dead people

ITT: Posters battle over which view is more disgusting.

Who are these people?

Only person I've ever seen advocate it is Useless.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Quite a few people on this board are okay with abortion seconds before birth, so don't be so hasty there...

I know of at least one...

I remember you being a bit more pro-life than even the average person here though. Just wondering, would you consider the extreme pro-life position (Basically what I hold, the fetus is alive from conception and life imprisonment/the death penalty is the punishment in accordance with standard homicide) to be better than the extreme pro-choice position (Allowed and supported for all 9 months?)

Who are these people?

Useless basically admitted to it, OK, 8 months and 3 weeks

 

[LucyDuke]

Neither birth control or abortion are really kosher, which suggests that raising any children is a punishment and reminder of your sin.

It's morally reprehensible to create a child as a punishment. Anyone with that attitude gets a time-out from the conversation to think about what they're doing wrong.

If you believe it to be murder, when does the fetus become a human person? If you are going to use legal terms such as murder, it would be nice to be on the same page.

Doesn't matter.

One, the pro-choice side needs to have a solid point when human life begins.

Doesn't matter.

Quite a few people on this board are okay with abortion seconds before birth, so don't be so hasty there...

Doesn't matter.

I always love how every abortion debate on this forum seems to be about at what stage of pregnancy even though Im talking more about social-policy-making than biological stuff in the OP.

Yeah, they're absolute hypocrites. Anyone that advocates prohibitions without advocating preventing unwanted pregnancy and supporting potential parents without means is not "pro-life", they're not anti-abortion. I wouldn't go so far as to call them liars, because I think most have just done a bad job thinking about it and haven't realized their hypocrisy, but they're wrong to call themselves pro-life when really they just want to punish aborting instead of preventing it.

 

[History_Buff]

It's morally reprehensible to create a child as a punishment. Anyone with that attitude gets a time-out from the conversation to think about what they're doing wrong.

We are completely agreed. I still feel pretty bad about holding opinions like that.

 

[NBAfan]

Yeah, they're absolute hypocrites. Anyone that advocates prohibitions without advocating preventing unwanted pregnancy and supporting potential parents without means is not "pro-life", they're not anti-abortion. I wouldn't go so far as to call them liars, because I think most have just done a bad job thinking about it and haven't realized their hypocrisy, but they're wrong to call themselves pro-life when really they just want to punish aborting instead of preventing it.

Hey, if people would practice the virtue of chastity (which doesn't mean no sex btw), we wouldn't have this "need" for abortion. I don't know about the other pro-life groups, but I know that here in Dallas, the Catholic Pro-life group runs several pregnancy help centers. So your accusation of us pro-lifers not helping poor mothers is false.