Posted January 28, 2014 Likewise - I don't think anyone is denying that abortion ends a life. But I don't believe that that life is a person until it exits the womb. Personhood for me hinges entirely on life experience, and you can't get life experience in the womb where you may not even be conscious/aware yet. I don't know that personhood is even a good argument, especially if you believe that personhood (ie, having a soul) begins at conception. I think it's better to focus on the rights of the mother and whether she's emotionally and financially ready to have a child. If you focus on whether or not the fetus is a person then you're just inviting a game of moving the goalposts. If you focus instead on the rights of the mother, the only thing a pro-lifer can really say is that the rights of the mother don't matter. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 I don't know that personhood is even a good argument, especially if you believe that personhood (ie, having a soul) begins at conception. I think it's better to focus on the rights of the mother and whether she's emotionally and financially ready to have a child. If you focus on whether or not the fetus is a person then you're just inviting a game of moving the goalposts. If you focus instead on the rights of the mother, the only thing a pro-lifer can really say is that the rights of the mother don't matter. Personhood is something the abortion debate has always had at its core, for some reason, although it really doesn't matter if the fetus is a person or not. But yes I agree with you - and I don't think it's right that what seems like so much of the anti-choice movement completely disregards the mothers who would be forced to carry to term, regardless of her status, either mentally, financially, physically, anything else, or any combination of that. If the anti-choicers were truly "pro-life" they would not be disregarding the mother like that, because the mother matters a LOT. Incidentally something else that irritates me about the anti-choicers is that what seems to be most of them simply stop caring once it's born. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 Touching on the whole religion factor again The whole purpose of such an in-your-face display is to flaunt the dominance of the majority's creed and intimidate those otherwise persuaded. What better way to keep unbelievers "in their place?" The Christian proposes that a supremely powerful being exists who wants us to set things right, and therefore doesn't want us to get things even more wrong. This is an intelligible hypothesis, which predicts there should be no more confusion about which religion or doctrine is true than there is about the fundamentals of medicine, engineering, physics, chemistry, or even meteorology. It should be indisputably clear what God wants us to do, and what he doesn't want us to do. Any disputes that might still arise about that would be as easily and decisively resolved as any dispute between two doctors, chemists, or engineers as to the right course to follow in curing a patient, identifying a chemical, or designing a bridge. Yet this is not what we observe. Instead, we observe exactly the opposite: unresolvable disagreement and confusion. Typically, Christians try to make excuses for God that protect our free will. Either the human will is more powerful than the will of God, and therefore can actually block his words from being heard despite all his best and mighty efforts, or God cares more about our free choice not to hear him than about saving our souls, and so God himself "chooses" to be silent. Of course, there is no independent evidence of either this remarkable human power to thwart God, or this peculiar desire in God, and so this is a completely "ad hoc" theory: something just "made up" out of thin air in order to rescue the actual theory that continually fails to fit the evidence. In short; There's a lot of confusion if you take the religious side on abortion yea? I'm out for the night. I may have branched a bit farther than intended but if religion is a basis for being against something, in this case abortion, might as well just throw these out there since the arguments against it seem to be primary religious based. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 I can't believe that I'm once again agreeing with the pro-lifer. This thread is all kinds of wacky. If a child is going to be born with a mental deficiency, such as down syndrome, and the mother, having been made aware of the fetus' condition by her doctor, chooses to abort, the purpose of the abortion is undeniably to destroy the fetus. And even if the child was going to be born healthy, why would any woman donate her womb to raising the aborted fetus of another woman when we already have artificial insemination? Are you saying that in your hypothetical sci-fi wonderland a woman can't have an abortion unless she can find another woman willing to take on her unwanted fetus? Look, I'm pro-choice, but let's not delude ourselves by pretending that abortion is anything other than killing an unborn child/zygote/potential human being/whatever. Sunshine and rainbows it ain't. Those are specific instances of abortion, not abortion as a procedure. Abortion itself, as a procedure, is not necessarily specifically designed solely to kill a fetus. It can be used with those intentions as the driving force in various cases, but until we actually have a viable method of aborting without killing the fetus you can't reliably say that abortion is specifically designed solely to kill a fetus. As for women who would donate their womb to the fetus... You can't say they wouldn't. They could perhaps desire that as an alternative to artificial insemination because they don't approve of abortion killing a fetus. I mean, if all these pro-birth females REALLY cared about the "unborn children" then they should have no problem donating their wombs to allow the child to be born, right? (Unless they actually just care about the birth as a punishment for the female rather than the child itself). And I'm absolutely not saying that--I'm just saying that, without the option to seek such with roughly equal time and money required it's hard to specifically state that abortion is solely done with the single intention of killing the fetus. Currently, yes, it is killing it. But if I could--for roughly equal cost and effort and be guaranteed that any time spent finding a new host (natural or through an artificial womb) wouldn't push be over the cutoff time (maybe through an extension as long as it can be proved an abortion was sought during the legal time frame)... Well, I'd be just as happy to let somebody else take it as I would to kill it. I don't care if it lives or dies, really. I just don't want it growing in me. If I could transplant it into a person who wanted it, or into an artificial womb and have it taken by a person who truly wanted it once it was able to survive on it's own, I'd be more than happy to take that route. Hell, I'd be more willing to do that! Because then it makes somebody else happy, too. Either way, though, even if it were able to be stated that the sole intention of abortion was strictly to kill a fetus I still don't think it's morally wrong or anything, since I don't view a fetus as a person. It's not a person until it's taken it's first breath of air outside the body of the host, IMO. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 I was going to post this as a counter argument if phil brought up the Bible. Since he didn't, I'm going to post it now before I forget about it: The Bible's Guide to Abortion Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 I don't care if it lives or dies, really. I just don't want it growing in me. If I could transplant it into a person who wanted it, or into an artificial womb and have it taken by a person who truly wanted it once it was able to survive on it's own, I'd be more than happy to take that route. Hell, I'd be more willing to do that! Because then it makes somebody else happy, too. Agree. (As usual) I would honestly be hard-pressed to find a pro-choicer who *wants* to kill a fetus. I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who's had an abortion (I know many people personally who have) where it's ONLY about "killing the fetus". I know very very few people who would set out to do that. Abortion is a medical decision that can be based on *many* factors, including things that have nothing whatsoever to do with what's growing inside. I'm with Kage, I personally would be *very* happy if I was pregnant and found out it was possible for the thing inside me to be transplanted into someone else. For someone who actually wants and can deal with a pregnancy, to be able to have that, and have a child because of it. That would be *wonderful*. Unfortunately.... I'm not seeing many anti-abortion people stepping up saying "I'll carry your fetus for you!", so.... I'd personally like to have some sort of (unbiased!) study done that follows the lives of a large group of pro-lifers for a couple years. Follows them on pickets, on speeches, every single pregnant woman trying to get an abortion they talk to or yell at or preach to, etc etc. I'd honestly like to know how many of them actually offer fair, non-biased advice, medical care, financial aid, nanny services, deals with diaper and formula companies.... Anotherwords, how many pro-lifers actually care about the mother *and* the child, after the child is born. I'm not implying anything right here, I'm simply saying I'd be interested to see a study like that, because that could go a LONG way in helping out the pro-life movement.... Or the other way around. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 Unfortunately.... I'm not seeing many anti-abortion people stepping up saying "I'll carry your fetus for you!", so.... Okay, I was going to let this slide, but I can't stand the cognitive dissonance any longer. What you're talking about is impossible. The surrogate mother's body would view the fetus as a foreign body and kill it. It's also completely silly to think that anyone wanting to have a child would choose this over artificial insemination. This whole magical scenario where abortion has no consequences is silly and there's no reason to ever bring it up ever in a debate. I'd personally like to have some sort of (unbiased!) study done that follows the lives of a large group of pro-lifers for a couple years. Follows them on pickets, on speeches, every single pregnant woman trying to get an abortion they talk to or yell at or preach to, etc etc. I'd honestly like to know how many of them actually offer fair, non-biased advice, medical care, financial aid, nanny services, deals with diaper and formula companies.... Anotherwords, how many pro-lifers actually care about the mother *and* the child, after the child is born. I'm not implying anything right here, I'm simply saying I'd be interested to see a study like that, because that could go a LONG way in helping out the pro-life movement.... Or the other way around. This, however, is absolutely worth talking about. If the mother carries her child to term and can't care for it for whatever reason, someone still has to. Pro-lifers should all be foster parents or adopt. "Just put the baby up for adoption! Someone will want it! What do you mean me? Oh... oh, haha, no dear. I don't want your baby." Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Why does being able to live outside the womb make it wrong to kill it? Is there an arbitrary line before which it's alright to kill it and after which it's not? A day/week/month perhaps? How does one determine this? Why is it ever wrong to kill a child in the womb? Did you watch the entire thing? Not saying watching the whole thing would change your mind, just curious. That's very personal with each person, which is why I'm pro-choice and not trying to force my personal view on you or anyone else. It's a gradient. You are searching for an imaginary, non-existant line. In general, the later abortions, when it does become more questionably, mostly occur out of medical need I'd imagine. If people didn't try to hide abortion options and instead offer it freely, there'd be a ton less "morally questionable" abortions happening. If people had complete access to birth control, 100% non-judgemental, non-biased counselling (these are the scientifically supported, proven, peer-reviewed, non-biased facts about this, here are all the options available to you, I'm completely open and honest to any of your questions and concerns and I'll help you and support your personal choice regardless of my personal feelings), and society dropped all of its stupid preconceptions and stereotypes about sex, the world would be so much of a better place. Because honestly, if you have to purposefully use a lot of misinformation and scare tactics, you don't have a point at all. Period. End of story. If what you are telling me goes directly against proven facts, and you are purposely lying, twisting, and cheating (like those "Emergency care centres" or whatever they're called), that means your point exists in lala land and should stay there. Purposeful misinformation and lying in order to make your personal opinion seem real are some of the things I absolutely abhor. Everyone should be open to changing their ideas based on new facts; it's OK if you don't, though. But your personal beliefs stop the moment you exit your own personal self and enter into other people's lives. Not you specifically, a general you. Edited January 28, 2014 by High Lord November Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 Okay, I was going to let this slide, but I can't stand the cognitive dissonance any longer. What you're talking about is impossible. The surrogate mother's body would view the fetus as a foreign body and kill it. It's also completely silly to think that anyone wanting to have a child would choose this over artificial insemination. This whole magical scenario where abortion has no consequences is silly and there's no reason to ever bring it up ever in a debate. ...To me, it's actually sounding like you're saying that of course the "pro-life" movement doesn't actually care about the unborn and only care about using it as punishment. I mean, if it were somehow to be able to be made possible, then logically all those (fertile) females who claim to care about the "unborn children" should be happy to offer their wombs as a substitute to prevent the killing of a fetus, right? I, however, think that it's completely silly to think that nobody would ever be happy to take an unwanted fetus over artificial insemination. There would be people who'd be happy to take that fetus. It may not be the majority, but you can't actually know for sure that there would be nobody who'd be willing to do it. Logically, I'd imagine that a person who plans to adopt even though they have a functional womb and could handle a pregnancy (like those people who refuse to have kids of their own even if they could because they want to give a child in the system a good home instead) would be willing to take on the unwanted fetus if such were made possible. It'd be like adopting, but at a stage where it's not yet viable outside the womb. That said, you also seem to constantly be missing the part where I mention the idea of an artificial womb--if it were possible to grow a human fetus outside an actual womb using artificial means, there would be no need for a volunteer host body to grow and birth it. (And, yes, I'm fully aware that these things aren't possible at the moment--I'm just saying that if they WERE possible, then you wouldn't necessarily have to kill a fetus to have an abortion) Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 I, however, think that it's completely silly to think that nobody would ever be happy to take an unwanted fetus over artificial insemination. There would be people who'd be happy to take that fetus. It may not be the majority, but you can't actually know for sure that there would be nobody who'd be willing to do it. The procedure would be far more complicated (and probably more expensive) than artificial insemination. Furthermore, the child would have no genetic relationship to the mother or the father. Many women would be less willing to carry a child to term if it wasn't "their's". Adopting a child that's already been born would be much easier and safer, as there would still be a chance the transplanted fetus could die for any number of reasons or suffer complications during birth. (By the way, the woman would not need to be fertile to carry the fetus. Artificial insemination can be done using a woman's own eggs or the eggs of a donor. As I said, artificial insemination would still be cheaper and less complex than transplanting a fetus, unless the transplant was done by magic.) That said, you also seem to constantly be missing the part where I mention the idea of an artificial womb--if it were possible to grow a human fetus outside an actual womb using artificial means, there would be no need for a volunteer host body to grow and birth it. The reason I haven't responded to this is that I see no difference between transplanting a fetus into an artificial womb to be carried through to term and putting a child up for adoption after birth. For the child, the outcome is the same. I'm going to quote Infinis: "As far as adoption goes, I find it a cruel lie to tell people that adoption is a good option when it's almost exclusively not. It's incredibly expensive to adopt, which makes it an infeasible option for some families, and then you get into qualifications to be a foster family. Out of hundreds of thousands of children in the system a year, only around 3% get adopted out, and as a child ages its chances of getting adopted lessen further and further. They're prone to emotional and psychological problems and some of them actively wish they had been aborted or attempt suicide." Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) I mean, if it were somehow to be able to be made possible, then logically all those (fertile) females who claim to care about the "unborn children" should be happy to offer their wombs as a substitute to prevent the killing of a fetus, right? This is a very big fallacy, and has no logical conclusion out of it. Its like saying because I dislike cars being used for driving to work that I should not be allowed to use a car - at all -. Also, honestly - most of that line of thought stems from the argument (that has yet to be proven) that anti-abortion only stems from wanting to punish people, and thus they should punish themselves, too. @likewise: egg donation is not legal in most countries. (in fact, in the european union its only allowed in 2 countries) Edited January 28, 2014 by whitebaron Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) The procedure would be far more complicated (and probably more expensive) than artificial insemination. Furthermore, the child would have no genetic relationship to the mother or the father. Many women would be less willing to carry a child to term if it wasn't "their's". Adopting a child that's already been born would be much easier and safer, as there would still be a chance the transplanted fetus could die for any number of reasons or suffer complications during birth. (By the way, the woman would not need to be fertile to carry the fetus. Artificial insemination can be done using a woman's own eggs or the eggs of a donor. As I said, artificial insemination would still be cheaper and less complex than transplanting a fetus, unless the transplant was done by magic.) The reason I haven't responded to this is that I see no difference between transplanting a fetus into an artificial womb to be carried through to term and putting a child up for adoption after birth. For the child, the outcome is the same. I'm going to quote Infinis: "As far as adoption goes, I find it a cruel lie to tell people that adoption is a good option when it's almost exclusively not. It's incredibly expensive to adopt, which makes it an infeasible option for some families, and then you get into qualifications to be a foster family. Out of hundreds of thousands of children in the system a year, only around 3% get adopted out, and as a child ages its chances of getting adopted lessen further and further. They're prone to emotional and psychological problems and some of them actively wish they had been aborted or attempt suicide." And I'm thinking that if these people are honestly truly pro-life, then they'd be happy to donate their wombs to birth the unwanted fetus. Unless every single pro-life female capable of carrying to term is actually all about forcing birth, then I'm pretty sure you could at least find people willing to do it if the alternative was that it would be killed. Especially if they're already okay with adopting. Additionally, don't bother quoting things about the adoption system to me--that's one of the reasons I argue that we need to be able to have abortions, because the system is super terrible around here. I am fully aware that it would end up with the same outcome as an adoption--but at least it would give an alternative to people who cannot handle a pregnancy but for whatever reason cannot stand the idea of getting an abortion because it would kill the fetus. Or an artificial womb would allow them to have an alternative even if they discovered partway through that the pregnancy posed serious risks to the mother if it were carried to term. Not to mention, though, that I did say that you couldn't classify that abortion is purely for the killing of fetuses unless we had such alternatives for roughly equal time and money costs as current abortion. I'm not saying that it'll ever be possible--just that you can't argue that abortion exits purely as a fetus-killing procedure that is designed with the sole intention of killing the fetus as it's primary purpose. The primary purpose is to terminate pregnancy. Currently, killing the fetus is the only method we have for doing that. Edited January 28, 2014 by KageSora Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 "You cannot say your opinion is correct universally so keep it to yourself." Is that not telling me I'm wrong? If not, my reading comprehension must be lower than I thought. Actually - an opinion is not a fact - no-one can say an OPINION is RIGHT. So linguistically - that is correct. Pro choice pedant passing through. Though can we please redefine pro-life again ? Pro-life SHOULD mean that If an abortion were prevented by a pro-lifer, that pro-lifer should also be prepared to take on the responsibility for raising the child they saved. Otherwise all they may have done is permit a child to be raised on no money by unsuitable parents (or fostered/adopted and that is generally NOT an OK option as many who have lived through that have testified..) Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 Where do these "human rights" come from exactly? You've clearly never run into Abby Johnson (famous pro-life advocate who bans people from her Facebook page for calling abortion murder), or most of the mainstream pro-life movement. The majority of people who attend March for Life and whatnot refuse to call abortion murder. The majority of people, even who go to clinics and stand outside, don't use the word "murder," don't quote the Bible, and offer simply pragmatic, medical, and natural law arguments. This documentary is taking a stance in opposition to those sorts of "pro-lifers." For me, the deviding line between embryo (up to 12 week after conceiving), fetus(afterwards), which i consider as "transient being with the potential to become a sentient, human being" and a human person who should be awared basic human rights, is a sufficiently developed brain to be self aware. That is, far as I'm informed on current state of neuro-science, the case somewhere between week 20 and 22. So, I have no trouble at all with early abortions. If it does not know that it exists, it can't care about its continued existence. Late term abortions in my country (and several other civilized ones) are only legal and performed, when the fetus is severly disabled and would be unviable or have really poor life quality, or when the physical , mental or emotional health of the mother would be at risk by continuing to carry on. Both are imho valid reasons to end a pregnancy. The morale crux on that debate is, that one has always to balance human rights against each other. The right if the potential human being for continued existence against the right of bodily autonomy of the mother. Here in Germany, physical integrity is a basic constitutional right. You can't be forced to donate an organ, or even just blood or bone mark against your wishes, its is mandatory to try save lifes (eg when an accident happens, you are law bound to aid-but not, if there is risk to your own health or life). A pregnancy means discomfort and a risk to health and potentially life-so one can't force any woman to undergo that against her wishes. She has the right to say no to damage to her body and spirit. Maybe, in some decades or centuries, we have the medical technology to remove an embryo or fetus from the womb into and artificial incubator. that would solve the problem-then the host can be free of it, while still allowing the fetus to devcvelop to a full human being. as long as it is dependent on a human host carrying it to term, the rights of the concious, responsible human being who has to live with the consequences of pregnancy just have to trump the rights of the dependend one. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) @likewise: egg donation is not legal in most countries. (in fact, in the european union its only allowed in 2 countries) That's not actually true. I could have cited Spain, Italy, the UK, THe Czech Republic and Poland without even looking it up. http://www.eggdonorworld.com/ivf-egg-donor...country/europe/ Just saying, not that it has anything to do with abortion . I was going to post this as a counter argument if phil brought up the Bible. Since he didn't, I'm going to post it now before I forget about it: The Bible's Guide to Abortion WAY to go - I never saw that before ! Edited January 28, 2014 by fuzzbucket Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 Where do these "human rights" come from exactly? Human rights are bestowed upon a person at birth. They are legal and constitutional rights. They come from society and the legal system. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 28, 2014 Exactly^^ The definition of "person" I found: "a human being regarded as an individual." I do not regard a fetus as an individual because it is using someone else's body as it's source of pretty much everything. It also can not think or feel. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 29, 2014 Aftermath of the dead woman with fetus case For the love of all that is holy please do not let these people win elections. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 29, 2014 Aftermath of the dead woman with fetus case For the love of all that is holy please do not let these people win elections. Are the majority of texans in agreement with them, or is it only the people running for power who want these insane laws that turn women's bodies into incubators? Share this post Link to post
Posted January 29, 2014 Are the majority of texans in agreement with them, or is it only the people running for power who want these insane laws that turn women's bodies into incubators? I don't know - I was linked to that story through MS, so I don't know any other information about it. But I sincerely hope the majority doesn't agree. Share this post Link to post
Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Are the majority of texans in agreement with them, or is it only the people running for power who want these insane laws that turn women's bodies into incubators? Considering everything Texas does to silence people as well as their restrictive voting policies, new and old, and the state's extremely low voter turnout (they are 48th out of 50th for voter turnout), Imma say there's not a majority who agrees with them but they use a lot of gross tactics to get votes anyway. =U ~ Glad the TX woman was taken off life support! ~ Saw this recently, though I'd share: Canada has abortion available with no limits, bans on protesting outside of clinics at all, socialized health care, subsidized daycare, paid maternity leave for up to 52 weeks and fewer than 80k abortions a year NATIONWIDE. (Which is less than the state of Texas sees in a full year.) Ever think protesting IS NOT the way to encourage people to give birth? I mean, if Canada can have no term limits and no one standing outside a clinic harassing people, and offer up many incentives and helping hands to parents that maybe your energies would be better spent on HELPING PEOPLE? Look everyone! Canada has no term limits, yet doctors won’t perform abortions past 21 weeks without “compelling health of genetic reasons." That’s right. Eight month old fetuses aren’t aborted left and right. The best part when a late term abortion needs to happen, the doctor doesn’t have to jump through a series of hoops and worry about going to jail. They can just save their patients without worry. Edited January 29, 2014 by SockPuppet Strangler Share this post Link to post
Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Read through Infinis' link and I think I just died a little bit inside. *crosses fingers that these lunatics won't make it into office, and curses the two party power play in the US* Edited January 29, 2014 by brairtrainer Share this post Link to post
Posted January 29, 2014 Politicians like those make the US seem extremely frightening. Are they trying to make "Land of the free" a tongue in cheek statement? Share this post Link to post
Posted January 29, 2014 I'm not saying that it'll ever be possible--just that you can't argue that abortion exits purely as a fetus-killing procedure that is designed with the sole intention of killing the fetus as it's primary purpose. Isn't this just semantics? When you take a terminal patient off life support, your goal is usually to end their suffering. As a direct result of this the patient will die. Death ends their suffering. It would not be incorrect to say, "Taking this patient off life support will kill them." Nor would it be incorrect to say, "Having an abortion will kill the fetus." At the end of the day it's all the same. Saying that the purpose of an abortion isn't necessarily to kill the fetus is never going to change the fact that it does. Share this post Link to post
Recommended Posts