Should Abortion be Illegal?

[echo musk]

Also, my argument is not at all contingent upon the fetus being a life or not.

I genuinely do not care if the fetus is considered a human or not

[valid rune]

I definitely care, you should not be able to kill a 38 keep old fetus on a whim

[echo musk]

Because it doesn't matter. no human should be able to force me to use my body in a way I don't want.

[valid rune]

If it can be a viable adoption

Cesarean

Thats how it would be removed either way

If the life can be saved, you have no right to kill a baby just because it's "yours"

We will remove it if you ask, you don't have to keep it. But you don't get to kill it

On a whim

[echo musk]

Doesn't really happen in the real world so I'm not to interested in that conversation

[valid rune]

But that is a natural hypothetical on your line of thinking

A malicious one at that

You really don't like talking about unintended consequences of your opinions

[echo musk]

I wouldn't even give it a meaningful chance of feasibility.

[valid rune]

The real world is messy, and if we want to truly debate this we'll need to wade into the muck.

[echo musk]

I'd be astounded if a percent of a percent of a percent of the aborted pregnancies that made it to the late third trimester were aborted "on a whim".

[valid rune]

That doesn't change the fact that I will not support child murder

And would push for criminal charges in such a case

The Intent is very important there, it's manslaughter at best if you just hack in regardless of the baby, and 1st degree murder at worst if you intentionally kill it.

If, instead, you do everything reasonably possible to save the life, you're clear

You don't get to cut a 38 week old baby out of yourself with a steak knife because you decided it should die and you want your body back

That ship sailed a long time ago.

[echo musk]

Should I be forced to give life-saving blood to a one-month old?

[valid rune]

You specifically? No. But this is not an equivalent scenario because as we've already established inaction causing death and actively pursuing it are different

[echo musk]

No, I mean in general

Should the government be able to force someone to give blood to save the life of a one-month old

Of course, I don't even think abortions are performed past a certain point

[valid rune]

No, we are on the same page with this. But this is just repeating things we already agree on, while ignoring questions you don't like your possible answer too

[echo musk]

I think, I could be wrong, after so many weeks it is an induced labor and birth

[echo musk]

I have done no such thing. I have no qualms facing the music of harsher realities

[valid rune]

That's not how it is codified in Canada, which I am most familiar with, and that doesn't fit with your "abortion at any time regardless of it being alive or not" definition

[echo musk]

I don't care how it is codified. I'm discussing how I think we ought to codify rights

[valid rune]

Right, but you refuse to answer how it OUGHT to be codified when talking about a viable baby after ~25 weeks gestation.

[naive fossil]

Are you daft?

[timber ravine]

?

Went over a year back wow

[echo musk]

Right to privacy ought not to be transgressed, even if the other person's life is dependent on it. This applies to a zygote. A twelve week fetus. A thirty-eight week fetus. A one-month old. A one-year old. An adult. A seventy year old. None of them have a claim to your body, even if their life is on the line. In my opinion

[valid rune]

Does society encourage gambling? Does society encourage big game hunting? Just because something is a legal option doesn't mean we encourage it.

Society actively discourages smoking, but that is legal.

[timber ravine]

I’ll repeat from a year ago I guess

How does society encourage abortion

[valid rune]

Exactly

[timber ravine]

I guess this moron pinging me from a year ago wants me to rejoin the conversation. Good luck

[valid rune]

This doesn't give an explicit answer to my question. Do you have the right, through bodily autonomy, to kill a baby in your womb?

[noble scarab]

There is no way a 38 week old would be aborted on a whim. I’m a medical professional. If there is risk to life, either the mothers or the foetus, it will be born (either induced or cesarean). But it would not be traditionally aborted

[valid rune]

@echo musk explicitly said she was fine with abortion at any stage, regardless of the viability of the baby.

Killing or otherwise

My contention is that is illegal monstrous

She has the right to a premature cesarean, and to put the baby up for adoption, not the right to kill it

[timber ravine]

I disagree that it’s fine

But the conversation has nothing to do with it ethics or morality

It’s a question of legality

[echo musk]

I also have not commented on morality

Just rights

legality

Furthermore using killed is charged terminology

But yeah, sure

[valid rune]

Correct, and you do not have the right to murder a child

[echo musk]

But Seb98 is also right. This hypothetical is nearly pure fiction

[noble scarab]

While personally I have an issue with a straight up abortion at 38 weeks however, it’s not my body so it’s not my choice. I don’t know the circumstances of the mother so therefore it’s not my decision

[valid rune]

You have already stated multiple times for other arguments that this doesn't matter

[echo musk]

Sure. Which is why I maintain my stance

[valid rune]

So, again, are you legally entitled to kill your own baby?

[echo musk]

Right to privacy should not be alienated in a goldilocks zone

[noble scarab]

Hypothetical or not. Not my body, not my choice

[valid rune]

If the baby would survive outside the mother would you kill it?

[echo musk]

Should you have the right to stop donating your bloon after eight months of life-saving blood transfusions?

[echo musk]

Obviously not

[valid rune]

You said you were okay with this earlier

[timber ravine]

But the thing is…

Should abortion be illegal?

In my opinion it should be legal

And have certain restrictions

[valid rune]

Here?

[timber ravine]

But there should be a first trimester federal line that permis abortion

[valid rune]

Yes, we agreed on this several times.

[echo musk]

Not relevant. If an early labor can be induced, then it should be able to be

[valid rune]

I don't have the right to slash that person's wrists though

[valid rune]

So you do believe in restrictions on abortion

Once it is a life

Therefore your previous comment was false

I genuinely do not care if the fetus is considered a human or not

[valid rune]

This is the 3rd or 4th time you claim irrelevance because you don't like the logical conclusion of your opinion, or are unwilling to admit you are wrong.

[noble scarab]

A foetus can survive outside of the mothers body with a relatively high success rate from 26 weeks. But sometimes the foetus has conditions that make it incompatible with life. If this is the case then yes, the abortion should be carried out, if it’s what the mother wants

[valid rune]

It is not debating in good faith, and grows increasingly tiresome.

[valid rune]

I agree. I posted the graph of the stats

And the stats for +90% abortions before 13 weeks

And ~99% before 20 weeks

[echo musk]

Semantics

Idc what we call it. Just preserve the right to privacy

[valid rune]

Important distinctions that turn contraception into murder

[echo musk]

Nope

Murder is a legal term

[valid rune]

I guess "Murder' is semantics

[echo musk]

It can be yes

[valid rune]

I didn't "kill them" I slit their throat, bloodless killed them

[noble scarab]

There is no point presenting arguments that would never happen (eg. 38 weeks) unless you are trying to induce a fight. The only reason a 38 week baby would be born is because the parent went into labour, or there was a risk to either the parent or the foetus. Then they would induce or carry out an emergency cesarean

[valid rune]

What about 26 weeks?

Again, she didn't think it mattered if the baby was "a human" or not. She contended that she should have the right to abort any term baby

With no justification other than she no longer wanted it

I am only pointing out the logical extent to which that law could be taken

Which is killing of a baby

Which I disagree with

And thus think should be illegal

I would contend that you agree with me

And she does also, so should revise her stance

[echo musk]

I mean, I also personally disagree with cutting off life-preserving measures in certain scenarios. Doesn't mean I think it should be illegal

[echo musk]

Always wondered, what's the difference between foetus and fetus?

[valid rune]

Again, I would defer to medical professionals, I don't have much current knowledge on MAID, but also irrelevant to the conversation

[echo musk]

Seb is a medical professional tho

[noble scarab]

There isn’t one, it’s American English versus British English

[valid rune]

Then start another topic about medical assistance in death/pulling the plug

That is irrelevant to a law saying the mother should not be able to kill her child

[noble scarab]

There is usually plenty of time to discuss termination before 26 weeks however if there is harm to the parent (physical or mental) then there should be the option of termination. Or if the parent can wait another 6 weeks where viability outside is greater, then it can be put up for adoption. However if the risk is too high on loosing the parent, my argument is with the parent. It’s not my body so it’s not my choice

[echo musk]

You keep charging the language with "kill the chil" but okay. My only concern is right to privacy

[valid rune]

This is the line of questioning. If the baby is a life, and would survive, you do not get to choose to abort it, in the process killing it.

You could not give a straight answer

[echo musk]

In my opinion, abortion is not defined as killing a fetus, but as terminating a pregnancy

[valid rune]

I agree with you, that is my explicitly stated position in this threat for over a week.

[echo musk]

At some point, the termination of a pregnancy does not result in fetal death

[valid rune]

Thank you

[echo musk]

Hello to you too, Lots.

[valid rune]

LOL

So it DOES matter if it is a life

[echo musk]

I'm sorry

Could you clarify where it appears I said that?

[valid rune]

Because that is the point at which it is no longer abortion and becomes premature birth

So it still behooves us to define that line

And codify it

To prevent murder/killing/infanticide etc.

[echo musk]

I mean I don't see the need to codify it, as that would harm more than it would save

[valid rune]

At 30 weeks a healthy developing fetus may or may not be considered murdered by its mother if she willingly and knowing endangered that pregnancy without medical consultation

[echo musk]

Again, I would be surprised if more than a millionth of pregnancies terminated after the second half of the third trimester weren't for a medical reason

You make live-saving medical care illegal in some cases, medical professionals are gonna start consulting lawyers when they should be performing care

[valid rune]

Likewise you could add another count of manslaughter in collision deaths

[echo musk]

Which we have seen happen already with the overturning of Roe v. Wade

[valid rune]

Bereaved fathers losing both mother and baby would definitely like that acknowledged

Or mothers

[echo musk]

Meh. Seperate discussion

I don't know where I'd stand on that. Certainly don't support it in means of enacting some kind of vengeance. Justice should prioritize rehabilitation over all

[valid rune]

Laws can rely on scientific consensus and expert opinions

[echo musk]

Yea.

[valid rune]

And the closest thing to an expert on the topic we have mentioned ~26 weeks

[echo musk]

Sure

I don't recall disagreeing with that either though

[valid rune]

So drawing a soft line at 20 weeks is an easy thing to do, but the hard line would need to be more grey and rely on science and expert opinion

[echo musk]

It's unnecessary

And potentially harmful

[valid rune]

It IS necessary

Lest we have murder of babies

[echo musk]

I'd rather the one-a-million pregnancy at 38 weeks get an abortion that isn't medically necessary than allow other, life threatening pregnancies to risk waiting while doctors have to consult with lawyers to make sure they don't get jail time

[valid rune]

Again irrelevant

As stated, we have plenty of time to discuss it

By the expert

[echo musk]

Agree to disagree. I don't think this is going anywhere

[valid rune]

And saving 1 life and trying to save the other is different from saving the mother at complete expense and neglect for the baby

[echo musk]

?

[timber ravine]

The amount of money spent on lobbying against abortion instead of actually helping foster care and abortions is mind boggling

[echo musk]

One gets voters to the polls.

The other... doesn't

[timber ravine]

Yeah but it doesn’t

[valid rune]

We went down that line on the weekend IIRC

[timber ravine]

Literally the majority of even republicans think it should be legal

[valid rune]

Pro-life is actually just Pro-birth most of the time

[echo musk]

But the one's that don't will never vote for a Pro-Choice Repub

[timber ravine]

In a memorandum I’d wager at least 70% of people would vote in favour of allowing abortion

[echo musk]

The ones that do have no issue voting for an anti-choice repub

[timber ravine]

Same people who say you shall not infringe on my second amendment right

And not even regulate it 😂

[valid rune]

Thats the problem with a 2 party system. https://discord.com/channels/1014756943824429126/1118659508793774130

[timber ravine]

But not only regulate your bodily autonomy

Even force it

It’s ludicrous to be a law

The state has nothing to do with it

If we start putting moral or ethical dilemmas into law let’s just become the east

[echo musk]

A republican candidate coming out as pro-choice loses 30% of the vote. Anti-choice candidates don't lose the 70%.

[valid rune]

I don't know about that, murder is just semantics on killing

[timber ravine]

Even murder is not illegal

[valid rune]

That requires a huge amount of ethics and morals

[echo musk]

Murder, by definition, is illegal killing

[timber ravine]

Otherwise all murder manslaughter accidental death charges would be the same

Illegal killing

Different to killing

[echo musk]

Yes

[timber ravine]

Okay sorry killing is not illegal…

[valid rune]

And where does that definition come from if not morals and ethics

[timber ravine]

You know what I’m saying

[valid rune]

I get what you meant

[timber ravine]

Societal safety

And societal consensus

The consensus is for abortion to be legal also keep in mind

[echo musk]

Technically the law just comes from the law-makers. Their reasoning does not have to be moral or ethical.

[valid rune]

So morals and ethics of the public

[timber ravine]

Their reasoning CANNOT be moral or ethical

It has to be OBJECTIVE (if it’s truly a country of freedom)

[echo musk]

I don't see the conflict

I think objective morality exists

[timber ravine]

No… consensus and majority of the public

[valid rune]

Who are emotionless perfectly logical beings?

[timber ravine]

If tomorrow they decided that it should be illegal to masturbate because you cause a potential genocide what would you say?

It has nothing to do with ethics or morality and everything to do with religion. In a country claiming to be “free”

[echo musk]

I don't think I'd say anything

What impact will I have on the law?

[valid rune]

Illegal for whom to masturbate? Only fertile males would be wasting anything

[noble scarab]

I agree with this. While I may not agree with a 38 week abortion. Allowing one in every few million so others have access to healthcare is a worthy sacrifice. And as I’ve stated before. I think abortion should be legal because it’s not my body so it’s not my choice

[valid rune]

We have Good Samaritan laws that cover similar things though. Provided you acted within your training and knowledge you are indemnified

Save the life of the mother, try and save the baby if possible

[hard igloo]

That's a trade-off like giving up your arm to save your leg I will admit. I do understand your point of view completely and appreciate the weight of the decision that a woman has when she becomes pregnant. For the sake of example, giving my values a ranking between 0-100, I would place bodily autonomy at 99 and an individual's life at 100.

Long story short, yes, I do believe that protecting the life of an unborn child comes before a mother's bodily autonomy. You cannot have bodily autonomy without being alive first...this is my rationale. Only when the mother's life is explicitly in danger by carrying the child, would I consider abortion to be morally necessary.

Again, I do not advocate for this position to be the legal standard, I am merely relating my personal sense of ethics. I do not wish to see abortion as a form of birth control, nor do I want to see mothers struggling to raise a child that they did not plan to have. There ought to be a robust social safety net in place to help mothers with children. This solution should not just be about money and welfare as that rarely solves the problem and tends to create bad incentives. Valuing the family unit in our society and a sense of community in our local areas are some things I think would help this issue.

[echo musk]

Abortion is not being used as birth control, fwiw.

Honestly if you're advocating to keep abortion or to make abortion legal, we're on the same page. I don't care about your ethical code when it comes to laws, I don't care about my ethical code when it comes to laws. Laws should be enshrined in the ideal of maximizing freedoms while minimizing harm, not what a group of people finds icky

[hard igloo]

For some it most definitely is treated as a mode for birth control...don't ignore the extreme positions on your own side and I won't ignore them on my side.

I think abortion ought to be legislated on a more local level like that if a state versus a federal level. My ideal state would return abortion to the standard of safe, legal and rare with heavy restrictions on access to abortion without extreme extenuating circumstances as I have detailed above.

In the case of conflicting rights, such as the life of the fetus vs the bodily autonomy of the mother, law is designed to compromise not necessarily to maximize freedom.

[echo musk]

Do you have any sources on the idea that it's widely used as birth control? I'd love to see them.

Also you and I disagree on what laws should be, then. Which is fine. But forcing the pregnant person to become an incubator against their will is pretty wild. I can't imagine making someone sacrifice their own body for the life of someone else. What a terrifying ordeal to go through

[supple ivy]

Similar to how I am free to smoke a cigarette, but not free to smoke in enclosed spaces where other people may be. . . I drew inspiration from all of these great points being made. Remember, this isn’t a place where we can resolve the issue, so as far as I’m concerned I just read an entirely conclusive discussion of the notion of third trimester terminations, and nobody here would dare Pierce that veil to endorse such a thing Willy Nilly. That’s perfect!

I brought up cigarettes because I want to bring up alcohol. If a woman drinks heavily during pregnancy, it can cause Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. So in any case, where a woman’s bodily autonomy is concerned, Can we criminalize the drinking of alcohol while pregnant? Is that permissible, from an ideal law that shields freedoms and prevents harm? A fetus that is not a human yet but can become one, does it have a right to not be afflicted by drug use, even before it becomes a human?

I want to emphasize that I am not probing and prodding for a creative way to trick you into letting me control women. I don’t bring this up because I want to make some assertion that too many pregnant women are drinking and it is in need of prevention. It’s just my twisting your arm, @echo musk in response to these excellent points you made.

[supple ivy]

But here I also want to add, Goatman is not suggesting something to be measured out by data. He’s describing a real thing that I have seen, but I disagree with him on the seriousness of it. I don’t really believe young girls mean it when they say they will use abortion as birth control, but I have heard them say things that sound like that, it’s not a mysterious thing. “Oh I don’t need birth control, if he gets me pregnant I know where I can get an abortion” sounds like a cynical joke to me, but I agree with the idea that this kind of sentiment can easily creep in. I don’t worry but his concern is also a valid thing to me.

[rocky sky]

I've seen the family unit coming up a couple times now, what do you guys mean when you say that? As a child of divorce i have a lot of trouble wrapping my head around it, or its importance

To me family has always been this ramshackle thing held together by prayer and duct tape, and wasn't ever all that helpful

[supple ivy]

It is my wish to directly address that This is specifically why I am proud to vote for abortion support. Because it is Best to me that no abortion should ever be performed after 1.5 trimesters have passed. And that is it. I have fully appreciated the struggle that pregnant women must go through, and so I can still see how after 24 weeks even, abortions can be considered legal by places like Canada. The notion that it is “not banned” at any point nearing a final countdown to birth, but that we rely on logical practice to preserve us? Fair and good!

I just really hope to let that not be what preserves us here in America. I think that it is good the way planned parenthood stands now. I hope that the government does not force this issue and instead lets the States themselves decide. And I hope that every single blue state and not all of the red states legalize it, and I hope it creates a huge political gradient that upsets the political balance of power and finally resolved the deadlock in the United States but this is a pipe dream. Haha!
I hope that a healthy culture of mortal respect for abortion clinics is what we have left after the aftermath of this overturning.
Because it seems likely that 100 years from now, if a 23 year old woman has to make that choice, she’s still gonna be conflicted. And I hope she is able to resolve herself and reach the best care possible in places that are completely free of the madness of rabid political bickering that fails to solve anything.

[timber ravine]

guys. abortion was not allowed until the last moment 😂

each state would choose

even california had and has restrictions

so we are simply talking about before that mark

so literally any discussion having to do with abortions past 28 weeks is not valid. Those are state imposed restriction based on their citizens

what they are trying to do is give power to the states representatives (WITHOUT state referendums in many cases) to control what women can do with a non-viable group of cells. Under that definition you can include cancer. The potential for a baby means NOTHING.

Pro lifers always say Roe V Wade is birth control basically and allows you to kill a baby the day before it's born. This is dumb unfounded propaganda who have not even read.

That is so fundamentally different to Roe V wade not allowing states to regulate abortion before the 28 week mark. It's so far from it that it is comically laughable.

doctors can make their own decision with far more knowledge and significance that any legislator. Who is each representative to tell a doctor what is and what isn't healthcare. as i wouldn't force someone to have an abortion, one should force another not to. I have no problems with restriction even though they infringe on freedom because after a certain point you are tresspassing on others right. But the people should decide that and not the state. Ask the people what they want and then make relevant restrictions. Unless it's not a democracy

But after Kansas i guess it's not in their favour

and Florida will be even worse than Kansas for the come Nov. 5

[valid rune]

@timber ravine that is the point I am trying to get at. But I find that people are more convinced when they come to that conclusion on their own when presented the facts

By pointing out the unintended consequences of their opinions, and providing the facts as we currently understand them, the logical outcome is very close to the paws we currently have

I take issue both with people that say "Abortion at any stage, I don't care if it's a human" and "Never Abortion, egg+sperm = baby and you are murdering them" because neither are based in our current scientific and medical understand, or in our current rule of law, either morally or "public safety" based as they have claimed

[hard igloo]

My sources that I am drawing from include my own personal experience in talking to people and in observing similar discussions in public discourse such as on social media and traditional media sources. This isn't statistical by any means I will admit, but I do believe it is more prevalent in our culture than many would like to believe. The main reason I have for this is that allowing more and more allowances (less restrictions) on abortion creates an attitude where people forget the reasons for such a standard as safe, legal and rare. This is especially true of the younger generations, those that may most feel the need to get an abortion because they are young, not in a long-term, healthy relationship and not financially independent. Such a group of people who have never been brought face to face with the actual consequences of an abortion, may be more likely to treat it more like a method of birth control rather than as a method that does have drastic consequences. This is simply a consideration of mine that I should be made abundantly clear to anyone seeking an abortion. A woman seeking an abortion should receive counseling from both a pro-life and a pro-choice perspective before making the decision. That is really the only condition I would make, though I believe it would be immensely helpful.

[valid rune]

What surgery ever is done willy-nilly without consultation in advance? We don't need people berating her and calling her sinful and a murderer.
I shouldn't have to speak with a Quaker before I get a transplant, I should be speaking with medical professionals on medical matters.

Which is standard procedure before an abortion

If you want to speak with a priest beforehand gone nuts, but don't force dogma or puritanical ideals on someone that doesn't have them, especially when all facts currently available are counterpoint to your position

[hard igloo]

I have a quick analogy for you that I thought of and I want you to see if you think it is valid or not.

Say you try to start a fire, so you bring the tinder and a lighter together. A spark sets the flame burning, though you keep having to stoke the fire to keep it burning. At a certain point you have built a fire so large that it is able to sustain itself and extends beyond the enclosure you had for it and envelops the surrounding grass. The fire now feeds itself and grows independently from this point forward.

My rationale is that this fire starts with the spark that initiated the entire process, even though it has to be sustained by something else until the fire is capable of the chain reaction itself. You maintain that the the fire begins only at this point when it no longer needs to be stoked and can support the chain reaction itself (the viability argument). Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

My main point is that my definition of life is just as scientific of an explanation as yours, interpretation of data is the only point where we differ.

[valid rune]

This is irrelevant because as I have outlined numerous times, anyone can feed that fire, it is not dependent uniquely and specifically on me

[hard igloo]

There are plenty of people of the pro-life position who do not seek to berate people for seeking an abortion. They are merely there to try to convince as I have done here in this thread without shaming or insulting anyone. Medical professionals are not necessarily experts on moral matters which is equally important to consider if anyone wants to consider themselves a moral individual.

[valid rune]

And they still have no say in the medical decisions of others

[hard igloo]

Okay for the sake of the hypothetical scenario, say you were the only one in that forest that could keep the fire alive, would that change anything?

[valid rune]

Again, it doesn't apply because nature without me could keep the fire going. A gust could drop a branch on it etc.

[hard igloo]

No ultimate say in the medical decisions of others, but should be at least given the opportunity to make the case I believe. It is an effort to enlighten the person with a perspective that they may have not had before.

[valid rune]

No, you get 0% say in MY medical decisions

You have no rights to speak to me

You can speak in public and I can choose to listen

[hard igloo]

Haha we are speaking in hypotheticals here. There is no wind, no fuel there to keep the fire going unless you stood by it yourself and kept it going until it was large enough to catch the rest of the forest on fire.

[hard igloo]

There is no right to free speech?

[valid rune]

If it's MY fire, on MY property I get to say what happens to it

[valid rune]

That's not free speech

[clear tundra]

"A woman seeking an abortion should receive counseling from both a pro-life and a pro-choice perspective before making the decision"

nah in Canada for example there's already counseling before the abortion and you get shown your OPTIONS neutrally, not attempting to be swayed one way or the other. As it should be.

[valid rune]

Free speech is you are able to say whatever you want in public. You are not guarenteed an audience. And a medical office is not public

[hard igloo]

Maybe the analogy doesn't work then...thought I'd try

[hard igloo]

Free speech is being able to say whatever I want to whomever I want

[valid rune]

Not wherever you want though

You are not guaranteed an audience under free speech

[clear tundra]

And it doesn't protect you from everything either, you cannot say literally whatever you want when there are laws

[valid rune]

You cannot proselytize on my doorstep.

Or in my business

[hard igloo]

Depends on what is defined as a 'neutral' option. If you are there for an abortion and not told that you are ending the life of the child, that is hardly neutral. Telling a woman they can either have the abortion or not is not enough information to the person seeking it.

[valid rune]

It's the right to say, not the right to be heard

[clear tundra]

That is not how it goes at all, you are explained the entire process.

They don't just say oh you can do it or not and let you decide.
They explain what you're getting into

[hard igloo]

Just checking, as I am unfamiliar with the process.

[clear tundra]

Are there people who don't understand the concept of abortion = no baby ? Or am I misunderstanding your point?

[clear tundra]

Well it's a medical procedure they are supposed to explain the process to you so you can give informed consent

And Im familiar with the process as well. For whatever it's worth.

[valid rune]

And that right ends when it becomes harmful or threatening towards others

[hard igloo]

Wasn't sure what the consulting phase was about as I have never experienced it. I was merely stating earlier what I thought should be the practice to have the most-informed decision hearing from both sides before going through the procedure.

[clear tundra]

Nah it should be neutral, not trying to sway a person. They can make their own decision / with their support people in their life without people trying to impress beliefs on them at an already stressful time

[valid rune]

Despite the broad freedom of expression guaranteed by the First Amendment, there are some historically rooted exceptions. First, the government may generally restrict the time, place, or manner of speech, if the restrictions are unrelated to what the speech says and leave people with enough alternative ways of expressing their views. Thus, for instance, the government may restrict the use of loudspeakers in residential areas at night, limit all demonstrations that block traffic, or ban all picketing of people’s homes.

Second, a few narrow categories of speech are not protected from government restrictions. The main such categories are incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.

[echo musk]

Anecdote is not a source. Because then I could counter with my own anecdote that I have never even heard of any one in my social circles using abortion as birth control.

[valid rune]

Furthermore Trespassing:
A person commits an offense if, knowing that he or she is not licensed or privileged to do so, he or she enters or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor if it is committed in a dwelling at night.

[hard igloo]

My concern is who determines the 'neutral' point. People should be less scared of hearing two different sides of any one question. I personally like to hear the two extremes of any issue so I can work my way towards the middle where I believe the truth often lies. As a libertarian I tend to follow the rule that the truth lies between any two distinct sides of an argument.

[valid rune]

You are not unlimited in what you can say, and you are DEFINITELY limited in where you can say it

[echo musk]

The truth lies with the evidence, btw. Not in between two of any given sides

[clear tundra]

That's you. Would you like people trying to sway you in either direction for every decision one makes, or just abortions?

[hard igloo]

You could very well say that if it is indeed your personal experience. Personal experience is indeed valid, though as I admitted before it is not a statistical point.

[echo musk]

Should a homophobe and a gay person tried to sway my wife and I to their side before we got married

[echo musk]

It is not "valid". It it s a logical fallacy. Literally

[clear tundra]

I can't think of many life decisions that require that. No one sits you down before marriage with 1 person saying you should and another saying you shouldn't before you can decide. No one really does that before a medical procedure either.
Why should abortions have the same requirement?

[hard igloo]

I wouldn't mind it since that is just how the world works. You are told to be on one of two sides and I like hearing from both sides, taking what I believe to be true from each side accordingly.

[echo musk]

The only peopele that should be involved in an abortion are the doctor discussing the side-effects and risks, and the patient. Just like any other medical procedure

[clear tundra]

No, that isn't how the world works. Most people make their life decisions without trying to be swayed by strangers. They seek advice for what's best for them from people in their lives

[clear tundra]

And this

[hard igloo]

This would be a claiming that you are incapable of perceiving reality yourself. Reality is either out of your grasp or completely unintelligible with your logic there.

[echo musk]

For real. No anti-natalist sat down with my wife to convince her not to have a child. No anti-adoptionist sat down with me to convince me not to adopt

[echo musk]

False. It is recognizing the inadequacy of a single point of data

[hard igloo]

Many people do actually go to either their priest or whoever is marrying them to discuss the purpose and intent with the act of getting married.

[echo musk]

Argument from Anecdote is literally classified as a logical fallacy. If you're unfamiliar with these, I'd strongly recommend researching them before participating in online debates.

[echo musk]

But they don't have to

[hard igloo]

I am not making my conclusions based on a single point of data

[echo musk]

You are using it to back up a point in your arguments

[clear tundra]

Yeah, but it's not required

As you're purposing for abortions

[echo musk]

You think that abortion needs to be restricted so nobody treats it as birth control.

Your evidence that people treat it as birthcontrol? Personal anecdote

[hard igloo]

A point which I believe is valid. If you do not feel the same way then leave it be.

[echo musk]

You believe it's valid based off of fallacy

The fallacy of anecdote

If you are comfortable basing your reasoning on logically unsound systems, fine. But there's really no reason for us to communicate then, as we are effectively speaking different languages

[clear tundra]

True

[hard igloo]

I also am proposing that the consequences of abortion are greater than the consequences of marriage, thus the different standard. Again, I was speaking earlier only in ideals, I am not a policy maker and I hardly think this is an enforceable measure.

[lilac pilot]

So what im wondering is how can you have such a prevalent opinion on a procedure you are not familiar with?

[clear tundra]

"Consequences" as in they go, they have the medical procedure, and then they start to move on with their lives?

The horror

[hard igloo]

I'm unfamiliar with the process because I am a man and have never been sat in that position of discussing abortion options. I can still have an opinion on the matter without a uterus.

[lilac pilot]

No i get you can have an opinion, but why is it so strong

why can't you be like, just let the woman decide its her body her choice

[echo musk]

But you also have a far lesser stake in the matter. You will never be turned into an incubator against your will. That will never be something you have to worry about

[lilac pilot]

thats what im not understanding

[valid rune]

The consequences of abortion are less than that of vasectomy or hysterectomy

[echo musk]

Ever

[lilac pilot]

Why do you feel the need as a man to determine for someone else what/how they should behave

[clear tundra]

Lots of people like to have strong opinions on issues that have nothing to do with them or their bodies. A lot of people are obsessed with things like womens uteruses, or others genitals. Very strange really

[hard igloo]

Again that dismisses the seriousness with which I view abortion.

[valid rune]

No one forced me to sit down with them before getting snipped

[clear tundra]

It is literally what happens

[lilac pilot]

No i know it happens, I just dont understand why

[clear tundra]

Yeah I guess I was just musing about it as well... just a strange concept lol

[echo musk]

You will never have to worry about the law telling you that you have to use your body against your will for the life of another. How wonderful that must be

[clear tundra]

Also true

[hard igloo]

Boy I'm now debating like 5 people here...sorry if I don't respond to you all.

[hard igloo]

I have made this point earlier, but I will briefly make it again. I feel the need to protect the life of the unborn fetus as it does not have a choice in the decision to have an abortion.

[valid rune]

I have very strong opinions on many things that don't affect MY body, because I think people should be supported in being able to make their own choices

[lilac pilot]

Oh im not gonna debate this topic content-wise, i just seek to understand the pro-life mindset because I genuinely can't fathom

[echo musk]

I just wanna know if you're comfortable basing a pretty significant opinion you have on a logical fallacy.

[lilac pilot]

what is pa?

[valid rune]

That is what I detest the "no womb, no opinion bullshit "

[clear tundra]

Yeah the point is about choice for sure

Not telling us what to do with our wombs

That's all

[hard igloo]

sorry I had a small stroke haha

[valid rune]

Exactly, and I vehemently support that. I have VERY STRONG opinions on it.

[lilac pilot]

but up to a certain point, a fetus has no thoughts so it has, by definition, no choice or opinion on anything?

[clear tundra]

Then it's the opinion on the choice, not on what to do with my uterus

[echo musk]

I don't detest it, even if I disagree. Because it's genuinely terrifying sitting in a pulpit, as a person with a womb, to listen to a man among a group of men yell how abortions should be banned, totally, even in the case of rape or incest

[valid rune]

You know it's good when "many people are typing"

[hard igloo]

I have written much in this feed about my position and my reasoning. If you are genuinely curious, then I hope you will look at my posts through the entire history of this thread. I am only trying to offer those of you on here an insight as to how I rationalize the pro-life argument.

[hard igloo]

Very true which is why it is such a controversial topic.

[lilac pilot]

I have read a good portion of it, it just doesn't make sense to me at all thats it

[clear tundra]

I'd rather someone push choice than try to sway someone. All angles should be explained for an informed decision but you can't sit there and expect someone to listen to your personal opinion on why they should have an abortion or not

Regardless of whether I have/had one, or would/wouldnt, everyone should be able to choose that for themselves

Without pressure or fear of judgement or stigma

[hard igloo]

Fair enough, that is only my failure to convince you of my reasoning. I am very willing to agree to disagree here and point to my posts on what I think should be the legislative standard for abortion.

Gotta go folks, it's been good discussing this with you all.

[echo musk]

If you can, I would greatly appreciate the answer to this question

[echo musk]

Here

[valid rune]

Yes, I have an opinion on the subject (laws etc.) I don't get a say on the specific choices.

I would hope that an expecting father SHOULD get a say in the conversation (healthy stable adult relationship), but there is no SHALL get a say.

[timber ravine]

Let’s not forget the people who want abortion illegal are the ones who lobbied for birth control to be prescription only and now want to make even that hard to get or even illegal 😆

[errant cove]

Only some

[echo musk]

"Some" is a nebulous amount. Is it 10% or 99%?

[errant cove]

Less than 100%, I dont want to be lumped in with them

Make all contraception's easily accessible free idc, the gov blows way more money on stupider shit

I don't know if any of you have ever watched Tim Pool

But one of my favorite quotes/clips of him was saying

"Take it out of the blowing up kids fund" in reference to idk what but he was referencing drone strikes in the middle east

I think of that all the time

[echo musk]

Tim Pool is an awful person.

Idk if he's as bad as Nick Fuentes or Andrew Tate, but he's within their ballpark

[errant cove]

I am curious why you think he is an awful person. I am not a big Tim Pool fan but he is usually middle of the ground or leans left on most issues and is very pro choice as well.

Not trying to be rude, genuine curiosity

[echo musk]

I'm baffled at your assessment and have to wonder what you consider 'left'.

Maybe he was different in the past, but in recent years he has latched on to the rights assualt on the LGBT community, leaning hard into the "groomer" accusations.

[supple ivy]

Let’s say a woman drinks alcohol while pregnant and her child is born and has to live with birth defects for their entire life, thanks to the actions of their mother. Is this a notion that is completely unrelated to a philosophical thread about abortion? Because I wouldn’t want to interrupt this E-celebrity development if that question is so plain and boring. I think that there is a line to be drawn from Abortion and Women’s bodies, and children and living with consequences. And this can be used to connect another thread with the concept of when our humanity begins, since that is relevant to life inside of the womb. Is it legal to drink alcohol until week 23, perhaps? Or maybe I should just avoid asking the wrong people questions, and go look at what the current laws are and just answer for myself with no discussion, because the only thing of relevance is what is Presently True, and not anything else. There isn’t any notion of a future where abortions are ever treated like the Hunger Games treats food, not even once, and that’s all we need to think about. And don’t think about other ways a different topic can connect to this one either damn it.

[errant cove]

Good point, I'll drop it aswell even though I do have many things about what was said, however this discussion isn't the point. I just wanted to use a quote I enjoyed.

Here's a fun take xD

I'd rather the government use money on free contraception than bail out banks.

[supple ivy]

There actually IS A consequence in your tone full response! Lol, it’s hidden within start to move on with their lives. You see, like post partum depression, one thing I have read about is the nature of psychological wounds, and how we are never the same after them. Right?
And it’s because we allegedly are no longer What We Were beforehand. We are completely different people, and the Harm is that we don’t think we are, but we are unaware of it as of the moment.

Like as in, “yes I just had an abortion and now I’m moving on with my life I get it.”, but what she doesn’t understand is that she has not gotten what she did yet. And she still has to move on, but does she? She hopefully just forgets about it right? And doesn’t think about it, if she gives birth later right? Is there anything about that which is Mentionable?

[clear tundra]

That's what the "start to" part of that whole sentence meant, Saint.

Mend the psychological wounds if there are any

Because not everyone gets those

"We are completely different people and the harm is that we don't think we are" yeah okay this is just fantasy, some women aren't psychologically shattered by an abortion and that is fact

[echo musk]

I'd ask again for a study that points to abortion being the direct cause of distress for a significant number of the procedure's recipients. Lot provided one, but the study itself disagreed with the message he was trying to push

[supple ivy]

Not All but Some. I think it isn’t implied by anything I said that all women experience anything. This isn’t philosophy, just arguing! I don’t read anything from this but denial. That’s why it’s so difficult to coexist with ideological possession. You can’t say your statement agrees with me retroactively, You were being sarcastic about consequences! You’re denying consequences! I’m reinforcing the idea of what abortion can cause and the defense against this is to call me an absolutist, again? I’m so exhausted.

[clear tundra]

^

Didn't deny their existence

But sure

[supple ivy]

I’m not that easy to gaslight. You are reflexively denying discussion of the impact of abortion on a Hypothetical woman who gives birth in her later life. Oh, all we needed to know was that it can be a psychological challenge but more importantly we need to focus on ignoring it, and accusing me of putting all women into one figure, and then some more gish for that gallop. How can I believe you when you say you meant to advocate for mending psychological wounds? These are dishonest quips, not discourse.

[clear tundra]

Thats a whole lot of words for you didn't understand a word I said

I'm not gas lighting you just because I disagree with you, and I didn't deny the existence of psychological wounds

There is no gas lighting, I didn't edit or delete my messages. Just read them...?

[supple ivy]

“‘Consequences’ as in they go, they have the medical procedure, and then they start to move on with their lives?

The horror”

[clear tundra]

Yeah, the majority do

Sorry if that's hard information for you

You have to give it to get it sir

Don't accuse me of gas lighting and then cry about respect

You lost a lot of respect because I'm like you?

Strange concept but sure, your prerogative

Ah yes sorry, "crazy as" is not the same as " alike "

[supple ivy]

Forget that.

[clear tundra]

Mod logs exist bruh I can find your comments no problem

Ironic the one complaining about gas lighting starts deleting messages lol

[supple ivy]

I’m deleting it for the sake of keeping less dramatic sniping out of the discussion.

[clear tundra]

So add something productive

[supple ivy]

Is it so incensed that I need to Elaborate my own point? Sure!

-A hypothetical woman- who were to think of abortions as a “pleasure and a convenience” because she doesn’t care about giving birth might be urged to reconsider being cavalier with the procedure, because she CAN still end up having a child one day. And when she does, she might end up thinking about the abortion in a way that sends a new shockwave of trauma into her life, one that may or may not impact her child as well. This should help with locating the gist of the consequential notion. If I have an honest reader available to communicate the idea with, that’d be a grand opportunity for productive discussion.

[clear tundra]

Who said an abortion is a pleasurable and convenient experience?

Hypothetical woman can also choose not to have kids. because they dont want them. and that's why they're having the abortion

[supple ivy]

????

[supple ivy]

When I say that a hypothetical woman thinks of abortions as a “pleasure and convenience”, there is a very low probability, to me, that a reader thinks I meant this woman enjoys the physical sensations of actively aborting a child.

I find it so simple and straightforward, the idea that I am communicating, it is that having abortions relieves the anxiety and burden of anticipating motherhood. It makes life better, which feels better, and that means that some women are probably Happy that they can abort! That’s Good! It’s good to be Happy!

But “I guess I see how it’s actually Me that wasn’t clear enough, this conveniently honest person who coincidentally fails to understand discourse proves it by misunderstanding everything forever” You have to Read Philosophy to Read Philosophy, I don’t know what else to say except sorry I invaded an abortion safe space, it was smack dab in the middle of a place for learning!!

Now QUICKLY, BURY THIS.

[clear tundra]

Again, don't complain about flippant remarks and respect if you cannot do the same

[supple ivy]

Or better yet, is it More Good to actually disguise, and Delude ourselves? Perhaps my statements themselves are harmful when read by a hypothetical subject in the real. This “woman” I describe may yet be unaware of the implied consequence, until it is revealed by say myself. Does that make it better to shield with a sheer, impenetrable ignorance of abortion?

[supple ivy]

I think it might be that my attempts to “empathize” deliver me to these questions, and my empathy is not true. Instead of relating to another, I define another through a lens of being Me and apply them to a scenario I wouldn’t like, and then I figure out why the situation connects them to an issue. This is a rhetorical weapon, and as always I doubt if I am being honest with this caterwauling. So it’s been a good time reinforcing a moot point, but I need to address this;

“The consequences of abortion are greater than the consequences of marriage”

I read this and I was almost immediately dismissive of it, but I have to rethink my idea of what you meant by consequences of marriage, and what is being Greater.

The consequences of marriage are less, but the consequences of Divorce are Equal. There are consequences in marriage, the Act itself, and also in marriage, the Life spent in one. These are where many great tropes come from, etc. etc. etc. and well, despite everything, I think the state of marriage is perfectly healthy by comparison. Divorce being streamlined and made equitable is ideal, and that is where my “beef” comes from.

Divorce being akin to Abortion. A wild ask, if I may, but I have a fun wordplay. Essentially, a Marriage is eternal. That’s the way our system defines it, Marriages are All Eternal. Sort of like how “Spartans never die” right? The purpose of an abortion!! That’s a slip of the Tongue ! I meant to say the purpose of a divorce is to rule that a marriage was “never a true marriage” for one reason or another, whatever have you.
Marriage remains eternal, as the institution would have. But Your Personal Divorce was always a Divorce. It was Never a Marriage. (This thought is Interpretation, not Literal Meaning)

So if abortion were to be absolved of “consequence” in a similar way, would it be in a sense a legalization of being human, in which a pregnancy is determined as not being a human pregnancy but instead it is to be relocated?

Say it is called a mistake, colloquially. Which is a good generalize because I think that’s recognizable. So in this sense speaking, a “mistake” was made and the mistake is not a human Act but an animal one that intercepted the course of an otherwise pure life. This is an attack on the sexual revolution, if you ask me. It begs me to access the arena where we debate the liberties of a free dating market, in which the idea that women searching for husbands later while pursuing thrills now can be subjected to inquisition, therefore I conclude that I’ve drawn this thought to the dead end it deserves, all by my lonesome. I hope it’s a read that stimulates thoughtful development.

[supple ivy]

This feeling is what gets lost when agency is introduced, frankly I have a deep love for the sentiment you share here, yet I contest it because of the magnitude of the disdain that single motherhood endures. Not to say I refute what you say, just this is how I issue my challenge to You. Caring for the life of the Unborn child is Noble, but I beg for a reconciliation with the Ill sentiment towards these children when they are living.

Or born, say it otherwise.

[noble scarab]

imagine being forced to give birth to a child you do not want. the imact that would have on the parent is immeasurable. Also the impact this will have on the child. sure the parent may ever say it out loud, but the child will be able to feel the emotional disconnect the parent has with them. This is impact is also immeasurable. going your whole life knowing (to some extent) that your parent doesn't want you? yeah, that's asking for mental health consequences on both sides.
People don't want to have abortions because its "the easy way out." it's not easy. Physically or emotionally. But i no longer have the option of biological children, therefore my opinion as a whole should be taken with a grain of salt. We, as medical professionals, are only given the information that the patient wants to give us, and its this information and clinical judgement based on this information, that we use to provide care. If i had a patient who had the courage to come to me and ask for an abortion, i would give the information necessary to say i explained the risks of the procedure but i would do my best to provide the treatment option they want. just like i would never force a patient into any surgery they don't want. or dissuade them from a surgery they do want. as long as the patient has the mental capacity to rightfully consent and they know the risks, then i will provide the care they want and need.

[supple ivy]

This is the immeasurable horror of the alternative and it makes it explicitly clear why the consequences of abortion are still pale in comparison to what the pro-lifer would have. It’s excellent to read something of this focus. It means that abortion is absolutely a better alternative, especially psychologically. Thank you.

[echo musk]

It's literally hell to contemplate. And something I don't think those without uteri can fully comprehend. To have your body forcibly turned into an incubator because someone is uncomfortable giving you the same rights that everyone else has in every other situation... it is a horrific prospect

[errant cove]

It's literally hell to contemplate. Ans something I don't think those without morals could fully comprehend. To have to watch baby's be killed because someone is uncomfortable to give that child the same rights everyone else has. It is a horrific prospect.

[rocky sky]

Yep, it's all about the children, now where did i hear the phrase societal degeneracy...

[timber ravine]

Now they are children?

[supple ivy]

I don’t question the idea of a modern woman being traumatized due to us knowing how to end pregnancies early, but there is a melodramatic factor here as well.

Given that throughout human history, women haven’t had access to abortions. They may yet have been able to end their own pregnancies by other means, but even still, in a world where every woman would have no choice but by default to become an incubator, was the horror they experienced really incomprehensible? Women who died giving birth were sentimentally remembered like warriors who died in battle.

No offense, but I think being drafted for the Vietnam War is just as traumatizing as being forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Or more, even. I’m not bringing it up to go about the business of arguing something, I’m bringing it up because Women have had the right to vote for 100 years, and Men have to give up their right to bodily autonomy a la Selective Service in order to have the same Right To Vote. So I’d just really like to ask you guys not to let us die like dogs again, if we’re really doing this whole “empathy” thing I hope that gets through.

[errant cove]

Fixed* Sorry, forgot the semantics argument.

[supple ivy]

Look, Lots, I understand you. That means I know what you are doing. In my mind, abortion is not the fight we need worry about. I have drastic emotional contingencies relative to the sacrifice of human life, but I also recognize a reality in which we cannot use an emotional bludgeoning to rectify our enemies misguided pursuits.

I don’t find a Reduplication of Giratina’s point to be compelling. I know xwhere you are coming from, and I encourage you to use a more nuanced technique if nothing else. The transparency of this “argument” makes it very weak, and it accomplishes the opposite of what, I think, you would want it to accomplish.

[errant cove]

Yes I agree and I've been thinking about it since I posted it, I let emotions over take and I reacted childishly. I want it to be known I apologize profusely for the comment but I won't delete and I'll let it stand there even though it makes me look bad. The point I was trying to make was how you could Adlib that same argument and have it still make sense but I think you are right in saying it does more harm then good. Keep the path brother.

TL:DR Sorry for the comment, I will regulate my emotions better.

[echo musk]

Can you please not accuse me of not having morals. Just because you and I have different outlooks doesn't mean I don't have morals.

Also, please clarify how a fetus has less rights than everyone else when I bid to not let it use my body without my consent

[noble scarab]

completely agree, i had surgery to remove my uterus because the mere thought of pregnancy was making my life miserable. i can't even begin to imagine actually going through a pregnancy. it makes me sick to think that some people believe the life of an unborn foetus is somehow worth more than the parent giving birth to it.
there are movies that show a dystopian scenario where women are forced to be baby making machines, nothing more and nothing less, yet some don't acknowledge that with the criminalisation of abortion, this dystopia is more a reality than fantasy.
Being pro-choice doesn't mean that i am inherently anti-life, i just know that it is not my body so it is not my choice. I chose to have a hysterectomy, my body, my choice. so by making this decision, why would i chose to make someone elses choice for them. (this last comment isn't necessarily directed at you Giratina, just another thought of mine on the scenario and topic)

[echo musk]

I just don't understand how people can consider different humans to have different rights. I'd love to understand why a fetus has a right to use my body without my consent, but a born baby does not.

[timber ravine]

Everyone views other humans with different rights.

I don’t see all these people supporting that everyone should have the same right born or not, also opening all borders saying everyone should have the same rights 😂. It’s hypocritical to suggest we don’t selectively choose who has what right…

[echo musk]

I mean I am for all governments moving to relinquish as many rights to their citizens as possible

[lyric forge]

Absolutely not. If qn organ donor backs out at any point, that is their right. It is illegal to compel organ donation on the basis of a contract.

[lyric forge]

So you think that if doctors determine that a cesarean is the best chance for the survival of a baby, then if the mother refuses to let them cut her open and the baby dies, the mother should be charged with murder?

[echo musk]

Really? I didn't know that. Thank goodness that law is there

[valid rune]

That's not at all what I said. My point is that it is the medical professional who should be determining that. The mother doesn't have the right to terminate the fetus when it has a viable chance of survival.

Someone made the point that they didn't care if the fetus was a viable distinct life, or what stage of pregnancy it was, they had ultimate rights to terminate that life

Which, in the case of a +30 week pregnancy is murdered most of the time

[timber ravine]

going with this train of thought then the government or doctor shouldn't have the right to not terminate a fetus when it does not have a viable chance of survival. or not?

[valid rune]

Too many double negatives, reword that and try again

[timber ravine]

1 double negative

[valid rune]

Or not

Triple at least

Shouldn't not, or not

[timber ravine]

the "or not" is to the whole point you can remove it if you want

[valid rune]

Shouldn't not is the issue

Rephrase for clarity

[timber ravine]

going with this train of thought then the government or doctor should have no right to forbid an abortion when the fetus has no viable chance of survival. Right?

better?

[valid rune]

Correct, and I agree

[timber ravine]

so your issue is with restrictions?

[valid rune]

I've always been an advocate FOR abortion access

[timber ravine]

or lack thereof

[valid rune]

But the mother doesn't have the right to determine if the fetus is killed

[timber ravine]

even if it is not viable yet?

[valid rune]

At 0-22 weeks that is an inevitable consequence

[timber ravine]

so morning after pill for example?

[valid rune]

But it's grey at 23-26 weeks

[timber ravine]

i believe 28 weeks

[valid rune]

And +30 weeks it's a +90% survival rate in the western world

[timber ravine]

the 24 week mark was argued by some states just for the heart

[valid rune]

The mother can insist that the fetus is removed, but not that it is killed

[timber ravine]

i don't believe that number

show me something please

[valid rune]

I'm going off memory but I linked the info last week

Scroll up to see the graph

[timber ravine]

80-90% survival rate with about 10% of long term issues for the ones that survive\

obviously all with external help

what about with no hospitals?

and i know it's not a fair question i'm just trying to get your full point of view without scrolling too much

[valid rune]

Again, my argument is specifically that the mother doesn't get to decide the outcome of the fetus, only her body. There is a point in development where abortion (killing fetus) would be murder. At that point it is a prematur birth

[timber ravine]

saying murder would equate a 30 week old fetus to an 8year old child

or a 50year old person

[valid rune]

The point in development is highly dependent on medical access

That's what I added a range

But no one would argue that killing a 38 week baby is murder

[timber ravine]

but how can you consider something viable that requires technology, money and developed cultures

in that mentality an egg alone can be viable

biologically speaking viability is the ability to survive

[valid rune]

Your life is likely dependent on municipal infrastructure for drinking water and supply chain for food etc, is killing you murder?

[timber ravine]

if it requires assistance and full support then it's not viable

[timber ravine]

no! it makes it safer and easier but it's not dependant on it

[valid rune]

No, because even fertilized it is still dependent on the life of the distinct and unique womb it implants onto

[timber ravine]

we can lab grow fully

[valid rune]

No we cant

Show me ANY source of a lab grown full human

[timber ravine]

for many years

[valid rune]

Until then you are slinging bullshit

[timber ravine]

we haven't done it with humans due to ethical implications, but we can

[valid rune]

Every clone we have made was gestated inside a living mother

[timber ravine]

now they even crated fully synthetic embryos a few months ago if i'm not mistaken

[valid rune]

And you cannot transplant a 10 week old fetus

[valid rune]

Without a living womb they are not viable

Again, source or BS

[timber ravine]

for what? Synthetic embryos, Artificial wombs?

[valid rune]

0-40 week fully synthetic human

[timber ravine]

are you daft?

[timber ravine]

...

so you want someone to do EXACTLY that otherwise a research doesn't correlate?

[valid rune]

Even for artificial wombs, they are to give that 1-3 weeks extra development, they are not able to full gestate a life

[timber ravine]

show me a research that they tried to do that and failed

[valid rune]

Show me any research that shows it is remotely possible with a vertibrate

[timber ravine]

two can play this game... the point is to discuss or ask for obviously crazy stuff

[valid rune]

It's NEVER BEEEN DONE

[timber ravine]

then you have no proof it's not possible like you stated

[valid rune]

Onus of proof is on the one making fanciful claims

And I can jump to the moon

Humans can grow 40 ft tall

[timber ravine]

okay let's go step by step cause i really don't want to argue

[valid rune]

Pig shark hybrids live in the sewers

[timber ravine]

are we okay that we have successfully cloned?

trying to see to what extend we have common ground

not drawing any points yet

[valid rune]

We have successfully cloned a handful of vertebrates using live mothers and wombs

[timber ravine]

i don't care i'll ask more questions i just want to see your research knowledge to know how to respond

assuming i'm more proficient in bio

[valid rune]

That doesn't make it viable science for millions of Humans

[timber ravine]

didn't say it does

just laying down things we both can agree on

are we both accepting that embryos can be artificially created?

not human in general

[valid rune]

We cannot artificially create them

We can replace genetic information

And we can harvest and fertilize

[timber ravine]

okay

[valid rune]

We cannot take basic elements and string them together through "science" to make an embryo

[timber ravine]

can we use some information and create embryos without the use of egg or sperm

like stem cells

[valid rune]

No

[timber ravine]

we can

[valid rune]

We cannot

For vertebrates

[timber ravine]

for humans even

we can and have for animals. For humans we are limited by regulation but they have managed to make synthetic representation of embryos up to 14-day old humans

[valid rune]

That is all done with harvested LIVE tissue from donors

[timber ravine]

and with the full structure even the extraembryonic tissues but i'd have to read the full research cause it's been a few months

from stem cells

[valid rune]

We cannot elementally recreate life and bring it to full "birth" stages without donors for the initial cells and a live womb

[timber ravine]

I'm sorry i have to go, i will be back in an hour or two, i'll read what you send

[valid rune]

The average person in the western world has access to medical resources that allows 90% survival by ~29 weeks.

Until you can show me wide spread success on a macro scale it is not a viable option

This graph also shows that different jurisdictions would have different definitions, and that the definitions would change based on emerging technological advancement becoming main stream

But ultimately the mother does not have the right to COMMAND that her offspring be killed

That is murder.

She DOES have the right to insist it is removed from her body

And depending on term, that may result in death

[timber ravine]

But with this ideology then all fetuses are viable… just implant them into random women

[valid rune]

You'll have to provide sources that transplants for mid term babies can succeed

[timber ravine]

Oh I see what you want to say

[valid rune]

Because AFAIK you cannot put a 10week old baby in a womb and keep it alive

[timber ravine]

1 day old fetus even

All fetuses are viable if you don’t consider independence in viability

That’s what I’m saying what you’re saying is women should have a right to abortion access but then be regulated by the state and doctors

With which I agree

[valid rune]

0 to ¿14? days is a donation

[timber ravine]

But for completely different reason as your viability argument plays no role to the issue as you are using it

[valid rune]

But once implanted it's tied to the mother

[timber ravine]

Actual viability (independent) then yeah 100%

[valid rune]

For +20 weeks

With modern medicine at around 22-30 weeks there is a transition period

After that it's very reliability a human

[timber ravine]

30 weeks also reliability

[valid rune]

My contention is that the mother doesn't get to dictate the killing of the fetus after a grey area where that is a viable independent life

She can request premature birth

[timber ravine]

I think you are using the word viability instead of survivability which is creating this chasm between us

[valid rune]

And put the kids up for adoption

Sure, I'm an engineer not an OBGYN

[timber ravine]

Well I’m a chemist/biologist 😂

So it’s triggering

[valid rune]

Viable independent

Survivable and Independent life

Living human independent life

[timber ravine]

Okay I really will come back to you I’m driving

[valid rune]

10 week of fetus != human being

35 week old = human being

[timber ravine]

1day fetus?

Oh and so you understand my point of view. I believe there should be a federal blanket protecting abortion for the first 2 trimesters and then let the states regulate however their people want after that

[valid rune]

0 - 22 weeks != human

22-30ish grey area

Depending on jurisdiction etc

+30 weeks = human

[valid rune]

No it is ± 26 weeks from being a human being.

[timber ravine]

?

You lost me here

[valid rune]

A 1 day old fetus is 26 ± 4 weeks away from being a human

[timber ravine]

But a 10 week you consider a human being?

What do you mean?

[valid rune]

No

!= is NOT equal

Lol

= vs. !=

Found the miscommunication

[timber ravine]

Oh oh okay lol

Saw what my personal opinion is on the matter btw?

[valid rune]

0 days through ~22 weeks is not a independent survivable human life.

~22-30ish weeks is a HIGHLY dependent on jurisdiction, but the grey area for independently survivable

And after that is quite universally survivable

[valid rune]

Yes I saw it, I think it's fine, but I don't think it's passable with current political landscape.
I'm from Canada where it is LEGAL at any stage, but I trust there is logic etc in these decisions

It's not offered by anyone after IIRC 26weeks

Which coincides with the ~50% survival

Again I'm in favour of 100% any time removal of the pregnancy

But not abortion, there is a point where it becomes premature birth

And we don't kill babies

[timber ravine]

Well of course it’s passable

It was for decades

[valid rune]

That wasn't legislation

That was legal interpretation

[timber ravine]

And states are voting it like crazy when given the chance

Let’s see the Florida 2024 it’s going to be in the ballot

[valid rune]

Freedom of anonymity != protection of abortions

[timber ravine]

Like Kansas etc

[valid rune]

As we have seen

[timber ravine]

Where?

[valid rune]

SCOTUS

The injunctions were based on the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), which had prevented states from banning abortion before fetal viability, generally within the first 24 weeks, on the basis that a woman's choice for abortion during that time is protected

This is where I get Viability from FYI

The legal rulings

[noble scarab]

“We don’t kill babies but we’re more than happy to put the parents life at risk just because there is a 51% chance of survival?
The parent has a 95% chance of surviving with no loss of any functioning but the baby has 51% chance of surviving so the baby has more rights than the parent”

Do you not see how fucked up and discriminatory that sounds? Are the rights of people who can get pregnant worth so little to you that their life and quality of life can be thrown away at the blink of an eye because their 5% chance of loss of functioning is worth less than the babies 1% chance of even surviving

“I don’t want to maybe be seen as murdering an unborn child” well I hope this scenario of murder via medical negligence and incompetence is the vision you have for the future because that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Never mind common sense, evidence based medical practice or just downright human decency - the babies less than 1% is clearly more important

[valid rune]

Did you even read what I wrote. You seem to be making a whole lot of assumptions with regards to my perspective without actually reading the words that I have put down to refute them.

I have said that the mother 100% at any point in the pregnancy should be allowed to legally have the baby removed from her body

HOWEVER, she doesn't get a say that that fetus/baby MUST be killed

In early term pregnancies that is the inevitably, but late term that baby still has a chance

She can say "get this 30 week embryo out of me" but then the hospital takes over if it can be a survivable birth.

I make zero qualifications for incest, rape, medical, financial, etc. The mother can have the embryo removed whenever

I also contend that it should be covered under social healthcare, along with other fundamentals like drug, dental etc.

@noble scarab so before you make assumptions and start on a war path, MAYBE you should read the conversation first

[noble scarab]

i did read the conversation but i do appologise for the gross assumptions i have made, upon re-reading i understand what you are saying now and i definitely over reacted. i think we both have the same standpoint but we have said so in different ways and i mis interpreted what you said. i'm very sorry for jumping before lashing out

[hard igloo]

How about this, earlier I mentioned having a pro-life representative and a pro-choice representative each have a consultation with the individual seeking an abortion before the procedure is undertaken. Several of you were against this sort of policy, and I do admit that it would be hard to organize, enforce and administer fairly.

What if at the consultation, the options for the individual are completely laid out on the table. However you want to debate the semantics of it, terminating a pregnancy is the stopping of the development of a human life in the fetus. To be able to make a completely informed decision of whether or not to terminate the pregnancy, the individual must be given all available information as to what that procedure includes.

The individual should be given an ultrasound image, audio of the fetal heartbeat, details of the exact surgical procedure, etc. before ever being allowed to go on with the abortion. You cannot give informed consent to an abortion without being completely informed of what the procedure entails.

This is my compromise on abortion from a pro-life position. If you value an actual pro-choice position you would want that choice to be the most informed as possible.

[echo musk]

Why traumatize someone regarding an already difficult medical decision? Society already mistreats women who seek these procedures.

I'm mostly curious if you can answer this question: If I have been donating my plasma so that an infant can live due to a disease the infant has, and I'm the only donor match, should I be able to withdraw my consent to donate at any time? Or should the government be able to make me continue to donate my plasma?

[tulip scarab]

This is a false restriction. If you believe something that feels pain is alive, it becomes a question of morality of murder. The same restrictions can be made with other questions: This is not a question of body autonomy or morality but weather it is LEGAL or ILLEGAL to end a pregnancy in a drunk driving accident. The restriction is false.

[hard igloo]

The point of this measure would not be to traumatize the individual seeking an abortion, but to give the person all available information to make the most-informed choice. Ask yourself why it would be traumatizing--because the individual knows that the process of abortion takes the life of the fetus.

It is an extremely difficult choice, and if a consequence of such a procedure is feeling bad about it, then so be it. You should feel badly even if you believe you ultimately made the right call. It's like sacrificing 1 life to save 10 others, or cutting off your arm to save yourself...you should still feel bad about having to make these sacrifices. Please don't take this as me trying to shame anyone who decides to have an abortion (at least those who are not proud of it and boast about it). I want to come to a compromise that both protects as many innocent lives as possible and makes sure that the person who has the ultimate power to make the choice (i.e., the mother) has all the available information on what the exact procedure is doing.

[echo musk]

The person will get all the information when they discuss it with their medical professional

[hard igloo]

First, I must ask you if this hypothetical you propose has ever been a reality? The number of women seeking abortion widely (possibly infinitely) outproportions the instances of this case you present. A hypothetical must be useful to have any relevancy to the discussion at hand

[echo musk]

How is that relevant to my question? I am asking what you believe the law ought to state, not the relative frequency of the given situations

[hard igloo]

A hypothetical that is highly improbable if not impossible (or at least never happened) is never a good rationale for law.

[echo musk]

You are avoiding answering the question

[hard igloo]

The medical professional ought to not conceal information from the individual making the choice. An ultrasound, audio of fetal heartbeat, etc. should be provided to the individual by this professional to make the most-informed decision.

[echo musk]

None of that is relevant information to the procedure

[hard igloo]

I am avoiding answering a question that has no relevancy to the discussion at hand because it is entirely fictional and impractical.

[echo musk]

Okay, let's tweak it slightly to make it fit your criteria. Should an agreed organ donor be able to back out of donating an organ? Or should the government force them to no matter what.

Because organs are donated with regular frequency

[hard igloo]

It is a fundamental part of the procedure. After the abortion, the ultrasound will show a void where the developing fetus once was, and there will be no more detectable fetal heartbeat.

[echo musk]

Yes. But that is going to be understood when the doctor explains that the procedure will remove the fetus.

You don't need an ultrasound to show the patient exactly what you're going to remove. The doctor didn't use an MRI to show me what was going away for my hysterectomy

[hard igloo]

As long as that includes the information I proposed above

[echo musk]

That is redundant information though

Should I have needed an ultrasound of my uterus for my procedure?

[hard igloo]

It is a necessary inclusion of information for such a procedure as an abortion that results in the termination of a pregnancy (i.e., a life).

[echo musk]

Or can I opt to trust my doctor's word that the thing the surgery is going to remove is in there and going to not be in there

[hard igloo]

You are not killing an individual when you have a hysterectomy, you are when you get an abortion.

[echo musk]

I strongly disagree. The information is already given to the patient when the doctor says "We will be removing this from inside you."

[echo musk]

But you are proposing no new information

You are literally just proposing the doctor show the pregnant individual "Yep, that's the thing inside you, using your body and organs without your consent. That's also the thing inside you."

[hard igloo]

What is "this"? I have never been in such a consultation with a doctor nor will ever be. All I am proposing is that the "this" that is being removed is being fully represented by all available technology.

[echo musk]

Like the patient already knows there is a fetus is inside them

Why are you levying to restrict the access to people that can afford these other procedures to tell them what they already know

[hard igloo]

Mothers who see the ultrasound or hear the fetal heartbeat are much more likely to go ahead with the pregnancy rather than have an abortion. Isn't this a good thing?

[echo musk]

I don't know, is it?

What is your goal in regards to the law?

[hard igloo]

Yup

[echo musk]

Because mine is preserving individual rights without coercion

And using underhand tactics to guilt people into doing something they don't want to do is coercion

[hard igloo]

I've stated my goal many times before in this thread...please go back and read my takes on what the policy direction should be.

[echo musk]

Cool. Great way to have a conversation

Also you have yet to answer my updated question in regards to organ donors

[hard igloo]

I'm simply trying to come to a compromise with the "pro-choice" position.

[echo musk]

If you continue to avoid it, I will assume you have no satisfactory answer

[echo musk]

The compromise is you not having an abortion if you don't support the idea of an abortion

I don't know why human rights are up for compromise

Imagine if someone in the 1850's was trying to find a compromise between the slaves and the slavers.

"Sure, the slaves can go free, but they have to give half their income to their previous owners. It's only fair to appease both sides."

[hard igloo]

You must realize how difficult it is to have a conversation with someone who views the other side with such hostility. I am the only one extending my hand across the aisle here. People of such different views as you and I could only ever have a chance to come to a greater understanding in an in-person conversation. Any further back-and-forth on this platform is futile.

[echo musk]

It doesn't help when you repeatedly ignore my question that I've drawn attention to multiple times. I am extending my hand across the aisle as well. Anyone who doesn't believe in abortion is free to exercise the bodily autonomy not to have one.

[tulip scarab]

Since you desire an answer the frame has to change. This frame implies that the infection of an infant just happened and that the infant was infected through no part of the donor. However, if a person infects an infant knowingly and the infant dies as a result, should the government hold the person responsible? Of course, the person (being the only person in the world to match as a donor) can prevent the death of the infant by donating plasma. Its up to them if they allow the infant they knowingly infected to die or not. Responsibility was left out of the frame.

[echo musk]

No, it wasn't. The individuals in my scenario caused themself to be put in the situation, and wish to be removed from the situation. I don't know why you're trying to introduce a poison into all of this. People can volunteer to put themselves into a position of pregnancy and still should not be forced to put themselves through the pregnancy if they change their mind, in my opinion, and the government shouldn't be able to force them use their body to sustain the life of another.

[tulip scarab]

Who said anything about poison? I am saying the frame to your question that gets repeatedly ignored is false. I can say the same about ignoring my question framed my way. It was never answered. Just like the withdrawal to consent to donate plasma (framed your way) is not answered. Its a bad hypothetical.

We can both agree that its more nuanced than either frame.

[echo musk]

Your reframing of my question was done without answering my question. I think my question was as analogous as one can get to the issue of bodily autonomy when it comes to a fetus.

Also, intentionally infecting someone can is poisoning them. You said something about poisoning.

[tulip scarab]

Infectious diseases are not poison. You want to talk about disease that just occurs through no part of the donor who is saving them with plasma. Its a bad hypothetical, as stated. The very basis for not answering it. Again, if someone knowingly infects an infant (with your hypothetical disease), should the government hold that person responsible if the infant dies? The person, of course, has the option to allow the infant they knowingly infected to die or not. Its a frame you are unwilling to answer, just as your question goes unanswered. Again, we can agree both hypotheticals are not working.

[echo musk]

If I purposefully inject you with a needle that's has HIV, would you not consider that an attempt at poisoning you?

[echo musk]

You have yet to demonstrate how it is a bad hypothetical. If a person intentionally infects someone, that should be considered assualt in my opinion. If it's a lethal infection, they should be charged with, at minimum, manslaughter

[tulip scarab]

Again, all responsibility of the donor is void from your scenario. Its a bad hypothetical. Inserting responsibility unravels the scenario, which is also bad (because its based on a bad scenario).

It doesn't work and will not get answered in the way you would like it, based on the frame.

[cobalt moon]

Most in fact don’t break. Even if they wanted sexy time they should plan ahead and know that if the have sexy time with or without protection there is always a chance to have a child.

[echo musk]

You can say that until you're blue in the face. Until you can demonstrate why it is a bad scenario, I'll opt to ignore your repetitiveness.

[tulip scarab]

Your talking about the life of an infant, voiding all responsibility and saying its relevant. Its no where near the same.

Your own words "that should be considered assualt in my opinion" shows its not.

[echo musk]

Because I showed how both situations could be wasily interpreted to imply responsibility on both sides. You have yet to explain why responsibility proves me wrong anyway.

[echo musk]

Shows what's not

[tulip scarab]

"If it's a lethal infection, they should be charged with, at minimum, manslaughter" shows how responsibility is not part of your scenario. When faced with responsibility within your own bad scenario, you show how its not even close to real.

[echo musk]

No?

If someone intentionally infects someone else and that infection is lethal, I do believe they are liable to criminal charges

[echo musk]

But. I already explained how both situations in my hypothetical have responsibility assign already

[tulip scarab]

Being responsible for donating? Your kidding, right? By your own arguments, no one is responsible for donating. Your scenario has zero responsibility for both donating and not donating. If responsibility is actually assigned with either donating or not donating, the entire framework falls apart. Its a bad hypothetical. "caused themself to be put in the situation" does not assign any responsibility for donating by the scenario itself.

[echo musk]

Situation A) A woman decides to try and get pregnant. She succeeds.

Situation B) A woman decides to offer her plasma to save a child's life.

In both situations, the woman has decided to use her body to sustain the life of another. How are you not understanding the responsibility that both of them have taken?

[noble scarab]

this is exactly what happens, you are given all the information before going on with the abortion. sometimes there is not enough development for the heartbeat to be heard.

[hard igloo]

Good to know...I hope this is a consistent practice because I truly believes it would help both the mother and the unborn fetus.

I guess that is my point with including this information, if the developing fetus is too early to have a heartbeat, or show up very significantly on an ultrasound, then the choice may be easier for the mother to make. But when the development brings the fetus closer and closer to birth, the decision should be much more difficult and obvious that the life of the baby is at stake with the choice that is to be made.

[tulip scarab]

Your scenario frames Situation B as unrequired and not the person's responsibility. Calling it responsibility after the fact is saying that Situation B is a requirement (AKA a responsibility). Your own framework implies that no one is responsible (or required) for donating plasma. However, if the person is responsible for the life threatening disease (as an act) the donation of plasma is still not required (meaning the person is not responsible for donation even after being responsible for the disease). And we are left with "If it's a lethal infection, they should be charged with, at minimum, manslaughter". Bad hypotheticals often fall into these categories of nonsensical applications where the situation B has nothing to do with situation A.

[echo musk]

My scenario frames Situation B as unrequired in regards to what? Also, you have misquoted me. I said if someone intentionally poisons someone, via viral infection or synthetic compounds, they should absolutely be held to a higher level of responsibility of the life and well-being of their victim

In both of my situations, a person has agreed to let their body be used by another individual. They took on the responsibility of that individual's life in one way or another.

[tulip scarab]

A donor is in no way responsible for another persons life. If that was the case, not donating bone marrow would be responsible for another persons life if there is no other donor that can be found in time. Your conflating responsibility for the situation with helping the situation. You don't say to a bone marrow donor "that's a BIG responsibility your taking". You would be an idiot to frame it like that, especially to a young bone marrow donor. Your conflating responsibility with bravery that many young people have to go through. I get the emotions that someone would "feel" responsible for not donating but that is conflating regret, not responsibility. Please don't ever make someone who decided not to donate bone marrow feel like they are responsible for another persons death. Its not true and we are done with the responsibility argument of donors.

[haughty basin]

To make abortion illegal would be to defacto remove what are, imo, higher level human rights from pregnant women such as bodily autonomy, the right to self determination etc. And therefore abortion should not be restricted or made illegal in any way.
Abortion is medical treatment that should remain between a woman and her licensed medical practitioner.

[echo musk]

Can you meaningfully differentiate how a pregnant woman and someone who has agree to donate an organ have different responsibility?

Both have agreed to use their body to sustain the life of another body. You say not to make someone who decided not to donate bone marrow feel guilty for another person's death, yet are okay with making someone who decided not to donate their uterus feel guilty for another person's death? I could ask the same of you: please don't make someone who decided not to donate their uterus feel responsible for the death of someone who's life was contingent upon it

Also please don't call me an idiot.

[tulip scarab]

I never called you an idiot. Organ donation is not what your speaking of. I already told you the hypothetical is not real and we are done. I can do or say whatever I like. But it is not up to me to convince people. As society grows in knowledge, people see for themselves fetus pain and struggle to get away from the pain of death. It is not me burning those images into societies mind. As society evolves, demand for quicker decisions to prevent the fetus from swimming away from the knife is growing. Its not about pro-life but pro-obvious human life left to develop until they need to struggle against the abortion. 99% of current controversy would go away if women didn't wait until demonstrable life, shown through obvious pain, developed. Advocating for unrestricted partial birth abortion has evolved further just as society has. According to some who want no responsibility for anyone to respect life and death struggle, its going the wrong direction.

[errant cove]

Well said, I pray in the future we as a society look back on abortion in a similar light to the way we look at slavery today.

[echo musk]

So instead of address any point I've made, you decide to go off on an unrelated tangent. As long as you've convinced yourself, then I suppose that's all that matters.

Also you might as well have called me an idiot. You said someone would be an idiot to frame it in the way you said I was framing it. I fail to see how you didn't try to insult me without being direct about it.

[echo musk]

You do realize that the pro-life stance is advocating for the removal of right to bodily autonomy, much likes slaves had their right to bodily autonomy removed, right?

[tulip scarab]

"the woman has decided to use her body to sustain the life of another. How are you not understanding the responsibility". I have addressed this over and over and shown the conflation you are having. If you want to convince me that donors are responsible for another person's life, you're either not being intellectually honest with yourself or are just not intellectually sound. And yes, if you said "that's a BIG responsibility your taking" to a bone marrow donor, I would call you an idiot. You would deserve it. Don't expect me to relate responsibility on a donor, like you want, without actually relating it to someone in real life, like I know you wouldn't.

[tulip scarab]

Do you realize that society right now looks back on partial birth abortion in a similar light to the way we look at slavery? Its not just an outdated medical treatment that should remain between a woman and her licensed medical practitioner.

[echo musk]

I strongly doubt that, as I'm not remotely familiar with the history of partial birth abortions, meanwhile I am intimately familiar with the U.S.'s history with slavery. And as I grew up in a very anti-choice household. I'd imagine I'd have heard about partial-birth abortions in some capacity. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but my culture certainly doesn't revile it nearly as my as slavery

[echo musk]

You have not addressed this over and over. Because yes, I agree that it is absurd to attribute any active responsibility to someone who agreed to donate their body to sustain the life of another. That includes pregnant people. You have yet to meaningfully differentiate how an organ donor has assumed any less responsibility than someone who has successfully tried to get pregnant. And you are conflating my position to be what you have designated as "idiotic". How hard is it to just leave insults out of a conversation?

[tulip scarab]

In a drunk driving accident, people get charged with killing a fetus (being responsible for the death of the fetus) but they never get charged with killing a liver or any other organ. You cannot replace the fetus from a donor. Don't pretend the two are even remotely similar.

I have already said we are done with this arguement because you are not being intellectually honest. Stop.

[tulip scarab]

Huh, Go ahead and push for partial birth abortion and find out what society thinks. Go ahead.

[echo musk]

You can stop at any time

[echo musk]

Did I ever advocate for it? Are you sure it's me who's being dishonest here?

[tulip scarab]

You wouldn't advocate for partial birth abortion because you know its not just an outdated medical treatment that should remain between a woman and her licensed medical practitioner. Period.

[echo musk]

I wouldn't advocate for partial birth abortion because it's a violation of an individual's right to life

[tulip scarab]

🤣

[echo musk]

Enlightening discourse

Also, I'm not sure of the legalities of how the manslaughter of an active marrow donor would be hashed out, as I could see a lawyer effectively pleading that the defendant has indirectly killed another, but that's the key there. Indirectly. The victim's marrow was responsible for the sustainability of the donee's life. In a car crash that kills a fetus and the pregnant person, the defendant has directly killed two people.

[tulip scarab]

You don't know that the fetus can die but the mother can live? Really?

[echo musk]

... what?

Of course I know that

It isn't really relevant tho? My point addresses that the cause of death was direct

[tulip scarab]

Well that shows you who is directly responsible and indirectly sustaining. That is the difference between the two, they are no where near similar. Keep pushing your bad hypothetical on other people who will fall for the intellectual dishonesty. I am done with your conflating the two.

[echo musk]

Then stop responding xD It shows you who is directly responsible in the case of murder. If I shoot a doctor, I am going to be charged for one instance of murder, not the murder of all their patients. If I shoot a woman, I am going to be charged with one instance of murder, not the murder for all her future children

[tulip scarab]

And if you shoot a woman's stomach, killing a fetus?

[echo musk]

Then you'll likely be charged with a single manslaughter, as you've directly shot a fetus. Probably attempted murder if the woman survives, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the legalities of every naunce

[valid rune]

Would you want to have a pro abortionist at every check up for an expecting mother constantly avocating "You know you can always abort". This is idiotic, like having a vegitarian at every meat counter in the country.

[ornate ravine]

Obviously

[verbal coral]

I mostly agree, however there is a point in time that a fetus turns into a child, at which point abortion turns into murder imo. Therefore abortion should be legal up to a point where it should absolutely turn illegal (ignoring potential exceptions).
As to when that point is reached: I cannot say and am glad that I don't have to.

[main hare]

I think it’s very hard to prescribe morality when it comes to abortion when it’s normally immorality that has lead to the dilemma in the first place. I find it very hard seeing both sides of the debate claim the moral high ground, so in criticising that, I’ll offer a view to neutrality from a Christian worldview.

I believe there is sacredness to both human life, and the human body itself. I don’t believe one can force any female to carry something which they may not have had a full hand in making. A male can generally walk away from that situation, but the traumatic and significant development affects on the body of a women are severe and lasting. I don’t think that should be glossed over - a women is sacred.

On the other hand, life is life and this is to be protected as equally sacred. We’ve grasped that at every level throughout society, but yet can’t seem to make that distinction easily when it comes to dependent life.

I think where the Christian pro-life argument falls short is where we have taken the judgement seat of God and we have determined that life has been given/breathed into every living and unborn child. This would mean that in heaven there are millions and millions of babies. Did God breathe life knowing they would die, or does he withhold spirit/life from those he knows will perish? Nor can we know the morality that makes up the decision to abort in the first place.

If my decision was between my wife and my baby, I would chose my wife. Thus, abortion is conditionally okay. If in the case of rape, abortion should be okay. Therefore, there is nuance to abortion so this should never be looked upon as simply immoral.

The problem is the immorality that plagues humanity around sex and reproduction. If we only had loving, consensual marriages with no sickness/disease/dysfunction, babies would be loved, wanted, and whole. We don’t - and we’re left with imperfect moral decisions and governance as a result.

[verbal coral]

First of and most importantly: the question isn't about morality, but about legality. You may think that there is no difference or that one follows from another, but that really isn't the case: I could tell you I was 53 years old, for example. As a lie, doing so would be considered immoral by most, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone argue that it should be illegal because of that. If you think the question on the legality of abortion should be based on it's morality, I'd like to hear your justification for that.

Secondly, you claim that "We’ve grasped [...] at every level throughout society" that "life is life and this is to be protected as [...] sacred". I think this is just a false statement. If we did all agree that life is life and life was sacred, we wouldn't have this discussion. We do not value microbial life in general or certain plants, animals and mushrooms as sacred, we instead exploit or exterminate them without flinching an eye. Clearly we treat some forms of life as more sacred than others.
Most crucially, this is also at the heart of the abortion question: at which point should a fetus legally become a human? Can it be legally justified to treat a being that cannot yet see, hear, smell, taste, feel, think, love, hate, dream, eat, live on its own, communicate or act in any way in the same way that we would treat a fully developed human new-born that can do most if not all of the above? Or should we - again in the legal sense - treat a being like this more like, say, microbial life, which in terms of attributes it's far more similar to?

[main hare]

Thanks for response. I’m not super interested in getting into a back and forth here - my intention was more to suggest how nuanced the debate could be seen as, specifically from a religious worldview, when that seems what’s missing in the US atm.

Nevertheless, i think you’d be hard pressed to find any laws that aren’t on the basis of morality - I don’t think there are many simply based on legality, instead a judgement on what is right/wrong, just/unjust. Even speed limits are there to protect the lives and well-being of others. You have the liberty to lie to anyone, but you can’t lie about your age to employers or to the government - at least in my country. Even so, any decision that takes life has been broken down by society, self-defence, man slaughter, murder etc.

Similarly, when people discuss this, they’re generally placing higher importance on a life vs body autonomy, and that’s a moral argument. I don’t see how you could look at the abortion argument and say that legislation is not based on morality. Feel free to give me a purely legal perspective on it - interested

In terms of your second question, obviously I’m making a distinction between human life and other ‘life’. That again flows from our moral / socio-religious foundations that human life is above other forms of life and I’m not here to argue that - though that’s a commonly held belief. Again, my intention wasn’t to argue for or against abortion, but to speak to nuance and a moral tension.

These questions, when does a life become a life, how far along is too far along, in what cases is abortion the more moral or more immoral, are all up for debate imo, and I’m not broaching those today.

My preference would be to allow these things, but to accept that there is no winning when it comes to abortion and pour as much funding into education and birth control as possible. I prefer people to be free to do as they chose, but any taking of life outside of the body should still be treated as so.

[verbal coral]

Thank you for clarifying some of the misunderstandings. I'll try to be as brief as I can and to focus on the main points to avoid unnecessary back-and-forth.

Most laws in a morally oriented state are based on moral ideas. Arguing on a purely legal bases without any ties to morality is in most cases impossible. But morality only gets you so far. At some point practicality and compromises necessarily enter the room. To stick with the established examples: to lie is generally immoral, but it's not generally illegal => compromise. Except for edge cases, lying to your employer about your age isn't any more immoral than any other lie, yet it's illegal for practical reasons. Not establishing speedlimits would put peoples lifes at risk and is therefore immoral. Yet even with the current speedlimits, accidents still occur. Why not lower them further? Why not ban motorized vehicles in general?

Taking a life (in the biological sense: living cells? That's life!) is always immoral (except killing for survival etc.). Saying that it's moral is an almost indefensible position. Therefore the question "Is Abortion moral?" is trivially easy to answer (again, ignoring exceptions). When it comes to the question of legality, however, just looking at the morality of the matter isn't enough. Sometimes allowing for immoral acts to be permitted is necessary and otherwise the severity of the punishment has to be carefully evaluated. For this, all available information has to be taken into account and a fine balance needs to be struck. Morality is just the reason for asking the question "Should abortion be illegal?", it's not the answer.

Ultimately, we're both sitting on the fence. "When does a fertilized egg-cell turn into a human?" is the only question that matters for this topic imo, but it's clear that we're both unwilling to contribute much to it. It's a very interesting and important question, though, and I hope to see more input on it without the thread venturing too far off-topic.

[main hare]

I think we absolutely are in agreement then. What I’m sensing is we agree that morality alone which may have one argue that “A lIFe iS a LIfE” isn’t a sufficient enough case for abortion. Nor is “my body my choice” an excuse for the extermination of a dependent life. We need a legal judgement that accounts for both realities.

I think that’s the point I was trying to make earlier - that there is no moral absolute here based on the sacredness of the women, life, and the mitigating circumstances when most would say “well it’s okay in this case”- if it’s okay in one sense then the act itself must not be immoral.

I think society’s worse off by any legislation that takes us to the extremes, and loathe “Christian” figures playing God when it comes to determining the morality of someone’s decision.

In a fallen world (religious grounding coming through), abortion makes societal sense, it does financially and socially, but do it early, otherwise outside of rape/medical emergency, inherit the consequences of your actions. We’re not just financially or socially driven as a society though. We’re spiritual, and we wrestle with right and wrong not just convenience. I don’t think it makes any spiritual sense at all, and that’s i think the main reason politics is contentious as we all search for spiritual meaning/grounding.

[tulip scarab]

Morality surrounding abortion depends entirely of when human rights begin.

if it’s okay in one sense then the act itself must not be immoral

This is not entirely accurate. In the case of killing someone in defense of others or self defense, killing someone otherwise can be considered immoral.

The political issue about partial birth abortion a few decades ago ended in a ban. The morality of partial birth abortion has gone into the automatic memory hole of the public while politics just focuses on inside the womb (not partially inside).

Knowledge of the procedures and methods is key to understanding morality surrounding abortion. Right now, its just an abstract subject that doesn't involve seeing flailing arms and legs before the spinal cord is severed (partial birth abortion methods).

Education of procedures and methods at which stages of human development is something people don't want to look into and politics doesn't want advertised (partial birth abortions became banned because of education).

My take is when a fetus demonstrably feels pain during the procedures, a look at that stage of development, the procedures and methods, and exceptions that can be done after that general stage. The balance of human rights here should teeter upon pain of death imo.

[latent vapor]

New to conversation
My opinion is that abortions should be illegal in every state, but it should be up to the states to make those laws. My opinion comes from the fact that you are comitting murder and destroying God's creation.

A few subset opinions:

• If abortions are legal, I believe it should be required that both of the parents consent to the abortion.
• If only the mothers has say over abortions, the fathers should not be responsible for child support.

[lilac pilot]

we went over this a lot of times already, but abortion is, by definition, not murder. And anyone claiming it is is only making a misplaced moral appeal that does exactly nothing for the entire discussion.

As to your points:

1. why do you think the consent of a man is required for a woman to make a decision? Women are perfectly able to make decisions on their own.
2. i honestly cant understand what child support has to do in a discussion on the legality of abortion

[tulip scarab]

The murder definition is in terms of humans. So you are either saying a fetus is not human or its not alive. What evidence do you have to say either one, other than belief? Do you believe a fetus is not human or do you believe a fetus is not alive?

[latent vapor]

Like I said, I am new to this particular conversation. Abortion, by your definition may not murder. But by definition it is murder. You are killing a human. Unless you want to classify a human as only something concious, or of a certain size. Once you start doing that though you are just cherry-picking what you want it to be.

To answer your questions:

1. I think consent of a man is required for a woman to decide to kill his child. It isn't her decision on whether that child should live or not. That kid is the man's child as well. She can make a decision, and the man can make a decision too.

2. I'm saying that if a woman has full control over whether or not she wants to keep that child, without the man's input, he should be able to have some control too, such as having no obligation to support the kid, in a sense his own form of abortion. I think that is a fair compromise if abortion should remain legal and out of the father's control. Even then I do not think it is truly just as the father is still having his son killed without any voice in the matter.

[verbal coral]

If only the mothers has say over abortions, the fathers should not be responsible for child support. [...] I think that is a fair compromise if abortion should remain legal and out of the father's control.

Child support is about the financial responsibility both parents share towards the child they both had a hand in conceiving. Removing that responsibility from the father leads to the most toxic environment imaginable.
The man can go around spreading his genes wherever and whenever he pleases without any consequences, while the women are left with 2 choices, both potentially catastrophic: keeping the child which could ruin them financially (which also would be bad for the child, obviously) or abort the child which could ruin their mental health.
How you can even remotely view this as a fair compromise is absolutely beyond me.

[crisp pond]

In the us the constitution (10th amendment) gives states the rights to decide on this for themselves. So on the topic of Row v Wade I believe everyone should be against it (the 1973 ruling) if you believe in the constitution.

[formal cradle]

Just took a peek at this thread for the first time. I read a little bit of the original discussion from 2022, but obviously not everything to date.

@crisp pond I gather that your whole point is that there should never be a federal law providing or prohibiting the right to an abortion. It should remain a state issue (as it is today after Roe v Wade was repealed).

I agree with this as I believe in small government vs big government.

I think the real question is (regardless of the jurisdiction) should abortion be illegal?

Let’s assume we all agree that it is murder and morally wrong (because life begins at inception). Does that mean that there should be a law banning it?

For context: I am against abortion and it disheartens me that there are so many women (and men) that seem to believe killing a human that is in the fetal stage is just “healthcare.”

I struggle with whether it needs to be banned though. It is morally wrong for people to do it, but God is the ultimate judge and not the United States judicial system.

[verbal coral]

@formal cradle Let’s assume we all agree that it is murder and morally wrong (because life begins at inception). Does that mean that there should be a law banning it?

A lot of things are morally wrong but legal, but I've made that point before. It's a matter of degree and in my opinion the law should treat ending the life of a fertilized egg-cell differently than a fully developed human, despite killing either being immoral. The former simply is a far less severe case than the latter, in my opinion.

It's also worth mentioning that even for killing a fully developed human the law distinguishes between more and less severe cases. There are even instances where taking another persons life isn't illegal at all. Examples of this include but are not limited to assisted suicide, the death sentence or self defense. Morality on its own only tells you, that discussions on the topic should be had. It doesn't provide you with conclusions, though.

[lilac pilot]

Let’s assume we all agree that it is murder and morally wrong (because life begins at inception). Does that mean that there should be a law banning it?

I think this is one of the two key points of the whole abortion discussion. The other being whether you think women should have the right to decide over their own body. But lets focus on this point for now.

The problem i see with this, is that the conclusion changes when you change the assumption; if we assume abortion is not murder and it is not morally wrong, then you shouln't want to legally ban it. It is the way you frame it that makes it so ''clear'' to you what the solution is, or at least should be.

But not everyone agrees that abortion is murder, which it legally is not. You could argue it is killing, although I do not agree, however not all killing is murder and abortion falls in that category. So by ''assuming'' that it is murder, you conveniently skip one of the biggest points of discussion on the whole topic. Same goes for whether it is morally wrong.

I myself would argue its morally wrong to make laws that prevent women to access adequate healthcare, which is exactly what happens when you make abortions illegal. So making the assumption that ''abortion is immoral'' does not mean that the alternative, not having abortion, must therefore be ''moral''.

Don't get me wrong, if there could be a world without abortions, that would not increase suffering in other ways, im all for it. But unfortunately we do not live in such a society and therefore abortions, in my eyes, are a ''neccesary evil''.

If we skip most of the hard parts of the discussion and wave it away as ''assumptions'' then yes, the discussion is very easy and we all agree.

EDIT: also i forgot to mention the (because life begins at inception) statement, which is a whole other topic of debate

but at the end of the day, the question is whether it would be desirable to regulate topics like these by law

and you could be against abortion, but still think it should not be regulated by law

you could be pro abortion and think it could be regulated by law

at the end of the day, the discussion is not neccesarily about whether you think abortions should happen or not, the question is whether they should be ILLEGAL or not.

Also, the fact that you refer to abortions as ''healthcare'' in quotation marks, as if you do not believe that it is truly healthcare, disturbs me very much

[formal cradle]

With VERY FEW exceptions. An abortion is almost never medically necessary. Just to be clear, an abortion is one of two things:

1. Taking mifepristone and misoprostol which kills the baby and ends the pregnancy
2. Removing the fetus from the uterus. This is done by either vacuum or by surgical procedure (where the fetus is literally dismembered so that it can be extracted). In both cases they kill the baby to end the pregnancy.

If there is a medical reason that a woman should no longer be pregnant the solution does not need to be killing the baby, you can remove it from the woman without intentionally killing it. In many cases it may not survive, but it should still be given every possible chance to live.

[formal cradle]

This statement makes me think you didn’t read or comprehend my post at all

[latent vapor]

Ok let me break this down:

Abortion is legal, child support enforced for fathers
The woman has complete control whether her and the father's chid gets to live or die.
The father has zero say over whether his child gets to live or die.
If the abortion doesn't happen, even with the father's request it does, he is now financially burdened

Abortion is legal, child support not enforced for fathers
The woman has complete control whether her and the father's chid gets to live or die.
The father has zero say over whether his child gets to live or die.
(The only decision here now is whether the father has a right to say if his child should be able to live or die)

I think you can see where I am going with that. The mother has complete say over the child, but the father has zero say. If you want to talk about the father can go around spreading his genes wherever he pleases without consequences, that is the same for the woman. The woman has complete control over that.

Imagine a woman goes and sleeps with a guy she barely knows, she gets pregnant. She is the only once able to decide on what happens to that kid. No matter what she is not financially burdened, unless her and the father are still together or the unlikely case that the father is not obligated to pay child support.

She has complete domination of power in every aspect over that mans life. While he has none. Both had a hand in conceiving it, so I believe both should have a hand it the financial responsibility that comes with having a child. At the same time, I believe they should both have the same responsibility with every aspect of that kid, such as whether that child gets to live or die.

Now don't get me wrong, if abortion is legal, then it think in cases of rape there should be no situation where the rapist gets to have a say in the fate of the childe.

[latent vapor]

To preface this, I am a Christian. When you say God is the ultimate judge, not the US judicial system, you are right. God is the judge of if we go to heaven or hell. God also says that authorities on Earth (in more or less words) can make laws and we must accept any consequences for breaking those laws, just like David when he let them throw him in the Lion's den. God does not say that we cannot make laws, but we should accept consequences for our actions.

[latent vapor]

I'm curious, why do you believe abortion is not murder? Is it self-defense or something in your mind?

[lilac pilot]

its not about what i believe, im just saying that it is not murder in the legal definition of the word murder

murder is always the act of killing, but the act of killing is not always murder

in this case you kill an unborn human but you do not murder it

my point is that using the word murder is wrong in the legal definition of the word, and people generally do it in order to put extra emotional weight on the subject

which i think is very unhealthy for the discussion

[verbal coral]

This would depend on the specifics of the legislation, no? I think I've heard of cases where the murder of a pregnant woman was treated as a double murder, counting the unborn child as an additional victim. Not sure in what country that was, though...
Personally I'd also argue that there are cases of abortion that should be legally considered murder, namely late abortions - though I have no strong opinion on what should constitute as 'late'.

[verbal coral]

Just to be clear, an abortion is one of two things

No. Abortion is any form of intentionally ending a pregnancy, leading to the death of the fetus. What you are talking about are established medical procedures to perform an abortion in countries where abortions are (under certain circumstances) already legal. Therefore, by defining abortion in the way that you have, you forego the question of this thread entirely.

I agree with you, however, that when a premature birth is possible - even through surgical means - it should be prefered over an abortion. The law should reflect that, imo.

[formal cradle]

By your definition, if you induce labor (intentionally ending the pregnancy) and the baby doesn’t survive the birth, that would be an abortion.

[verbal coral]

if the intended outcome for inducing labor was for the baby to not survive, then yes, it would be an abortion.

[latent vapor]

On the federal level at least, as every state is different, in the United States abortion can be legally defined as murder. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111 - US Code for murder) If abortion is illegal, then it is murder, if it isn't illegal then there is room for argument that it is not murder. No matter what, it is still considered Child Abuse which is defined as "the term 'child abuse' means intentionally or knowingly causing death or serious bodily injury to a child;" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=18-USC-1533476290-1523861651&term_occur=999&term_src=title:18:part:I:chapter:51:section:1111 - legal definition). If it is considered to be child abuse, and it is illegal to kill a child, then therefore it is murder, and murder committed in addition to child abuse is always first-degree murder.

[tulip scarab]

Legal definitions change. Take partial birth abortions, for example. Turn the baby around and birth it all except for the head which is legally not born. While the arms and legs are flailing, sever the spinal cord until all movement stops (screams are not part of the procedure because the baby's head is still 'unborn' or it would be).

A modern abortion with the exact same baby development takes place fully in the womb. We just don't get to see movement from pain of death or hear screams.

Murder is appropriate when speaking of this type of development.

[crisp pond]

I dont think there should never be a federal law against or for it, however as long as the constitution holds integrity i believe that is the only possible interpretation legally. (Outside of the case of a new amendment)

I believe that the legality of abortion is best served in the hands of the people, in the case of the US that would be decided at the state level via indirect (electing representatives) or direct (voting on the issue at a ballot box) democratic methods, (whatever method the state finds fit).

The morality of it, in my mind, is separate from how I as a citizen would vote on it. Just as adultery for example isn't illegal though most would agree it is immoral.

Altogether the direct answer to the question "should abortion be illegal", in my mind, should be contingent on what the people want. Though I disagree with abortion personally and find it immoral (outside of some exceptions) I would not advocate for its illegality, unless that is what the people (majority) want.

[formal cradle]

I think we are pretty much aligned here. Godspeed

[shut hinge]

should be legal with certain restrictions. Rape, Incest, and problematic pregnancies. That is all in my opinion.

[dim sable]

So to play devil's advocate, if someone is pregnant and doesn't want to be, that would surely be problematic in itself, right? I mean, it would be causing substantial mental health issues even aside from the other ones like financial and societal.

Or are you talking about allowing abortion only for physical health problems, and not mental health problems?

Personally, I'm not sure there is a significant difference between physical health and mental health, or even a separation.

[drifting moth]

I would like to mention that usually on this topic ANY middle ground almost always has extremely blurry lines onto what is ok and not ok. (besides obvious circumstances) And something that I haven't really seen in any discussion about abortion is the fact that humans earn rights and autonomy over time. For example: legal drinking age, child labor laws, and age to get a drivers license. There are also less concrete examples like what age your parents release some restrictions, like privacy, or the ability to stay at home alone/leave to go somewhere alone. Thus, I think my conclusion to this is that abortion should be legal. As a child has less rights so to speak as an adult, I think it wouldn't be too crazy to say a pregnant person should be able to decide their unborn child's fate.

[errant cove]

https://tenor.com/view/anakin-starwars-darthvader-gif-5533636

[high spire]

Well the mental health of someone isn't more valuable than a human life. Even in cases of rape an incest, its a terrible, terrible thing, but carrying the child isn't going to be more damaging than murdering them. All of the punishment and wrath should be on the rapist; the innocent child isn't to blame, and shouldn't have to face the repercussions.

In a "life of the mother" case, thats once again just a terrible, unfortunate scenario, where someone has to die. In that case I think the mother has the right to decide, because its human life v.s. human life.
In a "human life v.s. mental health" scenario, human life wins.
In a "human life v.s. money" scenario, human life wins.
In a "human life v.s. human life" scenario, thats when it becomes blurry.

[verbal coral]

It all comes down to the question when a fetus becomes a human life. A clump of cells that do not possess the ability to feel anything, is unable of having a thought and shows no signs of conciousness to any degree cannot be considered a human, imho. It may have the potential to become a human, that doesn't mean it's a human already.
At the point when you consider a fetus a human life, your argument holds, but not before. If it's your point of view that even just a single fertilized egg cell is human life, that's fine. But you have to make it clear. Don't pretend like we're all on the same page on this, cause we're not. Don't oversimplify a complex issue.

[errant cove]

The issue is only as complex as you make it. The entire "Pro Life" side just views it as don't kill people. The more complexity you add to it the easier it is to subvert people who also probably agree killing people is bad. By adding layers of cognitive dissonance the other side just views that as you trying to hide the truth. It's very similar to what's happening now with race relations in the US atleast. People are trying to make the issue so complex they are bringing back segregation in an attempt to be "anti racist". Whereas the oppositions point of view is "treat people on the content of their character not the color of their skin".

[high spire]

Yes I realize all of this. I’m not oversimplifying it. I think if unconscious humans don’t count as humans, you should be thanking your stars people don’t murder you while you are asleep. What about people in a coma? They are unconscious. They can’t respond to anything. They cost money, and contribute nothing. Should we kill them off too? Whose choice is that? So if your argument for life beginning is based on consciousness, explain why we shouldn’t murder everyone in a coma.

[errant cove]

Unless I'm summoned back to this thread, this will be the last time I ever post here. The argument above while true in theory just adds tp my point above. It's a reductionist argument that again, just trys to create more distance from the issue being discussed, should less desirables be able to be killed. In any scenario the answer is no.

[verbal coral]

that's not what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that in order to count as a human being you need to fulfill certain criteria that make you a human. I count being able to perceive things from the outside world, being able to feel emotions, being able to form thoughts and showing signs - any signs - of consciousness to those. People that are asleep still perceive the outside world, loud noises wake them up, for example. They still feel emotions (can be measured) and still have thoughts, though they may not be very ordered thoughts (dreams). They still show brain activity, which may or may not be considered a sign of consciousness, but since we don't know for sure, but since circumstantial evidence points to them still being able to have consciousness (waking up), we should count that, too.
As for people in a coma: that's more tricky. An argument for both life and death can and is being made. The status quo is, that if a coma persists for very long periods of time, the patient is at some point declared as deceased. I'd argue for caution not to be too hasty in calling someone dead as long as brain activity can be measured, which to me is a sign of consciousness, if only an indirect one.

In any case, a lump of cells that doesn't have a developed central nervous system yet doesn't meet any of these criteria, not even remotely. It's entirely unwarranted to call it a human. But again, that's just my opinion on the matter.

It's also worth mentioning: we also don't see someone who is braindead as a living human anymore. They are at that point on the same level as that lump of cells. We don't keep their bodies alive, unless we need their organs for transplantation. So we already have requirements for counting as a living human in place beyond the fact that the body is consisting of life cells. I don't see how applying the same logic to a fetus is far stretched.

[high spire]

Explain the difference in criteria met between an unborn baby and someone in a coma.

[high spire]

You are a lump of cells, and so am I. An unborn baby also happens to be a clump of cells, but if being a clump of cells allows for murder, shoudln't we all be dead?

So at what point is life then? Do you support abortion up until the moment of birth? Surely a baby due in a month would count as just as much alive as one currently coming out of the womb?

[verbal coral]

There is no difference. If the child is know to have a developed brain: see if there is activity. If there is activity, monitor it for, lets say, at least 9 months before declaring it dead. If you cannot determine activity because, oh, I don't know, it's inside another humans body, treat it as if there was activity.
If, however, the baby is known to not have developed a brain yet, it isn't a human imo and shouldn't be treated as such. At least not legally.

[verbal coral]

If you wanted to completely misinterpret what I said and twist it to fit your argument: congratulations, you succeeded.

[high spire]

I'm only saying the clump of cells point means nothing

[verbal coral]

clump of cells = no developed organs, most importantly no centrals nervous system (aka brain) yet.

makes more sense now?

[high spire]

Heres a point about that, what if, by monitoring the person in the coma, you know that in 9 months they will be back. They'll be a fully functional human. Conveniently, we know that about the vast majority of unborn babies. Do we pull the plug on people we know will recover in a few months?

[high spire]

So what about when the baby does develop these? Are they human then?

[verbal coral]

Not for me to determine. All I'm saying is there is a point. We should consult experts to determine what's appropriate.

[high spire]

Yes but organs are made of cells also. So clump of cells still describes both an unborn baby without all organs, and it also describes you and I. So the clump of cells point is still meaningless. If you were to say "an unborn baby without fully developed organs" that would be useful, as it distinguishes between the born and the unborn. Clump of cells just isn't a very useful term. But we can move on from this point now.

[verbal coral]

If the baby has a brain, we can't be sure that it hasn't developed consciousness yet, so it might be able to feel pain and be able to formulate thoughts. At that point an abortion becomes immoral and legally we should treat it as a human at that point, yes.

[high spire]

@verbal coral Glad we can at least agree on that. But what about this^. If you are monitoring the coma and know that person will recover in 9 months, do we pull the plug just because they are unconscious for that amount of time? Is that not immoral?

[verbal coral]

I think I see what you're getting at. I guess there is a subtle difference between a fetus and a coma patient after all: the coma patient was a human before falling into the coma. Of course it'd be immoral to pull the plug if we had certainty that he'd recover - we'd never stop treating him as a human.
For the fetus on the other hand, the question is slightly different: at what point do we start treating it as a human?

I have my opinion on that, others may say that from the moment the egg cell is fertilized it has to be treated as a human. In any case: this is a crucial point for the abortion debate.

[vernal lark]

You could also make the argument that the fetus is infringing on the mother's right to bodily autonomy whereas a coma patient isn't

[high spire]

But does “bodily autonomy” trump human life?

And it’s also the mothers doing in 99% of cases

The baby isn’t infringing, the baby was put there.

[vernal lark]

a better analogy would be this coma patient requires you to be directly hooked up to them for 9 months in order for them to survive. denying that person's ability to "unhook" from the coma patient and killing them would be akin to denying someone's abortion

[high spire]

Yes if:
The person it is hooked up to is responsible for the coma to begin with.

Even if not, isn’t human life (especially that of an innocent baby) more valuable than the inconvenience of someone?

[vernal lark]

Some inconvenience probably isn't more valuable than life. But the real question when it comes to policy is it a moral imperative? Like is the moral calculus strong enough to make the act of abortion illegal and to take away the freedoms and rights of the mother of she decides to go through with it? Id say it isn't

If we want to switch gears away from morality to policy, just set it to 17 weeks (which is a pretty popular policy even from right wing voters) and call it a day

[high spire]

I mean sometimes murdering someone is significantly more convenient for you. If I murder my annoying boss for my convenience, is that safe from the law? I feel like we are going to end up with a bunch of blurry lines now.

[vernal lark]

Like Tim Scott called for 17 weeks during one of the debates, which seems to be a decent enough compromise

[verbal coral]

I mean, if you legally see the fetus as a human, abortion essentially is murder. Manslaughter at the very least. Is a relatively minor and temporary restriction of bodily autonomy enough to justify manslaughter?

[vernal lark]

Moralitys always blurry. But it doesn't help if you bring in scenarios that have very little in common with one another

[high spire]

That's not what I'm saying. I mean when you actually go and try to articulate when murder is allowed, you are now saying "if the temporary inconvenience to a person due to the existence of an innocent person (who had no control or choice in the matter) is enough, murder is justified"

[vernal lark]

I mean there's tons of hypotheticals on both sides of the spectrum. Are you obligated to stick your arm in a meat grinder if it saves a babies life?

[verbal coral]

But it doesn't help if you bring in scenarios that have very little in common with one another

[vernal lark]

Lolol true

[high spire]

I'm not even talking about my earlier hypothetical. How would you even articulate your convenience point.

[high spire]

I mean I think any parent would be. Anyone who is responsible for the meat-grinder scenario to begin with, is therefor responsible for the situation/outcome of the current situation.

[verbal coral]

Actually, the arm+meat grinder analogy isn't as far fetched as I first thought. A pregnancy can change a womans body quite significantly. I'd still say the permanent loss of a limb is a far more severe injury, but a pregnancy does leave permanent damage as well 🤔

[high spire]

I think its also worth mentioning we've covered that if the child threatens the life of the mother (as cutting off a limb would do) abortion may be a whole different story.

[vernal lark]

This is a fun abortion defense, great for people who are pro 2amendment -

A castle doctrine, also known as a castle law or a defense of habitation law, is a legal doctrine that designates a person's abode or any legally occupied place (for example, a vehicle or home) as a place in which that person has protections and immunities permitting one, in certain circumstances, to use force (up to and including deadly force) to defend oneself against an intruder, free from legal prosecution for the consequences of the force used.

An unwanted baby is an intruder in your home

[verbal coral]

I'm so glad I don't live in America 🤣

[high spire]

And one last thing about this, we can all agree the life of one person is more valuable than the arm of another. If it came down to it one action is morally better than the other. Now thankfully child bearing isn't this extreme, and doesn't cause any permanent bodily harm, so the question of abortion is a far easier moral obligation to have.

[vernal lark]

https://youtu.be/wKOoWYfIzIw?si=o8ruNvUzofYEDxxP

[high spire]

Well accept that the intruder would have to be innocent of all moral evil, and would have to be forced into your home by you yourself (in the vast majority of cases). And the point of the lethal force is to protect yourself, and once again, we've established that in cases where the mother is threatened, there is a difference there. So force is for self defense. The baby isn't threatening the mother like an intruder is.

[verbal coral]

Hm, but isn't the intrusion into ones home already a moral evil? And say the woman was raped in her home, she wouldn't have force the child into her home, either.

(just playing devils advocate here)

[high spire]

Well if you are saying we can ban it except in cases of rape and life of the mother, then there go 99% of abortion cases. At that point the goal is nearly reached, so that would be a great starting point.

But heres why its different, the baby didn't rape the woman. The rapist raped the woman, and committed the moral evil here. Every ounce of blame for the inconvenience falls on the rapist not on the innocent, helpless child. So even then, the intruder was still forced (not in accordance with their will) into the home. If a person (not morally wrong, and not a criminal) is thrown into your home by a criminal, you can't kill them, because they aren't to blame for the intrusion to begin with.

[verbal coral]

Actually, no, the child didn't even exist at the time the rape took place, so it wasn't forced into the home by the intruder nor the woman.

[high spire]

How so? The child is still only there because of the rapist. The rapist is still entirely responsible for that.

[verbal coral]

I mean, hypothetically speaking, sperm isn't a child. The earliest moment we can even consider the childs existence is at fertilization. At that point the child pops into existence as a new legal entity. So the rapist never actively forced the child into the home. Yes, there is a causal chain, but you wouldn't judge hitlers parents for their childs crimes either, right? The father intruded into the home of the woman, and so did the child.

Mind you, I'm just messing around, I don't find the castle doctrine logical to begin with, so don't take it too seriously 🤪

[high spire]

But Hitler had a choice. A baby doesn't. This is where the consciousness argument goes both ways. A baby isn't choosing to infringe on bodily autonomy; it didn't choose to nor did it choose not to because it can't. The baby had no choice but to end up there, entirely because of the rapists actions. The only way for the baby to not end up there is for the rape to have not happened.

Even if you want to shift blame in your hypothetical from the rapist, the real point here is that it isn't the baby. The baby did not choose to intrude on your property, and innocently ended up in your house, due to causes the baby could not control. If you then killed this "intruder" that isn't going to hold up under law. Because you were not threatened, nor did the intruder commit any crimes to begin with.

[verbal coral]

Yeah, pretty sure I won't find a way to weasel my way out of that one 🤣 Well done.

[high spire]

Haha thank you. I think the only real argument to make from the abortion perspective will have to be based upon when life begins.

[dim sable]

Well the mental health of someone isn't more valuable than a human life.
It demonstrably is, otherwise suicide wouldn't exist. At least 700,000 people per year decide that a death is preferable to unhappy life.

Suffering is worse than death. Death is preferable than an unhappy life. That's the simple argument in favour of abortion, and there is pretty conclusive evidence that it is true.

[high spire]

Wait, are you advocating for suicide now? Just because people struggle with mental health you think they should be able to kill themselves? I'm probably misunderstanding what you're trying to say... Can explain that a bit more?

[dim sable]

Yes, absolutely people should be able to kill themselves. Why not?

Like all big decisions it shouldn't be done lightly. But there is a demonstrable need for it at present.

It's just a fact of human life that humans sometimes prefer death to a life of suffering.

[high spire]

I think there isn't any point on trying to debate abortion if we don't share a common ground on at least this.

[high spire]

But the baby isn't the one killing itself...?

[dim sable]

Well yes, since it removes the anti-abortion argument.

[dim sable]

I agree abortion isn't the same thing as suicide.

I'm just making the point that abortion can, theoretically, be preferable than allowing the pregnancy to continue.

[high spire]

No, because you share such a wild (imo) view on human life/death, we won't be able to agree on something that deals with human life/death.

[dim sable]

It's not some wild view. Suicide is legal in half of Europe.

[high spire]

Preferable, yes. Most murders are preferable for the murderer. They want to commit the murder, and the outcome is their preference. That doesn't make murder ok just because they prefer it.

[high spire]

Well wild is going to be subjective

[dim sable]

Preferable overall.

[high spire]

explain

[dim sable]

For society, if you want to express it in those terms, since society is the one saying whether it should be legal or not.

[high spire]

So if you have 2 people who want to murder 1 unloved and uncared for person, is the murder ok because its preferable to 2 people and only not preferable to 1?

[dim sable]

In that situation, no, of course not. But that's not a direct parallel to abortion.

[high spire]

So how does preference matter

[dim sable]

Because in an abortion, the competing factors are the effect on the foetus, and the effects on others. The negative effects on others of allowing the pregnancy to continue, can outweigh the negative effect on the foetus of terminating it.

You can't consider just the embryo, you have to consider the whole situation, all of the effects.

[high spire]

But if you apply that same logic to the scenario I mentioned above, its a net-preference-gain to murder the person, and society benefits.

[dim sable]

Not so. Because you haven't demonstrated that the two people who 'prefer' the murder to happen will be adversely affected by allowing that person to live to the point that it outweighs the adverse effect on the one person.

It's not as simple as saying more people will be affected. You have to consider the severety of the effect.

[dim sable]

I'm not talking about personal preferences. My reply immediately after this message was not a reply to this message of yours.

[high spire]

Say its just an annoying person to both of them, and so they both want him dead. It makes their lives easier, and since no one cares about the person, society benefits. You are trying to change the logic here between the two scenarios. What do you mean by "the severity of the effect"?

[dim sable]

I'm talking about weighing up the negative effects of the different outcomes. "Annoying" isn't a particularly severe effect, and so it doesn't carry much weight.

Dying is a pretty severe negative effect, and so it carries a lot of weight. But there are a few things that carry even more weight, such as severe suffering.

[high spire]

So what exactly is the level of effect that the line is drawn at?

[high spire]

We've already covered that in the case of threatening the life of the mother, abortion is an option.

[dim sable]

That's the hard part of the question. I don't know that anyone thinks abortion should be fine for just any old reason. But we can start at the extreme end of the scale and work back. If the choice is between a) terminating a pregnancy, and b) a billion people tortured with red hot irons for 50 years each, which would you say is the better choice?

[dim sable]

One life for another is an easy comparison. The difficult part is where it's not life or death, but suffering.

Suffering is harder to quantify

[high spire]

But thats not what pregnancy is. If I say options are:
A - killing a baby
or B - 5 people having a slight temporary itch,
which is the better choice? In the same way if its:

A - temporary pain and inconvenience for the mother who in 99% of cases is responsible for it
or B- murdering an innocent baby
I think its very easy to see how A weighs morally higher than B.

So you can jump to either end of the spectrum pretty easily, but that doesn't prove much.

[dim sable]

All I was trying to do was establish the principle that in theory an abortion can be preferable to a certain amount of suffering.

If we can establish that, then it becomes just a question of how much suffering outweighs a life, which is a lot more subjective.

[high spire]

And can be not-preferable to another certain amount of suffering

[dim sable]

Yes, exactly.

[high spire]

But it isn't. It seems quite morally obvious that temporary suffering and inconvenience doesn't outweigh innocent human life. I mean is it really that subjective?

[dim sable]

Yes, I think so. I think there is definitely a level of temporary suffering that outweighs an innocent human life. All suffering is temporary, after all, because death comes for everyone.

[high spire]

And you also fail to consider that the people being tortured would be responsible for their situation to begin with

[dim sable]

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

[high spire]

But 9 months of inconvenience versus a lifetime of life?

[high spire]

99% yes

[dim sable]

Sometimes is the best I can do on that. People are never wholly responsible for their actions. I could only guess at an actual percentage that I would hold responsible enough to outweigh the coming responsibility of looking after a child for the rest of their lives. Maybe 5%?

[high spire]

you say 50 billion years of brutal torture (50 years times 1 billion people). Thats where it gets muddy... But 9 months of inconvenience (albeit, sometimes severe inconvenience) has a clear moral answer

[dim sable]

Being pregnant isn't 9 months of inconvenience. It's a lifetime commitment.

[high spire]

Anyone who willingly consented is consenting to the possible consequences.

[dim sable]

I disagree, because sex is one of the most emotionally charged situations it is possible to be in, and thus, one of the situations where people are least capable of making informed and responsible decisions.

[high spire]

Not necessarily, you can put the baby up for adoption pretty easily. Its something like 12 couples looking for a child for every 1 baby. Adoption is very difficult for those trying to adopt because of the shortage of children to be adopted.

[dim sable]

That's a theoretical possibility, that is kind of outside of anyone's control. No woman is going to entirely forget being pregnant, so she is definitely going to carry some effect of it for the rest of her life.

[high spire]

I don't think any woman will forget that she allowed her baby to be murdered either. Pretty sure that would weigh on her more

[dim sable]

Certainly being forced to be pregnant when she doesn't want to be, is a significantly traumatic experience.

[dim sable]

This is where is comes down to personal choice.

It's up to her to decide which is her preference.

[high spire]

But thats like saying its up to the murderer to decide if they get to murder someone

its up to him to decide which is his preference

[dim sable]

No it's not, because again, the effect of a murder on the murderer is nothing like the same as the effect of a pregnancy on a pregnant woman.
An abortion affects almost everything about the entire lives of both the mother and the embryo. That is a much greater effect than the admittedly still big effect of committing a murder on a murderer. But a murder is a net negative effect on everyone, really.

[high spire]

And how is adoption outside of people's control

[dim sable]

Because the emotional connection that a mother feels with her child is not something that she is in control of. When it gets to that point, she may not feel able to give it up for adoption.

[high spire]

A murder also affects both lives, you still haven't laid out a distinction. You don't think a whole lifetime of a new person will have an overall larger affect on society?

[high spire]

Even better, then the child is with their natural mother

[dim sable]

Sorry, I was edited that post as you were replying. I was going to say, a murder does affect both lives, of course, but the differential between the the effect on the murderer of the victim being alive or dead is much smaller than the differential for either an embryo or a pregnant mother of an abortion or a completed pregnancy.
A person who is unrelated to you has a much smaller effect on your life than your child does. There is no comparison between a murderer and a woman who has an abortion.

[high spire]

So which of the two has the smaller affect?

[dim sable]

If we consider the enjoyment or worth in the two lives (woman and embryo) overall, I think the balance is easy to judge.

If the abortion goes ahead you have a null result for the embryo, and an average result for the woman living a normal life.
If the abortion doesn't go ahead, you have a slightly worse than average result for the embryo (because being an unwanted child is hard), and a significantly worse than average result for the woman, to whatever degree depending on the precise negative effect in her situation (for having to look after a child she didn't want).

If you compare the suffering involved, I think it's clear that not allowing the abortion causes a lot more suffering.

[dim sable]

'Not murdering someone who is unrelated to you' has a much smaller effect on you than 'not terminating your pregnancy'.

[high spire]

Well the result for the child is that they are murdered, and a lifetime of possibility is taken away. Is it now a null result for someone who is murdered? What makes it null compared to a murder victim?

If the abortion doesn't go ahead, you have a lifetime of possibility, and a life to begin with. Its murder or inconvenience. But ultimately the "unwanted child" would in most cases be happy they exist if they were told their mother almost killed them as a baby.

[high spire]

I still don't follow. Does an abortion have a larger affect or a murder? It sounds like you are saying abortion has the larger affect but I'm not sure...

[dim sable]

The problem is that the "inconvenience" in your message could be anything up to and including a lifetime of severe suffering, despair and eventual suicide. Which would be much worse than the death of an embryo that involved no suffering.

I still don't follow. Does an abortion have a larger affect or a murder? It sounds like you are saying abortion has the larger affect but I'm not sure...
I'm trying to say that it's not quite as simple as trying to decide which has a larger effect, because the effect of a pregnancy could be anything across a huge range (as could the effect of a murder).

But if we consider averages, then the reason a woman is entitled to a bigger say over the life of an embryo inside her, is that, on average, the effect of a pregnancy on the woman is much greater than the effect of a murder on the murderer.

I'm going to have to take a break now for some sleep. But thank you for another interesting discussion so far. 👍

I'll reply to any responses as soon as I can.

[high spire]

But it isn't. The inconvenience is mostly a 9 month period that can easily end with adoption. Even if it doesn't end there, it still isn't a "lifetime of suffering". If thats the logic you use, then theoretically any and all pregnancies, including "wanted" ones can result in a lifetime of suffering. Is it then better to abort them all because of this possibility? Of course not.

Even for all wanted pregnancies, all of those babies will go through much pain and suffering throughout their lives, and all of the mothers will go through the "pain and suffering" of having those children. So its less pain and suffering, and its less inconvenience, to kill all of them. Suffering is a reality of life, and if we were to snuff out every human life now, that would end all human suffering, forever.

[high spire]

_
One last thing for tonight, suicide isn't just like "legal" in half of Europe. It is mostly for terminal illnesses, and if we apply that logic to abortion, if the baby/mother will die as a result of carrying the pregnancy, I think most people would agree and say in those cases the mother gets to choose.

[drifting moth]

I mean the thing is with abortion, unless you pick one of the two extremes the lines will always be blurry.

[high spire]

Define these extremes? Conception and birth? I think you’re pretty much right (if that’s what you mean), which is why I pick conception. If you say: well it’s heartbeat. Or it’s when the brain begins to develop, or it’s when they can feel pain. A problem is created. You can easily just say “so all it takes is one heartbeat?” Or “all it takes is an extra brain cell? Is that what determines if they are a living innocent human?” And then you would have one baby being murdered a split second before a heartbeat and another baby being fully protected because the mother caught a red light while on the way to the abortion clinic. I think factors like these cause us to say that life begins at conception, and an extra minute, week, month, or trimester isn’t valid in determining life vs not.

[dim sable]

Sorry for the delayed response, I clicked this thread by mistake one time when I couldn't reply, and it fell off my radar.

I would maintain that the effect on a woman simply of being pregnant lasts a lot longer than 9 months. I believe there are physiological and psychological changes that last for (at least) months afterwards. Also, the psychological effects of being a mother usually last a lifetime. It's not usually something people forget. The psychological effects of being a failed mother, i.e. a mother that had to give up her child, are usually much more severe.

Yes, in theory it could happen that a woman who is forced to bear a child ends up viewing it as a positive experience. Just like in theory you can survive falling out of a plane without a parachute. And of course, once a child is born the inbuilt psychological effects kick in which make a mother very protective of her child and very unlikely to say anything bad about it. And also, people are generally quite adaptable and good at making the best out of a bad situation. But, the very small chance that it could have a positive effect is massively outweighed by the very large chance that it will have a huge negative effect on the woman in question.

We all have some small amounts of suffering in our lives, it's true. But that doesn't mean that we should purposefully add significant amounts of extra suffering to our lives on purpose, and significant amounts of extra difficulty. Abortion reduces the suffering in the world.

[dim sable]

Suicide is legal in those situations because it is recognised that it can be preferable to be dead than alive and suffering. That's a basic principle that seems to be a consensus amongst humanity.

[high spire]

I would also maintain that the psychological effect on a woman knowing she facilitated the murder of her child would be more dramatic than just knowing she had gone through with the pregnancy. The failure of a mother who killed her child is a bigger failure than one who gave the child up to a better life.

This is where you will probably say "but it isn't murder, because the child doesn't count", and to that I say assume that it is, would abortion be wrong if the child counts as alive? If your answer is "yes, it would be wrong then" then we can then move on to whether or not an unborn baby counts. If your answer is "no, it would not be wrong, even if the child counts as alive" then we come to the point I'm trying to make with this. If you say: "well yes, the child is alive, but for the sake of the mother's current & future mental health and other factors, it would be better to kill the child.", then I would respond by saying the value of that child's life (which counts as living) outweighs the mental health of the mother. Not only that, but if the child counts as alive, then a mother murdering that child would have a worse and larger effect on the mother than not murdering the child.

And if you say the child doesn't count as alive, so it really is just like uprooting a plant or frying an egg, or something like that, then it seems we should focus our conversation on the validity of the child's life, before addressing points that assume it was either killing or that it was not killing. Basically what I'm saying is if we agree the child counts as alive, we can talk about weighing human life against other things. But if the child is not alive we should talk about what determines if something counts as alive or not.

Abortion reduces the suffering in the world.
I think I addressed this point enough earlier. Ending humanity would greatly reduce human suffering, that doesn't make it good by any stretch of the imagination.

[high spire]

Sorry its been a while, and I've forgotten why exactly we brought up suicide to begin with. I see it as totally different anyways because its choosing to end someone else's life vs choosing to end your own. Choosing to end someone else's is killing, so suicide is really a completely different conversation imo.

[drifting moth]

I'm talking about the extremes of its NEVER ok and its ALWAYS ok
I would agree that most people would not pick ALWAYS, but it has clearer lines than "well, maybe sometimes 👉 👈 "

[dim sable]

Suicide was brought up to prove the point that death can be preferable to life in some circumstances, and that that view is commonly accepted by humanity. It seems to be subjectively true for most of our species that it's better to die than to suffer greatly.

This is relevant for the first point you make, because while yes, terminating a pregnancy might also be something that a woman remembers for a long time, it's very possible for a woman (or anyone) to consider that it is better for a child not to have lived, than to live and be brought up by a mother who didn't want them. There are also many people nowadays who even think that it's better for a child not to live than to be brought up by a family that does want them, due to how messed up the world is. So I think terminating a pregnancy isn't generally going to be viewed by most women as them failing as a mother.

Suicide being acceptable in some situations proves that even if the embryo was considered the same as a child who has been born, it can still be the case that it is better for them to die than to live. What we need to decide then is where the balance lies, how much suffering outweighs death.

I posted before about the mathematics of the different levels of suffering of the various options concerning abortion. But I believe I didn't address the specific question you describe here, about the life of a child outweighing the mental health of the mother.
I see that as analogous to saying that it is ok to torture someone in order to extend someone else's life. Say it was someone entirely unrelated, would you say it was acceptable to force difficulties onto a random other person in order to create life? Would you be happy to forcibly remove someone else's kidney to prolong your own life?
.

I suspect and hope the answer is no (if it is yes, then that would be some serious sociopathy). In which case I would conclude that either you've not thought this through, or that you're happy with treating a pregnant woman worse than a random person for some reason. In which case it would seem that you're declaring the pregnant woman to be at fault for some reason and deserving of worse treatment, or possibly any consequences that might occur. I don't think that's a morally justifiable stance.

[dim sable]

On the point about whether an embryo counts as being alive, yes, I agree it is alive. But I would say that it is indisputable that there are different levels of 'alive', and that it is widely considered acceptable to treat living things with different types of life differently.

Plants are alive, and more or less everyone agrees it's fine to kill them.
Animals are alive, and a high percentage of the world agrees it's fine to kill them when convenient.

Consciousness is the most common cut off point that people use to determine which levels of life are ok to kill and which are not. I think it's pretty arbitrary, but I can't necessarily prove there is a better one. Since an early-stage embryo is not conscious as far as we know, those embryos are functionally identical to life that we view as being ok to kill when needed.

I don't at this point see a reason for arguing that an early embryo should be considered special. If we want to value potential human life, then you need to make a case for saving and rearing literally every sperm and egg produced by a human. If we think they are somehow special simply because they are human, then what's the justification for that without saying "my god says they're special"?

[gray flint]

The simplest explanation for the justification without getting into too much semantics is to compare what we think of as life. When 3 cells were found on Mars, the scientific world rejoiced that there was life on Mars. Given that, it would be not only hypocritical, but also ethically irresponsible to proclaim that a fetus is "just a clump of cells" and not alive. Given the assumption that a fetus is alive, we move onto part two. Plants and animals, as you pointed out, are also alive and yet killing them is okay. The primary difference being that plants don't grow into human beings after a set time. It's like saying a sapling isn't a plant. We all know it's going to become one, so we treat it as one. That same logic should apply to people. Fetuses become people, so they should be regarded as such.

Then there's the super simple argument of "Killing a pregnant woman causes one to be charged with double homocide, therefore from a legal standpoint (which is what the thread is asking), an abortion would count as a murder" which has been done to death.

Apologies for jumping into the ongoing debate you two had going, I just thought your argument was interesting and wanted to address it.

[high spire]

I mean death may be preferable for someone, but only concerning themselves. Killing someone who has done nothing wrong is called murder. So it may be preferable to the mother, but that doesn't make it ok. Serial killers prefer that their victims be dead, so they kill them. Preference really means nothing when you are talking about an innocent child who has no control over if they are in the circumstances they are in or not. In fact, the only person who could control it to begin with would be the mother. She is responsible for the child in 99% of cases. So just because someone may greatly prefer/be convenienced by the death of another person doesn't then make it ok to murder that person.

So if a mother doesn't view it that way, and it is in fact murder, than society should then recognize that it is murder, instead of letting a mother be manipulated and deceived her whole life about it. Obviously neither of us can really speak to how a mother feels after abortion; we can only assume; but I would assume if a mother is not deceived on what she has done, she will be much more negatively affected. I think coping with that fact would be a very hard and tragic thing to have to do.

You are still missing my point about suicide's irrelevance. The baby has no choice whatsoever in its life or death. The baby can never be blamed for its situation, and the mother can be blamed in 99% of cases. You can't sign someone else up for assisted suicide. Thats murder. The baby isn't the one signing up for the abortion. Its completely different.

[high spire]

Your analogy is flawed because:

1. It isn't a random person. Its the child's mother, who in 99% of cases is responsible. So if the person being tortured was responsible for that situation to begin with, yes I would absolutely say they should have to put up with it. To cause the situation and to not put up with it would effectively be murder.

2. Torture is kinda undefined. But even if this person is entirely unrelated (they aren't at all), I would still say yes, depending on the "torture". Let's assume the "torture" is 9 months of dietary and fitness limitations, mental health problems, and then finally a medically assisted portion equivalent to labor. Assuming this, if these things are the passive action and natural result (as they are) and killing the other person is an extra action (as with abortion).
   Let me explain. Once we consider childbirth is the natural action, your analogy made accurate would sound like this:

"Is it ok to murder a random unrelated person to stop yourself from major inconvenience you are currently going through? This person is a complete innocent, and has never done anything morally wrong in their life. You have to hire a hitman to precisely track down this person and murder them (having done nothing wrong) in order to end your inconvenience. Is it ok?"
I would love to hear how you respond to that analogy. Because thats literally murder. Killing an innocent who is an annoyance and inconvenience in your life for some amount of personal gain. Now that is a morally unjustifiable position to take.

[high spire]

I'll just refer you to the coma analogy for this. Is it ok to murder a person in a coma just because they are unconscious? Before you bring in convenience and such, is it or is it not a morally neutral act to kill someone in a coma, who will wake up in just a few months, just because they are not conscious?

[blazing jetty]

I think abortion should be the right of every woman until a certain age of the fetus. You do not have the right to decide what she does with her body.

Now I know people are gonna say "Its murder, even a blob of cells is a human being".
I disagree, and that is why there will never be a common ground or even agreement on the issue. Just saw a lot of 'pro life' in the thread and wanted to put the contrasting opinion here.

[gray flint]

Fair enough. It's always good to have differing opinions so this doesn't devolve into an echo chamber. My only issue with what you say is that it's not a decision about her body, it's a decision about a separate body. The fetus doesn't share 100% DNA with the mother, it also has DNA of the father. Due to that, the argument of the fetus being the mother's body is flawed. While yes, it is contained within the mother's body, it is a separate body with separate DNA.

[blazing jetty]

You do bring up a fair point. The father should also have a say.

(unless it was rape ofc)

[gray flint]

Well yes, there are obvious outliers. Rape cases (which make up .001% of abortions so they shouldn't really be addressed when talking about statistics but I get where you're coming from) should not be held to the same standard as the status quo.

[blazing jetty]

Yeah fair, just wanted to clarify in case someone was gonna come with the "but what if she was raped" argument.

[gray flint]

Understandable

[blazing jetty]

Which obviously is a whole different story

[gray flint]

But in terms of the status quo where we see "Oh I want to have sex with as many men as possible and have an abortion to be free from the consequences of my actions" and that person on instagram that broadcast the fact that they became trans specifically so they can be the first trans person to have an abortion, those cases are morally wrong and have no legal basis.

[blazing jetty]

I think its absolutely fine to have a lot of sex. Regardless if youre a man or a woman. There is plenty of ways to minimize the risk of pregnancy, and those precautions need to be taken. But apart from that I see nothing wrong with it tbh

[gray flint]

Oh there's nothing wrong with consenting adults having sex. But using abortion as a contraceptive is just plain irresponsible. If someone doesn't want to have a kid, there are plenty of methods of contraception that can be used before conception.

[blazing jetty]

Agreed. Abortion should be the last resort.

[gray flint]

I personally don't like abortion because a close friend of mine got one her sophomore year and even though it makes sense to not want a child when you're in high school, it mentally and emotionally destroyed her. Even now she's still regretful about it and breaks down when she thinks about her son.

I know it doesn't stand true for every case, but it's something that sticks in my mind and makes it overall distasteful for me to think about, on top of the ethical, moral, and religious objections I hold.

[blazing jetty]

Thats fair enough. People do regret their decisions, but at the end of the day we are all adults. And we fuck up, and we have to own up to it. I regret a great many things that I did, but I'm still glad I had the choice.

[high spire]

What age? Even if its the day before birth, wouldn't that still be telling a woman what to do? Taking a stance in the middle is difficult to do, especially if you base it on autonomy and not life.

[vernal lark]

taking a stance in the middle literally just means allowing abortion before X weeks of pregancy and not allowing it after X. Believe the middle of americans polled (Democrats and Republicans) is like 15-20 weeks

[blazing jetty]

In my country, austria, there are laws in place that determine the age cutoff when it isn't ethical anymore. I have to admit, i was never in the situation so I didn't look closely into it. However I am also not qualified to make that decision. I will leave that to the experts.

[high spire]

Yeah thats called compromising. I understand how to take a middle stance. When arguing based off bodily autonomy alone, it isn't a very consistent view.

[high spire]

Well this is a discussion thread, so I think its ok if you state your own personal beliefs.

[vernal lark]

its crazy how much consensus there would be if republicans got their shit together, ditched their extreme 6 week bans and find some middle ground - https://www.aei.org/op-eds/gallup-poll-shows-most-americans-would-vote-for-a-15-week-abortion-ban/

[blazing jetty]

I agree it isn't consistent. But morals aren't always consistent. There is kants categoric imperative which would be. I don't subscribe to that philosiphy

[high spire]

Well Congress is kinda an aim-high, hit-low type of situation. What would need to happen is a bi-partisan bill would have to be crafted, and even still I doubt democrats would be on board with that. All we can do is speculate I guess.

[vernal lark]

yeah i mean policy wise leaving it up the the states is kinda an acceptable state as it is right now

like its contentious enough of an issue (for the right reasons) that getting a national consensus probably isn't possible

[high spire]

Having a consistent view is not the same as certain moral issues being hard to determine. A consistent view is something you apply everywhere, and the trouble is how that consistent stance applies to each individual issue. For example, my consistent view is murder is wrong. Some people say it is difficult to determine if abortion is murder (I disagree). That is a consistent view.

An inconsistent view would be "murder is wrong in this case, but not that one". Thats inconsistent. Its eitehr wrong or it isn't, and the tricky part is applying that.

[high spire]

Yeah constitutionally it would be tricky. Like murder itself is charged as a state offense in most cases. Murder usually isn't even a federal crime. Abortion would ideally be the same way.

[blazing jetty]

So here is how I see it. A fetus that has been conceived in the first few weeks is nothing. Its a few cells.

A 8 month old fetus is a baby. Somewhere there is a line. You also draw a line, yours is just much earlier.

[vernal lark]

at its core, there is conflict between a mother's right to bodily autonomy vs a fetus's right to life. Acknowledging that this isn't morally clear cut at all is step #1 to having a productive conversation. How heavily you weigh these two moral questions determines what you think of abortion

[blazing jetty]

I completely agree with that.

[high spire]

Yes thats true, it is dependent on those 2 things, but I think they are so easy to compare that it is a morally clearcut issue.

[vernal lark]

you can also be like "oh yeah abortion is morally wrong, but the consequences of regulating abortion outweigh the negative morality.

Like imagine a hardcore small government advocate who's against abortion, but even more against government interventionism

[blazing jetty]

Only if you believe that even a 1 day old fetus is a human

[gray flint]

That's what it comes down to, the only issue is practically every argument in favor of the mother's bodily autonomy superceding the fetus' right to like is it encroaches on another group of people and their right to life.

[high spire]

I think many "pro choice" people could say its a human. Just an underdeveloped one.

[blazing jetty]

It is potential for a human as far as I am concerned. Same way as a relationship between a man and a woman is potential.

[high spire]

What makes it human vs not?

[gray flint]

The problem with saying that a fetus being underdeveloped voids it of it's right to life is that would also mean that people with learning disabilities resulting from lack of proper brain development would be equally void of said right under that logic.

[blazing jetty]

Well, thats a complex question. Again not one im qualified to answer.

However, I do not believe a day old fetus is a human. It has none of the characteristics of a human, cannot think, cannot feel, has nothing to make it a human. At one point during pregnancy this changes.

[high spire]

I agree.

[blazing jetty]

No. Someone who is mentally retarded can think, feel and do just the same as any other human. Just worse perhaps.

[high spire]

Well thats easy to say, but ultimately I'm asking what characteristics determine that? What is it missing that a baby out of the womb has?

[gray flint]

While that is a good logical way of thinking, it provides troubles for policymaking as there's no distinction along the pregnancy. Especially considering some fetuses develop faster than others. Until a definitive switch is found, policy and legality has to stick to conception or birth to maintain consistency.

[high spire]

What about people with very severe mental retardation? Some people have been recorded to have iq's well below many animals. Do we kill them off too if we want?

[blazing jetty]

A baby who is late into the pregnancy has feelings and thoughts that are rudimentary but there. A clump of cells cannot have that. It is impossible because it physically does not have the facilities.

[gray flint]

I would like to clarify, I in no way mean to attack you or your beliefs at any point. Just in case my comments are coming across as aggressive, I wanted to make that clear.

[blazing jetty]

They still have feelings. Still have thoughts. So obviously not

[high spire]

So is it thought that determines validity of life? Consciousness?

[blazing jetty]

Sure

[gray flint]

Then somebody better call NASA and let them know their "Life on Mars" isn't life

[high spire]

So this goes back to people in comas? Is it morally ok to kill them? They are just wasting resources, right?

[blazing jetty]

They have the potential to wake up. So no obviohsly not

[high spire]

And babies have the same, do they not? They have potential; guaranteed potential, in fact.

We know for a fact a baby will have thoughts if we just don't murder it in the womb. How is that any different?

[blazing jetty]

Thats not a bad point. But the same can be said for a man and a woman being in a relationship. There is potential. If you abort on the first day for example for me that would be equivalent to not having the baby at all.

[high spire]

A man and a woman have potential for what exactly?

[blazing jetty]

Also I couldnt get to that because Its hard arguing against so many points at once. I was not asked for the biological definition of life.

[high spire]

Sorry I know its difficult when you have a bunch of people asking things lol. No worries if you miss anything.

[blazing jetty]

I gotta be honest I dont understand that. Maybe it is the lagnguage barrier, but could you elaborate?

[high spire]

Sure. When you say a man and a woman have potential, what do you mean by that. Potential for what?

[blazing jetty]

Potential to create a life, a baby.

[gray flint]

It's all good. That comment was less of a point and more of an offhanded comment to poke fun at NASA. Nothing meant against you, my apologies.

[blazing jetty]

Same way a one day old fetus is potential. More concrete potential sure, but not proper concious life. On par with small cell organisms.

At some point in the womb this changes. A baby grows out of stemcells. At some point it stops being stemcells and becomes a baby that can feel rudimentary things.

[high spire]

Ok. Well the distinction is a human life. If a man and a woman break up, no harm is done. If the child is killed, it definitely ends the potential, but it ends a human life along with it. So they both end potential, but one ends an innocent life along with it.

[blazing jetty]

Right and here we are at our core disagreement again right? You believe a one day old fetus is human life. I believe it is simply stemcells with potential to be human life one day.

We just gotta have to agree to disagree i think. Philosophy. Always hard to find consens between different people from different backgrounds. I respect your opinion. Maybe I will one day find out I was wrong. It has happened before. But this is what I believe in this moment.

(based on the facts that I know)
I dont know enough to draw a clear line, between cells and a baby, but i do know there is one.

[elder rivet]

Abortion is good because babies are bad (real take)

[high spire]

Ultimately yes, this is what it boils down to. I'm of the opinion that if we can't know and agree on where that point is, we should probably put the brakes on the infanticide until we figure it out. I think its very difficult for a "pro choice" person to draw a reasonable line.
I mentioned this earlier, but if you say:
"well it’s heartbeat." Or
"It’s when the brain begins to develop," or
"it’s when they can feel pain."
A problem is created. You can easily just say:
“so all it takes is one heartbeat?” Or
“all it takes is an extra brain cell? Is that what determines if they are a living innocent human?” **And then you would have one baby being murdered a split second before a heartbeat and another baby being fully protected because the mother caught a red light while on the way to the abortion clinic. I think factors like these cause us to say that life begins at conception, and an extra minute, week, month, or trimester isn’t valid in determining life vs not. **
Is a baby who has had just one slight rudimentary thought really more alive than a baby who will have that thought a day later? Is a baby who has had an extra heartbeat more alive than a baby who is scheduled to have one? Is an extra heartbeat the determiner of an alive human being versus a non-living thing? Is an extra thought all it takes to be fully protected and an alive human being? That doesn't seem right to draw a hard line between two babies where one is fully-protected being simply a day ahead, and the other can be murdered because its a day behind.

[dim sable]

Killing someone who has done nothing wrong is called murder.
I agree. But causing an innocent person to suffer is called torture. I can't agree at all with your categorisation of forcing pregnancy on someone as simply an "inconvenience". That is simply wrong. It's much more serious than that.

In fact, the only person who could control it to begin with would be the mother. She is responsible for the child in 99% of cases.
This is also simply incorrect. For starters, it takes (at least) two people to produce a pregnancy, so at most a woman is 50% responsible. But also, nobody is in full control of themselves all of the time. Sex is a very emotional situation, and emotions unavoidably cause people to make bad decisions all the time. It is simply not possible for everyone to avoid accidental or unwanted pregnancy, that's just an absolute fact, as evidenced by the fact that they happen all the time. We can't claim something is possible if it's never actually happened, and we've never been able to prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring. So the whole argument that it's somehow the parent's fault is nonsense. It's not. It's not in their control. People can't just 'have more willpower', or foresee the future, or make good decisions when under emotional duress, which is always the case regarding sex.
Punishing someone for something that was unavoidable for them is clearly unfair. Punishing people for making honest mistakes is also unfair. Therefore, there is no justification for treating a pregnant woman any differently from anyone else. It just becomes a straight choice between death or torture, which I think any sensible person would agree comes down to the level of torture involved. And by far the biggest determining factor in the level of torture that will be experienced is the woman's views. Therefore,

the mother can be blamed in 99% of cases.
No. Not even remotely.

[dim sable]

At least we've identified the cause of our disagreement now. You don't think pregnancy has much of an effect on a woman, and you also think the woman deserves to be punished for an unwanted pregnancy. I can't possibly agree with either of those things.

[dim sable]

I would love to hear how you respond to that analogy. Because thats literally murder. Killing an innocent who is an annoyance and inconvenience in your life for some amount of personal gain. Now that is a morally unjustifiable position to take.
I'll respond, sure, but first I'm going to correct the analogy to use the actual words rather than words that misrepresent what's actually going on.

"Is it ok to murder a random unrelated person to stop yourself experiencing torture for the rest of your life? This person is a complete innocent, and can be assumed to have an average life when it comes to doing morally wrong things. Is it ok?"
That's the corrected version. My answer comes in several parts.

Firstly, this is clearly a dispute between two people that should be settled by the society they live in, a neutral arbiter who can decide what is the best outcome overall. Neither party, not the woman nor the embryo, is capable of making an informed and rational decision about this, because both have a conflict of interest.

Secondly, when it comes to determining what is the best outcome of an unwanted pregnancy, the two choices are pretty straightforward to understand.
Option A) is a degree of torture for the woman for the rest of her life as determined by the beliefs of the woman, and the death with minimal suffering of the embryo.
Option B) is a degree of torture for the woman for the rest of her life as determined by the beliefs of the woman, a life containing above average family stress for the embryo, and an extra dose of torture for the woman during and immediately after the pregnancy purely as a result of the pregnancy.
.

Since we know for sure that torture can outweigh death, we can't make a choice between those two options without considering the precise degree of torture the woman will experience. It just simply wouldn't be moral to make a decision without factoring that in.
But, the only way to factor that in is to ask the woman, because there's no other way of determining what her beliefs are. We have no other source of information on that factor. So, our decision as a society must necessarily depends on the answers the woman provides. If she tells us that the level of torture she will experience in her life from continuing the pregnancy is significant, we have no way to argue against that. So, even though we are required as a society to make a moral choice in the matter, we have no basis to make any decision other than that which the woman herself makes.

Also, although the woman is obviously not free from a conflict of interest, there is still no one in the world who cares more about an unborn baby than the mother. That's just a basic and largely inescapable biological effect. It's not a decision that they are going to make lightly, so there's not even a big reason to be frustrated that that is the basis we have to use for the decision.

[high spire]

I can't agree at all with your categorisation of forcing pregnancy on someone as simply an "inconvenience". That is simply wrong. It's much more serious than that.
Ok if you want to call it something else, we can. It isn't "torture" though. Its probably somewhere in the middle, and inconvenience was just a term we had both been using (I think, but I could be wrong on that)

This is also simply incorrect. For starters, it takes (at least) two people to produce a pregnancy, so at most a woman is 50% responsible...
Well that isn't entirely true. First, I'm all for holding men equally accountable as women. Second, the point is the woman has a fundamental part in responsibility for the child. What I mean is if not for the woman's actions, the baby wouldn't exist. Its not like without the woman's action their would be 50% of a child. The point I'm making is in 99% of cases the woman is directly responsible for the child, and her actions would determine if there was a child or if there wasn't. Yes it requires the man's actions also, but the point is the contribution of the woman leads to the child, or not the child.

Sex is a very emotional situation, and emotions unavoidably cause people to make bad decisions all the time...
While this is true, there is still responsibility for that. If I get drunk and kill someone, it may have been very hard for me to control, but I'm still responsible for that action. I'd still be charged, even if its a lesser sentence, or a lesser crime. We can't shift all responsibility away from situations that are mentally difficult. Sex is not unavoidable. You are ultimately responsible for your actions, even if its difficult. There are loads of resources available for women who may have made a mistake, and there are ways to fix a mistake without murdering an innocent child. So we still have to hold the mother responsible, if only to preserve the child's life.

_
_

At least we've identified the cause of our disagreement now. You don't think pregnancy has much of an effect on a woman...
Thats not at all what I said. I'm saying the effect, when compared to the effect of murdering an innocent child, will be much less. Still a massive effect, but not compared to that of murder. Carrying a pregnancy is not "punishing a woman" its saving a child. The woman may have to make some sacrifices for what has come as a result of her actions, but preserving an innocent life will far outweigh whatever those troubles may be.

That's the corrected version. My answer comes in several parts.
No it isn't. Perhaps to prevent us arguing over an accurate version I can say this:
You have become pregnant, and to stop yourself from being pregnant and to deliver that child, you have to track someone down and murder them. This person has never done anything wrong, and is 0% responsible for the situation you are in, and has no control over this situation. Your on the other hand bear at least partial responsibility.

Secondly, when it comes to determining what is the best outcome of an unwanted pregnancy, the two choices are pretty straightforward to understand...
To this I would say would any society really agree that you should kill the person who has no control over this situation, instead of simply not doing anything, and letting nature take its course, and let you deliver the pregnancy. If its kill the unrelated person who has no control over these events, or let the course of nature happen, and you have the child, considering you are at least greatly responsible for this situation to begin with.

You fail to consider the other living innocent person, and you weigh the decision solely based on the input of the mother, who (as you said) has a great self interest in killing that other person.

[dim sable]

We can use "deliberately inflict suffering" instead of "torture" if you prefer.
I haven't used (and won't use) 'inconvenience' to describe pregnancy.

but the point is the contribution of the woman leads to the child, or not the child.
I agree that the child has definitely not caused the situation. Although the woman was present in the events leading up to the pregnancy, I don't agree that makes her responsible for it.

We can't shift all responsibility away from situations that are mentally difficult.
"Emotionally charged" does not result in "mentally difficult", it results in "mentally impossible". It's literally and physically impossible to make a rational decision when under the influence of strong emotion.

So we still have to hold the mother responsible, if only to preserve the child's life.
The outcome doesn't force us to hold anyone responsible at all. We don't have to punish someone simply because something bad happened, if no one was to blame.

Sex is not unavoidable.
It clearly is unavoidable for some people, because it's never yet been avoided by everyone. I will repeat, we can't claim something is avoidable for everyone if we have clear evidence that many people can't avoid it.

[dim sable]

Still a massive effect, but not compared to that of murder.
I don't think the evidence supports that. Clearly there have been women who have chosen to commit suicide rather than experience pregnancy. Suicide is actually the leading cause of death for pregnant women. So actually, yes, pregnancy can be worse than death, in the view of people who have experienced it. Preserving life doesn't objectively outweigh the suffering of pregnancy. It is an objective fact that the suffering of pregnancy can outweigh the need to preserve life.

You have become pregnant, and to stop yourself from being pregnant and to deliver that child, you have to track someone down and murder them. This person has never done anything wrong, and is 0% responsible for the situation you are in, and has no control over this situation. Your on the other hand bear at least partial responsibility.

1. You don't have to track someone down. You're literally connected to them, so we have to remove that part.
2. We can't consider the question even worth asking unless we're talking about potential results, so we can't say that they have never done anything wrong. They will do things that are wrong at some point in their lives, we're not talking about saving a perfect being.
3. No, the woman doesn't necessarily bear partial responsibility. At worst, she made an honest mistake that anyone would have made in her situation. At best, the pregnancy was entirely unforeseeable and unavoidable.
   .

To this I would say would any society really agree that you should kill the person who has no control over this situation, instead of simply not doing anything, and letting nature take its course, and let you deliver the pregnancy.
I mean, the answer to that question is obviously yes, because abortion is legal in plenty of places.
If we have the power to intervene in a situation then we are responsible for the outcome. It doesn't matter whether we choose to act or choose to not act, it's still a choice and we still have that responsibility. We have to make a choice between deliberately causing a death or deliberately causing suffering, and an option isn't better simply because it would be what happens in nature.

You fail to consider the other living innocent person, and you weigh the decision solely based on the input of the mother, who (as you said) has a great self interest in killing that other person.
I think it is inescapable that the question boils down to a balance between the suffering of the woman vs the life of the embryo. The only person who has access to all the information about both sides is the woman. Although she can't be in a position to make a decision by perfect methods, nobody else gets even remotely near.

[high spire]

I agree that the child has definitely not caused the situation. Although the woman was present in the events leading up to the pregnancy, I don't agree that makes her responsible for it.
The point I'm making is she bears some responsibility. The way she acted either caused or prevented the situation, even though the man bears responsibility also.

Emotionally charged" does not result in "mentally difficult", it results in "mentally impossible". It's literally and physically impossible to make a rational decision when under the influence of strong emotion.
Literally impossible is definitely not an accurate way of putting it. "Strong emotion" can be resisted. Even if its difficult, they can resist it. Otherwise essentially all sex would be rape. The point is its resistible.

The outcome doesn't force us to hold anyone responsible at all. We don't have to punish someone simply because something bad happened, if no one was to blame.
If its let nature take its course due to the mothers partial responsibility, or murder an innocent child, the decision is clear. Carrying the pregnancy doesn't punish the mother. Punishing is an active action. The pregnancy is the natural, passive action. Abortion is an active action, so abortion would be punishing a child for someone else's actions. It is wrong to punish and innocent baby for what someone else did. Even if it happened due to rape, to punish the baby for that is absurd.

It clearly is unavoidable for some people, because it's never yet been avoided by everyone. I will repeat, we can't claim something is avoidable for everyone if we have clear evidence that many people can't avoid it.
We're also talking about one specific instance of sex that leads to conception. Not all sex someone has throughout their whole life.

---

--

I don't think the evidence supports that. Clearly there have been women who have chosen to commit suicide rather than experience pregnancy...
How is your claim objective and mine not? We are both just speculating here. To someone with mental health problems, pregnancy may seem worse, but its subjective either way. You can't objectively say on a moral basis that pregnancy outweighs human life. Some say it is, some say it isn't. Its a subjective claim when you base your claim off of your/other people's opinions.

1. You don't have to track someone down. You're literally connected to them, so we have to remove that part.
   I used that in the analogy to compare to the meticulous aspect of hiring an abortionist, and using precise technology just to cut open a baby's head and suck their brains out (one of the most common methods of abortion)

2. We can't consider the question even worth asking unless we're talking about potential results, so we can't say that they have never done anything wrong. They will do things that are wrong at some point in their lives, we're not talking about saving a perfect being.
   But at this time, the baby is morally perfect. This point is relevant because it shows how the baby has never made a morally negative choice, and has only ended up their by things outside of its control. And also is not deserving of any punishment whatsoever.

3. No, the woman doesn't necessarily bear partial responsibility. At worst, she made an honest mistake that anyone would have made in her situation. At best, the pregnancy was entirely unforeseeable and unavoidable.
   You can still be held accountable for your mistakes. We don't need to accuse the woman or anything like that, but the fact of the matter is her actions (even if by mistake) are the partial cause of the situation. Thats just the inescapable truth.
   --

--

I mean, the answer to that question is obviously yes, because abortion is legal in plenty of places. If we have the power to intervene in a situation then we are responsible for the outcome. It doesn't matter whether we choose to act or choose to not act, it's still a choice and we still have that responsibility. We have to make a choice between deliberately causing a death or deliberately causing suffering, and an option isn't better simply because it would be what happens in nature.
I have thoroughly explained multiple times at this point how not aborting the baby, is not a deliberate action/cause. It is passive by its nature. So the choice is:

1. Do nothing, and let nature take its course. A passive choice
2. Deliberately and actively engage in a paid procedure to cut open the baby's head and suck out its brains, before disposing of its corpse. Abortion is the active action.
   So its not this "well we have to do something, so whats the choice gonna be?" Its either just do nothing, and not kill the child, or its murder the child.

I think it is inescapable that the question boils down to a balance between the suffering of the woman vs the life of the embryo. The only person who has access to all the information about both sides is the woman. Although she can't be in a position to make a decision by perfect methods, nobody else gets even remotely near.
But the child is not represented. You are only considering the opinion of the mother. You aren't considering how the child might respond if it comprehended what was happening, and what was being taken away.
So if its:
End the "suffering" of the mother versus let the mother "suffer", I agree we should end the "suffering", as nothing negative happens.
but if its:
End the "suffering" of the mother, and murder an innocent child versus allow the "suffering" of the mother, thereby preserve the life of an innocent baby, we are morally obligated to go with the latter option listed.
--