#Should Abortion be Illegal?

1 messages · Page 7 of 1

high spire
#

Dang our responses get exponentially and ridiculously longer.

dim sable
#

The way she acted either caused or prevented the situation
I agree, but my point is that the way people act in emotionally charged situations is not in their control.

The point is its resistible.
My point is that the existence of unwanted pregnancy proves that it is not always resistible.

Carrying the pregnancy doesn't punish the mother.
In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, yes it does. It absolutely 100% does. It's a worse choice than the alternative for the mother, ergo choosing that punishes the mother.

The pregnancy is the natural, passive action.
No it's not. Being pregnant isn't a passive action. This is a logical fallacy, and I've already been through this. In both options the mother is doing something. It's not a case of interfering or not, you're interfering either way, either to block the mother's choice, or to assist it. The mother is either
Humans are natural, anything we choose to do is the natural thing.

It is wrong to punish and innocent baby for what someone else did.
I agree, except for in one specific circumstance. That circumstance is where the only choices are between punishing one human or another, where there is no better option that doesn't involve punishing a human unfairly.

We're also talking about one specific instance of sex that leads to conception.
We're talking about sex in the specific case of unwanted pregnancy. It has never been possible for the human race to avoid sex that produces unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, until we can demonstrate that we can avoid unwanted pregnancies, it's clearly not possible to avoid creating unwanted pregnancies.

dim sable
#

How is your claim objective and mine not?
As best I understand it, you're saying that life always outweighs the suffering of the mother with an unwanted pregnancy. You've claimed that as a rule, and a rule can be disproved by finding an exception. I've shown exceptions, which prove that life does not always outweigh the suffering of the mother.
You made a claim about a universal principle, and I disproved it. It's always easier to disprove a principle than prove it, that's just how logic works.

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)
a) You just go to a doctor.
b) "one of the most common methods" means less than 1% in this context.

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.
Nobody's disputing that. But the same applies to the woman as well. She is also not deserving of any punishment. Certainly not the level of punishment involved in being forced to be pregnant against her will.

You can still be held accountable for your mistakes.
It is possible to hold someone accountable for their mistakes, but it's generally not a good idea to punish people for making a mistake. All that does is make people even more afraid of making mistakes, which simply causes them to retreat into themselves and try and avoid doing anything. Punishing people for making genuine mistakes is just inflicting unnecessary psychological damage.

#

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.
I'm never going to agree with that. I don't see how anyone can agree with that without ignoring the existence of a pregnancy. Being pregnant is very much an active thing, it's not something you can just ignore and go about your normal life with.
There is no such thing as a passive choice for the woman.

But the child is not represented. You are only considering the opinion of the mother.
No, I'm not at all ignoring the embryo. I'm just saying that the suffering of the woman can sometimes outweigh the needs of the embryo.

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.
No we're not. I've already proven that the suffering of the woman can outweigh a human life. We're morally obliged to choose the least worst path, and that depends on the degree of suffering we will cause to the woman. Which can only be evaluated by the woman herself.

dim sable
high spire
# dim sable > The way she acted either caused or prevented the situation I agree, but my poi...

I agree, but my point is that the way people act in emotionally charged situations is not in their control.
I'm not saying its necessarily easy, all I'm saying is a decision was made (even if under strong emotion), that led to the child (in 99% of cases). I'm not saying its easy to avoid, but actions have consequences (intended or not). We shouldn't make the baby take on the full consequence of the mothers actions (even if she only had some control over them).

In the case of an unwanted pregnancy, yes it does. It absolutely 100% does. It's a worse choice than the alternative for the mother, ergo choosing that punishes the mother.
I'm pointing out that what it is isn't punishing the mother, it is just not punishing the child. The mother may face negative events because of not aborting the child, but its not actively punishing the mother, its simply not punishing an innocent child. Anything that happens to the mother is just a result of saving that child.

No it's not. Being pregnant isn't a passive action. This is a logical fallacy, and I've already been through this. In both options the mother is doing something. It's not a case of interfering or not, you're interfering either way, either to block the mother's choice, or to assist it...
You say its not passive, and then a few sentences later you say "its a case of interfering or not". That's my point. Its either interfere (take an action) or not interfere (not take an action). In one case it is taking an action, in the other it is just not taking that action.

#

Humans are natural, anything we choose to do is the natural thing.
I mean you can probably spin it that way based on how you define natural. By natural I mean the instinctive thing conducive to human flourishing, including biological and mental reflexes/natural behaviors. To starve yourself isn't natural, in the sense that it is normal, and a result that you are biologically designed for, but people still do it. So I was referring to "not going out of your way, not going outside of the natural course of events", not like natural as in "the product of earth; opposite of synthetic".

I agree, except for in one specific circumstance. That circumstance is where the only choices are between punishing one human or another, where there is no better option that doesn't involve punishing a human unfairly.
Those aren't the choices. The mother being "punished" is a result of the action of not murdering the child. The mother not suffering is a result of choosing to murder the child.
The actual choices are:
1. Murder the child (the result of this will be the mother suffers less)
2. Do not murder the child (the result of this may be that the mother will suffer"
Hopefully explaining it like that should make it more clear what I mean. Do you see why I'm saying one is passive and one is not? What you say that the mothers choose is really just the result of murdering the child (Number 1). Not punishing a person isn't the same as punishing another person. Saving the child isn't actively punishing the mother, but the mother may face negative things as a result of that passive action. Nobody wants the mother to suffer, they simply want the child to live. Any suffering of the mother is simply an unfortunate, but necessary, byproduct of that.

#

We're talking about sex in the specific case of unwanted pregnancy. It has never been possible for the human race to avoid sex that produces unwanted pregnancies. Therefore, until we can demonstrate that we can avoid unwanted pregnancies, it's clearly not possible to avoid creating unwanted pregnancies.
You're looking at this completely wrong. When talking about an individual mother, it is possible for her to avoid unwanted pregnancy. In fact, most women do avoid unwanted pregnancies all their lives. For each woman with each unwanted baby, it is possible to avoid it (in 99% of cases). The responsibility of avoiding them (even if difficult), is partially on those women. It is individually possible to avoid nearly every unwanted pregnancy. Is it feasible that all women ever and forever will do this? No, which is why we are having this debate to begin with. But the point still stands: In most cases, it is possible for a woman to avoid an unwanted pregnancy.

As best I understand it, you're saying that life always outweighs the suffering of the mother with an unwanted pregnancy. You've claimed that as a rule, and a rule can be disproved by finding an exception. I've shown exceptions, which prove that life does not always outweigh the suffering of the mother.
I didn't see any of the exceptions you mentioned regarding pregnancy. I have already said that in the case of the life of the mother, abortion may be an option. And also, I never said it was a hard and fast rule. But it does apply most pregnancies.

You made a claim about a universal principle, and I disproved it. It's always easier to disprove a principle than prove it, that's just how logic works.
I must have missed these exceptions you mentioned. In the specific case of pregnancy what suffering did you mention that I have said outweighs it?

#

a) You just go to a doctor.
Yes and then the doctor uses the precise technology. It does seem that my wording was unclear, I meant to have meticulous describe the doctor's procedure. That was a typo, apologies.

b) "one of the most common methods" means less than 1% in this context.
I can't find the exact statistic, but even if I go with your 1% number, that translates to something like 1 million babies killed that way per year.

Nobody's disputing that. But the same applies to the woman as well. She is also not deserving of any punishment. Certainly not the level of punishment involved in being forced to be pregnant against her will.
And here is where my point about the suffering being a result of that. The options are actively punish a child by murdering it, or not do that, in which case the mother suffers less. So not allowing abortion is not actively punishing the mother, but suffering may result from it. Allowing abortion does actively inflicting harming the baby. The procedure is geared towards ending the babies life. Not having an abortion isn't geared towards anything (other than saving the child I guess). Saving the child is not a result of doing some operation to punish the mother.

It is possible to hold someone accountable for their mistakes, but it's generally not a good idea to punish people for making a mistake...
I think I've explained enough how it isn't punishment in my writing above. If the mother suffers as a result of saving a child, that is just an unfortunate, unintended result. Oxford defines punishment as this:
the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense.
Not killing the child is not imposing a penalty. In fact, it isn't imposing anything at all. Murdering the child actively imposes death on the child, to lesson the mother's suffering. Not murdering the child is not actively imposing anything on either the mother or the child. Its just not actively imposing anything.

#

I'm never going to agree with that. I don't see how anyone can agree with that without ignoring the existence of a pregnancy. Being pregnant is very much an active thing, it's not something you can just ignore and go about your normal life with.
So hopefully we are just interpreting active to mean different things. If you are pregnant, and just pretty much follow what your body demands for your self-preservation as usual, the pregnancy will be fine. Having an abortion is going out of your way to end the natural process you are going through. Pregnancy is following the natural process. When I say abortion is actively imposing something, I mean it is intentionally ending a process that would naturally be fine and successful in preserving life, and that a pregnant person would naturally succeed in. Abortion goes out of the way to destroy something, pregnancy is passively going with the natural flow of things.

There is no such thing as a passive choice for the woman.
That may be true, but keeping a pregnancy isn't a choice, its just not choosing to end it. Abortion makes a choice to destroy it, when someone "chooses to carry the pregnancy" that really means they didn't choose to end it.

No, I'm not at all ignoring the embryo. I'm just saying that the suffering of the woman can sometimes outweigh the needs of the embryo.
So would you impose limits on abortion? Or should it be available up until the moment of birth? Because I'd be curious to hear at what point it is just flat out murder.

#

If so (and you say it should be available until birth), whats the difference between that pre-born baby and an 11-monnth-old infant? If a child will cause so many problems for the mother post-birth, why can't mothers kill there children now? After all, they may cause suffering to the mother. Maybe the mother is mentally unstable each second her child is alive. Is it ok to kill this child just because of this mental suffering? Say your ex is causing you tremendous mental suffering just by existing. Say its so unbearable, you may be suicidal. Say this will last your whole life. Does this amount of tremendous, excruciating suffering give people the right to kill those who make them suffer. If not, why? What distinguishes it from a child a week away from birth? They both cause extreme suffering? I'd be extremely interested to hear your take on all that.

No we're not. I've already proven that the suffering of the woman can...
I addressed this earlier and this is ultimately just something we fundamentally disagree on.

dim sable
# high spire > I agree, but my point is that the way people act in emotionally charged situat...

I'm not saying its necessarily easy, all I'm saying is a decision was made (even if under strong emotion), that led to the child (in 99% of cases). I'm not saying its easy to avoid, but actions have consequences (intended or not). We shouldn't make the baby take on the full consequence of the mothers actions (even if she only had some control over them).

I'm pointing out that what it is isn't punishing the mother, it is just not punishing the child. The mother may face negative events because of not aborting the child, but its not actively punishing the mother, its simply not punishing an innocent child. Anything that happens to the mother is just a result of saving that child.
I don't think we are making the baby take on the consequences of the mother's actions with an abortion. A baby is always affected by the mother's actions, whether we allow the abortion or not, there is no way for it to not be. We can't separate the baby out of the equation, just like we can't separate the mother. We're not making the choice to do that, biology made the choice already. They are two beings that both have to be considered in this situation, and there is no reason to prioritise one over the other.

You say its not passive, and then a few sentences later you say "its a case of interfering or not". That's my point. Its either interfere (take an action) or not interfere (not take an action). In one case it is taking an action, in the other it is just not taking that action.
I think you maybe misread what I wrote there, or maybe I wasn't clear in other parts. I was trying to say explicitly that a decision about abortion is not a choice between interfering or not interfering. Either way the woman has to actively do something (carrying a pregnancy or getting an abortion are both active), and as a third party society is either actively preventing her doing that, or actively providing the resources necessary. Everyone's active in that situation.

dim sable
# high spire > Humans are natural, anything we choose to do is the natural thing. I mean you...

By natural I mean the instinctive thing conducive to human flourishing, including biological and mental reflexes/natural behaviors.
That's also what I mean. Human rational thoughts are also natural, biological behaviours conducive to human flourishing. Our ability to think ahead and take an active role in how events plan out is one of the things that makes us human. There's nothing that we can do that would be outside the natural course of events. Trying to refer only to emotions doesn't make anything more natural, and certainly doesn't make anything better. On the contrary, trying to ignore or disregard human thoughts or any human capabilities is both less natural, and leads to worse decisions being made.

Saving the child isn't actively punishing the mother, but the mother may face negative things as a result of that passive action. Nobody wants the mother to suffer, they simply want the child to live. Any suffering of the mother is simply an unfortunate, but necessary, byproduct of that.
We can't claim not to be responsible for the outcomes of events that we can control, and we can't pretend that we don't know about some of the other consequences of our choices. We have two options which each have a range of consequences, and we can decide which of those happens. Everything's a result of what we choose, it doesn't matter if we think of it as a side effect or not, it is still a result we need to place on the balance.

There is no reason not to consider the suffering of the woman when deciding whether the abortion should go ahead. It's an inescapable outcome of one or maybe both of the choices.

dim sable
# high spire > We're talking about sex in the specific case of unwanted pregnancy. It has nev...

You're looking at this completely wrong. When talking about an individual mother, it is possible for her to avoid unwanted pregnancy. In fact, most women do avoid unwanted pregnancies all their lives. For each woman with each unwanted baby, it is possible to avoid it (in 99% of cases).
My point, and the important point here, is that it's not possible for everyone to avoid. Some women are in situations where they can, yes, but there are demonstrably many women who clearly cannot avoid it.
No woman wants an unwanted pregnancy, by definition. It's not like there are some women not trying to avoid them. All women are already trying to avoid them, inarguably, by definition. Every woman with an unwanted pregnancy was trying to avoid it, and failed. Their existence is inescapable proof that it's not possible for everyone to avoid it.

I didn't see any of the exceptions you mentioned regarding pregnancy. I have already said that in the case of the life of the mother, abortion may be an option. And also, I never said it was a hard and fast rule. But it does apply most pregnancies.
I don't consider the life of an embryo to be in some way more valuable than any other human life. So I do consider that when a woman commits suicide because she is pregnant, that is her clearly demonstrating that a human life (hers) is less important than the suffering she is going through in her pregnancy. These suicides don't just exist, suicide is in fact the biggest killer of pregnant women, and so I don't think it is remotely possible to argue that this choice doesn't exist or isn't reflective of reality for women. It is demonstrably and inescapably true that the suffering a woman experiences in pregnancy can outweigh a human life.

If you accept that basic truth, and value the life of the mother and the embryo the same, then the only obstacle in the way of abortion is how to make the decision about whether the suffering in a particular situation does in fact outweigh a human life.

dim sable
# high spire > a) You just go to a doctor. Yes and then the doctor uses the precise technolog...

So not allowing abortion is not actively punishing the mother, but suffering may result from it.

If the mother suffers as a result of saving a child, that is just an unfortunate, unintended result.
There's no worthwhile distinction between 'actively punishing' and 'doing something that results in harm'. You can't claim that punishing the woman isn't an intended result when you know that it will happen. It has to be considered as part of the weighing up.
You can't just look at one of the consequences and say that's the only part that matters. You always have to consider the whole situation, and all of the effects.
Both the death of the embryo and the suffering of the woman are caused intentionally by those respective choices.

Pregnancy is following the natural process.
That may be true, but keeping a pregnancy isn't a choice, its just not choosing to end it.
No. That's not true, as I've already said above. The desire for an abortion is also a natural response to an unwanted pregnancy. Of course it is a choice to keep a pregnancy, when another option exists.
There is no valid "natural" or "passive" argument to be made here.

So would you impose limits on abortion? Or should it be available up until the moment of birth? Because I'd be curious to hear at what point it is just flat out murder.
Yes.
There's no point where an abortion is just flat out murder, because there is always a lot more to the situation than just a person being killed. But, just because it's not flat out murder doesn't mean it's not still wrong in some circumstances.

I would limit it to only those circumstances where all of the suffering for the mother (and potentially other people, let's not forget) that results from keeping the pregnancy, outweighs the cost of a human life and whatever suffering that might result from an abortion. That basic equation for finding the answer remains the same, even when some of values within the equation get larger or smaller.

dim sable
# high spire --- If so (and you say it should be available until birth), whats the differenc...

I'll try and answer all of these questions.

whats the difference between that pre-born baby and an 11-monnth-old infant?
At the very least, there are differences in consciousness of the baby, and differences in the levels of attachment that others form to the baby once they can see it themselves. Consciousness affects the degree to which the baby can experience suffering itself, which for a decision that is hugely affected by the levels of suffering people will experience, becomes very important very quickly.

If a child will cause so many problems for the mother post-birth, why can't mothers kill there children now?
Because those differences I mentioned above are important. But, it should be noted, parents do have the ability to end the lives of their children in certain medical circumstances even after they are born, in the case of medical conditions that are likely to result in continual suffering that outweighs the value of their lives, when the child is not capable of making an informed choice themselves.

Say your ex is causing you tremendous mental suffering just by existing. Say its so unbearable, you may be suicidal. Say this will last your whole life. Does this amount of tremendous, excruciating suffering give people the right to kill those who make them suffer. If not, why?
That situation doesn't exist as a result of that cause. There is no scenario where a person's existence can cause you intense suffering with no other solution than for them to be killed.
The closest one I can think of is if someone has imprisoned you and is torturing you without end, and the only way to escape involves killing them. Then yes, you're justified in killing them to end that suffering.

latent vapor
#

So human cells dont make a human? I mean if your definition is just a human that had the ability to do more things then other humans then go aheead, my definition is human DNA as you know it develops into a fully grown human. Adding time restraints onto it is just making an argument that humans only become humans when they start looking like everyother human. We have laws based on age because we know they are less mentally developed, that doesnt make them less human. If I see a dead human body, its still a human, it just is a dead human.

verbal coral
# latent vapor So human cells dont make a human? I mean if your definition is just a human that...

We have laws based on age because we know they are less mentally developed, that doesnt make them less human.
Yeah, I fully agree. If they didn't have a brain, that would make them less human, though, don't you think?

If I see a dead human body, its still a human, it just is a dead human.
Yet we treat a living human far differently from a dead one. Most notably: you cannot murder someone who is already dead. The question at which point a collection of living cells legally constitutes a living human still remains.

So human cells dont make a human? I mean if your definition is just a human that had the ability to do more things then other humans then go aheead, my definition is human DNA as you know it develops into a fully grown human. Adding time restraints onto it is just making an argument that humans only become humans when they start looking like everyother human.

I dislike repeating myself, so I'll just draw the bottom line here that we can both probably be happy with:
Your position is, that potential has to be protected in the same or at least very similar way as actuated potential. If not generally, than at least for the case of a developing human.
My position is, that potential alone is worth far less than already actuated potential, therefore protecting them in the same way is unwarranted.
This is a fundamental difference in our worldview. Neither of us is likely to budge from their position on abortion because of that. Therefore, we have no choice but to eventually respectfully disagree with the others position.

safe mica
#

The side effects of valuing potential life less than actuated potential are rather severe for society. It's the same consequences as deciding that women don't need to be protected any more than men, or that the elderly don't deserve any extra respect compared to anyone else. The consequences are very significant, but sometimes subtle and difficult to see.

verbal coral
#

If there is something concrete that you want to say about my way of seeing things, be my guest. The examples you gave really only confuse me, though. Especially the example of elderly deserving no extra respect confuses me significantly: they have have a lifetime worth of experience which younger people simply lack. That alone makes them deserve more respect. But this is a prime example of actuated potential being worth more than raw potential. Aren't we just on the same page here?

safe mica
#

I'll try to be more specific. I was giving examples of things that current society doesn't value that have significant consequences. I wasn't saying you don't value the elderly, I was saying society doesn't, to its detriment. I wasn't saying you don't value protecting women, I was saying society doesn't, to its detriment. In the same way as the other two, not valuing "potential" life in the form of an unborn child is detrimental to society.

It's not just the potential life that is valuable. Society holding life sacred is a valuable thing. That value is lost when potential life is valued less. A society that treats "potential" life with the same care as "actuated" life will behave in ways that are healthier for society.

cosmic sedge
#

While I may regret dipping my toe in here, which is the main reason I haven't contributed before, I do have thoughts, given the length of arguing I have no idea if any of this is a rehash or not.

When it comes to being pro-choice, I believe there are two main reasons in favor.

First, if you make abortions illegal, you don't actually stop abortions, you just punish people for having or doing them, and you make them unsafe, thus more likely to kill BOTH parent and child.

And second, there will always be valid exceptions for why a pregnancy is a terrible idea, be it genetic deficiency or merely that the mother will not survive to term and thus kill both, I personally believe there are others, but at that point we are delving into pure opinion and that just devolves into screaming. The fact these exceptions exist means that you cannot make a law concise enough to NOT prevent otherwise reasonable objections, and you will kill innocent people, and it doesn't matter if the rate you kill them is .02%, covid has demonstrated that that will still represent hundreds of thousands of deaths over the course of a less than a year, and while that number will eventually go down, it will only be because the number of woman able to carry children will have diminished by an appreciable percentage. The simple mathematical logic is if you want the largest number of living persons, you want abortions, because on a long enough time scale it will kill fewer people.

Now I have emotional and opinion based reasons as well, but again, those aren't something you can defend as easily.

safe mica
# cosmic sedge While I may regret dipping my toe in here, which is the main reason I haven't co...

  1. Making abortions illegal absolutely reduces the number of abortions being carried out, by a very large number. The simplest evidence of this is the rise in the number of abortions carried out over time, and how that has changed as it has been made illegal or legal. There's very little evidence to support that people will just keep getting them. The number of illegal abortions certainly rise if they are illegal, but the total number drops significantly.

  2. You are more likely to die after having an abortion than you are after giving birth.

  3. Every abortion law has provisions that allow for necessary medical procedures. There are claims of increased risk from abortions that are forbidden, but this is not because the pregnancy is risky, it's because people believe that abortion is safer than giving birth, and thus any restriction on abortion increases overall risk.

cosmic sedge
# safe mica 1. Making abortions illegal absolutely reduces the number of abortions being car...

I don't believe either of those first two points without evidence, yes, abortions can increase likelihood of death, so does giving birth

As to point three A) there will always be exceptions that either crop up after, or weren't thought of before that aren't included, and B) there are many groups who would do away with those exceptions if they could, evidenced by a number of states trying since the supreme court overturn.

#

to clarify on point A, yes since availability of abortions has increase, so to has the number happening, in the same way that divorce rate rose when it became legal.

#

In the end yes, some people will misuse them, but you can't punish everybody because some people are stupid.

safe mica
cosmic sedge
# safe mica 3. There are no groups attempting to do away with medical exemptions. That's som...

https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/six-months-post-roe-24-us-states-have-banned-abortion-or-are-likely-do-so-roundup

While it mentions most states still have exceptions, the fact that is only because other laws were overturned proves the exsistance of groups with authority who would do away with all exceptions if they could.

But in your defense, You can't punish everybody because some people are stupid.

Guttmacher Institute
Six Months Post-Roe, 24 US States Have Banned Abortion or Are Likel...
safe mica
#

That doesn't constitute proof at all. Your argument is not supported by what you are presenting.

cosmic sedge
#

I'm sorry you think that. It literally talks about complete bans being overturned past as little as six weeks, and often people don't even know they're pregnant until 3 weeks.

safe mica
#

Every single state is listed as having a "near-total ban" or less. That directly refutes your argument.

#

100% of abortion bans include medical exemptions. I really don't know what you're trying to argue.

#

Show me one state that is trying to do away with medical exemptions. Just one.

cosmic sedge
#

most of those so called excepts are very poorly worded, and I'm sure I could find cases of people denied who will or would die.

safe mica
#

Find the cases.

#

You'll find cases of poorly informed doctors refusing to perform an abortion. That's not the same as the state actually forbidding it.

cosmic sedge
safe mica
#

Yep, that's just like down syndrome. Not medically necessary. Next.

cosmic sedge
#

"Last Tuesday, Cox, 31, filed a historic lawsuit, asking the courts to allow her to terminate her pregnancy after she learned her fetus had full trisomy 18, a lethal fetal anomaly. The lawsuit, brought by the Center for Reproductive Rights, said continuing the pregnancy posed a threat to Cox’s health and future fertility, but her doctors refused to perform an abortion due to the state’s near-total ban on the procedure."

Direct quote

#

I think the idea of calling doctors poorly informed about what's lethal or not is delusional. Apologies if you feel that oversteps my bounds. But if you persist I cannot reasonably contiune this conversation.

safe mica
#

There's nothing about that condition that makes it inherently necessary to have an abortion. Trisomy 18, while worse than down's, is not specifically dangerous for the mother in ways that require abortion. Additionally, those children born with the condition do have the possibility of surviving.

#

I've looked into it. There are many doctors who would argue against what her lawyers are saying.

#

At the end of the day, it's not doctors against politicians. It's doctors contradicting doctors.

#

The arguments for automatically terminating trisomy 18 could largely be applied to downs.

cosmic sedge
#

people will argue about anything, if YOUR doctor tells you a thing, it's in your best interest to listen. Sure they CAN be wrong, they're human. Your default should still be to follow their recomendation.

safe mica
#

Okay... but we're still back to the fact that Texas has medical exemptions, and the one you're arguing is one that many, many doctors would disagree with.

cosmic sedge
#

her doctor said it was lethal to her

#

and her baby

safe mica
#

No he didn't

cosmic sedge
#

no- other doctors disagreed

safe mica
#

That's not what the article says.

#

"posed a threat to Cox's health and future fertility" in no way shape or form says "would be lethal for Cox"

cosmic sedge
#

The Texas Supreme Court also heard arguments in late November in Zurawski v. Texas, in which 20 women allege they were denied medical care for their complicated pregnancies as a result of the state’s abortion laws. In both suits, the Center for Reproductive Rights has argued that doctors must be allowed to exercise their medical judgement and perform abortions when their “good faith belief” is that the procedure is necessary. The law says doctors must instead exercise “reasonable medical judgment,” which lawyers for the Center has argued is a vague standard that pushes doctors to wait until a patient is close to death before acting.

#

another quote^

#

and that's just result one of a google search

dim sable
safe mica
# cosmic sedge The Texas Supreme Court also heard arguments in late November in Zurawski v. Tex...

That still really isn't giving any specific evidence. What you have given evidence for is that every single state, without exception, has medical exemptions. Ultimately, the Texas Supreme Court found that this was not a matter of medical necessity, similar to many other tragic conditions that can affect an unborn child. Many, many doctors are strongly in favor of abortion under any circumstances. Many have been led to believe, as you have, that abortion is safer than giving birth, and will thus always advise that course, claiming medical necessity even when there is none. Ultimately, judges have been given the task of deciding between the two. Having looked into the case myself, I agree with the judges. You haven't presented me with any evidence that would make me change my mind.

That, combined with the basic understanding that giving birth to a child is less risk for the mother than aborting the child, leads me to support the decision of the Texas Supreme Court. The more I look into it, the more the evidence directs me towards that. Claims that people want to do away with all exemptions when there is zero evidence of that does not help your case.

cosmic sedge
#

welp, if you're going to continue to use your own stats without evidence as I asked above, and ignore the practicality of listening to ones own medical advisor there's nothing more to discuss with you.

safe mica
#

There's nothing wrong with listening to one's medical advisor, but that doesn't mean that medical professionals don't allow themselves to be affected by politics.

#

Ultimately, they are required to follow the law just like everyone else, and their personal feelings don't exempt them from that.

#

A psychologist believing it will be beneficial to your mental health to abandon your child doesn't suddenly make that something the state should allow.

empty cloud
#

Well in Canada abortion is legal and I don’t think it’s a bad thing.

safe mica
#

I told you I looked into this particular case and that it doesn't fit the bill. If you have a different one, I'm happy to take a look and change my mind. Otherwise, there's little hope of productive conversation.

safe mica
# cosmic sedge welp, if you're going to continue to use your own stats without evidence as I as...

https://medscimonit.com/abstract/index/idArt/883338
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699440/#:~:text=This review explores the relationship,risk of death from childbirth

Short and long term mortality rates associated with first pregnancy...

Background: There is a growing interest in examining death rates associated with different pregnancy outcomes for time periods beyond one year. Previo...

PubMed
Induced Abortion and the Increased Risk of Maternal Mortality - PubMed

In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth. It is difficult to do this comparison in the United States not only because prior induced abortion hist …

#

@cosmic sedge As requested.

cosmic sedge
#

all of those are simply about increased death rate from abortion vs increased death rate of perfectly normal pregnancies. I conceded abortion on it's own can increase death rate- but in a mother that's already more likely to die I can't see how the difference is appreciable.

safe mica
#

This is assuming normal pregnancies.

cosmic sedge
#

in a healthy perfectly normal case, if you're doctor is recommending abortion it doesn't fall under that catergory. As for "normal" pregnancies seeking abortion we come back to "you can't punish everyone because some people are stupid" and we're never gonna agree that there might be reasons beyond medical for why one might want an abortion.

safe mica
#

That doesn't answer the question. Feelings on abortion are seperate.

Risk of death increases if you have an abortion vs giving birth, as these studies show. Do you accept that or not? You can still believe all the same things if you want to. None of that changes unless your beliefs count on the fact that abortion is safer than childbirth.

cosmic sedge
#

medically all I know for certain is even in perfectly healthy people, you can die from it. If the numbers say that's less likely if you carry to term then we come to opinions and that's not worth arguing. I concede that I don't have to patience to more than skim the research you provided, because none of this is relavent to me, but I had opnions and I listed them. I still feel it's not reasonable to depend on legislation to protect medically needed abortions, but that's also opinion we could go back and forth on to no effect. The evidence I provided that some people do want women to carry to term even at risk of death should be enough, but I will conceed only as I said before, that you can't punish all people because some are stupid, which works both ways, including in your favor.

safe mica
#

It's very relevant to me if we're wrongly increasing someone's risk of death in the name of medical necessity. So it needs to actually be medically necessary if that is the reason given.

That hasn't really been part of the conversation that I typically see on abortion.

cosmic sedge
#

I think if you're doctor thinks the risk is severe enough to advise it, that should be more than good enough- and for now that's (mostly) legally protected (with a giant asterisk) but there are people trying to interfere with that. For now they're enough of a minority, but I greatly fear the day that stops being the case.

I don't see that as wrongly, even if the doctor turns out to later be wrong in his recommendation. It's unfortunate, but the alternative is second guessing every doctor all the time, and that just makes things take longer. Which in cases where the pregnancy isn't viable, can be critical.

safe mica
# cosmic sedge I think if you're doctor thinks the risk is severe enough to advise it, that sho...

I think I would disagree that that's good enough, and so would almost 25 states. If unborn life is worth protecting, then it's worth having laws in place to protect it. You're using edge cases to argue when you're really in favor of abortion in non-edge cases. Unless you're willing to say that it's reasonable to forbid abortion in cases where there's nothing wrong with mother or child, then there's no reason to translate everything I say into an edge case. That's not what you actually think, so why not be honest about it?

cosmic sedge
#

I'm admitting that if we're only talking edge cases than things are mostly (again big asterisk) okay for now, though I'm terrified every day that it looks anecdotally to be going toward the other direction. Aside from that, yes, we disagree about there being non-medical reasons why one would have an abortion.

#

I also believe there will always be people who will seek abortion, and if they can't have it legally they will do so otherwise, so why kill a mother by denying her access to safe routes. But that is also opinion.

safe mica
#

There are plenty of reasons why people might want an abortion that have nothing to do with medical reasons. That is by far, not even close, the majority of abortions.

I have no idea why you'd be worried about medical exemptions going away when that's happened in zero percent of states who are in favor of banning as much abortion as possible, but everyone has their own things they're worried about, so I can respect that.

#

It is true that some people will seek abortion whether it's legal or not. It is also true that many will not seek an abortion if it is illegal. Additionally, abortion clinics cease to offer services where it is not legal, meaning it will be left to hospitals to offer them, which they would only do for reasons of medical necessity. So if it were illegal to abort a perfectly healthy child, many women simply wouldn't find a way to get an abortion even if they wanted it. In other words, I reject the thought that abortions will happen regardless in most cases. I think they will happen in some cases if illegal, and that in most cases they won't happen when not medically necessary.

high spire
# dim sable > I'm not saying its necessarily easy, all I'm saying is a decision was made (ev...

Alright I'm back, sorry for the delayed response.

I don't think we are making the baby take on the consequences of the mother's actions with an abortion. A baby is always affected by the mother's actions, whether we allow the abortion or not, there is no way for it to not be. We can't separate the baby out of the equation, just like we can't separate the mother. We're not making the choice to do that, biology made the choice already. They are two beings that both have to be considered in this situation, and there is no reason to prioritise one over the other.
If a baby dies because of the mother's actions, mothers will be charged with murder, neglect, involuntary manslaughter etc... So yes, the mother is still responsible for what happens to the child. When it comes to mother's temporary wellbeing or life of the child, we should prioritize the child. For example: a mother might save money and gain financially if she doesn't feed her child. She still is (and should be) held legally accountable for this. Killing your child for your own gain should not be allowed. Is there not reason to prioritize innocent human life over money and feelings.

#

I think you maybe misread what I wrote there, or maybe I wasn't clear in other parts. I was trying to say explicitly that a decision about abortion is not a choice between interfering or not interfering. Either way the woman has to actively do something (carrying a pregnancy or getting an abortion are both active), and as a third party society is either actively preventing her doing that, or actively providing the resources necessary. Everyone's active in that situation.
So ultimately we can boil this down to a binary of two "choices"

  1. carry the pregnancy
  2. abort the pregnancy
    Option 1 is the passive, natural action. The only "activeness" required for this is simply living the nature course of what life and instincts prompt. Option 2 is disrupting the passive process (option 1) that will naturally occur UNLESS option 2 occurs. Option 1 doesn't disrupt option 2, because option 2 is an additional ACTIVE step. Do you not see the distinction in that number 1 does not naturally disrupt 2, but 2 naturally and forcibly and intentionally disrupts option 1 (along with murdering an innocent human child)? There is a very clear distinction there. The goal of 2 is to end 1, actively. The goal of 1 is not to end 2, it just means 2 does not actively occur.

That's also what I mean. Human rational thoughts are also natural, biological behaviours conducive to human flourishing. Our ability to think ahead and take an active role in how events plan out is one of the things that makes us human...
All of this is explained above.

#

We can't claim not to be responsible for the outcomes of events that we can control, and we can't pretend that we don't know about some of the other consequences of our choices. We have two options which each have a range of consequences, and we can decide which of those happens. Everything's a result of what we choose, it doesn't matter if we think of it as a side effect or not, it is still a result we need to place on the balance.
I'm not sure what the barrier is that is blocking what I am saying here. Perhaps I'm unclear, or not communicated effectively. Of course all actions have consequences, but it makes a huge difference whether that action directly an intentionally ends a human life, or if the action indirectly naturally, and unintentionally has an effect on something. Abortion's active, intentional, and only goal/result is to murder the child. That's the point of the procedure. there may be some byproducts that occur, but only because of the action of intentionally murdering the child. The point of carrying a pregnancy isn't to cause the mother pain (be it mentally, physically, or financially.) The point is to preserve the child's life.

For example, when we pass a law that says vehicles must yield the right-of-way to pedestrians, the point of that law is not to force vehicles to stop, and to waste the driver's time. The point is to protect pedestrians. Everyone agrees wasting driver's time is a bad thing, but it is necessary to protect pedestrians. If there was a way to protect pedestrians and save driver's time, obviously we would pass a law utilizing that. But there isn't. Sometimes unfortunate things result from good things. But this radical idea that we should run over pedestrians to save time is ridiculous, and I see it as effectively equivocal to the pro-abortion argument. Good ends are not justified by immoral means.

#

My point, and the important point here, is that it's not possible for everyone to avoid. Some women are in situations where they can, yes, but there are demonstrably many women who clearly cannot avoid it.
But by that you just mean it is more difficult to avoid it. I think that if we didn't live in a society where promiscuous sex was running rampant, this wouldn't be much of a problem to begin with. So I think the answer is just to get married and have kids. But considering the current state of society, this may be the case. It is still the woman's previous choices that resulted in the current situation. All of that aside, I would say its still not unreasonable to say that a baby should not have to suffer the consequences of a woman having a cloudy mind and making an irrational decision.

No woman wants an unwanted pregnancy, by definition. It's not like there are some women not trying to avoid them. All women are already trying to avoid them, inarguably, by definition. Every woman with an unwanted pregnancy was trying to avoid it, and failed. Their existence is inescapable proof that it's not possible for everyone to avoid it.
Well the question really is logical possibility versus reasonable feasibility. Is it possible that in every individual situation a woman could without an unreasonable amount of difficulty avoid pregnancy? Yes. Is that feasible? No. But abortion cases are individual. Thats like saying theft is inevitable in society, and so we can't blame thieves for stealing, since its an inevitable factor of society.

#

I don't consider the life of an embryo to be in some way more valuable than any other human life. So I do consider that when a woman commits suicide because she is pregnant, that is her clearly demonstrating that a human life (hers) is less important than the suffering she is going through in her pregnancy. These suicides don't just exist, suicide is in fact the biggest killer of pregnant women, and so I don't think it is remotely possible to argue that this choice doesn't exist or isn't reflective of reality for women. It is demonstrably and inescapably true that the suffering a woman experiences in pregnancy can outweigh a human life.
So a few things

  1. The woman won't die unless she has an abortion in 99% of cases. The child will die in 100% of abortions. So even if you weigh them to be the same, your point still is invalid.
  2. Of course an innocent life, or the life of a young child should be valued higher than that of a serial killer. Or of Hitler, or Putin, or [insert awful terrible person]. So innocence and youth does definitely play a role in determining "value", not there there is an easy-to-follow scale for such a thing.
  3. How much suffering, is my question? I would love to hear your scale for this. If a woman says she just doesn't want to pay for the child, is that enough? Maybe she's rich, and she just doesn't want to be embarrassed for having an unplanned pregnancy, is that enough? Curious on how you figure that out. Obviously a woman could just go in and make up a fake scenario, when really she just wants the child to be a different sex, or not have down syndrome, or something else stupid. So should there be no say or defense for that human life?

If you accept that basic truth, and value the life of the mother and the embryo the same, then the only obstacle in the way of abortion is how to make the decision about whether the suffering in a particular situation does in fact outweigh a human life.
Please explain these situations.

#

There's no worthwhile distinction between 'actively punishing' and 'doing something that results in harm'. You can't claim that punishing the woman isn't an intended result when you know that it will happen. It has to be considered as part of the weighing up. You can't just look at one of the consequences and say that's the only part that matters. You always have to consider the whole situation, and all of the effects. Both the death of the embryo and the suffering of the woman are caused intentionally by those respective choices.
Incorrect. The suffering of the woman is not intentional. While we may know that it will happen, the goal was not to cause it. It is a truly unfortunate result of saving the child's life. Knowing it will happen is very different than intentionally causing it. You don't kill a baby and say, "oops thats just an unfortunate result of poisoning the baby" because that is the intention.

No. That's not true, as I've already said above. The desire for an abortion is also a natural response to an unwanted pregnancy. Of course it is a choice to keep a pregnancy, when another option exists.
You once again interpret natural wrong. I don't mean natural as in "a natural being did it, there for it is a natural action" I mean natural more as in regarding less interference, less intervention, less action.

Yes.
There's no point where an abortion is just flat out murder, because there is always a lot more to the situation than just a person being killed. But, just because it's not flat out murder doesn't mean it's not still wrong in some circumstances.
I'm glad to hear this, and would just ask you what you think to be a fair limit.

#

I would limit it to only those circumstances where all of the suffering for the mother (and potentially other people, let's not forget) that results from keeping the pregnancy, outweighs the cost of a human life and whatever suffering that might result from an abortion. That basic equation for finding the answer remains the same, even when some of values within the equation get larger or smaller.
As I said above, what is this equation you use. How do you apply it. Because if the answer is "ask mom" couldn't the mother be wrong, lying, or mistaken. Is there process that needs to occur other than just taking her word at face value?

At the very least, there are differences in consciousness of the baby, and differences in the levels of attachment that others form to the baby once they can see it themselves. Consciousness affects the degree to which the baby can experience suffering itself, which for a decision that is hugely affected by the levels of suffering people will experience, becomes very important very quickly.
People in a coma are unconscious. So putting everything aside but life versus non-life, are people in comas non-living, and non-valuable?

But, it should be noted, parents do have the ability to end the lives of their children in certain medical circumstances even after they are born, in the case of medical conditions that are likely to result in continual suffering that outweighs the value of their lives, when the child is not capable of making an informed choice themselves.
Well the obvious, easy answer to this is what if the child (or baby) is perfectly healthy? Should they still be able to kill that child?

#

That situation doesn't exist as a result of that cause. There is no scenario where a person's existence can cause you intense suffering with no other solution than for them to be killed.
99% of abortions are this way also. Isn't mental health consoling for mothers more reasonable than just killing the problem? Isn't adoption a more reasonable answer to financial problems than murder. Why not? I'm all for supporting mothers. Especially in situation where the father is gone, and when they feel mentally incapable of carrying the child. I'm also all for preserving innocent life. I think we should focus are resources, be it medically, financially, or politically speaking toward things like consoling, adoption, or financial aid to mothers, instead of infanticide.

#

Again, thanks for waiting and sorry for taking so long.

high spire
# cosmic sedge https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/six-months-post-roe-24-us-states-have-banned-...

So this is a very easy point to refute. Murder is illegal. Murder still happens. Individual murders are probably even more brutal because it is harder to do, because it is illegal. 73 million abortions happen per year. So assuming for the sake of this point that unborn babies are human life, thats 73 MILLION lives saved. That will mean some crazies may still try it themselves; maybe this results in only 72 million lives saved. Thats still 72 million. The point of law is to disincentivize generally bad things, and to incentivize generally good things. Of course evil will persist, and of course lawlessness will persist, but this idea that we need to facilitate evil and lawlessness in order to make it "safer" for the lawbreakers and evildoers is quite insane.

As I said above, that's like saying we should legalize theft because it will definitely happen anyways.

safe mica
#

The fact that people incorrectly believe abortion is less risk to the mother than giving birth is why so many argue in favor of abortion rights. If they actually understood that the opposite was true, and that promoting abortion was increasing risk to women rather than reducing it, then you'd have a much different conversation.

So to whomever needs to hear it and didn't know it, your chances of death are greater after having an abortion than after giving birth. If anyone is arguing for an equation, that should be part of it.

cosmic sedge
#

actually I just walked away because the conversation veered into territory no one is going to change anyone's mind on which I had been delicately avoiding for just such reason. And's it's not worth aggravating my anxiety on. But prior to that it was at least moderately interesting to discuss it mostly rationally. I do thank you falcon for staying on the topics we had been focusing on. I definitely don't agree with you on much beyond the points I admitted to conceding, but it otherwise an enjoyable take on the conversation for once.

proper ingot
#

That explains everything 👆

sand ice
#

Lol

#

Pings me to say that

proper ingot
#

Yeah… and I think it’s too bad. If a stranger was drowning and you had the ability to save him, would you do it?

sand ice
#

That's a stupid question.

#

I don't ascribe to the 'great man of history' theory

#

I'm much more collective and/or uniting in my thinking

#

Our culture and economy tends to encourage us to think of ourselves as separate discrete individuals

#

Which makes us obedient production and consumption engines.

#

But there is very little talk of the fact that every life support source and all of the enjoyment you and I experience is produced by the hands and minds of others.

#

Humanity isn't really a collection of individuals from this point of view

#

So 'any individual human life' doesn't matter much to the big picture

#

And we often suffer as individuals because of systems that arent designed, poorly designed or are exploitative.

proper ingot
#

But doesn’t any individual human life have the potential to do great things? Should that potential be denied?

#

And I still think it’s a good question

sand ice
#

Where it applies to the conversation here is. The law does an exceptionally poor job at regulating behaviour. Our culture does not glorify family as its highest aim. This is an indication that it is a culture in decline.
Something like the law being involved in people's private decisions is another indicator that culture is insufficient.

I would want to live in a world where abortion didn't occur because everyone would understand that each human life created was in service to our highest mutual aim. But the fact that we would even be having the debate about whether or not we need our garbage rules and lawmakers to decide for us is a very strong signal to suggest just how broken our systems are at the moment.

proper ingot
#

Hmmm, interesting take. I think the law actually does a great job at regulation if properly enforced. States with strict laws on crime for example, don’t have much crime as opposed to states that have lackluster laws/enforcement of them. As for our culture, that is only something we can change ourselves, and I think the more reasonable voices and opinions heard, the better

#

Also you say you would want to live in a world where abortion doesn’t occur… a “perfect world.” I think you still feel something for individual human life because why would you say that otherwise? Or at least you recognize that abortion is not without moral qualms

sand ice
#

My thinking isn't utopian in some nonsense hope for a perfect world. I find it helpful to align my actions with the aspiration for the world I would choose to build.

#

Folks tend to assume the law works well which is why we live in a world that is progressively more and more heavily regulated.

#

I assume the opposite that legal regulations must be viewed as a concession to poor quality governance of the society because of some failure in its underlying culture.

#

Since if the solution was simply more rules shouldn't either we achieve that utopia?

#

As far as the focal question of the thread LEGALITY of abortion it comes down to an issue of bodily autonomy. And were I ever to face the experience of becoming pregnant I would take it poorly to presume that any external entity would have anything to say over what I can do with my body.

#

But thankfully the conversation is entirely fictional since I'm a man so it drifts into that nonsense perfect world bullshit you brought up

#

As far as it being morally grey. This is not the purview of this thread but I don't find the idea that anyone else can have a say over my bodily autonomy a very coherent position on moral grounds either.

high spire
#

Yep. I mean admittedly the best way to have a pro-choice stance is just to proclaim human life as very unvaluable. Pete may have some flawed premises but he sure knows how to make a syllogism.

sand ice
#

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Straw man

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted...

high spire
high spire
verbal coral
compact stratus
# verbal coral Well, this is one half of the issue, the other is that the child would presumabl...

I agree with Pete as I believe he is simply stating that abortion should not become illegal.
Pete also said « I would want to live in a world where abortion didn’t occur because everyone would understand that each human life created was in service to our highest mutual aim. »

So I think that clarifies that the woman’s bodily autonomy is not more important than the child’s life. It’s a case by case decision and that decision should not be made illegal.

coral snow
#

its a fetus /baby not a human almost the same putting a dog to sleep (euthanize). not pleasant but when people do it. they have a good reason

high spire
coral snow
#

They havent been born yet eating an egg is also not murder right?

high spire
coral snow
#

Wait you think we are not all animals, we are just a bunch of cells that are capable of moving and stuff. Our bunch of cells is just a little more advanced than most

high spire
#

So we should therefore treat animals and humans on an equal moral and legal scale?

proper ingot
#

Unless you’re just trolling…

coral snow
#

No, im just trying to tell you that fetusses are not humans yet.

#

They also did a studie in the US 1% out of 600. Think they made the wrong decision after 5 years. A little more had just some negative feelings. About the abortion

#

I mean with 1% out of 600 that the studie compelled of 600 woman and just 1%

#

Most abortions happen before 12 weeks. And a beby looks like this after 12 weeks: 5.4cm long from head to bottom, which is about the size of a plum. I dont see this as a human yet

coral snow
safe mica
#

A society loses a lot when it stops valuing human life, especially that of unborn children. It is exceedingly difficult to distinguish between "fetus" (which is just baby in a different language), and small child. At some point, they overlap. If you do not give value to the fetus, then that will quickly bleed over into not valuing pregnancy and children, which is exactly what we are seeing in society.

coral snow
#

No, people who dont want a baby yet opt for abortion. And valeuing life that has never been held high. If you think about all the civial bombings

safe mica
coral snow
#

English is my second language. In nederlands zou dit een stuk makkelijker voor mij zijn

safe mica
#

Ah, fair enough. Sorry, I suppose that was a bit rude of me.

verbal coral
# compact stratus I agree with Pete as I believe he is simply stating that abortion should not bec...

It's not about agreeing or disagreeing, I'd simply like to know more about his position. Making abortion legal without any conditions tied to it implies one of two things:

  1. you are fine with legalizing manslaughter(/murder) if the victim is not yet born
  2. you don't think the legislation for manslaughter(/murder) should apply to unborn humans
    Both positions can be argued for, but both require some justification/reasoning as to why you believe they should apply.
    Pete has only focused on the womans bodily autonomy so far and hasn't made his position regarding this dilemma clear at all, which to me is far more fundamental to the issue of abortion than the question of bodily autonomy, which pretty much everyone should be in agreement over anyways.
sand ice
#

I'd like to remind folks that I didn't start this thread and I think that a bunch of guys who will never be pregnant probably don't have the most intelligent things to say about other people's bodies.

This is not my debate to have nor do I find it particularly interesting or complicated.

verbal coral
sand ice
#

No it's not

#

If you scroll up to the top you'll notice that this thread was not created by me.

#

The only reason I'm back in it is I was pinged back into it.

verbal coral
# sand ice No it's not

This was your stance on the subject originally:

Should abortion be illegal? No absolutely not. That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. End thread
Abortion should always be legal in all cases

This is your stance now:

I think that a bunch of guys who will never be pregnant probably don't have the most intelligent things to say about other people's bodies.
This is not my debate to have

Those are vastly different.

verbal coral
verbal coral
sand ice
#

No they're not. I hold both positions.
Abortion should absolutely be legal in all cases
AND
the conversation here is a massive circle jerk that isn't going to amount to anything because we are neither legislators nor people who can become pregnant.

sand ice
verbal coral
verbal coral
#

That's the thing, I agree that the mother should have a say over their body, absolutely. But who should have a say over the childs body and wellbeing?

sand ice
# verbal coral What is your reasoning for (legally) not viewing the ending of an unborn human l...

I am not a lawyer.
I hold the law in very low regard.
My rationale for this belief is that I have born witness to more and more rules and a paradoxical reduction in the quality of life which leads to a (very anecdotal and oversimplified) conclusion that the vast majority of our rules would be better off enforced socially/culturally rather than legally.

So as far as legal principles are concerned I tend to lean towards a liberty perspective. Something like what Locke spoke about to paraphrase 'ones liberty shall not be infringed upon unless impacting upon the liberty of another'

The anti abortion position does make a case on ethical grounds that at some point the fetus becomes an ethical other from the liberty perspective. The question that leads to is when does the fetus become an ethical other? My view is that determination is up to scientists rather than lawyers or philosophers.

Where the anti abortion position becomes inconsistent to me is: if a person would be willing to design a system to force a mother to carry a child to term that system would also bear the ethical responsibility to that child rather than the mother. So any anti-abortion advocate that is also not personally willing to fully support the children of those who would not choose to have them and be forced to have them is holding an inconsistent position.

#

As far as your second part goes on a pragmatic level men do not possess anything approaching legal equality given their reproductive rights and putting aside the question of how things should be and just focusing on how things are I would imagine this has mostly to do with a very real and unequal biological cost paid by the mother for reproduction.

So as far as the relevance and purview of this medium that's where it ends for me. We are in a philosophy thread and I do find the ethical discussions far more interesting than the legal ones.

vernal lark
verbal coral
# vernal lark for starters you just set a time starting at conception and go from there. 15 we...

I was really only interested in understanding specifically pete's stance on the topic a bit better (which I now at least think that I do). It was never about my own views on the matter. Those I've already stated in this thread (though it's probably a bit hard to find, since it's burried somewhere in between) and they're not too dissimmilar to what you're suggesting here (though far less specific on the exact timeframes).

Generally I've found that viewing these threads as discussions and thus as grounds to argue with/against other people wasn't very fruitful for me. It felt like running in circles pointlessly. Now I'm trying to view them more as a collection of opinions and am only interacting with them, when questions arise (such as in this case).

safe mica
# sand ice I am not a lawyer. I hold the law in very low regard. My rationale for this be...

I don't think I understand your argument. Ethically speaking, there's very little difference between being "forced to carry a child to term" and being forced to raise the child after it is born. In the name of freedom, should you be allowed to let a child die a few days after birth if you decide you don't want it after all? Why do we think it correct to force parents to take responsibility for their children, but wrong to say people should behave responsibly when engaging in behavior that is designed for pregnancy? We have many centers specifically designed for supporting children who are unable to be cared for by their parents. The waiting list for adoption is long. Are you assuming that this isn't the case?

safe mica
#

@sand ice Not interested in giving an actual reply? Just an X?

sand ice
#

I'm not trying to get repinged into this thread. I've said just about everything I care to say so it has become a matter of people not reading what I have wrote.
I've noticed the contributions you make specifically to these philosophy forums and I don't think it's worth my time to engage in refuting constant bad faith and/or fallacious arguments.

#

Abortion is not my hill to die on, since I will never be pregnant. I choose to recuse myself from the conversation of dudes telling women what they're allowed to do with their bodies at this point in time.

safe mica
#

Suit yourself. I happen to think that it's extremely important for men to be a part of a conversation related to fatherhood, whether or not they're the ones who are pregnant. It also seems wrong to insult or belittle those who are interested in that conversation.

vital imp
#

2pac said it the best... "And since a man can't make one
He has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one"

proper ingot
#

That statement makes no sense my friend

vernal lark
#

There definitely should be some kind of paternal abortion procedure where a father is able to financially abort and not be forced to pay child support. Restrictions on this would have to be somewhat similar to an actual abortion for equity, like no late term financial abortions.

vital imp
safe mica
#

The fact that a man is required to pay child support by itself makes it absolutely insane to say men shouldn't be part of the conversation about pregnancy or abortion. Then you add in fatherhood being one of the primary predictors of success, the fact that women are strongly influenced by the support/opinion/values of their partner, that single mothers might still want a relationship with a man later, that fathers have daughters, that many men are researchers studying related topics... It's sheer moral stupidity to think that men ought to be excluded, and frankly a sign of the absolute rejection of logic in our society today.

safe mica
vital imp
#

You are only killing cells during abortion... Its like saying men should stop jerking off because then we murder millions of cells that had the potenital to become life

proper ingot
#

False, a sperm cell can never ever become a human life on its own. Neither can an egg. It is only when the two are joined together that something happens and new life begins to form. Conception is the beginning stage of life, then the life grows and develops before and after birth

noble hound
#

Why does it seem like the correlation between pro lifers and pro guns so high lol. I'll never understand.

safe mica
rough creek
#

I can want to protect my family via other methods than firearms

noble hound
#

You're in this fantasy world where all these women getting abortions are ripping away a future family or something. This has nothing to do with families. This is about women protecting themselves and doing what's best for them.

rough creek
#

“That family” i take to be general, not the specific family that didnt come into existence, which wouldnt make sense.

noble hound
#

Even then.

rough creek
#

So given its general, i can be cool with abortion and also not enjoy people being shot

#

Oh being shot here is an example of caring about protecting a family (or more generally people)

#

Family unit or not idc

safe mica
#

And when I say "protect," I mean taking personal responsibility for that protection.

rough creek
#

So then... biology will dictate that I won't feel the need to use firearms in order to defend my family that I grew up with?

#

Oddly specific

#

Accurate though, I guess. You're certainly correct that I don't feel a pressing need to purchase a firearm

vital imp
# proper ingot False, a sperm cell can never ever become a human life on its own. Neither can a...

Its basically a parasite that is legal to remove in early stages. And when it grows in a few weeks, then it becomes illegal. Then it will eventually come out, and you can dress it up in clothes, and have a responsibility for it. Its nice to have the oppertunity to remove it.
Trust me, Im pro-life. If we make it illegal to even remove it in the early stages, then women will do unsafe removal at home with risk of dying. Even when they go through it, they end up in jail. It means in worst case scenario: two lives goes away. Best case, one life goes away, but the female end up in jail.
Having abortion as a medical procedure save lifes

proper ingot
#

I cannot trust that you are pro-life when you describe a human being in the earliest stage of life as a parasite

verbal coral
rough creek
proper ingot
#

I think he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be pro-life

rough creek
#

If you don't then fair ball

verbal coral
#

His point still stands, however, no matter whether he calls himself. If he believes that abortions save lifes, it's even reasonable to call his position pro-life, even if it's generally a term used to describe something else.

rough creek
#

waiting for pro lifers to admit they're actually pro birthers

proper ingot
#

Well we could talk about how truth is objective, so someone who is misguided on the truth is actually wrong, not right in his own sense

verbal coral
#

ok, now it's truly just a strawman. That's just sad.

rough creek
#

cannon or myself

verbal coral
#

sorry, cannon

#

should have used a reply, I guess

proper ingot
#

Ok, but humans aren't parasites lol

rough creek
#

idk have you seen the rich

#

writing a book there kagamul? lol

verbal coral
# proper ingot Ok, but humans aren't parasites lol

Grown humans aren't, that's true. A fetus on the other hand meets all the criteria to count as a parasite, since it leeches of it's host without giving anything in return. Also there is the issue of deciding at what point a fetus should be treated as a human. Or at what point it turns into an "ethical other", as Pete put it.

But more importantly: this is yet another strawman. I only enganged here, because I thought you might just be tunnelvisioned and missed his actual argument. It's getting clear now that this is not the case. You're just just blowing small aspects of his statement out of proportion as a means of deflection. This is toxic behaviour. As long as that's the case, there is no actual reason to take you seriously and engage in a discussion with you.

verbal coral
rough creek
#

Just playing devil's advocate here since I'm not pro-life

#

Ah sorry drawing away from the point

proper ingot
#

Or how did I?

verbal coral
# rough creek Is there at any point a question of whether or not it's ethical to consider a de...

Well the question is whether or not you feel like potential human life should be treated the same as already developed human life.
If you do, then you won't see it as ethical.
If you don't, then it can be, as removing it could have a net positive outcome for the host/mother.

Personally, I think it's unethical to treat something that isn't capable of feelings, thought or consciousness of any kind (though the presence/absence of the latter is admittedly difficult to proove) as if it was a human, especially if that leads to other people (future mothers that don't want the child) suffering in the process.

rough creek
#

I would only ever support any sort of ban on abortion if and when the state has a robust and functioning system to take care of any kids and adolescents.

#

And secondarily, I think so long as any method of contraception isn't perfect, I support keeping abortions as legal as possible.

verbal coral
rough creek
vital imp
#

If everyone has "right to life" why not force stealing kidneys from people in order to save lifes?

safe mica
safe mica
#

You have a greater risk of death following an abortion compared to giving birth. A lot of people try to be really cute and claim that abortions save lives, when it's the opposite that's true. Giving birth keeps you alive longer, and that effect gets stronger. Each additional time you give birth, your chances of staying alive go up. Each additional time you have an abortion, your risk of death goes up.

verbal coral
# safe mica You have a greater risk of death following an abortion compared to giving birth....

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22270271/
"The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion."
This study used Data from the US from 1998-2005

Slightly more recent study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010782423002445
"In 2020, staying pregnant was 35–39 times deadlier than induced abortion. During 2013–2017, staying pregnant was 32–35 times deadlier than induced abortion."

What are your sources, if I may ask?

PubMed
The comparative safety of legal induced abortion and childbirth in ...

II.

safe mica
#

Sure. So my assertion is different from what your studies address. You're discussing risk of death during abortion vs risk of death during childbirth, rather than your chances of still being alive years later.

#

I'll give you some good studies in a second.

#

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699440/#:~:text=This review explores the relationship,risk of death from childbirth

PubMed
Induced Abortion and the Increased Risk of Maternal Mortality - PubMed

In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth. It is difficult to do this comparison in the United States not only because prior induced abortion hist …

vital imp
#

It is a difference between safe abortion and unsafe abortion. Unsafe abortion is done in countries where abortion is illegal. 22000 females dies every year, and seven million females gets complications associated with unsafe abortion. 45% out of all abortions around the world is unsafe abortion... Having access to proper healthcare where abortion is legal is crucial to save lifes. Forcing females to give birth to unwanted children is destructive. Being born, not having a father, and maybe not a mother will make this life feel unwanted, and not cared for. Having institutions taking care of unwanted children is not a solution. Better to have safe abortions, where adults can decide where and when to raise proper children. Soon we are too many humans populating the planet anyways.

safe mica
rough creek
#

Protecting your family doesn’t necessitate weapons

safe mica
#

A => B doesn't mean not A => not B.

#

That's like the first thing you learn in mathematics.

#

Having a family of your own, not just one you were born into, gives you a biological desire to protect that family, which goes along with wanting the capacity to protect that family.

Not having kids and a wife of your own doesn't mean you don't have the desire to protect your family. But it is different biologically and therefore not as strong.

#

Additionally, it's not the same desire. I want to make sure my family stays safe. I do not feel personal responsibility to ensure their physical safety.

#

If I had a child, I would want to be there, physically, in person, ensuring their safety. I'm not leaving that to some uninterested government agency.

#

Wanting to personally protect something goes hand in hand with wanting the capacity to protect something. Which means you're more likely to want to be strong and more likely to want weapons to be available to you.

lilac pilot
#

Where it fails for me is that if there were less guns overall, that would increase the safety of your family so then why being all pro gun

#

it makes no sense

#

But this is not a gun discussion so we should probably get back on topics

safe mica
lilac pilot
#

I mean, i made my opinion clear about this topic a long time ago

safe mica
#

You're talking about leaving the safety of your family to someone else, while depriving both you and your family of the tools needed to protect themselves.

lilac pilot
#

No i am saying there is other means to protect your family without the need for a gun

#

but since you (this is a guess for me) live in a place where it is legal to have guns, this is probably inconcievable for you

#

correct me if im wrong tho

safe mica
#

Like what? You want your daughter defending herself against a home invader with a baseball bat?

lilac pilot
#

sure

#

although in the country where i live that would be illegal

safe mica
#

Right. Which means she's defenseless. That should go well

#

In the country I'm from, home invasions are illegal. Crazy thing, they still happen.

lilac pilot
#

i sure as hell wouldn't want my CHILD to have the power to decide over the life or death of someone else

#

and i certainly think that paying with your life for invading someone else's home is disproportionate

lilac pilot
safe mica
lilac pilot
safe mica
#

You don't care at all about the child protecting herself.

lilac pilot
#

why not?

#

they can protect themselves in other ways

#

for example by avoiding a conflict alltogether

#

or call law enforcement

safe mica
#

"I don't want my child to have the power" which in this case means the home invader gets the power.
"Paying with your life is disproportionate" So maybe the child has to pay with her life instead?

lilac pilot
#

the point you seem to be missing is that there are OTHER ways of protecting yourself that do not involve a firearm

safe mica
#

There's no protective instinct here at all.

lilac pilot
#

you seem to think that a firearm is the only viable way of self-protection

ocean vector
#

I go to sleep, Falcon and Remu talkin, I wake up, Falcon and Remu talkin

lilac pilot
#

which is a blatantly false statement

safe mica
lilac pilot
rough creek
# safe mica Sure, but restating my point in a ridiculous manner in order to argue against it...

I'll amend what I said then.

Your point was about protective instincts towards one's offspring vs one's parents and siblings being different to the point where it matters on the topic of whether there is a biological correlation between parenting & the desire to protect with force, in this case firearms.

I then ask if biology then does not dictate to me the same desire to protect with (at least) equivalent force towards my parents & siblings.

lilac pilot
safe mica
lilac pilot
#

i dont understand why i should even spell that out to you

safe mica
#

Your biological protective instincts towards siblings are nowhere as strong as with your children.

lilac pilot
#

you think that in any country where guns are illegal people go home invading killing/raping daughters for a hobby?

#

only because there are no guns to protect?

safe mica
#

Any form of non-lethal force means a man is easily going to overpower your daughter. The concerns you're expressing are for the safety of the home invader, with no mention of the safety of your daughter. You then resort to claiming that these situations simply don't happen anyway, so we don't need to worry about them.

#

Like I said, there are zero protective instincts here.

lilac pilot
#

i mean you are simply lying there

#

no point in even arguing with that

rough creek
# safe mica This is exactly correct.

I guess i should follow up with the question, do you think the instinctive desire to protect is really the dominating force in our overall desire to protect?

lilac pilot
#

it makes no sense

ocean vector
lilac pilot
#

Your statements are delusional

#

You truly believe you can overpower my daughter if she peppersprays you in the face and tases you ?

rough creek
lilac pilot
#

good luck with that buddy

safe mica
# lilac pilot i mean you are simply lying there

That's not what a lie is. Disagreeing and lying are not the same thing. You're also not explaining why my statements are wrong. When I ask for clarification, you're simply saying, because they are. At that's it.

lilac pilot
#

Because it is such common sense

#

your claim is

#

''a man can overpower a woman under any circumstance if she is not allowed to use non-lethal force''

#

that is a false statment

#

and you know it

safe mica
#

How many times have you been pepper sprayed? You can definitely fight through that.

#

Taser? Heavy coat. Done.

lilac pilot
#

sure

#

gun? bulletproof vest, done

#

im not willing to discuss this any further with you

safe mica
#

I'm not saying there aren't other means, but they don't saying the fight in daughter's favor.

lilac pilot
#

i personally believe you are delusional

#

on this topic

#

and it doesnt bring any of us any good to discuss this any further

safe mica
rough creek
ocean vector
#

maybe everyone should carry pepper spray instead of guns 👍

ocean vector
lilac pilot
ocean vector
#

until someone shows up with a gun I guess

safe mica
# rough creek I would posit no, for the record

Sorry, missed this question. I don't know if it's the dominant factor. But your question was why it seemed to go hand in hand. I would say that protective instincts and creating a family are all related, so it's one factor among many.

ocean vector
#

maybe, we need a solution to deal with someone who has a gun that's purely defensive and cannot be used offensively

rough creek
safe mica
#

The criminals?

#

Yes.

rough creek
ocean vector
#

so the problem doesn't go away

#

we can, if you want, have no guns and also have this defensive thing

safe mica
safe mica
ocean vector
#

well we trust the government in this scenario

#

and in the real world, this defence is 911

#

but it's not very fast

safe mica
#

If you can't trust regular citizens, then you can't trust government. They are not made from finer clay than ordinary people.

#

911 is for investigating what happened, not for stopping it.

ocean vector
ocean vector
safe mica
#

You have to trust them. I don't. I can trust my own response time.

#

And I still have the option of calling 911

rough creek
safe mica
rough creek
# safe mica Safer for whom?

Eh yeah Cury's specific statement was about everyone using pepper spray as a defensive tool rather than firearms, I kinda was more talking about a general reduction in all of society's ability to procure lethal weapons being safer overall. For everyone, not just criminals.

ocean vector
#

Maybe a ranged pepper spray

safe mica
#

Remu, it really is so refreshing to just be allowed to get to the point where we disagree properly. Usually you never get that far. People just aren't taking the time to listen, so you don't necessarily know if you disagree, you just argue.

rough creek
#

yeah i wont carry on this isnt this topics thread

ocean vector
#

Anyway, I find with these kinds of questions, the solution isn't just to create a rule one way or the other, that's not going to work

#

Though it might be fun to argue about

#

I think we need to go deeper into the why and change the core cultural problem in our society

#

And fix it from there

#

I don't like how politicians are always saying all these rules without actually fixing anything

safe mica
vital imp
#

More than 300.000 females dies of child birth every year around the world. 22.000 females dies of abortion every year. I think arguing about what is safe and unsafe is irrelevant in this discussion. More morality. I also think rights is irrelevant. I dont think anyone have a right to live, but everyone get a chance to live. If my kidnes failed, I have a chance to get a new one, no guarante. If a woman gets a parasite, it has a chance, no guarante.

I think 12 weeks is enough for a female to decide to get an abortion or not, and the timer starts from the first menstrual skip.

It can go over 12 weeks, but then it should be applied. 12 weeks or less: no questions asked, just go through the procedure asap. At those stages its only cells anyway, and it is safe at that stage.

safe mica
#

There's a lot of ways to misrepresent statistics related to abortion and childbirth. It's extremely difficult to get accurate data, for a lot of reasons that are explained in the abstracts I've already shared.

https://medscimonit.com/abstract/index/idArt/883338
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699440/#:~:text=This review explores the relationship,risk of death from childbirth

Short and long term mortality rates associated with first pregnancy...

Background: There is a growing interest in examining death rates associated with different pregnancy outcomes for time periods beyond one year. Previo...

PubMed
Induced Abortion and the Increased Risk of Maternal Mortality - PubMed

In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth. It is difficult to do this comparison in the United States not only because prior induced abortion hist …

#

Arguing about what is safe and what isn't is very relevant to a discussion on whether something should be banned. The fact that abortion increases risk is something that people work very, very hard to minimize. Half of arguments on why abortion should remain legal is so that women can be allowed to reduce risk to themselves, when the reality is that they are actively increasing risk. The conversation changes drastically when you have to be more accurate.

noble hound
#

Abortion should be fully available and free for any pregnancy before week 12. And any time for victims of rape

vital imp
#

Then ban childbirth as well because of risk, if we cant have risks in health procedures. Much much higher risk of childbirth than abortion

safe mica
vital imp
#

The article is irrelevant when its Finland... Finland struggles with severe alcholism, and it is so maany factors here why the risk og maternal mortality here

#

As the atricle points out as well

#

Finland have great healthcare, so they have the ability to give safe abortions, but still. Many factors to consider before reaching to a conclusion

#

Unsafe vs safe abortions is already concluded. Its better to have access to safe abortion - where abortion is legal from 0 - 12 weeks, counting from last skipped menstration. Making females apply if they take longer to decide.
Females have been doing usafe abortion from beginning of time, its not a new concept. If the child is unwanted, its unwanted. You cant controll wheneter a female performs unsafe abortion or not. Its better to have it legal and safe

#

You will see it in animals as well. If they dont want children where and when it happens, then the female often kills then off after birth.

safe mica
# vital imp The article is irrelevant when its Finland... Finland struggles with severe alch...

Hang on, you're saying... what? It's irrelevant because it's Finland?? I don't follow that logic at all. They have a great healthcare system, lax abortion laws, and more accurate data than most countries.

Additionally, I posted two studies, from different countries. And we're not talking about "unsafe" abortions. What these studies show is that "safe" abortions under good conditions still increase risk of death more than childbirth.

ocean vector
safe mica
#

Politicians are masters at doing a lot and solving very little. But all that doing that they do creates a lot of negative consequences.

vital imp
safe mica
#

Drastically reducing the amount of abortion reduces risk to women. That's what data actually show.

#

The fact that some people still break the law and get illegal, extra risky abortions doesn't change the fact that overall risk is lower.

vital imp
#

We have plenty of data world wide, and historicaly that unsafe abortion is done where abortion is illegal.
22000 dies every year, 7 million get severe complications after. There are of course gray areas. Having the oppertunity to end it early on is a game changer, and 12 weeks should be the bare minimum to justify the procedure.

safe mica
#

You would kill thousands to save a couple. This is that dumb covid mentality that is still costing us lives today from all the people that missed their heart and cancer treatments in the name of saving just one life.
A couple illegal abortions doesn't justify the increased risk from millions of abortions. That's just not a good argument at all.

vital imp
#

It is proven that legal and safe abortion give better health generaly

#

it still save more lifes to have it legalized. The severe complications of abortions happens often abortions done after 12 weeks. Before 12 weeks, is much better

#

Females have still always taken abortions, they will still be doing it. It will never stop. I wont understand it, because i've never been in that setting. I still believe it is purly natural, and focus on the fact that humans are animals, and act on instincts. We can do stuff like this, but it is still justified because we are not comfortable in that time and place

#

Avoiding abortion is anyways the best scenario, but abortion should absolutally be available.

noble hound
#

Make contraceptive freely available and help promote sex education. Unfortunately a lot pro lifers are also against these ideas

vital imp
#

That group of people against birthcontrol and sex education should be called "pro-birthers"

noble hound
#

Fair.

safe mica
#

Repeating things over and over again doesn't magically make them true. You're ignoring the studies because you don't like Finland, which makes no sense, but you don't actually have anything to say against them.

Oh well, don't know what I expected.

#

You do you man. Believe what you will. I'm certainly not going to change your mind.

vital imp
#

There are no conclusion in the studies, only parallells. In my country, access to same healthcare as finland and denmark - abortion is safe with a few conplications in worst scenarios. This discussion is based in the scenario in US. I think all countries should have access to legal abortion. It is the best scenario - females will do abortions anyways, if its legal or illegal - does not matter.

#

My conclusion is having access to abortion as a medical procedure makes it safer, less people die, less people gets severe complications.

safe mica
#

They conclude quite clearly that going through an abortion ends with a much higher risk of death than going through childbirth.

#

You're trying heavily to not comment on that at all. Which I get. Why would you focus on something that runs contrary to your arguments?

#

But that just means this isn't a discussion. So I don't know why you're posting things on a discussion thread if you don't actually want to engage with what people are saying.

coral snow
#

Burglar: burglar sneaks into house. Burglar is good with gun. Bueglar is looking in house. Burglar finds daughter. Burglar aims at daughter. Burglar shoots.
Daughter: daughter is chilling. Daughter hears weird noise. Daughter thinks it is a raccoon. Daughter chills. Daughter sees burglar. Daughter dead.
No guns
Burglar: burglar has bat. Burglar sneaks into house. Burglar finds daughter. Burglar hits daughter few times. Burglar overpowers daughter. Burglar leaves with loot.
Daughter: daughter hears noise. Daughter thinks its raccoon daughter chills. Daughter gets overpowered in the end.
This is why i think guns are a no no. Because nobody has their guns ready to shoot in their hand at all times

#

Just to come back on the delusional pro gunners

coral snow
safe mica
#

You've just illustrated that the daughter is likely dead either way.

coral snow
#

No but i mean the burglar will carry the gun in his hands safety off and i hope atleast your daughter doesnt carry her gun at all times

coral snow
#

Bats arent deasinged for killing

safe mica
#

That's why we call the firearm the great equalizer. Daughter is weak. Daughter can't hope to win against burglar. But give daughter a gun, and now she can defend herself against someone who wants to either shoot her or hit her multiple times with a bat. As if you can't kill someone with a bat.

coral snow
#

A burglar isnt out on killing?

safe mica
#

If someone is coming into my house with a bat and my daughter is home, I really hope she has a gun to defend herself with. You would have her just get hit a few times. As if that's nothing.

coral snow
#

But the burglar has one too in this case someone dying is way higher

safe mica
#

Why? Why does the burglar suddenly get a gun just because the daughter has one?

#

That makes zero sense.

coral snow
#

Why would a burglar go burglarring without his firearm in a nation where firearms are legal

safe mica
#

Why would he not take one in a nation where it's illegal? He's already breaking the law. It makes no sense to avoid breaking a different law.

coral snow
#

How would he be able to get one

safe mica
#

You're acting as if you get to just make a law and all firearms disappear. That's not how it works.

coral snow
#

Kinda it does

safe mica
#

Lol, no.

coral snow
#

In the netherlands where guns are banned only high tier crime people have one think about drugs traders these people dont go burglarring

rough creek
#

Not a law just gets made, i agree, but the whole point is to remove firearms from the equation

safe mica
rough creek
#

Yes, lowering violence is the goal. The method of choice is reducing access to firearms

#

Firearms, because they are our greatest concern with weapon-related violence

safe mica
rough creek
#

But even if it were to not - okay, cool. You get your guns back then

safe mica
rough creek
#

In america?

safe mica
#

Governments don't ever give rights back that they take away. That's not their nature.

rough creek
#

Well now are we talking about guns or not

safe mica
#

Yes, we are. But in the wrong thread. 😁

rough creek
#

Sure, no worries, let's move it back over

cosmic pivot
#

No

stuck ore
#

So I've seen some very uninformed thoughts on here so I'm going to throw my hat in.

Preface: Abortion is a medical term used when terminating a pregnancy. It has nothing to do with what happens to the baby (I will use baby throughout because baby vs fetus doesn't matter to me, when life begins is irrelevant to my arguments).

  1. I have seen several comments about "what about when the pregnancy is 6-9 months along". That would not be an abortion if the baby is healthy, it would be a delivery. An abortion only happens at that point if the pregnancy is not viable, meaning the baby will die no matter what or mother will die if it isn't ended. Otherwise, the baby would be delivered.

This is extremely important for people to understand and is a very common thing brought up that is bullshit. No doctor would kill a baby that could survive outside the womb at the request of anyone, even the mother. Less than 1% of abortions happen at this stage and they are all for reasons I mentioned, at least in the US.

These should obviously stay legal and the decision be made by the doctor and patient per established medical guidelines.

  1. For all non-viable pregnancies, abortion should be legal. Period. Non-viable means that if the pregnancy is ended there is a 0% chance that the baby can survive outside the womb.

Why should this be legal? Bodily autonomy. No one should be, and in no other case (again at least in the US) compelled to use their body to sustain another life. We do this in zero other scenarios.

We don't force blood donations, which could be done by everyone monthly and save tens of thousands of lives.

We don't force organ donation by parents to children, or even from dead people to save the living. If we are willing to say dead people have the right to not have their bodies used to save others, living women should have that same right.

#
  1. This does not say anything about the ethics of abortion. For the purpose of legality, I don't care what their reason is. If someone is behaving unethically let them be judged by their friends and family. Keep the courts out of medicine.
#

  1. Rape exceptions are really stupid. It will just lead to false rape allegations.

  2. No, the father has no say in whether an abortion happens. They have a choice of whether or not to have sex. Once pregnant, it is the sole discretion of the mother whether or not to continue with the pregnancy. Again, this doesn't speak to the ethics, only the legality. And yes, to you MRA nutjobs out there, you should have to pay child support. You chose to have sex. The child, once born, requires support from both of their parents.

safe mica
stuck ore
#
  1. For you Christians out there, the Bible is totally cool with abortion. Especially if the woman has been unfaithful (or the man wants to claim she has been unfaithful). Numbers 5:11-22. It may be black magic performed by the priests, but that's your book for you.
golden ruin
#

I have absolutely no clue where you pulled that out ofPeteLaugh

stuck ore
#

Just read the book. If you think your wife cheated on you, take her to the priest with a grain offering. The priest does some magic and makes your wife take an oath and drink some dirty water. If she cheated it will cause her to miscarry and be barren henceforth. That is an ancient abortion. Just because they didn't have the word back then doesn't change what it is. A termination of a pregnancy.

And since magic isn't real, whatever they were giving women would pretty much always cause the miscarriage and justify the husband's suspicions.

velvet steeple
#

Bro got his bible from Wish

#

abortion is not directly in the bible

#

it is implied as murder

#

the termination of prospective life

#

Psalm 139 literally states Knit me together in my mother womb

#

in reference to creation by god

#

Now you could state that Exodus justifies abortion by saying "the life of mother is more valuable than the unborn" in more or less words (havn't read exodus in a while)

#

but that is only if the life is in danger

#

nowhere in the bible does it even directly mention abortions

#

Lastly if nothing else the best verse to directly disprove that is Jeremiah 1:5 (though this section im not huge on) which states "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

#

The numbers excerpt he is mentioning for anyone curious does not have her drink anything or inject anything she is told to stick her hands in barley chose by her husband and cursed by her husband and a priest which then water is added to while her hands are inside. If she is innocent then she will be able to have children if not then she will be cursed by god unable to conceive again. (this is from Moses about the exodus and is old testament)

stuck ore
#

Doesn't have her drink anything?

#

23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial[c] offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.

#

It's almost like Christians don't actually know their Bible.

#

Not that I condone this. This is a forced abortion by the husband and priest (and God I suppose, since its his magic right?) Not good. But the Bible did always have a problem with consent and the general idea of women being people and not property.

unreal zealot
#

The Ordeal of the Bitter Water is a real thing specified in Numbers 5:16-28. But it is not a condoning of abortion. Additionally it is a practice given to Abraham and so it is a Jewish ritual, not a Christian one. Its not really applicable to Christians in the same way accusing christians as being unfaithful for eating shrimp or wearing gold.

latent vapor
stuck ore
latent vapor
#

Not all of the old testament is law. If people try quoting Jewish law from the Old Testament, then yea, they are quoting something that is of little authority to Christians now, but there is mroe in the old testament than just law. Stuff like prophecies, history, etc. You can pretty much google what books in the old testament are law if someone tries claiming something from the old testament as something still being required to be followed.

Also yea, I would quote New Testament mostly as that is the most recent and accurate moral standards we are provided in Christianity.

I haven't seen this conversation before, so I don't know what all you've presented, I can probably scroll up and find some of it, but in my opinion there is never a case where abortion is ok. If the baby is viable outside the womb, have it removed. If the mother's life is at risks, but the baby's life is not, who is to say that the mother's life is of more importance than that baby's? If both of their lifes are at risks if a birth would occur, then take the baby out, if it dies outside the womb, well at least the mother is still alive.

velvet steeple
#

this is before the barely is included and the hands are soaked

#

also this in context was done to purify the Israelites

#

I dont read the old testament that often and am newly converted

#

in the same way you cant recite the Theory of Everything I cannot recite the bible front to back

#

nor do I believe all of it

#

as I dont believe anyone is capable to sucessfully maintaining a religious text for 2000 years

#

without error

velvet steeple
velvet steeple
#

originally in the King james transalate it says it will maim the women so she may no longer concieve

#

when the Lord makes your thigh fall away and your body swell . . . and make your womb swell and your thigh fall away.”

#

King james bible

velvet steeple
#

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and vhe shall pay as the wjudges determine. 23 But if there is harm,4 then you shall pay xlife for life, 24 yeye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

#

some intepret this to mean that for a miscarriage

#

so the death of the child

#

for which he shall be fined

#

I think its incredibly flawed though

#

as number one these were laws for hebrew slaves

#

not free people

#

and two were the laws to govern not the laws of the lord

#

overall I think the Old testament has a lot of strange things it mentions like sorcery and curses

stuck ore
# latent vapor Not all of the old testament is law. If people try quoting Jewish law from the O...

The only instances you mentioned are things that I and medical science already agree with. Abortions are not done on viable babies (meaning that if at that moment they were born they could survive outside the womb). The only abortions done that late in a pregnancy are when the mothers life is in danger, and even then if the baby was viable they would try to save it, or if the baby has some defect where it will not survive post birth.

I gave a full detailed list just a few paragraphs up from the religion point. The main point being bodily autonomy and no other instance in our society where we force people to use their bodies to sustain the life of another, even parents for children.

high spire
#

I'm sorry but I see this imbecility and I simply have to step into this conversation again.

First of all, even if I grant every premise of @stuck ore , your conclusion does not follow at all. If we grant that the text depicts an abortion, its in the context of a terrible punishment and a choice of God, not a "choice of the mother" like how an abortion is today. So this is even more reason to believe that abortions are not to be taken into the hands of men (/women).

But all of what I just said is irrelevant, because we have absolutely no reason to believe the text is talking about what you say it is at all. In fact, we have reason to believe the contrary. You picked the NIV (New International Version) translation, which has acquired the nickname the "Not Inspired Version" (a joke to demonstrate how it is not a very good Bible translation) among some Christians (myself included). If you take the top dozen Bible translations or so only the NIV (and maybe 1 other one depending on your list) uses language like "miscarry". Another note is the NIV only recently updated its translation to "miscarry" in 2011. Before then, it matched the language of other translations, which is why this nickname has gained traction as of recent years.

#

———
So what does the text actually say/mean?
I'll pick the NKJV (which along with the KJV is the most popular Bible translation by far in the US) version to demonstrate what the text actually says:

Then the priest shall put the woman under the oath of the curse, and he shall say to the woman—“the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people, when the LORD makes your thigh rot and your belly swell; and may this water that causes the curse go into your stomach, and make your belly swell and your thigh rot.” Then the woman shall say, “Amen, so be it.”
—(Numbers 5:21–22 NKJV)

In this version, along with the ESV, NAS, NLT, KJV and many others, no mention of miscarriage is present whatsoever. In fact, we have no reason to believe the woman is pregnant to begin with. The idea is that she drinks the holy water and if she is guilty, her stomach will swell. If not, it won't, and she is innocent. This is a supernatural work of God, not some poisoning of the unborn.

Its sometimes funny how non-Christians, who have never read the Bible, think that they will be the ones to discover the text that disproves a pillar of the Christian faith by pulling a poorly translated verse out of context, and hurling it at Bible-believing Christians. If this could be done, it would have been done before now at some point in the over 2000 years of Christianity. So no offense to you but you aren't going to somehow make this ground-breaking discover that has somehow been overlooked for millennia.

stuck ore
#

I never said it was groundbreaking, most Christians just don't know about it. Most Christians have never read any of the Bible outside of the verses they are fed at church. It's pretty sad that you would defend a God who you say is willing to make the choice to kill a baby as punishment to its mother for adultery. That is a messed up God. Though to be fair, compared to many other messed up things your God did in the Bible, that is pretty tame (Jeptha is one of my personal favorite showcasings of his depravity and cruelty).

But as I said I dont actually care what your religion believes, it should not be the basis of any law for others unless the justification for that law can also be made with logic and evidence corroborating it in the real world.

velvet steeple
velvet steeple
stuck ore
#

Abortion is not murder anymore than refusing to donate your bone marrow to your child is murder.

Does the child die? Yes. But it dies because it's body is not able to sustain itself without outside assistance. Cutting off that assistance is not murder.

velvet steeple
#

but this is all old testament

velvet steeple
#

what logical reason is there for Murder being bad

#

without citing a moral argument

stuck ore
#

If you don't want to be associated with the old testament it probably shouldn't be half of your sacred book.

velvet steeple
stuck ore
#

Only on that single point

velvet steeple
#

but you quoting the Jewish part of the bible

stuck ore
#

Most jews have no issue with abortion

velvet steeple
velvet steeple
stuck ore
#

And Jesus was silent on the issue

velvet steeple
#

what are you even saying

high spire
velvet steeple
#

I mentioned the same thing already

#

In Judaism, views on abortion draw primarily upon the legal and ethical teachings of the Hebrew Bible, the Talmud, the case-by-case decisions of responsa, and other rabbinic literature. While all major Jewish religious movements allow or encourage abortion in order to save the life of a pregnant woman, authorities differ on when and whether it is permitted in other cases.

stuck ore
#

Yes most Jews consider life to begin when a baby takes its first breath. Not all but that is the prevailing opinion from what I've seen.

velvet steeple
#

Not to my experience at all

stuck ore
#

That was a pragmatic thought for ages since so many babies were stillborn back then.

velvet steeple
#

and ive been around orthodox jews my whole life

#

In addition to assessing the danger, the rabbi will take the duration of the pregnancy into consideration. Although abortion is generally forbidden even before the fetus is considered viable (in fact, simply “wasting seed” is in itself considered a serious transgression), depending on the stage of pregnancy there is considerable debate as to the exact nature of the prohibition.

stuck ore
#

But I'm fine just saying I'm wrong about all religious things I've said because that's not my personal argument for why it should be legal.

velvet steeple
#

one of the most reputable Jewish run websites ive found

high spire
# stuck ore And Jesus was silent on the issue

Jesus actually said it would be better for someone to be drowned in the sea than to cause harm to a child.

”But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.“
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭18‬:‭6‬ ‭KJV‬‬

velvet steeple
stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

According to Hebrew Law

#

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and vhe shall pay as the wjudges determine. 23 But if there is harm,4 then you shall pay xlife for life, 24 yeye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

stuck ore
# velvet steeple According to Hebrew Law

Though the punishment for causing a miscarriage is far less than killing a living person. Again not really relevant, but they saw babies in the womb as not the same value.

velvet steeple
#

thats Exodus 22

velvet steeple
#

this is not for free people

#

It was punishable

#

even if it was your slave

#

this is hebrew law on the treatment of Slaves

#

Have you actually read this part of the bible?

high spire
velvet steeple
#

Also read Jeremiah 1.5

#

Literally says his purpose was sowed in the womb

#

and that gods miracles began for him before birth

#

If your gonna attack the bible use the new testament as well

stuck ore
#

I already said I'm fine with everything I said about religion being wrong with regards to the topic of this forum.

high spire
#

I only mentioned it because you did.

velvet steeple
#

His argument is basically our views are irrelevant @high spire

#

cause we dont like the fact that he wants to allow people to kill babies

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

SO basically

#

our views are irrelevant because you disagree

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

I want to make abortion Illegal

#

just like murder

#

cause thats what it is

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

intentionally killing prospective life

#

is murder

stuck ore
#

It isn't

velvet steeple
#

no different then killing people in comas

#

same with assisted suicide

stuck ore
#

If the person in the coma could only survive by being attached to someone else, that person has the right to walk away and let the comas patient die.

velvet steeple
#

you killing people who may have had lives ahead of them

#

is murder

velvet steeple
#

then what

#

is that murder?

stuck ore
#

You still don't force someone to stay attached to them for 6 months.

velvet steeple
#

are you insane?

stuck ore
#

We don't ever do that

velvet steeple
#

you really think

#

if someone went into a coma

#

for six months

#

dependent on someone to survive

#

which btw all people in comas do

#

it should be someones choice to just kill them

#

knowing they would likely wake up

stuck ore
#

If that person needs to be physically attached to them and provide their blood etc for that entire period and the person in the coma may never actually wake up and they have a chance of serious medical complications themselves, yes they absolutely have the right to refuse.

velvet steeple
#

and now if that was you

#

youd be okay with someone killing you

#

You get into a bike accident and slip into a coma

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

We are never gonna agree then

safe mica
velvet steeple
#

but I do apologize for your situation

#

I hope you find peace

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

It doesnt do that now

#

its not your body

#

its a fetus

#

its a prospective life

#

no different than a baby in that regard

#

babies still need someone to take care of them

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

and milk

high spire
#

The logic of how abortion is morally wrong. The only premise anyone can reasonably dispute is that it is always wrong to end innocent human life, so good luck.

  1. Unborn babies are innocent, living humans.

(Scientifically speaking, it is undisputed that life technically begins at conception. So if it isn't a human baby, what then, is it a different species? An unborn child must be a living human, from a purely scientific & biological perspective)

  1. Therefore abortion is the ending of innocent human life.

  2. It is morally wrong to end innocent human life.

  3. Therefore abortion is morally wrong.

velvet steeple
#

he is pointless to debate

#

his mind is entirely set

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

and he is willing to dismiss the views of half the country

high spire
safe mica
# stuck ore The only instances you mentioned are things that I and medical science already a...

This is objectively false. Abortion up until birth is legal in many states, and it is not primarily done when the mother's life is in danger. There are studies on this that you could have looked at. Additionally, in all 50 states, including ones that outlaw abortion, exceptions are made for when the mother's life is actually in danger, because that's not the same thing as what anyone means when they say they're getting an abortion.

velvet steeple
#

purely because they are not his own

velvet steeple
high spire
velvet steeple
#

if the baby was going to kill the mother

#

then an arbortion can be permissible

#

but otherwise

#

its murder

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

you made the choice to get pregnant

#

you had sex

#

you were irresponsible

#

you must bear responsiblility for your choices

high spire
velvet steeple
#

As a father I would say the same

#

I will take care of my children

#

because it is my moral obligaiton

#

whether I originally wanted them or not

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

so your a hyprocrite

#

Women get to opt out of parenthood

#

not men

#

what logic is there in that

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

and women dont choose to have sex

#

so what

#

And mens hair falls out

#

and their nuts hurt when they get hit

#

thats a redundant argument

high spire
#

Question @stuck ore , Why is murder illegal? I'd like to understand more about how you determine what should be and shouldn't be written into law and why.

velvet steeple
#

your argument is men should be punished

#

for womens choices

#

and women should not be punished

#

for their own choices

#

If I said I wanted an abortion as a man

#

I dont get a say

#

but if my wife says well I want you to be a father I am obligated by law to oblige

#

responsibility is a two way street

#

Either you both have it

#

or no one does

stuck ore
# velvet steeple and women should not be punished

Absolutely not, and that is such a warped way to look at it. I don't believe anyone should be punished for sex.

Men know that having sex can lead to pregnancy, and that if that pregnancy occurs they have no choice in whether it continues, because the baby isn't growing inside their body.

Women know that having sex can lead to pregnancy, and also that it is their choice whether to continue with that pregnancy.

If they go through with the pregnancy, both parents are responsible for it. No one is more punished than someone else. You just don't like the idea of a woman having the right to make that decision.

velvet steeple
#

I dont like one person getting to make the choices for two

#

Just like I would not want to determine if a women should get a C section or not

#

its not my choice

#

its hers

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

your argument is men should be held responsible for their partners choices

#

but not the other way around

#

its the opitome of sexist

#

and its massively hypocritical

#

I get no say in what my wife does with her child

#

but she gets to decide if I get a say in being a parent

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

So why cant I opt out of being a father

#

thats not her body

#

your missing the hypocrisy

#

Its my body my choice right

#

I choose to not want to be a father anymore

#

so by your own logic

safe mica
#

Acting like men won't be affected by the birth or abortion of a child is such an insane position to take. You're taking exactly the stance @velvet steeple described. One person gets to make a decision for two, where the man gets absolutely no say. It's a ridiculous stance.

velvet steeple
#

I should be able to opt out of being a father

stuck ore
# velvet steeple So why cant I opt out of being a father

Because you made it and it's alive in the world. The rest of us don't want to pay for it.

The point where you had a choice about your body was having sex. There was no point beyond that where your body was involved and it's use could be retracted.

velvet steeple
#

you made that choice

#

now own up to it

#

its everything or nothing

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

she doesnt get those now does she

safe mica
#

That's another ridiculous stance to take.

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

drafts are still legal

#

and could absolutely happen again

#

they are mandated in several countries

safe mica
#

If you believe a baby's right to live is based on survival outside the womb, then you can kill a child up until it's like 4 years old or something. Arguably longer.

velvet steeple
#

nah Falcon cause again

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

he beat me to parroting his points

#

sad

safe mica
velvet steeple
#

my doctor should get to choose wether to save me as well

#

if my doctor doesnt like me

#

he should be able to say let him die

#

because he is the only person who can save me

safe mica
#

But in that case, the case for abortion becomes incredibly weak, because it's not forcing someone to be a parent. It's just forcing you to not kill a child for a few months.

velvet steeple
#

and I need his time and effort to keep me alive

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

Ah okay

#

so my body

#

which generates money for the kid

#

should also not be able to be used for it as well

#

good idea

#

I like this idea of exempting people from all responsibility

safe mica
velvet steeple
#

And the back breaking labor I do to make money for the kid

#

takign years off my life

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

and will

#

you just get this thing

#

called sent to jail

safe mica
velvet steeple
#

for failure to pay child support

#

you actually are obligated under law to provide money for the kid

high spire
velvet steeple
#

no less than the minumum required to sustain them

#

if you want I can cite them

#

fun little things responsibilities are aren't they

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

The court has to make a number of financial calculations when determining how much child support to order. The amount of child support that is ordered is based on a number of factors, including the parents’ income and the number of children. While income levels of parents are subject to change based on raises, moving, layoffs and quitting jobs, sometimes a parent may report lower income to avoid making child support payments or to lower his or her child support burden.

To combat this conduct, courts are often able to use imputed income as the factor in the child support calculation. The court assigns income to a parent who has reported no income or very little income. The court determines what the parent could have earned if he or she had been working up to his or her capabilities. Often, this is imputing an income of a minimum wage job. The parent is then ordered to pay the amount of child support that coincides with this level of income.

high spire
velvet steeple
#

Nah Synkronyze

#

I just use my clones to do that

#

My one clone works construction

#

so he can suffer with back issues and bad knees

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

and the other is an ATC controller who is suffering from heart issues cause his life expectancy is cut in half from the stress

velvet steeple
high spire
velvet steeple
#

you could be homeless

#

beg for change

#

and live in the woods

#

but you woud pay child support all the same

high spire
velvet steeple
#

but in any event im tired of arguing with someone who has no intention of even considering our points

#

instead is jsut focused on being right

stuck ore
stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

So should we ban immigration because of all the horirble things occurring at the border rn

#

bad people do bad things

#

thats no reason to change the laws

#

and make it acceptable

#

instead how about some accountability instead

#

lets try making people better instead of enabling them being worse

high spire
stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

no state has banned abortion outright

#

even the most conservative states

high spire
velvet steeple
#

allow it for life threatening circumstances

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

If you cant cite it

#

its irrelevant to me

#

cause at that point your speculating

#

I know what ectopic pregnancy is

high spire
velvet steeple
#

it is when the embryo latches onto something thats not the Uterus

#

it occurs in less than 2 percent of all pregnancies

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

and is usually not dangerous

high spire
velvet steeple
#

most cases it jsut causes pain and bleeding

#

its a horrible thing when something goes wrong during pregnancy I agree

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

but its no different than getting struck by lightning

#

sometimes bad things happen

#

we cant always see them coming

stuck ore
#

Or that lovely case where the 10 year old was being forced to carry their rapists baby, that was a great day for humanity.

#

Thankfully one of the neighboring states still allowed abortion.

high spire
velvet steeple
#

and the person responsible should be held accountable

#

but it doesnt change the fact that if she can have the child without imminent risk to her health the child should still be born

high spire
#

So if a person needs an organ donation, is it legally ok to shoot them whenever you want just because they rely on something from someone else? @stuck ore. How does relying on someone else suddenly cause you to lose your right to bodily autonomy/right to life?

velvet steeple
#

if she wants to give the child up for adoption I understand and god will as well

#

but she should still not kill the child

#

two wrongs dont make a right

stuck ore
high spire
#

So therefore they lose that right because they are dependent on someone else

stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

Im done arguing

#

best of luck Synkronyze

high spire
stuck ore
velvet steeple
#

I wish you all the best

stuck ore
high spire
high spire
#

If the entire legal justification centers around bodily autonomy, then it seems crystal clear that carrying the baby as opposed to killing (and therefore removing its autonomy completely) will best honor the right to autonomy.

velvet steeple
stuck ore
high spire
stuck ore
#

But that wouldn't be an abortion at that point.

high spire
#

So you would be in favor of legally banning those particular scenarios?

stuck ore
#

Yes, and that was the law until roe v wade was overturned. Abortion was allowed until viability.

The "up until birth" stuff is nonsense. Doctors do not kill babies that will survive if delivered, unless it is a choice between child and mother, period.

high spire
stuck ore
#

Mothers also do not just decide at 7 months that they'd rather the baby be killed.

#

And no doctor would listen if they did

high spire
#

So next question:
If you would ban those, doesn't that means that it isn't a question of autonomy, its a question of viability then?

stuck ore
#

Autonomy until viability

#

The women's autonomy is paramount until the child can survive outside the womb.

#

Then the doctor has an equal responsibility to both.

high spire
#

I see. Well I would then argue thats simply an inconsistent view.

Autonomy matters, then it doesn't. It seems you say that the factor of how valuable each human life is is based on its viability?

#

If someone is hooked up to a machine to survive, that makes them less valuable than someone who isn't? How do you draw the line for this?

stuck ore
#

It's not inconsistent. I still say that at any point a woman can say she wants her pregnancy to end. The doctor will take a different course based on viability. Terminating the pregnancy pre viability means the child will die unfortunately. Ending the pregnancy post viability means it will probably live.

#

It's weird to talk about thought because almost no women seek to end their pregnancy at that point.

high spire
cosmic pivot
#

Here's my statement : children lives don't matter.

#

: D

stuck ore
high spire
stuck ore
# high spire Your stance has a flaw in that people would then be legally held more or less va...

Valuable is a weird way to put it. A person gets to decide how their body is and isn't used. If they choose not to use their body to sustain the child it dies. That sucks. I'm not sitting here cheering in abortion.

I do not want to live in a society where the government gets to decide the value of people and whether they get autonomy or not.

Once a child is born the parents do have an obligation to provide for the baby or give it up to someone who will. I don't know why that needs to be said. It's alive and it's body is keeping it alive. Yes it needs outside support, but the mother is no longer the only one that can provide it and it doesn't need to be her body.

high spire
# stuck ore Valuable is a weird way to put it. A person gets to decide how their body is and...

So if a person decides to use their body to murder someone, does that simply "suck"?

The reason I ask this is not to straw man you, but to point out that abortion is the intentional killing of the child. Thats why I mention dismembering. There's nothing passive about it. Its not that a mother makes a decision to use her body in one way and the child dies as a bi-product of that. Rather, the child is killed and the mother no longer using her body in that way is a bi-product of the killing of the child.

I do not want to live in a society where the government gets to decide the value of people and whether they get autonomy or not.
Unfortunately, thats the question the abortion issue raises. Either the child loses it completely or the mother does somewhat.

#

So when you say a person "gets to decide how their body is and isn't used", there are obviously legal restrictions on that. A person can't legally decide to use their body to steal, or murder.

stuck ore
high spire
stuck ore
high spire
#

Thats like saying when I murder I'm really just pulling a trigger, and the bullet does damage as a result of that. You can easily have actions be steps removed from the result, but the point is the result is the intention. The entire point is for the bullet to murder.

high spire
stuck ore
# high spire But isn't the intention of the prescription to kill the baby?

I've already said I'm on boars with saying it's more moral, more ethical, to go through with it. It just shouldn't be mandatory.

The same way it'd be crazy not to give your kid a kidney or bone marrow or anything else they need to survive, but we dint force it. So why should a mother be forced to share her body with her baby if we aren't willing to force her to share it with her 5 year old. What is the difference to you?

high spire
#

Thats mandatory, so why shouldn't a mother have to support her unborn child in the same way?

stuck ore
stuck ore
high spire
stuck ore
#

And we have precedent for that everywhere. If you choose to keep your kid you have to feed, clothe, shelter them or we will find someone who will. Stop equating working to giving up parts of your body and your health.

You are either saying that no one should ever be forced to do anything against their will, in which case abortion would still be legal.

Or you are saying that no one should have rights over their own body if it means not saving another life when they can, and I don't think you want to go down that path.

high spire
# stuck ore And we have precedent for that everywhere. If you choose to keep your kid you ha...

I don't follow the distinction you keep trying to draw between how exactly the bodies are used to preserve life.
It seems at the very least you have the admit the legal line is blurry, as in the case of neglect, there is little body sacrifice that has to be made to preserve the life, but in organ donation, there is great body sacrifice. You can at least admit that the answer lies somewhere between the two.

stuck ore
stuck ore
high spire
#

I also want to offer a correction on your organ donation analogy. I'll explain why. In a pregnancy, if a mother choses not to interfere with it and just live her life, the child will live. Ending the pregnancy is going out of her way to change the current course of events.

So for organ donation, a better analogy would be:
You wake up and you are told some of your blood was given to your child, but you will live fine, and your child would have died without it. Now you will both live. If you went out of your way and demanded your blood back, and they performed an operation in which they took your blood back, your child died, and you lived anyways.

We can both agree it would be better that you had been consulted over your blood to begin with (just as it would be better for the mother to not have been pregnant), but considering it all already happened (the mother is already pregnant) it isn't better and legally justified to rip it out and take it back.

stuck ore
high spire
#

Thats all I've got time for tonight my friend. I appreciate the interesting discussion though. Perhaps I'll be able to continue this at another time. Feel free to have the last word and I'll try to reply when I get the chance. 👍

stuck ore
# high spire Well I would argue that the "your permission" in this analogy is having sex when...

I reject that argument completely. Having sex can lead to pregnancy, true. But pregnancy requires continuous consent, which can be revoked at any time.

If I agree to donate my blood every month for my brother and his rare disease, and 3 months in I decide I'm not longer willing to do it that's it. Even if it means he dies because we share a rare blood anomaly that no one else can provide.

latent vapor
stuck ore
# latent vapor I've personally experience a late-term abortion on a perfectly viable baby. The ...

Well you sound like a lovely and supportive family member. I don't rely on anecdotes though. Maybe your cousin went to a doctor that does not follow established legal and medical guidelines.

Roe v wade made it very clear. First trimester abortions allowed. Second and third in specific situations. I agree with that ruling, though not for the reasoning they used.

Now that roe v wade is overturned however, technically a state could allow abortions up to birth. Probably not a great idea to roll that back.

latent vapor
# stuck ore Well you sound like a lovely and supportive family member. I don't rely on anecd...

Yea I fully support my family members who do not hire people to murder their own children. I don't know where she went, all I know is that the baby was healthy the last I heard which wasn't too long before. She lives in Colorado, so not too sure on their laws dealing with abortion.

Ultimately it seems to come down to just the subjective view of how much value people place on other peopls life it seems like, no way to change someones opinion on that. That's why I don't consider myself pro-life, because I fully support the death penalty for various crimes.

Also, in terms of Roe v Wade being overturned, that's why I'm glad I live in Louisiana where abortion is illegal. To be honest though, I don't see why it is a separate law from murder, or various laws relating to it, such as homicide since I don't know all the legal differences. Unless, abortions would be charged with infantcide and homicide or something like that. Double whammy.

stuck ore
# latent vapor Yea I fully support my family members who do not hire people to murder their own...

Causing someone's death by refusing to keep them alive is not murder. We have countless examples of this in our laws.

But in this case, the mother is just life support for the child. Without that life support, it dies. Tragic, but not murder. We dint force people do provide physical life support for other people. I don't know why people think babies are special in this regard.

Bone marrow is the easiest correlation. If your child is dying and needs a bone marrow transplant, you can't be forced to do it for them. Even though it's a fairly easy procedure, much safer than pregnancy, and you are almost certainly the only match for them in the entire world so they will die if you don't. Pretty much any parent would do this, and would be judged for not doing it, but no one could force them based on current laws and medical ethics.

You can say it's immoral if you want to not follow through with a pregnancy, but it's not murder and it shouldn't be illegal. Pregnant women shouldn't be the only group of people in our society unable to say "I'm not willing to continue using my body to keep someone else alive."

latent vapor
# stuck ore Causing someone's death by refusing to keep them alive is not murder. We have co...

So you'd be in support of parents not feeding their kids? I mean after all, they were just simply "refusing to keep them alive", they didn't cause the childs death. Babies are special in this regard because they do not have the phyiscal capabilities to provide and protect themselves. Just because a human being isn't as capable as another human being doesn't mean it should just be tossed aside and left to die, our entire race would be gone.

You're example is completely different there though. We aren't talking about going through medical procedures the child need to be saved, we're talking about not intentionally going out of your way to take away the neccessary requirements for human life.

If you lived in your house and every time you went to eat food or drink water, I went in and stole it from you, and you ended up dying, you're saying that is not my fault? Forcing you to starve and dehydrate?

stuck ore
# latent vapor So you'd be in support of parents not feeding their kids? I mean after all, they...

No, that is not the same. When a child is born and you choose to take them home you are agreeing to care for them. Women aren't forced to breastfeed, they can if they want, but no one is forcing you to keep the kids alive with parts of your body. And I reject the notion that having to work to provide for yourself and you family is the same as your body being attached to another person to keep them alive.

You can choose not to parent if you wish. But if you choose to, then you agree to take care of the child. But note that you still aren't agreeing to hand over your blood and organs on a whim if needed.

Why don't you actually engage with the analogy? Do you support the government forcing people to use their bodies to keep others alive at the governments discretion, or do you support a humans right to decide how and by who their body is used for medical purposes?

A pregnancy is a life altering medical process for many women. Not even talking about the dangers, which thankfully are much less than in centuries past, but their bodies fundamentally change in many way that some people do not want if forced to go through the entire process.

latent vapor
# stuck ore No, that is not the same. When a child is born and you choose to take them home ...

Ok so I think the issue here is just with when you should take responsibility. You think parent's don't have to take care of their kids before they come out the womb, only after they decide to take them home from the hospital, is that correct? If so, I don;t think there is any way we can rationally debate this case as we just disagree on that entire level.

I don't support the government forcing you to use your body to keep someone alive who is not under your care, such as your child. That is how biology works, if people don't like biology, then don't take aprt in the biological process that is meant for reproduction. I don't support parents being able to end the life of a kid just because they don't want to deal with the consequences of their actions, if that means having to support the growth of a baby for 9 months, or however long it is going to take, then so be it. Actions have consequences.

stuck ore
#

Plus you are assuming voluntary participation in sex. I know that conservatives love to downplay rape when it comes to abortion, but pregnancy occurs in about 5% of rape victims, which is roughly 50,000 pregnancies per year in the US. And that only applies to rapes that are reported. So these people were not willing participants dealing with the consequences of their actions.

Not that I care. Having sex does not mean you have to remain pregnant. Babies don't care if they are born or not.

My dad was adopted back in the 1950s when abortions weren't allowed. If his bio mom had been allowed to get an abortion, I wouldn't exist, and yet I still believe it should have been her right to do so. If I didn't exist I wouldn't know.

latent vapor
# stuck ore Plus you are assuming voluntary participation in sex. I know that conservatives ...

I find this argument really lacking of quality. YOur claim about regusal to continue support can still be used on an alive child. Why is it different if it's born or not if you choose to now want to stop providing life support for it?

If we are talking about rape, it still doesn't say why the child should get the dealth penalty for another person's actions. I personally believe the rapist should get the death penalty, not the child.

As for babies not caring if they are born or not, I don't think that is an argument at all. Should babies be able to drink alcohol because they don't care if they have irreprible harm to their bodies or not, I doubt the baby cares?

stuck ore
# latent vapor I find this argument really lacking of quality. YOur claim about regusal to cont...

If you really don't understand the difference between providing life support by being physically attached to someone else, being the only person who can provide that support, and having the right to refuse to do that versus having to care for a child you agreed to take home and care for when you could have relinquished your responsibility, and can still relinquish that responsibility at any time then I'm done responding to you.

latent vapor
#

My issue stems from you intentionally killing a child. You can disagree with that all you want, and it's fine if you want to have that opinion. I do see the difference, but that difference means nothing. The only scenario where argument is to be had would only be in the case of rape.

It's sad seeing so many people just being fine with murdering others for the sake of not wanting to be burdened by their actions.

stuck ore
# latent vapor My issue stems from you intentionally killing a child. You can disagree with tha...

There is a clear distinction between killing someone who would otherwise be fine without access to your body, and choosing not to keep someone alive with the use of your body.

There is functionally no difference between disconnecting a baby from its life support system, and refusing to give someone about to die of blood loss a pint of your blood to keep them alive.

I am fine in saying that it is the more ethical, selfless act, to save that life, but I am not willing to say that people should have an obligation to do so.

If your only distinction is that they have a responsibility because they caused the situation, it still doesn't matter.

If I cause a car accident, and the person I hit needs my blood to survive I can still refuse. Again, I'd be a shitty person, but there is no precedent that would allow the doctors to take my blood to save the other person even if they had no other blood available and the person would die without it.

latent vapor
# stuck ore There is a clear distinction between killing someone who would otherwise be fine...

I think the responsibility is a crucial part of the conversation though, your analogy of someone who develops something beyond your control, and you are the only person who can donate part of your body to save them is not equivalent to the scenario we're talking about. It'd be more accurate going along the lines of this: Your force someone into developing a disease or something where you are the only one who can use part of your body to save that person, and you decide not to. You put the other human being in the situation to where they would die without you.

Now that may not have any impact in your mind, but the way that I see it in my mind, and if we don't agree here then I do agree with you that the conversaton is pretty much over, is that if you intentionally cause someone to have to rely on you in order to live, if you do not support that person till they no longer require you, their death would be your fault, aka murder.

This logical process would have far reaching assumptions on other issues, like if I pull the trigger of a gun while aiming it at someone, I didn't kill them, even though I put them in that situation, the bullet is the one who killed them, therefore it was not murder on my part. (Now that isn't entierlly the same to be used as an analogy for what we are discussing, but the logical steps are the same pretty much)

Also, in your car accident analogy, that would be your fault legally, you'd be charged with homicide in one manor or the other. If it was an accident, then it'd be negligent homicide, basically you didn't mean to kill them, but your negligence did directly lead to their death.

stuck ore
# latent vapor I think the responsibility is a crucial part of the conversation though, your an...

Just so you understand the analogy and how ridiculous what you are proposing is:

Driving = having sex

Crashing into someone = getting pregnant

Abortion = refusing to give the crash victim your blood

In my analogy you are not going to jail because you refused to give someone your blood, you are going to jail for your driving that resulted in the person's situation.

So you are essentially advocating for getting pregnant being a crime.

And even if you say thats not what you mean because it's not a perfect analogy, that is essentially what you are advocating for. At that point taking plan B or any form of contraception that takes effect after fertilization would be treated as murder? Women who didn't know they were pregnant and had too much to drink and miscarried could be prosecuted for murder? You are opening a door with monsters on the other side you clearly haven't thought about.

latent vapor
# stuck ore Just so you understand the analogy and how ridiculous what you are proposing is:...

I'd like to clarify, my analogy had no coorelation to your car accident analogy, it was in response to your analogy about a person having some type of rare blood disease or something where you are the only person who can give them blood to save their life.

To talk about anything like plan B and such, I do believe that if a baby is conceived, and you do something to kill that child, it should be murder. If you didn't know you were pregnant and killed the child, that would be negligence. I guess we could relate that to your car analogy, if you're drinking you're not in your right state of mind, you get into your car and accidently get into a wreck, if the person dies, it may not have been your intention, but you still killed that person.

safe mica
safe mica
safe mica
safe mica
safe mica
velvet steeple
#

but the example was with someone severely underage

#

In which case the opposite is likely true

safe mica
#

The reply wasn't meant to disagree with you. I agree with the point you were making, which is that she ought to have the child if possible instead of going through an abortion.

safe mica
# velvet steeple In which case the opposite is likely true

You're misunderstanding the statement here. It's not that going through childbirth is less risk of complications than abortion. Childbirth can carry higher risk in that area. But for your chances of death over time, a cumulative risk looking at whether you're still alive 10 years or so later, abortion brings a higher risk of death than giving birth. There's something about having a child that tends to keep you generally alive and healthy.

So those who argue that it is safer or healthier to have an abortion than to give birth are just flat out wrong. You are increasing overall risk to women, making them more likely to die. This is likely true even for underage women, though such cases are rare enough that data would be sorely lacking.

#

Regardless, it makes no sense to make policy for millions of people based on a couple extreme exceptions. The vast majority of people who have abortions are healthy with healthy pregnancies, and choose to end them due to reasons other than health concerns. That includes those who end pregnancies late term, long past the point of viability. The data there are pretty clear.

vernal lark
safe mica
safe mica
# vernal lark Isn't the health complications of an abortion vs a birth be a decision that shou...

Health professionals are just like anyone else these days, heavily invested in politics instead of sober health decisions. The fact that a majority of people believe it's safer to have an abortion than give birth is a testament to that.

Giving birth reduces your risk of death compared to an abortion. It also doesn't kill a child. That's two incredibly important reasons why it makes sense to limit abortion to the maximum extent possible, or outright ban it. When you factor in societal concerns, it's just way healthier for families, young people, and societies in general to not just blatantly have sex with anyone and everyone and not care about consequences. It's far healthier to recognize life as a beautiful thing instead of describing children as parasites or pregnancy as a medical condition to be cured.

vernal lark
safe mica
vernal lark
safe mica
#

If doctor's don't value the life of the child, they shouldn't be practicing medicine.

#

To answer your question more directly, society should make the decision through their elected officials to not allow casual murder.

vernal lark
# safe mica To answer your question more directly, society should make the decision through ...

The Texas Supreme Court recognized that only a doctor, not a judge or trial court, could decide whether a pregnant woman had a life-threatening physical condition making an abortion necessary to save her life or to save her from “a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function.”
Sounds to me like the doctor is the best judge of what a life threatening condition is for a pregnancy, not an elected official.

safe mica
vernal lark
#

I agree with the texas supreme court decision here to be clear

safe mica
#

I mean in principle I agree. The problem is that many, many doctors have been completely ignoring the "life threatening" aspect and performing abortions for any reason at all, and justifying it based on very shaky claims of reducing risk.

#

So I trust doctors to make that decision when they also fall under a law that requires them to not murder children.

vernal lark
safe mica
#

For what, people justifying abortions?

#

Literally every person you will ever talk to about abortions believes that having an abortion is lower risk than giving birth.

#

I don't think I need a source for that.

vernal lark
vernal lark
safe mica
#

Have you ever talked to someone who thought that childbirth was lower risk than abortion?

vernal lark
safe mica
#

Even those against abortion don't necessarily believe abortion itself has higher risk of complications than childbirth. They generally don't even think to consider longer term risk.

#

It's not even part of the conversation, even though it should be.

vernal lark
safe mica
#

I mean the Google search isn't hard to do.

vernal lark
safe mica
vernal lark
#

Because if you are referring to doctors in blue states, than they wouldn't need to "justifying it based on very shaky claims of reducing risk." because you wouldn't need to justify it to any government or court

#

Although in Texas specifically, looks like the doctors have the freedom to make that decision which is probably for the best.

#

Under the law, it is a doctor who must decide that a woman is suffering from a life-threatening condition during a pregnancy, raising the necessity for an abortion to save her life or to prevent impairment of a major bodily function. The law leaves to physicians—not judges—both the discretion and the responsibility to exercise their reasonable medical judgment, given the unique facts and circumstances of each patient.
Though it is qualified by requiring doctors to have reasonable medical judgment that meets an objective standard

#

Not sure if you are advocating for even stricter regulations on doctors than this, this is texas we are talking about.

safe mica
#

It's also very difficult to get data on this, because women who have been pressured to have an abortion are the least likely to want to talk about it.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36874642/

PubMed
Effects of Pressure to Abort on Women's Emotional Responses and Men...

Background Women who feel pressured to agree to abortion are more likely to experience negative emotional and mental health reactions. But relatively little research has been conducted to explore the types and degree of pressures women face and their associated effects. Our study aims to investigate …

#

So I'm much more interested in discussing how abortion increases overall risk than I am in showing that women are consistently pressured into getting abortions that aren't due to a threat to their own health.

vernal lark
safe mica
#

https://medscimonit.com/abstract/index/idArt/883338

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699440/#:~:text=This review explores the relationship,risk of death from childbirth

Short and long term mortality rates associated with first pregnancy...

Background: There is a growing interest in examining death rates associated with different pregnancy outcomes for time periods beyond one year. Previo...

PubMed
Induced Abortion and the Increased Risk of Maternal Mortality - PubMed

In Finland, where epidemiologic record linkage has been validated, the risk of death from legal induced abortion is reported to be almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth. It is difficult to do this comparison in the United States not only because prior induced abortion hist …

#

I'll let you do your own search on childbirth vs abortion if you're dying to see how doctors typically look at risk without considering longer term effects.

vernal lark
safe mica
#

I'm not interested in citing studies that are fundamentally flawed that attempt to prove the opposite of reality based on faulty methodology.

#

Feel free to Google abortion vs childbirth risk to see all sorts of them.

#

That actually is a very easy Google search, unlike many others.

vernal lark
safe mica
#

Because I'm not interested in the sources.

#

I've looked at plenty, and they suck.

#

If you look at the sources I did provide, they discuss the topic you're asking about.

#

So I did provide what you're demanding.

vernal lark
# safe mica I've looked at plenty, and they suck.

You said yourself that "It's extremely common for doctors to have the baseline assumption that abortion reduces risk to a woman compared with childbirth."
So if all the studies suck, but it is also extremely common, this sounds like a contradiction

safe mica
#

I've already explained it. Let me outline it again.

#

Studies look at immediate risk instead of long term risk. They conclude that risk is higher because their studies look at immediate risk. Very few to none are interested in the question of longer term risk. The studies I posted discuss both, as well as the difficulties associated with getting data.

#

So review the studies I just gave you.

#

Let me know what you think.

stuck ore
#

If you were only talking about the fact that all women should be well informed of the potential dangers of abortion, I'd agree. But you are trying to say that it being more dangerous is a reason for them not to have the right to do it. Which, by the way, is nonsense. The "study" you linked is just a conclusion without any actual data, methodology, demographics cited.

The numbers get better for both over time but as of 2020-2023 some data i found shows 1 in 200,000 fatalities related to abortion complications and 23 in 100,000 for fatalities during child birth.

Not that this really matters to either of us. You still think that a woman should be forced to be an incubator against her will and I don't so there's no getting over that.

I'm open to restrictions on abortion only when the child can survive without its maternal life support, but at that point we are talking about less than 1% of all abortions performed anyway and most of those would fall into the life threatening circumstance category.

However, in the extreme minority of cases past 24 weeks where there are no health complications, I agree that it should be delivered and relinquished at that point if they don't want it.

safe mica
# stuck ore If you were only talking about the fact that all women should be well informed o...

People should be well informed, and they currently aren't. You just claimed you looked at the numbers, and somehow you're magically still remaining ignorant. Your chances of dying are higher after an abortion than after giving birth. But somehow you choose to ignore that and focus on the risk of complications. Why? The only reason I could see for you to do that is if you're more interested in pushing for someone's right to murder their children than you are interested in their health and well-being.

It's not "against her will." People make choices. Pregnancy isn't a disease that just happens to people. It's like saying someone shouldn't be forced to pay pack a college loan just because they signed contracts and attended classes for four years. People generally make better decisions when you stop removing the consequences of their actions.

stuck ore
# safe mica People should be well informed, and they currently aren't. You just claimed you ...

The problem with your study is that it doesn't actually link the deaths to the abortion in any way. A person who gets an abortion is 4 times more likely to die within 10 years than a person who gives birth. Okay? That doesn't mean the abortion caused it. If you think for a few seconds you can come up with many reasons why this could happen, none of which were controlled for in the study.

Who is most likely to get an abortion? Someone in a poor economic situation, poor mental situation, lacking in supportive people around them.

safe mica
stuck ore
#

It says they adjusted for age factors, not economic or mental.

safe mica
#

There's more than one study. The data hold true when you adjust for other factors.

#

Additionally, deaths related to abortion are extremely hard to track, because people don't report abortion pills they've taken, so such things would virtually never be included in death statistics, and states generally aren't required to report abortions in the same way that they'd report live births.

#

So hard numbers will always underestimate deaths related to abortion.

#

Those who choose to give birth have a lower risk of death than those who choose abortion. That's what the numbers actually show. There are many, many possible reasons for this. But the narrative is that choosing a live birth is a higher risk than choosing abortion, and that's just not true.

stuck ore
safe mica
#

The studies explicitly discuss maternal mortality, which includes death during pregnancy, childbirth, pregnancy termination, etc.

#

And they're not "my numbers." I shared a couple studies. There are more. The reality is that abortion numbers don't exist in the US, and they're even less likely to be accurate post 2022.

stuck ore
#

Conclusions: Compared to women who delivered, women who had an early or late abortion had significantly higher mortality rates within 1 through 10 years. A lesser effect may also be present relative to miscarriage.

#

It is not comparing those those died during the procedures

safe mica
#

You're looking at the conclusion to make that statement?

#

Why wouldn't you look at the actual study? The full text is available.

#

Additionally, there's more than one study. They look at things in different ways. I don't see anywhere that defines mortality as only being post operation or post delivery.

stuck ore
#

I did. The data begins comparing at 180 days up to 10 years. That's what they provide numbers for. Not at the time of birth/abortion. Maybe there are more studies, I'm just saying that one does not support your claim.

safe mica
#

It also separately discusses mortality rates for the time period following those events.

stuck ore
#

If it did include them, it is deceptively leaving out the mortality results of those that died during child birth. It isn't in any of the subsequent comparisons. They jump right to 180 days and claim all periods examined show higher death rates among those who got abortions.

safe mica
#

"Finland has excellent record linkage, and they are able to compare rates using the common denominator “ended pregnancy.” The risk of death from abortion (101 deaths per 100,000 ended pregnancies) was almost four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth (27 deaths per 100,000 ended pregnancies; Gissler et al. 1997)."

stuck ore
#

Maybe in 1997. Abortion complications were also really high in the 70s. Not so much today.

safe mica
#

There's more than one study.

#

It's explicitly discussed.

#

"Using outcome-specific rates, the mortality rate for vaginal delivery is 3.6 deaths/100,000 vaginal deliveries (Caughey et al. 2014), while the mortality rate for abortion performed at eighteen weeks is 7.4 deaths/100,000 abortions (Niinimaki et al. 2009). Put another way, the risk of death from these abortions is more than double that for women who deliver vaginally."

#

And suddenly we have 2009 and 2014. It's almost like these researchers are using all the available data they can find, just like any normal people would do.

#

"“Maternal death” is the death of a woman while pregnant or within forty-two days of the end of her pregnancy, irrespective of the duration or site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, excluding accidental or incidental causes."

safe mica
#

Even the first study, which is a bit poorly worded, states, "from date of pregnancy outcome to end of time period." It's cumulative death rate. So that would be within the first 180 days, not after 180 days.

vernal lark
#

Right so informed consent is an important part of any medical procedure. Anyone going through an abortion should be made aware of these studies.

safe mica
#

Should be, but it's highly unlikely that they'll be told anything except the comparison between abortion complications and giving birth, with the extreme skewing of that information due to lack of reporting on abortion related complications.

pulsar galleon
#

I think Abortion should be illegal but allowed for Rape and maybe some other extreme cases, this is due to the fact that I think you are still killing someone despite them not being born yet.

latent vapor
pulsar galleon
# latent vapor I agree with your reasoning, but you are saying it is ok to kill someone because...

Ok now the thing is right, when it is Rape then it wasnt their fault to bare that child at all, meanwhile if it was with their boyfriend/husbad/whoever with consent then it is their fault because maybe they werent careful enough or something. But Rape is different as it wasnt their fault and its still their choice wether they want to do it or not (abortion), but have the ability to do so because they won't want to have the child of a Rapist

latent vapor
pulsar galleon
#

The mother shouldnt have to bare a child of someone who raped her but the child doesnt deserve to die

stuck ore
#

If the underlying goal is to have less babies aborted, making it illegal is not the way to go.

The data is overwhelming on this point. In countries where abortions are illegal, they still happen, a lot. The difference being that because they are unregulated they are often much more dangerous for the mother.

Alternatively, by alleviating the factors that cause people to seek abortions you actually reduce the number of babies aborted.

Comprehensive, age appropriate, sex education is the number 1 deterrent to early and unprotected sexual activity and as a result unwanted pregnancy. Social assistance programs for parents also reduce the number of people seeking abortions.

So I guess if all you want is to virtue signal and pretend you care about babies you can seek abortion bans. But if you actually want to reduce the number of abortions that happen in the world there are better paths to take.

pulsar galleon
latent vapor
latent vapor
cosmic pivot
# latent vapor So then it comes down to what you believe is more important: A human's right to ...

You seem to forget that if a woman chooses to kill her baby, it is for a reason.
That baby that a 16 year old girl (accidentally) has, if she chooses to keep them, could ruin her life. She wouldn’t have time anymore for school, and maybe her parents are poor so in order to feed her children, she would also need to work = less time to socialize with friends, and again, no time for school. Having a baby when you are not ready for it, could ruin your life.

In a way, not choosing abortion could “kill an innocent human” : the mother, and maybe the father as well and/or other people…

pulsar galleon
cosmic pivot
#

Yes

pulsar galleon
#

That woman’s and partner fault

#

That baby had nothing to do with them

cosmic pivot
#

But maybe they were using protection and still, somehow, it didn’t work

pulsar galleon
cosmic pivot
#

There is, a like 0,5% even if you use a condom that something unexpected can haapen

#
  • when you’re 16, u dumb, u prob dont think about the consequences
latent vapor
#

So because two people made a concious choice that they knew had a chance to make a baby, and they went through with it, they should be able to kill a human?

latent vapor
cosmic pivot
pulsar galleon
latent vapor
# cosmic pivot Yea

Ok, so with that logic, you just allowed me to go murder someone to rob them of cash because I spent all my money and need food

cosmic pivot
#

They gave life to something, I believe it is in their right to take it away; without them, it wouldn’t even have seen the light of day

pulsar galleon
latent vapor
cosmic pivot
#
  • a zygote doesn’t have emotions yet, it is like a couple of days away from being a sperm. What harm is there in killing something that hasn’t even reached the stage where it is capable of thinking?
latent vapor
#

So it's ok to kill less developed humans?

cosmic pivot
#

Following your logic, as soon as you have sex, it would be a crime not to create a human then?

latent vapor
pulsar galleon
cosmic pivot
#

View it as a pokemon evolution if u want

latent vapor
#

It's still a human, no matter what term you want to call it

cosmic pivot
latent vapor
#

No, a sperm is not a human, a sperm and an egg combined is a human

#

That's how reproduction works

cosmic pivot
#

It has the potential to be human, but it doesnt find an ovule and therefore doesn’t form a “human”

latent vapor
#

Yes, on it's own it will never become a human. If anything the better analogy would be the egg. But the egg would never become a developed human either without a sperm. A fertilized egg though will always become a human and develop unless you kill it.

cosmic pivot
latent vapor
cosmic pivot
latent vapor
pulsar galleon
cosmic pivot
vernal lark
#

@latent vapor you think theres like a spectrum of immorality here? Like aborting a 30 week fetus is more immoral than a 1 week fetus?

cosmic pivot
vernal lark
#

like we probably draw the line morally acceptable line at a different stage but there is at least a spectrum right?

cosmic pivot
#

If it damages you too much, you shouldn’t have to bear the responsibility of another being

latent vapor
pulsar galleon
cosmic pivot
#

What matters the most is the well being of the parents, then, if they are in a situation where they can afford taking care of a child and want to, then they may go for it and hf!

latent vapor
cosmic pivot
#

They were 2 to create it, if one doesn’t want it, the baby has to die

#

If the mother is not happy, she can make another one with someone else

pulsar galleon
cosmic pivot
#

I’m just not wasting time on words and euphemisms

vernal lark
pulsar galleon
#

I think it’s still your fault to have a baby in the first place so like fuck you if you messed up its ur fault and now u have to bear that responsibility just like someone would have to take the responsibility of a job that they do and if they mess up its their fault and they take the burden of paying for it

cosmic pivot
latent vapor
cosmic pivot
#

I don’t know when I consider a newly born child to be a human capable of thinking and emotions, it would be interesting to learn more about that…If I become a father one day, I might try to look it up 🤷‍♂️

latent vapor
#

I don't think the level of development matters, it is still a human. I mean killing a pregnant women counts as murdering two people, clearly the law already thinks that babys in the womb are lives with value.

cosmic pivot
cosmic pivot
pulsar galleon
cosmic pivot
#

thats my whole point 😭

pulsar galleon
cosmic pivot
#

Imagine a mathematical formula

latent vapor
cosmic pivot
#

If I have
Y= ab

#

A = parent 1