The Abortion debate
- Thread starter Houseman
- Start date
Are you bored Housemen?
Thinking this controversial topic will light a spark in your day?
Thinking this controversial topic will light a spark in your day?
Legally, life and personhood should begin at the time of birth (i.e. the time specified on one's birth certificate after exiting the womb). Trying to make it earlier only creates a level of unnecessary complexity that fundamentally makes it less ideal for legal purposes as well as a bunch of potential unintended consequences.
Abortion is a medical procedure and should only be regulated as a similarly complex medical procedure. Regulation beyond that should be considered suspect.
Beyond that, it's a personal moral and ethical question. We generally do not look down on people for getting treatment for cancer or other diseases, so the question should be considered a personal matter that is none of anyone's business.
Abortion is a medical procedure and should only be regulated as a similarly complex medical procedure. Regulation beyond that should be considered suspect.
Beyond that, it's a personal moral and ethical question. We generally do not look down on people for getting treatment for cancer or other diseases, so the question should be considered a personal matter that is none of anyone's business.
Personally, I am religious, and thus biased against abortion. However, I'm not going to vote for legislation denying it for others.
I believe that life begins at conception, and that "personhood" is irrelevant.
I don't think the "my body, my decision" argument holds any weight, because it's not "your body". Ignoring whether or not it's "alive", it has it's own DNA. It's not "your body". If it was "your body", then it would share your DNA. It's a mix of your genetic information and the genetic information from someone else.
forums.escapistmagazine.com
I believe that life begins at conception, and that "personhood" is irrelevant.
I don't think the "my body, my decision" argument holds any weight, because it's not "your body". Ignoring whether or not it's "alive", it has it's own DNA. It's not "your body". If it was "your body", then it would share your DNA. It's a mix of your genetic information and the genetic information from someone else.
This topic was made so as not to derail this other topic about the new Supreme Court justice:
RBG’s dead and Mitch is gonna do it
A necessary medical procedure can be done for the patients mental health as well as drug addiction, alcoholism, depression ect. Not having control over your own body has serious psychological implications. So all conservative judges have to recuse themselves from abortion cases since they seem...
forums.escapistmagazine.com
Should unborn people be counted in the census? If there's a miscarriage, should the woman be arrested for manslaughter? If life begins at conception, and the woman has sex again, is she endangering the child? Should the man be arrested for exposure? If they have sex soon after an egg is fertilized, technically the man's sperm will go to the same spot as the fertilized egg, and Im pretty sure there are laws against men, babies and sperm being together.
If an egg is fertilized but doesn't stick is it ruled a murder or suicide? How often should women be examined to ensure there wasn't a fertilized egg murder?
In the US the constitution guarantees 'Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" now moving past forcing a woman to carry a baby is against her liberty, but what are the rights of the baby? We are required to hold hearings when these questions come up. So if a woman has a miscarriage, a citizen has died, and there needs to be an investigation and court hearing to decide who is to blame. And seeings how the woman's body is no longer her property, we could blame and punish the body without interfering with her as a citizen.
Last edited:
Her body her choice. I'm not interested in any other viewpoints TBH.
Current Events, as clearly identified by the guidelines, is for current events. This a general philosophical discussion, so Off-Topic.
Did not know. Thank you for the info. Still not gonna bother with this topic. Besides, shits gonna get out of control and the topic will be closed within the week. Not dealing with that.
That's an issue of legality and paperwork. I'm more interested in the philosophical and ethical perspective.
If it was due to something that she could have controlled, like, if she was using drugs, smoking, drinking, skydiving, or doing anything else that might recklessly endanger the fetus, yes.
I don't know. Does that usually endanger the viability of the fetus?
No, since the fetus cannot see. But your questions are about legal concepts that I am not interested in.
No, that's the declaration of Independence.
Legality and morality are two different things. When it comes to morality, its a pointless discussion because no one share anyone elses morality. Morals are individual, and no one has a right to force their morality onto another.
Legality however, matters and is worth discussing. Laws are how the world interacts with itself. Any conversation about the morality of abortion begins and ends on yes or no.
Now the legality of it, and a fetus's rights as a person, are very interesting.
For example should a man be arrested for exposure after having sex with a pregnant woman? Your response is no, the baby can't see. Well eyes start to develop after 6 weeks, and they can see starting the second trimester. So if the fetus is legally a person, and underage at that, and they can see, there is a legal argument that the man is in fact exposing himself.
Why do I bring this up? Because the moral premise that life begins at conception has legal ramifications to it. Its not just some empty God slogan about souls and spirits, it actually has serious consequences to real people here on earth. and those ramifications need to be understood in a debate about the morality of abortion.
Can they see the penis out through the cervix, even if they do have eyes? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
But a child may have been put in danger. We need a hearing to gather evidence to prove the answer is no. Its not enough for you or I to just assume the answer, law enforcement needs to be involved.
Nah, I think we know enough about human anatomy that, we can determine, beyond a shadow of a doubt, a fetus cannot glimpse a penis from inside the womb.
Just like we know that children don't have x-ray vision and can't see body parts through walls or clothing.
But life begins at conception. That fertilized egg is a person. What if that egg comes into contact with sperm after its fertilized? How is that not a sex crime?
I'm not religious, but life beginning at conception remains the only clear answer to the question of "where does life begin". Answers of "brain activity", "independence", and "viability" are not clear and each have their dissatisfactions. The beginning is the beginning, I don't really know how much more clear it can be, and arguments against tend, in my view, to be more about what is personally convenient or politically expedient over being rational, defendable answers.
Now, with that said. I didn't say that life beginning at conception rules out abortion (for one thing, the line of thinking that says abortion = murder presumes that human life is sacred under all circumstances). I could bring up various edge cases such as health and age of the mother, but honestly, it really isn't necessary. When people talk about abortion, it is either from a legal standpoint or a religious standpoint. The religious can debate their ethics among themselves. From a legal standpoint, most legal discussions invariably revolve around criminalization and retributive justice. It is curious to me why we don't look at it from the other direction more often in this case. Instead of focusing on how abortions should be regulated and when they are permissible, why don't we shift the focus to providing the social aid that would make many abortions unnecessary? Universal healthcare, a re-worked foster care system, child support through subsidized daycare and such, contraceptive aid. If you address the economic and social shaming circumstances behind many abortions, I can't help but think that the demand for abortions will steeply decline.
I'd like to think of myself as fairly progressive, but I am not pro-abortion. I think that the need for abortion is predominantly a failure of socioeconomic circumstances, excepting those medical cases wherein the mother is endangered or criminal cases such as rape. By addressing those circumstances, we can lower the demand for abortions without questions of anybody's personal liberty.
Now, with that said. I didn't say that life beginning at conception rules out abortion (for one thing, the line of thinking that says abortion = murder presumes that human life is sacred under all circumstances). I could bring up various edge cases such as health and age of the mother, but honestly, it really isn't necessary. When people talk about abortion, it is either from a legal standpoint or a religious standpoint. The religious can debate their ethics among themselves. From a legal standpoint, most legal discussions invariably revolve around criminalization and retributive justice. It is curious to me why we don't look at it from the other direction more often in this case. Instead of focusing on how abortions should be regulated and when they are permissible, why don't we shift the focus to providing the social aid that would make many abortions unnecessary? Universal healthcare, a re-worked foster care system, child support through subsidized daycare and such, contraceptive aid. If you address the economic and social shaming circumstances behind many abortions, I can't help but think that the demand for abortions will steeply decline.
I'd like to think of myself as fairly progressive, but I am not pro-abortion. I think that the need for abortion is predominantly a failure of socioeconomic circumstances, excepting those medical cases wherein the mother is endangered or criminal cases such as rape. By addressing those circumstances, we can lower the demand for abortions without questions of anybody's personal liberty.
OMG. If you can kill the kid I can sure as hell abandon him.
There is a huge MRA aspect to this. That on this forum, people have written that if a man doesn't want to be a parent, he shouldn't have had sex. Can you imagine saying that to a woman?