The Abortion debate

[Houseman]

ha- then why have your views as they are at all if you agree it's beneficial?!

Because I can believe that something can be beneficial and immoral at the same time.
That isn't such a strange concept, is it?

Like stealing and getting away with it. You get a thing, it never comes back to you, but it's immoral.
Or slavery hundreds of years ago. It might be immoral, but it's legal, and you get free labor.

 

[Xprimentyl]

It's possible it's just words lost in translation, or something that is felt on their end but not fully conveyed properly. I know I had a few moments like that in this thread, and that's why my past few posts have been more about my perspective of things rather than arguing someone else'.

I also said this:

That said, I think we could agree abortion should not be used as a form of birth control. An abortion should be a thoroughly vetted decision, one that I would hope comes with some moral distress and is not approached alone. If it becomes a woman's habitual "plan B," I think abortion providers should be afforded the choice to refuse her service, and she should be saddled with carrying the child to term and going through the process of coming to terms with being a parent or putting it up for adoption.

But it appears this sentiment was glossed over in lieu of taking my literal definition of "life" upon conception as a complete disregard for "life."

 

[Shadyside]

This thread is still going? Has anyone had their views challenged or has anyone had an epiphany or a new insight?

 

[Houseman]

I also said this:



But it appears this sentiment was glossed over in lieu of taking my literal definition of "life" upon conception as a complete disregard for "life."

Saying "it's a difficult decision that should come with moral distress and not just a casual 'consequences-avoider" while also saying "it's just like removing a mole" seems like a contradiction. How can both things be true? If a fetus isn't "alive", why should it cause moral distress?

 

[Elvis Starburst]

Has anyone had their views challenged or has anyone had an epiphany or a new insight?

Yes on one person's side. Hasn't really done anything for em though it seems

 

[Xprimentyl]

Saying "it's a difficult decision that should come with moral distress and not just a casual 'consequences-avoider" while also saying "it's just like removing a mole" seems like a contradiction. How can both things be true? If a fetus isn't "alive", why should it cause moral distress?

I guess when your comprehension is willfully limited to what a book of stories tells you is objectively true and correct in all cases, it makes it difficult for you to discern nuance, subtlety, inference and levity in modern language? When you go to a restaurant, do you specify to the waiter that you want your food cooked and on a plate for fear that if you just ask for the "spaghetti," you'll get a handful of dry noodles?

What you perceive as a contradiction is actually an appreciation of the complexity of the debate and my applying intellect to the myriad facets of the issue. Upon conception, the potential for life is there; could be the one that cures cancer or the next Hitler, so yes, I can appreciate the decision to terminate a pregnancy should come with serious consideration and gravity. I also appreciate that should one choose to terminate, it's not the equivalent of bashing an infant to death with a brick considering upon conception, that "life" literally IS little more than a clump of cells, entirely dependent upon a woman's body for its existence, not unlike a mole; it is not sentient. And to bring that full circle: does that latter fact mitigate any and all personal culpability and emotion when making the abortion decision? No.

THAT'S how both can be true.

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

The abortion debate is so done by now, like the climate change debate. You either let women have control over their own bodies or you remain a stubborn dinosaur hell bent on passive-aggressively trying to punish women for having an active sex life.
I should say though, that this has changed my mind somewhat, reading what thread time allows. That this tiresome debate should be moved forward now, to whether men should be allowed to keep their balls after they try using their position to influence taking away women's control over their uterus. It's a natural evolution and only fair.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[Casual Shinji]

I just dropped in to post this.


Abortion... AND BEYOND!!!!

 

[Houseman]

I guess when your comprehension is willfully limited to what a book of stories tells you is objectively true and correct in all cases, it makes it difficult for you to discern nuance, subtlety, inference and levity in modern language? When you go to a restaurant, do you specify to the waiter that you want your food cooked and on a plate for fear that if you just ask for the "spaghetti," you'll get a handful of dry noodles?

I am sorry if I did anything to upset you, to cause you to insult me so.

Upon conception, the potential for life is there

I've heard pro-life people use this argument before, and the response is usually something like "So do you believe that other forms of contraception are bad too?"
Wait... YOU were the one who said that in post #131: "Unless we want to move the goal posts back even further and consider sperm cells and ova "lives" and hence wet dreams and every menstrual cycle completed without fertilization cases of involuntary manslaughter?"

So if you stop a sperm and egg from meeting when they might otherwise do so, is this at all similar to stopping the potential for life?

 

[Xprimentyl]

I am sorry if I did anything to upset you, to cause you to insult me so.

Upset? Not at all; I know better than to get riled up over meaningless forum banter. My apologies if you felt insulted; I was being snide, yes, but held no aggressive intent.

I've heard pro-life people use this argument before, and the response is usually something like "So do you believe that other forms of contraception are bad too?"

Did you mean pro-choicers? If not, I'm turned around; not sure what angle you're coming from.

Wait... YOU were the one who said that in post #131: "Unless we want to move the goal posts back even further and consider sperm cells and ova "lives" and hence wet dreams and every menstrual cycle completed without fertilization cases of involuntary manslaughter?"

Yes, I did say that, as what I thought an obvious attempt to highlight the absurdity of the "life begins at conception" argument. After conception, it's 5-7 WEEKS before that "lifeform" has a discernible heartbeat, which we agreed in post #128, was a fair metric for "life."

And even well after that, a fetus is entirely dependent upon the ecology of a woman's body effectively making it a part of her body that lacks sentience and self-awareness. Quick Google search (take that for it's worth,) the earliest recorded premature birth that survived came in at just under 22 weeks, a full 10 weeks after voluntary abortion is a viable, ethical option, so one could argue ("one could," not saying I am) that even at over 5 months in the womb, a fetus is little more than an extension of a woman's body.

So if you stop a sperm and egg from meeting when they might otherwise do so, is this at all similar to stopping the potential for life?

Yes; yes it is. It's a responsible method of preventing conception which is the start of the ultimate potential for life. And when it fails, a risk consenting sexual partners assume, a viable, last ditch effort is to terminate an unwanted pregnancy if one feels unprepared for the burdens of parenthood or if other extenuating circumstances make parenthood a less than I deal situation.

 

[Houseman]

Did you mean pro-choicers? If not, I'm turned around; not sure what angle you're coming from.

I mean that pro-life people say "it's wrong! You're squashing the potential for life!" and then pro-choicers come back with "so is it wrong to kill sperm? They have the potential for life too! Are you a mass-murderer every time you masturbate or have a wet dream?"

which we agreed in post #128, was a fair metric for "life."

I agreed to the distinction between "life" and "lifestyle" not your definition of life. Apologies for not being clear.

Yes; yes it is.

So is using a condom a decision that should come with "serious consideration and gravity" in the same way that abortion is, since both "stop the potential for life"?

I mean, sure, everyone should "seriously consider" using a condom unless they want a child, but the context of "should I terminate this potential life?" is different. Or is it?

 

[Xprimentyl]

So is using a condom a decision that should come with "serious consideration and gravity" in the same way that abortion is, since both "stop the potential for life"?

No, a condom or birth control are used as a means of avoiding the [hopefully] innate "serious consideration and gravity" of abortion.

 

[Houseman]

No, a condom or birth control are used as a means of avoiding the [hopefully] innate "serious consideration and gravity" of abortion.

But you said they both "stop the potential for life."
How can two things, condoms and abortion, both "stop the potential for life", and not warrant the same "serious consideration" for the same reasons?

 

[Xprimentyl]

But you said they both "stop the potential for life."
How can two things, condoms and abortion, both "stop the potential for life", and not warrant the same "serious consideration" for the same reasons?

You can't be serious. A part of me wants to point out the obvious and arbitrary equivalence you've made with my words, but I really don't need to. I'm done here, you silly goose.

 

[Trunkage]

You can't be serious. A part of me wants to point out the obvious and arbitrary equivalence you've made with my words, but I really don't need to. I'm done here, you silly goose.

How dare you kill all those sperms

 

[Trunkage]

Some stats

 

[Iron]

This thread is still going? Has anyone had their views challenged or has anyone had an epiphany or a new insight?

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*INHALES*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Oh wait, you're serious?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Gergar12]

As someone whose not a fan of abortions, the problem with abortion is that you can't stop them. It's either with a coat-hanger or a doctor.

 

[Fieldy409]

When does person good begin? Fuck knows. Nobody has convinced me there's a hard point it becomes a person and I think the conversation of personhood veers rapidly from hard facts into vague philosophy.

On the other hand, bodily autonomy of a woman is real. Her rights are real, her body is hers and she is definitely a person. So when it comes to the rights of a 'could be' person that I can see is just a tiny little egg vs a real living breathing woman, I pick the woman's freedom.

Besides, you don't need to be pro abortion just because you're pro choice. It can be legal and you still choose not to get one and argue that it is immoral all you want. It's not saying abortions must happen to legalise them, its simply washing your hands of the matter and leaving the choice to the individual rather than the state. You might think its immoral to have premarital sex and that's fine as your opinion, but when you try to control what other people do with laws it becomes a problem.