Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

Bringing up the impact of a full term pregancy on someone's lifestyle? Maybe delaying when they go to college - do what else? What is so important that can't wait 9 months (again, if the safety of the mother is not in question)? We all know what life is about on a day to day basis. We spend more time wasting it than using it for any great accomplishment. And how does being pregnant get in the way of that any way? I work side-by-side with proud, intelligent, pregnant women all the time.

You really can't conceive of why a woman wouldn't want to go through pregnancy if she doesn't want to keep the child? There are physiological effects associated with pregnancy besides "your stomach gets big" you know.

 

[faceless007]

You know this one: there are plenty of people who are eager to adopt, to take someone else's unwanted child and raise it as their own. I personally have a hope that my first child will be an adoption.

This is really only true--and even then, not really--for white children.

 

[Devolution]

I'll never grasp the minds of anti-abortionists. So it's unethical to abort a fetus but it's ethical for force a woman to undergo a pregnancy against her will?

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It's not that hard to understand really, they just have a radically different starting premise for their arguments - that a human being regardless of complexity has a right to life.

That's why you can't have a meaningful discussion with Iceman, aside from appealing to his sense of practicality, pointing out that regardless of how immoral he might consider abortion, it is necessary.

 

[Devolution]

It's not that hard to understand really, they just have a radically different starting premise for their arguments - that a human being regardless of complexity has a right to life.

But once you actually break it down, it doesn't even work like that.

 

[Envelope]

I'll never grasp the minds of anti-abortionists. So it's unethical to abort a fetus but it's ethical for force a woman to undergo a pregnancy against her will?

Are you really going to be that obtuse?

A human life is more important than the discomfort, inconviences, and hardships a pregnant woman will go through. It's not that difficult a position to understand, regardless of whether you agree or not.


It really all comes down to whether or not you consider a fetus to be a living human being.

 

[FyreWulff]

In what instances is it necessary for a woman to terminate a pregnancy other than risk to her own life?

When she views it necessary. By the way, you didn't answer my post.

You know this one: there are plenty of people who are eager to adopt, to take someone else's unwanted child and raise it as their own. I personally have a hope that my first child will be an adoption.

There are not plenty of people to adopt. There's even less if the baby is non-white.

Bringing up the impact of a full term pregancy on someone's lifestyle? Maybe delaying when they go to college - do what else? What is so important that can't wait 9 months (again, if the safety of the mother is not in question)? We all know what life is about on a day to day basis. We spend more time wasting it than using it for any great accomplishment. And how does being pregnant get in the way of that any way? I work side-by-side with proud, intelligent, pregnant women all the time.

Not every woman has the money, support, or setting in order to "just delay" life by 9 months. Having a kid makes you switch rails, they become even harder to support after they're born.

You could try to invoke the constitution (as I have) and suggest that we cannot deny someone the right to life

Except when people support executions and the death penalty like you do, so your support of the "right to life" is only when it's emotionally convenient.

Our own bodies are already determining if these babies are fit for a good quality of life. Anything beyond that is a matter of convenience on our part - not part of an evolutionary process to weed out the weak from the strong - its an exercise/imposition of the will over those without the means to protect themselves.

Except the uterus isn't fucking magic and will not reject babies such as ones that have anencephaly and a load of other unviable conditions. The woman's body will happily keep what is essentially a dead baby alive until it exits the vagina. Republican rules would state that every woman would be forced to birth this child that has zero chance at life.

And isn't that our jobs? as human beings? the animal - not the soul. Aren't we supposed to protect our offspring? I hope I can't be blamed for that sentiment as opposed to the complicit slaughter/harvest of cell masses that oddly possess the shape of a human

Once again, you support the slaughter of cell masses that oddly possess the shape of a human, it's just that you're arbitrarily choosing which ones have the right to live.

 

[Duffyside]

Fetuses aren't persons.

Inbefore 20-pages of abortion debate.

Really, Iceman, you might as well stop with these posts. People who are already against abortions being legal are already agreeing with you, people who are not against abortions being legal will not accept your basic premises.

Though the terms are equally important and interchangeable, to me, but just to make the point with undebatable terminology -- are fetuses humans? Please, ANYONE, explain how a living cell, whose species is homo sapiens, with its own distinct DNA, is not a human being. I know I just asked for someone to explain "how the round Earth is not round or the Earth," but sadly that seems to be needed.

There are not PLENTY of people willing to adopt. That's a fucking farce. I'll deal with the rest later.

Damn right. And why should society be forced to pay and care for these unwanted, abandoned children? Sounds like a violation of all our liberties.

When a woman doesn't want to grow a baby in her uterus, that is when it is necessary to terminate a pregnancy.

When a woman doesn't want to grow a baby in her uterus, that is when it is necessary to not get pregnant in the first place.

To the inevitable "oh yeah, but you don't want to pay for condom programs" responses -- if the "deal" is abortion abolition, or even just serious restrictions, in exchange for condom programs? You have me axe to argue for legislation that mandates monthly condom air drops over every city in the country. Small price to pay to preserve innocent lives.

 

[Devolution]

Are you really going to be that obtuse?

A human life is more important than the discomfort, inconviences, and hardships a pregnant woman will go through. It's not that difficult a position to understand, regardless of whether you agree or not.


It really all comes down to whether or not you consider a fetus to be a living human being.

Pregnancy is more than just a discomfort. Jesus christ.

 

[Duffyside]

I'll never grasp the minds of anti-abortionists. So it's unethical to abort a fetus but it's ethical for force a woman to undergo a pregnancy against her will?

This kind of forced language always strikes me as fishy. Really? You don't get it? REALLY? We know it's a living human, and believe due to its innocence it shouldn't be murdered.

Shit, I get where you're coming from, even though I find it abhorrent.

 

[Envelope]

Pregnancy is more than just a discomfort. Jesus christ.

Yes, it's a major life-changing event. That doesn't change my post at all. I also used the word "hardship" as a general descriptor, but if you want I can go into more details about the financial and lifestyle aspects as well.

 

[FyreWulff]

Pregnancy is more than just a discomfort. Jesus christ.

don't worry, it's just some cramps then your hooch explodes

There's no other financial, emotional, or medical implications behind it whatsoever

none

 

[Hitokage]

A human life is more important than the discomfort, inconviences, and hardships a pregnant woman will go through. It's not that difficult a position to understand, regardless of whether you agree or not.

This is where it gets problematic from a woman's rights perspective though, because it immediately implies that the health, desires, and condition of women do not matter in this case. Men don't have to deal with this sort of thing.

 

[Envelope]

This is where it gets problematic from a woman's rights perspective though, because it immediately implies that the health and desires of women do not matter. Men don't have to deal with this sort of thing.

This is the point I have difficulty understanding. Why is there an automatic assumption that simply because pro-lifers think the fetus is more important, that they don't care at all for the health and desires of women?

 

[Hitokage]

This is the point I have difficulty understanding. Why is there an automatic assumption that simply because pro-lifers think the fetus is more important, that they don't care at all for the health and desires of women?

It's not an assumption. They've already prioritized the fetus over the mother.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Though the terms are equally important and interchangeable, to me, but just to make the point with undebatable terminology -- are fetuses humans? Please, ANYONE, explain how a living cell, whose species is homo sapiens, with its own distinct DNA, is not a human being. I know I just asked for someone to explain "how the round Earth is not round or the Earth," but sadly that seems to be needed.

It is a human, it'd be silly to say otherwise.

It's just a question of whether or not that human has a right to life.
Not even having a brain, or a brain that isn't even active, to a brain that has activity not even close to the level of activity of animals we eat daily, so I don't really consider it a loss or tragedy in any way, and do not agree with calling it a person until it is substantially older.

If you hold this view, abortion is acceptable without having to make any justification other than "I don't wish to experience pregnancy". If you don't hold this view, there is nothing that can be done to reach a compromise or in any other way bridge the gap.

I can only appeal to your sense of practicality, that it will be pretty much impossible to stop people from having abortions (it has been illegal in the past, and it has never worked) and will only result in people dying from back-alley abortions.
We've already had this discussion in the past, and civilization at the time reasoned that regardless of whether you stand on abortion on a moral basis, it need to be legal for numerous, practical, reasons.

Feel free to ask more questions though, understanding the position of someone you disagree with is crucial in these debates.

 

[Brian Griffin]

Are you really going to be that obtuse?

A human life is more important than the discomfort, inconviences, and hardships a pregnant woman will go through. It's not that difficult a position to understand, regardless of whether you agree or not.


It really all comes down to whether or not you consider a fetus to be a living human being.

Not for me. I fully acknowledge that from the moment of conception, that clump of cells has human DNA and will become a person. Hell, even call it a person if you want. That doesn't matter. It's the woman's body and uterus that are required to grow it into a baby and if she doesn't want her body to serve that purpose she has every right to flush it.

Even single human who has ever lived was grown inside a woman. Because of this I feel women should be respected enough to be the arbiters of life in this way. If they don't want the life growing inside them to continue it is their right to terminate it.

When a woman doesn't want to grow a baby in her uterus, that is when it is necessary to not get pregnant in the first place..

Birth control, even the pill, can fail at times. Also rapes.

 

[Measley]

This is the point I have difficulty understanding. Why is there an automatic assumption that simply because pro-lifers think the fetus is more important, that they don't care at all for the health and desires of women?

Because if the fetus is MORE important, that means that the woman's life is LESS important. Thus the woman's desires and health should be sacrificed for the good of the fetus.

 

[Envelope]

It's not an assumption. They've already prioritized the fetus over the mother.

Right to live = 80 points on an arbitrary scale

woman's rights = 60 points on an arbitrary scale, not 0

Perhaps that will allow you to understand (some/many) pro-lifer's thoughts on the matter in the future.

I personally can understand why many people think like this, but since Devolution couldn't, hopefully this will at least illuminate the matter slightly.

 

[Hitokage]

Right to live = 80 points on an arbitrary scale

woman's rights = 60 points on an arbitrary scale, not 0

Perhaps that will allow you to understand (some/many) pro-lifer's thoughts on the matter in the future.

So basically they get a consolation prize. How nice.

 

[faceless007]

This is the point I have difficulty understanding. Why is there an automatic assumption that simply because pro-lifers think the fetus is more important, that they don't care at all for the health and desires of women?

Because the same people who are pro-life are also the most active about trying to deny women access to reproductive health care, birth control, and contraception.

Right to live = 80 points on an arbitrary scale

woman's rights = 60 points on an arbitrary scale, not 0

Perhaps that will allow you to understand (some/many) pro-lifer's thoughts on the matter in the future.

If pro-lifers genuinely cared even that much about women's health issues, it would be demonstrated through their actions and stated policy goals; they would be in favor of increased access to contraception and government-subsidized prenatal care. But in fact, their goals demonstrate precisely the opposite. So no, they don't give a fuck, much less 60.

 

[Devolution]

Right to live = 80 points on an arbitrary scale

woman's rights = 60 points on an arbitrary scale, not 0

Perhaps that will allow you to understand (some/many) pro-lifer's thoughts on the matter in the future.

I personally can understand why many people think like this, but since Devolution couldn't, hopefully this will at least illuminate the matter slightly.

Still don't understand it sorry. Still prioritizing potential over a person. People don't have to donate organs to save those already alive, what makes fetuses special?

 

[FyreWulff]

Still don't understand it sorry. Still prioritizing potential over a person. People don't have to donate organs to save those already alive, what makes fetuses special?

It's important to save something that's barely developed, but they're fine with teratomas being removed. I guess a mass with limbs, hair, teeth and eyes isn't enough to save, it just has to be marketable.

 

[Link Man]

When a woman doesn't want to grow a baby in her uterus, that is when it is necessary to not get pregnant in the first place.

You make it sound like this is a choice in all circumstances.

 

[Hitokage]

Envelope: By the way, I do understand it. I just don't agree and find it wrongheaded.

 

[Duffyside]

It is a human, it'd be silly to say otherwise.

YAY! Please remind people in this thread of this when they say otherwise. It is the first step to drastically reducing (never ending) the number of abortions committed, not legislation or a Supreme Court ruling.

It's just a question of whether or not that human has a right to life.

... You lost me. But that's ok! There are still plenty of people in this thread who are for abortion because they don't acknowledge the entity as a human being so, again, please help me remind them of that.

I can only appeal to your sense of practicality, that it will be pretty much impossible to stop people from having abortions (it has been illegal in the past, and it has never worked) and will only result in people dying from back-alley abortions.

What is with this argument? We haven't ended murder of adults, either. It's still illegal. And... should be?

We've already had this discussion in the past, and civilization at the time reasoned that regardless of whether you stand on abortion on a moral basis, it need to be legal for numerous, practical, reasons.

We had come to other conclusions in the past that we found wrong, and continued to argue and fight against, and I doubt I even need to list any of them. You're better than this, Squiddy.

 

[NullPointer]

It really all comes down to whether or not you consider a fetus to be a living human being.

I'd disagree and argue that the this whole debate gets lost in some kind of theological argument. Regardless of whether "life" begins at conception, exactly 14 days later, or several months later, it comes down to whether a woman has the right over her own body, and the right to put her own life ahead of the life of a potential child that she would have to bring to term.

 

[FyreWulff]

When a woman doesn't want to grow a baby in her uterus, that is when it is necessary to not get pregnant in the first place.

Except that the same group also wants to reduce or eliminate access to birth control.

It's a nice little hole to stuff people into. Tell women to not have abortions while at the same time demonizing and removing easy access to the very things that would have stopped having to resort to an abortion in the first place.

Nobody is using abortions as their primary birth control method.

 

[Devolution]

Even if you acknowledge the entity as a human being, human beings don't have the right to other's organs. What makes a fetus special?

 

[The Technomancer]

When a woman doesn't want to grow a baby in her uterus, that is when it is necessary to not get pregnant in the first place.

Do you really believe that a significant number of woman use abortions as their birth control, and not as a last alternative when birth control has failed? Considering how easy birth control is comparatively, can you really think that there are women out there who use abortion instead?

 

[Envelope]

So basically they get a consolation prize. How nice.

Belittling comments like this don't help, hito.

Because the same people who are pro-life are also the most active about trying to deny women access to reproductive health care, birth control, and contraception.

In my youthful optimism, I like to imagine that not every pro-lifer does that.

Still don't understand it sorry. Still prioritizing potential over a person. People don't have to donate organs to save those already alive, what makes fetuses special?

If you accept the premise that some people think a fetus is a living human being -and many people do- then I think it is understandable, considering also that the right to life is considered by many to be the most important human right, that they do prioritise it. Basically, it's a choice between two evils, ending a life or forcing a woman to give up her rights, and they choose what they think is the lesser.

for what it's worth, I do think your analogy of donating organs is quite apt.

 

[mackattk]

There are not PLENTY of people willing to adopt. That's a fucking farce. I'll deal with the rest later.

There are actually quite a few

Spoiler

gay

couples looking to adopt.

My brother and his partner are one of them. Too bad that they have to jump through tons and tons of hoops and loads of money to even be considered for an adoption.

 

[Devolution]

If you accept the premise that some people think a fetus is a living human being -and many people do- then I think it is understandable, considering also that the right to life is considered by many to be the most important human right, that they do prioritise it. Basically, it's a choice between two evils, ending a life or forcing a woman to give up her rights, and they choose what they think is the lesser.

Lives end all of the time. What gives the fetus the right to life over others who need organs?

 

[Hitokage]

If you accept the premise that some people think a fetus is a living human being -and many people do- then I think it is understandable, considering also that the right to life is considered by many to be the most important human right, that they do prioritise it. Basically, it's a choice between two evils, ending a life or forcing a woman to give up her rights, and they choose what they think is the lesser.

Here's the rub though, women have a right to life too, and a pregnancy puts this at non-trivial risk.

 

[faceless007]

In my youthful optimism, I like to imagine that not every pro-lifer does that.

You posted just as I edited to add:

If pro-lifers genuinely cared even that much about women's health issues, it would be demonstrated through their actions and stated policy goals; they would be in favor of increased access to contraception and government-subsidized prenatal care. But in fact, their goals demonstrate precisely the opposite. So no, they don't give a fuck, much less 60.

 

[Envelope]

Here's the rub though, women have a right to life too, and a pregnancy puts this at non-trivial risk.

Certainty > potential. That was easy.

 

[FyreWulff]

If you accept the premise that some people think a fetus is a living human being -and many people do- then I think it is understandable, considering also that the right to life is considered by many to be the most important human right, that they do prioritise it. Basically, it's a choice between two evils, ending a life or forcing a woman to give up her rights, and they choose what they think is the lesser.

But the woman can attempt a kid multiple times. Once you force a woman through a pregnancy that she's not ready for and dies or comes to other harm, then you've lost the woman permanently.

Embryos are not a finite resource that the human race has X amount of left ever for the rest of time. We do, however, have a finite amount of women of safely reproductive age.

Yet some value those women as below the worth of an embryo.

 

[pigeon]

You know this one: there are plenty of people who are eager to adopt, to take someone else's unwanted child and raise it as their own. I personally have a hope that my first child will be an adoption.

As long as we're speaking home truths -- if this were true, there would be lots more adoptions, but it isn't. People are eager to adopt able, infant children and raise them as their own. (And a good chunk of them want them to be white.) Frankly, adding more kids to the pile is likely to just make life worse for the thousands of children already stuck in the foster system because they're not quite what the doctor ordered. And remember that the adoption program does not exist for childless parents -- it exists for parentless children. Their needs come first.

 

[Envelope]

But the woman can attempt a kid multiple times. Once you force a woman through a pregnancy that she's not ready for and dies or comes to other harm, then you've lost the woman permanently.

Embryos are not a finite resource that the human race has X amount of left ever for the rest of time. We do, however, have a finite amount of women of safely reproductive age.

Yet some value those women as below the worth of an embryo.

I agree with you.

 

[Devolution]

Oh I see duffy and envelope aren't answering my question. Figures.

 

[Christine]

Certainty > potential. That was easy.

Certainly a person vs. potentially a person.

Of course, I don't think that life is sacred.

 

[Future]

Still don't understand it sorry. Still prioritizing potential over a person. People don't have to donate organs to save those already alive, what makes fetuses special?

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it implies that getting pregnant in the first place cannot be avoided. Pro lifers will say don't get pregnant. If you do get pregnant, take responsibility of that "potential". A fetus is special in that it has no choice in the matter, and that it's not it's fault that it exists.

Playing devils advocate on this one btw. I am pro choice mainly because I don't believe groups of cells are life just yet. But I can understand the arguments if you do believe that's life.

 

[Loofy]

Lives end all of the time. What gives the fetus the right to life over others who need organs?

This seems like a terribly morbid thing to say.

 

[The Technomancer]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it implies that getting pregnant in the first place cannot be avoided. Pro lifers will say don't get pregnant. If you do get pregnant, take responsibility of that "potential". A fetus is special in that it has no choice in the matter, and that it's not it's fault that it exists.

Right, hence my point that it doesn't make any sense to argue that a significant number of woman use abortion as their primary method of birth control.

 

[Hitokage]

Certainty > potential. That was easy.

You have that backwards, though. The woman is alive already. Her prior state of health is already known. A significant amount of conceptions end up miscarried, mostly very early on. The rate of complications isn't trivial either.

I mean, for all the talk about being human, part of that is recognizing how much we suck at this. Skull size is partly to blame here.

 

[Envelope]

Belittling comments like this don't help, hito.



In my youthful optimism, I like to imagine that not every pro-lifer does that.



If you accept the premise that some people think a fetus is a living human being -and many people do- then I think it is understandable, considering also that the right to life is considered by many to be the most important human right, that they do prioritise it. Basically, it's a choice between two evils, ending a life or forcing a woman to give up her rights, and they choose what they think is the lesser.

for what it's worth, I do think your analogy of donating organs is quite apt.

Oh I see duffy and envelope aren't answering my question. Figures.

???

 

[Devolution]

???

What makes the fetus special?

 

[Envelope]

You have that backwards, though. The woman is alive already. Her prior state of health is already known.

A significant amount of conceptions end up miscarried, mostly very early on. The rate of complications isn't trivial either.

Hito, I agree with you.

Devo, I agree with you too, but I assume the common response to that would be along the lines of "the fetus is tied to the mother in a way that a person who needs organ donations is not, so it's a false equivalancy."

 

[Devolution]

This seems like a terribly morbid thing to say.

Are you actually going to address the argument or just toss in nothing?

 

[pigeon]

Right, hence my point that it doesn't make any sense to argue that a significant number of woman use abortion as their primary method of birth control.

It's also worth noting that many of the extremely small number of women who do use abortion as a birth control method do it because they're in abusive situations where they are actively being prevented from using normal birth control.