Support NeoGAF

[thesoapster]

I tend to only support abortion in the rarer cases (threat to mother, or "mercy killing"). Some other unforeseen circumstances might change my mind.

Morality in our society (or any society, as far as I can tell) is a series of consensuses amongst groups of people. There is a large enough group of people who wish abortion to be legal. This means that even if it weren't legal, abortions would still be performed either in secret by doctors, or DIY abortions (very dangerous).

Because of the wish of many to keep abortions legal, what I'd really like is for people who think abortion is wrong is to simply not ever get one themselves and end it there. You're not going to change the minds of the many who wish to keep it legal, even with scientific arguments of when life begins.

That said, I think everyone can agree that the less abortions performed, the better. I find it ridiculous that we don't have comprehensive, worthwhile sex education in all of our public schools. I also detest religious people who would rather not have sex ed and keep their kids uninformed. This leads to them eventually experimenting with their SO and could very easily result in an unwanted pregnancy. I say go ahead an inform the kids about abstinence, but be sure to fully inform them about all birth control methods. It's unfair to expect kids to not have sex...that's not the society we live in.

That's my .02

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Look, there's a reason why Roe v. Wade happened in the first place. Whatever your thoughts are on the subject, it will always be the way it is. In fact, I'd say it's generally impossible to expect it to be overturned because women are not only the dominant sex by number, they are also more empowered than ever to defend their rights. I'm not interested in the supposed moral issues involved and I believe that for a human to be human, they must be able to survive outside of the womb which is in line with current limitations on late-term abortions unless in the case of apparent endangerment to the mother. Where it is now is pretty much where it will be for a long time and I happen to agree with it's general place for this and many other reasons. It's a matter of practicality and best judgment for the greater good.

 

[JayDubya]

Look, there's a reason why Roe v. Wade happened in the first place.

Tyranny?

Whatever your thoughts are on the subject, it will always be the way it is.

K. Very progressive of you.

In fact, I'd say it's generally impossible to expect it to be overturned because women are not only the dominant sex by number, they are also more empowered than ever to defend their rights.

Equal rights and all that, rah, rah, rah. Gender equity is an important value to promote, certainly. Now, what does that have to do with abortion, exactly?

Want to talk demographics? A disproportionately large number of those children being aborted worldwide are female.

* * *

With that, I'll segue to the other line of discussion; pre-Roe, each state had their own laws. The system of federalism allows for people happy with being an "slave abortion state" to allow for legal abortion in their state, and the opposite is true as well.

The 10th Amendment is very clear about where authority over matters not explicitly granted to the federal government's authority lie; Roe was a clear violation of the Constitution of the United States, as "interpreted" by those who are empowered (for good or for ill, with judicial review) with the solemn duty of protecting it.

Roe was absolute rubbish, and I'll happily rehash that if neccessary.

 

[malek4980]

Being dependent does not make a fetus any less human or any less alive.

A newborn is wholly dependent and not as intelligent, capable, or aware as many newborn mammalian peers in the animal community (whole other can of worms, but addressed in the OP). Set a newborn baby on a table and leave him alone and he will cry until he becomes unconscious and eventually dies.

We do not call a newborn a "potential" human, nor do we deny him human rights.

But the level of dependence is very different. While a newborn is dependent on other human beings, he is not completely dependent on a single human-being--at the exclusion of all others--for nine months without a second of non-dependence. I don't think a woman should be required to continue being a fetus's host for nine months if she doesn't want to. Her rights trump any potential right of the fetus.

I disagree.

The fact that someone will do something regardless of its legality has no bearing on whether or not it should or should not be illegal.

As a crude, quick example: there is a black market for child porn.

I am not concerned about providing a safe, private environment for the consumption of child porn.

I do not think that because someone will consume child porn regardless of its legality that child porn should be legal.

Pragmatic concerns should not be the overriding factor, but they should be taken into consideration when you don't think an act is especially bad. Obviously, pragmatic concerns seem cheap if you believe abortion is akin to murder. For most people, however, abortion is not anywhere near as morally reprehensible as murder.

 

[JayDubya]

But the level of dependence is very different. While a newborn is dependent on other human beings, he is not completely dependent on a single human-being--at the exclusion of all others--for nine months without a second of non-dependence

I'd actually argue that they're more dependent; the only difference is that other people can share the burden now. In the womb, they auto-feed, auto-excrete, their needs are always sated, they are comfortable, warm, and safe. Outside, they're cry-happy need machines (<3 my daughter btw).

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

I look at abortion as a sort of triage. It's unfortunate and unpleasant and in moral gray territory (at best), but safe and legal abortions are a better option for society than an outright ban on them.

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Equal rights and all that, rah, rah, rah. Gender equity is an important value to promote, certainly. Now, what does that have to do with abortion.

Ugh, I hate this fucking argument because it has no ground to move on. And it's been this way for thirty-five years. And it has everything to do with the fact that this abortion issue directly affects the rights of the mother. You can't simply ignore the biological differences here...it's just not realistic. This is, ideally, nothing for anyone who isn't female to vote on. And I'm not interested in the discussion because it's been done front to back and sideways for as long as I've been alive without change. I'm done posting in this thread.

 

[adamsappel]

Still haven't heard: Ectopic pregnancy, Jay?

 

[Kinitari]

I'm not as... articulate or, probably educated as most of you here, so this is going to be heavy on opinion.

I feel that abortion is bad, or at least, a negative action. But I also feel that in today's society it has become almost a 'necessary evil' (I use that term loosely as the idea of evil is silly to me).

We aren't the hunting gathering society we once were, but we still do have all the urges we always have had - so it is hard to see us not constantly conducting in sexual relations, it is our driving motivation for so much of what we do. But with the onset of modern society - the consequences/rewards of such action are not as simple as they used to be. It used to be "get pregnant, have baby, repeat." and that was basically the only role there was for women, second to actually caring for the children. Women do not work this way anymore, society doesn't work that way anymore and there is too much depth, to everything we do. And unfortunately children greatly complicate things because our... way of living does not revolve around procreation anymore.

What my ramblings are trying to express, summarized, is that while abortion is definitely not something pretty much anyone I know wants to experience in their life, it is something that is there to ensure we can continue living our lives like we currently already do. It's like... many people do not want to ever have children, but still feel the driving urge to have sex. For some reason to me, forcing someone to go through with a pregnancy if conception does manage to occur... seems... I don't know, forceful - overbearing.

 

[derder]

Spoiler

I don't think that it should be the woman's choice because it's self evident that she lacks good judgment.

That being said,

Would you argue that the combination of the same couples' eggs and sperm would create a different child - say, before and after college?

I'm having difficulty explaining this through typing, but here's my best attempt:

I think that an unwed, teenage couple should have an abortion if they plan on becoming married and having a child after High School.

The parents would be more capable of emotionally, financially, and functionally supporting the child - and could potentially increase the value of the child's life to society.

If there was an abortion:
Greater chance of High School Graduates
Drastically greater chance of College Degrees
Increased chance of that child getting a "proper" education
Larger chance that the couple could support multiple children.

All these would add up to the same combination of sperm+egg, but just 4 years apart.

 

[flsh]

I support abortion.
I honestly think that the action of abortion justifies itself. If a woman want's to abort, for any reason, it is both her right, and deserving to the baby. If a couple decides to abort, it might be because they are not ready. Not ready meaning they either don't have the time, the money, or are simply not mature enough.
I don't think a child born to a 16 year old is better off living in a crappy area with a lot of crime and drugs, no education, not knowing his father etc' etc', will enjoy his life. Chances are, it's better to abort and have your child when you are mature, married\in a very serious relationship and you have the money. Children are not cheap and they require a lot of time and attention. They aren't a toy you can have after 9 months that you can put away when you no longer 'want' them.
The child might also be the result of a rape, a drunk night, etc'. It will change the lives of (two) people who are not ready for the child, if those are the reasons for the conception.

If someone feels it's wrong to abort since the child is a living being, I don't think they are mad. I agree with them, but think abortion might be better to all parties envolved in most situations. It's true that a couple who have the money, time and are mature enough but decide to abort, don't have the best of reasons. But, by deciding to abort, that might mean they won't love the baby as if they planned on having one. I think a every person deserves being loved and wanted by his parents.
If you don't believe in abortion, I think the best alternative is giving your baby away for adoption. Sadly, being the cynic that I am, I don't think the child is likely to find a good home to grow up in, so I prefer abortion.

 

[Karakand]

I'm a pussy (no pun intended) on the issue.

I don't like it but I'm not comfortable with the state legislating the internal workings of the human body. If there's one thing that people should have the absolute and unalienable right to do it's to decide what is done with their insides.

 

[blame space]

The "what constitutes a human life" and "define murder, homicide, etc." portion of this issue is decidedly played out. It's out there: one group thinks a three-month-old fetus deserves human rights and the other one thinks it's preposterous.

I bypassed that internal struggle almost instantaneously when I decided to try to form a stance on the issue. It's not important to me where you start to legitimize human life, but rather how you value human life as an idea.

So, two people fuck. A clump of cells is formed that, barring human intervention (i.e. an abortion), will grow into a person. Is that not to be valued simply because you don't refer to it as alive? Whether or not you want to call it the murder of a human life, you must recognize the fact that it is purposeful intervention in a cell-cluster that would grow into human life were you not to intervene.

 

[JayDubya]

All these would add up to the same combination of sperm+egg, but just 4 years apart.

Well bully for little sis / bro, but big sis / bro gets a raw deal.

Still haven't heard: Ectopic pregnancy, Jay?

I think I've done this one on GAF, but I'm not sure.

A lot of those will resolve on their own, but that's not what you asked.

If you're talking about the classic - but rarely occurring in reality - scenario where the mother's a goner if you don't do something and the kid's not going to make it no matter what you do, then I guess you save the only one you can save.

 

[chicken_ramen]

...so the right to life creates a positive burden? I don't necessarily disagree on that point.

The only other point has been made and done, opinions on where life begins vary and not all are irrational.

 

[Jenov]

"I don't think that it should be the woman's choice because it's self evident that she lacks good judgment"
:lol :lol

So who's choice is it then?

 

[a Master Ninja]

JayDubya does make a valid point about the Constitutional rights of individual states to dictate matters like this for themselves. Look at other controversial issues like the death penalty (call off your dogs, I just needed a well known example). Each state, not the Federal government, gets to determine for itself whether or not to have it. It's the state's right. I honestly don't know enough about "Roe" to be 100% certain such a ruling violates state's rights, but it's entirely possible.

That said, it has always been a bit strange to me that men can have such strong opinions about issue one way or the other. As a male, I will eternally find "being pregnant" a difficult concept to wrap my head around.

 

[MrFingers]

Ugh, I hate this fucking argument because it has no ground to move on. And it's been this way for thirty-five years. And it has everything to do with the fact that this abortion issue directly affects the rights of the mother. You can't simply ignore the biological differences here...it's just not realistic. This is, ideally, nothing for anyone who isn't female to vote on. And I'm not interested in the discussion because it's been done front to back and sideways for as long as I've been alive without change. I'm done posting in this thread.

It's for society as a whole to decide what is acceptable.If women want to go off and start a man free society where we(men) have no say fair enough(although the abortion issue will be of less concern in this uteropia)Im not really sure what my point is...but I suppose I'm a little confused at this notion of "we have to protect women's rights,women's rights are paramount to everything else" maybe I'm a misogynist ,probably I am.

But really.There a plenty of issues that only affect men and plenty of instances where a man's rights are impinged upon.Let's say a guy doesn't want to look after his child or financially support it(morally reprehensible but we must respect his rights and freedoms afterall)But he is legally bound, because" the best interests of the child"

 

[derder]

"I don't think that it should be the woman's choice because it's self evident that she lacks good judgment"
:lol :lol

So who's choice is it then?

Not sure, actually. Probably the court system.

They already decide if a parent is unfit to raise their child.

 

[Mango Positive]

I think abortion is stupid. Then again, I'm trying to have a child right now. If I'd have known it would be this difficult, I wouldn't have been so damn careful growing up.

However: In the first trimester (the only window for abortion that I support), the cells that constitute the embryo are no more alive than your appendix. I do not get caught up in the "potential" argument. Potential exists everywhere. During the first trimester, the fetus is only alive in the loosest sense of the word. One could make the case that it's more like a tapeworm or some other parasite at that point.

Regardless... there's no shortage of people. If people are stupid enough to get pregnant before they're ready, then mankind certainly doesn't need their genes staking a claim on our future. Abort away!

 

[Jenov]

"Not sure, actually. Probably the court system.

They already decide if a parent is unfit to raise their child."

Since Roe vs Wade came from the court system... wouldn't this already be answered for you? They decided it's up to women to make their own decisions.

 

[malek4980]

I'd actually argue that they're more dependent; the only difference is that other people can share the burden now. In the womb, they auto-feed, auto-excrete, their needs are always sated, they are comfortable, warm, and safe. Outside, they're cry-happy need machines (<3 my daughter btw).

This would speak to neediness, not dependence. Just because the functions inside a womb are automatic, doesn't mean a fetus isn't completely dependent on those functions.

Well bully for little sis / bro, but big sis / bro gets a raw deal.

My mother had a miscarriage and I sure as hell never called the dead fetus my dead brother. Why? I didn't consider him a person. His brain was not developed, he had no memories, he was not sentient, and he was non-viable.

I guess this touches on your opening FAQs

"But a fetus doesn't have sentience / sapience!"

The unconsciousness of a child in utero is a transitory and physiologically normal state; the continuation of normal biological processes would result in the brain development viewed as so intrinsic to some re: the value of a entity. This is not the equivalent to being "brain dead" and on life support, because that refers to a pathophysiological, permanent state that occurs at the end of someone's life.

The fact that a fetus will usually become a sentient being is irrelevant; it doesn't have sentience at the moment. To turn your argument around, consciousness is a transitory and physiologically normal state; the continuation of normal biological processes would result in brain death. Consequently, you should give me no moral consideration because eventually I will be brain dead.

The fact that I will cease being sentient in 5, 10, or 50 years doesn't affect whether I'm sentient at this very moment, and, consequently, deserving of being considered a person right now. Conversely, the fact that a fetus will probably become sentient doesn't affect whether it is sentient at this very moment, and, consequently, deserving of being considered a person right now.

 

[blame space]

One could make the case that it's more like a tapeworm or some other parasite at that point.

Do either of those things turn into people if you don't abort them?

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

I love how Palin calls Obama's view the 'radical one'. I'd settle for the other R word - 'rational' myself.

let's keep the Bible aka the greatest fairy tale story ever written, the FUCK away from politics please?

if you want to ban abortion, you're anti-woman, anti-freedom and an irrational ignorant dumbass.

 

[numble]

Life ends when brain activity cease's.

Life begins when brain activity begins which is around the second trimester.

/end

Makes sense.

 

[Diablos]

I support the right to choose. I do not, however, expect that every woman is to have an abortion just because I support that right. That's dumb. As much as some people seriously should not have children (sounds mean, but it's the honest truth), this is a free country and there's nothing anyone can do about that. It should be up the person/people who may raise the child what to do, and no one else, unless it's a really, really dire situation.

I also support abortion in the latest stages -- but, as much as I hate to sound like a conservative -- it's pretty gruesome. I think if a decision is made to have an abortion, it should preferably be long before this period. Shit or get off the pot (you either want a baby or you don't).

While I do not necessarily sympathize with those who protest abortion, I can understand why some people get so disgusted that they endlessly fight it. However, it is unfortunate that so many out there are single-issue voters because of this.

Abortion is basically a necessary evil for many people; not everyone wants to stomach that, but it really is. Totally outlawing it as some in this country would like would not bode well.

 

[Vennt]

I love how Palin calls Obama's view the 'radical one'. I'd settle for the other R word - 'rational' myself.

let's keep the Bible aka the greatest fairy tale story ever written, the FUCK away from politics please?

if you want to ban abortion, you're anti-woman, anti-freedom and an irrational ignorant dumbass.

I can imagine a world where this is the perfect way to contribute to a debate likely to be highly charged. Unfortunately you and I do not inhabit the world of my imagination, but rather this cruel and heartless world where I ban your ass for being a dumbass.

 

[OokieSpookie]

I love how Palin calls Obama's view the 'radical one'. I'd settle for the other R word - 'rational' myself.

let's keep the Bible aka the greatest fairy tale story ever written, the FUCK away from politics please?

if you want to ban abortion, you're anti-woman, anti-freedom and an irrational ignorant dumbass.

Do not disrespect Fairy Tales that way.

 

[Branduil]

Edit: No need to pile on.

 

[TheHeretic]

If you don't believe in abortions don't have one, its simple.

Don't force your morality on other people.

 

[Crayon Shinchan]

Why is Jaydubya such a fierce prolifer, on 'scientific' grounds no less?

I suspect the same reason that he's such a fierce libertarian... it's a need for dogmatic literalist interpretation on a few key points on which he believes he's had an epiphany on.

Anyway... for all the fancy words JD uses... his sticking point is that;

it doesn't matter if blastose does not have sentience currently, it only matters that it can be achieved.
I'm not sure where he stands on the idea of aborting blastose that CANNOT form sentience though (i.e. in the case of stemcells genetically altered to only form a part of a human body, rather than the entire thing (not too far off in the future apparently)).

Where as, most of the rest of us (here) would say, it absolutely matters whether or not a fetus has achieved the basic framework of cognition (i.e. sentience) in determining its humanity... because that is what defines personhood to us.

Although simply feeling strongly about it, is no adequate resolution for the issue, by giving both arguments equal weight, you would then want to look at the practical implications of each interpretation.

They are not equal; one is far more empathetic for humans that already live, with full form cognition... and even empathetic towards the blastose that hasn't formed cognition yet (in the sense that, if your parent wants to abort you, it's probably not a life you wanted to be brought into anyway).

However, it is an impasse that we've arrived at... there's simply no way that JD will overcome his own moral epihany based on external dialogue... he's too 'high functioning' for that. Makes him difficult to discuss with.

 

[M3wThr33]

If you don't believe in abortions don't have one, its simple.

Don't force your morality on other people.

What? And you mean let GOD judge people as opposed to "Judge, lest not ye be judged?" Too many people aren't above breaking that rule.

 

[TheHeretic]

What? And you mean let GOD judge people as opposed to "Judge, lest not ye be judged?" Too many people aren't above breaking that rule.

I don't even know what you are trying to say. Why are you turning this into a theological debate?

 

[M3wThr33]

I don't even know what you are trying to say. Why are you turning this into a theological debate?

Is it not?

 

[TheHeretic]

Is it not?

Is abortion a theological issue? No, its a civil rights issue.

 

[Agent Ghost]

Haven't you people learned ANYTHING!?


Topics like abortion and gay marriage are non issues that the politicians use to distract voters while we get FUTA with evil economic policy that only benefit the people who sponsored the election. The fucking economy is failing hard and you're still talking about this stupid bullshit. Fuck off.

 

[M3wThr33]

I think the purpose of this thread was not to solve anything but shunt the pointless banter out of PoliGaf. No one is ever going to change their mind on this. Especially not because of the Internet.

 

[Kipz]

Really? People here actually think they can enforce what women do with their own bodies? They're the ones who have to go through the pain of child birth and the costs and life-changing effects of raising a child. I don't give a flying fuck if a couple of cells could one day acheive sentience, it's like trying to enforce drug laws, prostitution laws you CAN NOT control what people do with their bodies.

 

[Ikael]

The problem with this subject is that you are trying to define two very nebulous concepts:
1- what is life
2- what it means to be human

This issue is not exactly black and white. I think that to be human does not amount to have a certain number of genes, but rather to have consciousness and self awarness. Since that is pretty much impossible unless you have a well developed brain, I would say that a fetus becomes a full flegded human when it forms its cerebral cortex. The laws are alright as they are. Still, I do not like that some people trivialize with this issue. The fetus is a potential human, and there are discoveries still to be made about our brain and consciousness.

Still, my opinion on this issue, as well as all the moralistic bullshit that plages the politics and the public life (hint: moral is a private issue) is pretty much summed in this quote:

Topics like abortion and gay marriage are non issues that the politicians use to distract voters while we get FUTA with evil economic policy that only benefit the people who sponsored the election. The fucking economy is failing hard and you're still talking about this stupid bullshit. Fuck off.

It is a fascinant ethical problem, but it should belong to the private sphere, period.

 

[No Means Nomad]

It's aggressive homicide, but it's legal, so it's not murder. My caring about it generally relates to legal aggressive homicide being horrendously inappropriate.

...
I'm about to go aggressive homicide on your ass.

It's obvious from your confrontational nature down to the semantics of terms like "murder" means this thread is nothing more than a battlefront for you to confront non-believers, and not a discussion.

Utilitarianism of that sort is quite the slippery slope; such arguments are not compelling to me. Injustice that benefits us does not become hunky dory by virtue of the fact that it benefits us.

If it's such a slippery slope and it's already happened where are the repercussions? Really, I'd like to know, because we've had abortion for hundreds of years.

What else is subject to "slippery slope" logic? Things like Women's rights, I would guess, and the control they have over their own body.

Textbook embryological science? Also, answered above: an unfertilized egg is not a living human organism.

There's not any "THIS MEANS IT'S LIFE", or this argument wouldn't exist to start with. It's a developing life form, but it is not a full life form at fertilization. We could make the argument that it is merely an incomplete life form in an unfertilized state, and that a woman allowing herself to have her period and the expulsion of ovum is wreckless abandonment and unintentional homicide.

Abortion is going to happen regardless at the end of the day. Why make it dangerous for women who see it as a neccesity (because abortion is not a light decision)? The legal system isn't exactly in shape to start cracking down on "crimes" like this.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

I am Pro-Life simply because murder is murder at any level of life.

 

[Learn2read]

So how often are the government uterus inspections to occur?

 

[Kipz]

So how often are the government uterus inspections to occur?

Constantly for the 9 month period. All impregnated women should be imprisoned to make sure that precious life is brought into the world.

 

[Learn2read]

Constantly for the 9 month period. All impregnated women should be imprisoned to make sure that precious life is brought into the world.

Well, how can we be sure if they're pregnant of not after the critical moment of conception? Forced sterilization for all women in the only clear answer for the moral conundrum.

 

[TheHeretic]

Constantly for the 9 month period. All impregnated women should be imprisoned to make sure that precious life is brought into the world.

Don't forget that all women suspected of being pregnant should be dragged from their homes for medical analysis and psychological testing. They should also be injected with experimental drugs to increase their fertility.

 

[ZAK]

Do either of those things turn into people if you don't abort them?

Nope. Know what could, though? A sperm and an egg, if you don't wear a condom (or something). Somehow people manage to live with the thought of intentionally not creating new people.

 

[blame space]

Nope. Know what could, though? A sperm and an egg, if you don't wear a condom (or something). Somehow people manage to live with the thought of intentionally not creating new people.

Oh man, thanks for clearing that up for me!

 

[Xdrive05]

JayDub, I did have one question for you not directly related to the "pro-life" / "pro-choice" debate itself, but still relevant to understanding your worldview relating to it. So here goes:

Even though you are ideologically opposed to public programs (funded by taxes), would you support a costly public program that would significantly reduce the number of abortions in our society? So to break it down for clarity:

1.) The best scientific evidence shows that public program X reduces the number of abortions significantly.

2.) Funding public program X will cause your taxes to increase significantly.

3.) No private alternative has been proposed (or for the sake of this question, CAN be proposed) that can replicate the results of public program X within the same order of magnitude of success.

This isn't meant to be a Palin "gotcha!" question. Your OP gives us your position on the debate but not its priority ranking within the lexicon of your positions. I'm just curious as to where it fits in compared to your general (small-statist) political approach. Thanks for your time, man.

EDIT: further clarification: the public program I'm referring to is not a reactionary punishment measure, like a correctional policing function. I'm meaning a preventative program, say, forced theoretical health education of some kind, that happens to produce phenomenal results for reducing abortions.

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

I am Pro-Life simply because murder is murder at any level of life.

So you're against the death penalty, and the war in Iraq?

 

[Lazy vs Crazy]

With that, I'll segue to the other line of discussion; pre-Roe, each state had their own laws. The system of federalism allows for people happy with being an "slave abortion state" to allow for legal abortion in their state, and the opposite is true as well.

This leads to a situation where abortion is available only to the upper classes of society, and poor people are unable to get abortions. Are you really comfortable with that?