Support NeoGAF

[jimi_dini]

15% or so of fertilized eggs fail to bind to the uterine wall. Oops, you just committed murder.

Why you? Was it your actual choice that made the egg fail to bind?
At max the uterine wall or the egg itself commited "murder"/"suicide". Comparing that to conscious abortion is quite silly.

Otherwise you would have to say that someone getting killed by a heartattack was "murdered by his/her heart"

Lol, here it is, the underlying problem people actually have with abortions. People think that pregnancy should be women's punishment for having sex, and abortion is them getting out of it.

Where did I say that?
I called someone out that said a fetus would be like a friend. Because that's obviously not the case. Calling it a parasite is silly as well.

 

[boiled goose]

The abortion argument essentially boils down to, for many people, the right to bodily autonomy of the mother and the right to life of the fetus. Such an extreme situation helps to establish whether someone believes that the right to bodily autonomy is so fundamental that it is morally justifiable for a person to exercise that right in such extreme circumstances. If they say no, we can explore what specific qualities that differ between a fetus and full grown person make exercising bodily autonomy alright in one case and not acceptable in the other. From there it might be possible to codify the moral rules a person has set up for him/herself, which we can then extend to other situations to see, if indeed as the OP posited that person has some "gross ideologies".

I agree.
I believe body autonomy trumps dependent life.
I believe equivocating a fetus to a fully developed human is also incorrect.
I don't believe there is any 'sacredness' or 'right to life' other than the ones we decide as a society. Given that decisions are made by sentient beings, there is a bias towards the well being of sentient beings (currently only humans).

Hence. I'm 100% pro choice.

 

[EVOL 100%]

I don't understand why women should be forced to bear and give birth to an unwanted child to satisfy the conscience of unrelated people

Judge all you want, I don't give a shit but allow people to do what the hell they want to do with their bodies.

 

[Alienous]

My body IS the justification. Have you not read what myself and others have posted on this thread?

"It doesn't stop it from being selfish and disgusting.
In most cases.
But I didnt say it was disgusting and selfish."

What??

Allow me to clarify.

But no, you're right, it is the decision of women. But that doesn't stop it from being a insensitive, selfish, disgusting decision. Not to say that it is in most cases.

Firstly, I've already said what I meant by the above. Please do not try to twist it to misrepresent my views. Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I have clarified. I did not call abortion an insensitive, selfish or disgusting decision, as a blanket statement. Rather, I'm saying that just because it's a woman's body, it doesn't stop the woman's decision from being any or all of those things.

I'm saying that, in my opinion, the "my body" view doesn't justify an abortion. It allows you to do it, yes, but it doesn't make the act 'just'. Justification, perhaps, is "I won't be able to support the child when it's born" or even "I'd prefer to not go through with the pregnancy, and have my body change". That is justification, "my body" isn't, it's just the reason why women should have the final say regarding their own abortions.

 

[boiled goose]

Allow me to clarify.

But no, you're right, it is the decision of women. But that doesn't stop it from being a insensitive, selfish, disgusting decision. Not to say that it is in most cases.

Firstly, I've already said what I meant by the above. Please do not try to twist it to misrepresent my views. Perhaps it wasn't clear, but I have clarified. I did not call abortion an insensitive, selfish or disgusting decision, as a blanket statement. Rather, I'm saying that just because it's a woman's body, it doesn't stop the woman's decision from being any or all of those things.

I'm saying that, in my opinion, the "my body" view doesn't justify an abortion. It allows you to do it, yes, but it doesn't make the act 'just'. Justification, perhaps, is "I won't be able to support the child when it's born" or even "I'd prefer to not go through with the pregnancy, and have my body change". That is justification, "my body" isn't, it's just the reason why women should have the final say regarding their own abortions.

Imagine being forced to be pregnant and give birth when you dont want to. Is that Just???

 

[Alienous]

Imagine being forced to be pregnant and give birth when you dont want to. Is that Just???

Ok, so we're just creating scenarios.

We're done, then? If you've understood my point, then that's all I care about. At this point, you aren't even responding to my points. I've already said I'm entirely pro-choice.

 

[zhorkat]

I agree.
I believe body autonomy trumps dependent life.
I believe equivocating a fetus to a fully developed human is also incorrect.
I don't believe there is any 'sacredness' or 'right to life' other than the ones we decide as a society. Given that decisions are made by sentient beings, there is a bias towards the well being of sentient beings (currently only humans).

Hence. I'm 100% pro choice.

But do you also believe that bodily autonomy trumps independent life? In this stupid scenario, your friend is not actually dependent on you in any way except that you can kill your friend at any moment by swallowing a pill.

Also, the purpose isn't to equate a fetus with a fully developed human, but to explore what specific differences might make a person say bodily autonomy trumps right to life in circumstance while also saying right to life trumps bodily autonomy in another.

 

[Perkel]

How is it a bullshit argument? Do women retain rights to their body? Yes or no?

Does mother have choice to have a baby or not ? It is not like people are walking down the street and "Fuck i am pregnant". People use body autonomy rule and describe kid as parasite. IT is not parasite it is baby created in willingly or unwillingly. Same people arguing here about parasitic nature are the same people who wouldn't want to see people aborting babies in their 8 month or more because suddenly they are humans ! As of parasitic nature after birth it is only our social conditions and technology that allow babies to not be tied to mothers without this baby would die. So if technology is cause of not treating baby as parasite outside of mothers body then why people oblivious to how advanced is our medicine and how doctors can monitor mother health and doing abortion as in case of danger to mother.

Selective morality and use of body autonomy as if baby is broken bone or parasite that is main problem people against abortion have with "pro-choice" people if you want to have discussion stop doing that because neither of those therms apply to that debate and no side of this discussion is morally in better situation.

Women health problems connected to pregnancy that is valid "pro-choice" argument.

 

[boiled goose]

But do you also believe that bodily autonomy trumps independent life? In this stupid scenario, your friend is not actually dependent on you in any way except that you can kill your friend at any moment by swallowing a pill.

Also, the purpose isn't to equate a fetus with a fully developed human, but to explore what specific differences might make a person say bodily autonomy trumps right to life in circumstance while also saying right to life trumps bodily autonomy in another.

In this stupid scenario... how does your friend being dependent on you affect you again??/
(this is why i dont like playing hypothetical unrealistic scenarios....)

See now we went down the rabbit whole. Your friend is not dependent except that you can kill him by having a pill. I cannot even imagine what society would look like, but probably 'swallowing this pill' would be a fairly serious action.

Im done with this It is absurd.

 

[jimi_dini]

Imagine being forced to be pregnant and give birth when you dont want to. Is that Just???

Imagine being created because 2 people wanted to have fun. And then getting killed, although you don't want that to happen. Is that just?

Imagine being created because 2 people wanted to have fun. And then you starve / live in poverty with your mother, because one of those 2 people ran and didn't want to take responsibility. Is that just?

It's always the rights of one human against the rights of another human. If they were outside of any body, the decision would be way easier - 1 newborn against 1 grown up human? newborn wins of course.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Except that those against abortion try to stop that prevention as well. So no safe sex ed, no free or low cost contraception or birth control. Not surprising the states with the most teen pregnancies and STD's are in Red states.

I think it's a bit more nuanced than that. Sex education in schools not only promotes abstinence but also safe-sex methods. The logic here would be if there were no contraceptives available to teens (they originally were only available to married couples for this reason), the resulting fear of pregnancy would reduce the amount who are sexually active and thus the pregnancy rate. If you look at it from the perspective of the prevalence of sex amongst teens, for example, to a conservative, sex-education can potentially be an enabler of teen pregnancy.

 

[zhorkat]

I'd prefer to not go through with the pregnancy, and have my body change". That is justification

Isn't the root of that reasoning just a "my body" justification?

 

[Reuenthal]

This thread is wierd.

I am pro choice ecxept when it comes to late term abortions. Are any of the pro choice people here pro choice in any case, including late term abortions where the fetus is highly developed? What about infants? Does anyone here think that their current parrents who are taking care of them should not be legally responsible for their death if they neglect to take care of them? For example they abadon their infant child in a car to die without taking care of it or don't feed it.

 

[Fudgepuppy]

It's the lesser of two evils next to bringing an unwanted child into an overpopulated world to be raised by someone who isn't capable of doing so.

But I'm a pragmatic, logical and cold type of person so I shouldn't be the one to get into these types of morally-based discussions.

 

[boiled goose]

Imagine being created because 2 people wanted to have fun. And then getting killed, although you don't want that to happen. Is that just?

Imagine being created because 2 people wanted to have fun. And then you starve / live in poverty with your mother, because one of those 2 people ran and didn't want to take responsibility. Is that just?

It's always the rights of one human against the rights of another human. If they were outside of any body, the decision would be way easier - 1 newborn against 1 grown up human? newborn wins of course.

Fetus don't want that to happen?
Doubtful.

Regarding child support, I actually have a slightly controversial opinion. The baby should only be maintained by those who wanted it. If the father does not want to have the child, he should not be required to make child support payments, but then the government would have to assist in some way of course.

This thread is wierd.

I am pro choice ecxept when it comes to late term abortions. Are any of the pro choice people here pro choice in any case, including late term abortions where the fetus is highly developed? What about infants? Does anyone here think that their current parrents who are taking care of them should not be legally responsible for their death if they neglect to take care of them? For example they abadon their infant child in a car to die without taking care of it or don't feed it.

If you read the thread, you will see clearly that I am always pro choice, meaning that I dont think anyone should be forced to do something that they don't want to with their bodies.

Parents have the option to turn their children into child support services. If they dont, they have agreed to take care of the child, hence they are responsible. Easy.

As a society we have decided to pay for the government taking care of these infants and children.

 

[Alienous]

Isn't the root of that reasoning just a "my body" justification?

It isn't really, is it?

I always took the "my body" idea as "It's contained within my body, and I'll do with it what I please" not "It could have an affect on my body". Further, the changes pregnancy cause to a woman's body aren't limited to when they are in any stage of pregnancy.

 

[ComputerMKII]

Uh oh

 

[jimi_dini]

Fetus don't want that to happen?
Doubtful.

Depends on when the "owner" wants to kill it. According to this thread, killing after 9 months is seen as okay as well. And if we assume that a newborn doesn't have a real consciousness and doesn't want to live, then well maybe one should allow parents to kill their 1/2 year old baby as well. Where is the difference? Just because it's outside of any body? It's still fully dependant on other humans. There is no way that such a baby could survive on its own.

Regarding child support, I actually have a slightly controversial opinion. The baby should only be maintained by those who wanted it. If the father does not want to have the child, he should not be required to make child support payments, but then the government would have to assist in some way of course.

That makes sense and is consistent.

Why should a male be forced to pay for 18 years of his life, just because he wanted to have fun once? Is it supposed to be some sort of punishment, because he wanted sex? That's the same logic that other people use to defend abortions, but most of those see the payment situation completely different - although the payment situation in some countries is really crazy. Males have to pay as much as they can "afford" - the limit is their own poverty (working: 950 EUR, not working: 770 EUR). For 18 years. I would say that's pretty fucked up as well. And on top of that they may be denied to see their own child.

 

[ComputerMKII]

Depends on when the "owner" wants to kill it. According to this thread, killing after 9 months is seen as okay as well. And if we assume that a newborn doesn't have a real consciousness and doesn't want to live, then well maybe one should allow parents to kill their 1/2 year old baby as well. Where is the difference? Just because it's outside of any body? It's still fully dependant on other humans. There is no way that such a baby could survive on its own.



That makes sense and is consistent.

Why should a male be forced to pay for 18 years of his life, just because he wanted to have fun once? Is it supposed to be some sort of punishment, because he wanted sex? That's the same logic that other people use to defend abortions, but most of those see the payment situation completely different - although the payment situation in some countries is really crazy. Males have to pay as much as they can "afford" - the limit is their own poverty (working: 950 EUR, not working: 770 EUR). For 18 years. I would say that's pretty fucked up as well. And on top of that they may be denied to see their own child.

For what it's worth, I also think parents should be allowed to abandon their children (and children should be allowed to run away from their parents' home).

 

[PetriP-TNT]

Yes, let's let unwanted pregnancy possibly ruin the lives of multiple persons involved because fetus babies

Some people need a good dose of pregnancy scares to understand why

 

[Perkel]

It always boils down to this. It's ridiculous.
Sex has been linked to numerous studies that show a positive relationship to mental health, so I don't get the argument of "you don't need sex to live".

You don't need sex to live. As of positive effects you can eat more carrots instead and you will also have positive effect.


Aside from sarcasm who said people should not have sex ? These days having protected sex is not problem and people even can do it raw if they will go to doctor for non-condom protection.

Also don't connect people anti-abortion with people who are against sex (like various religious groups).

Yes, let's let unwanted pregnancy possibly ruin the lives of multiple persons involved because fetus babies

So we should kill newborns, little kids and old people as well because they can too ruin our lives. From biological sense (danger to woman life) yes i agree. Abortion in cases like that should be legal.

 

[Walshicus]

I've just noticed a lot of people for abortion and that heavily support it talk like what is being aborted is no big deal. Weren't we all there once?

We were once just sperm and an egg, but you don't see (many) people arguing that those cells deserve personhood. We're all products of the destruction of stars which created the heavy elements we're mostly made from... I don't think that argument works.

That is a baby human in there that is having it's own thoughts and feelings in the only ways it can at that stage.

It's not thinking like a person though. Mice think and feel, fish think and feel. We really judge personhood not on genetics but on the capacity to reason, which is absent in this stage.

How people talk like what's being stopped in there can't be considered a person, yet when it's planned it's already named and has a crib waiting to be set up.

I think what most people would secretly admit is that the worth of a fœtus (until it becomes a person in its own right) is entirely a function of the worth ascribed by the parents.

 

[boiled goose]

Depends on when the "owner" wants to kill it. According to this thread, killing after 9 months is seen as okay as well. And if we assume that a newborn doesn't have a real consciousness and doesn't want to live, then well maybe one should allow parents to kill their 1/2 year old baby as well. Where is the difference? Just because it's outside of any body? It's still fully dependant on other humans. There is no way that such a baby could survive on its own.


.

parents are not forced to raise unwanted children.
They can responsibly turn it in to the government or other agencies. As a society we have decided that we will all collectively chip in to raise those children.

Being outside the body is THE DIFFERENCE. body autonomy is the whole argument. :/

I think what most people would secretly admit is that the worth of a fœtus (until it becomes a person in its own right) is entirely a function of the worth ascribed by the parents.

Their is some hypocrisy here by that poster, because we typically dont have funerals from miscarriages..

You don't need sex to live. As of positive effects you can eat more carrots instead and you will also have positive effect.

Aside from sarcasm who said people should not have sex ? These days having protected sex is not problem and people even can do it raw if they will go to doctor for non-condom protection.

Also don't connect people anti-abortion with people who are against sex (like various religious groups).

So we should kill newborns, little kids and old people as well because they can too ruin our lives. From biological sense (danger to woman life) yes i agree. Abortion in cases like that should be legal.

I dont care if we need sex or just want it.
I am all for birth control. Accidents, crimes happen. Circumstances change.

fallacy after fallacy. body autonomy is THE argument regarding abortions.

As a society we have decided to take care of unwanted children and elderly (in most cases) we could decide otherwise, but it is an entirely separate question from abortion.

 

[jimi_dini]

It always boils down to this. It's ridiculous.
Sex has been linked to numerous studies that show a positive relationship to mental health, so I don't get the argument of "you don't need sex to live".

Better read articles before you post them:

But as with most exercise, it depends how vigorously you do it. Some studies show that the average peak heart rate at orgasm is the same as during light exercise, such as walking upstairs. That's not enough to keep most people fit and healthy.

Adults should do at least 150 minutes (two and a half hours) of moderate-intensity aerobic activity, such as cycling or fast walking, every week.

One 10-year study of 1,500 people over 70 years old found that those with stronger friendship networks lived longer than those with fewer friends. Researchers thought this could be due to friends having a positive influence on lifestyle choices, such as smoking or exercise, and offering emotional support.

and the best part:

A life without sex is no bar to excellent health. A long-term study into the health and ageing of a group of nearly 700 older nuns found that many are keeping active and well into their 90s and past 100.

 

[Hoya Destroyer]

I dont think there is a right stance on abortion. Its the grey-est issue out there, IMO.
Either way, someone loses - the mother or the child.

 

[boiled goose]

Better read articles before you post them:

sex being necessary vs beneficial vs fun vs detrimental is entirely irrelevant.

I dont think there is a right stance on abortion. Its the grey-est issue out there, IMO.
Either way, someone loses - the mother or the child.

I side with the thing that can think and is entirely autonomous.
Unfortunate for the parasite...

 

[PetriP-TNT]

So we should kill newborns, little kids and old people as well because they can too ruin our lives.

If you want to spin it that way, let's give birth to a child that no one wants. Yay with more kids with shitty lives. Woohoo!

 

[boiled goose]

If you want to spin it that way, let's give birth to a child that no one wants. Yay with more kids with shitty lives. Woohoo!

Don't even let him draw you there.
The argument for abortion is body autonomy.

What we do with children and the elderly and the poor, etc. are completely separate issues.

 

[Sane_Man]

Abortion threads are always the worst fucking threads. People completely fail to have any perspective and the same black and white arguments are thrown around every time.

I don't think there's a side we can champion because abortions are so fucking horrible and grim. And the alternative is even grimmer. Both extreme sides of the argument completely piss me off. It's either "life is precious and abortions are a sin" or "women should be able to do whatever they want with their bodies!", implying that, if she wants, a woman should be able to cut open her belly and womb, grab the fetus, rag it out and eat it.

Why can't the majority of us just agree that, whilst abortions are a bit murky and horrible, they're better for society and individuals on a whole than the alternative (backstreet abortions, unwanted children, etc.). Abortions are necessary but that doesn't stop them from being a bit horrible.

 

[Strike]

It's a personal matter, one I can imagine is not taken very lightly by those who have to go though it. Either way it really shouldn't be anybody's business except for the parties involved. Unwanted pregnancies happen. Abortions would still happen regardless of its legality.

 

[Zaptruder]

What is the nature of life and why is it important?

At what point does abortion go from bodily autonomy, to callous disregard for potential life?

Surely there's a middle ground in there somewhere.

Personally, I draw the line when significant neural development starts. Around age 18. But unfortunately it never occurs for some. So that's convenient that it's morally right for us to kill the parasitic blastose that have never fully emerged into humanhood.

 

[Zaptruder]

Being outside the body is THE DIFFERENCE. body autonomy is the whole argument. :/

It's a shitty argument IMO. Because it ignores why life is important, and why there shouldn't be some crazy slippery slope justifying death for people that inconvenience other people.

Body autonomy shouldn't trump sentience. Luckily, it still leaves people with more than enough time to detect a pregnancy and stop it should they wish; while still keeping in tact the respect for human life at all stages and all forms that an enlightened society should uphold.

 

[Metrotab]

Can anyone pro-life point me to a country where pro-life (anti-abortion) legislation has made lives better for women or children?
Can anyone pro-life point me to a country where pro-life (anti-abortion) legislation has increased women's health overall, or worked out for the benefit of women's health?
Can anyone pro-life point me to a country where pro-life (anti-abortion) legislation has made a society better and just with respect for life?
Can anyone pro-life point me to a country where pro-life (anti-abortion) legislation has actually worked?

Seems to me pro-choice legislation is better on all accounts. Maybe even objectively so.

 

[paile]

It's hard but a line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[Kopite]

I'm not pretending. A fetus is not much more human than sperm/egg cells. It's no one else's business what a woman decides to do with her body.

 

[Kinyou]

Sperm isn't going to grow into a baby. A fetus will.

That's the argument, right?

Thank god, or else the sewer would be full of..... ugh...

 

[Vicetrailia]

I don't need science or religion to rationalize whether it is a human or not.

Regardless people should have the choice.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

So..


I live in Scandinavia where you can get as many abortions as you want. In fact, my own roommate who is in her mid 20s have had several abortions and doesn't really seem to care much about it.
Talking to her about it, it seems like she justifies it the same way I justify eating cow/chicken/geese who had a terrible life, who got perversely and systematically slaughtered never being grass fed, or had a decent existence worthy of any organism. I know of how many animals I eat suffer, yet I push it back in the back of my mind. I watched Samsara yesterday, and the shots of the chickens and horses where fucking horrific. It reminded me of the humans-turned-to-juice scene in the film/book Cloud Atlas(the Neo Seoul Chapter).


After the film was done, I had a big burger with chicken and bacon. I was wondering if I was immoral or a bad person, for seeing shit that I think is terrible, yet I keep doing it.
I think my roommates feelings on abortions are the same. It's selfish, but as she says, women throughout history have cut up their fetuses inside of them, kicked themselves to give themselves a forceful abortion or ruin the fetus in some ways.



Not legitimately, but at the same time the amount of people on the earth seems more and more like a disease, as the UNs goal to max out at 10 billion people will not happen, and as such we are going to need a lot more food and water and place of populous to sustain ourselves. Over population is terrifying to me. Maybe it's not legitimately, but just because we have this consumer culture we are ruining the earth, and somehow I think human beings are such big dicks compared to animals.



I feel like a kid arguing on a third grade level using basic scemantics. I know there is still lots of room for populous, and I know we are stronger than all animals and have the right to kill them all, ruin our resources. I just don't believe we collectively have a chance as a spieces because we are so many. If abortions, p pills and condoms keep the populous from growing extremely, I can't fault that.


I can't really say if I think a fetus is as person, more than I can say a sperm cell is. I think either case is dealing in symbols, a visual indicator to put feelings towards something/someone to prone your own ideology. Symbols are powerful. But I also think most symbols are alive. Although, I do have a symbol that means everything to me.


/rabble rabble rabble

 

[Dilly]

Of course she does. Until someone passes through the magical rights-investing birth canal, all is permitted. A simple change of location is what grants rights, can't you see?

I love it when someone displays their ignorance with such arrogance.

 

[Zoc]

A quick poll of the women in my house revealed that all three believed that a woman wanting to have an abortion after 21 weeks should be prevented from doing so, even by the police if necessary. They also considered it extremely insulting and condescending that someone would say that meant they believed women were "second-class citizens."

 

[oneils]

People who discuss abortions can be quite cavalier. However, I'm fairly sure that most people who have abortions are not so cavalier.

There is a difference. You can calm down, OP.

 

[Sutton Dagger]

I'm pro-choice and have been moving along the spectrum in recent years to the position of full bodily autonomy as described by some people already in this thread.

OP, and others, check out this debate on the subject. The speaker for the Pro-choice side (Matt Dillahunty) does an impressive job of arguing the pro-choice position.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=P78_V1Z9CO4

 

[Flambe]

People who discuss abortions can be quite cavalier. However, I'm fairly sure that most people who have abortions are not so cavalier.

Yup, one of the most heartbreaking, agonizing decisions you could possibly make. And it comes back hard with guilt, second guessing, depression. But even with all of that sometimes it is still the better decision given circumstances. But tell that to your heart.

 

[verbum]

This thread is wierd.

I am pro choice ecxept when it comes to late term abortions. Are any of the pro choice people here pro choice in any case, including late term abortions where the fetus is highly developed? What about infants? Does anyone here think that their current parrents who are taking care of them should not be legally responsible for their death if they neglect to take care of them? For example they abadon their infant child in a car to die without taking care of it or don't feed it.

I believe around 22 weeks gestation should be the cutoff.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

It's most certainly human, and it definitely have the potential to become a person with thoughts, feelings, dreams, and aspirations of their own.

I do think that fetuses that reach the stage where conscious thought begins on form are worthy of protection, just as I think animals that are conscious being with the ability to suffer are also worthy of protection.

Yet, I don't think that protection should supercede the rights of other people. A pregnant woman has the right to remove organisms - be they pain aware or not - from her body because of the alternative would be monstrous.

The life of a creature is lost during abortion, and that is a negative thing, but well being of another is increased - and that is a good thing.
As a vegetarian it reminds me of how meat eaters with their actions accept the death and suffering of billions of thinking, feeling beings capable of experiencing pain.

If that is "okay", I see no reason for abortion to not be. At least not as many lives are lost through abortion.

That does mean that I'm okay with trying to remove a fetus right up to birth.
Some might dismiss me for saying that, but remember what I said about how the fetus was worthy of our protection?
Well, much later in the pregnancy, you can solve the mother's problem without killing the fetus by inducing an early pregnancy/removing the fetus via a c-section.

A life is saved, someone's bodily autonomy is protected, and everyone goes happy except for the baby that will most likely end up being shuttled back and forth between various foster homes and statistically be more likely to end up as a poor and/or criminal.

Some altruists might say that the kinder thing would be to allow for a lethal abortion, as the minor suffering the fetus would experience in it's dying throes are so much less than the prolonged suffering it'd experience living.
I disagree with that assessment as there is no guarantee the orphan child will end up living a low QoL-lifestyle.

 

[Thug Waffle]

Calling a fetus a "baby" fetus doesn't make it any less a fetus or any more a person.

I was anti-abortion when I was 12 and ignorant as fuck. There are just too many variables in each individual case to say people who abort a fetus are "killing a person" and are therefore condemnable as far as I'm concerned.

 

[wildfire]

I've just noticed a lot of people for abortion and that heavily support it talk like what is being aborted is no big deal. Weren't we all there once? At that stage of coming into this world? That is a baby human in there that is having it's own thoughts and feelings in the only ways it can at that stage.

Fetus don't have rudimentary brain impulses for awhile. When I was in Junior high the biology teacher, when asked, said it takes about 2 weeks minimum.

How people talk like what's being stopped in there can't be considered a person, yet when it's planned it's already named and has a crib waiting to be set up. I'm 100% pro choice and I realize that sometimes pregnancy happens in other ways besides the typical "accident." I just feel total apathy for any type of antiabortion-progressive movement or person when they devalue a human's life for the purpose of promoting pro-choice. All I see are gross ideologies there. Does anybody else feel the same way?

And what about the apathy people have for children being raised in households that can't support them? It's nice and all to promote keeping people alive but why promote irresponsible child rearing?

 

[Shags]

I think that the rational benefits to abortion outweigh the moral fallbacks.

 

[ghst]

As a vegetarian it reminds me of how meat eaters are more than happy to cause death and suffering of thousands of thinking, feeling beings capable of experiencing pain.

as a vegetarian, you're also happy to to cause death and suffering of thousands of thinking, feeling beings capable of experiencing pain. even if you've found a way to placate your guilt.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

as a vegetarian, you're also happy to to cause death and suffering of thousands of thinking, feeling beings capable of experiencing pain. even if you've found a way to placate your guilt.

Touché!
I was a bit hyperbolic with that line, let me rephrase that to better convey my opinion.
It's not really an accurate comparison though, as the beings in one scenario are disturbing the bodily autonomy of humans whereas the other beings taste good, are cheap, and/or is a source of various essential nutrients.