Support NeoGAF

[The One and Done™]

Is that your litmus test for everything? How does someone being murdered in Chicago for the $50 in their wallet affect you?

Violence begets violence. Also I live in Chicago.

 

[Pau]

See my above post.

Sorry. Hadn't seen your post while I was writing mine.

Or the buck is passed onto someone else, like someone seeking adoption or the government. Which does happen frequently.

I wonder why those who are pro-life don't support increasing funds for adoption purposes anywhere to the extent they support inaccurate sex education and closing down women's clinics (that only have abortion as a small part of their services.)

 

[hamchan]

The other person who willingly created that person, and who had 21 weeks to change her mind?

Not all pregnancies are willing.

 

[RurouniZel]

Sorry. Hadn't seen your post while I was writing mine.

No worries.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I don't know what the process of abortion is like but I imagine I'd rather do that then be forced to give up 18 years of my life taking care of something I don't want to take care of. The latter seems way more extreme and awful to the individual mother and/or father. At least the baby doesn't know and will never know what it is, it's not the same as killing an adult.

At the same time I think it's hypocritical when pro-choice people don't also admit that killing a baby post-birth is just as morally reasonable. Society has deemed the vagina point the 'line' we cannot cross but if society says killing chimps/bonobos is okay when they're way more intelligent than even a 5 year old (or dolphins/pigs/dogs etc. animals with feelings attachments and so on) seems hypocritical to me and simply favoritism towards your own species (assuming intelligence/sentience is the guiding point by which we shouldn't kill things).

I think pro-lifer's/anti-choice people have to also care about the well being of other animals that are just as mentally capable as babies/children if they're going to remain logically consistent. As well as obviously supporting widespread welfare state provisions for unwanted children, mandatory sex education, allowing mothers to take off work for long periods of time to raise the child, get financial benefits and so on but it's always the pro-lifers that are against all of this. Their hypocrisy is much more stunning and immoral than anything the pro-choicers have imo.

All of this is stuff I agree with. People are massively hypocritical and too often suck (myself too often included in that as well)

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

It isn't about the kid, the eternally sexless want people punished for fucking. "You knew the risk."

Reminds me of the Carlin quote.


"Have you ever noticed the people at anti-abortion rallies are people, who you wouldn't wanna fuck in the first place?"



It's extremely provoking and mean, but I can see what George Carlin was trying to say with this.

 

[Septimius]

Well, yeah, except for the person that's dead when it's over.

I'm vehemently against abortion, but I'm also against laws prohibiting it -- simply because I want the government to stay the fuck out of peoples' lives. The situation put in place by Roe v. Wade is not perfect, but it is a workable compromise I guess. I guess what I feel is that in a healthy society, abortion would be rare and almost always for justifiable reasons, i.e. health of the mother, rape, severe birth defect detected. But we are not a healthy society. Abortions are performed as simple birth control, as a means of avoiding personal responsibility. Public funds subsidize the industry. And we are taught to be numb to the facilities in our midst, the sole purpose of which is to destroy unborn people before someone gets saddled with the burden of caring for them. These are the attitudes of an unhealthy society:

First off, some of your quotes have fair points about sustainability. It is an argumentatively valid line, and as such cannot be said to be 'attitudes of an unhealthy society' in and of themselves.

You say abortions should only be done with justifiable reasons. I think it's a justifiable reason if I take care to assess the safety and precautions of birth-control with my long term girlfriend. If the birth-control somehow fails, now, and we get pregnant, we're in a covenant of not keeping it, as a way to ensure that when we choose to, we will have a baby. Not before. And a realization that evolutionary emotions might fight against this rationale.

If our birth-control method fails, do you think that's a justifiable reason?

What, then, of those who are not as mentally capable as me and my girlfriend, that make ill informed decision? It is important to instill a consideration of the consequences of your actions, be it that you have casual sex and do not perform safe sex, or otherwise are reckless and somehow end up pregnant. These might be people that are already bad off, whose care might have been lackluster during their upbringing, or their economical or geographical situation not as such to ensure the cognitive ability to pursuit safe sex. I'm assuming you'd argue that if two 18 year old people had unsafe sex, they need to own up to the consequences, and that as such, a lack of performing safe sex would never be a justifiable reason to have an abortion. Not only does statistics show that this "punishment" does not act as a deterrent, but somehow might keep on fueling the problem.

The problem is that we're forcing a situation upon others that keeps on being a negative spiral. They're forced to have their unplanned child at a young age, they are not in a position to pursuit or not in a willingness to pursuit a higher education, and as such, their income and cognitive abilities are kept low. That sounds like a situation suitable for their kids ending up doing the same, because they're locked in the same geographical and economical situation, and they, too, end up not performing safe sex.

As I see, it, when you place a moral absolute at the foundation of anything normative, your normative ethics will come out of whack. I think it requires a relative normative approach. Remember that half the public has an IQ of under 100. What a fair society does, is not to keep people locked. We should not have classes, and we should not bind people to them. By saying abortions aren't justifiable, we might not only be assuming the same cognitive ability, but also the same economical and geographical situation on our peers as we are in, ourselves. When such regulations will help to keep the rich rich, the smart smart, the dumb dumb and the poor poor, we're in a society that's punishing those that are in a bad situation to begin with.

This is not to say that we need to be lenient, but we need to focus on educating our inhabitants, and also take care of them. "Pro-life", silly label as it is, people often say 'they have to stand up for the right of the fetus, because it cannot do it for itself', but they are just as much imposing their moral view onto them as they are protecting anything. A lack of consideration of such might also not only deprive the would-be parents of their quality of life, but also the child, but giving it a less planned and not as stable start. Out of all the statistics of level of education and time of first child, IQ and level of education, level of education and median income, time of first born and separation, time of first-born and quality of care, and so much more, should mean that we all should be pro-society.

After all, what good is 'saving a child' if you are lessening the average quality of life at the same time? Isn't society just as precious as the single agent?

EDIT: Bonus - if I, with my current cognitive ability was of a family of lesser means, and of parents of a young age, if I found out that I was only a live as the enforcement of a 'life is holy, you need to have this child', I'd wish to slap whoever did it across the face. Not only were they assuming that I'd wish to be born and lower my parent's quality of life, which I wouldn't have, and as a result, risk putting me in a situation where the 'tradition' is kept, and as such lower the quality of my family for generations to come. But they also impose their view upon someone that is, unequivocally, two fully functional human beings, saying their choice wouldn't have been right.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

I don't know what the process of abortion is like but I imagine I'd rather do that then be forced to give up 18 years of my life taking care of something I don't want to take care of. The latter seems way more extreme and awful to the individual mother and/or father. At least the baby doesn't know and will never know what it is, it's not the same as killing an adult.

At the same time I think it's hypocritical when pro-choice people don't also admit that killing a baby post-birth is just as morally reasonable. Society has deemed the vagina point the 'line' we cannot cross but if society says killing chimps/bonobos is okay when they're way more intelligent than even a 5 year old (or dolphins/pigs/dogs etc. animals with feelings attachments and so on) seems hypocritical to me and simply favoritism towards your own species (assuming intelligence/sentience is the guiding point by which we shouldn't kill things).

I think pro-lifer's/anti-choice people have to also care about the well being of other animals that are just as mentally capable as babies/children if they're going to remain logically consistent. As well as obviously supporting widespread welfare state provisions for unwanted children, mandatory sex education, allowing mothers to take off work for long periods of time to raise the child, get financial benefits and so on but it's always the pro-lifers that are against all of this. Their hypocrisy is much more stunning and immoral than anything the pro-choicers have imo.

That all makes sense, if you completely disregard the bodily autonomy argument.
With it, it makes sense for abortion to be morally & legally permissible, while post-birth killing is not - regardless of sentience, complexity of thought, capacity to suffer.

And yes, we got some specieism going on as well, generally speaking (I personally do not condone specieism).

 

[Count Dookkake]

Because words have meanings.

A fetus is never a person.

 

[The One and Done™]

I don't know what the process of abortion is like but I imagine I'd rather do that then be forced to give up 18 years of my life taking care of something I don't want to take care of. The latter seems way more extreme and awful to the individual mother and/or father. At least the baby doesn't know and will never know what it is, it's not the same as killing an adult.

At the same time I think it's hypocritical when pro-choice people don't also admit that killing a baby post-birth is just as morally reasonable. Society has deemed the vagina point the 'line' we cannot cross but if society says killing chimps/bonobos is okay when they're way more intelligent than even a 5 year old (or dolphins/pigs/dogs etc. animals with feelings attachments and so on) seems hypocritical to me and simply favoritism towards your own species (assuming intelligence/sentience is the guiding point by which we shouldn't kill things).

I think pro-lifer's/anti-choice people have to also care about the well being of other animals that are just as mentally capable as babies/children if they're going to remain logically consistent. As well as obviously supporting widespread welfare state provisions for unwanted children, mandatory sex education, allowing mothers to take off work for long periods of time to raise the child, get financial benefits and so on but it's always the pro-lifers that are against all of this. Their hypocrisy is much more stunning and immoral than anything the pro-choicers have imo.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Because words have meanings.

A fetus is never a person.

Unless granted personhood by the government.

 

[Pau]

The other person who willingly created that person, and who had 21 weeks to change her mind?

So before 21 weeks the fetus isn't a person, according to you?

And no, when I have sex, I am not consenting to another being using my body for mine months.

 

[GatorBait]

Please see above post where I have stated I've reconsidered my opinion.

My apologies, I hadn't seen your recent posts until mine was already completed.

I just see the "take responsibility" justification used often in abortion discussions, sometimes without clear intent. I find that, at times, proponents of that phrase mean that abortion shouldn't be used as a primary form of birth control, which is a sentiment I can agree with. But banning abortions for "family planning" reasons overall is not an effective means of achieving that end.

Unless you advocate that people should never have sex until they are ready to birth and raise a child, then you have to accept the fact that all birth control methods have a rate of failure. In cases where birth control fails, it can be a net detriment to both parents, the child, and society, if the child is born. Birthing a child under those circumstances has the potential to be an irresponsible outcome compared with deciding to have an abortion.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

So before 21 weeks the fetus isn't a person, according to you?

And no, when I have sex, I am not consenting to another being using my body for mine months.

But Pau, you are consenting because they say so!

 

[pompidu]

Sorry. Hadn't seen your post while I was writing mine.


I wonder why those who are pro-life don't support increasing funds for adoption purposes anywhere to the extent they support inaccurate sex education and closing down women's clinics (that only have abortion as a small part of their services.)

A lot of them want you to live life the way they want you too. That is the root for many social issues. They want to control people.

 

[Dash27]

I don't think whether it's a potential person or not truly matters. You hear all these grand statements about the preciousness of life. Since when is life so precious? .

By this reasoning murder should not be illegal.

I have yet to see this sentiment elsewhere when it comes to leaving breathing out of the womb individuals

You havent looked then. Hospitals, firefighters, emergency response. Families, friends, social groups of all kinds, places of worship, charities, soup kitchens. Even people in the fitness industry have a desire to see people live long and healthy lives.

This is all apart from the laws protecting life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness) here in the US and everywhere else.

 

[Zoc]

Not all pregnancies are willing.

I thought about putting in a disclaimer in my post about that, but thought it would make it too long. You're completely right about that, but I also think that regardless of rape or accidental pregnancy, a woman at 21 weeks' gestation (the most common limit for abortion) is very obviously pregnant. She has had plenty of warning at that point. If she hasn't chosen to abort at that point, she should take responsibility for the remaining 19 weeks, IMO.

 

[BrassMonkey1010]

What are you even arguing about? Are you seriously arguing it's okay to force unwanted babies onto people to make them more responsible? I'm sure that will turn out great.

If you actually read what I replied to you would see that I wasn't saying that at all.

 

[Buddha Beam]

I'm in favor of the right to choose, but I'm with the OP – it's made me uncomfortable for a long time the way a lot of people don't seem to realize the gravity of the situation. It's like a lot of people think its this little Flintstone vitamin floating around in there until the third trimester at best.
Most abortions are performed starting around the 20 week mark, which is when complications begin to arise. Doctors consider a fetus viable after 24 weeks. A fetus looks quite human at that point. My wife and I have never gone through that, but other people have. It's fucking traumatic.

I sympathize with the anti-abortion types even if I think they're wrong.

There was a REALLY powerful episode of Radiolab a few months ago. It'll fucking move you to tears.
http://www.radiolab.org/2013/apr/30/

 

[Count Dookkake]

Unless granted personhood by the government.

I used the word 'never' fully knowing what it means.

I don't give a shit how the government perverts language.

 

[Zoc]

Most abortions are performed starting around the 20 week mark

I'm very sceptical of that. Link?

 

[Stinkles]

Is a foot a person?

 

[RDreamer]

Here's the thing, from fetus to human baby is a process. It's a pretty slow process, too. On one end it's literally a worthless goop of cells. No one should care about it, because it's not human. It has no consciousness. It has no feelings. It's just cells. On the other hand we have a fully formed baby which almost everyone should care about, unless your instincts are out of wack. This whole thing is a process of slowly going from point A to point B.

There will always be arguments over where the line is. Where does it become baby and where does it stop being worthless sack of cells. Always. Why? Because, again, it's a slow process. There isn't some magical moment where shit just pops into place. It happens slowly over time. What that means is that you'll have a certain attachment at a certain point in that process and someone else will at another point in that process. Again, no one's right and no one's wrong.

On top of all this, the process heavily involves changing the woman's body. It takes a huge toll on it, and is a very difficult, emotional, and most importantly personal time in her life. Both for her and possibly for whatever family she has. Every woman is different during this time, and every pregnancy is different. They're brought about by different circumstances, and any possible baby will be brought into the world under very different circumstances.

Now, if you feel very strongly that it becomes a baby at whatever definable point you have, well then you can just not abort at that point when you're pregnant. If you feel that your circumstances are not great at whatever definable point in your life, then you can abort or not abort or whatever when you're pregnant. If you're not pregnant or part of someone's family (i.e. husband) when they are pregnant, well then I'm not sure why you get to pry into this whole system with your opinion.

My point is that the entire process is in fact a slow moving process from worthless to very very worthwhile. It's also brought about by an infinite number of circumstances. It's also followed by an infinite number of circumstances, both forseen and unforseen. Why in the world would we take this literally infinitely nuanced situation and try and prescribe one definable law. Why would we take this infinitely nuanced situation and try and tell the people sitting right in the middle of it what they should do? Why should we take this situation and make laws on it? Why should my government tell me when it's ok or not ok in this whole thing? Let those who have the most stake in it make the decision. Let those most informed on that exact situation make the decision.

Now, when a baby's out and into the world then we have a right to protect it as a society. Before that, it's literally dependent on that mother, and so it's her decision. As someone else pointed out we don't force organ donation on people. Why should we do it here?

And realistically most abortions aren't happening near that last end of the spectrum. No one's waiting 8 months and then just having an abortion, because... well... fuck you pro-lifers. They're not. No one's gleefully getting abortions late in their term. Hell, most don't gleefully get any abortion at all. Most don't really want to. Most happen early, nearer when that thing is a sack of cells. The ones that happen late usually happen for a good reason. If they happen for a bad reason, well that bad reason is sometimes that others pushed back the abortion with regulation on top of regulation because they think they know better.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Bill Hick's bit on it is pretty damn good

 

[Buddha Beam]

I'm very sceptical of that. Link?

I gave you a link.

Edit:
Actually I need to clarify. Most abortions due to complications are performed beginning around the 20 week mark.

 

[Septimius]

I'm in favor of the right to choose, but I'm with the OP – it's made me uncomfortable for a long time the way a lot of people don't seem to realize the gravity of the situation. It's like a lot of people think its this little Flintstone vitamin floating around in there until the third trimester at best.
Most abortions are performed starting around the 20 week mark, which is when complications begin to arise. Doctors consider a fetus viable after 24 weeks. A fetus looks quite human at that point. My wife and I have never gone through that, but other people have. It's fucking traumatic.

I sympathize with the anti-abortion types even if I think they're wrong.

There was a REALLY powerful episode of Radiolab a few months ago. It'll fucking move you to tears.
http://www.radiolab.org/2013/apr/30/

I cannot take this at face value. In Norway, a pretty liberal country when it comes to abortion, only allows 'your choice' abortions up until the 12th week. After that, it has to be considered by a doctor. I don't know what country you are talking of, but I cannot imagine that the 20 week mark is the average point of an abortion.

EDIT: I am not about to listen to an episode of something, that I have no idea of if they'll end up saying something that's backed up by source. I'd advise you to check what their source for their statement was, and then post that.

 

[User 73706]

If it cant live without its hosts body, then it's not a human, but a parasite by the very definition. And it should be okay to terminate it if the host choses to.

Agent Smith is on GAF?

 

[Synth_floyd]

This is a grunch but it is pretty clear that a human fetus is a human being and yes by getting an abortion you are murdering a person. I'm still pro-choice but lots of people on the pro-choice side seem to conveniently forget that fact.

However everything else about the issue shows that abortion should be legal. The woman having control over her body, the fact that while technically it is a human being, for all practical purposes it is just a part of her, the social and economic problems caused by unwanted births, women not only having the freedom to physically control their body but the social/political power it gives them as well, etc. (I believe that opposing abortion is a way to assert social and political power over women by men).

 

[skybald]

Not all pregnancies are willing.

Either way, an abortion can be given well before brain activity (and this the fetus's humanity) begins. If you refuse to have an abortion before brain activity begins, you must carry the pregnancy to term. Otherwise you ARE killing a human being who has all the inalienable rights you also have.

 

[Septimius]

Agent Smith is on GAF?

Agent Smith talks about viruses. Never parasites. And his opinion wouldn't be this. He'd also consider all humans parasites, leeching off the machines.

 

[RDreamer]

I'm in favor of the right to choose, but I'm with the OP – it's made me uncomfortable for a long time the way a lot of people don't seem to realize the gravity of the situation. It's like a lot of people think its this little Flintstone vitamin floating around in there until the third trimester at best.
Most abortions are performed starting around the 20 week mark, which is when complications begin to arise. Doctors consider a fetus viable after 24 weeks. A fetus looks quite human at that point. My wife and I have never gone through that, but other people have. It's fucking traumatic.

I sympathize with the anti-abortion types even if I think they're wrong.

There was a REALLY powerful episode of Radiolab a few months ago. It'll fucking move you to tears.
http://www.radiolab.org/2013/apr/30/

That's not what I'm seeing

Fifty-eight percent of all abortions for which gestational age was reported were performed at <8 weeks of gestation, and 88% were performed before 13 weeks. From 1992 (when these data were first collected) through 1999, increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at <6 weeks of gestation. Few abortions were provided after 15 weeks of gestation; 4.3% were obtained at 16--20 weeks and 1.5% were obtained at >21 weeks. A total of 27 reporting areas submitted data stating that they performed medical (nonsurgical) procedures (two of these areas categorized medical abortions with "other" procedures), making up <1.0% of all procedures reported from all reporting areas.

And it's "viable" at 24 weeks, but has only a 50% chance of survival.

 

[Mariolee]

Until they can say "don't kill me", it doesn't count.

Holy shit dude.

 

[Zoc]

I gave you a link.

Edit:
Actually I need to clarify. Most abortions due to complications are performed beginning around the 20 week mark.

Can't listen to a radio show right now. Is there something in there about most abortions being performed after 20 weeks? The legal limit is 21 weeks in most places, so that would be pretty shocking if true.

 

[Zaptruder]

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.

This is a big fat sticking point for me. And it wretches my stomach to think that otherwise reasonable and moral people would think this is ok. It's threads like this that makes me think that most of GAF's liberal minds have fallen off the deep end some times.

Ultimately, rights are a human construct. What we as a society choose to protect is a mark of the quality of the society and of ourselves.

To put a person's bodily autonomy above the sanctity of life - when we're talking about destroying a waking sentient being - the thing that gives us reason and worth as a species in the first place... because the woman bearing it decided past a fairly generous cut-off date, past the obviousness of the pregnancy itself, despite the options for giving the child up, that she'd rather not have to suffer the indignity or inconvenience of bearing a human life to term...

Seems to me as a society that gives little consistent care or consideration to the import of human life, one that fails to understand why human life is important... or even the nature of humanity itself.

Luckily, back in the real world, and not this sounding board, most people don't agree with the notion of late term abortions.

The vagina isn't really a magical canal of personhood - the fetus doesn't suddenly become more human once it's ejected from the body. But to listen to many here; you'd think that one day before birth, while the baby is still in the mother, abortion is still a reasonable and correct course of action. This is plainly ludicrous for any reasonable person to see - and to take a position otherwise marks one as an extremist for personal freedoms.

 

[Septimius]

I gave you a link.

Edit:
Actually I need to clarify. Most abortions due to complications are performed beginning around the 20 week mark.

Well, that's a different picture. Is it not justifiable to do an abortion due to complications around the 20th week mark? It is about the earliest we can uncover the birth defects in question.

I do not wish to move this discussion to one of the rights of fetuses with birth-defects, but it is important to consider that these are very different things.

 

[Lesath]

If it cant live without its hosts body, then it's not a human, but a parasite by the very definition. And it should be okay to terminate it if the host choses to.

Late to the party, but this is not true. A parasite causes its host to suffer reduced fitness, which is contrary to the very purpose of offspring.

My take on it is that the developing fetus is simply not cognizant, and therefore has less rights than the mother. Whether it is a person or nor really is a matter is semantics.

 

[AdventureRacing]

This is a grunch but it is pretty clear that a human fetus is a human being and yes by getting an abortion you are murdering a person. I'm still pro-choice but lots of people on the pro-choice side seem to conveniently forget that fact.

However everything else about the issue shows that abortion should be legal. The woman having control over her body, the fact that while technically it is a human being, for all practical purposes it is just a part of her, the social and economic problems caused by unwanted births, women not only having the freedom to physically control their body but the social/political power it gives them as well, etc. (I believe that opposing abortion is a way to assert social and political power over women by men).

So just to clear it up at what point does a fetus become a human being? A sperm isn't and an egg isn't so is it at the moment of conception? So if you abort an embryo as soon as conception occurs (when it's little more than a handful of cells) is that still a human being? If not when does it become so.

I don't think it's as obvious as you make out.

 

[The Technomancer]

Late to the party, but this is not true. A parasite causes its host to suffer reduced fitness, which is contrary to the very purpose of offspring.

My take on it is that the developing fetus is simply not cognizant, and therefore has less rights than the mother. Whether it is a person or nor really is a matter is semantics.

I'm not a huge fan of the word parasite because of the negative connotations but...uh...have you ever known anyone who was pregnant? Sure eventually you get offspring, but the whole point of the argument is that we're talking about during pregnancy, where it most certainly does reduce fitness.

 

[Septimius]

Late to the party, but this is not true. A parasite causes its host to suffer reduced fitness, which is contrary to the very purpose of offspring.

My take on it is that the developing fetus is simply not cognizant, and therefore has less rights than the mother. Whether it is a person or nor really is a matter is semantics.

The purpose of offspring is not to improve your own fitness, and having a children does in many ways reduce your fitness.

 

[Bodacious]

If our birth-control method fails, do you think that's a justifiable reason?

Yes.

What, then, of those who are not as mentally capable as me and my girlfriend, that make ill informed decision?

If you are speaking of the severely mentally impaired, then obviously personal responsibility, planning, and proper choices are inapplicable. But for the person of average or even low but functional intelligence, the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior are not complicated. Life is full of consequences for making poor choices ... committing a crime will still send you to jail, dirtbagging on debt will still make you poison to lenders, irresponsible sexual behavior can still get you AIDS or other venereal diseases, etc. I don't think it is justifiable to end a human life, i.e. kill someone, just to insulate another from the consequences of poor choices. But I don't support laws banning abortion -- I support a society that more aggressively disapproves of it as a means of after-the-fact birth control.


.

 

[Zoc]

So before 21 weeks the fetus isn't a person, according to you?

Yup. I should clarify that I don't believe there is an instantaneous change at the 21 week mark, but that it is the best compromise.

And no, when I have sex, I am not consenting to another being using my body for mine months.

Well then you should use protection or abort before 21 weeks.

 

[Buddha Beam]

Well, that's a different picture. Is it not justifiable to do an abortion due to complications around the 20th week mark? It is about the earliest we can uncover the birth defects in question.

I do not wish to move this discussion to one of the rights of fetuses with birth-defects, but it is important to consider that these are very different things.

Yeah, I agree. That's why it's the choice of the mother. But at that point, I'm saying its not a choice to be taken lightly. After the 24 week mark is when hospitals will do everything they can to keep the baby alive if they have to induce an abortion due to complications, if I'm not mistaken.

All of that is admittedly a different ballpark from an elective abortion though.

 

[MetalGuardian]

I believe life begins when it's able to survive on it's own, otherwise it's a fetus and part of the mother - and her choice.

That said, I'd be perfectly okay with outlawing abortions after the first tri. (unless the mother is at risk)

Ignoring the logical discrepancy between the two sentences I quoted, there have been so many variations in this thread arguing that "the fetus is dependent on the mother, and therefore it's within her right to terminate it."

This strikes me as incredibly inconsistent reasoning unless you also concede that it would be just as "morally neutral", or whatever you want to call it, if you were to let your child starve to death (or any other forms of neglect that would lead to dying). Babies are dependent on caretakers. Toddlers are dependent on caretakers. Preschoolers, young children, middle schoolers, etc. are all dependent on other people to ensure their survival.

I'm curious as to what the reasoning is for why it ISN'T just as okay to kill someone up until they are a fully autonomous individual as it is to have an abortion (with this particular line of argument, at least. I realize abortion has a whole host of other factors to consider.)

 

[RDreamer]

Luckily, back in the real world, and not this sounding board, most people don't agree with the notion of late term abortions.

The vagina isn't really a magical canal of personhood - the fetus doesn't suddenly become more human once it's ejected from the body. But to listen to many here; you'd think that one day before birth, while the baby is still in the mother, abortion is still a reasonable and correct course of action. This is plainly ludicrous for any reasonable person to see - and to take a position otherwise marks one as an extremist for personal freedoms.

The "notion" of late term abortions is a strawman. It's a ruse. One side is using it as a complete distraction from what's really going on. Seriously, who in the world is waiting 8 months, and going through nearly the whole process and then having an abortion simply because "she'd rather not have to suffer the indignity or inconvenience of bearing a human life to term..." Who? Who's going to have an abortion rather than a birth at the point where I'm fairly certain every doctor in the world is just going to tell them to fucking have it if everything's ok. Point me to those people. They don't fucking exist. Even if a miniscule, absolutely microscopic portion of people meet this criteria, then they don't really matter in the long term because you're putting up barriers to people who might really need it. You're having the government rule over doctors and women's bodies. You're putting in unneeded checks just to make sure people are doing the right thing.

Again, if someone waits a long time and then has an abortion it's because A) there's some sort of medical complication and perhaps their life is at risk. This should be up to the doctor and the patient to decide things. Or it's because B) government and pro-lifers have brought about so many goddamned regulations and paperwork and hoops that people have to jump through that their abortion gets pushed later and later.

 

[ClassyPenguin]

Among the 39 areas that reported gestational age at the time of abortion for 2009 (Table 7), the majority (64.0%) of abortions were performed at &#8804;8 weeks' gestation, and 91.7% were performed at &#8804;13 weeks' gestation. Few abortions (7.0%) were performed at 14&#8211;20 weeks' gestation, and even fewer (1.3%) were performed at &#8805;21 weeks' gestation.

Source

See this why is why keeping legal and safe is imperative. To know and understand trends and what health officials can do to respond instead of being in the dark.

 

[The Technomancer]

Source

See this why is why keeping legal and safe is imperative. To know and see trends and what health officials can do instead of being in the dark.

B-b-but all those baby murderers we have to stop with their 8.5 month abortions!

 

[Synth_floyd]

So just to clear it up at what point does a fetus become a human being? A sperm isn't and an egg isn't so is it at the moment of conception? So if you abort an embryo as soon as conception occurs (when it's little more than a handful of cells) is that still a human being? If not when does it become so.

I don't think it's as obvious as you make out.

Once the sperm and egg combine and create a zygote, it is a human being. Yes it is a human being with very few cells, attributes, etc. of a human being and in a very early stage of development, but how would that not be a human being? It's like claiming a 1 year old baby is not a human being because it is small, can't talk, can't walk, and doesn't have other characteristics that adult humans have.

 

[Zaptruder]

Here's the thing, from fetus to human baby is a process. It's a pretty slow process, too. On one end it's literally a worthless goop of cells. No one should care about it, because it's not human. It has no consciousness. It has no feelings. It's just cells. On the other hand we have a fully formed baby which almost everyone should care about, unless your instincts are out of wack. This whole thing is a process of slowly going from point A to point B.

There will always be arguments over where the line is. Where does it become baby and where does it stop being worthless sack of cells. Always. Why? Because, again, it's a slow process. There isn't some magical moment where shit just pops into place. It happens slowly over time. What that means is that you'll have a certain attachment at a certain point in that process and someone else will at another point in that process. Again, no one's right and no one's wrong.

On top of all this, the process heavily involves changing the woman's body. It takes a huge toll on it, and is a very difficult, emotional, and most importantly personal time in her life. Both for her and possibly for whatever family she has. Every woman is different during this time, and every pregnancy is different. They're brought about by different circumstances, and any possible baby will be brought into the world under very different circumstances.

Now, if you feel very strongly that it becomes a baby at whatever definable point you have, well then you can just not abort at that point when you're pregnant. If you feel that your circumstances are not great at whatever definable point in your life, then you can abort or not abort or whatever when you're pregnant. If you're not pregnant or part of someone's family (i.e. husband) when they are pregnant, well then I'm not sure why you get to pry into this whole system with your opinion.

My point is that the entire process is in fact a slow moving process from worthless to very very worthwhile. It's also brought about by an infinite number of circumstances. It's also followed by an infinite number of circumstances, both forseen and unforseen. Why in the world would we take this literally infinitely nuanced situation and try and prescribe one definable law. Why would we take this infinitely nuanced situation and try and tell the people sitting right in the middle of it what they should do? Why should we take this situation and make laws on it? Why should my government tell me when it's ok or not ok in this whole thing? Let those who have the most stake in it make the decision. Let those most informed on that exact situation make the decision.

Now, when a baby's out and into the world then we have a right to protect it as a society. Before that, it's literally dependent on that mother, and so it's her decision. As someone else pointed out we don't force organ donation on people. Why should we do it here?

And realistically most abortions aren't happening near that last end of the spectrum. No one's waiting 8 months and then just having an abortion, because... well... fuck you pro-lifers. They're not. No one's gleefully getting abortions late in their term. Hell, most don't gleefully get any abortion at all. Most don't really want to. Most happen early, nearer when that thing is a sack of cells. The ones that happen late usually happen for a good reason. If they happen for a bad reason, well that bad reason is sometimes that others pushed back the abortion with regulation on top of regulation because they think they know better.

Human gestation is a pretty predictable thing. We know that the fetus obtains consciousness while in the womb. If we put any stock in the idea of the import of sentience... then we'd do well to draw the line at around the point consciousness emerges.

Only in cases where life is put at risk in bringing the child to bear, or the fetus has been discovered as malformed resulting in short and suffering life would it be reasonable to abort - because on the other side of the scale is the weight of sentient human life.

Inconveniences and emotions be damned - they're not so important that they supersede the sanctity of human life. Just like the death penalty be damned - the desire for vengeance from victim and state should not supersede the recognition of fallibility in the process of judgement and the chance of loss of innocent life... hell, it shouldn't even supersede the priority we place on human life in general and thus a guilty man - if we are to be a society that is more compassionate and value life more than just in lip service alone.

And if I'm going to fight for the lives of the guilty, I'm sure as hell going to fight for the lives of conscious fetuses.

 

[Septimius]

Yes.



If you are speaking of the severely mentally impaired, then obviously personal responsibility, planning, and proper choices are inapplicable. But for the person of average or even low but functional intelligence, the consequences of irresponsible sexual behavior are not complicated. Life is full of consequences for making poor choices ... committing a crime will still send you to jail, dirtbagging on debt will still make you poison to lenders, irresponsible sexual behavior can still get you AIDS or other venereal diseases, etc. I don't think it is justifiable to end a human life, i.e. kill someone, just to insulate another from the consequences of poor choices. But I don't support laws banning abortion -- I support a society that more aggressively disapproves of it as a means of after-the-fact birth control.

No, I mean this:

What, then, of those who are not as mentally capable as me and my girlfriend, that make ill informed decision? It is important to instill a consideration of the consequences of your actions, be it that you have casual sex and do not perform safe sex, or otherwise are reckless and somehow end up pregnant. These might be people that are already bad off, whose care might have been lackluster during their upbringing, or their economical or geographical situation not as such to ensure the cognitive ability to pursuit safe sex. I'm assuming you'd argue that if two 18 year old people had unsafe sex, they need to own up to the consequences, and that as such, a lack of performing safe sex would never be a justifiable reason to have an abortion. Not only does statistics show that this "punishment" does not act as a deterrent, but somehow might keep on fueling the problem.

And you say that going to jail is the consequence of committing a crime. That's a very different take of causality, and not really one. And jail is meant to punish, deter and rehabilitate. It is never right to force a child upon young parents to deter other parents from having unsafe sex.

And still you seem to have missed the point of my entire post. When you start with a moral absolute of "killing is not right", and do a logical inconsistency by saying "therefore abortion is not right", which is not a logical continuance, you may well fight to lower the quality of life of people generally, and to ensure that the children of these type of parents likely end up in an equally unfavorable situation, all to protect that one moral absolute. As opposed to also seeing that you might lower the quality of life of the child by assuming such a thing.

 

[The Technomancer]

Once the sperm and egg combine and create a zygote, it is a human being. Yes it is a human being with very few cells, attributes, etc. of a human being and in a very early stage of development, but how would that not be a human being? It's like claiming a 1 year old baby is not a human being because it is small, can't talk, can't walk, and doesn't have other characteristics that adult humans have.

Most of us claim it isn't a human being (or perhaps not a "person") because its not sentient. That's what I consider the important attribute