Support NeoGAF

[Aristion]

So if life starts at conception, what happens to over half of the conceptions that end in miscarriages.

Are those deaths of a child, and by your definition, should be mourned as such?

Sure, that's a consequence of my view. It's not a moral issue since these are unintended consequences and they're part of the natural process of procreation (not all fertilized eggs will attach to the uterine wall).

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

No, I'm talking about adult siamese twins, one of which is sick of having her bodily autonomy violated by her sister.

The example is relevant because we're talking about bodily autonomy, after all.

So you're bringing fringe cases of bodily autonomy on who gets to decide when a person should die between two fully developed adults sharing the same body, to a women having an abortion 7 weeks after becoming pregnant?

Yea, I'm done with you.

 

[winjet81]

This is what Ohioans voted for, so this is what they want. When Trump stacks the SC with his anti-choice candidates, that too will be the result of what Americans wanted.

While the rest of the world moves towards enlightenment, we watch you guys fuck up and choose a path towards darkness.

Good luck to you all.

 

[Seth Enosh]

'Pro-life' is as much of a misnomer as 'alt-right'. 'Anti-womens rights' is much closer to the truth. Funny how quickly 'pro-life' turns to 'fuck you' as soon as that fetus pops out of the mothers vagina.

Kasich expanded Medicaid in his state (unlike most republicans). Not exactly a 'FU' to poor mothers.

Fwiw the Catholic Church who have been one of the biggest pushers of pro life stuff in the past decades also loves welfare and government assistance to the poor, you're pushing a stereotype that doesn't accurately reflect many "pro life" people.

 

[Blader]

I'm pro-life, big shock I know. I think I leaned even that much more in that direction after we heard the heartbeat of our first child (that eventually ended in a miscarriage) at just week 7.

I do, however, support exceptions in extreme cases such as the life of the mother, rape, and incest.

This is one topic that's almost impossible to debate online. You just go around in circles forever no matter which side you are on.

I don't get this. Why? If you believe life starts at conception, then these are all children you are okay with being killed. A child has no control over how it's conceived.

 

[DragonSworne]

Sure, that's a consequence of my view. It's not a moral issue since these are unintended consequences and they're part of the natural process of procreation (not all fertilized eggs will attach to the uterine wall).

How convenient. Discard the life of these children so you can continue to punish women.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Ginsburg needs to hold the fuck on. Kennedy too.

 

[Mesousa]

Kasich expanded Medicaid in his state (unlike most republicans). Not exactly a 'FU' to poor mothers.

Fwiw the Catholic Church who have been one of the biggest pushers of pro life stuff in the past decades also loves welfare and government assistance to the poor, you're pushing a stereotype that doesn't accurately reflect many "pro life" people.

A lot of these people don't know catholics. Their only experience are with hypocritical protestants.

 

[manakel]

As an Ohioan, this state continues to disappoint me. I cannot wait to get out of here.

However, I'm not so sure Kasich will sign. Although he's very much "pro-life", he's stated concerns about this bill in the past.

Oh, and given the current state of affairs in this country, there's absolutely no way RBG will retire in the next four years. The only way her seat will go vacant is if she passes away.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

Is being pro-life a terrible thing? I believe that a fetus has an absolute right to life in virtue of its being a human being.

I honestly don't see how that's an abhorrent position to hold.

Let's define what a human being is: a human animal that is viable in the world outside of its mother's uterus. Otherwise, it's only a developing human fetus. And since we can only use science and not your religious beliefs as facts for discussion, you cannot say that a cluster of cells or embryo has a "soul", as there is no material evidence of such a thing existing. Our consciousness / our self awareness / our "mind" is an emergent phenomena arising from the complex interactions of many bodily systems in the context of the world's external stimuli. This really is no longer disputable. And up to the point of viability, human animals don't really have one. It is more humane to stop the development of the human fetus into a full blown viable human being than to let it be born into life of neglect and suffering, in which all of society ultimately bears the burden.

 

[Gentleman Jack]

If we gradually pass legislation that restricts abortions, over time the public would be educated on the moral status of the unborn and perhaps more women wouldn't resort to illegal means of procuring abortions.

That's a lot of wishful thinking. You don't educate women on the moral status of anything by making them criminals in a system that is presently disinterested in the fate of their unwanted child after it is born.

 

[Aristion]

You seem to have the utmost faith in the concept of a social movement being an end all means to fostering morality when for years most of us have understood how the human condition is, not just black and white. You've already made the decision that a woman's choice does not override an innocent life. So what possible defense can be made to you, if you have already chosen against it?

We all have some rigid and principled moral beliefs that are hard to shake, but I'm willing to be challenged and willing to be corrected. I simply haven't come across a convincing argument to the contrary.

The siamese twin is not the mother of the sister so this argument is pretty useless.

How does that change anything? Are you saying that sororicide (killing of one's sister) can't be justified but filicide (killing one's child) is justified under certain circumstances?

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I'm pro-life, big shock I know. I think I leaned even that much more in that direction after we heard the heartbeat of our first child (that eventually ended in a miscarriage) at just week 7.

I do, however, support exceptions in extreme cases such as the life of the mother, rape, and incest.

This is one topic that's almost impossible to debate online. You just go around in circles forever no matter which side you are on.

Hey, guess what, it's none of your business.

 

[Not]

Ginsburg needs to hold the fuck on. Kennedy too.

Oh, and given the current state of affairs in this country, there's absolutely no way RBG will retire in the next four years. The only way her seat will go vacant is if she passes away.

I'm sure she realizes the country is quite literally in her hands

 

[jfkgoblue]

If you want there to be fewer abortions, you need to make it easier to reduce the potential for pregnancy. Banning abortion won't do it; promoting birth control and sex education will. I don't care if you don't want to get roped into the argument or not, and really, the fact that you don't want to talk about it suggests to me you're uncomfortable (to put it generously) with a platform that at all promotes women having sex. Which does go back to the point of punishing women for having sex in the first place.

Holy projection batman.

I outlined why I don't want to get into it in my earlier post. This argument gets no one anywhere.

And like I said, pro-life isn't about eliminating abortion, it's about it being socially or legally unacceptable.

I am not gonna state what side of the issue that I am on as it doesn't matter for what I am saying. (In before you project on me to automatically be pro-life)

 

[chillybright]

Let's define what a human being is: a human animal that is viable in the world outside of its mother's uterus. Otherwise, it's only a developing human fetus.

What does "viable" mean in your definition?

 

[CyclopsRock]

All Democrats have to do is do what the Republicans did. In fact, they can't claim a mandate like Obama got because Trump lost the popular vote. So they have no argument. If they force the justice through, there will likely be hell to pay.

But... The Republicans controlled congress then, the Democrats don't more. So they can't really do what the Republicans did.

 

[Not]

The issue, in my opinion, is that people are trying to logically dismantle the argument against abortion to those who believe it should be abolished- And you can't.

This is an issue that transcends logic and reason. You can't convince someone about when 'life' begins, just as much as someone can convince you that they know for certain. It's too emotionally invested. It's an argument that will never go anywhere.

That's my point though. To look beyond the quagmire of the actual argument and instead look at the people at the top who are either exploiting endless debate or oversimplifying its intricacies.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

How convenient. Discard the life of these children so you can continue to punish women.

Everything is equal!

Why aren't these mothers horrified at the amount of miscarriages they are having? Where is the outrage of all these kids being lost?

After all, all life is precious and life starts at conception, no matter how many dead baby's there are with that definition and the moral ramifications of such a view.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

Abortion isn't a moral right, though.

The burden is yours to demonstrate to everyone why terminating a human life is a choice that is morally neutral.

You're saying women should be forced to be baby factories. It's moral because it is the woman that is burdened with the challenges and issues that comes with birthing a baby.

So if she no longer wants it or if it threatens her life or is a result of a crime, she should get the ultimate decision on making the fetus part of her.

You tell me how it is moral to force a woman to carry a baby to term against her will.

 

[Dude Abides]

That's a lot of wishful thinking. You don't educate women on the moral status of anything by making them criminals in a system that is presently disinterested in the fate of their unwanted child after it is born.

These bills don't typically have criminal penalties for the women, just the physician.

The forced-pregnancy crowd realizes that penalizing the women would be unpopular. Even though they claim to believe abortion is murder, they lack the courage of their convictions.

 

[Vyer]

I'm pro-life, big shock I know. I think I leaned even that much more in that direction after we heard the heartbeat of our first child (that eventually ended in a miscarriage) at just week 7.

I do, however, support exceptions in extreme cases such as the life of the mother, rape, and incest.

This is one topic that's almost impossible to debate online. You just go around in circles forever no matter which side you are on.

Banning and cutting resources for women's clinics or sex Ed has the opposite effect of what someone who is 'pro life' is supposedly about.

The 'what is life' argument is pretty impossible, sure. The rest is not.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

They aren't pro-life, they're anti-choice.

 

[necrosis]

I'm thoroughly convinced that pro-lifers just want to punish women for having sex.

i don't think this is true in all cases but it is definitely true some of the time

 

[jfkgoblue]

Well this thread has now became what every abortion thread becomes so I failed I guess.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

What does "viable" mean in your definition?

Capable of living on its own. I.e not needing direct biological support of the mother just to maintain basic levels of survival.

 

[Jumplion]

I will assume good faith and say you're not trolling, since it's hard to tell on the internet nowadays.

It isn't simply banning abortions that prevents abortions from occurring. A social movement that fosters dialogue and education about the moral status of the newborn is a precondition for any social development on the issue.

Why do you think women get abortions? Do you think abortion is something women want to have? Do you think they are thinking of it as a moral issue, "it is morally right for me to terminate the pregnancy because of bodily autonomy"? Or do you think women get abortions because of reasons like unexpected pregnancies (rape or otherwise), a fatal defect detected in the child, complication that risks their own life, etc...?

Also, the article indicates that the abortion rate doesn't skyrocket after banning it, so there's no utilitarian argument to be made here.

Yes, abortions are performed regardless of whether it is legal or not. Would you agree, then, that, regardless of your personal feeling on them, abortions are a necessary service/scenario for some women that will be present in society regardless of legal status? Because the article shows that that is the case, it will happen regardless of "moral education" just as there will always be people that need insulin.

So, following your claim of utilitarianism earlier, this means we shouldn't ban it as using resources to ban it does not provide any utilitarian benefit, to say nothing of the negative effects. In the same way that banning insulin wouldn't change its consumption, just drive the purchase of it underground where it is more dangerous and less regulated, banning abortion indisputably leads to dangerous, underground uses of a service that is consistently needed.

Following the above two paragraphs, It follows, then, that banning certain services that are consistently needed, such as insulin drugs or abortions, only leads to more issues that are not beneficial to anyone. Given that these services will always be needed in one form or another, it makes sense that rather than banning those services we instead provide said services in a safe, controlled environment. Even better would be to work on services and policies that would make the need for those other services not as necessary, for example work on sex education, healthcare, condom distribution, etc... have all shown to lower pregnancies and abortions.

And before you say "you're saying the government should hand out drugs and make everyone addicted and that's morally wrong", yes it is, which is why regulating things that are inevitably going to happen tend to work out. As counterintuitive as it feels, needle exchanges work towards lowering drug usage and healthier people.

 

[Ganhyun]

Everything is equal!

Why aren't these mothers horrified at the amount of miscarriages they are having? Where is the outrage of all these kids being lost?

After all, all life is precious and life starts at conception, no matter how many dead baby's there are with that definition and the moral ramifications of such a view.

I know plenty of women (friends and some family) who mourn their lost children due to miscarriage. Are you saying they have no right to do so?

 

[tkscz]

The issue, in my opinion, is that people are trying to logically dismantle the argument against abortion to those who believe it should be abolished- And you can't.

This is an issue that transcends logic and reason. You can't convince someone about when 'life' begins, just as much as someone can convince you that they know for certain. It's too emotionally invested. It's an argument that will never go anywhere.

This.

 

[Alucrid]

Holy projection batman.

I outlined why I don't want to get into it in my earlier post. This argument gets no one anywhere.

And like I said, pro-life isn't about eliminating abortion, it's about it being socially or legally unacceptable.

I am not gonna state what side of the issue that I am on as it doesn't matter for what I am saying. (In before you project on me to automatically be pro-life)

i don't care what you believe but when you go "ugh these threads are the worst no one is going to win" and "i'm not going to get roped into this and that's all i have to say" but continue to post in a thread where you think nothing worthwhile will come about it makes your previous statements seem disingenuous

 

[Not]

Well this thread has now became what every abortion thread becomes so I failed I guess.

Why not try a little harder every time instead of noticing patterns that resemble past negative experiences and giving up almost immediately?

 

[GoldenEye 007]

I know plenty of women (friends and some family) who mourn their lost children due to miscarriage. Are you saying they have no right to do so?

There is a bit of a difference in having a miscarriage of a wanted future baby versus not wanting a baby I would think.

It's a personal case by case situation and choice.

 

[Late Flag]

Unless pro-lifers are willing to advocate for widespread sex education and birth control access, then how else should it be interpreted?

I'm pro-life and I'm also strongly in favor of sex education and easy access to birth control. IMO, it's silly that birth control pills aren't sold OTC.

 

[AngmarsKing701]

Abortions did not come into existence in 1973.

The only thing passing more restrictions on abortion does is encourage women to either have illegal and dangerous abortions in the country, travel outside of the country for abortions (not an option for lower- or middle-income women), or have children that end up abandoned, given over to the system, or raised in households that do not have the means to raise children.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, you should be promoting sex education and making access to birth control as free and easy as possible in order to reduce the potential for unwanted pregnancies.

Great post. 100% agree.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

I know plenty of women (friends and some family) who mourn their lost children due to miscarriage. Are you saying they have no right to do so?

I'm saying women have miscarriages when they don't even know they are pregnant/have a fertilized egg, which happens a lot.

Obviously planning for a pregnancy/being pregnant, knowing you're pregnant and having a miscarriage is devastating.

 

[Muppet of a Man]

What does "viable" mean in your definition?

I already stated what I mean by viable: able to survive outside of the mother's uterus, which is not possible until around the 23rd week in extreme early birth cases.

 

[Downhome]

Banning and cutting resources for women's clinics or sex Ed has the opposite effect of what someone who is 'pro life' is supposedly about.

The 'what is life' argument is pretty impossible, sure. The rest is not.

I'm not for banning and cutting resources for women's health clinics, sex Ed, and other sorts of educational sources. Ive always believed that "my side" should be way more open to those types of things. There will never be a day where any sort of actual middle ground is reached unless that happens first. It will just be a never ending circle.

 

[FyreWulff]

Is being pro-life a terrible thing? I believe that a fetus has an absolute right to life in virtue of its being a human being.

Well, except for the fact that pregnancy can be a death sentence for a woman. Then you're telling the woman they've lost their right to life. Plus, most "pro lifers" tend to also not care after the child is born.

I could never force a woman to carry to term. Their reality is much different re: pregnancy than it is for us men.

 

[Not]

I know plenty of women (friends and some family) who mourn their lost children due to miscarriage. Are you saying they have no right to do so?

This is a really easy extreme to jump to, but it fallaciously assumes that expectant soon-to-be-mothers who prepare for a baby and women who want control over their lives and autonomy are the same thing.

 

[jfkgoblue]

i don't care what you believe but when you go "ugh these threads are the worst no one is going to win" and "i'm not going to get roped into this and that's all i have to say" but continue to post in a thread where you think nothing worthwhile will come about it makes your previous statements seem disingenuous

I left my post where I explained what was going to happen as it happens in ever similar thread. Then someone replied to that so I answered. I have nothing to do with the current argument that is dominating the thread right now.

 

[Blader]

Holy projection batman.

I outlined why I don't want to get into it in my earlier post. This argument gets no one anywhere.

And like I said, pro-life isn't about eliminating abortion, it's about it being socially or legally unacceptable.

I am not gonna state what side of the issue that I am on as it doesn't matter for what I am saying. (In before you project on me to automatically be pro-life)

Okay, first, projecting would imply *I* have the issue with women having sex.

Second, you keep saying you don't want to get into the argument, but you keep responding to me so I'm going to continue assuming you actually are invested in the argument.

I am plenty willing to say you and pro-lifers in general do not hold this position out of some fundamental belief of punishing women for having sex, if you can please tell me why the pro-life argument does not advocate for sex education and birth control access. Do you agree that more widespread sex education and easier/cheaper access to birth control would go a long way in curtailing unwanted pregnancies (and therefore, the abortions they lead to)? If so, don't you think that this should be a major component of the pro-life argument if the ultimate goal is to stop abortions from happening?

Can you see why I'm led to believe that a pro-life platform invested in stopping abortions but not invested in preventing unwanted pregnancies via sex education and birth control is actually about punishing women for having sex? Can you see why I'm led to believe that a pro-life platform more invested in promoting abstinence than safe sex is actually about some natural discomfort with the whole idea of women having sex?

 

[BrutishMrFish]

Encouraging a pro-life culture would inevitably lead to less abortions. Whether we like it or not, the law acts as a pedagogue in ways that social movements usually do not. If we gradually pass legislation that restricts abortions, over time the public would be educated on the moral status of the unborn and perhaps more women wouldn't resort to illegal means of procuring abortions.

A "pro-life culture" (or at least the kind that people like Kasich want) involves preventing people from getting any contraceptives or actual sex education. If it took root, the best case scenario would be that more freaked out teenagers would get pregnant and get hurt while trying to get abortions, while maybe other age groups would get fewer abortions.

That's hardly a net positive.

 

[jfkgoblue]

Why not try a little harder every time instead of noticing patterns that resemble past negative experiences and giving up almost immediately?

Because the people involved in the argument just ignore it.

 

[ShyMel]

Abortion isn't a moral right, though.

The burden is yours to demonstrate to everyone why terminating a human life is a choice that is morally neutral.

I would say the right to decide what happens to my body is neutral.

Why is it morally neutral to force a women to carry a fetus she does not want? Why is it morally neutral to for a rape victim to carry the result of her trauma? Why is morally neutral to force a women to go through postpartum bleeding for a baby she doesn't want which could kill her? Why is it morally neutral to force a poor women to birth a child with severe mentally and physical disabilities that will not live more than one year?

 

[Aristion]

Let's define what a human being is: a human animal that is viable in the world outside of its mother's uterus.

Thanks for being the first to give a definition, this is something we can discuss.

The problem with this definition is that viability doesn't seem essential to one's status as a human being.

We can think of an example where I volunteer to continuously cycle my blood through another persons body for about a month in order to keep his kidney's function for that period. If I were to detach my iv cord then he would die (in this example). Does the other guy lose his status as a human being just because he relies upon my body?

Otherwise, it's only a developing human fetus. And since we can only use science and not your religious beliefs as facts for discussion, you cannot say that a cluster of cells or embryo has a "soul", as there is no material evidence of such a thing existing.

My argument doesn't rely upon the notion of a soul nor upon any religious doctrines. We can rely upon science and reasoning to discuss this.

We're all (let's suppose) a cluster of cells, but not all of us are conscious clusters of cells. The question here is to find out when does a cluster of cells attain moral value.

Is it when we are directly capable of being conscious? That's why I brought up the pig example earlier. Many creatures have this ability, but we seem to have this intuition that human infants are still valuable (just as valuable as adult humans) even when infants lack
rationality or other features distinctive of humans.

Our consciousness / our self awareness / our "mind" is an emergent phenomena arising from the complex interactions of many bodily systems in the context of the world's external stimuli. This really is no longer disputable. And up to the point of viability, human animals don't really have one. It is more humane to stop the development of the human fetus into a full blown viable human being than to let it be born into life of neglect and suffering, in which all of society ultimately bears the burden.

We (or most humans) seem to be unaffected by the prior consciousness of the animals we eat (unless you're vegan/vegetarian). This seems to suggest that consciousness is not a sufficient condition for moral value, but perhaps it's a necessary precondition. However, that doesn't work either since the reason why we value infants is primarily because of their capacity to be rational (not just that they're conscious, otherwise they'd just be like regular animals).

 

[Coriolanus]

The burden is yours to demonstrate to everyone why terminating a human life is a choice that is morally neutral.

This is false. The burden is always on those that wish to move the State's apparatus towards a certain direction to justify why it should move.

In this case, evidently, you must explain why the state should prevent women from doing whatever the fuck they want with their bodies. Your argument is "because it impacts another person". Then the argument will revolve around whether a fetus is a person, and what are the requirements for personhood.

 

[Not]

Well, except for the fact that pregnancy can be a death sentence for a woman. Then you're telling the woman they've lost their right to life. Plus, most "pro lifers" tend to also not care after the child is born.

I could never force a woman to carry to term. Their reality is much different re: pregnancy than it is for us men.

BUT THE FETUS COULD BE A MAN WHAT THEN

 

[Blader]

I'm pro-life and I'm also strongly in favor of sex education and easy access to birth control. IMO, it's silly that birth control pills aren't sold OTC.

Cool. I appreciate your openness on it, and wish more pro-lifers thought the same.

 

[George Washington]

It still fascinates me that, in 2016, people are still obsessed with controlling the contents of other females' genitalia.

With that being said, there should be some regulations on abortions so that they are safe, accessible, and affordable -but not to the point where women have to perform "illegal" abortions; risking their lives in the process. It's their body, they should be able to decide what's best.

Unfortunately, Kasich will most likely sign this bill.

 

[Aristion]

So you're bringing fringe cases of bodily autonomy on who gets to decide when a person should die between two fully developed adults sharing the same body, to a women having an abortion 7 weeks after becoming pregnant?

Yea, I'm done with you.

Yes, I am making that comparison. It's called an analogy. It's up to you to demarcate the moral differences between the analogy and the issue we're discussing.