Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Dyakovo]

or you could understand that the state has no interest in forcing women to bear unwanted children. then maybe you might realize that what strangers do about their own medical, family, and reproductive choices is none of your business.

Except for protecting the lives of innocent children.

Abortion protects the lives of innocent children by allowing the woman to put off having children until she's prepared to care for them.

[Mefpan]

You are misunderstanding the point.

Let's say someone needs your kidney to survive. Is this person in the right to take said kidney, with or without your consent?

I understand you're point completely. I just also completely disagree with it. First off, you're assuming an adult (or even a child) puts the same amount of strain on your organs as an unborn fetus prior to its' development of organs. Fact is, that's factually incorrect. Your analogy is a logically poor one from the start. However, taking your example, there is no natural basis for another fully-developed human being sharing YOUR kidney, that's an artificially-forced scenario. Pregnancy is a very natural and a very healthy process, unlike the poor example you've provided above.

What makes natural processes inherently better, more desirable and less problematic than artificial ones?

[The Rebel Alliances]

I understand you're point completely. I just also completely disagree with it. First off, you're assuming an adult (or even a child) puts the same amount of strain on your organs as an unborn fetus prior to its' development of organs. Fact is, that's factually incorrect. Your analogy is a logically poor one from the start. However, taking your example, there is no natural basis for another fully-developed human being sharing YOUR kidney, that's an artificially-forced scenario. Pregnancy is a very natural and a very healthy process, unlike the poor example you've provided above.

You are still not getting it.

If right to life overrides bodily sovereignty, self-defence is a bad thing, and forced organ "donation" would be a good thing.

Everything is natural, by the way. That doesn't mean squat. As for healthy...? Yeah. Sure. Whatever. I'm sure there are women in this thread who have been pregnant and can elaborate.

No need to be condescending. You either just skimmed the post, or ignored the multiple times I have stated that women should not be banned from having abortions. Thereby, not 'punished for having sex'. Also, I do not see the measure as obstructive, it is not government funded. Nor is it mandatory, nor prevents the woman in question from going through with an abortion.

Your plan involves pouring money into trying to convince women not to get abortions by camping out inside abortion clinics. I'd say that's fairly obstructive.

If you do not believe it is the best plan, simply say so, and offer an alternative. Which you did. The condescending attitude could have been left out, I stated that I was open to critique, speaking down to someone is not the way to have a productive discourse. Especially when the statement is inaccurate.

That being said, I was not aware that 'artificial wombs' were an option. So, thank you for bringing that to my attention, if I could ask, exactly how viable is the technology now? And is it a viable alternative for the near future?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-major ... ?r=US&IR=T
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2 ... ss-births/

If all the money that has been poured into trying to make abortion illegal for decades had instead been directed to research in this field, we would probably be far further along in it, even if it might not be necessarily viable yet.

You also seem to have missed it when I openly said that conservatives have wasted time, money and resources in media wars rather than try to address the issue. I have already said this, no reason for you to do the same and add a sting to it.

Also, no, the plan was meant to address the issues behind the abortion, recognizing that women who seek abortions do so for different reasons, and if a solution to some of those reasons was easily accessible then the abortion may not take place. It also recognized that women who desired a abortion for reasons that could not be solved through the programs, would still get their abortion.

Also, I have already stated agreement with the plan you proposed, and which was supported by Wall.
And I am certainly not opposed to fundraisers and money being invested in the technology.

I have not been resistant to your idea, but your method of getting it across. When your target has openly expressed openness to new ideas, attacking him as you have done, is unneeded. Simply give your alternative, the source and it will do the work.

That being said, because I have addressed your suggestion in agreement, and addressed your attitude, I do believe we have little more to discuss, and hope we can end this on a positive note. I was never looking for a argument, and your initial response seemed geared at one.

Perhaps it is because threads like these tend to stay heated, and another poster had you worked up. But regardless, I am sure we can get past it.

[Dyakovo]

*wipes tear away* You must realize that the fetus is part of the mother until it is born, right? And yeah, fetuses can attack people. It's called maternal death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

You must realize that a fetus is a part of the mother only because we legally decided it to be so, kinda like the same way a slave was once considered to legally be 3/5 a man and a woman incapable of voting.

So a foetus isn't actually connected to the woman, receiving all it's nutrients from her, relying on the woman's system to clear away waste, protected from infection solely by the woman's immune system?
Biologists will be shocked to learn this.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Funny, I have yet to see any proof of this being remotely factual. That's really just baseless rhetoric.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... et_to.html
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/poli ... s?page=0,0
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pr ... 98655.html

EDIT: Also, have Amnesty International's report on the situation in Ireland

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eu ... 7/2015/en/

Your first link doesn't work (or it didn't work when I tried). Your second, which I've read before, is heavily flawed in its' presentation. All it essentially does is it emphasizes the exact same person's real life scenario with the assumption that everyone else's is just alike, when in reality that is not the case. Your third link is just a critical video on an international Pro-Life movement overall which really has no bearing on the legality of abortion here, and specifically addresses the issues of that independent society. I can make one that is equally as critical of the Pro-Choice movement with hypotheticals and whatnot, but it still wouldn't be considered a valid source. Your fourth link is the only one remotely credible to your point, but its' a rather extensive document which will require some time to read. I already am skeptical consider you're leaning on amnesty for your information on this matter (comon' that's like relying on lifenews for Pro-Lifers). When I said factual information, I meant from academics, scholars, and statisticians. Not exclusively political blogs.

[Stellonia]

You must realize that a fetus is a part of the mother only because we legally decided it to be so, kinda like the same way a slave was once considered to legally be 3/5 a man and a woman incapable of voting.

So a foetus isn't actually connected to the woman, receiving all it's nutrients from her, relying on the woman's system to clear away waste, protected from infection solely by the woman's immune system?
Biologists will be shocked to learn this.

Connected to doesn't mean is a part of.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You must realize that a fetus is a part of the mother only because we legally decided it to be so, kinda like the same way a slave was once considered to legally be 3/5 a man and a woman incapable of voting.

So a foetus isn't actually connected to the woman, receiving all it's nutrients from her, relying on the woman's system to clear away waste, protected from infection solely by the woman's immune system?
Biologists will be shocked to learn this.

You're confused. That makes the woman a part of the fetus.

[Ardavia]

You are still not getting it.

If right to life overrides bodily sovereignty, self-defence is a bad thing, and forced organ "donation" would be a good thing.

Everything is natural, by the way. That doesn't mean squat. As for healthy...? Yeah. Sure. Whatever. I'm sure there are women in this thread who have been pregnant and can elaborate.



Your plan involves pouring money into trying to convince women not to get abortions by camping out inside abortion clinics. I'd say that's fairly obstructive.



http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-major ... ?r=US&IR=T
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2 ... ss-births/

If all the money that has been poured into trying to make abortion illegal for decades had instead been directed to research in this field, we would probably be far further along in it, even if it might not be necessarily viable yet.

You also seem to have missed it when I openly said that conservatives have wasted time, money and resources in media wars rather than try to address the issue. I have already said this, no reason for you to do the same and add a sting to it.

Also, no, the plan was meant to address the issues behind the abortion, recognizing that women who seek abortions do so for different reasons, and if a solution to some of those reasons was easily accessible then the abortion may not take place. It also recognized that women who desired a abortion for reasons that could not be solved through the programs, would still get their abortion.

Also, I have already stated agreement with the plan you proposed, and which was supported by Wall.
And I am certainly not opposed to fundraisers and money being invested in the technology.

I have not been resistant to your idea, but your method of getting it across. When your target has openly expressed openness to new ideas, attacking him as you have done, is unneeded. Simply give your alternative, the source and it will do the work.

That being said, because I have addressed your suggestion in agreement, and addressed your attitude, I do believe we have little more to discuss, and hope we can end this on a positive note. I was never looking for a argument, and your initial response seemed geared at one.

Perhaps it is because threads like these tend to stay heated, and another poster had you worked up. But regardless, I am sure we can get past it.

Yeah, I'm sorry about being sour with it. I don't dislike your plan, I do think putting money into alternatives to abortion (such as aforementioned artifical wombs) and sex education to prevent unwanted pregnancies alongside trying to provide additional support for children already in the foster care system is a good plan.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

So a foetus isn't actually connected to the woman, receiving all it's nutrients from her, relying on the woman's system to clear away waste, protected from infection solely by the woman's immune system?
Biologists will be shocked to learn this.

You're confused. That makes the woman a part of the fetus.

That's because the fetus has more rights. *nods*

[Imperial Esplanade]

You must realize that a fetus is a part of the mother only because we legally decided it to be so, kinda like the same way a slave was once considered to legally be 3/5 a man and a woman incapable of voting.

Freedom of speech, religion, and peaceable assembly, universal adult suffrage, and right to privacy are guaranteed to citizens only because we legally decided it to be so. Your point?

You said it yourself, its' all because we legally decided it to be so. Citing legality for the right to an abortion could very well change if the laws themselves are changed to prohibit said act.

[Ardavia]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... et_to.html
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/poli ... s?page=0,0
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pr ... 98655.html

EDIT: Also, have Amnesty International's report on the situation in Ireland

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eu ... 7/2015/en/

Your first link doesn't work (or it didn't work when I tried). Your second, which I've read before, is heavily flawed in its' presentation. All it essentially does is it emphasizes the exact same person's real life scenario with the assumption that everyone else's is just alike, when in reality that is not the case. Your third link is just a critical video on an international Pro-Life movement overall which really has no bearing on the legality of abortion here, and specifically addresses the issues of that independent society. I can make one that is equally as critical of the Pro-Choice movement with hypotheticals and whatnot, but it still wouldn't be considered a valid source. Your fourth link is the only one remotely credible to your point, but its' a rather extensive document which will require some time to read. I already am skeptical consider you're leaning on amnesty for your information on this matter (comon' that's like relying on lifenews for Pro-Lifers). When I said factual information, I meant from academics, scholars, and statisticians. Not exclusively political blogs.

You'll want to have a look at sections 10.7 to 10.9 of the document. Also, are you seriously trying to claim that Amnesty International is as biased as this site? Like, really?

[The Rebel Alliances]

Snip

No worries. Threads like this do get heated, and posters can lose their tongue very easily. It has happened to me on this topic before. But we are past it, the largest part I would like to stress is that in national media, debates and even on NSG. Americans are far too easily goaded into thinking of 'The other side' as the enemy.

No matter the issue, common ground can be found and from there worked at from both sides. As I mentioned, we should be considering ourselves part of the same team, rather than competing forces.

If we do so, it should reflect itself within our discourse, as one does not address a ally, as he would a perceived enemy, and real progress can be made.

[Shazbotdom]

Hey Stellonia,

Are you going to answer my last post to you, or are you going to ignore it?

Why should we force a baby to die as punishment for being unwanted?

It's not a baby until it reaches Viability, that is per MEDICAL doctrine. That normally occurs at the beginning of the 3rd Trimester. Before then, it is not even a fully formed mass of cells. And you did not answer my question, thank you for dodging it. Now are you going to answer it or are you going to side-step it once again like you have done repeatedly. Because honestly, I am sick of this side-stepping bull.

I urge my fellow Christians to adopt these poor children.

Really? And how many do you think will actually do this? More than 50,000 children get thrown into the Foster System each year as it is.

I plan to allow women to give up their children for adoption.

Funny rhat I predicted this.....

I support comprehensive sex education if it will reduce the number of induced abortions.

We have tried Sex Education quite a bit. We have also tried Abstinence only education. They don't work. Birth Control and Condoms fail. What then?

I plan to make providing induced abortions a capital offense.

And when they did occur before Roe v. Wade, they still happened EVEN THOUGH they were capital offenses. Making things illegal doesn't make them go away, just look a the War on Drugs...

We wish to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths caused by induced abortion.

That's not a plan. And that's not you answering that last question. Once again with the fucking side-stepping. Congrats.

[Grave_n_idle]

or you could understand that the state has no interest in forcing women to bear unwanted children. then maybe you might realize that what strangers do about their own medical, family, and reproductive choices is none of your business.

Except for protecting the lives of innocent children.

The problem is, your whole approach is emotional, all the way through the thread.

People talk about limiting choice, and all you can say is 'protecting the lives of innocent children', even when we're talking about a fertilised egg. Not only are the two things not the same, but your argument is actually poor even for an emotional one.

If you really care about 'protecting the lives of innocent children', you've got to be pro-choice. Where abortion is illegal, infanticide increases - your emotional argument actually hurts innocent children, by prioritising their deaths over the destruction of an unfeeling embryo.

And that's what it comes down to:

tl/dr: You are making the wrong choice. Either fetuses will be destroyed or actually born babies will die. You're choosing the babies dying.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Except, again, who needs defending here? The mother? Hardly ever, unless its' a rare instance where her life is endangered. The fetus? You know, the person who can legally be killed for literally any reason whatsoever?

or you could understand that the state has no interest in forcing women to bear unwanted children. then maybe you might realize that what strangers do about their own medical, family, and reproductive choices is none of your business.

then you can concentrate on making sure that actual living children get what they need out of the government so that they can grow up to be happy healthy productive adults.

Ah yes, the good ole' "its' none of your business, so why do you even care? It's none of your business" argument.

If those were received the bad end of the deal were able to speak up for their right to exist and function in this world, I could only imagine how they would react to a society that discarded them simply due to their means of conception or the circumstances behind them. Those circumstances, as terrible as they might be (or not - depending on what they are) don't make a person any more or less a person. If you were legally labeled as "not a human person," and it wasn't really anyone else's business to fight for your right to live, I'm sure as hell certain you would have a different perspective. So, I hope you know how if that fetus is truly a human being, that your argument is a pretty terrible one.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Your first link doesn't work (or it didn't work when I tried). Your second, which I've read before, is heavily flawed in its' presentation. All it essentially does is it emphasizes the exact same person's real life scenario with the assumption that everyone else's is just alike, when in reality that is not the case. Your third link is just a critical video on an international Pro-Life movement overall which really has no bearing on the legality of abortion here, and specifically addresses the issues of that independent society. I can make one that is equally as critical of the Pro-Choice movement with hypotheticals and whatnot, but it still wouldn't be considered a valid source. Your fourth link is the only one remotely credible to your point, but its' a rather extensive document which will require some time to read. I already am skeptical consider you're leaning on amnesty for your information on this matter (comon' that's like relying on lifenews for Pro-Lifers). When I said factual information, I meant from academics, scholars, and statisticians. Not exclusively political blogs.

You'll want to have a look at sections 10.7 to 10.9 of the document. Also, are you seriously trying to claim that Amnesty International is as biased as this site? Like, really?

Yes. That's exactly what I stated.

I can post it a second time if needed.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So a foetus isn't actually connected to the woman, receiving all it's nutrients from her, relying on the woman's system to clear away waste, protected from infection solely by the woman's immune system?
Biologists will be shocked to learn this.

Connected to doesn't mean is a part of.

In this case it does.

[Wallenburg]

Freedom of speech, religion, and peaceable assembly, universal adult suffrage, and right to privacy are guaranteed to citizens only because we legally decided it to be so. Your point?

You said it yourself, its' all because we legally decided it to be so. Citing legality for the right to an abortion could very well change if the laws themselves are changed to prohibit said act.

Ah, I see. I agree that the pro-choice dependence on current law resembles an argument by authority, but a lot of pro-lifers claim that anti-abortion laws are constitutional, which they clearly aren't. Basically, pro-choice defends current federal law as correct, while any honest pro-lifer needs to recognize that they want a change to the Constitution to make room for criminalizing abortion.

[Ardavia]

You'll want to have a look at sections 10.7 to 10.9 of the document. Also, are you seriously trying to claim that Amnesty International is as biased as this site? Like, really?

Yes. That's exactly what I stated.

I can post it a second time if needed.

I mean, you can state that all you will.

Doesn't really make it any less wrong.

Just throwing that out there.

[Gauthier]

Given that many anti-abortionists also oppose welfare, the pro-life stance still amounts to "Protect the Unborn, but once they come out, Fuck 'em, they're on their own."

[Imperial Esplanade]

I understand you're point completely. I just also completely disagree with it. First off, you're assuming an adult (or even a child) puts the same amount of strain on your organs as an unborn fetus prior to its' development of organs. Fact is, that's factually incorrect. Your analogy is a logically poor one from the start. However, taking your example, there is no natural basis for another fully-developed human being sharing YOUR kidney, that's an artificially-forced scenario. Pregnancy is a very natural and a very healthy process, unlike the poor example you've provided above.

What makes natural processes inherently better, more desirable and less problematic than artificial ones?

Um, nothing. Never said there's nothing inherently better or worse than artificial processes in relation to natural processes.

What I AM saying is that the fetus has a natural place in a woman's body, its' a biological aspect of the creation of life... thus, there is no relation between a fetus and a fully-grown adult sharing a kidney with another human being. The only possible connection is that the fetus does rely on the mother, but its' a substantially different level of strain on the mother compared to the fully-grown adult. SUBSTANTIALLY.

[Mefpan]

What makes natural processes inherently better, more desirable and less problematic than artificial ones?

Um, nothing. Never said there's nothing inherently better or worse than artificial processes in relation to natural processes.

What I AM saying is that the fetus has a natural place in a woman's body, its' a biological aspect of the creation of life... thus, there is no relation between a fetus and a fully-grown adult sharing a kidney with another human being. The only possible connection is that the fetus does rely on the mother, but its' a substantially different level of strain on the mother compared to the fully-grown adult. SUBSTANTIALLY.

Yes, but why is a natural process of biological life support via shared bodily functions more legitimate a thing than a (so far, hypothetical) process of biological life support via shared bodily functions? If there is a life to be saved, why does it matter how much strain it puts on the supporting body?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

What makes natural processes inherently better, more desirable and less problematic than artificial ones?

Um, nothing. Never said there's nothing inherently better or worse than artificial processes in relation to natural processes.

What I AM saying is that the fetus has a natural place in a woman's body, its' a biological aspect of the creation of life...

Nobody cares.

The only possible connection is that the fetus does rely on the mother, but its' a substantially different level of strain on the mother compared to the fully-grown adult. SUBSTANTIALLY.

Which is why a woman shouldn't be forced to bear that strain for no good reason.

[Imperial Esplanade]

You said it yourself, its' all because we legally decided it to be so. Citing legality for the right to an abortion could very well change if the laws themselves are changed to prohibit said act.

Ah, I see. I agree that the pro-choice dependence on current law resembles an argument by authority, but a lot of pro-lifers claim that anti-abortion laws are constitutional, which they clearly aren't. Basically, pro-choice defends current federal law as correct, while any honest pro-lifer needs to recognize that they want a change to the Constitution to make room for criminalizing abortion.

Not necessarily. The right to an abortion was inferred, argued, on the basis of privacy. The general argument was that the Constitution was relatively morally neutral, except for the case of a person's bodily privacy. So actually, in theory all that needs to happen is a federal law to be passed in order to recognize a fetus as a human life that is independent of the mother, and has the equivalent, basic legal human rights that a baby has just moments after birth. Easier said than done, but really a constitutional amendment isn't necessary.

[Imperial Esplanade]

Um, nothing. Never said there's nothing inherently better or worse than artificial processes in relation to natural processes.

What I AM saying is that the fetus has a natural place in a woman's body, its' a biological aspect of the creation of life...

Nobody cares.

The only possible connection is that the fetus does rely on the mother, but its' a substantially different level of strain on the mother compared to the fully-grown adult. SUBSTANTIALLY.

Which is why a woman shouldn't be forced to bear that strain for no good reason.

For no good reason? How about the right to exist. Sounds like a good reason to you?