Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Quokkastan]

It really isn't that rare. Godular has pointed out he shares this position. I do as well. Several other pro-choicers on this thread do so as well.

I share the opinion, although reluctantly.

This, more or less. Though it would depend upon how it was implemented.

EDIT: So that I have a way to back out when I start feeling guilty about it.

[Neo Bavaria]

I share the opinion, although reluctantly.

This, more or less. Though it would depend upon how it was implemented.

EDIT: So that I have a way to back out when I start feeling guilty about it.

Huh. Maybe it's just the people I'm around then.

[The V O I D]

I also support looking into artificial womb technology as well as fetus transplant technologies/surgery methods, and researching/inventing them.

This is because if we do that, then we can make the Pro-lifers happy by saying, "Look! The fetus doesn't die and the woman gets her bodily sovereignty!"

And then this argument disappears forever. Hopefully.

[Wallenburg]

I also support looking into artificial womb technology as well as fetus transplant technologies/surgery methods, and researching/inventing them.

This is because if we do that, then we can make the Pro-lifers happy by saying, "Look! The fetus doesn't die and the woman gets her bodily sovereignty!"

And then this argument disappears forever. Hopefully.

Unfortunately, some faction would probably arise that wants to ban transplants because they are "unnatural".

[The V O I D]

I also support looking into artificial womb technology as well as fetus transplant technologies/surgery methods, and researching/inventing them.

This is because if we do that, then we can make the Pro-lifers happy by saying, "Look! The fetus doesn't die and the woman gets her bodily sovereignty!"

And then this argument disappears forever. Hopefully.

Unfortunately, some faction would probably arise that wants to ban transplants because they are "unnatural".

Why can't humans ever be happy.

[Mattopilos]

They control women's lives by limiting their choices through their moral bullshittery.
No one claims it is necessary all the time. They claim it is a choice they can make as an adult, and that removing that right is wrong. It isn't like they are going up to new-borns and stabbing them or anything: they are not yet babies, and very few abortions occur in the late stages.

How is it "moral bullshittery"? They legitimately believe that abortion is murder, you don't. The fact that you have a difference of opinion in regard to this issue does not mean they're committing "moral bullshittery" for the sake of some kind of conspiracy to control the lives of all women everywhere through their uterus.

Because they let morals control their ideals and their views on how other people should act.
Oh, the 'ol "I must be agreeing with some conspiracy!" spiel. I think you are reading what I think of pro-choicers - I don't see them as some all-powerful force that wants us dead or anything, I just see them as people of a different view on what 'life' is and apparently that is enough warrant over control of another woman's uterus.

[Stellonia]

attack: "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with."

Note the use of 'or'. In this situation, the fact that the fetus simply is taking resources from the woman within which it resides is a matter of force. So yes, a fetus can be deemed an attacker.

Note the first part of the definition, "to set upon." The fetus is not "setting upon" anyone; rather, it is being placed into this situation against its volition.

[Wallenburg]

attack: "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with."

Note the use of 'or'. In this situation, the fact that the fetus simply is taking resources from the woman within which it resides is a matter of force. So yes, a fetus can be deemed an attacker.

Note the first part of the definition, "to set upon." The fetus is not "setting upon" anyone; rather, it is being placed into this situation against its volition.

No, it is not. The fetus has no capacity for volition to begin with.

[New Edom]

Self-defense. We've been over this.


Self-defense.


You're wrong. Self-defense.

I invoke Dictionary.com and its definition of self-defense: "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant." Said source defines "attack" as "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with." According to the latter definition, a fetus cannot attack its mother; ergo, "self-defense" is not a valid argument.

In any event, you don't need to ban abortion to reduce the number of abortions. That just attempts to slap a band-aid on the gushing artery wound.

I just want to reduce the number of abortions. I firmly believe in tackling the root causes of abortion, but if a ban would reduce the number of abortions, then I would support that as well.

I agree. I would not want to ban abortions outright without dealing with the root causes of why abortions are considered to be needed, so I don't see how that makes me against women's bodily rights or denying them choices. I would just like to see better choices than abortion outweigh any need for abortion. So I would not suppor banning it while there is a lack of the best available medical support, birth control, sex education and acceptance for women who are pregnant out of wedlock. I would also want there to be means by which women could still attend school or not lose credibility in a profession if pregnancy was about to get in the way.

However as far as I'm concerned if all of that was in place and women chose to have sex that could result in pregnancy anyway and just didn't want to deal with that consequences--no, that's not good enough. Sexual morality and making intelligent decisions is demanding constraint, yes--and that's part of what it is to be a civilized person, is to consider the consequences of one's actions and make wise choices.

[The V O I D]

I invoke Dictionary.com and its definition of self-defense: "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant." Said source defines "attack" as "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with." According to the latter definition, a fetus cannot attack its mother; ergo, "self-defense" is not a valid argument.


I just want to reduce the number of abortions. I firmly believe in tackling the root causes of abortion, but if a ban would reduce the number of abortions, then I would support that as well.

I agree. I would not want to ban abortions outright without dealing with the root causes of why abortions are considered to be needed, so I don't see how that makes me against women's bodily rights or denying them choices. I would just like to see better choices than abortion outweigh any need for abortion. So I would not suppor banning it while there is a lack of the best available medical support, birth control, sex education and acceptance for women who are pregnant out of wedlock. I would also want there to be means by which women could still attend school or not lose credibility in a profession if pregnancy was about to get in the way.

However as far as I'm concerned if all of that was in place and women chose to have sex that could result in pregnancy anyway and just didn't want to deal with that consequences--no, that's not good enough. Sexual morality and making intelligent decisions is demanding constraint, yes--and that's part of what it is to be a civilized person, is to consider the consequences of one's actions and make wise choices.

You seem to not understand. Choosing abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions, and being wise. It is acknowledging that they are either not ready to be a mother, or that they somehow got pregnant despite the fact they used protection in a recreational sexual act.

Also, what are your thoughts on advancing artificial womb and fetus transplant technologies and methods? Do you think, if we get them, that this debate will be unnecessary - as it satisfies both the pro-life needs of the fetus to live, and the pro-choice needs of the woman to control her own body?

[Godular]

attack: "to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with."

Note the use of 'or'. In this situation, the fact that the fetus simply is taking resources from the woman within which it resides is a matter of force. So yes, a fetus can be deemed an attacker.

Note the first part of the definition, "to set upon." The fetus is not "setting upon" anyone; rather, it is being placed into this situation against its volition.

Incorrect. It matters not one bit whether it is 'placed' in that situation or not. The simple fact of the matter is that it is causing harm to the woman in order to support its own existence. A parasitic organism does this thing, and a fetus does this thing. Why should the fetus get a pass to do it? Because it is human? No. That is neither sufficient nor consistent.

[New Edom]

I agree. I would not want to ban abortions outright without dealing with the root causes of why abortions are considered to be needed, so I don't see how that makes me against women's bodily rights or denying them choices. I would just like to see better choices than abortion outweigh any need for abortion. So I would not suppor banning it while there is a lack of the best available medical support, birth control, sex education and acceptance for women who are pregnant out of wedlock. I would also want there to be means by which women could still attend school or not lose credibility in a profession if pregnancy was about to get in the way.

However as far as I'm concerned if all of that was in place and women chose to have sex that could result in pregnancy anyway and just didn't want to deal with that consequences--no, that's not good enough. Sexual morality and making intelligent decisions is demanding constraint, yes--and that's part of what it is to be a civilized person, is to consider the consequences of one's actions and make wise choices.

You seem to not understand. Choosing abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions, and being wise. It is acknowledging that they are either not ready to be a mother, or that they somehow got pregnant despite the fact they used protection in a recreational sexual act.

Also, what are your thoughts on advancing artificial womb and fetus transplant technologies and methods? Do you think, if we get them, that this debate will be unnecessary - as it satisfies both the pro-life needs of the fetus to live, and the pro-choice needs of the woman to control her own body?

Sexual reproduction is arguably one of the strongest biological forces we deal with. Its very existence is a remarkable overcoming of odds. So I think we should presume that sexual intercourse is likely to lead to ipregnation and it shouldn't come as a surprise. I do understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.

Anyway I'm not up to date on the latest research for artificial womb and fetus transplant, but I generally agree with those and I'd add them to my list of things I would think ought to become available to reduce the necessity for abortion. As I've said, I'm actually against denying legal abortions where there are insufficient measures in place to offer women other choices, but I'm not really happy about it.

[Godular]

You seem to not understand. Choosing abortion is taking responsibility for one's actions, and being wise. It is acknowledging that they are either not ready to be a mother, or that they somehow got pregnant despite the fact they used protection in a recreational sexual act.

Also, what are your thoughts on advancing artificial womb and fetus transplant technologies and methods? Do you think, if we get them, that this debate will be unnecessary - as it satisfies both the pro-life needs of the fetus to live, and the pro-choice needs of the woman to control her own body?

Sexual reproduction is arguably one of the strongest biological forces we deal with. Its very existence is a remarkable overcoming of odds. So I think we should presume that sexual intercourse is likely to lead to ipregnation and it shouldn't come as a surprise. I do understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.

Actually, it is pretty unlikely if we consider it a matter of probabilities. Now, it is infinitely more likely than not having sex, but that doesn't mean that procreation is all that sex is for.

Anyway I'm not up to date on the latest research for artificial womb and fetus transplant, but I generally agree with those and I'd add them to my list of things I would think ought to become available to reduce the necessity for abortion. As I've said, I'm actually against denying legal abortions where there are insufficient measures in place to offer women other choices, but I'm not really happy about it.

The entertaining thing here is we'd probably be a lot further along in that area if fetal stem-cell research were permitted. A certain lobby that shall not be named seems to have a hate-on for that kind of research though.

[New Edom]

Sexual reproduction is arguably one of the strongest biological forces we deal with. Its very existence is a remarkable overcoming of odds. So I think we should presume that sexual intercourse is likely to lead to ipregnation and it shouldn't come as a surprise. I do understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.

Actually, it is pretty unlikely if we consider it a matter of probabilities. Now, it is infinitely more likely than not having sex, but that doesn't mean that procreation is all that sex is for.

Anyway I'm not up to date on the latest research for artificial womb and fetus transplant, but I generally agree with those and I'd add them to my list of things I would think ought to become available to reduce the necessity for abortion. As I've said, I'm actually against denying legal abortions where there are insufficient measures in place to offer women other choices, but I'm not really happy about it.

The entertaining thing here is we'd probably be a lot further along in that area if fetal stem-cell research were permitted. A certain lobby that shall not be named seems to have a hate-on for that kind of research though.

What kind are you talking about? Adult stem cells? Umbilical stem cells? Amniotic? I'm not against any of those.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Sexual reproduction is arguably one of the strongest biological forces we deal with. Its very existence is a remarkable overcoming of odds. So I think we should presume that sexual intercourse is likely to lead to ipregnation and it shouldn't come as a surprise. I do understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.

You actually have one force beyond sexual reproduction you have to deal with, and that is self-preservation.

Between what a person believes is their self-interests, and what society might tell them is moral to do, the path of least resistance is always self-interests if said morality contradicts their self-interests. This is why every means of imposing morality on a particular set of individuals fail, and why law enforcement exists for crimes, because self-interests always win over morality. If you were able to stop murders just by legislating morality, you wouldn't need law enforcement agents to begin with.

Abortion is in the position where it is controversial, but not universally wrong within specific societies. As such, the more egalitarian societies among people have decided to make abortion legal and safe.

[Godular]

Actually, it is pretty unlikely if we consider it a matter of probabilities. Now, it is infinitely more likely than not having sex, but that doesn't mean that procreation is all that sex is for.



The entertaining thing here is we'd probably be a lot further along in that area if fetal stem-cell research were permitted. A certain lobby that shall not be named seems to have a hate-on for that kind of research though.

What kind are you talking about? Adult stem cells? Umbilical stem cells? Amniotic? I'm not against any of those.

I was rather specific.

[New Edom]

What kind are you talking about? Adult stem cells? Umbilical stem cells? Amniotic? I'm not against any of those.

I was rather specific.

I'm personally iffy on that one and I would like to study the biology more specifically before I answer you on that then. I'll get back to you.

As for what you said sex is for, I agree, procreation is not the only purpose for it. My concern here is that I've seen too many hypocritical liberals advocate for sexual freedom but then get really upset when their children take them at their word. I have seen too many people who were not taught much about sexual morality find themselves in a difficult position later. I see people get into consequences because they were drunk, thought they were in love, thought they needed love, wanted to prove themselves and so on. Sometimes people need to se that choices have consequences. What troubles me is that the peole who seem the strongest advocates of choice for people who are merely being promiscuous or careless are often people who seem to come from relatively wealthy backgrounds.

By contrast, when I see people advocating for abortions for women or girls from less financially successful backgrounds, the concerns are surrounding people who were ignorant of birth control methods or unable to obtain them, people who had a lack ov health coverage or sex education, people who were subject to incest and rape. I have a lot more sympathy for that and that is the only reason why I am reluctant to suppoert an outright ban but would like to make the lack I have mentioned be filled with better services.

[Aapje]

Pro-choice, but with a maximum number of weeks.

[Kshrlmnt]

...a borderline parasitic organism...

It receives all of its nutrients from the woman, uses the woman as waste disposal, and uses space within her body. If that foetus does not have consent from the woman, then she is having her body taken advantage of against her will. Any other human does not have the right to use another's body against their will, so naturally a foetus also does not have that right, due to the principle of bodily sovereignty.

Ok, speaking as a woman, my body has the ability to nurture and create a new human being. Gross and weird as it can get, that's still pretty cool. This isn't an alien chestburster we're talking about here. This is an organism that, even if it's "taking my resources", and even if it's not yet life (though we could argue that), will be human. That's not a parasite in my body, or something out to hurt me--that's my body being a lean green person-creating machine... er, maybe not lean at that point, but come on, I can make a human! How cool is that?

I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.

I'll agree with Neo-Bavaria: I respect your honesty. I also think that taking the option would be a scummy thing to do, even if it might be fair. And judging by the reluctance of some of the other supporters of the idea here, I think some of you might even agree with me.

I just want to reduce the number of abortions. I firmly believe in tackling the root causes of abortion, but if a ban would reduce the number of abortions, then I would support that as well.

I agree. I would not want to ban abortions outright without dealing with the root causes of why abortions are considered to be needed...

Perhaps that's at least a small good in the legalization and availability of abortion--you're seeing many of those who deplore it supporting and working to provide alternatives, so that women have an actual choice. If choosing not to abort means losing your education, or job, or family, or health, there's no good option.

On a side note, but perhaps one worth mentioning, I strongly suspect none of us would disagree all that much if it weren't for the matter of whether a fetus is a child or not. We pro-lifers aren't all out to take women's choices away, and you pro-choicers aren't all out to kill babies. One side thinks it's a life worth saving, and the other, since they don't believe it is a life, wants to support women. Yes, the difference is extremely important, but I don't think either side can truly be described as monsters or anything of that sort, and I hope we can remember that.

And with that, I'm fleeing NSG for another few years (hopefully). See you in Gameplay!

[Godular]

...a borderline parasitic organism...

It receives all of its nutrients from the woman, uses the woman as waste disposal, and uses space within her body. If that foetus does not have consent from the woman, then she is having her body taken advantage of against her will. Any other human does not have the right to use another's body against their will, so naturally a foetus also does not have that right, due to the principle of bodily sovereignty.

Ok, speaking as a woman, my body has the ability to nurture and create a new human being. Gross and weird as it can get, that's still pretty cool. This isn't an alien chestburster we're talking about here. This is an organism that, even if it's "taking my resources", and even if it's not yet life (though we could argue that), will be human. That's not a parasite in my body, or something out to hurt me--that's my body being a lean green person-creating machine... er, maybe not lean at that point, but come on, I can make a human! How cool is that?

Just because you might think it is spiffy does not mean that every woman should jump for joy if it starts up without the woman's wanting it.

I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.

I'll agree with Neo-Bavaria: I respect your honesty. I also think that taking the option would be a scummy thing to do, even if it might be fair. And judging by the reluctance of some of the other supporters of the idea here, I think some of you might even agree with me.

I agree. I would not want to ban abortions outright without dealing with the root causes of why abortions are considered to be needed...

Perhaps that's at least a small good in the legalization and availability of abortion--you're seeing many of those who deplore it supporting and working to provide alternatives, so that women have an actual choice. If choosing not to abort means losing your education, or job, or family, or health, there's no good option.

On a side note, but perhaps one worth mentioning, I strongly suspect none of us would disagree all that much if it weren't for the matter of whether a fetus is a child or not. We pro-lifers aren't all out to take women's choices away, and you pro-choicers aren't all out to kill babies. One side thinks it's a life worth saving, and the other, since they don't believe it is a life, wants to support women.

See, that last bit there? That bit shows some rather abysmal reading comprehension. Do try to read the OP before making utterly misinformed generalizations.

Yes, the difference is extremely important, but I don't think either side can truly be described as monsters or anything of that sort, and I hope we can remember that.

And with that, I'm fleeing NSG for another few years (hopefully). See you in Gameplay!

[Internationalist Bastard]

I think pro choice is the key word here.
I've never been comfortable with it, but I aint gonna stop someone else from doing it

[Mattopilos]

I think pro choice is the key word here.
I've never been comfortable with it, but I aint gonna stop someone else from doing it

I wish more people had that attitude.

[Ashmoria]

I also support looking into artificial womb technology as well as fetus transplant technologies/surgery methods, and researching/inventing them.

This is because if we do that, then we can make the Pro-lifers happy by saying, "Look! The fetus doesn't die and the woman gets her bodily sovereignty!"

And then this argument disappears forever. Hopefully.

who would pay for this amazingly expensive medical procedure?

what would we DO with all the unwanted children?

do you mean that the argument would disappears forever because everyone will see the wisdom of abortion on demand?

[The V O I D]

I also support looking into artificial womb technology as well as fetus transplant technologies/surgery methods, and researching/inventing them.

This is because if we do that, then we can make the Pro-lifers happy by saying, "Look! The fetus doesn't die and the woman gets her bodily sovereignty!"

And then this argument disappears forever. Hopefully.

1. who would pay for this amazingly expensive medical procedure?

2. what would we DO with all the unwanted children?

3. do you mean that the argument would disappears forever because everyone will see the wisdom of abortion on demand?

1. I mean, doesn't PP help set that up and don't most insurance companies cover it as a 'medical procedure' anyhow?

2. Well, if they're transplanted into a womb of a mother who wants kids and stuff, problem solved right away. If they have to be put into an artificial womb until birth, presumably, they go into the adoptive system. Unfortunate for the latter, but that's what happens to most born unwanted children anyhow.

3. No, it'd disappear forever because there'd be no point - abortion, of a sort, would still happen if the woman so chose, but the fetus wouldn't die from it as they'd be transplanted into another woman's womb and/or into an artificial womb.

[The V O I D]

...a borderline parasitic organism...

It receives all of its nutrients from the woman, uses the woman as waste disposal, and uses space within her body. If that foetus does not have consent from the woman, then she is having her body taken advantage of against her will. Any other human does not have the right to use another's body against their will, so naturally a foetus also does not have that right, due to the principle of bodily sovereignty.

Ok, speaking as a woman, my body has the ability to nurture and create a new human being. Gross and weird as it can get, that's still pretty cool. This isn't an alien chestburster we're talking about here. This is an organism that, even if it's "taking my resources", and even if it's not yet life (though we could argue that), will be human. That's not a parasite in my body, or something out to hurt me--that's my body being a lean green person-creating machine... er, maybe not lean at that point, but come on, I can make a human! How cool is that?

Good for you, enjoying the idea of pregnancy and such. Unfortunately, you do not represent the entire female population, and there are women who don't care to be pregnant and would rather not be pregnant. Therefor, they choose abortion. Solves the problem quite nicely.

And though you might not think such, the fetus is a parasitic organism. It isn't a parasite, no; but it has almost all the qualities of one. It feeds on a woman's resources, uses up her bodily space and grows within her, and it uses her as waste disposal... and it solely benefits from the relationship, as the woman is the one at risk from all the harsh side effects - up to and including the possibility of dying.

It's her choice to choose to remove the fetus or to not remove it. Just like it is someone's choice to seek treatment for some other parasite, or to just not care they have it.

I support financial abortion, and the man needs to inform the State of his financial abortion so the woman cannot sue him for finances/child support.

I'll agree with Neo-Bavaria: I respect your honesty. I also think that taking the option would be a scummy thing to do, even if it might be fair. And judging by the reluctance of some of the other supporters of the idea here, I think some of you might even agree with me.

It's a scummy thing to do, but if we're going to let women choose whether or not to abort, men need to have a choice to financially abort. That's equality. Doesn't matter how scummy it gets to a minority.

1. On a side note, but perhaps one worth mentioning, I strongly suspect none of us would disagree all that much if it weren't for the matter of whether a fetus is a child or not. 2. We pro-lifers aren't all out to take women's choices away, and you pro-choicers aren't all out to kill babies. 3. One side thinks it's a life worth saving, and the other, since they don't believe it is a life, wants to support women. 4. Yes, the difference is extremely important, but I don't think either side can truly be described as monsters or anything of that sort, and I hope we can remember that.

1. Children are born. Fetuses are not born. Therefor, it is always a fetus; never a child. "unborn child" is contradictory and thus is not a valid statement.

2. Let's see - you advocate restricting and/or banning abortions to some level, thus removing a choice from a woman to control her body. How isn't that removing a woman's choice?
2a. Babies are born; therefor, fetuses are not babies.

3. We acknowledge that fetuses are life, madam. We just don't think that this life form that is one step away from being a parasite should have more rights than the born person it is using the body of if that born person doesn't consent.

4. Irrelevant.

And with that, I'm fleeing NSG for another few years (hopefully). See you in Gameplay!

Oh, okay. No need to stay and defend your points? Well then. Bye, I suppose.