Stance on Abortion?

[Bokcha]

How so? I already admitted fetuses were "technically" parasites, if that's what you're referring to.

Thus your argument is hypocritical.

"They're parasites."
I agree. It's still wrong. They're children.
"HYPOCRITE!"
...Um, what?

[Samuraikoku]

child
   [chahyld]
noun, plural chil·dren.
1.
a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2.
a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3.
a baby or infant.
4.
a human fetus.
5.
a childish person: He's such a child about money.

I can call it whatever I damn well please as long as it is proper English. As someone stated earlier, dictionaries are not philosophical authorities.

Arbitrary definition. You're not worth arguing against anymore.

[Desperate Measures]

That's fine for you to feel that way but you are basically saying you'd have no real reason, besides how your tax dollars are spent, to force a woman to not have an abortion. Because that's all I really want to know.

I guess if you don't consider moral grounds a "real reason". Again, though, that's what all laws are founded on (see: the abolition of slavery).

My moral grounds are in direct conflict with yours. But my moral grounds aren't the only reason I support pro choice. I also don't force my morality on others. I don't make anybody get or not get an abortion.

[Mavorpen]

Paying to a government program that funds abortions sounds pretty direct to me.
Even if it wasn't it is still against my consent.

You consent by living here and voting as well as using government services. You consent to what the government spends your money on. Don't agree? Elect people who will make said thing illegal or private. Or you can move.

[Bokcha]

child
   [chahyld]
noun, plural chil·dren.
1.
a person between birth and full growth; a boy or girl: books for children.
2.
a son or daughter: All my children are married.
3.
a baby or infant.
4.
a human fetus.
5.
a childish person: He's such a child about money.

I can call it whatever I damn well please as long as it is proper English. As someone stated earlier, dictionaries are not philosophical authorities.

Of course you can call it a child. you'd be wrong. Also, massive facepalm at the dictionaries aren't philosophical authorities. The biological definition remedies that. It provides an objective definition that is factual and scientific, rather than based on a silly dictionary. And biologically, a child is a human between birth and puberty. That is a fact. So no, the fetus is not a child.

You think English words have objective meanings?
I suppose we speak the same way we did hundreds of years ago, then?

[Bokcha]

Paying to a government program that funds abortions sounds pretty direct to me.
Even if it wasn't it is still against my consent.

You consent by living here and voting as well as using government services. You consent to what the government spends your money on. Don't agree? Elect people who will make said thing illegal or private. Or you can move.

I do vote for them. Sadly, I am not a republican or democrat, so my vote means jack shit in this country.
Also, I plan on moving.

[Mavorpen]

You think English words have objective meanings?
I suppose we speak the same way we did hundreds of years ago, then?

That's... not what I said. I said the scientific word is an objective meaning, whether in French or English hundreds of years ago. Try again.

[Bokcha]

I guess if you don't consider moral grounds a "real reason". Again, though, that's what all laws are founded on (see: the abolition of slavery).

My moral grounds are in direct conflict with yours. But my moral grounds aren't the only reason I support pro choice. I also don't force my morality on others. I don't make anybody get or not get an abortion.

What reasons do you have that are not grounded in morality?

[Mavorpen]

What reasons do you have that are not grounded in morality?

The fact that banning abortion doesn't fucking work?

Regarding the banning of abortion. Here's the thing about banning abortion, it rarely stops abortions. In general, women will have abortions regardless of its legality.

Take Ceausescu's Romania, for example. In order to bolster population, Nicolae Ceausescu made abortion illegal under almost all circumstances with Decree 770. Contraceptives disappeared, hospitals were watched closely by the Securitate, and women found to be pregnant were spied on by the Securitate until the birth was confirmed. Allow me to quote Wikipedia.

To enforce the decree, society was strictly controlled. Motherhood was described as "the meaning of women's lives" and praised in sex education courses and women's magazines, and various written materials were distributed detailing information on prenatal and child care, the benefits of children, ways to ensure marital harmony, and the consequences of abortion.[5] Contraceptives disappeared from the shelves and were soon only available to educated urban women with access to the black market, many of them with Hungarian roots. [5] In 1986, any woman working for or attending a state institution was forced to undergo at least annual gynecological exams to ensure a satisfying level of reproductive health as well as detect pregnancy, which were followed until birth.[5] Women with histories of abortion were watched particularly carefully. [5]

Medical practitioners were also expected to follow stringent policies and were held partially responsible for the national birthrate. If they were caught breaking any aspect of the abortion law, they were to be incarcerated, though some prosecutors were paid off in exchange for a lesser sentence.[5] Each administrative region had a Disciplinary Board for Health Personnel, which disciplined all law-breaking health practitioners and on occasion had show trials to make examples of people. Sometimes, however, punishments were lessened for cooperation. [5] Despite the professional risks involved, many doctors helped women determined to have abortions, recognizing that if they did not, she would turn to a more dangerous, life-threatening route. This was done by falsely diagnosing them with an illness that qualified them for an abortion, such as diabetes or hepatitis, or prescribing them drugs that were known to counter-induce pregnancy, such as chemotherapy or antimalarial drugs.[5] When a physician did not want to help or could not be bribed to perform an abortion, however, women went to less experienced abortionists or used old remedies.[5]

From 1979 to 1988, the number of abortions increased, save for a decline in 1984-1985.[5] Despite this, many unwanted children were born, as their parents could scarcely afford to care for the children they already had, and were subsequently abandoned in hospitals or orphanages. Some of these children were purposely given AIDS-infected transfusions in orphanages; others were trafficked internationally through adoption.[5] Those born in this period, especially between 1966 and 1972, are nicknamed the decreţei (singular decreţel), a word with a negative nuance due to the perceived mental and physical damage due to the risky pregnancies and failed illegal abortions.[8]

The idea of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' is hogwash. What it boils down to is whether you want only the rich to be able to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive or every woman being afford to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive. The garb of the 'pro-life' moral crusader, when cast aside, leaves only naked hatred of female bodily autonomy and a bizarre, repugnant worship of fetuses.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

[Bokcha]

You think English words have objective meanings?
I suppose we speak the same way we did hundreds of years ago, then?

That's... not what I said. I said the scientific word is an objective meaning, whether in French or English hundreds of years ago. Try again.

Language evolves. Regardless of the word I use, you know what I am referring to.
Here, I'll use embryo instead: "Killing embryos in a woman is wrong."
It doesn't change the argument. You're grasping at straws.

[Ifreann]

In that case, you'll have to stop spending money on anything ever. After all, if you go and buy a bar of chocolate, some of the money you pay could go to someone's wages which could be spent on an abortion.

It's the direct payment, without my consent, that I have a problem with.

If you think your tax money is paying for anything directly then you're very mistaken. It would have to first go to whoever collects taxes, then it would be pooled with the other tax intake, then some or all of it would go to whatever part of the government deals with healthcare, where it would be pooled and divvied up again, then to some subordinate agency, pooled and divvied up again, then to some hospital or medical centre, pooled and divvied up again, at which point it would be paid out for the equipment, personally or other overheads associated with providing abortion services for that financial year. Or something loosely along those lines, I'm not an accountant.

Of course, if you're American I believe that's all moot, since AFAIK it's illegal for tax money there to fund abortions.

[The Realm of God]

My moral grounds are in direct conflict with yours. But my moral grounds aren't the only reason I support pro choice. I also don't force my morality on others. I don't make anybody get or not get an abortion.

What reasons do you have that are not grounded in morality?

It is immoral to force your personal morality on others.

[Bokcha]

What reasons do you have that are not grounded in morality?

The fact that banning abortion doesn't fucking work?

Regarding the banning of abortion. Here's the thing about banning abortion, it rarely stops abortions. In general, women will have abortions regardless of its legality.

Take Ceausescu's Romania, for example. In order to bolster population, Nicolae Ceausescu made abortion illegal under almost all circumstances with Decree 770. Contraceptives disappeared, hospitals were watched closely by the Securitate, and women found to be pregnant were spied on by the Securitate until the birth was confirmed. Allow me to quote Wikipedia.

The idea of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' is hogwash. What it boils down to is whether you want only the rich to be able to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive or every woman being afford to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive. The garb of the 'pro-life' moral crusader, when cast aside, leaves only naked hatred of female bodily autonomy and a bizarre, repugnant worship of fetuses.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

And making drunk driving illegal does? People still do it, regardless of having it crammed into your head since elementary school.
Whether people do it or not isn't relevant to the argument.

[Bokcha]

What reasons do you have that are not grounded in morality?

It is immoral to force your personal morality on others.

Then don't make me pay for abortions with my taxpayer dollars.

[Mavorpen]

Language evolves. Regardless of the word I use, you know what I am referring to.
Here, I'll use embryo instead: "Killing embryos in a woman is wrong."
It doesn't change the argument. You're grasping at straws.

Yes, it changes the argument. You use the word child to make it seem morally wrong and to seem like it should be illegal, because killing children is illegal. I don't see how it's grasping at straws to attack your fallacious use of a word.

[Alyekra]

What reasons do you have that are not grounded in morality?

The fact that banning abortion doesn't fucking work?

Regarding the banning of abortion. Here's the thing about banning abortion, it rarely stops abortions. In general, women will have abortions regardless of its legality.

Take Ceausescu's Romania, for example. In order to bolster population, Nicolae Ceausescu made abortion illegal under almost all circumstances with Decree 770. Contraceptives disappeared, hospitals were watched closely by the Securitate, and women found to be pregnant were spied on by the Securitate until the birth was confirmed. Allow me to quote Wikipedia.

The idea of 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' is hogwash. What it boils down to is whether you want only the rich to be able to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive or every woman being afford to have them performed in sterile, clean environments where they are likely to survive. The garb of the 'pro-life' moral crusader, when cast aside, leaves only naked hatred of female bodily autonomy and a bizarre, repugnant worship of fetuses.

Why do you keep ignoring this?

Here.

[Raeyh]

What reasons do you have that are not grounded in morality?

It is immoral to force your personal morality on others.

It is moral when dealing with other individuals, such as the fetus.

[Desperate Measures]

My moral grounds are in direct conflict with yours. But my moral grounds aren't the only reason I support pro choice. I also don't force my morality on others. I don't make anybody get or not get an abortion.

What reasons do you have that are not grounded in morality?

How about I am not a doctor and have no business pretending I know what is best for a patient going in for a medical procedure? Or that I don't wish to force a vast amount of expenses on people not equipped to handle them and who then must depend on a social safety net that obligate me to pay more in taxes? There is two reasons off the top of my head.

[Mavorpen]

And making drunk driving illegal does? People still do it, regardless of having it crammed into your head since elementary school.
Whether people do it or not isn't relevant to the argument.

Read. The. Quote. Abortions increased, children were being abandoned, children were being given AIDS ffs. Making drunk driving illegal doesn't make the act any more dangerous. Making abortion illegal however, makes the act significantly more dangerous and violent. It. Does. Not. Work.

[Bokcha]

It's the direct payment, without my consent, that I have a problem with.

If you think your tax money is paying for anything directly then you're very mistaken. It would have to first go to whoever collects taxes, then it would be pooled with the other tax intake, then some or all of it would go to whatever part of the government deals with healthcare, where it would be pooled and divvied up again, then to some subordinate agency, pooled and divvied up again, then to some hospital or medical centre, pooled and divvied up again, at which point it would be paid out for the equipment, personally or other overheads associated with providing abortion services for that financial year. Or something loosely along those lines, I'm not an accountant.

Of course, if you're American I believe that's all moot, since AFAIK it's illegal for tax money there to fund abortions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood
Do your research.

[Alyekra]

What reasons do you have that are not grounded in morality?

It is immoral to force your personal morality on others.

1) Would you say the same thing to an abolitionist of human slavery?
2) It’s always self-defeating to impose your own morals on others by telling them not to impose their own morals on others.
3) This kind of tendentious language implies that illegalising abortion is morally reprehensible, but think about it. The state “forces” us all to do or not do all sorts of things, such as:

not rape, even if someone really really wants to
drive at or under the speed limit
refrain from firebombing legal places of business
pay taxes
etc.
Unless you’re a consistent and total anarchist, you don’t have a problem with the state “forcing” its will on its citizens in some cases. The question is not whether morality will be imposed, but which morality will be imposed.

[Bokcha]

What reasons do you have that are not grounded in morality?

How about I am not a doctor and have no business pretending I know what is best for a patient going in for a medical procedure? Or that I don't wish to force a vast amount of expenses on people not equipped to handle them and who then must depend on a social safety net that obligate me to pay more in taxes? There is two reasons off the top of my head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood

You are paying for them regardless of if they live or not. And it is society's business when you kill a human being. That's why murder is illegal.

[Holy Patria]

Pro-life (except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's life is in danger)

[Mavorpen]

Here.

Thanks for the extremely biased website. Here, let me present you with one.

[The Darwinian People]

I guess if you don't consider moral grounds a "real reason". Again, though, that's what all laws are founded on (see: the abolition of slavery).

My moral grounds are in direct conflict with yours. But my moral grounds aren't the only reason I support pro choice. I also don't force my morality on others. I don't make anybody get or not get an abortion.

See, here's the thing, a pro-lifer thinks that abortion is murder and, therefore, they want to criminalize it. Unless you're happy with people killing each other because their moral code says that certain things (like honour killings) aren't murder and them not facing the legal consequences of such, then you don't really have a point.

It's easy for a pro-choicer to say that they don't want to force their moral code on others because, on this particular issue, they don't want to. But you don't really mean that you don't want to force your moral code on other people; you just think that people shouldn't enforce their own moral code on this specific subject.