Abortion: Humane or not?

[Hurdegaryp]

I am similar, although if the child is to be born with a debilitating disease, or the parents can't afford to raise a child, I would also allow an abortion.

I don't Like when people get abortions "Because it would ruin my figure" or "I just don't want to" although those people probably shouldn't have kids anyways.

I agree with you about debilitating disease, although I suppose it depends on the definition of "debilitating", since this tends to be open for interpretation.

I'm a little bit iffy on the poverty reason though, since there's always orphanages (or foster homes). I know that's less than ideal, but personally, I think it's better to at least give the child a chance at life.

Because every birth is a golden opportunity to bring more suffering in the world. And the more suffering, the better. If those unwanted children malfunction rather seriously in a world that does not want them, there's always the death penalty.

[Sanctissima]

Personally, I oppose it, with the exception of two circumstances:

1 - Life or severe bodily harm endangerment: Since you can't really expect someone to sacrifice or endanger oneself for the sake of another.

2 - Rape: Since the sex wasn't consented to, the pregnant woman shouldn't be expected to have to go through with the pregnancy.

Otherwise, the right of the unborn child to life takes precedence over the woman's right to her body. My reasons are as follows:

-Given that the pregnancy was a result of consensual sex, the woman was aware that pregnancy could be a result of unprotected sex. If she really didn't want to get pregnant, she could have just asked her partner to use a condom.
-Although the unborn child is, as far as we know, incapable of thought, it still has the right to live. The potential mother not wanting to experience 9 months of pregnancy does not constitute a sufficient reason to deprive the unborn child of this most basic right.
-If the pregnant woman really just doesn't want to be a mother, after childbirth, she could simply put the child up for adoption. Although living in an orphanage isn't an ideal scenario for a young child, it's still better than the alternative: death.

let's consider point 2 for a moment....

what proof would be required of a woman who wants an abortion because it is the result of rape?

There would have to be some form of criminal inquiry, an ongoing trial, or proof that she was indeed raped. This can be a bit complicated, I suppose, since the woman has somewhat of a natural time limit before her pregnancy reaches advanced stages (and trials regarding rape can last far longer). Ideally, some form of evidence would have to be provided. Although, alternatively, she could get an abortion on the mere claim of rape, and then, if it turns out she wasn't really raped, face legal consequences for having lied (large fine, jail sentence, etc.).

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Why did the thread continue past this point...?

It's largely irrelevant, and counter productive to argue whether or not a fetus is a human.
I'm of the opinion that it's more beneficial to confer it with legal rights and such so we can prosecute people for injuring the pregnant person and causing a miscarriage. That's a transgression against the mother, not the fetus.

You can't win an argument over whether it's human or not. It's a matter of semantics.
What you CAN do is show that even if it is human, it's still perfectly within the pregnant persons rights to assert their bodily autonomy and demand the removal.
MORESO even. Irrelevant. That only matters to someone who refuses to acknowledge a fetus for what it is.

If it's just a cluster of cells and the pregnant person is there demanding they be removed, the doctors would be well within their rights to say "no, fuck off, it's an unnecessary proceedure. It'll fix itself in 9 months anyway."
You can't just run up to your doctor and demand random medical procedures "Because autonomy." You can go to a doctor who condones abortion. This is a non-issue.

But if it's a PERSON in there and the pregnant person demands it be removed, that's a different matter.
To fail to do so would be to violate their rights by allowing a continued violation of their bodily autonomy by another person. Irrelevant. See second point.

A cluster of cells cannot be violating your rights.
A person can. Rhetorical and irrelevant.

You can't run up to a doctor and demand he remove a carrot you ate because you changed your mind and it's violating your bodily autonomy.
People would look at you like you're crazy Laughable.
Because objects cannot violate rights. Continuously denying that fetuses are human undermines our own argument imo.Irrelevant. See points 1-3.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

If it mutated beyond viability, sure. It's a tad...weird, but as long as you don't purposely let a viable fetus grow just so you can abort and display it in a jar it seems like a legit, albeit odd, thing to collect.

This is all disgusting. Displaying a dead child in a jar, rather than giving them a proper funeral, is inhumane.

Man they're cool as hell. And lol I'm not having a funeral for an incomplete fetus. That is a waste of time, emotional energy, and money, all of which could be used to get healthier to hopefully have another go at Baby V.2.0.
Just because you don't enjoy medical specimens and oddities doesn't mean they are inhumane.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

let's consider point 2 for a moment....

what proof would be required of a woman who wants an abortion because it is the result of rape?

There would have to be some form of criminal inquiry, an ongoing trial, or proof that she was indeed raped. This can be a bit complicated, I suppose, since the woman has somewhat of a natural time limit before her pregnancy reaches advanced stages (and trials regarding rape can last far longer). Ideally, some form of evidence would have to be provided. Although, alternatively, she could get an abortion on the mere claim of rape, and then, if it turns out she wasn't really raped, face legal consequences for having lied (large fine, jail sentence, etc.).

Ah, yes, make her wait several months and continue to remain pregnant the entire time, so that she can be even more traumatized and emotionally downtrodden, and then have to get caught up in bullshit viability laws so she can't even have an abortion because "It's after xx weeks, can't get an abortion now!"

[Ostroeuropa]

It's largely irrelevant, and counter productive to argue whether or not a fetus is a human.
I'm of the opinion that it's more beneficial to confer it with legal rights and such so we can prosecute people for injuring the pregnant person and causing a miscarriage. That's a transgression against the mother, not the fetus.

You can't win an argument over whether it's human or not. It's a matter of semantics.
What you CAN do is show that even if it is human, it's still perfectly within the pregnant persons rights to assert their bodily autonomy and demand the removal.
MORESO even. Irrelevant. That only matters to someone who refuses to acknowledge a fetus for what it is.

If it's just a cluster of cells and the pregnant person is there demanding they be removed, the doctors would be well within their rights to say "no, fuck off, it's an unnecessary proceedure. It'll fix itself in 9 months anyway."
You can't just run up to your doctor and demand random medical procedures "Because autonomy." You can go to a doctor who condones abortion. This is a non-issue.

But if it's a PERSON in there and the pregnant person demands it be removed, that's a different matter.
To fail to do so would be to violate their rights by allowing a continued violation of their bodily autonomy by another person. Irrelevant. See second point.

A cluster of cells cannot be violating your rights.
A person can. Rhetorical and irrelevant.

You can't run up to a doctor and demand he remove a carrot you ate because you changed your mind and it's violating your bodily autonomy.
People would look at you like you're crazy Laughable.
Because objects cannot violate rights. Continuously denying that fetuses are human undermines our own argument imo.Irrelevant. See points 1-3.

You've completely missed the point.
All of that shit you just said?

It's an assertion. Not an argument. You will not convince fucking anyone that way, and nor should you. If you want people to get over being pro-lifers, you need to not make assertions like that and instead accept their premises and work from there.

[Sanctissima]

I agree with you about debilitating disease, although I suppose it depends on the definition of "debilitating", since this tends to be open for interpretation.

I'm a little bit iffy on the poverty reason though, since there's always orphanages (or foster homes). I know that's less than ideal, but personally, I think it's better to at least give the child a chance at life.

Because every birth is a golden opportunity to bring more suffering in the world. And the more suffering, the better. If those unwanted children malfunction rather seriously in a world that does not want them, there's always the death penalty.

You're implying that all unwanted children are inherently doomed to lives of crime, which, I'll admit, you have a bit of a point. That said, ideally, if the children weren't wanted by their biological parent(s), a suitable family would be found for them quickly enough. If not, and they end up spending the first 18 years of their lives at an orphanage, life would at least be tolerable. Life with Catholic nuns isn't all that bad.

[Ashmoria]

let's consider point 2 for a moment....

what proof would be required of a woman who wants an abortion because it is the result of rape?

There would have to be some form of criminal inquiry, an ongoing trial, or proof that she was indeed raped. This can be a bit complicated, I suppose, since the woman has somewhat of a natural time limit before her pregnancy reaches advanced stages (and trials regarding rape can last far longer). Ideally, some form of evidence would have to be provided. Although, alternatively, she could get an abortion on the mere claim of rape, and then, if it turns out she wasn't really raped, face legal consequences for having lied (large fine, jail sentence, etc.).

don't you find all of that too problematical to have to go through? obviously having it adjudicated before an abortion can be granted would mean that there would be no abortions due to rape, all the babies would be born or miscarried by then.

and surely it cant be required afterwards that the state effectively prosecute the rapist since that outcome is extremely rare.

and yet no one really wants a woman to have to bring her rapist's baby to term but that would mean taking a woman's word for it and...well, if its the only way to get an abortion few women would balk at lying about it. they can just say it was an unknown stranger and no one gets prosecuted, eh? (not unlike the "life of the mother" standard before legal abortion. that meant that all a woman had to do--or know to do--was to claim that she would kill herself rather than have the baby).

[Allentyr]

This is all disgusting. Displaying a dead child in a jar, rather than giving them a proper funeral, is inhumane.

Man they're cool as hell. And lol I'm not having a funeral for an incomplete fetus. That is a waste of time, emotional energy, and money, all of which could be used to get healthier to hopefully have another go at Baby V.2.0.
Just because you don't enjoy medical specimens and oddities doesn't mean they are inhumane.

Besides, it's just a lump of flesh past the point it died.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

You've completely missed the point.
All of that shit you just said?

It's an assertion. Not an argument. You will not convince fucking anyone that way, and nor should you. If you want people to get over being pro-lifers, you need to not make assertions like that and instead accept their premises and work from there.

I do not assert. I deal in absolutes.

[Allentyr]

You're implying that all unwanted children are inherently doomed to lives of crime, which, I'll admit, you have a bit of a point. That said, ideally, if the children weren't wanted by their biological parent(s), a suitable family would be found for them quickly enough. If not, and they end up spending the first 18 years of their lives at an orphanage, life would at least be tolerable. Life with Catholic nuns isn't all that bad.

Frankly, I'd rather be dead than be in an orphanage, and I'm sure a lot would agree....

Why do you like suffering?

[Sanctissima]

There would have to be some form of criminal inquiry, an ongoing trial, or proof that she was indeed raped. This can be a bit complicated, I suppose, since the woman has somewhat of a natural time limit before her pregnancy reaches advanced stages (and trials regarding rape can last far longer). Ideally, some form of evidence would have to be provided. Although, alternatively, she could get an abortion on the mere claim of rape, and then, if it turns out she wasn't really raped, face legal consequences for having lied (large fine, jail sentence, etc.).

Ah, yes, make her wait several months and continue to remain pregnant the entire time, so that she can be even more traumatized and emotionally downtrodden, and then have to get caught up in bullshit viability laws so she can't even have an abortion because "It's after xx weeks, can't get an abortion now!"

I never said that. At most, the wait would be two months. If the courts were still unable to make a decision by then, she'd be allowed to go through with the abortion. That's what I meant by "natural time limit".

[Allentyr]

I never said that. At most, the wait would be two months. If the courts were still unable to make a decision by then, she'd be allowed to go through with the abortion. That's what I meant by "natural time limit".

Or maybe we can just make abortion legal and not start that mess to begin with?

[Ostroeuropa]

You've completely missed the point.
All of that shit you just said?

It's an assertion. Not an argument. You will not convince fucking anyone that way, and nor should you. If you want people to get over being pro-lifers, you need to not make assertions like that and instead accept their premises and work from there.

I do not assert. I deal in absolutes.

This post may as well be completely blank.
It's also a wonderful oxymoron. Suffice to say, my only response is either

"lol"
Or
"What?"

[Sanctissima]

There would have to be some form of criminal inquiry, an ongoing trial, or proof that she was indeed raped. This can be a bit complicated, I suppose, since the woman has somewhat of a natural time limit before her pregnancy reaches advanced stages (and trials regarding rape can last far longer). Ideally, some form of evidence would have to be provided. Although, alternatively, she could get an abortion on the mere claim of rape, and then, if it turns out she wasn't really raped, face legal consequences for having lied (large fine, jail sentence, etc.).

don't you find all of that too problematical to have to go through? obviously having it adjudicated before an abortion can be granted would mean that there would be no abortions due to rape, all the babies would be born or miscarried by then.

and surely it cant be required afterwards that the state effectively prosecute the rapist since that outcome is extremely rare.

and yet no one really wants a woman to have to bring her rapist's baby to term but that would mean taking a woman's word for it and...well, if its the only way to get an abortion few women would balk at lying about it. they can just say it was an unknown stranger and no one gets prosecuted, eh? (not unlike the "life of the mother" standard before legal abortion. that meant that all a woman had to do--or know to do--was to claim that she would kill herself rather than have the baby).

Yes, I'll admit it's problematic. But as I mentioned to someone else, at most, she'd be required to wait 2 months, no matter whether or not the courts have made a decision by then. That's short enough to avoid the traumatic effects of advanced stage pregnancy.

I suppose a fair deal of my ideas regarding rape-based abortions kind of depend on some of my other societal ideas being implemented (far more severe consequences for rapists, overhaul of legal system, etc.). As for the whole "woman threatening to take her own life" scenario, in such a case, she'd have to go through a psychological examination. If the pregnancy was indeed enough to pose here severe psychological trauma (and by severe I mean really really severe), she'd be allowed to have an abortion.

[Sanctissima]

I never said that. At most, the wait would be two months. If the courts were still unable to make a decision by then, she'd be allowed to go through with the abortion. That's what I meant by "natural time limit".

Or maybe we can just make abortion legal and not start that mess to begin with?

But then you'd have the current situation: a considerable amount of people who had unprotected sex willingly and decided to just damn the consequences. Although it's incapable of though, the unborn child has, at the very least, the basic right to be born.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

I do not assert. I deal in absolutes.

This post may as well be completely blank.
It's also a wonderful oxymoron. Suffice to say, my only response is either

"lol"
Or
"What?"

You are now contributing less than nothing to the thread. Please prove I'm wrong without resorting to semantics or rhetoric or take your appeals elsewhere.

[Galloism]

You've completely missed the point.
All of that shit you just said?

It's an assertion. Not an argument. You will not convince fucking anyone that way, and nor should you. If you want people to get over being pro-lifers, you need to not make assertions like that and instead accept their premises and work from there.

I do not assert. I deal in absolutes.

You do not have the necessary training to deal in absolutes.

[Allentyr]

But then you'd have the current situation: a considerable amount of people who had unprotected sex willingly and decided to just damn the consequences. Although it's incapable of though, the unborn child has, at the very least, the basic right to be born.

Does this mean you agree to be involved in accident if you ride a car?

[Ashmoria]

don't you find all of that too problematical to have to go through? obviously having it adjudicated before an abortion can be granted would mean that there would be no abortions due to rape, all the babies would be born or miscarried by then.

and surely it cant be required afterwards that the state effectively prosecute the rapist since that outcome is extremely rare.

and yet no one really wants a woman to have to bring her rapist's baby to term but that would mean taking a woman's word for it and...well, if its the only way to get an abortion few women would balk at lying about it. they can just say it was an unknown stranger and no one gets prosecuted, eh? (not unlike the "life of the mother" standard before legal abortion. that meant that all a woman had to do--or know to do--was to claim that she would kill herself rather than have the baby).

Yes, I'll admit it's problematic. But as I mentioned to someone else, at most, she'd be required to wait 2 months, no matter whether or not the courts have made a decision by then. That's short enough to avoid the traumatic effects of advanced stage pregnancy.

I suppose a fair deal of my ideas regarding rape-based abortions kind of depend on some of my other societal ideas being implemented (far more severe consequences for rapists, overhaul of legal system, etc.). As for the whole "woman threatening to take her own life" scenario, in such a case, she'd have to go through a psychological examination. If the pregnancy was indeed enough to pose here severe psychological trauma (and by severe I mean really really severe), she'd be allowed to have an abortion.

no 2 months isn't reasonable. think it through. today's early abortions take place between 6 and 8 weeks of pregnancy. add 2 months (9 weeks) to that and instead of going to the doctor for the abortion pill you have to have a serious 2nd trimester abortion.

if we do as is legal in the US today and allow women to have abortion on demand you get what we have today--90% of abortions occurring before 12 weeks and a solid majority at 8 weeks or under.

[Ostroeuropa]

This post may as well be completely blank.
It's also a wonderful oxymoron. Suffice to say, my only response is either

"lol"
Or
"What?"

You are now contributing less than nothing to the thread. Please prove I'm wrong without resorting to semantics or rhetoric or take your appeals elsewhere.

I don't have to prove you wrong.
You have to prove you right.
And the thing is, you can't do that, because definitions of personhood are entirely subjective.

There can be an objective legal definition, for sure. It just won't convince anyone who's subjective definition differs.
To get them on board you need different arguments.

Further, there is no benefit to:

Pro-Autonomy: Fetuses are not people

compared to

Pro-Autonomy: Fetuses are people.

In fact, the former closes several doors to us. For instance, if a company sells a product which damages a fetus but not the mother.
It also causes distress in parents who cannot obtain death certificates and such for miscarriages. (Though some countries specifically wrote new laws allowing them to do so.)

Second:
It derails the argument on autonomy into one about personhood. It's useless.

[Esternial]

This is all disgusting. Displaying a dead child in a jar, rather than giving them a proper funeral, is inhumane.

Man they're cool as hell. And lol I'm not having a funeral for an incomplete fetus. That is a waste of time, emotional energy, and money, all of which could be used to get healthier to hopefully have another go at Baby V.2.0.
Just because you don't enjoy medical specimens and oddities doesn't mean they are inhumane.

I've grown emotionally attached to my computer and have given her a name and engage in personification of my dear Puty.

But I don't grow emotionally attached to other people's computers, since they're not mine and it's frankly none of my business.

[Galloism]

Man they're cool as hell. And lol I'm not having a funeral for an incomplete fetus. That is a waste of time, emotional energy, and money, all of which could be used to get healthier to hopefully have another go at Baby V.2.0.
Just because you don't enjoy medical specimens and oddities doesn't mean they are inhumane.

I've grown emotionally attached to my computer and have given her a name and engage in personification of my dear Puty.

But I don't grow emotionally attached to other people's computers, since they're not mine and it's frankly none of my business.

If you have a funeral for and bury your computer, you're off the Christmas card list.

[Ostroeuropa]

Man they're cool as hell. And lol I'm not having a funeral for an incomplete fetus. That is a waste of time, emotional energy, and money, all of which could be used to get healthier to hopefully have another go at Baby V.2.0.
Just because you don't enjoy medical specimens and oddities doesn't mean they are inhumane.

I've grown emotionally attached to my computer and have given her a name and engage in personification of my dear Puty.

But I don't grow emotionally attached to other people's computers, since they're not mine and it's frankly none of my business.

Speak for yourself, my neighbor has a hot PC. I've been flirting with it, and we're planning to elope together.
I hope my PC doesn't find out before I trash it, I want it to still provide gaming for me for a while yet.

[Esternial]

I've grown emotionally attached to my computer and have given her a name and engage in personification of my dear Puty.

But I don't grow emotionally attached to other people's computers, since they're not mine and it's frankly none of my business.

If you have a funeral for and bury your computer, you're off the Christmas card list.

...

Please don't take me off the list.