Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Revin]

That should solve the problem of getting a unwanted pregnancy.

[Neutraligon]

If they don't want to get pregnant then just don't get pragnant.

Failure of birth control, rape, plain not understanding that they can get pregnant, not being given a choice in birth control, not knowing how to use birth control, life of the mother, inability of the fetus to survive, etc, these are all reasons why people get pregnant when they don't want to. Telling people to just not get pregnant does not solve the real world issue that unwanted pregnancies exist.

[Dyakovo]

"...women's rights and misogyny!"

I don't hate women or want to punish them because I want a developing child to have a chance at life. I believe women should be fully equal to men. And I believe developing children should be as equal to anyone else in that they should live.

If you truly believed that women should be fully equal to men, you wouldn't want to restrict their right to bodily sovereignty.

[Sanctissima]

The whole "well the law says it's not a person, so that's that" argument is a weak and hypocritical one. If you want to actually have a meaningful argument about abortion, don't use this half-assed one.

In regards to personhood, many laws also used to say that slaves weren't legally persons (see pretty much every country in recorded history). Thus, the killing of said non-persons was either not considered murder or a form of destruction of property.

So unless you're a staunch advocate of slavery, you can't really claim that the law is the ultimate voice on what is or is not personhood. While it may play a considerable role in determining this, morals and other factors are also at play.

Actually it is. At the time slaves where not persons (or where rather 2/3 of a person). The only thing that matters in this debate is the legal side of things.

Well, for starters, the whole "2/3 of a person" argument was pretty much just an American thing.

Slavery was (and in some cases still is) a universal problem, in case you didn't know.

Anyway, as for the actual issue at hand, are you talking about abortion in general or just the definition of "murder"? Either way, you're wrong. Laws are only a very small, albeit significant, part of what makes up a nation. Thus, unless you're some kind of a kryptocrat, I think it's clear enough to see why the legality of an issue is not the only thing that matters. Laws are made to enforce issues of that arose for various reasons (morals, social issues, etc.). They change all the time, and as such it is foolish to think that they are all that matter.

If we were in Saudi Arabia, I could very well use your argument to support the beheading of people who commit witchcraft. Do you see how meaningless it is to only argue the judicial side of an issue?

[Neutraligon]

Actually it is. At the time slaves where not persons (or where rather 2/3 of a person). The only thing that matters in this debate is the legal side of things.

Well, for starters, the whole "2/3 of a person" argument was pretty much just an American thing.

1)Slavery was (and in some cases still is) a universal problem, in case you didn't know.

Anyway, as for the actual issue at hand, are you talking about abortion in general or just the definition of "murder"? Either way, you're wrong. Laws are only a very small, albeit significant, part of what makes up a nation. Thus, unless you're some kind of a kryptocrat, I think it's clear enough to see why the legality of an issue is not the only thing that matters. Laws are made to enforce issues of that arose for various reasons (morals, social issues, etc.). They change all the time, and as such it is foolish to think that they are all that matter.

If we were in Saudi Arabia, I could very well use your argument to support the beheading of people who commit witchcraft. Do you see how meaningless it is to only argue the judicial side of an issue?

1) I do know, but since I am an American talking about abortion in America I spoke about slavery also in America. Did I claim that a nation is only about laws? No I claimed that in the case of personhood the only thing that matters is the law. The law can be changed, as it was for African Americans, but it was still the law that was the only thing that was important when it came to the legal rights of the individual. The same can happen for fetuses. They are currently not persons because they are not legally defined as persons. That might change, but until it is changed they do not have the legal rights that a person does have. Because legal rights are connected to personhood, and since right now fetus not being a person is the legal position of the government, claiming a fetus is not a person is nothing more then a tautology.

No I do not. I agree the argument is not a good one, but considering the only thing of import when it comes to cases like these is the legal aspect (ie what the government does or does not permit) I do not see how it is meaningless to only argue the judicial side of things. In the case of Saudi Arabia, people would be attempting to change that law, again dealing with the "judicial" side of things. Even pro-life people are in the end arguing the judicial side of things since they are attempting to change the law so that abortion is illegal.

[Lost heros]

Because I grew up in a religious house (my family is more secular now, although we are ready to believe in a higher power should it present itself to us) so I adhere to the belief that a woman has full control over her body,

Good. Then all you have to recognize is that she shouldn't be forced to host anything within her body as it is her's.

however a fetus, a developing child, developing lifeform, is not her body it is its own entity,

Parasites are developing lifeforms.

so aborting it is still murder, just a different kind.

In the same way self-defense is murder.

Understand I'm not the kind of person that would go out of my way to call every person that has aborted a child a murderer. It's just a simple fact. It's like tearing down a tree, a tree has life and we know it, but it can't move or show emotion and we can't tell if it feels pain. So it's murder on a specific level.

So, abortion is like cutting down trees? I agree I guess, but I think we should give more care to abortions...

"What about rape?"

Even then, life is developing, I don't believe life should be extinguished because of a disgusting, repulsive, traumatic event. Yes I realize the woman may not want to have the developing child because of that, but the developing child didn't intend that to happen, nor did it cause said rape.

Neither did the woman. So who should deal with the burden? The woman who has to not only already live with this traumatic event or something that has yet to even develop a consciousness.

Yes I realize that's not a good enough argument for this point and the woman might still want to abort. All I can say here is that I can't accept abortion because of developing life.

Then don't get one. No one is forcing you to.

"...women's rights and misogyny!"

I don't hate women or want to punish them because I want a developing child to have a chance at life. I believe women should be fully equal to men. And I believe developing children should be as equal to anyone else in that they should live.

You say this, but then you definitively are denying woman's choice of bodily sovereignty. It doesn't mean you hate woman. You're just saying she doesn't get the same rights men do. Furthermore, you are saying that fetuses should also get the right to use someone else's body. A right that we don't have. If my kidney is failing, I can't force you to give me your kidney.

"Health risks"

I don't know the health risks involved in pregnancy, but I acknowledge that health risks exist. I acknowledge that some women may want to abort because of certain health risks during pregnancy. My view is if the unborn child is physically killing the mother, unless it's developed enough to be considered an infant, abortion could be considered an option. But if there's a way to save the child we should go for it and try to continue developing the child until it is ready to be "born".

In other words, you want to put the pregnant woman, who at this point decided already she does not want the child, through months of pain and stress, to remove the baby prematurely through surgery so that it may have an a lower chance of survival.

Again, I grew up in a religious household, so abortion feels morally wrong and quite unnecessary unless the pregnancy is harming the mother-to-be. I'm not completely informed on all of this and this is a personal opinion.

Good for you. Religion is irrelevant in a secular state, but I think you already know that.

[Dyakovo]

No, it means that a fetus is not a person.

The whole "well the law says it's not a person, so that's that" argument is a weak and hypocritical one. If you want to actually have a meaningful argument about abortion, don't use this half-assed one.

In regards to personhood, many laws also used to say that slaves weren't legally persons (see pretty much every country in recorded history). Thus, the killing of said non-persons was either not considered murder or a form of destruction of property.

So unless you're a staunch advocate of slavery, you can't really claim that the law is the ultimate voice on what is or is not personhood. While it may play a considerable role in determining this, morals and other factors are also at play.

Actually, when you're talking about legal personhood (which he was), the only definition of personhood that matters is the legal definition.

[Dyakovo]

If they don't want to get pregnant then just don't get pragnant.

Contraceptives fail.

[Lost heros]

If they don't want to get pregnant then just don't get pragnant.

. . .

This is why we need better sex education.

[Grave_n_idle]

If they don't want to get pregnant then just don't get pragnant.

I heard that just choosing not to be pregnant makes it not happen.

[Neutraligon]

If they don't want to get pregnant then just don't get pragnant.

I heard that just choosing not to be pregnant makes it not happen.

Hear that ovaries, you are not allowed to release eggs unless I say so.

[54e]

My views on abortion (and most things) are fluid and are certainly nowhere close to completely formed. That said, it does seem to me that a viable fetus does carry certain rights that supersede its mother's poorly-defined and poorly-supported right to have an abortion to some extent, at that time. Other than that, I'd probably consider myself pretty solidly "pro-choice."

Ireland tries to afford rights to the unborn. So far it has lead to at least one woman dying when an abortion could have saved her life, and thousands of women every year leaving the country to get abortions in other jurisdictions.

So what? This is another instance of information completely irrelevant to my point.

This is just flat out wrong, and again, if you'll read my arguments you should understand where I'm coming from. I expected a little more logic from this group on NSG, but that's fine.

No, it isn't.

Come on, now. You really think that everyone is either pro-choice or pro-life, and there's no room for nuance in the discussion? Please. You sound like a 15 year old who has the world figured out. Though it is much easier if you lump all the people who disagree with you into one category; it makes your straw men fit in with the crowd.

If all rights are abridged in some way, then why can't we reasonably abridge a woman's right to an abortion when the fetus is viable? The argument is becoming circular - it seems like all this thread is saying is "she has unrestricted bodily sovereignty all the time simply because she does." I, as an American, have extensive free speech rights, but those rights are restricted in some cases, and reasonably so.

I understand the circumstances regarding health of the fetus/mother (and I fully agree with you that abortion should be available for cases like that).

Yes, free speech rights vanish the instant they infringe upon the rights of others. The fetus' existence alone is an inherent imposition upon the rights of the woman. Its rights do not exist until such time as its ongoing existence is NOT wholly dependent on its connection to the woman.

Past viability, the doctor must be concerned with preserving both lives as necessary, but there are atill things a woman can do if the situation requires it.

You've made my point for me - past viability, the fetus is no longer wholly dependent on the woman.

There is a 0% chance that there has never been a case of an abortion past viability for any reason other than health complications. It is statistically impossible, especially if you're looking at data that includes the polls based on women who aborted past 24 weeks. I have no idea why you are having such a hard time grasping this. If you continue to call these women "monsters" like you have been, you only further my point. However, no matter what you believe on abortion, we need to have compassion for women who make that choice no matter when they terminate. I'm not sure the term "monster" embodies that necessary respect.

I think some of you are mistaking me for the usual pro-lifer, and that is simply not the case.

yes there is a zero chance that some one some time in the past 42 years has had a late term abortion for ridiculous reasons. probably. I know of no such cases but I am willing to accept that it is extremely possible for that to have happened.

but at the same time there have been thousands of late term abortions that saved the life of the pregnant woman. so the question is how much risk do we need to take--the risk that the delay in authorizing an abortion might end up in maternal death--in order to prevent the vanishingly rare case of a woman who cavalierly decides on a late term abortion and talks her (well probably not HER, but SOME doctor somewhere because so few places do late term abortions) doctor into doing it against his professional judgment of medical need.

again I am quite comfortable with "erring" on the side of letting women (and their doctors) make that decision.

What does it matter if they "cavalierly" decide to abort late in the pregnancy? You still fail to understand the sheer improbability of your notion that women don't consistently have late term abortions for reasons other than health risks.

Nowhere, ever, have I said that abortions should be illegal even when the mother's health is at risk. In fact, I said the exact opposite in one of my posts. You are mischaracterizing me.

[Dyakovo]

No, it isn't.

Come on, now. You really think that everyone is either pro-choice or pro-life?

Yes.

[54e]

Come on, now. You really think that everyone is either pro-choice or pro-life?

Yes.

Well, that is, on its face, invariably incorrect.

[Ifreann]

Ireland tries to afford rights to the unborn. So far it has lead to at least one woman dying when an abortion could have saved her life, and thousands of women every year leaving the country to get abortions in other jurisdictions.

So what? This is another instance of information completely irrelevant to my point.

I thought you might be interested in real world examples of the consequences of rights for the unborn. Obviously I was mistaken.

[Neutraligon]

Yes.

Well, that is, on its face, invariably incorrect.

Not really. The difference between someone who is pro choice and someone is pro life is whether they think abortion should be illegal. There are after all a lot of pro-choice individuals who do not like abortion.

A pro choice individuals thinks abortion should be legal in most (past viability should be limited to life of the mother or sever medical issues with the fetus) or all circumstances.
A pro-life person thinks it should be illegal in most (rape, incest, life of the mother, sever medical issues with the fetus at anytime in the pregnancy) or all circumstances.

These two are mutually exclusive.

[54e]

So what? This is another instance of information completely irrelevant to my point.

I thought you might be interested in real world examples of the consequences of rights for the unborn. Obviously I was mistaken.

I previously said that I have unwavering support for keeping abortion legal at any point in the pregnancy for risks to the mother's life, so yes, you are mistaken.

[54e]

Well, that is, on its face, invariably incorrect.

Not really. The difference between someone who is pro choice and someone is pro life is whether they think abortion should be illegal. There are after all a lot of pro-choice individuals who do not like abortion.

A pro choice individuals thinks abortion should be legal in most (past viability should be limited to life of the mother or sever medical issues with the fetus) or all circumstances.
A pro-life person thinks it should be illegal in most (rape, incest, life of the mother, sever medical issues with the fetus at anytime in the pregnancy) or all circumstances.

These two are mutually exclusive.

That's not the way Dyakovo presents it, however (which is invariably wrong):

Actually, it most certainly is black and white. Either you think women should have the right to opt for an abortion if they so choose (pro-choice) or you don't (pro-life). There is no middle ground possible.

[Neutraligon]

Not really. The difference between someone who is pro choice and someone is pro life is whether they think abortion should be illegal. There are after all a lot of pro-choice individuals who do not like abortion.

A pro choice individuals thinks abortion should be legal in most (past viability should be limited to life of the mother or sever medical issues with the fetus) or all circumstances.
A pro-life person thinks it should be illegal in most (rape, incest, life of the mother, sever medical issues with the fetus at anytime in the pregnancy) or all circumstances.

These two are mutually exclusive.

That's not the way Dyakovo presents it, however (which is invariably wrong):

Actually, it most certainly is black and white. Either you think women should have the right to opt for an abortion if they so choose (pro-choice) or you don't (pro-life). There is no middle ground possible.

It is exactly how Dyakovo presents it.

[54e]

That's not the way Dyakovo presents it, however (which is invariably wrong):

It is exactly how Dyakovo presents it.

Nope, did you read the quote?

Edit - I thought you said NOT mutually exclusive. My bad. Still wrong, though.

[Neutraligon]

It is exactly how Dyakovo presents it.

Nope, did you read the quote?

Yes. And again that is exactly as Dyakovo presents it. The first is pro choice, women have the right to choose to have an abortion. The second is pro-live women do not have the right to choose to have an abortion.

[54e]

Nope, did you read the quote?

Yes. And again that is exactly as Dyakovo presents it. The first is pro choice, women have the right to choose to have an abortion. The second is pro-live women do not have the right to choose to have an abortion.

Edited my post to reflect a misunderstanding. I still disagree with you, not that it has any bearing on the substance of the actual issue.

[Dyakovo]

Yes.

Well, that is, on its face, invariably incorrect.

Wrong. You either think abortion should be legal or you don't.

[Dyakovo]

Not really. The difference between someone who is pro choice and someone is pro life is whether they think abortion should be illegal. There are after all a lot of pro-choice individuals who do not like abortion.

A pro choice individuals thinks abortion should be legal in most (past viability should be limited to life of the mother or sever medical issues with the fetus) or all circumstances.
A pro-life person thinks it should be illegal in most (rape, incest, life of the mother, sever medical issues with the fetus at anytime in the pregnancy) or all circumstances.

These two are mutually exclusive.

That's not the way Dyakovo presents it, however (which is invariably wrong):

Actually, it most certainly is black and white. Either you think women should have the right to opt for an abortion if they so choose (pro-choice) or you don't (pro-life). There is no middle ground possible.

Gon and I said the same thing. He just used more words to say it. You seriously need to work on your reading comprehension skills.

[Dyakovo]

Yes. And again that is exactly as Dyakovo presents it. The first is pro choice, women have the right to choose to have an abortion. The second is pro-live women do not have the right to choose to have an abortion.

Edited my post to reflect a misunderstanding. I still disagree with you, not that it has any bearing on the substance of the actual issue.

So spell out what this mystical middle ground is.