[Abortion Megathread] Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? REVISED POLL

[Salandriagado]

I think there is no way of resolving this issue. Pro-choicers see the fetuses as definitively not persons; pro-lifers see all humans as persons. Pro-choicers see parental obligation as not extending beyond feeding and housing and not abusing and so on, basically the obligation owed a pet; pro-lifers see parental obligation as requiring the parent always puts the child's welfare first. There's no getting these fundamentally different values.

On the contrary: even if a foetus is a person, it still has no right to the use of its mother's body without her ongoing consent.

[Stellonia]

but we also recognize that bodily sovereignty is violated by the proposed "right to life" the fetus has, and therefor, in accordance with the fact that no person has the right to violate the rights of another, we give bodily sovereignty precedence. It is actually somewhat variable, but ends in the same conclusion.

By the same logic, if bodily sovereignty is impinging upon the right to life, then the right to life would receive precedence over bodily sovereignty. This raises the question: Which right is violating which?

[The V O I D]

but we also recognize that bodily sovereignty is violated by the proposed "right to life" the fetus has, and therefor, in accordance with the fact that no person has the right to violate the rights of another, we give bodily sovereignty precedence. It is actually somewhat variable, but ends in the same conclusion.

By the same logic, if bodily sovereignty is impinging upon the right to life, then the right to life would receive precedence over bodily sovereignty. This raises the question: Which right is violating which?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe the one that dictates we hold a woman down and force her to keep a parasitic organism inside her despite all the health risks in even the safest pregnancy?

Perhaps that one?

Yeah, that seems to be the violator.

[Venerable Bede]

Yes, I know you recognize fetal humanity but not personhood, but pro-lifers see a human as automatically a person, no ifs, ands or buts. We also see parental obligation as existing the moment a human is brought into being.

There are ways to reduce the number of abortions without causing any rights abridgements, just work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Well, yes, I'm sure there are numerous ways to reduce murder too, that doesn't mean it should be legal.

[The Black Forrest]

We recognize fetal humanity, just not fetal personhood. In fact, some of us even recognize personhood, but we also recognize that bodily sovereignty is violated by the proposed "right to life" the fetus has, and therefor, in accordance with the fact that no person has the right to violate the rights of another, we give bodily sovereignty precedence. It is actually somewhat variable, but ends in the same conclusion.

Also, parental obligation is essentially nonexistent until the fetus becomes a born child anyways; that is the claim, and that is how it is recognized by many pro-choicers I know. There is no child in this equation; children are born. Fetuses are not.

Yes, I know you recognize fetal humanity but not personhood, but pro-lifers see a human as automatically a person, no ifs, ands or buts. We also see parental obligation as existing the moment a human is brought into being.

It doesn't matter. It's misguided at best. You might have an argument if people were guaranteed to be born.

You want abortions to end? Cure disease, end rape, and establish a system of support for women who need it.

[Venerable Bede]

I think there is no way of resolving this issue. Pro-choicers see the fetuses as definitively not persons; pro-lifers see all humans as persons. Pro-choicers see parental obligation as not extending beyond feeding and housing and not abusing and so on, basically the obligation owed a pet; pro-lifers see parental obligation as requiring the parent always puts the child's welfare first. There's no getting these fundamentally different values.

On the contrary: even if a foetus is a person, it still has no right to the use of its mother's body without her ongoing consent.

I would disagree: parental obligation is ongoing until new parents can be found to take over.

[Venerable Bede]

Yes, I know you recognize fetal humanity but not personhood, but pro-lifers see a human as automatically a person, no ifs, ands or buts. We also see parental obligation as existing the moment a human is brought into being.

It doesn't matter. It's misguided at best. You might have an argument if people were guaranteed to be born.

You want abortions to end? Cure disease, end rape, and establish a system of support for women who need it.

Pretty sure we're working on those issues. they can't be simply terminated by will.

[The V O I D]

On the contrary: even if a foetus is a person, it still has no right to the use of its mother's body without her ongoing consent.

I would disagree: parental obligation is ongoing until new parents can be found to take over.

Except, no. It doesn't. Not at all. Maybe that's true once the fetus is born as a baby, but otherwise, nope. Not one bit.

Seriously, trying to ban or regulate abortions is impossible; you only have control of how many (better contraceptives, better sex ed, etc. will ensure the number of unwanted pregnancies lessens significantly) and how safe (because, even if illegal, they'll likely do it themselves or in a back-alley).

[The Black Forrest]

It doesn't matter. It's misguided at best. You might have an argument if people were guaranteed to be born.

You want abortions to end? Cure disease, end rape, and establish a system of support for women who need it.

Pretty sure we're working on those issues.

Working on it is fine. The support system is what lacks. People tend to clam up when you talk about taxes and what not to support it. Or, they like to utter the nonsense about charity taking care of it.

they can't be simply terminated by will.

They can. It's called abortion.

[The Black Forrest]

On the contrary: even if a foetus is a person, it still has no right to the use of its mother's body without her ongoing consent.

I would disagree: parental obligation is ongoing until new parents can be found to take over.

When the Christians empty out the orphanages and the kids in the system; then you can talk about that.

[The Black Forrest]

There are ways to reduce the number of abortions without causing any rights abridgements, just work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Well, yes, I'm sure there are numerous ways to reduce murder too, that doesn't mean it should be legal.

[The V O I D]

There are ways to reduce the number of abortions without causing any rights abridgements, just work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Well, yes, I'm sure there are numerous ways to reduce murder too, that doesn't mean it should be legal.

Murder and abortion are so laughably different your argument is self-defeated.

Nice try.

[Venerable Bede]

\Except, no. It doesn't. Not at all. Maybe that's true once the fetus is born as a baby, but otherwise, nope. Not one bit.

Yes, see, there is an impasse, that's why this is fruitless. You see parental obligation starting with birth, pro-choicers see it as starting the moment a human is brought into being. There's not really any way of getting around these fundamental value conflicts.

Seriously, trying to ban or regulate abortions is impossible; you only have control of how many (better contraceptives, better sex ed, etc. will ensure the number of unwanted pregnancies lessens significantly) and how safe (because, even if illegal, they'll likely do it themselves or in a back-alley).

There are plenty of things that are illegal that still happen on a regular basis.

[Venerable Bede]

I would disagree: parental obligation is ongoing until new parents can be found to take over.

When the Christians empty out the orphanages and the kids in the system; then you can talk about that.

There are tons of parents waiting in line to adopt an infant, so many that even if there were no abortions, the queue would still be rather long. It's children that are older, often take away from abusive parents or something like that, that are so hard to find families for and are sent cycling through the foster care system.

[The V O I D]

\Except, no. It doesn't. Not at all. Maybe that's true once the fetus is born as a baby, but otherwise, nope. Not one bit.

1. Yes, see, there is an impasse, that's why this is fruitless. 2. You see parental obligation starting with birth, pro-lifers see it as starting the moment a human is brought into being. 3. There's not really any way of getting around these fundamental value conflicts.

Seriously, trying to ban or regulate abortions is impossible; you only have control of how many (better contraceptives, better sex ed, etc. will ensure the number of unwanted pregnancies lessens significantly) and how safe (because, even if illegal, they'll likely do it themselves or in a back-alley).

4. There are plenty of things that are illegal that still happen on a regular basis.

1. It's actually fruitless because your way doesn't work.

2. Yeah, well, we see it that way because that's literally what the law says - even if it didn't, it makes no sense to care for something that you don't want.

3. There's always the compromise of "deal with it", and accepting that women's choices aren't yours? Like, you can't choose for the woman. Nuh-uh.

4. Sure, but this is different because it is protecting the rights of a born woman who has sovereignty over her entire body, to which the fetus is connected. She has a right to say "Nope!" and severe that connection. If that right is taken away? Because she still has sovereignty, she can do it anyway - just less safe for her personal health as well as making it more likely she could end up infertile, ending possibilities for future lives forever as a permanent thing. Do you want that?

[The Black Forrest]

When the Christians empty out the orphanages and the kids in the system; then you can talk about that.

There are tons of parents waiting in line to adopt an infant, so many that even if there were no abortions, the queue would still be rather long. It's children that are older, often take away from abusive parents or something like that, that are so hard to find families for and are sent cycling through the foster care system.

You are correct but you forgot to clarify they are waiting for healthy children with no issues.

There are some that will take anybody but that number is incredibly small.

[Matta]

I don't agree with abortion excluding certain circumstances, BUT, it should be the right of every person to decide for themselves, we all have free will and we all need to worry and decide for ourselves concerning a subject like this one.

[Knarkrike]

I think there is no way of resolving this issue. Pro-choicers see the fetuses as definitively not persons; pro-lifers see all humans as persons. Pro-choicers see parental obligation as not extending beyond feeding and housing and not abusing and so on, basically the obligation owed a pet; pro-lifers see parental obligation as requiring the parent always puts the child's welfare first. There's no getting these fundamentally different values.

The problem is that people see this as a value-based issue, where you can choose one or the other alternative and get different results in the end. You can't. Regardless of whatever moral reservations and bases one places their argument on, abortions will keep happening, making the choice not between abortion or no abortion, but between a hospital abortion and a back alley abortion.

This is especially true with other beliefs pro-lifers have a tendency to support, which are on the right economically and sex-negative, resulting in fewer benefits and aid to parenting and unavailability of free-of-charge contraception. Pro-choicers (excluding the libertarians on the economic side of the issue, for which they can fuck themselves) understand this and have all these issues in mind.

Allowing abortion with free contraceptives available and aid and benefits given to the parents, maternity and paternity leaves included, would make sure the health and rights of the mother are protected and eliminate reasons to abort in the first place, thus effectively reducing the number of abortions needed to be performed in the first place.

The only thing holding people back from reducing abortions is their petty excuse of a morality and attempting to make this into an issue based on values, painting pro-choicers as murderers for example. If you really want to reduce the number of abortions, you have to be realistic about it and toss your self-righteous bullshit out of the damn window.

[Godular]

There are ways to reduce the number of abortions without causing any rights abridgements, just work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Well, yes, I'm sure there are numerous ways to reduce murder too, that doesn't mean it should be legal.

This. This right here is why the lack of ground on which to compromise is on your end. You have been advised of means in which actual change can be made to address your own 'moral' concerns in a manner that would actually have the full support of pretty much all pro-choice advocates, and you say THIS shit.

Please advise me of situations in which it is okay for one person to use another person's body without their explicit consent or due process of law. Specifically in legal circumstances.

[Wallenburg]

There are ways to reduce the number of abortions without causing any rights abridgements, just work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Well, yes, I'm sure there are numerous ways to reduce murder too, that doesn't mean it should be legal.

Nobody has a right to murder. In contrast, the right to bodily sovereignty is universal and fundamental.

[Venerable Bede]

Well, yes, I'm sure there are numerous ways to reduce murder too, that doesn't mean it should be legal.

This. This right here is why the lack of ground on which to compromise is on your end. You have been advised of means in which actual change can be made to address your own 'moral' concerns in a manner that would actually have the full support of pretty much all pro-choice advocates, and you say THIS shit.

Please advise me of situations in which it is okay for one person to use another person's body without their explicit consent or due process of law. Specifically in legal circumstances.

The thing is, no one is debating that these measures you're talking about shouldn't be taken.

The situation is parental obligation; you bring a human into being, you are obligated to that human. If a father refuses to pay child support, for instance, he loses bodily sovereignty in being incarcerated.

[Godular]

This. This right here is why the lack of ground on which to compromise is on your end. You have been advised of means in which actual change can be made to address your own 'moral' concerns in a manner that would actually have the full support of pretty much all pro-choice advocates, and you say THIS shit.

Please advise me of situations in which it is okay for one person to use another person's body without their explicit consent or due process of law. Specifically in legal circumstances.

The thing is, no one is debating that these measures you're talking about shouldn't be taken.

But you did exactly this thing. In comparing means to curtail unwanted pregnancies (thereby curtailing the number of abortions without overstepping anyone's personal rights) to 'ways to reduce murder', you are placing them in a context that states you will not be satisfied until abortion is itself rendered illegal. Thus, you have demonstrated your own inability to compromise.

The situation is parental obligation; you bring a human into being, you are obligated to that human. If a father refuses to pay child support, for instance, he loses bodily sovereignty in being incarcerated.

Due process of law. Your example fails.

In addition, incarceration is not in itself a violation of bodily sovereignty.

[Wallenburg]

The thing is, no one is debating that these measures you're talking about shouldn't be taken.

The situation is parental obligation; you bring a human into being, you are obligated to that human.

Foster care is a thing.

If a father refuses to pay child support, for instance, he loses bodily sovereignty in being incarcerated.

That should not be the case.

[Godular]

The thing is, no one is debating that these measures you're talking about shouldn't be taken.

The situation is parental obligation; you bring a human into being, you are obligated to that human.

Foster care is a thing.

If a father refuses to pay child support, for instance, he loses bodily sovereignty in being incarcerated.

That should not be the case.

Agreed.

[Venerable Bede]

Foster care is a thing.

Correct, so is adoption. But the parent isn't free of obligation until it is transferred, they cannot simply unilaterally renounce it, they must find alternative parents first.