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

[Venerable Bede]

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.

I'm sorry, but doing things like fighting disease is not an acceptable compromise, we already do that and were doing so since before abortion was legal. That's not actually a compromise on your part, unless you're saying you are opposed to it. A compromise would be something like a restriction on abortion that doesn't make it entirely illegal.

Due process of law. Your example fails.

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

How is putting someone in handcuffs and sticking them in a cell against their will, not a violation of their bodily sovereignty?

[Godular]

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.

I'm sorry, but doing things like fighting disease is not an acceptable compromise, we already do that and were doing so since before abortion was legal. That's not actually a compromise on your part, unless you're saying you are opposed to it. A compromise would be something like a restriction on abortion that doesn't make it entirely illegal.

No.

Abortions happened before it was legal, and will continue to happen if your dream of it being illegalized comes to pass. You can say 'You are not allowed to have cancer!' all you like, but cancer won't miraculously disappear upon hearing your exhortation, and such entreaties serve only to inflict shame and stigma upon those who might suffer from it and mayhap even hinder the actual treatment.

Likewise abortion. If you wish to see it reduced, do it in ways that do not trammel upon the rights of women to control their own bodies and determine how such bodies are used. To say that women have such rights 'EXCEPT--' is not only inconsistent but inequitable. You either give the fetus more rights than a born person or give the woman less. Neither is acceptable to us, and any restrictions you would seek to set into place would be similarly unacceptable.

Due process of law. Your example fails.

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

How is putting someone in handcuffs and sticking them in a cell against their will, not a violation of their bodily sovereignty?

Because they have nothing to do with each other right up until the state starts swiping organs or blood without the consent of their owners. I think I'm justified in saying that such ideas are abhorrent and somewhat nonexistent here in the states.

Not that such mattered anyway, what with the whole 'due process' bit shooting your example down in the first place.

[Wallenburg]

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.

No, actually, they don't. I don't think you understand how adoption or foster care work.

[Wallenburg]

I'm sorry, but doing things like fighting disease is not an acceptable compromise, we already do that and were doing so since before abortion was legal. That's not actually a compromise on your part, unless you're saying you are opposed to it. A compromise would be something like a restriction on abortion that doesn't make it entirely illegal.

Actually, the real compromise is the pro-choice position. It is the logical compromise between mandating abortions and prohibiting them.

[Risottia]

All mammals use a form of parasitism to reproduce. A placental relationship is a form of parasitism, as per definition of parasitism.

I disagree. Defining the placental relationship as "a form of parasitism" is unnecessarily stretching the term.

In my eyes it's similar to defining a doplhin as a "kind of a fish" even though it's a mammal, simply because it kinda looks like one and lives in the sea. You wouldn't be totally wrong saying it kinda looks like a fish from the exterior and it certainly lives in the sea, but biologically/anatomically/phylogenetically it is not part of the same class of animal.

At most you can define it as "symbiotic", of which "parasitism" is a subset. The placenta allows two-way trafficing of metabolites and the mother's body (in most cases) voluntarily contributes to the formation of the placenta and accomodates the fetus. In parasites, nutrients are forcefully derived from the host by the parasite, which uses countermeasures to evade the host's defence mechanisms.

Excuse me, did you just attribute a WILL to the uterus?

In fact, there is a hypothesis that suggests fetal stem cells pass to the mother during pregnancy and assist in cellular repair, acting in their capacity of stem cells.

It's a hypothesis.

The relationship between a fetus and its mother (or carrier, or whatever term you prefer) is - in my opinion - far too complex to simply be labeled as parasitic in nature.

I beg to differ. Counting the amount of pregnant women who die or suffer as consequence of their pregnancy (and yes, even being caught and eaten by a leopard because the pregnancy makes you slower counts as a negative consequence), the presence of the fetus in the woman's body constitutes a net disadvantage for her (even a potentially lethal one, which means parasitism, not just symbiosis.

It's an oversimplification of a complex biological process that is distinct from the process that takes place between a parasite and its host. The fact that the womb has also evolved specifically to accomodate fetuses also contributes to my reasoning, as parasites typically make something their home rather than find themselves "welcomed in" by the host. Our body doesn't "willingly" accomodate parasites. They make it their home and makes sure they cannot be rejected.

1.You are using a teleological argument about evolution. Are you sure you can attribute a "purpose" to biological processes?
2.Erm, no, our body does accomodate parasites UNTIL and UNLESS our immune system reacts to their presence, which is something that happens in pregnancies, too - leading to fetal suffering or spontaneous abortion.

Maybe some people kind of take this relationship for granted, considering it as little more than "fetus takes from mother". It's not false, but it's just very limited and ignores a bunch of unique properties that warrant the use of more specific terminology, in my eyes.

Still not agreeing with you there. The fetus cannot survive without the host, the host can survive perfectly without the fetus. Fetus is a net taker from mother.

[Risottia]

How is putting someone in handcuffs and sticking them in a cell against their will, not a violation of their bodily sovereignty?

It's a violation of FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT, not of BODILY SOVEREIGNTY.

[Risottia]

frickin... everybody's a critic.

The issue is that anyone has rights

Define "anyone".

[Mattopilos]

The issue is that anyone has rights

Define "anyone".

Everyone i.e. the idea we have rights.

[Salandriagado]

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.

So, what? You think that we should ban giving up children to the care of the state?

[The V O I D]

Ven just doesn't seem to understand that, in the case of abortion, there is no way to completely stop or end it - a ban is ineffective. As, long before they were legal, they happened (usually DIY, back-alley or illegal hospital operations). This is not to mention that according to Biblical law, the man has the right to accuse the woman of cheating on him if she's pregnant and then priests would be told to give her medicine to cause the uterus to squeeze the fetus out... or, you know. Forced abortion.

If anything, for him to be pro-life is wrong because if he thinks biblical law should be law, then it should be pro-choice according to the man's choice in the relationship (for him).

[Wallenburg]

Ven just doesn't seem to understand that, in the case of abortion, there is no way to completely stop or end it - a ban is ineffective. As, long before they were legal, they happened (usually DIY, back-alley or illegal hospital operations). This is not to mention that according to Biblical law, the man has the right to accuse the woman of cheating on him if she's pregnant and then priests would be told to give her medicine to cause the uterus to squeeze the fetus out... or, you know. Forced abortion.

If anything, for him to be pro-life is wrong because if he thinks biblical law should be law, then it should be pro-choice according to the man's choice in the relationship (for him).

Actually, a strict adherent of Biblical law would be anti-choice and pro-abortion. The pregnant individual had no choice in whether to have the abortion or not.

[Aelex]

I prefer to use the fetus-is-parasitic argument, and it is, essentially.

I can't begin to understand how one could boast about using such an inaccurate and stupid argument but it stills seem some are ready and eager to for some reason.
Please, learn what a parasite is before spouting such non-sense.

[Wallenburg]

I prefer to use the fetus-is-parasitic argument, and it is, essentially.

I can't begin to understand how one could boast about using such an inaccurate and stupid argument but it stills seem some are ready and eager to for some reason.
Please, learn what a parasite is before spouting such non-sense.

parasite
NOUN

1An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense

Sounds like a fetus to me.

[Godular]

I prefer to use the fetus-is-parasitic argument, and it is, essentially.

I can't begin to understand how one could boast about using such an inaccurate and stupid argument but it stills seem some are ready and eager to for some reason.
Please, learn what a parasite is before spouting such non-sense.

We did. That is why the comparison remains in use.

[Aelex]

We did. That is why the comparison remains in use.

And yet if you still use it, you obviously haven't understood it at all because you're stupidly stretching the term to a point where it lose all meaning. The relation between the fetus and its mother is one of symbiose, not of "parasitism".

Indeed, in a symbiotic relationship, one organism is welcomed by its host while in a parasitical one, one organism make itself at home in its host.
Once you've understood the difference between these two things, you can, simply by looking at the interactions fetus/mother and their complexity, conclude that labeling it as "parasitical" is a gross and wrong over-simplification.

The thing I find the most ironical here is that you will still try to defend said gross over-simplification while, in the mean time, whining about how the other side is using one by saying that abortion is murder.

[The V O I D]

I can't begin to understand how one could boast about using such an inaccurate and stupid argument but it stills seem some are ready and eager to for some reason.
Please, learn what a parasite is before spouting such non-sense.

parasite
NOUN

1An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense

Sounds like a fetus to me.

Aelex seems to be under the assumption that the relationship is always symbiotic. Which, that assumption is only true in the case of consensual, wanted pregnancies. Nonconsensual/unwanted pregnancies are where the relationship is parasitic.

[Aelex]

Aelex seems to be under the assumption that the relationship is always symbiotic. Which, that assumption is only true in the case of consensual, wanted pregnancies. Nonconsensual/unwanted pregnancies are where the relationship is parasitic.

A woman wanting or not the baby doesn't change the nature of the biological relations uniting her to him.

[Godular]

We did. That is why the comparison remains in use.

And yet if you still use it, you obviously haven't understood it at all because you're stupidly stretching the term to a point where it lose all meaning. The relation between the fetus and its mother is one of symbiose, not of "parasitism".

Indeed, in a symbiotic relationship, one organism is welcomed by its host while in a parasitical one, one organism make itself at home in its host.
Once you've understood the difference between these two things, you can, simply by looking at the interactions fetus/mother and their complexity, conclude that labeling it as "parasitical" is a gross and wrong over-simplification.

The thing I find the most ironical here is that you will still try to defend said gross over-simplification while, in the mean time, whining about how the other side is using one by saying that abortion is murder.

And in your own rant you evidence a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of symbiosis that loudly declares your own inability to do research.

Symbiosis is a blanket term, bucko. Mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism are sub-branches of the concept of symbiosis. In addition, the relationship between a fetus and the woman within which it resides is one in which the fetus acquires resources from the woman within which it resides, regardless of whether she wishes the situation to continue. This by itself would be sufficient grounds to establish the comparison, but there are also a wide variety of potentially harmful physiological alterations that would not otherwise occur were the fetus not present.

Also, I note how you speak of the 'symbiont' being 'welcomed' into the body of the other. It would seem that you are attributing an act of will to a largely incidental process. Why one might come to the conclusion that you're saying 'consent' is the critical distinction!

Hmm.

[Aelex]

And in your own rant you evidence a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of symbiosis that loudly declares your own inability to do research.

Symbiosis is a blanket term, bucko. Mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism are sub-branches of the concept of symbiosis. In addition, the relationship between a fetus and the woman within which it resides is one in which the fetus acquires resources from the woman within which it resides, regardless of whether she wishes the situation to continue. This by itself would be sufficient grounds to establish the comparison, but there are also a wide variety of potentially harmful physiological alterations that would not otherwise occur were the fetus not present.

Also, I note how you speak of the 'symbiont' being 'welcomed' into the body of the other. It would seem that you are attributing an act of will to a largely incidental process. Why one might come to the conclusion that you're saying 'consent' is the critical distinction!

Hmm.

So, in short, you're just going to continue running with this term even if it's inaccurate because it fits more your views. Hum. There really was no need to waste 9 lines in what could be said in a single one, ya know?

And no, the womb evolved specifically to accommodate fetuses with the mother's body voluntarily contributing to the formation of the placenta which itself allow two-way trafficking of metabolites to "feed" the fetus.
It's in this way that the fetus is "welcomed" by the mother's body because, unlike parasites that forcefully steal nutrients from their host and adopt as much countermeasures as they can to avoid retaliation from it, it's the mother's organism that will willingly give him the nutrients it need to grow because he is not a foreign invader like a parasite is but an accepted organism who is in a symbiotic relationship with her.
There is no "act of will" needed there, only a natural reaction that is the result of the woman's body having evolved to share said symbiotic relationship with its baby rather than treating him as it would an actual parasite.

[Wallenburg]

And in your own rant you evidence a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of symbiosis that loudly declares your own inability to do research.

Symbiosis is a blanket term, bucko. Mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism are sub-branches of the concept of symbiosis. In addition, the relationship between a fetus and the woman within which it resides is one in which the fetus acquires resources from the woman within which it resides, regardless of whether she wishes the situation to continue. This by itself would be sufficient grounds to establish the comparison, but there are also a wide variety of potentially harmful physiological alterations that would not otherwise occur were the fetus not present.

Also, I note how you speak of the 'symbiont' being 'welcomed' into the body of the other. It would seem that you are attributing an act of will to a largely incidental process. Why one might come to the conclusion that you're saying 'consent' is the critical distinction!

Hmm.

So, in short, you're just going to continue running with this term even if it's inaccurate because it fits more your views. Hum. There really was no need to waste 9 lines in what could be said in a single one, ya know?

And no, the womb evolved specifically to accommodate fetuses with the mother's body voluntarily contributing to the formation of the placenta which itself allow two-way trafficking of metabolites to "feed" the fetus.
It's in this way that the fetus is "welcomed" by the mother's body because, unlike parasites that forcefully steal nutrients from their host and adopt as much countermeasures as they can to avoid retaliation from it, it's the mother's organism that will willingly give him the nutrients it need to grow because he is not a foreign invader like a parasite is but an accepted organism who is in a symbiotic relationship with her.
There is no "act of will" needed there, only a natural reaction that is the result of the woman's body having evolved to share said symbiotic relationship with its baby rather than treating him as it would an actual parasite.

A woman's body is also evolved specifically to "welcome" an erect penis through the vagina. That doesn't mean that rape is not a thing.

[Aelex]

A woman's body is also evolved specifically to "welcome" an erect penis through the vagina. That doesn't mean that rape is not a thing.

Magnificent non sequitur but non sequitur nonetheless. We're talking about whether a fetus can be legitimately refereed to as a "parasite" or not.
Rape being "natural" or not has literally nothing to do with the subject at hand.

[Wallenburg]

A woman's body is also evolved specifically to "welcome" an erect penis through the vagina. That doesn't mean that rape is not a thing.

Magnificent non sequitur but non sequitur nonetheless. We're talking about whether a fetus can be legitimately refereed to as a "parasite" or not.
Rape being "natural" or not has literally nothing to do with the subject at hand.

We're talking about the biological design of a human body, and whether it demonstrates a consensual relationship with regard to specific things. This is not a non sequitur.

[Aelex]

We're talking about the biological design of a human body, and whether it demonstrates a consensual relationship with regard to specific things. This is not a non sequitur.

The consensuality of a biological relationship don't define if it is parasitical or not; only a potential adaptation of the host to the symbiote does.
And given that there is simply no denying that the female womb is adapted to the development of a fetus, referring to him as a parasite is therefore indeed stupid.

[Godular]

And in your own rant you evidence a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of symbiosis that loudly declares your own inability to do research.

Symbiosis is a blanket term, bucko. Mutualism, commensalism, and parasitism are sub-branches of the concept of symbiosis. In addition, the relationship between a fetus and the woman within which it resides is one in which the fetus acquires resources from the woman within which it resides, regardless of whether she wishes the situation to continue. This by itself would be sufficient grounds to establish the comparison, but there are also a wide variety of potentially harmful physiological alterations that would not otherwise occur were the fetus not present.

Also, I note how you speak of the 'symbiont' being 'welcomed' into the body of the other. It would seem that you are attributing an act of will to a largely incidental process. Why one might come to the conclusion that you're saying 'consent' is the critical distinction!

Hmm.

So, in short, you're just going to continue running with this term even if it's inaccurate because it fits more your views. Hum. There really was no need to waste 9 lines in what could be said in a single one, ya know?

Not at all, in short: you don't know what the flying fuck you're talking about. Rocks, glass houses, you get the gist... or maybe not.

And no, the womb evolved specifically to accommodate fetuses with the mother's body voluntarily contributing to the formation of the placenta which itself allow two-way trafficking of metabolites to "feed" the fetus.

It's in this way that the fetus is "welcomed" by the mother's body because, unlike parasites that forcefully steal nutrients from their host and adopt as much countermeasures as they can to avoid retaliation from it, it's the mother's organism that will willingly give him the nutrients it need to grow because he is not a foreign invader like a parasite is but an accepted organism who is in a symbiotic relationship with her.
There is no "act of will" needed there, only a natural reaction that is the result of the woman's body having evolved to share said symbiotic relationship with its baby rather than treating him as it would an actual parasite.

And a vagina 'evolved' to accomodate a penis depositing certain uncouth fluids into it, yet we view such an event happening without the woman's consent with the utmost abhorrence and disgust.

To the point that many pro-lifers would allow abortion in such an eventuality.

Just because a function is 'natural' does not make it 'welcomed' if not consented to.

[Knarkrike]

Ven just doesn't seem to understand that, in the case of abortion, there is no way to completely stop or end it - a ban is ineffective. As, long before they were legal, they happened (usually DIY, back-alley or illegal hospital operations).

This is what I've been saying the whole thread and given detailed explanations on why the anti-abortion stance (won't use 'pro-life' because it's a misleading bullshit term implying pro-abortionists are pro-murder) is not a working stance to take and is essentially meaningless self-righteous moral jibber-jabber. I've replied to Venerable directly, but they ignore it. Why do people have to be so goddamn obstinate, when their method to reach their very goal is bad and one which actually reaches their goal is put in its place?