[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Jebslund]

Gotta birth and raise that rape baby without government support as God Intended.

I mean, you're being hyperbolic of course, but I don't see what ethical basis there is for the rape exception to abortion, provided you start with the axiom that abortion is banned because the fetus has a right to live.

Why does a rape fetus not have the right? What did it do that it loses the right that the other fetuses have? That's never been clearly explained.

It's disingenuous face-saving meant to make their position seem more palatable.

[Alouite]

I mean, you're being hyperbolic of course, but I don't see what ethical basis there is for the rape exception to abortion, provided you start with the axiom that abortion is banned because the fetus has a right to live.

Why does a rape fetus not have the right? What did it do that it loses the right that the other fetuses have? That's never been clearly explained.

It's disingenuous face-saving meant to make their position seem more palatable.

It also is often disingenuous as it is usually stated by people who are actually not making that specific exception but are for abortion until the point of birth in order to make pro-life people look like they revel in making victims of rape suffer through a traumatic pregnancy rather than having a principled position based upon the sanctity of life.

[Galloism]

It's disingenuous face-saving meant to make their position seem more palatable.

It also is often disingenuous as it is usually stated by people who are actually not making that specific exception but are for abortion until the point of birth in order to make pro-life people look like they revel in making victims of rape suffer through a traumatic pregnancy rather than having a principled position based upon the sanctity of life.

What?

[Jebslund]

It's disingenuous face-saving meant to make their position seem more palatable.

It also is often disingenuous as it is usually stated by people who are actually not making that specific exception but are for abortion until the point of birth in order to make pro-life people look like they revel in making victims of rape suffer through a traumatic pregnancy rather than having a principled position based upon the sanctity of life.

You know, I was wondering when that Scotsman was going to show up...

[Alouite]

It also is often disingenuous as it is usually stated by people who are actually not making that specific exception but are for abortion until the point of birth in order to make pro-life people look like they revel in making victims of rape suffer through a traumatic pregnancy rather than having a principled position based upon the sanctity of life.

What?

I am essentially agreeing with your point, insofar as that the 'rape' exception for abortion is a farce and does not contribute to a dialogue on the subject. If abortion is the taking of a human life, then regardless of how the child is conceived that would remain the case.

[Alouite]

It also is often disingenuous as it is usually stated by people who are actually not making that specific exception but are for abortion until the point of birth in order to make pro-life people look like they revel in making victims of rape suffer through a traumatic pregnancy rather than having a principled position based upon the sanctity of life.

You know, I was wondering when that Scotsman was going to show up...

What do you mean?

[Galloism]

What?

I am essentially agreeing with your point, insofar as that the 'rape' exception for abortion is a farce and does not contribute to a dialogue on the subject. If abortion is the taking of a human life, then regardless of how the child is conceived that would remain the case.

That’s a more honest position, to be fair.

Naturally I disagree with it, but it’s more honest.

[Jebslund]

You know, I was wondering when that Scotsman was going to show up...

What do you mean?

No True Scotsman fallacy. They can't be Pro-Life because no true Pro-Lifer would say that!

[Alouite]

I am essentially agreeing with your point, insofar as that the 'rape' exception for abortion is a farce and does not contribute to a dialogue on the subject. If abortion is the taking of a human life, then regardless of how the child is conceived that would remain the case.

That’s a more honest position, to be fair.

Naturally I disagree with it, but it’s more honest.

Right, personally I am unsure where I really fall on the issue because it is such a tenuous one. I have in the past found myself leaning heavily in either direction on the Pro-Choice - Pro-Life debate. Lately I am starting to see scientific arguments that prove that there is a loss of life involved in abortion sway me towards the Pro-Life spectrum, but I am hardly an activist at the moment and am open to a dialogue on the matter.

[Godular]

That’s a more honest position, to be fair.

Naturally I disagree with it, but it’s more honest.

Right, personally I am unsure where I really fall on the issue because it is such a tenuous one. I have in the past found myself leaning heavily in either direction on the Pro-Choice - Pro-Life debate. Lately I am starting to see scientific arguments that prove that there is a loss of life involved in abortion sway me towards the Pro-Life spectrum, but I am hardly an activist at the moment and am open to a dialogue on the matter.

There is a loss of life in a great many things that we consider to be otherwise perfectly justifiable.

[Alouite]

What do you mean?

No True Scotsman fallacy. They can't be Pro-Life because no true Pro-Lifer would say that!

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying that it misses the point as the moral question is whether an abortion constitutes an immoral loss of life. The manner of conception is irrelevant if it is an immoral loss of life. To elaborate, a child born as a product of rape and a child born as a product of consensual intercourse both have the same 'right to life' because we as a society would deem anything to the contrary an immoral loss of life. I am not personally invested in gatekeeping for the pro-life movement, I just think the whole notion that one would make exceptions like rape are arbitrary and ultimately either a product of expediency or are actually pro-choice people making the argument in an attempt to undercut the moral principles behind a pro-life argument.

[Godular]

No True Scotsman fallacy. They can't be Pro-Life because no true Pro-Lifer would say that!

That wasn't what I was saying at all. I was saying that it misses the point as the moral question is whether an abortion constitutes an immoral loss of life. The manner of conception is irrelevant if it is an immoral loss of life. To elaborate, a child born as a product of rape and a child born as a product of consensual intercourse both have the same 'right to life' because we as a society would deem anything to the contrary an immoral loss of life. I am not personally invested in gatekeeping for the pro-life movement, I just think the whole notion that one would make exceptions like rape are arbitrary and ultimately either a product of expediency or are actually pro-choice people making the argument in an attempt to undercut the moral principles behind a pro-life argument.

Have to agree on this part.

[Alouite]

Right, personally I am unsure where I really fall on the issue because it is such a tenuous one. I have in the past found myself leaning heavily in either direction on the Pro-Choice - Pro-Life debate. Lately I am starting to see scientific arguments that prove that there is a loss of life involved in abortion sway me towards the Pro-Life spectrum, but I am hardly an activist at the moment and am open to a dialogue on the matter.

There is a loss of life in a great many things that we consider to be otherwise perfectly justifiable.

That there is. I suppose I should have underlined that what bothers me personally about it is the fact that it is a loss of a human life that, uninhibited, would likely have gone on to be recognizable by both of us as an infant after birth. Keep in mind, this is my opinion, I am not trying to persuade you guys to join me in a pro-life worldview as I myself am not wholly settled in it.

[Galloism]

That’s a more honest position, to be fair.

Naturally I disagree with it, but it’s more honest.

Right, personally I am unsure where I really fall on the issue because it is such a tenuous one. I have in the past found myself leaning heavily in either direction on the Pro-Choice - Pro-Life debate. Lately I am starting to see scientific arguments that prove that there is a loss of life involved in abortion sway me towards the Pro-Life spectrum, but I am hardly an activist at the moment and am open to a dialogue on the matter.

I would argue there is a loss of human life honestly, and abortion should be discouraged and alternatives researched/provided as much as practical.

But no person has a right to another person’s body.

[Godular]

There is a loss of life in a great many things that we consider to be otherwise perfectly justifiable.

That there is. I suppose I should have underlined that what bothers me personally about it is the fact that it is a loss of a human life that, uninhibited, would likely have gone on to be recognizable by both of us as an infant after birth. Keep in mind, this is my opinion, I am not trying to persuade you guys to join me in a pro-life worldview as I myself am not wholly settled in it.

I suppose it all comes down to a matter of quality versus quantity.

The only problem is that the two need not be at odds.

[The Free Joy State]

There is a loss of life in a great many things that we consider to be otherwise perfectly justifiable.

That there is. I suppose I should have underlined that what bothers me personally about it is the fact that it is a loss of a human life that, uninhibited, would likely have gone on to be recognizable by both of us as an infant after birth. Keep in mind, this is my opinion, I am not trying to persuade you guys to join me in a pro-life worldview as I myself am not wholly settled in it.

I agree that the foetus is human and that the foetus' life is lost through terminations.

Women should be supported (financially and socially) to keep their foetuses, if that is what is encouraging them to abort (and they would otherwise choose to keep their pregnancy), foster care should be invested in for women who would choose adoption (it should be anyway, it's a disaster).

But, to me, it comes down to one thing: you can't deprive a person of their bodily sovereignty, and force them to submit to something against their will. Many legal principles are founded on this.

I do have to ask, although I know you're not wholly decided on your view, what your current feeling on abortions for medical reasons are?

[Alouite]

That there is. I suppose I should have underlined that what bothers me personally about it is the fact that it is a loss of a human life that, uninhibited, would likely have gone on to be recognizable by both of us as an infant after birth. Keep in mind, this is my opinion, I am not trying to persuade you guys to join me in a pro-life worldview as I myself am not wholly settled in it.

I agree that the foetus is human and that the foetus' life is lost through terminations.

Women should be supported (financially and socially) to keep their foetuses, if that is what is encouraging them to abort (and they would otherwise choose to keep their pregnancy), foster care should be invested in for women who would choose adoption (it should be anyway, it's a disaster).

But, to me, it comes down to one thing: you can't deprive a person of their bodily sovereignty, and force them to submit to something against their will. Many legal principles are founded on this.

I do have to ask, although I know you're not wholly decided on your view, what your current feeling on abortions for medical reasons are?

That is the exact question that makes it hard for me to commit to a dogmatic pro-life position. If there was a serious medical risk to the mother's survival, then there is a case to be made about an exception. If you have to give up one life to prevent the most-certain death of one and potential death of both, the morality of it is arguably skewed in favor of making such a difficult decision. Yet, such an action does get into morally grey territory. After all it goes to the philosophical territory of whether actively taking a life is different from allowing nature (or for the religious, fate) to take its course. There have been cases where women decided to risk their lives to carry their baby to term and still survived. And then again there have been cases where the law prohibited a woman from getting an abortion in a case where she was at risk, and both the mother and infant died as a consequence. It isn't a question I have any pretense of holding authority over, and that is why I most certainly am not going to be running for office or leading political rallies surrounding the issue of abortion anytime soon.

[Alouite]

Right, personally I am unsure where I really fall on the issue because it is such a tenuous one. I have in the past found myself leaning heavily in either direction on the Pro-Choice - Pro-Life debate. Lately I am starting to see scientific arguments that prove that there is a loss of life involved in abortion sway me towards the Pro-Life spectrum, but I am hardly an activist at the moment and am open to a dialogue on the matter.

I would argue there is a loss of human life honestly, and abortion should be discouraged and alternatives researched/provided as much as practical.

But no person has a right to another person’s body.

I agree that it ought be discouraged and alternatives ought to be sought and provided to pregnant women. However, while I agree with the principle that no person has a right to another person's body, I also know from speaking with pro-life people who are far more committed to their worldview than I that they don't see the fetus as being a part of the woman's body but instead as a separate person dependent on the mother. They will often point to how, in nature, babies remained dependent on the mother for milk and nourishment post birth for most of human history and that while one occurs inside the body and the other occurs outside of it, the two are analogous. I don't ask you to agree with that sentiment, but only to understand that people who really feel a heavy moral weight regarding abortion do feel that way. In fact, might say that an abortion is the mother proclaiming a right to determine life or death over the body of her unborn infant.

[The Free Joy State]

I would argue there is a loss of human life honestly, and abortion should be discouraged and alternatives researched/provided as much as practical.

But no person has a right to another person’s body.

I agree that it ought be discouraged and alternatives ought to be sought and provided to pregnant women. However, while I agree with the principle that no person has a right to another person's body, I also know from speaking with pro-life people who are far more committed to their worldview than I that they don't see the fetus as being a part of the woman's body but instead as a separate person dependent on the mother. They will often point to how, in nature, babies remained dependent on the mother for milk and nourishment post birth for most of human history and that while one occurs inside the body and the other occurs outside of it, the two are analogous. I don't ask you to agree with that sentiment, but only to understand that people who really feel a heavy moral weight regarding abortion do feel that way. In fact, might say that an abortion is the mother proclaiming a right to determine life or death over the body of her unborn infant.

First, I think we need to look at some definitions.

Human and person are different.

A human is:

a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)

A person is:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

A foetus is a bipedal mammal of the species homo sapiens, but it has not yet been born alive.

Second, the foetus' dependancy on the mother and the baby's are completely different.

The foetus is using the mother's blood and organs and is tied to her. The foetus' presence can cause health complications and even death (26.4 women in the USA, per 100,000 live births die -- higher than the rest of the developed world)

The mother with the young baby can surrender her child to foster care immediately if she does not wish to care for it. She is not likely to haemorrhage or have a uterine rupture while caring for her born baby.

Third, I think it's sad that the foetus dies (you will find few, if any, pro-choice people who love abortion), it would be worse to start carving out exemptions for bodily autonomy, if the law said, "People can have bodily autonomy... unless they belong to this group."

Consider this analogy (which is closer than the foetus and newborn): if you are the only relative alive able to give another relative bone marrow to save their life (and they will die without it; certainly), are you obliged to give them that bone marrow and so maintain their life... even if you don't want to?

No. McFall v. Shimp, 1978.

[Alouite]

I agree that it ought be discouraged and alternatives ought to be sought and provided to pregnant women. However, while I agree with the principle that no person has a right to another person's body, I also know from speaking with pro-life people who are far more committed to their worldview than I that they don't see the fetus as being a part of the woman's body but instead as a separate person dependent on the mother. They will often point to how, in nature, babies remained dependent on the mother for milk and nourishment post birth for most of human history and that while one occurs inside the body and the other occurs outside of it, the two are analogous. I don't ask you to agree with that sentiment, but only to understand that people who really feel a heavy moral weight regarding abortion do feel that way. In fact, might say that an abortion is the mother proclaiming a right to determine life or death over the body of her unborn infant.

First, I think we need to look at some definitions.

Human and person are different.

A human is:

a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)

A person is:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

A foetus is a bipedal mammal, but it has not yet been born alive.

Second, the foetus' dependancy on the mother and the baby's are completely different.

The foetus is using the mother's blood and organs and is tied to her. The foetus' presence can cause health complications and even death (26.4 women in the USA, per 1000 live births die -- higher than the rest of the developed world)

The mother with the young baby can surrender her child to foster care immediately if she does not wish to care for it. She is not likely to haemorrhage or have a uterine prolapse while caring for her born baby.

Third, I think it's sad that the foetus dies (you will find few, if any, pro-choice people who love abortion), it would be worse to start carving out exemptions for bodily autonomy, if the law said, "People can have bodily autonomy... unless they belong to this group."

Consider this analogy (which is closer than the foetus and newborn): if you are the only relative alive able to give another relative bone marrow to save their life (and they will die without it; certainly), are you obliged to give them that bone marrow and so maintain their life... even if you don't want to?

No. McFall v. Shimp, 1978.

Well said, and it is good to finally see pro-choice people who aren't celebrating abortion or encouraging it to be used as frequently as possible or as a form of birth control in the manner in which I have seen some cultural figures and politicians do. In fact at my college I had a lecturer brag about having multiple abortions and encouraging the young women present to have their own as a sign of 'women's liberation', but I digress.

So, for one thing, the analogy told to me (and I cannot say it as well as someone who is better versed on the subject could), was that historically, as in before the invention of the bottle and formula milk and so forth, the baby had just a great dependence on a mother to survive after being born as the baby did prior (i.e. the baby needed the milk, nourishment and care in the same way the baby needed support from the mother's body prior to being born). The analogy wasn't so much about medical risks the mother faced as it was about the autonomy of the baby pre and post birth.

As for the case regarding bone marrow transplants, I see what you mean, and that is certainly another moral predicament where a life is on the line. However, the difference lies in that in that in many abortions, the mother is not at risk and is making the decision for economic reasons, for the purpose of personal expediency (e.g. to pursue a career, to not have the responsibilities of a mother, to please parents unhappy with the father of the child, etc.), or as a form of birth control. Again, I am not the right person to debate with over the most extreme medical cases regarding abortion because it isn't one that I am fully prepared for. However, I will say that there are nuanced arguments both pro-life and pro-choice in such cases, and I will say that there are cases where that entire weight of the mother's life being on the line does not apply and that those cases of expediency are of a wholly different nature insofar as the moral trade-off is concerned. In the case where the mother is pursuing the abortion out of expediency, I would argue, that is not justifiable (though I do personally believe that society should provide assistance for low-income and young mothers to ensure they and their child have a proper quality of life and recognize that currently having a child can greatly alter a woman's life).

[The Free Joy State]

First, I think we need to look at some definitions.

Human and person are different.

A human is:

a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens)

A person is:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

A foetus is a bipedal mammal, but it has not yet been born alive.

Second, the foetus' dependancy on the mother and the baby's are completely different.

The foetus is using the mother's blood and organs and is tied to her. The foetus' presence can cause health complications and even death (26.4 women in the USA, per 1000 live births die -- higher than the rest of the developed world)

The mother with the young baby can surrender her child to foster care immediately if she does not wish to care for it. She is not likely to haemorrhage or have a uterine prolapse while caring for her born baby.

Third, I think it's sad that the foetus dies (you will find few, if any, pro-choice people who love abortion), it would be worse to start carving out exemptions for bodily autonomy, if the law said, "People can have bodily autonomy... unless they belong to this group."

Consider this analogy (which is closer than the foetus and newborn): if you are the only relative alive able to give another relative bone marrow to save their life (and they will die without it; certainly), are you obliged to give them that bone marrow and so maintain their life... even if you don't want to?

No. McFall v. Shimp, 1978.

Well said, and it is good to finally see pro-choice people who aren't celebrating abortion or encouraging it to be used as frequently as possible or as a form of birth control in the manner in which I have seen some cultural figures and politicians do. In fact at my college I had a lecturer brag about having multiple abortions and encouraging the young women present to have their own as a sign of 'women's liberation', but I digress.

Have you ever heard the quote: "Abortion should be legal, safe and rare"?

My views are fairly mainstream among the pro-choice people I've met. I've never met anyone personally who views abortion as a mandatory experience for the modern woman -- I've heard of celebrities out to shock, but celebrities out for airtime don't make up the core of a movement (anymore than many in the pro-life movement, I imagine, wants to be linked with Rush Limbaugh and his "Birth Control is for Sluts" T-shirt).

So, for one thing, the analogy told to me (and I cannot say it as well as someone who is better versed on the subject could), was that historically, as in before the invention of the bottle and formula milk and so forth, the baby had just a great dependence on a mother to survive after being born as the baby did prior (i.e. the baby needed the milk, nourishment and care in the same way the baby needed support from the mother's body prior to being born). The analogy wasn't so much about medical risks the mother faced as it was about the autonomy of the baby pre and post birth.

Even before formula milk, there were wet nurses (dating back to around 2000 BCE) and nannies in middle and upper-class families. In the industrial revolution, children of poorer workers were often sent to be reared by peasant women.

The idea that mothers always reared their baby is a myth.

As for the case regarding bone marrow transplants, I see what you mean, and that is certainly another moral predicament where a life is on the line. However, the difference lies in that in that in many abortions, the mother is not at risk and is making the decision for economic reasons, for the purpose of personal expediency (e.g. to pursue a career, to not have the responsibilities of a mother, to please parents unhappy with the father of the child, etc.), or as a form of birth control. Again, I am not the right person to debate with over the most extreme medical cases regarding abortion because it isn't one that I am fully prepared for. However, I will say that there are nuanced arguments both pro-life and pro-choice in such cases, and I will say that there are cases where that entire weight of the mother's life being on the line does not apply and that those cases of expediency are of a wholly different nature insofar as the moral trade-off is concerned. In the case where the mother is pursuing the abortion out of expediency, I would argue, that is not justifiable (though I do personally believe that society should provide assistance for low-income and young mothers to ensure they and their child have a proper quality of life and recognize that currently having a child can greatly alter a woman's life).

The argument was about the bodily autonomy of the person who didn't want to donate. A donation probably would not have risked their life, but they did not wish to do so. The only life at stake in the scenario was that of the person who needed the donation and would die.

Should the bodily autonomy of the person who did not want to donate his bone marrow have been overridden, forcing him to donate to his relative (the relative that would die)?

EDIT: And abortion as birth control is a myth. The majority of women were using birth control when they became pregnant.

[Galloism]

As for the case regarding bone marrow transplants, I see what you mean, and that is certainly another moral predicament where a life is on the line. However, the difference lies in that in that in many abortions, the mother is not at risk and is making the decision for economic reasons, for the purpose of personal expediency (e.g. to pursue a career, to not have the responsibilities of a mother, to please parents unhappy with the father of the child, etc.), or as a form of birth control. Again, I am not the right person to debate with over the most extreme medical cases regarding abortion because it isn't one that I am fully prepared for. However, I will say that there are nuanced arguments both pro-life and pro-choice in such cases, and I will say that there are cases where that entire weight of the mother's life being on the line does not apply and that those cases of expediency are of a wholly different nature insofar as the moral trade-off is concerned. In the case where the mother is pursuing the abortion out of expediency, I would argue, that is not justifiable (though I do personally believe that society should provide assistance for low-income and young mothers to ensure they and their child have a proper quality of life and recognize that currently having a child can greatly alter a woman's life).

It’s worth note bone marrow donation is exceptionally low risk compared with pregnancy.

Severe Side Effects/Risks
According to the National Marrow Donor Program, 2.4% of people who donate bone marrow experience a serious complication. Very few bone marrow donors suffer any long-term complications from their donation.

Around the world, researchers looked at over 27,000 people who had donated bone marrow in 35 countries. Of these people, there was one death and 12 serious events (mostly heart related) that were felt to be related to bone marrow donation.

And the “inconvenience” is much lower.

Mild Side Effects/Risks
After donating bone marrow you may be sore in the region of your hip for a week or slightly more. Among those who donated bone marrow as part of the National Marrow Donor Program, the majority of people experienced some back and hip pain for a few days, as well as fatigue. Side effects of anesthesia may also include a sore throat and nausea.


The procedure may be done as an outpatient, or you may spend a few days in the hospital. Some medical centers recommend taking 7 to 10 days off of work following the procedure, but some people feel up to returning to work much sooner. The median time (that is, the time after which 50% of people had and 50% hadn't) to get completely back to "normal" was 20 days.

https://www.verywellhealth.com/the-risk ... ow-2252482

There’s no real argument that makes forced pregnancy allowable that makes forced marrow donation disallowable.

[Generic Authoritarian State]

I'm all for abortion if it means the complete extinction of the human race comes quicker.

[Genivaria]

I'm all for abortion if it means the complete extinction of the human race comes quicker.

Everyone in the thread just got cut from that edge.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I'm all for abortion if it means the complete extinction of the human race comes quicker.

Everyone in the thread just got cut from that edge.

Seen worse *ahem* child rape apologists... *ahem*
Anyway back to abortion.