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

[Gormwood]

He's a pro-birth extremist, this is kind've typical at this point.

Pro-birth, unless it's HIS responsibility.

The morally loud Republicans have a habit of being extremely hypocritical. Utter shocker.

[Katganistan]

A lot of Republicans are all for the birth of the child, but fall dramatically short in providing after birth care. Issues such as maternity leave, healthcare for children, and education fall very low on the list of pro-lifers. At this point it almost appears as if they only care about the birth, and stop caring immediately afterwards. So pro-birth seems more apt than pro-life... especially considering many people who oppose abortions support capital punishment.

I agree with the criticism of the Republicans, being a "pro-lifer" myself, I find that the mainstream conservative position is terribly narrow in scope.

Though, I don't see how support for capital punishment is damning, that's a completely different argument.

They have no problem ending a sentient life, but a big problem scraping out non-sapient cells whilst crowing about being pro-life.

Being Pro-Death penalty does seem to oppose the position of being pro-life.

[Katganistan]

It is neither murder nor is the fetus a child. We have been over this repeatedly. Words mean things. You can't just garble words in a sentence and expect to make the slightest bit of sense.

Lies!

Everybody be thinkin' they Lewis Carroll now.

[Katganistan]

Depending on the stages of the development of the fetus the abortive method changes. As I do not know when the cut off mark for the easy, reliable, safe and quick abortion method is I just settled for the first trimester where I know 100% that abortion method works.

Here in the UK such abortions are performed up to 24 weeks, so no need for such a 12 week cutoff point.

US too.

[Katganistan]

The reason for the 24 week cutoff is that consciousness begins and fetal viability goes over 50%.

I respect and understand what your saying but i request that you do the same for my opinion.

Which is:

Abortion on Demand covered by the state for the first trimester and afterwards in case of Medical Complications or Reasonable Grounds.

No, not accepting it.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Meanwhile over in hypocrisy land..

Murphy, a Republican who co-sponsored a 20-week abortion ban that passed in the House Tuesday, allegedly asked his lover to terminate her pregnancy, according to text message records acquired by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported Shannon Edwards, 32, whom Murphy recently admitted to having an affair with, messaged the 65-year-old congressman after an anti-abortion statement was posted on his office’s Facebook account in January.

"And you have zero issue posting your pro-life stance all over the place when you had no issue asking me to abort our unborn child just last week when we thought that was one of the options," allegedly wrote Edwards in a text exchange that was a part of a number of documents obtained by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

"After discussions with my family and staff, I have come to the decision that I will not seek reelection to Congress at the end of my current term," Murphy said in a statement Wednesday evening. "In the coming weeks I will take personal time to seek help as my family and I continue to work through our personal difficulties and seek healing. I ask you to respect our privacy during this time."

.."I ask you to respect our privacy during this time"..

Lol.

Like many politicians, he effectively believes in "rules for thee but not for me."

[Necroghastia]

It is odd that some "pro-lifers" are asking that their opinions be respected and understood, yet their position relies on the denial of respect and understanding towards both science and other people.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

I respect and understand what your saying but i request that you do the same for my opinion.

Which is:

Abortion on Demand covered by the state for the first trimester and afterwards in case of Medical Complications or Reasonable Grounds.

No, not accepting it.

It kinda seems like you're swatting away an olive branch really dismissively.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

It is odd that some "pro-lifers" are asking that their opinions be respected and understood, yet their position relies on the denial of respect and understanding towards both science and other people.

A pro-life position, regardless of its consequences is usually not motivated by hate, malice or malevolence. Treating a non-malicious person as if they were malicious is a bad argument strategy and a bad way to change minds.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

No, not accepting it.

It kinda seems like you're swatting away an olive branch really dismissively.

People who are very left-wing don't take olive branches.

[Gormwood]

It is odd that some "pro-lifers" are asking that their opinions be respected and understood, yet their position relies on the denial of respect and understanding towards both science and other people.

A pro-life position, regardless of its consequences is usually not motivated by hate, malice or malevolence. Treating a non-malicious person as if they were malicious is a bad argument strategy and a bad way to change minds.

Less active malice than detached indifference, as exhibited by the habit of also supporting the dismantling of social safety nets at the same time.

[The Alma Mater]

It is odd that some "pro-lifers" are asking that their opinions be respected and understood, yet their position relies on the denial of respect and understanding towards both science and other people.

A pro-life position, regardless of its consequences is usually not motivated by hate, malice or malevolence.

Actually, the hundreds of topics on this subject suggest that the motive in most cases boils down to "women should keep their legs together and deserve punishment" and almost never about the wellbeing of children.

[Luna Amore]

Well? It would seem tracking is needed versus claiming what might/could happen. People argue over the rape numbers and if its an epidemic. Injecting we need laws around abortion over it? Hmmm? I need to see the numbers. I suspect that part is an anomaly. One could offer the women who end up getting pregnant tend to get an abortion.

The true battle is to get society to accept it happens and not "congratulate" or admonish men for being a victim.

But we force raped men to become fathers. We have court cases on this exact subject, where the court knew and confirmed the victim was raped, and made them become a legal father anyway.

Does that mean that people are pro rape because we allow this?

My point is that just because a person doesn't believe there should be exceptions for rape and incest on abortion does not mean a person is pro rape and incest. It just means they're really really against abortion. That's it.

This exactly. Cases of rape are the most uncomfortable and inconvenient aspect of a pro-life stance. If it's a child, it's a child no matter how it was created. It's the only logically consistent pro-life stance. It doesn't mean I'm pro-rape (who in their right minds is?), it means I have accepted the logical end to my argument.

The secondary question that comes up is about government assistance. I can see why in normal cases, staunch Libertarian types would be against government assistance. I disagree and think assistance should be available in all cases because I think we as a society should be willing to help the most dependant members of our society regardless of how we may feel about their parents. In the cases of rape however, it shouldn't be a debate. It should be guaranteed and plentiful. If we can't rally behind helping an individual who has already suffered that level of trauma, we've failed as a society.

The conversation is a naturally charged one and I really don't think it helps when incendiary terms get used. Despite being pro-life myself, I'm not going to refer to the opposition as 'anti-life' or 'pro-abortion' because those aren't accurate descriptions of what people actually believe. It's immediately starting an already charged conversation on a confrontational foot. It just doesn't make sense to me.

I looked at some stuff and I am gonna pass on that the fetus is way too much formed to ethically be aborted. At least in my opinion.

The reason for the 24 week cutoff is that consciousness begins and fetal viability goes over 50%.

Consciousness would presumably be fixed there at 24 weeks. Fetuses probably aren't going to start gaining consciousness sooner. Viability will only get better with time. If the viability numbers for lower week counts creep past 50%, would you support lowering the week count cutoff?

At 23 weeks it has no consciousness. You know if you give it a week and it will become a conscious human. How do you disconnect the act of aborting it at 23 weeks with the fact that if you hadn't it almost certainly would have become a conscious human had you done nothing? How do you disconnect the act of aborting the process with aborting the human that would have existed in a week? I am obviously biased here, but it would still feel like killing a human to me either way because the odds of it surviving that week into personhood would be quite high.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

A pro-life position, regardless of its consequences is usually not motivated by hate, malice or malevolence.

Actually, the hundreds of topics on this subject suggest that the motive in most cases boils down to "women should keep their legs together and deserve punishment" and almost never about the wellbeing of children.

I don't think that's the case. Most pro-life people I know argue for it based on the wellbeing of the child, so I have no recourse but to either call them liars or to conclude that the majority of pro-lifers have good intentions.

[The Alma Mater]

At 23 weeks it has no consciousness. You know if you give it a week and it will become a conscious human. How do you disconnect the act of aborting it at 23 weeks with the fact that if you hadn't it almost certainly would have become a conscious human had you done nothing? How do you disconnect the act of aborting the process with aborting the human that would have existed in a week? I am obviously biased here, but it would still feel like killing a human to me either way because the odds of it surviving that week into personhood would be quite high.

You do not disconnect it - you just reason from the point of view of the fetus.
Before it has conciousness - it has no view. From its view never having been conceived and being aborted is the same thing.
Once it has conciousness, it is not.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Actually, the hundreds of topics on this subject suggest that the motive in most cases boils down to "women should keep their legs together and deserve punishment" and almost never about the wellbeing of children.

I don't think that's the case. Most pro-life people I know argue for it based on the wellbeing of the child, so I have no recourse but to either call them liars or to conclude that the majority of pro-lifers have good intentions.

You must be familiar with different people than the rest of us.

[The New California Republic]

If the viability numbers for lower week counts creep past 50%, would you support lowering the week count cutoff?

People here and in previous threads, myself included, have agreed that if there was some breakthrough in technology whereby the fetus could be removed from the woman at any stage of pregnancy and still survive then the entire abortion debate will become moot. That said, it's hard to see fetal viability improve much more without said technological breakthrough.

How do you disconnect the act of aborting it at 23 weeks with the fact that if you hadn't it almost certainly would have become a conscious human had you done nothing?

Barring anything untoward happening, that argument could feasibly be used at any point in the pregnancy though, so it doesn't make a difference whether it's at 1 week or 23 weeks.

[Necroghastia]

It is odd that some "pro-lifers" are asking that their opinions be respected and understood, yet their position relies on the denial of respect and understanding towards both science and other people.

A pro-life position, regardless of its consequences is usually not motivated by hate, malice or malevolence. Treating a non-malicious person as if they were malicious is a bad argument strategy and a bad way to change minds.

Did I mention those motivations? I am merely saying that the position is ignorant of facts, and hinges more on sentiments regarding idea of a potential person than the well-being of an actual person. Certainly there are malicious pro-lifers, but I believe ignorance is a larger issue, especially willful ignorance when acknowledgement of facts would contradict beliefs.

[Luna Amore]

I agree with the criticism of the Republicans, being a "pro-lifer" myself, I find that the mainstream conservative position is terribly narrow in scope.

Though, I don't see how support for capital punishment is damning, that's a completely different argument.

They have no problem ending a sentient life, but a big problem scraping out non-sapient cells whilst crowing about being pro-life.

Being Pro-Death penalty does seem to oppose the position of being pro-life.

Not really, as most pro-lifer positions are anti-abortion due to seeing the fetus or embryo as an innocent being or soul (if they're religious) and abortion as an undeserved death. Pro-death penalty is targeted at criminals, usually ones who've committed heinous crimes.

[Galloism]

This exactly. Cases of rape are the most uncomfortable and inconvenient aspect of a pro-life stance. If it's a child, it's a child no matter how it was created. It's the only logically consistent pro-life stance. It doesn't mean I'm pro-rape (who in their right minds is?), it means I have accepted the logical end to my argument.

To be honest, this is the only consistent pro-life position. It doesn't mean I agree with you, far from it, but at least your argument here is internally consistent.

Consciousness would presumably be fixed there at 24 weeks. Fetuses probably aren't going to start gaining consciousness sooner. Viability will only get better with time. If the viability numbers for lower week counts creep past 50%, would you support lowering the week count cutoff?

At 23 weeks it has no consciousness. You know if you give it a week and it will become a conscious human. How do you disconnect the act of aborting it at 23 weeks with the fact that if you hadn't it almost certainly would have become a conscious human had you done nothing? How do you disconnect the act of aborting the process with aborting the human that would have existed in a week? I am obviously biased here, but it would still feel like killing a human to me either way because the odds of it surviving that week into personhood would be quite high.

This does bring us to the notion of artificial wombs. I always have a healthy bit of skepticism when the medical industry says something is "ten years away"...

However, the technology is progressing, and, as you say, it's only going to get better. What do we do, as a position, when we can extract the bundle of cells and grow it into a human in a really cool metal cylinder where they float buoyantly?

At least, I hope that's how we do it, as that would make the best dystopian/scientific documentary films.

[The New California Republic]

Not really, as most pro-lifer positions are anti-abortion due to seeing the fetus or embryo as an innocent being or soul (if they're religious) and abortion as an undeserved death. Pro-death penalty is targeted at criminals, usually ones who've committed heinous crimes.

There is still an inherent contradiction in the same person being on the one hand pro-life and on the other hand pro-death penalty.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Not really, as most pro-lifer positions are anti-abortion due to seeing the fetus or embryo as an innocent being or soul (if they're religious) and abortion as an undeserved death. Pro-death penalty is targeted at criminals, usually ones who've committed heinous crimes.

Perhaps it's off topic, perhaps it's not, but there are a lot of people who get executed even though they were innocent, and I certainly haven't seen much overlap in the Venn diagram of "people who want abortions banned" and "people who want criminal justice reform".

[The New California Republic]

This does bring us to the notion of artificial wombs. I always have a healthy bit of skepticism when the medical industry says something is "ten years away"...

However, the technology is progressing, and, as you say, it's only going to get better. What do we do, as a position, when we can extract the bundle of cells and grow it into a human in a really cool metal cylinder where they float buoyantly?

At least, I hope that's how we do it, as that would make the best dystopian/scientific documentary films.

Yup. It is probably one of the only things that is going to end the abortion debate once and for all, i.e. where it becomes a non-issue. However, even in that case there would still be the issue of who is going to take care of the many thousands of extra children...

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

This does bring us to the notion of artificial wombs. I always have a healthy bit of skepticism when the medical industry says something is "ten years away"...

However, the technology is progressing, and, as you say, it's only going to get better. What do we do, as a position, when we can extract the bundle of cells and grow it into a human in a really cool metal cylinder where they float buoyantly?

At least, I hope that's how we do it, as that would make the best dystopian/scientific documentary films.

Yup. It is probably one of the only things that is going to end the abortion debate once and for all, i.e. where it becomes a non-issue. However, even in that case there would still be the issue of who is going to take care of the many thousands of extra children...

If I were to guess, I'd say that the equivalent to the pro-life camp would be people who want the woman to pay for the artificial womb and then take care of the child once it's "born". That and people who want to ban artificial wombs.

[Gormwood]

I agree with the criticism of the Republicans, being a "pro-lifer" myself, I find that the mainstream conservative position is terribly narrow in scope.

Though, I don't see how support for capital punishment is damning, that's a completely different argument.

They have no problem ending a sentient life, but a big problem scraping out non-sapient cells whilst crowing about being pro-life.

Being Pro-Death penalty does seem to oppose the position of being pro-life.

Not really, as most pro-lifer positions are anti-abortion due to seeing the fetus or embryo as an innocent being or soul (if they're religious) and abortion as an undeserved death. Pro-death penalty is targeted at criminals, usually ones who've committed heinous crimes.[/quote]
Nevermind the tendency for high rates of wrongful conviction on death row.