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

[Estanglia]

There is a bit of inconsistency on whether or not the fetus is defined as a person, but I don't think that that's enough of a reason to call it that.
It might be evidence that it being/not being a person isn't conclusive and definite claims to either side are incorrect (and I'd be willing to admit that), but then there'd be no possibility of anyone saying it is or isn't a person. The pro-lifers can't call it a person, the pro-choicers can't call it a non-person.

Regardless, whether or not the fetus is a person doesn't particularly affect our arguments, considering most of them don't hinge on the fetus not being a person.



They are human, sure, but them being a person is at best a 'maybe', not a definite 'yes'.

That really depends on what your definition of person is. If it's the common lay definition of person, they are most definitely persons, because person and human are equivalent.

If it's the legal definition of persons, they are probably persons, or at least probably persons after some point when crimes against a person can happen against them. But then again, in legal definitions, corporations are persons, brain dead (but still alive) humans are persons, governments are persons, and certain retirement accounts are persons and none of them possess any intelligence at all, so that may not be the best metric ever.

I do also recall UK law mentioning people having to be born, but legal definitions aren't 100% perfect (as the 'corporations are people' thing shows).

the lay definition also isn't perfect, as 'theory' in the common definition of the word and a scientific 'theory' aren't the same. This could be one of the scenarios where the common use of a word and its meaning (or one of its meanings) aren't the same, so the case could be made that the common definition is incorrect.

Some dictionaries define human as a synonym of person, some have person and human being share each other in their definitions (i.e Human being = a person, person = a human being), which creates a loop of definitions.

It's a bit complex, to say the least.

[Godular]

That really depends on what your definition of person is. If it's the common lay definition of person, they are most definitely persons, because person and human are equivalent.

If it's the legal definition of persons, they are probably persons, or at least probably persons after some point when crimes against a person can happen against them. But then again, in legal definitions, corporations are persons, brain dead (but still alive) humans are persons, governments are persons, and certain retirement accounts are persons and none of them possess any intelligence at all, so that may not be the best metric ever.

I do also recall UK law mentioning people having to be born, but legal definitions aren't 100% perfect (as the 'corporations are people' thing shows).

the lay definition also isn't perfect, as 'theory' in the common definition of the word and a scientific 'theory' aren't the same. This could be one of the scenarios where the common use of a word and its meaning (or one of its meanings) aren't the same, so the case could be made that the common definition is incorrect.

Some dictionaries define human as a synonym of person, some have person and human being share each other in their definitions (i.e Human being = a person, person = a human being), which creates a loop of definitions.

It's a bit complex, to say the least.

I just wish that folks would realize that in the greater scheme of things, personhood is something of a moot concern. That goes for both sides, too. Every time I see someone say the fetus isn’t alive I want to kick an angel in the nuts.

[Estanglia]

I do also recall UK law mentioning people having to be born, but legal definitions aren't 100% perfect (as the 'corporations are people' thing shows).

the lay definition also isn't perfect, as 'theory' in the common definition of the word and a scientific 'theory' aren't the same. This could be one of the scenarios where the common use of a word and its meaning (or one of its meanings) aren't the same, so the case could be made that the common definition is incorrect.

Some dictionaries define human as a synonym of person, some have person and human being share each other in their definitions (i.e Human being = a person, person = a human being), which creates a loop of definitions.

It's a bit complex, to say the least.

I just wish that folks would realize that in the greater scheme of things, personhood is something of a moot concern. That goes for both sides, too. Every time I see someone say the fetus isn’t alive I want to kick an angel in the nuts.

It's largely irrelevant to the pro-choice side, considering most of our arguments apply regardless of the personhood status of the fetus.
It's potentially irrelevant to the pro-life side, if the argument is that life shouldn't be ended if it doesn't have to be (and personhood isn't needed for something to be alive).

The focus on whether or not it is a person is kind of pointless. It's probably not gonna convince a pro-choicer/pro-lifer, who tend to be the ones arguing if this thread is any indication.

And yeah, the fetus is alive.

[Thepeopl]

That really depends on what your definition of person is. If it's the common lay definition of person, they are most definitely persons, because person and human are equivalent.

If it's the legal definition of persons, they are probably persons, or at least probably persons after some point when crimes against a person can happen against them. But then again, in legal definitions, corporations are persons, brain dead (but still alive) humans are persons, governments are persons, and certain retirement accounts are persons and none of them possess any intelligence at all, so that may not be the best metric ever.

I do also recall UK law mentioning people having to be born, but legal definitions aren't 100% perfect (as the 'corporations are people' thing shows).

the lay definition also isn't perfect, as 'theory' in the common definition of the word and a scientific 'theory' aren't the same. This could be one of the scenarios where the common use of a word and its meaning (or one of its meanings) aren't the same, so the case could be made that the common definition is incorrect.

Some dictionaries define human as a synonym of person, some have person and human being share each other in their definitions (i.e Human being = a person, person = a human being), which creates a loop of definitions.

It's a bit complex, to say the least.

Dictionary:
Human being

a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
Though granted, by this definition a parrot is also a human.

[The New California Republic]

Dictionary:
Human being

a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
Though granted, by this definition a parrot is also a human.

N...no...not at all.

[Estanglia]

I do also recall UK law mentioning people having to be born, but legal definitions aren't 100% perfect (as the 'corporations are people' thing shows).

the lay definition also isn't perfect, as 'theory' in the common definition of the word and a scientific 'theory' aren't the same. This could be one of the scenarios where the common use of a word and its meaning (or one of its meanings) aren't the same, so the case could be made that the common definition is incorrect.

Some dictionaries define human as a synonym of person, some have person and human being share each other in their definitions (i.e Human being = a person, person = a human being), which creates a loop of definitions.

It's a bit complex, to say the least.

Dictionary:
Human being

a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
Though granted, by this definition a parrot is also a human.

Only if the parrot was a man/woman/child of the species homo sapiens.

[Neutraligon]

I do also recall UK law mentioning people having to be born, but legal definitions aren't 100% perfect (as the 'corporations are people' thing shows).

the lay definition also isn't perfect, as 'theory' in the common definition of the word and a scientific 'theory' aren't the same. This could be one of the scenarios where the common use of a word and its meaning (or one of its meanings) aren't the same, so the case could be made that the common definition is incorrect.

Some dictionaries define human as a synonym of person, some have person and human being share each other in their definitions (i.e Human being = a person, person = a human being), which creates a loop of definitions.

It's a bit complex, to say the least.

Dictionary:
Human being

a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
Though granted, by this definition a parrot is also a human.

Babies would not be since they lack an upright stance and the ability to speak.

[Thepeopl]

Dictionary:
Human being

a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens, distinguished from other animals by superior mental development, power of articulate speech, and upright stance.
Though granted, by this definition a parrot is also a human.

Babies would not be since they lack an upright stance and the ability to speak.

Yup, totally agree! Babies are not human beings.

They lack conscience, consideration, culture and control.

[Ayytaly]

Babies would not be since they lack an upright stance and the ability to speak.

Yup, totally agree! Babies are not human beings.

They lack conscience, consideration, culture and control.

If the law applied this logic, Infanticide wouldn't be a crime.


The whole argument in favor of abortion comes off less about "womem's rights" and more about "IDGAF anymore, I just want to find ways to justify my misanthropy by desensitizing the value of human life" nihilists who crave attention.

[Galloism]

The whole argument in favor of abortion comes off less about "womem's rights" and more about "IDGAF anymore, I just want to find ways to justify my misanthropy by desensitizing the value of human life" nihilists who crave attention.

Not really, even if you agree that fetuses are persons (I do), there's still an argument that no born person has the right to use another person's body against their will under law, and so abortion restrictions would seem to countermand that societal principle without a reasonable prevailing reason.

Some would call that "bodily autonomy", and although I think bodily autonomy should be a thing, we don't have that (and men have never had bodily autonomy in the history of the republic continuing through today) as the state has restricted men's (and to a lesser extent, women's) bodily autonomy repeatedly in the interests of the continuing persistence of the republic. However, it also hasn't permitted individuals to use another person's body to support themselves.

[Godular]

The whole argument in favor of abortion comes off less about "womem's rights" and more about "IDGAF anymore, I just want to find ways to justify my misanthropy by desensitizing the value of human life" nihilists who crave attention.

Not really, even if you agree that fetuses are persons (I do), there's still an argument that no born person has the right to use another person's body against their will under law, and so abortion restrictions would seem to countermand that societal principle without a reasonable prevailing reason.

Some would call that "bodily autonomy", and although I think bodily autonomy should be a thing, we don't have that (and men have never had bodily autonomy in the history of the republic continuing through today) as the state has restricted men's (and to a lesser extent, women's) bodily autonomy repeatedly in the interests of the continuing persistence of the republic. However, it also hasn't permitted individuals to use another person's body to support themselves.

There ARE a lot of double standards that ought to be eliminated.

[Novo Vaticanus]

Let's remember, all, that the Catholic church is against contraception and abortion. It doesn't make sense.

It makes complete sense. Forgiveness is their business, and the best way to keep business good is to make sure that everyone is perpetually guilty of something.

Cringe

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

It makes complete sense. Forgiveness is their business, and the best way to keep business good is to make sure that everyone is perpetually guilty of something.

Cringe

I don’t know whether I should be amused or annoyed at the idea that you chose to present a one-word reply to a post from page 2 of this thread.

[Strahcoin]

How about everybody stops having pre-marital sex? Would that be satisfactory?

So... you want to rewire human nature, as it has existed since the dawn of time?

For those four statements, replace "abortion" with "murder/slavery/theft". It would seem ridiculous - of course murder/slavery/theft should be banned, never mind that murder/slavery/theft would still exist, and the perpetrator may die from not doing it - but under the axioms you have presented, banning anything - including the ability to banning stuff - would be "unrealistic and inhumane".

That is one of the most ridiculously ludicrous comparisons I have ever seen on this thread -- ever -- and I have seen some truly eye-rolling ones.

You can't steal something accidentally. You can't be forced to steal something. And you will not die from lack of stealing.

Women do get pregnant accidentally. Women do get pregnant by force. Women do die if denied abortion.

Protecting the natural rights of people who can't protect themselves hardly indicates "a lot of powers over people's freedoms".

Firstly, telling half the population they are forbidden from saving their life or controlling their bodies is a lot of power.

Secondly, we have proved -- repeatedly -- these so-called "natural rights" do not exist for foetuses. Now it is up to you to provide legal, recognised sources to demonstrate they do.

Badly conflating dictionary definitions does not count. We want recent law documents, government papers, respected medical journals, or equivalent.

Or how about every woman who gets an abortion has to look at a live ultrasound of the fetus as the abortion takes place? It will be a slow step, but it's a start.

Emotionally manipulative drivel.

1. Because the woman has the choice to abstain from sex.
2. Murder is basically killing an innocent human being with immoral or illegal intent. Abortion is killing an innocent human being (for the fetus is a human being) with immoral intent (for the fetus is innocent).
3. Couples in long-term, dedicated relationships can have sex - as long as they take responsibility if the sperm meets the egg.
4. When a woman has sex, she is essentially signing an unwritten contract that she willingly surrenders her body to the potential fetus for as long as said fetus occupies her body.

1. Again, why should the onus be on the woman? It takes two to tango
2. No, murder is an illegal killing. Abortion is not illegal and also we have provided countless amounts of proof that the foetus is not a human being. Unless you have similar amounts of law papers/scientific journals with which to counter, we'll stick to that assumption.
3. Very generous of you

But "taking responsibility" does not mean "having a baby you don't want, can't afford, know may kill you and which you may leave parentless". That's actually the antithesis of taking responsibility. Taking responsibility means "assessing your situation, in a mature manner, and deciding the most appropriate outcome for your circumstances" -- which may be an abortion.

4. No, she isn.t. Firstly, consent to sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Someone who has sex with contraception, especially, is particularly not consenting to pregnancy. Secondly, a woman who is raped "willingly surrenders" to nothing. Thirdly, even if there were a contract -- which there is not -- all contracts can be voided if the terms change (health conditions change, financial conditions change, relationships change, other circumstances change).

But none of that matters because consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy.

1. Not "rewire", but "resist". It is human nature to murder, rape, steal, enslave, etc. However, such would violate the tenets of morality, which should transcend temptation.
2. Actually, to take the example of stealing:
One could accidentally steal. (Take a small item from a store, subconsciously drop it in your pocket, and forget about it)
One could be forced to steal. (Strangers, peers, and even some family members may threaten one if one does not steal a lucrative item from somebody else)
One could die from not stealing. (Someone might be starving/dying during a famine/epidemic, and the only food/medicine available is owned by somebody unwilling to let it go under any circumstances, lest that person suffers from the famine/disease)
None of these circumstances morally justify stealing. Just as the circumstances you listed do not morally justify abortion.
3. The chances of someone seeking an abortion because the pregnancy is threatening her life (in the U.S.) is very, very low. Moreover, I do not oppose other, morally better, and more practical ways to save the life of the mother (because it takes way too long to prepare the cervix for an abortion).
I generally don't oppose the rights for people to choose how to act with their bodies as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. The woman has no right to abort the fetus, just as one has no right to stab a knife into another's throat/eye.
"The State of Georgia, applying reasoned judgment to the full body of modern medical science, recognizes the benefits of providing early infants in the womb with full legal recognition as members of the human community, above the minimum requirements of federal law." Is that sufficient?
4. Why would it be "emotionally manipulative"? After all, according to you, either (1) the fetus is not a human being and is therefore disposable or (2) the fetus infringes upon the mother's rights, and therefore the mother has the right to get rid of hin/her. If the mother couldn't summon the courage to look at her child as she consents to him/her being torn apart, then the child doesn't deserve to be torn apart.
5. Both the mother and the father have the choice to abstain. Better?
6. Note on the meaning of scientific terminology for human development:
"Organism" is the scientific name for a living human being. Only organisms undergo development.
"Zygote" is the one-cell human organism produced by sperm-egg fusion.
"Embryo" is a human organism during the first eight weeks of development.
It used to be legal for slaveowners to kill slaves. Nazi Germany also systematically killed numerous innocent Jews during the Holocaust. We call those acts "murder" - not because they were illegal, but because they were immoral.
7. Again, the chances of the pregnancy killing the mother is near zero - especially with modern medicine. If the mother's situation means she couldn't optimally raise the child, there's always the choice of putting the child up for adoption.
8. The purpose of sex is procreation, not recreation. The dopamine rush one experiences is just to encourage procreation. I hope that will explain things better.

[Jebslund]

1. Not "rewire", but "resist". It is human nature to murder, rape, steal, enslave, etc. However, such would violate the tenets of morality, which should transcend temptation.

And yet having premarital sex harms no one, nor does marriage prevent unwanted pregnancy or STDs.

2. Actually, to take the example of stealing:
One could accidentally steal. (Take a small item from a store, subconsciously drop it in your pocket, and forget about it)
One could be forced to steal. (Strangers, peers, and even some family members may threaten one if one does not steal a lucrative item from somebody else)
One could die from not stealing. (Someone might be starving/dying during a famine/epidemic, and the only food/medicine available is owned by somebody unwilling to let it go under any circumstances, lest that person suffers from the famine/disease)
None of these circumstances morally justify stealing. Just as the circumstances you listed do not morally justify abortion.

Actually, all three do. Coercion, desperation, and not knowing you were taking actions that constituted a crime are all considered mitigating circumstances in criminal law. You are not expected to refuse to commit any crime short of murder, assault, or rape if doing so would result in your death or grievous injury, and, in fact, coercion can be considered entrapment if done by law enforcement and lead to the charges being thrown out. Stealing because of need is often punished far more lightly, if at all, than stealing because of need, and an accidental theft, provided you make every reasonable attempt to return the stolen property, is not usually punished. In point of fact, purchasing stolen goods is considered theft, and yet it is not punished in cases where the buyer had no knowledge of the fact that the property had been stolen.

3. The chances of someone seeking an abortion because the pregnancy is threatening her life (in the U.S.) is very, very low. Moreover, I do not oppose other, morally better, and more practical ways to save the life of the mother (because it takes way too long to prepare the cervix for an abortion).

... That is one type of abortion, and I am 100% certain a far faster method would be used if time was an issue.

I generally don't oppose the rights for people to choose how to act with their bodies as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. The woman has no right to abort the fetus, just as one has no right to stab a knife into another's throat/eye.
"The State of Georgia, applying reasoned judgment to the full body of modern medical science, recognizes the benefits of providing early infants in the womb with full legal recognition as members of the human community, above the minimum requirements of federal law." Is that sufficient?

No. Because I have every right to use lethal force to stop you if you attempt to forcibly hook me up to you so you can use me as life support, even if you need me. Look up McFall vs Shimp. Even if the fetus was recognised as a person, the fetus would have no right to use its mother's body as life support if she does not want it to.

4. Why would it be "emotionally manipulative"? After all, according to you, either (1) the fetus is not a human being and is therefore disposable or (2) the fetus infringes upon the mother's rights, and therefore the mother has the right to get rid of hin/her. If the mother couldn't summon the courage to look at her child as she consents to him/her being torn apart, then the child doesn't deserve to be torn apart.

That most people do not have what it takes to look at a rat as they smash its skull in does not make a rat not a pest that is liable to cause property damage, contaminate food, and possibly cause diseases and bring fleas into the home. Most people do not have the emptiness to kill living beings with faces themselves. It's a result of our society developing into one where the vast majority of people do not need to kill anything, and therefore are not accustomed to it, especially when we venerate quantity of life rather than quality of life.

As for being torn apart, that is not how the vast majority of abortions are performed, as has been explained many, MANY times in this thread. You acting as if that is the only form of abortion there is is disingenuous and you know it.

5. Both the mother and the father have the choice to abstain. Better?

No. You are ignoring the fact that the urge to have sex is one of the strongest urges humans have. So strong, in fact, that relationships and even marriages have dissolved because the couples were no longer sexually active with each other. Abstinence is unreasonable, and proven to have ill effects on the human psyche at that.

7. Again, the chances of the pregnancy killing the mother is near zero - especially with modern medicine. If the mother's situation means she couldn't optimally raise the child, there's always the choice of putting the child up for adoption.

Modern medicine is not God. It is not perfect. My high school world history teacher died giving birth to her daughter. There is still a very real chance of dying from giving birth, even if it is low. Putting a child up for adoption isn't a cure-all, either. Look at the foster care system. Look at the number of children, even in the US, waiting to be adopted, who get dumped out on their asses the second they turn 18 because no one ever adopted them. Look at the kids in foster care who are abused. The ones who are adopted by abusive parents, or "people" who just want something to push around or do their work for them.

8. The purpose of sex is procreation, not recreation. The dopamine rush one experiences is just to encourage procreation. I hope that will explain things better.

The purpose of the computer is to improve calculation speed, not for recreation. The games you play are just to encourage profitability so that tech companies have incentives to improve the tech. Stop using computers for fun, and instead use them only for solving incredibly complex equations! Things can only ever have one solitary purpose, and that purpose can never, ever change ever, so stop misusing your computer!

[Estanglia]

3. The chances of someone seeking an abortion because the pregnancy is threatening her life (in the U.S.) is very, very low.

Citation needed.

I generally don't oppose the rights for people to choose how to act with their bodies as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

The fetus has no rights, and if it does it doesn't matter because it is violating the mother's rights.

The woman has no right to abort the fetus, just as one has no right to stab a knife into another's throat/eye.

I do have a right to defend myself. If, in the process of defending myself, I stab my attacker in the throat/eye, that might fall under the right to defend myself.

4. Why would it be "emotionally manipulative"?

It's emotionally manipulative because it's attempting to manipulate the mother's emotions so she doesn't want to abort the fetus.

If you were obligated to watch videos of the treatment of farm animals whenever you ate steak, that would be an attempt to emotionally manipulate you.

If the mother couldn't summon the courage to look at her child as she consents to him/her being torn apart, then the child doesn't deserve to be torn apart.

That's not how that works.

I still get the right to defend myself even if I don't have the courage to defend myself.

7. Again, the chances of the pregnancy killing the mother is near zero - especially with modern medicine.

Citation needed.

If the mother's situation means she couldn't optimally raise the child, there's always the choice of putting the child up for adoption.

Something which she isn't and shouldn't be obligated to do.

8. The purpose of sex is procreation, not recreation. The dopamine rush one experiences is just to encourage procreation.

To you.

Things can have multiple purposes. Often, the purpose of a thing is defined by how you use it.

[Thepeopl]

-snip-

Note on the meaning of scientific terminology for human development:
"Organism" is the scientific name for a living human being. Only organisms undergo development.
"Zygote" is the one-cell human organism produced by sperm-egg fusion.
"Embryo" is a human organism during the first eight weeks of development.
- snip -

Wrong, all organisms who reproduce sexually, have oocytes, zygotes, blastocysts and embryos.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

[Liriena]

7. Again, the chances of the pregnancy killing the mother is near zero

https://hbr.org/2019/06/the-rising-u-s- ... -employers

The U.S. maternal mortality rate has more than doubled from 10.3 per 100,000 live births in 1991 to 23.8 in 2014. Over 700 women a year die of complications related to pregnancy each year in the United States, and two-thirds of those deaths are preventable. Fifty thousand women suffer from life-threatening complications of pregnancy. A report from the Commonwealth Fund released in December found American women have the greatest risk of dying from pregnancy complications among 11 high-income countries.

What’s worse, there are massive disparities. Black women are three to four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women — regardless of education, income, or any other socio-economic factors. This is the primary reason the United States lags so far behind other affluent countries. According to the World Health Organization, black mothers in the U.S. die at the same rate as pregnant women in Mexico or Uzbekistan.

[Liriena]

I generally don't oppose the rights for people to choose how to act with their bodies as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Which is why I support abortion rights. The state has no right to forcibly use people as life support for others, specially not to appease the capricious demands of religious conservatives, whose ideology is a dead weight as far as reproductive rights and health are concerned.

[Strahcoin]

1. Not "rewire", but "resist". It is human nature to murder, rape, steal, enslave, etc. However, such would violate the tenets of morality, which should transcend temptation.

And yet having premarital sex harms no one, nor does marriage prevent unwanted pregnancy or STDs.

2. Actually, to take the example of stealing:
One could accidentally steal. (Take a small item from a store, subconsciously drop it in your pocket, and forget about it)
One could be forced to steal. (Strangers, peers, and even some family members may threaten one if one does not steal a lucrative item from somebody else)
One could die from not stealing. (Someone might be starving/dying during a famine/epidemic, and the only food/medicine available is owned by somebody unwilling to let it go under any circumstances, lest that person suffers from the famine/disease)
None of these circumstances morally justify stealing. Just as the circumstances you listed do not morally justify abortion.

Actually, all three do. Coercion, desperation, and not knowing you were taking actions that constituted a crime are all considered mitigating circumstances in criminal law. You are not expected to refuse to commit any crime short of murder, assault, or rape if doing so would result in your death or grievous injury, and, in fact, coercion can be considered entrapment if done by law enforcement and lead to the charges being thrown out. Stealing because of need is often punished far more lightly, if at all, than stealing because of need, and an accidental theft, provided you make every reasonable attempt to return the stolen property, is not usually punished. In point of fact, purchasing stolen goods is considered theft, and yet it is not punished in cases where the buyer had no knowledge of the fact that the property had been stolen.

3. The chances of someone seeking an abortion because the pregnancy is threatening her life (in the U.S.) is very, very low. Moreover, I do not oppose other, morally better, and more practical ways to save the life of the mother (because it takes way too long to prepare the cervix for an abortion).

... That is one type of abortion, and I am 100% certain a far faster method would be used if time was an issue.

I generally don't oppose the rights for people to choose how to act with their bodies as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. The woman has no right to abort the fetus, just as one has no right to stab a knife into another's throat/eye.
"The State of Georgia, applying reasoned judgment to the full body of modern medical science, recognizes the benefits of providing early infants in the womb with full legal recognition as members of the human community, above the minimum requirements of federal law." Is that sufficient?

No. Because I have every right to use lethal force to stop you if you attempt to forcibly hook me up to you so you can use me as life support, even if you need me. Look up McFall vs Shimp. Even if the fetus was recognised as a person, the fetus would have no right to use its mother's body as life support if she does not want it to.

4. Why would it be "emotionally manipulative"? After all, according to you, either (1) the fetus is not a human being and is therefore disposable or (2) the fetus infringes upon the mother's rights, and therefore the mother has the right to get rid of hin/her. If the mother couldn't summon the courage to look at her child as she consents to him/her being torn apart, then the child doesn't deserve to be torn apart.

That most people do not have what it takes to look at a rat as they smash its skull in does not make a rat not a pest that is liable to cause property damage, contaminate food, and possibly cause diseases and bring fleas into the home. Most people do not have the emptiness to kill living beings with faces themselves. It's a result of our society developing into one where the vast majority of people do not need to kill anything, and therefore are not accustomed to it, especially when we venerate quantity of life rather than quality of life.

As for being torn apart, that is not how the vast majority of abortions are performed, as has been explained many, MANY times in this thread. You acting as if that is the only form of abortion there is is disingenuous and you know it.

5. Both the mother and the father have the choice to abstain. Better?

No. You are ignoring the fact that the urge to have sex is one of the strongest urges humans have. So strong, in fact, that relationships and even marriages have dissolved because the couples were no longer sexually active with each other. Abstinence is unreasonable, and proven to have ill effects on the human psyche at that.

7. Again, the chances of the pregnancy killing the mother is near zero - especially with modern medicine. If the mother's situation means she couldn't optimally raise the child, there's always the choice of putting the child up for adoption.

Modern medicine is not God. It is not perfect. My high school world history teacher died giving birth to her daughter. There is still a very real chance of dying from giving birth, even if it is low. Putting a child up for adoption isn't a cure-all, either. Look at the foster care system. Look at the number of children, even in the US, waiting to be adopted, who get dumped out on their asses the second they turn 18 because no one ever adopted them. Look at the kids in foster care who are abused. The ones who are adopted by abusive parents, or "people" who just want something to push around or do their work for them.

8. The purpose of sex is procreation, not recreation. The dopamine rush one experiences is just to encourage procreation. I hope that will explain things better.

The purpose of the computer is to improve calculation speed, not for recreation. The games you play are just to encourage profitability so that tech companies have incentives to improve the tech. Stop using computers for fun, and instead use them only for solving incredibly complex equations! Things can only ever have one solitary purpose, and that purpose can never, ever change ever, so stop misusing your computer!

1. There's the notable chance of it creating an unwanted pregnancy, so...
2. Submission to coercion implies cowardice. Submission to desperation implies selfishness. And nobody knows everything; that doesn't free one from the consequences of her actions and her moral duty/responsibility to endure them. (One who accidentally steals is morally expected to return to the shop, apologize/explain, and return the item. Similarly, one who "accidentally" gets pregnant is morally expected to carry the fetus to term.)
3. Like what? What sort of abortion is faster than a one-hour delivery? (Oh, and by the way, a medical abortion involves a lot of very unpleasant side-effects, and it doesn't always work - the failure rate increases as the fetus develops.)
4. The fetus didn't "force" the mother to do anything. The mother created the fetus. In fact, I have heard somewhere that the mother isn't even aware of the fetus until a few weeks after conception.
5. The difference is that the fetus is a human being; the rat is not. And enlighten me on these other forms of abortion.
6. A relationship/marriage based primarily on sex is doomed to fail in the long run. They should be based primarily on shared values. And I think I was referring to pre-marital sex.
7. Nothing is perfect. But again, abortion is not the answer; not morally, not practically. And there is a problem with the adoption system, but the way to solve that is to streamline/simplify the adoption process.
8. Well, guess what. Playing on the computer neither conflicts with improving calculation speed nor creates a human being that will be killed.

3. The chances of someone seeking an abortion because the pregnancy is threatening her life (in the U.S.) is very, very low.

Citation needed.

I generally don't oppose the rights for people to choose how to act with their bodies as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

The fetus has no rights, and if it does it doesn't matter because it is violating the mother's rights.

The woman has no right to abort the fetus, just as one has no right to stab a knife into another's throat/eye.

I do have a right to defend myself. If, in the process of defending myself, I stab my attacker in the throat/eye, that might fall under the right to defend myself.

4. Why would it be "emotionally manipulative"?

It's emotionally manipulative because it's attempting to manipulate the mother's emotions so she doesn't want to abort the fetus.

If you were obligated to watch videos of the treatment of farm animals whenever you ate steak, that would be an attempt to emotionally manipulate you.

If the mother couldn't summon the courage to look at her child as she consents to him/her being torn apart, then the child doesn't deserve to be torn apart.

That's not how that works.

I still get the right to defend myself even if I don't have the courage to defend myself.

7. Again, the chances of the pregnancy killing the mother is near zero - especially with modern medicine.

Citation needed.

If the mother's situation means she couldn't optimally raise the child, there's always the choice of putting the child up for adoption.

Something which she isn't and shouldn't be obligated to do.

8. The purpose of sex is procreation, not recreation. The dopamine rush one experiences is just to encourage procreation.

To you.

Things can have multiple purposes. Often, the purpose of a thing is defined by how you use it.

1. The birth rate of the United States vs. the death rate (then factor in age, heart disease, cancer, murder, car accidents, etc.) Also, according to hli.org, "0.36% of abortions [were] done to save the life or health of the mother (5,200 per year)" (then take into account that life-threatening situations are but a part of "physical health" situations).
2. The fetus is an innocent human being. Therefore, it has rights. The mother is technically infringing upon the rights of the fetus by aborting it.
3. Abortion is not self-defense. (Even in life-threatening cases, abortion takes much more time than delivery, which is far more practical and moral.)
4. That's the point. Make the mother reconsider her decision. If she realizes the moral repulsiveness of the act to which she has consented, then she may reconsider, meaning less abortions (which we all want, right?)
5. I think your analogy is flawed. This isn't about the courage to do something; it's about the courage of seeing the victim of what one is doing (or about to do).
6. See #1.
7. She is morally obligated to raise the child that she has created. Putting him/her up for adoption is an alternative I can accept.
8. No matter how one uses something, one must face the consequences of the action. One may use glass cups to drink or to juggle - but if he/she uses them to juggle, he/she risks dropping them and having to clean up the shattered pieces.

-snip-

Note on the meaning of scientific terminology for human development:
"Organism" is the scientific name for a living human being. Only organisms undergo development.
"Zygote" is the one-cell human organism produced by sperm-egg fusion.
"Embryo" is a human organism during the first eight weeks of development.
- snip -

Wrong, all organisms who reproduce sexually, have oocytes, zygotes, blastocysts and embryos.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo

But a human embryo is not another organism. A human embryo is a human organism, just as a whale embryo is a whale organism, a chameleon embryo is a chameleon organism, etc.
Anyways, the source I linked focused primarily on the Homo sapien species. Fit "human" in front of the terms listed, like this:
"Human Organism" is the scientific name for a living human being. Only organisms undergo development.
"Human Zygote" is the one-cell human organism produced by sperm-egg fusion.
"Human Embryo" is a human organism during the first eight weeks of development.

7. Again, the chances of the pregnancy killing the mother is near zero

https://hbr.org/2019/06/the-rising-u-s- ... -employers

The U.S. maternal mortality rate has more than doubled from 10.3 per 100,000 live births in 1991 to 23.8 in 2014. Over 700 women a year die of complications related to pregnancy each year in the United States, and two-thirds of those deaths are preventable. Fifty thousand women suffer from life-threatening complications of pregnancy. A report from the Commonwealth Fund released in December found American women have the greatest risk of dying from pregnancy complications among 11 high-income countries.

What’s worse, there are massive disparities. Black women are three to four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women — regardless of education, income, or any other socio-economic factors. This is the primary reason the United States lags so far behind other affluent countries. According to the World Health Organization, black mothers in the U.S. die at the same rate as pregnant women in Mexico or Uzbekistan.

That's still a very low number. Also, there are many factors.
And abortion has a 100% chance of killing at least one human being.

I generally don't oppose the rights for people to choose how to act with their bodies as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Which is why I support abortion rights. The state has no right to forcibly use people as life support for others, specially not to appease the capricious demands of religious conservatives, whose ideology is a dead weight as far as reproductive rights and health are concerned.

I'm an atheist. The conservative pro-life "ideology" is more than religious beliefs. It's about maintaining a civilized society with moral values, which will improve society and benefit its people.

[Necroghastia]

I'm really confused on how something that cannot think can be called a "being."

[Galloism]

I'm really confused on how something that cannot think can be called a "being."

A being just means a living thing.

[Godular]

I'm an atheist. The conservative pro-life "ideology" is more than religious beliefs. It's about maintaining a civilized society with moral values, which will improve society and benefit its people.

Welp, there ya have it folks. Proof positive that an atheist can still believe in fairy tales.

[Liriena]

https://hbr.org/2019/06/the-rising-u-s- ... -employers

The U.S. maternal mortality rate has more than doubled from 10.3 per 100,000 live births in 1991 to 23.8 in 2014. Over 700 women a year die of complications related to pregnancy each year in the United States, and two-thirds of those deaths are preventable. Fifty thousand women suffer from life-threatening complications of pregnancy. A report from the Commonwealth Fund released in December found American women have the greatest risk of dying from pregnancy complications among 11 high-income countries.

What’s worse, there are massive disparities. Black women are three to four times more likely to die in childbirth than white women — regardless of education, income, or any other socio-economic factors. This is the primary reason the United States lags so far behind other affluent countries. According to the World Health Organization, black mothers in the U.S. die at the same rate as pregnant women in Mexico or Uzbekistan.

That's still a very low number. Also, there are many factors.
And abortion has a 100% chance of killing at least one human being.

All the more reason to leave the decision in the hands of the people whose lives are on the line, with the advise of medical professionals. And since a fetus can't make a decision because it's not sapient and, if it were a human being, it would be a minor... yeah, all the more reason to give the pregnant person the final say on whether to save their own life by terminating the pregnancy or sacrificing themselves in the hopes that the fetus will live.

Who gives you or the state the moral and professional authority to tell a dying person "nope, sorry, we think that the smallest chance of the non-sapient being inside you living is worth potentially letting you die"? Who gave you the moral or professional authority to enslave others and potentially kill them in the name of another being?

I generally don't oppose the rights for people to choose how to act with their bodies as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others.

Which is why I support abortion rights. The state has no right to forcibly use people as life support for others, specially not to appease the capricious demands of religious conservatives, whose ideology is a dead weight as far as reproductive rights and health are concerned.

I'm an atheist. The conservative pro-life "ideology" is more than religious beliefs. It's about maintaining a civilized society with moral values, which will improve society and benefit its people.

What improvement has banning abortion brought to any society where it's been implemented? Has any society which legalized abortion suddenly lost its "civilized" status? Did Ireland collapse into barbarism the moment it legalized abortion by popular vote? Was Ireland a moral paradise when abortion was regulated as per the whims of the Catholic Church?

[Liriena]

I'm an atheist. The conservative pro-life "ideology" is more than religious beliefs. It's about maintaining a civilized society with moral values, which will improve society and benefit its people.

Welp, there ya have it folks. Proof positive that an atheist can still believe in fairy tales.

It's such a bizarrely idiotic "theory" of how human history works too. Not a single civilization in human history has collapsed because it legalized abortion or contraception. It's the "pro-life" version of the "too much gay sex killed ancient Rome" myth.