NationStates

The Black Forrest wrote:

Kowani wrote:crossposting:

Cool. Now all these people are going to step forward and help raise these unwanted children right? Hello? Hello? Anybody? Hellllooooooo?

Pro impoverished life.

People who have the money to travel to another state to get their necessary healthcare, will do so.

The Black Forrest wrote:
Cool. Now all these people are going to step forward and help raise these unwanted children right? Hello? Hello? Anybody? Hellllooooooo?

I never got this line of argument. If someone believes life begins at conception this is like arguing we should either buy everyone houses or euthanize the homeless.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Cool. Now all these people are going to step forward and help raise these unwanted children right? Hello? Hello? Anybody? Hellllooooooo?

I never got this line of argument. If someone believes life begins at conception this is like arguing we should either buy everyone houses or euthanize the homeless.

Exactly.

Kowani wrote:crossposting:

Kowani wrote:Missouri becomes the first state in the US to no longer perform abortions

It's a bold step in the right direction but not valid constitutionally. It's unfortunate, especially in conversation with women I know who subscribe to New Feminism, as they oppose abortion.

Sundiata wrote:

Kowani wrote:crossposting:

It's a bold step in the right direction but not valid constitutionally. It's unfortunate, especially in conversation with women I know who subscribe to New Feminism, as they oppose abortion.

It's neither bold or in the right direction.

Cordel One wrote:

Sundiata wrote:It's a bold step in the right direction but not valid constitutionally. It's unfortunate, especially in conversation with women I know who subscribe to New Feminism, as they oppose abortion.

It's neither bold or in the right direction.

Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.

Istoreya wrote:

Cordel One wrote:It's neither bold or in the right direction.

Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.

People who are pro-life do care about people after they're born.

Sundiata wrote:

Istoreya wrote:Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.

People who are pro-life do care about people after they're born.

Not all of them. You might, but you don't speak for all pro-lifers.

Istoreya wrote:Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.

Pro-life people perceive abortion as equivalent to murder. They're arguing that you shouldn't be able to commit murder. That's wholly separate from any positive obligations on their part. Plus a large number of Catholic people, who are pro-life, do support an extensive welfare state and adoptions.

You can take exception to the argument that abortion is equivalent to murder. In fact, that makes a lot more sense as a rebuttal. "You oppose murder but don't want to feed and shelter random people who you wouldn't let others murder? Curious." That just sounds weird.

Fahran wrote:

Istoreya wrote:Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.

Pro-life people perceive abortion as equivalent to murder. They're arguing that you shouldn't be able to commit murder. That's wholly separate from any positive obligations on their part. Plus a large number of Catholic people, who are pro-life, do support an extensive welfare state and adoptions.

You can take exception to the argument that abortion is equivalent to murder. In fact, that makes a lot more sense as a rebuttal. "You oppose murder but don't want to feed and shelter random people who you wouldn't let others murder? Curious." That just sounds weird.

No, I don't think it makes any sense at all. It makes literally no sense to me for someone to want to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she does not wish to carry because "murder" only for those same people to turn their backs on that now-living person without providing them access to proper healthcare, food, etc because of whatever situation the mother has been left in because of the pregnancy she didn't want.

It makes no sense to me for a person to be okay with a baby being born into suffering just so they can get the moral high ground of "no murdering a clump of cells".

Fahran wrote:Pro-life people perceive abortion as equivalent to murder. They're arguing that you shouldn't be able to commit murder. That's wholly separate from any positive obligations on their part. Plus a large number of Catholic people, who are pro-life, do support an extensive welfare state and adoptions.

I appreciate the balanced perspective on this.

Istoreya wrote:No, I don't think it makes any sense at all. It makes literally no sense to me for someone to want to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she does not wish to carry because "murder" only for those same people to turn their backs on that now-living person without providing them access to proper healthcare, food, etc because of whatever situation the mother has been left in because of the pregnancy she didn't want.

Except it absolutely does if you accept the assertion that abortion is equivalent to murder. You can oppose someone shooting and killing Tupac without that meaning that you're now obligated to let Tupac crash at your house and eat your food. Because those are completely separate issues if you accept the framework that has been offered.

Istoreya wrote:It makes no sense to me for a person to be okay with a baby being born into suffering just so they can get the moral high ground of "no murdering a clump of cells".

The issue is that they clearly don't accept the assertion that a clump of cells isn't tantamount to a human life. You're dealing with separate precepts, which isn't too much of a problem on its own, but you're not really making much of an effort to understand their perspective. Both sides of the argument hold some degree of internal logic. The difference is which precepts you personally accept as accurate and reflective of reality.

Sundiata wrote:I appreciate the balanced perspective on this.

I'm probably not anywhere near as pro-life as some people who have argued in this thread, but I can understand the perspective somewhat, probably because I'm an awful, milquetoast, normie centrist on the issue.

Istoreya wrote:

Fahran wrote:Pro-life people perceive abortion as equivalent to murder. They're arguing that you shouldn't be able to commit murder. That's wholly separate from any positive obligations on their part. Plus a large number of Catholic people, who are pro-life, do support an extensive welfare state and adoptions.

You can take exception to the argument that abortion is equivalent to murder. In fact, that makes a lot more sense as a rebuttal. "You oppose murder but don't want to feed and shelter random people who you wouldn't let others murder? Curious." That just sounds weird.

No, I don't think it makes any sense at all. It makes literally no sense to me for someone to want to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she does not wish to carry because "murder" only for those same people to turn their backs on that now-living person without providing them access to proper healthcare, food, etc because of whatever situation the mother has been left in because of the pregnancy she didn't want.

It makes no sense to me for a person to be okay with a baby being born into suffering just so they can get the moral high ground of "no murdering a clump of cells".

I mean, I think the prolife position is inherently problematic for other reasons (no born person has the right to another person's body against their will, and women ARE persons), but this is a pretty bad take, given, no woman outside of extremely unusual corner cases is actually required to care for a baby that they birthed after their biological necessity portion is complete.

We just don't force that as a society. We will take such babies into the adoption system without question in every single case where the mother desires it.

(When I do talk about unusual corner cases, the only case I can think of is incarceration, where the mother is incarcerated and the father is not, and the baby is given to the father shortly after birth as a result. Then it's his choice on whether or not they will have any parental duties or not. But this is unusual.)

Fahran wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I appreciate the balanced perspective on this.

I'm probably not anywhere near as pro-life as some people who have argued in this thread, but I can understand the perspective somewhat, probably because I'm an awful, milquetoast, normie centrist on the issue.

Same, same...

Galloism wrote:

Istoreya wrote:No, I don't think it makes any sense at all. It makes literally no sense to me for someone to want to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy she does not wish to carry because "murder" only for those same people to turn their backs on that now-living person without providing them access to proper healthcare, food, etc because of whatever situation the mother has been left in because of the pregnancy she didn't want.

It makes no sense to me for a person to be okay with a baby being born into suffering just so they can get the moral high ground of "no murdering a clump of cells".

I mean, I think the prolife position is inherently problematic for other reasons (no born person has the right to another person's body against their will, and women ARE persons), but this is a pretty bad take, given, no woman outside of extremely unusual corner cases is actually required to care for a baby that they birthed after their biological necessity portion is complete.

We just don't force that as a society. We will take such babies into the adoption system without question in every single case where the mother desires it.

(When I do talk about unusual corner cases, the only case I can think of is incarceration, where the mother is incarcerated and the father is not, and the baby is given to the father shortly after birth as a result. Then it's his choice on whether or not they will have any parental duties or not. But this is unusual.)

No, the mother isn't required to, but that usually means the child will go to the adoption or foster system. And I would very easily still class the majority of experiences a child will have there as 'suffering'. My point still stands.

Sundiata wrote:

Istoreya wrote:Agreed. Nor do I understand how "people who are pro-life should care about children after they are born too" is not a valid argument.

People who are pro-life do care about people after they're born.

Depends on the individual. Most I've met don't really.

Istoreya wrote:No, the mother isn't required to, but that usually means the child will go to the adoption or foster system. And I would very easily still class the majority of experiences a child will have there as 'suffering'. My point still stands.

I don't think a utilitarian argument in this instance is very strong either because we have no way of verifying whether a child will suffer. We're guessing and could be completely wrong - which is always going to be a problem for utilitarian arguments. Gallo's argument, namely that fetuses do not have a right to women's bodies, is arguably much stronger. If you want to go even stronger, "fetuses do not possess personhood and thus do not possess human rights" is probably the best you'll get.

Istoreya wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean, I think the prolife position is inherently problematic for other reasons (no born person has the right to another person's body against their will, and women ARE persons), but this is a pretty bad take, given, no woman outside of extremely unusual corner cases is actually required to care for a baby that they birthed after their biological necessity portion is complete.

We just don't force that as a society. We will take such babies into the adoption system without question in every single case where the mother desires it.

(When I do talk about unusual corner cases, the only case I can think of is incarceration, where the mother is incarcerated and the father is not, and the baby is given to the father shortly after birth as a result. Then it's his choice on whether or not they will have any parental duties or not. But this is unusual.)

No, the mother isn't required to

You honestly could have stopped right here.

, but that usually means the child will go to the adoption or foster system. And I would very easily still class the majority of experiences a child will have there as 'suffering'. My point still stands.

Notably, adoption of babies is a years long wait with middle class and up adoptive parents looking for babies. There's a reason why adoptive parents often spend tens of thousands of dollars to adopt babies from foreign countries - it can be years waiting to adopt a baby here. This also in practice means adoption criteria for babies is very strict and adopted children go to excellent homes - likely better than their birth parents' homes.

Where the foster and adoption system sucks ass is with children that are more than a couple years old. Nobody wants to adopt them, and there are huge waits in the other direction for children waiting for adoptive parents.

And while I would argue this states something really bad about our society (who cares about the half grown kids anyway? that's horrible), it's worth note that babies in the general sense (like those given up by unwanted parents (mostly mothers)) are adopted almost immediately into very good homes.

Your objection is on the wrong grounds, wrong basis, and easily refuted because it doesn't reflect reality at all.

Fahran wrote:

Istoreya wrote:No, the mother isn't required to, but that usually means the child will go to the adoption or foster system. And I would very easily still class the majority of experiences a child will have there as 'suffering'. My point still stands.

I don't think a utilitarian argument in this instance is very strong either because we have no way of verifying whether a child will suffer. We're guessing and could be completely wrong - which is always going to be a problem for utilitarian arguments. Gallo's argument, namely that fetuses do not have a right to women's bodies, is arguably much stronger. If you want to go even stronger, "fetuses do not possess personhood and thus do not possess human rights" is probably the best you'll get.

I actually disagree with that argument for various reasons, but in practical terms, it's pretty much a nonstarter anyway. There's nothing to discuss or argue, no analogies or examples to use, and no way to proceed with making your point. You're essentially saying "my priori is different than your priori", and that's not a discussion - it's a statement.

Fahran wrote:

Istoreya wrote:No, the mother isn't required to, but that usually means the child will go to the adoption or foster system. And I would very easily still class the majority of experiences a child will have there as 'suffering'. My point still stands.

I don't think a utilitarian argument in this instance is very strong either because we have no way of verifying whether a child will suffer. We're guessing and could be completely wrong - which is always going to be a problem for utilitarian arguments. Gallo's argument, namely that fetuses do not have a right to women's bodies, is arguably much stronger. If you want to go even stronger, "fetuses do not possess personhood and thus do not possess human rights" is probably the best you'll get.

I agree with those arguments and would normally default to them myself. My point is that the idea that pro-life people would commit support to improvements in the systems if they were truly pro-life and not just pro-control of women's bodies is not an invalid argument. It's not the strongest one, but it's still an argument nonetheless and abortion should be legal for a multitude of reasons. The one I usually go to myself is that there's no difference between safe abortions and legal abortions - legal abortions should be available for the sake of women's health. Illegal abortions simply mean dangerous ones.

Btw there is an abortion thread.

Des-Bal wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
Cool. Now all these people are going to step forward and help raise these unwanted children right? Hello? Hello? Anybody? Hellllooooooo?

I never got this line of argument. If someone believes life begins at conception this is like arguing we should either buy everyone houses or euthanize the homeless.

And exactly why shouldn't we house the homeless?

Istoreya wrote:I agree with those arguments and would normally default to them myself. My point is that the idea that pro-life people would commit support to improvements in the systems if they were truly pro-life and not just pro-control of women's bodies is not an invalid argument. It's not the strongest one, but it's still an argument nonetheless and abortion should be legal for a multitude of reasons. The one I usually go to myself is that there's no difference between safe abortions and legal abortions - legal abortions should be available for the sake of women's health. Illegal abortions simply mean dangerous ones.

Again, the issue is that you're not looking at abortion from the same perspective. You can support criminalizing murder without having to logically support social welfare policies because the rationalization behind both of those policies is markedly different in many instances. Most pro-life people I've met aren't passionate about controlling women's bodies because they're secret misogynists. They genuinely believe that human life and thus legal personhood begin at conception. They want to control women's bodies in this case for the same reason that they want to curtail murderers' freedom. As I said, you don't have to give someone the run of your house if you support not murdering them.

With regard to abortion, I do think curtailing unsafe abortions is necessary, but that's a separate argument in a lot of respects. At that point, you're not arguing that pro-life people just want to control women's bodies or that pro-life people aren't sincere because they aren't personally adopting every unaborted baby. You're making an argument about the dismal reality of the situation and arguing that an appeal to strict principles actually hurts people more on the whole than pragmatism.

The Blaatschapen wrote:And exactly why shouldn't we house the homeless?

We probably should, though, in some instances, housing them isn't sufficient to address their issues. A lot of homeless people should probably be committed to mental institutions or rehabilitation programs so that they're able to function in society and maintain their health and well-being. Beyond that, creating social connections and developing marketable skills would be great too.