[Abortion Thread] (POLL 4) A compromising position...

[Necroghastia]

define "large" please

Enough that at least a quarter to a third of people at pro life protests and marches are secular, some are even leftists

and how large are those, that a minority of them are enough to be considered large in themselves?

[Katganistan]

A fetus is only defined as not a person by contemporary convention. Which is why I urge pro-life activists that our immediate aim should be to change the law on personhood, and therefore the rights of personhood, to expand its scope.

1. Good luck with that constitutional amendment

2. How does it being a person give it the right to use another person’s body without their consent? No born person has this right. It seems to me you want fetuses to be MORE than persons right until they pop out of the birth canal.

“Pre-Born, you’re fine. Pre-School, you’re fucked.”

George had it right.

[Godular]

Man, it's nice to see decent traffic here again. And I haven't even been called a lunatic, on Godular OR TCV.

Well... haven't been called one yet. The night is young.

[Necroghastia]

Man, it's nice to see decent traffic here again. And I haven't even been called a lunatic, on Godular OR TCV.

Well... haven't been called one yet. The night is young.

Decency? On an NSG abortion thread? You've gotta be a lunatic.

[Katganistan]

Because they think this exception looks humane when really it points out the hypocrisy.

I already cleared this up earlier in the thread

Denying that it is a double standard does not eliminate its double standard status.

[Kexholm Karelia]

I already cleared this up earlier in the thread

Denying that it is a double standard does not eliminate its double standard status.

This is my view

Why only in this instance and not as a general principle ?

I’m not Marlborough but in my case, I draw the line at rape, incest, and life-death medical situations because philosophically the fetus is a product of assault and so it makes sense to call that self defense, but in all other cases abortion is not justified at all. Other pro lifers disagree but that is my personal standing

[Katganistan]

Denying that it is a double standard does not eliminate its double standard status.

This is my view

I’m not Marlborough but in my case, I draw the line at rape, incest, and life-death medical situations because philosophically the fetus is a product of assault and so it makes sense to call that self defense, but in all other cases abortion is not justified at all. Other pro lifers disagree but that is my personal standing

I read it. It's still a double standard. "It's ok to have an abortion when I decide it's morally ok to have one, despite arguments of innocence of the life when I think you shouldn't have the right to determine whether you want to have a child/be pregnant."

[Necroghastia]

Denying that it is a double standard does not eliminate its double standard status.

This is my view

I’m not Marlborough but in my case, I draw the line at rape, incest, and life-death medical situations because philosophically the fetus is a product of assault and so it makes sense to call that self defense, but in all other cases abortion is not justified at all. Other pro lifers disagree but that is my personal standing

So you acknowledge that there is no real material difference between a fetus conceived via rape and one conceived from a consensual act?

[Godular]

Man, it's nice to see decent traffic here again. And I haven't even been called a lunatic, on Godular OR TCV.

Well... haven't been called one yet. The night is young.

Decency? On an NSG abortion thread? You've gotta be a lunatic.

Nope... doesn't feel right. It can't be forced, it must be earned.

Why only in this instance and not as a general principle ?

I’m not Marlborough but in my case, I draw the line at rape, incest, and life-death medical situations because philosophically the fetus is a product of assault and so it makes sense to call that self defense, but in all other cases abortion is not justified at all. Other pro lifers disagree but that is my personal standing

And does that merit banning access to abortion services?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I think I've said this before but abortion needs to be treated like any other medical procedure. Simply put too? It's between the uterus holder and the physician, not anyone else's business.

[Kexholm Karelia]

This is my view

I read it. It's still a double standard. "It's ok to have an abortion when I decide it's morally ok to have one, despite arguments of innocence of the life when I think you shouldn't have the right to determine whether you want to have a child/be pregnant."

Well no, in the cases of rape and incest, there’s usually threat to the mothers life so abortion is justified as a form of self preservation. Otherwise, it is not justified and shouldn’t be allowed as its killing a human being

[Albrenia]

I read it. It's still a double standard. "It's ok to have an abortion when I decide it's morally ok to have one, despite arguments of innocence of the life when I think you shouldn't have the right to determine whether you want to have a child/be pregnant."

Well no, in the cases of rape and incest, there’s usually threat to the mothers life so abortion is justified as a form of self preservation. Otherwise, it is not justified and shouldn’t be allowed as its killing a human being

People can still die from complications of pregnancy even with modern medicine. Granted it's much less likely. Also unsure how babies born of rape are more deadly to their mothers than other babies, unless the mother is extremely young.

[Genivaria]

I read it. It's still a double standard. "It's ok to have an abortion when I decide it's morally ok to have one, despite arguments of innocence of the life when I think you shouldn't have the right to determine whether you want to have a child/be pregnant."

Well no, in the cases of rape and incest, there’s usually threat to the mothers life so abortion is justified as a form of self preservation. Otherwise, it is not justified and shouldn’t be allowed as its killing a human being

There is ALWAYS a threat to the mother's life during pregnancy. *face-palm*

[Atheris]

I read it. It's still a double standard. "It's ok to have an abortion when I decide it's morally ok to have one, despite arguments of innocence of the life when I think you shouldn't have the right to determine whether you want to have a child/be pregnant."

Well no, in the cases of rape and incest, there’s usually threat to the mothers life so abortion is justified as a form of self preservation. Otherwise, it is not justified and shouldn’t be allowed as its killing a human being

There's always threat to the mother's life in every pregnancy.

[Punished UMN]

I'm not entirely on board with criminalizing abortion (in part because I'm skeptical it will solve the moral problem of abortion), but I have to agree from a pro-life standpoint that abortion in cases of rape or incest is not morally different from abortion under other circumstances, in that it is morally wrong. The reason I'm not sold on criminalization has more to do with empathy for the state of mind of the desperate person, which is also my view on various other forms of immoral violence (i.e. all violence).

[Kexholm Karelia]

Well no, in the cases of rape and incest, there’s usually threat to the mothers life so abortion is justified as a form of self preservation. Otherwise, it is not justified and shouldn’t be allowed as its killing a human being

There is ALWAYS a threat to the mother's life during pregnancy. *face-palm*

You know what I mean, in cases when the doctor says "it’s almost certain you will die at childbirth," not just any pregnancy

[Necroghastia]

There is ALWAYS a threat to the mother's life during pregnancy. *face-palm*

You know what I mean, in cases when the doctor says "it’s almost certain you will die at childbirth," not just any pregnancy

No, we don't know what you mean. How is there more of a threat during the pregnancy itself in the case of rape than in any other pregnancy?

[Atheris]

There is ALWAYS a threat to the mother's life during pregnancy. *face-palm*

You know what I mean, in cases when the doctor says "it’s almost certain you will die at childbirth," not just any pregnancy

No, I don't.

[Neanderthaland]

I read it. It's still a double standard. "It's ok to have an abortion when I decide it's morally ok to have one, despite arguments of innocence of the life when I think you shouldn't have the right to determine whether you want to have a child/be pregnant."

Well no, in the cases of rape and incest, there’s usually threat to the mothers life so abortion is justified as a form of self preservation. Otherwise, it is not justified and shouldn’t be allowed as its killing a human being

There is no more of a threat to the mother's life in cases of rape or incest then there would be in a normal pregnancy. Outside of the rape itself, that is.

[The Alma Mater]

This is my view

I read it. It's still a double standard. "It's ok to have an abortion when I decide it's morally ok to have one, despite arguments of innocence of the life when I think you shouldn't have the right to determine whether you want to have a child/be pregnant."

And yet people get all upset when asked if their motive to grant the unborn special rights no other human has may have something to do with a desire to punish/control women.

[The New California Republic]

I read it. It's still a double standard. "It's ok to have an abortion when I decide it's morally ok to have one, despite arguments of innocence of the life when I think you shouldn't have the right to determine whether you want to have a child/be pregnant."

Well no, in the cases of rape and incest, there’s usually threat to the mothers life so abortion is justified as a form of self preservation.

No, there isn't. Fetuses resulting from rape etc are not biologically more of a threat to the woman's life. That claim is utter nonsense. I know you are clawing for some way to give it a qualitative difference, but there isn't one, other than the moral standard you are applying to other cases being suspended for some reason. Again, as I said:

If you are going to go down the "abortion is murder" route then at least take it to its ultimate and more rational conclusion by advocating banning it completely, instead of trying to have your cake and eat it by calling it "murder" but then saying it's OK to murder it in situations X, Y, and Z.

[Thepeopl]

And we have people on your side arguing that even if we had technology that made abortion redundant (which by the way is an example of favoring abortion for the sake of it), it should still be allowed.

That is... actually fair. I'm utterly confused what reason anyone would have to care at that point so long as the mother no longer needs to carry the fetus.

Because you would need the abortion to transfer the unwanted pregnancy into the artificial uterus.
And who will pay for the 9 month use of said uterus?
Who will take care of the baby after 9 months?
Because the parents of said baby don't want to/ aren't able to.

[The Free Joy State]

That is... actually fair. I'm utterly confused what reason anyone would have to care at that point so long as the mother no longer needs to carry the fetus.

Because you would need the abortion to transfer the unwanted pregnancy into the artificial uterus.
And who will pay for the 9 month use of said uterus?
Who will take care of the baby after 9 months?
Because the parents of said baby don't want to/ aren't able to.

As I see it, artificial uteruses -- aside from being so far from reality to have no bearing on the current abortion debate -- do not solve the issue of abortion.

It is highly unlikely a zygote would be immediately transferable to an artificial uterus, so the pregnant woman would still have to carry it until such a point as it would be medically supportable by said artificial womb -- which is an imposition she should not have. Also, in the time waiting for the foetus to be viable for transfer, she may have a medical emergency that requires the immediate removal of the foetus (cancer will not stop existing, ectopic pregnancies will not stop happening, sceptic miscarriages will not cease to exist).

And then, if she does choose to wait to transfer into an artificial womb, she will be having a surgical procedure to transfer the foetus (a more arduous operation than the pill or injection that most abortions involve), with all the risks and increased recovery time that involves (which would be a terrible thing to force someone to have against their will).

Then, as Thepeopl says, what will be the result -- should the woman choose to wait for the opportune moment for the foetus to be put into the artificial womb? More children growing in oversubscribed foster-care (which, despite so many people's good intentions to adopt, only two percent ever actually do), possibly ageing out without ever finding a family (as so many do).

Artificial uteruses aren't a solution. They're an attempt to kick the can down the road.

[The New California Republic]

Because you would need the abortion to transfer the unwanted pregnancy into the artificial uterus.
And who will pay for the 9 month use of said uterus?
Who will take care of the baby after 9 months?
Because the parents of said baby don't want to/ aren't able to.

As I see it, artificial foetuses [...]

Sorry, I had to do it.

[The Free Joy State]

As I see it, artificial foetuses [...]

Sorry, I had to do it.

No description of the Central London Hatchery of Brave New World, the motto "Community, Identity, Stability" and the "row on receding row and tier above tier of bottles glint[ing] with innumerable rubies". I am disappointed.

EDIT: Also, fixed my error.