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

[Katganistan]

The argument of abortion would be tremendously simplified if we can answer this question:
When is the fetus alive ? Eg: at what point does the fetus harbor a soul/consciousness ?

Before birth, during, after ?
If before birth, than when ?

Because this is a philosophical question, which we may never answer, and because different religions say things about this, it is understandable people might have many opposing view points
But it would be wrong to look at this religiously (as many do) I believe, because religion is based on faith, and your faith is not necessarily the other guys. To make a decision based on religion would be to adopt state religious rule, destroying the separation of church and state, and religious freedom. The beliefs of some cannot control all.

Which is why I believe the best objective way to approach this question would be looking at the development of the brain.

https://www.healthline.com/health/when- ... op-a-brain
Which, according to this article, begins 5 - 7 weeks, with brain activity starting around 6 - 7 weeks.
It also says that around 16 to 21 weeks, the brain actively begins controlling bodily functions, like muscles.
And indicates that around the late second trimester (21 - 24 weeks) the brain starts to look much more like and adult brain, and has delta waves (sleep level or consciousness) and can hear.

Given that, you might be able to roughly assume that consciousness may start around the 21 week period.

I’m curious to what people think of my analysis and the implications if correct. I also fully understand that I could be wrong, and believe in an open mind. I hope the reader does too.

Prove the existence of a soul.

[New haven america]

The argument of abortion would be tremendously simplified if we can answer this question:
When is the fetus alive ? Eg: at what point does the fetus harbor a soul/consciousness ?

Before birth, during, after ?
If before birth, than when ?

Because this is a philosophical question, which we may never answer, and because different religions say things about this, it is understandable people might have many opposing view points
But it would be wrong to look at this religiously (as many do) I believe, because religion is based on faith, and your faith is not necessarily the other guys. To make a decision based on religion would be to adopt state religious rule, destroying the separation of church and state, and religious freedom. The beliefs of some cannot control all.

Which is why I believe the best objective way to approach this question would be looking at the development of the brain.

https://www.healthline.com/health/when- ... op-a-brain
Which, according to this article, begins 5 - 7 weeks, with brain activity starting around 6 - 7 weeks.
It also says that around 16 to 21 weeks, the brain actively begins controlling bodily functions, like muscles.
And indicates that around the late second trimester (21 - 24 weeks) the brain starts to look much more like and adult brain, and has delta waves (sleep level or consciousness) and can hear.

Given that, you might be able to roughly assume that consciousness may start around the 21 week period.

I’m curious to what people think of my analysis and the implications if correct. I also fully understand that I could be wrong, and believe in an open mind. I hope the reader does too.

Ok, here's a question.

The Feds randomly waltz into your house one day, destroy some of your shit, and then tell you that you legally have to let another person live with you for 9 months regardless of if you want them to or not. You are also responsible for providing for said person, including paying for food, shelter, bills, etc... and they're also allowed to lightly assault you and put laxatives in your food every couple of weeks just for the hell of it.

Then when the 9 months are over you have to pay the government ~$40,000 for them to take him back.

Would you be ok with this?

[The Alma Mater]

The argument of abortion would be tremendously simplified if we can answer this question:
When is the fetus alive ? Eg: at what point does the fetus harbor a soul/consciousness ?

Not really, since for one of the primary pro-choice arguments (bodily autonomy) it does not matter. Neither a fetus, nor you, nor the president has a right to use my body against my will, even if they die without that use.

[Page]

The argument of abortion would be tremendously simplified if we can answer this question:
When is the fetus alive ? Eg: at what point does the fetus harbor a soul/consciousness ?

Not really, since for one of the primary pro-choice arguments (bodily autonomy) it does not matter. Neither a fetus, nor you, nor the president has a right to use my body against my will, even if they die without that use.

The consciousness issue does matter because even if we are pro-choice on the basis of bodily autonomy, that is a moral judgment (my right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right of a fetus to live) and it is a mistake to apply that as the primary rationale for freedom to terminate within the first 20 weeks. It is a mistake because we are assigning some degree of moral consideration to early fetuses and in doing so we cede ground to the anti-choice side

Because a fetus utterly lacks subjective experience throughout the first and most of the second trimester, we ought to argue that abortion before this time, rather than being morally justifiable, is amoral - outside of morality. Terminating in the first two trimesters isn't like refusing refusing keep a violinist alive, it's like putting out a fire. The fire isn't a stakeholder. And the pro-choice side has unintentionally given the fire moral consideration consideration by framing the issue as it being justifiable to put it out.

Early abortions are not morally justifiable, they are divorced from morality altogether. One wouldn't feel the need to morally justify putting out of fire.

When the fetus becomes capable of feeling, it is afforded moral consideration and then we can argue that one's bodily autonomy is more important than the life of the fetus.

[The Alma Mater]

Not really, since for one of the primary pro-choice arguments (bodily autonomy) it does not matter. Neither a fetus, nor you, nor the president has a right to use my body against my will, even if they die without that use.

The consciousness issue does matter because even if we are pro-choice on the basis of bodily autonomy, that is a moral judgment (my right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right of a fetus to live) and it is a mistake to apply that as the primary rationale for freedom to terminate within the first 20 weeks. It is a mistake because we are assigning some degree of moral consideration to early fetuses and in doing so we cede ground to the anti-choice side

Because a fetus utterly lacks subjective experience throughout the first and most of the second trimester, we ought to argue that abortion before this time, rather than being morally justifiable, is amoral - outside of morality. Terminating in the first two trimesters isn't like refusing refusing keep a violinist alive, it's like putting out a fire. The fire isn't a stakeholder. And the pro-choice side has unintentionally given the fire moral consideration consideration by framing the issue as it being justifiable to put it out.

Early abortions are not morally justifiable, they are divorced from morality altogether. One wouldn't feel the need to morally justify putting out of fire.

When the fetus becomes capable of feeling, it is afforded moral consideration and then we can argue that one's bodily autonomy is more important than the life of the fetus.

A fair point. *bows*

[The Second JELLIAN Republic]

Not really, since for one of the primary pro-choice arguments (bodily autonomy) it does not matter. Neither a fetus, nor you, nor the president has a right to use my body against my will, even if they die without that use.

The consciousness issue does matter because even if we are pro-choice on the basis of bodily autonomy, that is a moral judgment (my right to bodily autonomy supersedes the right of a fetus to live) and it is a mistake to apply that as the primary rationale for freedom to terminate within the first 20 weeks. It is a mistake because we are assigning some degree of moral consideration to early fetuses and in doing so we cede ground to the anti-choice side

Because a fetus utterly lacks subjective experience throughout the first and most of the second trimester, we ought to argue that abortion before this time, rather than being morally justifiable, is amoral - outside of morality. Terminating in the first two trimesters isn't like refusing refusing keep a violinist alive, it's like putting out a fire. The fire isn't a stakeholder. And the pro-choice side has unintentionally given the fire moral consideration consideration by framing the issue as it being justifiable to put it out.

Early abortions are not morally justifiable, they are divorced from morality altogether. One wouldn't feel the need to morally justify putting out of fire.

When the fetus becomes capable of feeling, it is afforded moral consideration and then we can argue that one's bodily autonomy is more important than the life of the fetus.

So then the question is, (if and when life does occur), should they be able to do like new haven America said, force someone you live with you and all that, and of course, if you say no, they will die.

So then, with the assumption that the fetus is by most definitions “alive” at some point during pregnancy.
The question is, can and should the state take some of your liberty to save a life?
Can or should the state force you to save a life at expense to yourself?

(Also to katganistan, that is impossible. But we afford rights to people, we assume they have a soul. We have the bill of rights, the Geneva convention, the whole enlightenment period. If you need to prove a soul, instead of just consciousness, then that has wide implications. We can no more prove a fetus has a soul than you do. The best we can tell is that anything conscious has a soul.)

[Apotheosis Pandemonium]

I believe abortions if the two people had consent or had consent and they accidentally have a newborn baby as long as the mother's life is not at risk should be outlawed. However, if there is a r*pe of incest case they should have until the baby's heartbeat kicks in to get .an abortion same as the first one if the mother's life is in danger they should be able to get it whenever but the earlier the better. There that's my take

NOW
CHANGE MY MIND IF YOU DISAGREE



here are some bible verses about abortion

Proverbs 6:16-19 ESV
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

[Haganham]

1. Whether the child was conceived by rape is no fault of the child. By allowing abortion in cases of rape you conceded that this isn't about protecting innocent life.
2. heartbeat is completely irrelevant to personhood even in people who have been born, so you concede that it's not about seeing fetuses as people.
So what basis do you have to deny a person an abortion, recognizing that you are neither protecting an innocent life, nor protecting the rights of an unborn person.

[Rusozak]

Citing a passage in a 2000 year old book doesn't help your arguments for a modern day issue look credible.

[Resilient Acceleration]

God cannot be proven by science, objective morality is not a thing, life and the universe is empirically meaningless, be crime do gay

[The Alma Mater]

There is an entire topic on this, which has already adressed all your points a few hundred times.

Please read it. Then we can continue.

[Haganham]

My question is; where are you people finding these women who are willing carry a pregnancy through to the third trimester and then decide they want an abortion?

[Mackiland]

I do agree with you about abortion being immoral as long as the mother's life is not in danger or there was not a case of rape.

However, I think it shouldn't be outlawed. Because those who want to abort will still abort and if abortion is illegal it means they will do illegally in a kind of places which are not suitable for such operation which can lead to the death of the mother or the abortion will be done wrongly and the woman won't be able to get pregnant anymore. Therefore, to avoid that I believe it shouldn't be outlawed. But, in my opinion, if a woman decides to abort, first they must be talked to by someone who unbiasedly will help them decide whether abortion is really the best thing to do in their situation and tell them what abortion actually means and about all the possible consequences of it.

[Imperial States of Duotona]

So what you're saying is, you have to wait (only in rape cases) for the heartbeat to kick in until you get an abortion.

Why? What makes that any different than getting it before? If anything, it removes the shame of being pregnant due to such a traumatic event sooner, so it doesn't psychologically mess with the victim.

I'm not even mad at this post, I'm just VERY confused.

[Apotheosis Pandemonium]

Well, I consider anything after the heartbeat to be full-on murder have you seen the fetus videos in the womb being comforted by their mother. So they have some form of sentience at that point when their counices

[Limonovshchina]

CHANGE MY MIND.

I likely won't even if I tried, Mr Crowder, but I don't really care enough to anyway. It's sort of a social contract formed out series of conveniences that life begins at birth which carries with it a series of bases for it. Different people have different reasons for it. Muh moraleteeh is an irrelevant temper tantrum and anti-abortionism is a terrorist ideology.

[Alkmaaria]

I don't think it's right to get an abortion past 6 months, because it's so late in the pregnancy, unless the birth will directly harm the mother/child. Then again it is ultimately the mother's choice whether she wants and abortion or not. Also doctors, except in rare cases, will not allow you to get an abortion past 6 months anyways.

[Heloin]

Well, I consider anything after the heartbeat to be full-on murder

Well, you’re wrong.

have you seen the fetus videos in the womb being comforted by their mother.

No, and I don’t care before you try and share.

So they have some form of sentience at that point

They don’t.

when their counices

https://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=counice

[Apotheosis Pandemonium]

God cannot be proven by science, objective morality is not a thing, life and the universe is empirically meaningless, be crime do gay

uh, our universe was created to a degree ere if one thing was to be changed it could be impossible for life to exist. So therefore there has to be a creator. And yet despite our attempt, we have not found any other intelligent life. scientists have run calculations that there should be around 36 prosperous alien civilizations in our galaxy but we have found nothing. Even if there was a civilization outside our galaxy that built megastructures like Dyson spheres NASA's high-end telescopes would be able to see it.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/world/in ... index.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecarte ... d24e97694f
https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask ... scope-see-

[The Jamesian Republic]

I do agree with you about abortion being immoral as long as the mother's life is not in danger or there was not a case of rape.

However, I think it shouldn't be outlawed. Because those who want to abort will still abort and if abortion is illegal it means they will do illegally in a kind of places which are not suitable for such operation which can lead to the death of the mother or the abortion will be done wrongly and the woman won't be able to get pregnant anymore. Therefore, to avoid that I believe it shouldn't be outlawed. But, in my opinion, if a woman decides to abort, first they must be talked to by someone who unbiasedly will help them decide whether abortion is really the best thing to do in their situation and tell them what abortion actually means and about all the possible consequences of it.

This my opinion as well. There should be people who can give counsel to women about such decisions. Or if possible PTSD or Grief counseling would help too.

[Limonovshchina]

God cannot be proven by science, objective morality is not a thing, life and the universe is empirically meaningless, be crime do gay

uh, our universe was created to a degree ere if one thing was to be changed it could be impossible for life to exist. So therefore there has to be a creator. And yet despite our attempt, we have not found any other intelligent life. scientists have run calculations that there should be around 36 prosperous alien civilizations in our galaxy but we have found nothing. Even if there was a civilization outside our galaxy that built megastructures like Dyson spheres NASA's high-end telescopes would be able to see it.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/world/in ... index.html
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecarte ... d24e97694f
https://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask ... scope-see-

Does not answer any one thing they said

[Haganham]

scientists have run calculations that there should be around 36 prosperous alien civilizations in our galaxy

OH BOY, now we're talking. Creationist, and ancient aliens!
dis gun be good.

[Heloin]

uh, our universe was created to a degree ere if one thing was to be changed it could be impossible for life to exist.

And? Your existence is based purely on which day your parents got down and dirty.

[The New California Republic]

My question is; where are you people finding these women who are willing carry a pregnancy through to the third trimester and then decide they want an abortion?

The main reason that abortions are carried out at that point is because either the fetus has some significant abnormality that means it will likely not survive and such, or there is an imminent risk to the woman's life posed by the pregnancy continuing, so in other words they are not elective abortions.

[Apotheosis Pandemonium]

when their counices

https://www.ancestry.com/name-origin?surname=counice[/quote]
Excuse my bad spelling i meant this
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conscious