What do you think about abortion?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Pro-Life.

I believe that the argument that a fetus isn't human is not based on science. By the very metrics set by science in what makes something both life and humanity. The fetus/zygote/clump of cells argument is a way to dehumanize the fetus in order in order to make killing the child more palatable. After all, dehumanization of victims is a common tactic used by oppressors/killers. Tale as old as time.

Interesting take.

I also believe that the "pro-lifers do not care about what happens to the fetus after it is born" to be a false and irrelevant argument. I don't care what happens to a lot of ppl, but I do think randomly shooting them in the head with a GLock is still horribly wrong.

I think it's very much relevant.

Pro-lifers claim to care about the unborn and they have a right to life.

Yet once they are born, they don't care about a proper social safety net, or making sure children get school lunches, etc

I also do not agree with the logic of "ppl still get them so it's better to be legal". Abortion SHOULD be legal IF it is medically necessary. IF one is made to choose between saving the mother's life or the child's then it should be available. BUT making Abortion legal for other matters like convenience or economic concerns is another thing entirely. The logic of "ppl would still do it anyway" is a sliding scale. Sounds good vs prohibition or when talking about the drug war. But murder is also illegal but some ppl still do it anyway, should murder be legalized then?

I suppose the comparison to murder would be valid if you're pro-life and think abortion is in the same camp as murder.

I'm pro-choice and don't make that case.

There is a line I am willing to draw. Rape/Incest and instances where a person's choice was taken away from them from the very start are cases that I can perhaps justify or at least something I can understand.

Glad we agree on something.

My logical position is actually about choice. But also about responsibility. IF you made the choice to have sex then the consequences of that choice is your responsibility to bear. The child who was created had no choice from the very beginning and you taking away its choice of life for something you chose to do is something I find abhorrent.

That's a very good point actually.

The vast majority or pregnancies are due to choice (there are no such things as "unwanted pregnancies"😉 so now the woman wants to abort the fetus due to her choice and the fetus gets no say?

I can see that abortion is preventing a fetus from being born into a human, but I still have reservations about the state making abortion illegal.

I'm still on the side of her body, her choice.

Of course, it goes back to the line I drew above. IF the choice was taken away from you at the beginning, then there is no good answer here. I cannot blame the person who makes the choice however.

I agree.

Originally posted by Blakemore
If she's willing to kill her foetus, she probably shouldn't have a child in the first place.

👆

Originally posted by Klaw
1) Interesting take.

2) I think it's very much relevant.

Pro-lifers claim to care about the unborn and they have a right to life.

Yet once they are born, they don't care about a proper social safety net, or making sure children get school lunches, etc

3) I suppose the comparison to murder would be valid if you're pro-life and think abortion is in the same camp as murder.

I'm pro-choice and don't make that case.

4) Glad we agree on something.

5) That's a very good point actually.

The vast majority or pregnancies are due to choice (there are no such things as "unwanted pregnancies"😉 so now the woman wants to abort the fetus due to her choice and the fetus gets no say?

I can see that abortion is preventing a fetus from being born into a human, but I still have reservations about the state making abortion illegal.

I'm still on the side of her body, her choice.

I agree.

1) there is very little other way to see an unborn child beyond that without falling into the subjective/escoteric.

2) It is irrelevant because it is trying to tie up the validity of two one moral position with another. Those are 2 different positions. Finding one valid and not being concerned with the other does not diminish the validity of the former. As with my example, one does not have to care what happens to a stranger to believe that shooting same stranger at random with Glock to be wrong. Personally, I DO believe that better social safeguards need to be in place. More importantly better education and access to contraceptives (w/c should be free for the most part).

3) It was not really a direct comparison tbh. More just an example on flaw of said logic. Its relation to my point was just a bonus. “Ppl will do it anyway so might as well make it legal” is not really logic I subscribe to.

4) 👆

5) Abortion is a medical procedure. It MUST -never- be illegal becaue there will be times where it will be necessary. The REASONS for abortions should be what is regulated. The same way it is unethical for doctors to give cosmetic surgery to children, it should also be unethical (and regulated) for a parent to kill an unborn child out of convenience.

“Preventing a fetus from being born” is just simple wordplay to not address the dark truth of the matter. Kind of like I “prevent a guy from going to work” by breaking his knees.

Originally posted by Blakemore
1) The foetus is reliant on her placenta, sorry, she's in charge. A baby is different: no umbilical cord.

2) I'm sorry, I've heard stories of babies being aborted with coat hangers in America. That's what happens when you restrict someone of control of their body.

3) Are they horrible people? Yes! Shall we make the situation better? Yes! If she's willing to kill her foetus, she probably shouldn't have a child in the first place.

1) I’m trying to wrap my head around why the presence of an umbilical cord somehow makes a normally evil/vile act (murder of a child) into something perfectly acceptable. Pls explain.

2) That is certainly very tragic. But don’t you think we should aim to try and save both the parent and the child first, if that is possible rather than making the killing of one acceptable to save the other?

3) Well, tbh. A lot of people who go thru an abortion can be selfish or maybe they are scared, maybe desperate? Maybe they are misinformed that feel that abortion is somehow empowering? I can’t go into the minds of everyone who go thru an abortion (tho I used to date a girl who went thru one, she was completely messed up by it and regret it every day) thus I feel I cannot really judge them. The problem I currently have with abortion is less with the ppl who go thru it (I believe most of them are good ppl in a desperate situation) but more on the (not all of) societal acceptability of it based on (what I believe is) a mostrous lie (the dehumanization argument).

The direction should be to set up social programs to help single parents, to strengthen and streamline adoption and destigmatize young/single parenthood, not kill the unborn.

1) a foetus is not a child
2) only if you believe a woman is incapable of making her own decisions
3) you admit you cannot really judge them, you admit your problem is less to do with the people who go through them (women) but more to do with"society?" Elaborate on what you think society is, please.

Originally posted by Blakemore
1) a foetus is not a child
2) only if you believe a woman is incapable of making her own decisions
3) you admit you cannot really judge them, you admit your problem is less to do with the people who go through them (women) but more to do with"society?" Elaborate on what you think society is, please.

1) Ppl call a fetus an unborn child/baby all the time.

2) You brought up abortion by coat hanger. My point was that a good chunk of such tragic event could have been prevented had there been proper social support for young mothers and a societal destigmitization of young/single pregnancy during those times. W/c is what the direction of society should be, not the dehumanization of the unborn for the sake of convenience.

3) I didn’t say “society”, I said “societal acceptance”. Essentially, the conversation of it. The dehumanization lie that is pushed by politicians, activists, organizations, the media etc.

Pro choice.
It's the mother's right.
It should be decided on the state level.
Taxpayer dollars shouldn't contribute to abortion ( or anything else for that matter. Taxation is theft.)

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Pro choice.
It's the mother's right.
It should be decided on the state level.
Taxpayer dollars shouldn't contribute to abortion ( or anything else for that matter. Taxation is theft.)

Are you a Libertarian?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Pro-Life.

I believe that the argument that a fetus isn't human is not based on science. By the very metrics set by science in what makes something both life and humanity. The fetus/zygote/clump of cells argument is a way to dehumanize the fetus in order in order to make killing the child more palatable. After all, dehumanization of victims is a common tactic used by oppressors/killers. Tale as old as time.

I also believe that the "pro-lifers do not care about what happens to the fetus after it is born" to be a false and irrelevant argument. I don't care what happens to a lot of ppl, but I do think randomly shooting them in the head with a GLock is still horribly wrong.

I also do not agree with the logic of "ppl still get them so it's better to be legal". Abortion SHOULD be legal IF it is medically necessary. IF one is made to choose between saving the mother's life or the child's then it should be available. BUT making Abortion legal for other matters like convenience or economic concerns is another thing entirely. The logic of "ppl would still do it anyway" is a sliding scale. Sounds good vs prohibition or when talking about the drug war. But murder is also illegal but some ppl still do it anyway, should murder be legalized then?

There is a line I am willing to draw. Rape/Incest and instances where a person's choice was taken away from them from the very start are cases that I can perhaps justify or at least something I can understand.

My logical position is actually about choice. But also about responsibility. IF you made the choice to have sex then the consequences of that choice is your responsibility to bear. The child who was created had no choice from the very beginning and you taking away its choice of life for something you chose to do is something I find abhorrent.

Of course, it goes back to the line I drew above. IF the choice was taken away from you at the beginning, then there is no good answer here. I cannot blame the person who makes the choice however.

Favorite response in the thread. You're a careful thinker.

Originally posted by Klaw
Are you a Libertarian?

Agorist, voluntarist, anarcho capitalist. Whatever you wanna call it, yes.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Agorist, voluntarist, anarcho capitalist. Whatever you wanna call it, yes.

Communist?

Originally posted by Klaw
Communist?

NOOOOO.

You can't perform cost calculation, without making each consumer sovereign in their choice. the choice acts as input, which you weigh against output. This is critical in knowing if any given Enterprise is a worthwhile endeavor.

In communist societies it is decided by either a dictator, an intelligentsia, or democratically elected workers. In all three cases this only serves as a single input. For historical instances of this modality causing failure see the great famine or the great leap forward in china or the famine in North Korea.

Im an anarchist in the sense that I see states as predatory and inefficient. This monopolization of force is replaced by the market, which makes every citizen sovereign.

In the case of abortion the woman is sovereign over her body (see natural, God given, or lockean rights), but once the child is born it's sovereign over it's own body.

@Nibedicus

1) there is very little other way to see an unborn child beyond that without falling into the subjective/escoteric.

I don't think human rights begin until birth.

2) It is irrelevant because it is trying to tie up the validity of two one moral position with another. Those are 2 different positions. Finding one valid and not being concerned with the other does not diminish the validity of the former. As with my example, one does not have to care what happens to a stranger to believe that shooting same stranger at random with Glock to be wrong. Personally, I DO believe that better social safeguards need to be in place. More importantly better education and access to contraceptives (w/c should be free for the most part).

The issue I have is pro-lifers come from the position that life is a gift and should be protected while simultaneously not caring about that life after it's born.

It seems like they're only pro-life because it denies a woman the right to choose.

3) It was not really a direct comparison tbh. More just an example on flaw of said logic. Its relation to my point was just a bonus. “Ppl will do it anyway so might as well make it legal” is not really logic I subscribe to.

👆

4) thumb up

👆

5) Abortion is a medical procedure. It MUST -never- be illegal becaue there will be times where it will be necessary. The REASONS for abortions should be what is regulated. The same way it is unethical for doctors to give cosmetic surgery to children, it should also be unethical (and regulated) for a parent to kill an unborn child out of convenience.

I see the point you're making, but I disagree.

The reasons as far as I'm concerned don't matter.

As I'm pro-choice, the reason a woman wants to get an abortion do not matter to me at least.

“Preventing a fetus from being born” is just simple wordplay to not address the dark truth of the matter. Kind of like I “prevent a guy from going to work” by breaking his knees.

I see the analogy but I'm not buying it.

I would rather no abortions to take place.

Abortion is definitely not a good thing in general, I think killing a fetus in the womb is kinda sick, but it still should be legal due to the fact that it's growing inside a female and she should have the choice.

“Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.

The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.”

-murray rothbard
For a New Liberty, p.139

I kinda disagree with the above... If you kick a child up to 5 out of your house, it will die because you neglected it, but that doesn't mean that should be legal.

Originally posted by Klaw
@Nibedicus

1) I don't think human rights begin until birth.

2) The issue I have is pro-lifers come from the position that life is a gift and should be protected while simultaneously not caring about that life after it's born.

It seems like they're only pro-life because it denies a woman the right to choose.

👆

👆

3) I see the point you're making, but I disagree.

The reasons as far as I'm concerned don't matter.

As I'm pro-choice, the reason a woman wants to get an abortion do not matter to me at least.

4) I see the analogy but I'm not buying it.

I would rather no abortions to take place.

Abortion is definitely not a good thing in general, I think killing a fetus in the womb is kinda sick, but it still should be legal due to the fact that it's growing inside a female and she should have the choice.

1) “I do not see you as human/a person thus you have no rights/do not have equal rights to me” is the cornerstone of every oppressive act done by every regime/society for as long as human history even existed. Once you convince society in general that this is true to one speciifc segment, then just about any act can be justified or acceptable. Be it slavery, racism or genocide.

This is where we are today. Essentiall half of human society in general has been convinced that one segment of humanity (the unborn) is less than human and thus has no rights.

2) Pro-Life isn’t about denying women’s right to choose. It is about saving the life of the unborn. Pro-lifers like me to do not differentiate between the unborn and the born. We see the tragedy of a woman who does not wish to carry a child but also recognize that the child has a right to live. It is not a position of “absolute right” as there is no good answer here, only the less bad one. Does a woman’s (who made the choice to risk pregnancy by having unprotected sex) right to her body over a period of nine months overrule the right of a baby’s life? Nine months vs life. Responsible party vs innocent victim. That is how we see it.

There are ppl who are just selfish and those who are plain assholes but also reccognize that taking a Glock to a random person’s head is wrong. Take away the Glock and they go back to not caring about the person who was about to be shot. As I said, the latter does not make the former position of morality invalid.

3) The reasons behind a medical procedure is far more important than you think. For example:

Can a government force a mother to abort in order to enforce its population control?

The reason is very much relevant. You just don’t think its relevant IF it falls what is acceptable within your beliefs or what you have been made to believe. Where we again go back to 1) above.

4) The analogy is exactly the same, tho. My point is that one can always make wordplay to make the unpalatable palatable. But if we want to be honest with ourselves we must confront the dark aspects of our actions.

The fact that you have an instictive revulsion to the act (“abortion is sick”) but are able to stifle/ignore/wave away this instinctive reaction in favor of a something that societal discoure has convinced you to believe (“woman has absolute control over her body, a fetus has no rights thus can be discarded at her will”) is actually quite telling.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
“Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.

The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.”

-murray rothbard
For a New Liberty, p.139

There is a subtle nuance to the wording used here.

Wher he devolves a child from a person to a parasite. Also, the child was not “unbidden” her actions/choices (provided she made it with her consent) placed the child there without the child’s consent.

He makes it sound like there is a good answer here. There is none. Only what it less bad.

Where he tries to sell a fallacy: We do not have absolute rights to our bodies. Our rights end when another‘s begins. I have every right to be able to move my arms the way I want to but when I use it to punch someone in the face....

As well as a dishonest description of abortion: Abortion is not about removing another human from your body, there are procedures that actually allow a human to be removed and then maintained outside the womb until it is capable of sustaining itself. As technology improves, the stage of developement where a child can live outside the womb can only become earlier and earlier (to a point where you can sustain a child outside the womb fro conception). Abortion as it is today is literally about killing the chilld first to extract it.

Lastly, his “property owner” analogy is false. Just because we have a squatter in our property, does not mean we are suddenly within our rights to shoot him in the face.

@Nibedicus

1) “I do not see you as human/a person thus you have no rights/do not have equal rights to me” is the cornerstone of every oppressive act done by every regime/society for as long as human history even existed. Once you convince society in general that this is true to one speciifc segment, then just about any act can be justified or acceptable. Be it slavery, racism or genocide.

This is where we are today. Essentiall half of human society in general has been convinced that one segment of humanity (the unborn) is less than human and thus has no rights.

I definitely agree with the first point.

However, I still think the fact that a fetus grows inside a woman, makes it her right to abort if she chooses to.

That's what decides it for me.

2) Pro-Life isn’t about denying women’s right to choose. It is about saving the life of the unborn. Pro-lifers like me to do not differentiate between the unborn and the born. We see the tragedy of a woman who does not wish to carry a child but also recognize that the child has a right to live. It is not a position of “absolute right” as there is no good answer here, only the less bad one. Does a woman’s (who made the choice to risk pregnancy by having unprotected sex) right to her body over a period of nine months overrule the right of a baby’s life? Nine months vs life. Responsible party vs innocent victim. That is how we see it.

There are ppl who are just selfish and those who are plain assholes but also reccognize that taking a Glock to a random person’s head is wrong. Take away the Glock and they go back to not caring about the person who was about to be shot. As I said, the latter does not make the former position of morality invalid.

I can appreciate that you look at it as protecting the unborn and not as denying a womans' right to choose.

You seem like one of the good ones based on everything you've said and I can respect that.

And I agree with you on the Glock analogy, it just seems like the people who are pro-life don't care about the baby after it's born and therefore don't actually care about life and just controlling women.

As for the responsibility angle, I do agree women should take responsibility for their actions and avoid abortion if they can.

However, I still go back to her body her choice.

3) The reasons behind a medical procedure is far more important than you think. For example:

Can a government force a mother to abort in order to enforce its population control?

The reason is very much relevant. You just don’t think its relevant IF it falls what is acceptable within your beliefs or what you have been made to believe. Where we again go back to 1) above.

So I would answer no to that.

The womans' body is her property and the Government does not have the moral right to force her to have an abortion.

The fetus, although a living thing, is inside the womans' body and therefore her property (as bad as that sounds) and she can choose to abort it or not.

4) The analogy is exactly the same, tho. My point is that one can always make wordplay to make the unpalatable palatable. But if we want to be honest with ourselves we must confront the dark aspects of our actions.

The fact that you have an instictive revulsion to the act (“abortion is sick”) but are able to stifle/ignore/wave away this instinctive reaction in favor of a something that societal discoure has convinced you to believe (“woman has absolute control over her body, a fetus has no rights thus can be discarded at her will”) is actually quite telling.

I'm honest, I think abortion is sick.

It's the killing of a fetus, preventing a human from being born after conception.

I'd rather it not happen.

You or me could've been aborted but thankfully(?) neither of us were.

What do you think it tells about me?

I don't get offended easily, so you can be honest.

The truth is, it's a very nuanced issue that shouldn't be controlled by the government at all. It's a very difficult choice for any woman to make, and to have a broad stroke brush from Washington d.c. tell you what you can or cannot do about it, is just plain wrong.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
1) Ppl call a fetus an unborn child/baby all the time.

2) You brought up abortion by coat hanger. My point was that a good chunk of such tragic event could have been prevented had there been proper social support for young mothers and a societal destigmitization of young/single pregnancy during those times. W/c is what the direction of society should be, not the dehumanization of the unborn for the sake of convenience.

3) I didn’t say “society”, I said “societal acceptance”. Essentially, the conversation of it. The dehumanization lie that is pushed by politicians, activists, organizations, the media etc.

There's no need to fantasies of hyperthetical Eutopia.

I thought an individual shouldn't suffer from prejudice. Sorry women, society controls your womb.