Abortion

[job]

I am curious as to where you stand on the subject of abortion.

I have also created a poll, where if you wish, you may state if you are for abortion or against abortion. In the interests of accommodating as many individuals as I can, I have made the poll anonymous, and this way, if you wish, you may elaborate on your choice publicly on the thread.

I would like to speak first, in at least the interests of stating my own point, not least because I am suggesting others can do it, but also perhaps it may be of use to have a conversation taking place. I am quite interested in both views, but I have to confess, I am rather interested in the views and rationale of those who support abortion.

My view of abortion is this: Abortion is murdering babies. I see abortion as something which is legalized infanticide, and I do not agree with abortion being legal. My thoughts are with the child who would be expected otherwise, unless killed, to grow up as an individual like everyone else, with as much rights to life as anyone, perhaps more rights to life, as they have not yet done anything wrong, and as babies, and children, they deserve our protection more so, because it is not unreasonable to expect a society to protect its most vulnerable members. I therefore say that abortion is murder and we should not allow murder in our society.

From looking around, I expect most people here to be pro-abortion, and I am curious why those people are, but perhaps I could be incorrect.

What are your views on the subject?

[Not A Communist Shill]

I think abortions are unpleasant and undesirable. I doubt few people would recommend abortions.

However, I believe abortions should be legalised, because the life of the potential mother is of a higher importance. Women should be allowed ultimate autonomy over their bodies, and should be allowed to carry out an abortion in safe and legal conditions.

No woman would seek out an abortion for the sake of having an abortion. Being forced to have a child they do not wish to have is hardly going to be a good circumstance for the mother or the future child's well-being.

The risk of losing women through the esculated risks associated with illegal abortions and through suicide would be intolerable.

I think the latest date at which abortions should be permissable should be kept as low as seems optimal (with perhaps leeway for wxceptional circumstances) - I also think that the methods most harmful to the mother should be outlawed.

[Jeremy8419]

Child support or abortions, take your pick, because if the decision of life or death rests solely on the female, then the financial responsibility should as well. If a baby is not a baby until it is born, then the male has no part in making a baby, only the female does.

[TheJackal]

Pro-choice doesn't not mean someone is pro-abortion.. The poll is intellectually dishonest and attempts to skew pro-choice as "pro-abortion"

[Jeremy8419]

Pro-choice doesn't not mean someone is pro-abortion.. The poll is intellectually dishonest and attempts to skew pro-choice as "pro-abortion"

But there's no choice for the baby

[TheJackal]

Child support or abortions, take your pick, because if the decision of life or death rests solely on the female, then the financial responsibility should as well. If a baby is not a baby until it is born, then the male has no part in making a baby, only the female does.

Until the male carries them to full term, they should have no overruling rule in regards to the woman's choice.. And you are using a false dichotomy between child support and abortions.. Furthermore, and in using your logic, if you force women to have children, then you should be forced to pay her medical bills and child support .... Oh wait, you feel like you have no responsibility when you try and force your religious or personal beliefs onto other peoples lives. Furthermore, I don't think you even comprehend the correlation between poverty, crime, and overpopulation is.., or what kind of impact you will have on society when you force people who don't want these children to have them.. Crime, child abuse, and poverty will skyrocket, and so will other impacts that will have on society as a hole.. This includes the impact it would have on an already collapsing ecosystem that is at this point no longer sustainable to support 7.4 billion people.. At what point do you recant your position to save the human species from extinction and the rest of life on planet from human overpopulation, pollution, and destruction? I don't think any of you have seriously thought any of this through.., and generally seems to come from an argument of ignorance of the real world..

[TheJackal]

But there's no choice for the baby

A fetus is not a baby... Not anymore so then the skin cells on your body..., these to which can be made into embryos.. We don't see you freaking out about clapping your hands and or how people are killing babies by doing so... A baby is what you get after it is born..., and a fetus is a potential to develop into and become a baby.. Yes it would be, in perfect infinite world, preferable that all come to term and be born.. Unfortunately the world isn't perfect and doesn't bend to your fantasy idea of it.. The world doesn't work how you think it does, and that includes taking into consideration the quality of life and the impact on society and the world itself. What you would impose would have drastically negative impacts.... It is naive if not ignorant to not consider the big picture.. I don't know about you, but I am in it for the continuation of the existence of our species and all the other species on this planet..., and you want to impose laws that would drastically lead us down that road to which threatens our existence the most..? You really don't care if back alley abortions happen, or if you force a child into an abusive unwanting home, or if human overpopulation leads to ecological collapse do you? You're not really caring about the unborn, you're pro-forced birth, not pro-life. Let me know when you consider the reality of the real world.. At this point I would consider you pro-extinction..

[Jeremy8419]

Wow, you're extremely easily baited lol. Just so you know, I'm reading nothing you wrote. /skips off

[TheJackal]

I'm reading nothing you wrote. /skips off

Baited or not, the point is relevant.. Though I am not surprised you aren't reading anything I wrote.. So yeah, feel free to "skip off" ..

[Jeremy8419]

Baited or not, the point is relevant.. Though I am not surprised you aren't reading anything I wrote.. So yeah, feel free to "skip off" ..

Okay. Good luck with the poor logic skills and disturbing life choices! Toddle-oo!

[TheJackal]

Okay. Good luck with the poor logic skills and disturbing life choices! Toddle-oo!

Good luck being relevant with your fallacy arguments, ignorance, and disturbing lack of education on the subject.. After all, you resort to this sort of discourse than actually refuting and addressing anything I had made a point about. Either you're are a troll, or you're desperate for relevancy in an argument you aren't going to win on any intellectual level. Tooddle-oo!

[Jeremy8419]

Good luck being relevant with your fallacy arguments, ignorance, and disturbing lack of education on the subject.. After all, you resort to this sort of discourse than actually refuting and addressing anything I had made a point about. Either you're are a troll, or you're desperate for relevancy in an argument you aren't going to win on any intellectual level. Tooddle-oo!

Or maybe I just like click-baiting slow people into bumping a topic that was falling off the dashboard without a significant number of responses? It's interesting that you think you're intelligent, though.

[TheJackal]

Or maybe I just like click-baiting slow people into bumping a topic that was falling off the dashboard without a significant number of responses? It's interesting that you think you're intelligent, though.

Even if that were to be the case of your intentions, that really has nothing to do with my intelligence concerning the subject or in general.. I am really not concerned if you're baiting, trolling, click baiting, or trying to be clever with a bit of sarcasm. Your Commentary thus far in this thread is on the fine line of idiotry regardless. At this point I am just entertained, feel free to continue..

[Jeremy8419]

Even if that were to be the case of your intentions, that really has nothing to do with my intelligence concerning the subject or in general.. I am really not concerned if you're baiting, trolling, click baiting, or trying to be clever with a bit of sarcasm. Your Commentary thus far in this thread is on the fine line of idiotry regardless. At this point I am just entertained, feel free to continue..

Really, now? So you consider concern for another over yourself as "idiocy"? If I didn't know any better, I would say you have mommy issues... Or, wait... No... It's too deep seated for mommy issues. Yours started a generation prior to that.

In any case, you should realize that abortion reduces the future population, as do things such as disease, homosexuality, mental illness, laziness; all these things, and the adherence to such, reduces the potential that such creatures' errors will continue to exist into the future. So, thank you, for accepting your descent into the obscurity of time with such passion and conviction. I'd say that the rest of us would miss you, but... Mistakes must be corrected. *shrug*

[TheJackal]

Really, now? So you consider concern for another over yourself as "idiocy"?

Strawman Fallacy.

If I didn't know any better, I would say you have mommy issues... Or, wait... No...

This is of no intellectual merit

In any case, you should realize that abortion reduces the future population, as do things such as disease, homosexuality, mental illness, laziness; all these things, and the adherence to such, reduces the potential that such creatures' errors will continue to exist into the future.

Actually abortion rates do not exceed the death rate..., anyone that can spend 5 minutes on Google can tell you that the human population is growing... Abortion isn't high enough to stall the growth rate..., and you would have us increase the growth rate? At what point did you stop and think about your argument? Now feel free to take your trusted statistics on abortions world wide and then apply that to the birth rate and then give me a number on what you think the world population would be at in just 50 years. Some claim 40 million a year..., and that would be 2 billion people in 50 years added to the population just on adverted abortions by forced birth alone.., this not counting the exponential growth rate in relation to the increase of population size, or the current birth rates. How do you suppose our planet could sustain that? Your idiotry, despite your concern over a fetus (admirable but misguided), would lead us to extinction. And sorry, homosexuality doesn't reduce population sizes.., and as we go forward into the 21st century, they can have children of their own.. Yep, they can use two sperm cells, or even just two egg cells to make an embryo. Yep, they can have babies to!.. Btw, remember not to masturbate, you're committing abortion according to your logic.. Hell, don't those sperm cells have a say? Maybe we can enforce all men to have all their sperm cells turned into embryos. There is a reason why your arguments are laughably incoherent, and it's not because of any supposed concern you have for "another". When I see science illiteracy at this level, I can't help but think of how embarrassing it is that I am of the same species.

I am more concerned of the overall health of life on this planet to which requires maintaining a sustainable balance.., and it's our responsibility giving our position to manage that , or at least try to manage it the best we can.. We can either destroy ourselves and the planet, or make the tough and rational decisions that might often come at our own expense to preserve our species and all the others we share life with here on the only home we have. My concern isn't for any particular fetus, it is the overall health and sustainability of life on Earth. That makes me more pro-life than you if we go by the arguments you have deposited thus far. My logic accepts the limitations and realities of the real world, and I understand that we are stuck, like it or not, in that frame work. So unless you have some magical powers I am not aware of to which can alter this world into the perfect world, I don't think you have much of an argument..

So, thank you, for accepting your descent into the obscurity of time with such passion and conviction. I'd say that the rest of us would miss you, but... Mistakes must be corrected. *shrug*

Oh the Irony!

[job]

There are a few statistics about abortion.

Live births: Usually commencing at 18 weeks. An abortion can result in the mother giving birth to a baby (a fetus is what some use to make it sound more agreeable to themselves) which has varying rates of survival. Some only 'last' for a short while, requiring medical staff to provide immediate emergency care, or palliative care for the baby if the prognosis of his or hers short life is not good.

Long term survival is as high as 50-70% for babies at 24 to 25 weeks.

[TheJackal]

There are a few statistics about abortion.

Live births: Usually commencing at 18 weeks. An abortion can result in the mother giving birth to a baby (a fetus is what some use to make it sound more agreeable to themselves) which has varying rates of survival. Some only 'last' for a short while, requiring medical staff to provide immediate emergency care, or palliative care for the baby if the prognosis of his or hers short life is not good.

Long term survival is as high as 50-70% for babies at 24 to 25 weeks.

Most abortions are within 14 weeks, those that occur beyond that are usually due to severe complications.. Can there be a premature birth? Yes.., and you are correct that when they are born premature, their survival rate is generally not very promising.. There are number of medical factors concerning that however. Also most states have laws that prevent abortions after 18 weeks as that is when higher order brain functions begin to develop over basic motor functions. At that point it would require severe complications that either threaten the mother's life, or the quality of life of the to be child.

[GuavaDrunk]

Note the following:
- There is no legal way to force a parent to donate an organ to their child, even if the child is in critically bad condition. The parent might do it anyway, but they cannot be forced.
- There is no legal way to take organs from a dead body if the living individual did not consent to it.

Meaning there is no other precedent (to my knowledge) where a legal adult *can* be forced to provide part or whole use of their body to another party.

Pregnancy, since artificial wombs are a thing of the future, entails a legal adult using most of their body (as hormonal changes affect most if not all of the body, in an unpredictable manner) for the benefit of another (this foetus you deem an individual.) So opposing the *possibility* of an abortion grants this adult less rights, with regards to disposing of their bodily autonomy, than a dead body (which cannot even fight back or campaign against any exploitation.) That reads to me like outright contempt for the whole process of pregnancy, in both its positives and negatives. Admittedly organ donation is more of a one-off operation, but that reinforces the contrast with pregnancy, which is a longer-term procedure (most of a year) with typically very wide-ranging consequences and after-effects.

Regarding negatives: if you remove the emotional positives, descriptions of pregnancy and birth sound like *body horror*. If it weren't a reproductive function, you would essentially be harbouring a very efficient parasite.
Positives: it is indeed making a whole new being. Shouldn't that deserve presence and attention, a degree of sacredness, instead of mindless pursuit of breeding like rabbits whenever possible? Since the new individual has such importance, shouldn't their conception and development have a degree of *intention,* of choosing to harbour *this specific person?* Shouldn't it be an exchange between the new arrival and its welcomer instead of a randomised assignment and an automated check-list? Shouldn't it be *personal?*

More philosophically, is giving life a power at all if you have no control over what you do with it?

Finally and entirely imo, prioritising the right and continuation of a bunch of cells over the demonstrable practical/emotional/social/etc. impact on a(nother) fully formed individual is disingenuous and the worst sort of sentimentality. Sure the cells grow into a recognisable baby with senses and perception of pain and so on, but this is an argument about a process in time, and the mother was there first, way before the child even *had* a potential. Having a new individual in the world is no progress if their conception hurt the old individual. You're offsetting the positive of the new with hurt that need not have been there. In utilitarian terms that's neutral, not an improvement. As it's not an improvement you can't argue that it's always the best case scenario.

Even arguing that you may be aborting, say, a great poet does not hold in practice, because a) there is not way to determine within reason that this future human will even be into poetry - genes don't work like that and b) you can argue the exact opposite (they will be a bloody dictator) with no change to the argument structure, and no way to tell how either side could have precedence. This argument does not bring any new information to the debate, it adds the same number of points to both sides and thus makes no difference.

[/phew][goes to get a life]

[ashlesha]

Finally and entirely imo, prioritising the right and continuation of a bunch of cells over the demonstrable practical/emotional/social/etc. impact on a(nother) fully formed individual is disingenuous and the worst sort of sentimentality.

this.

I'm so glad safe abortions exist, they've saved so many real lives.

[jessica129]

Why do people care? As long as it's not a late term abortion, you have no right to tell someone what to do with their body or their child that they created. There are too many people as it is.

[SongOfSapphire]

Pro-choice doesn't not mean someone is pro-abortion.. The poll is intellectually dishonest and attempts to skew pro-choice as "pro-abortion"

This.


Serious question for @job: Was this intentional or accidental? I ask because if it was intentional it's kind of shady, and if it was accidental it reveals your own opinion (surely not the best course if you want your poll results to reflect real people's real answer to your question) and it demonstrates a disturbing misunderstanding of the opposing viewpoint. Surely you don't think people who are pro-choice are "pro-abortion."

[mu4]

The poll is troll I'm going to close this thread.