Some considerations

[LightWolf]

With the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization bringing out the usual uncivil shouting match, I figured I'd try to set some of the record straight.

Abortion is a rare case where both sides view themselves as supporting a fundamental civil right. Pro-choice supports women's rights to autonomy and personal space, while pro-life supports pre-born children's right to life. The abortion debate is a case where these rights are in direct conflict, meaning one has to supersede the other, and the courts and legislatures are constantly trying to draw that line. The Supreme Court, saying the constitution does not inherently grant a right to an abortion, is putting it back into states' and voters' hands to determine where this line is rather than assuming it a priori on a national scale. One of the main criticisms of this decision is that it didn't strictly hold to stare decisis, where precedent is given significant weight, like occurred in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The court explained in its opinion that stare decisis does not strictly apply, citing cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, which set the precedent for segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned it and paved the way for desegregation.

With this court case decided, each state has to determine for itself what circumstances permit an abortion, if any. Most of what I see is targeting this phase, and there are a handful of misconceptions which appear frequently.

First, pro-life feels that the right to life should not directly be threatened by anyone. For example, if you are pro-life and pro-2A, you believe people are at liberty to own a gun because that act does not inherently threaten a child's life. The only thing not permissible is actually shooting someone with it, except in cases of self-defense, where the person waived their right to life by first threatening yours. (This is also why the death penalty can be seen as permissible, as the person committed a crime sufficiently heinous to waive their right to life; the debate is largely over whether committing such a crime is possible.) This is also why you can be pro-life and against government-centralized healthcare, as there is no direct threat to a child's life at any point. (It's worth mentioning there are still plenty of pro-life who still see these other categories as something to implement, they're just not required to be pro-life and consistent.) There are other categories still where people try to say 'if you are really pro-life you will agree with my solution to this problem' when pro-life sees a different solution as appropriate, for instance arming teachers rather than banning guns to deter or prevent school shootings among pro-life and pro-2A groups. I would argue that if you view your solution as the only one which could possibly preserve life, and try to say someone else is not pro-life unless they strictly agree with your solution even while you both agree on the problem as one which needs solved, then you are either being manipulative or a parrot.

Second, albeit less common, is the idea that somehow pro-life feels that legal personhood should be conveyed to unborn children solely for the purpose of abortion, excluding things like insurance or child support. I believe this is a conflation of the idea that many conservatives have a problem with either the theory or specific implementation of some of these ideas (in many cases based on the conservative stereotype rather than actual belief), and extrapolating that conservatives would jump at the opportunity to limit these to unborn children. No conservative I know believes this. If unborn children are legally considered people, I can't think of anyone who does not think this should apply categorically. I also don't know many conservatives who show blanket disdain for the categories pointed out in pro-choice arguments in the manner they imply, though I can't speak for everyone. Related is the idea that the father should not be required to bear responsibility if they don't want the child. I could see this appearing among some groups (mostly those who are conservative for conservatism's sake but refuse to actually think about what they believe and why), but again I don't know anybody that seriously believes this.

Third, pro-choice often seems to think that pro-life also wants to target miscarriage treatment, ectopic pregnancy, or other similar categories. I can't think of anyone from any walk of life who seriously thinks treating a miscarriage is comparable to abortion. I could see an argument for ectopic pregnancy, but again very few pro-life believe these are the same situation. Abortion is the termination of a living fetus within the uterus. Abortion is not the removal of an already-dead fetus. For most pro-life, abortion is not the treatment of an embryo who implanted in the wrong spot, all but guaranteeing the child will die anyway and take the mother with it. (That said, this last argument would likely change with a good procedure that safely moves the embryo to the correct place, as there would be a reasonable chance for the child to survive. As far as I am aware, such a procedure is not very well-known, if it exists at all.)

Most of these are misconceptions about the pro-life platform; this is mainly since, from my experience, pro-choice is so in-your-face about what they believe that to be misconceived they would have to be misrepresenting themselves. I will admit most of this is inspired by the arguments and accusations I see throughout social media, meaning that I am not necessarily aware of how common they are otherwise. I am aware that there are always people who fit misconceptions or are inconsistent or hypocritical; from my experience they do not necessarily represent the majority.

[Ferno]

No.

If they were really pro-life, they would be supporting initiatives for free healthcare, post-natal care, extended parental leave, sick leave and mental health and sensible gun control.

It's all about control and that whole paragraph is nothing but bull★■◆●. Full stop.

[Tunnelcat]

No.

If they were really pro-life, they would be supporting initiatives for free healthcare, post-natal care, extended parental leave, sick leave and mental health and sensible gun control.

It's all about control and that whole paragraph is nothing but bull★■◆●. Full stop.

THIS! Conservatives want to defend life, defend it after it's been born and don't just throw all those children born to poor mothers who can't afford to raise them into a cruel world that could care less about their survival. That's even more cruel than abortion. I see absolutely no movement in this direction by the Republican Party other than the apparent desire to control procreation, even to the point of imprisoning mothers who leave their state to go to another to get an abortion. Abortion is not illegal in the U.S., federally, so any woman should have the right of free will to travel to another state or country if they want an abortion. So what now, are Republican states going to become pregnant women's prisons where they have to give birth or go to jail? What kind of country are conservatives turning it into? This is just the tip of the SCOTUS activist iceberg that is going to come out of Trump's Court. Thomas and Alito also indicated that this ruling opens the door to rescinding the recent Constitutionally given privacy protection for what kind of sex goes on in the privacy of your own damn bedroom. The day SCOTUS tells people what type of sex is OK or not OK, we've sunk back into the dark ages of Puritanism. ★■◆● that.

[LightWolf]

You, Ferno, are the very reason I made this post.

If they were really pro-life, they would be supporting initiatives for free healthcare, post-natal care, extended parental leave, sick leave and mental health and sensible gun control.

Pro-life is about protecting the right to life of the unborn. Pro-life believes this right is being stripped without due process. Pro-life is about preventing the right to life from being stripped. These other ideas are external. Also, as I mentioned and both you and TC conveniently ignored, many pro-life supporters believe in the things you listed anyway, so it's highly unfair to tell them they actually don't then demonize them for it.

And I already said what I think of people who think their own definition of sensible gun control is the only one that qualifies as sensible.

However, since you seem to know what pro-life means better than the people who actually believe it, how about I play your game? Pregnancy resource centers are a frequent target of the pro-choice movement. This is because pro-choice believes that full birth and abortion are the only choices that are allowed. Even more egregiously, pregnancy resource centers provide services so mothers understand how the abortion process works and what goes into it - by targeting these places, you don't believe mothers even have the right to informed consent! Therefore, pro-choicers are actually very anti-choice, and in a far more sexist manner than they accuse pro-life of being.
See how this works?

You hold that the unborn do not possess a right to life protected under due process, a fact which pro-life disagrees with you on. Despite what you may think, your beliefs about who does not have rights are not self-evident. Most pro-life believe that women do in fact have bodily autonomy, just that the child is a separate entity and deserves consideration as such. In other words, it's not the woman's body that is the issue, but rather the child's body. You hold it as self-evident that this is false, when it clearly is not given how many arguments there are otherwise (one of the most common I see is that 50% of the DNA is not the mother's).

In short: You're wrong. Full stop.

I'm going to give you (and almost everyone on this board) some advice. In politics, virtually nothing is self-evident. Take a minute to figure out why you believe what you do, and what assumptions and biases feed these beliefs. There are always assumptions and biases. Make sure you can substantiate them, or in some cases you may have to change them because they simply don't work. If nothing else, you should be able to find the points where you disagree where you had been subconsciously assuming they agreed, or find points where your beliefs are fueled by propaganda (which is the entire point of "if they were really pro-life then they would conform to my definition of pro-life, not their own") - but it shouldn't be something where you reach a certain level and call it good enough. Doing this should mean you can have a more productive dialog rather than relying on two-liners about how someone is wrong because you said so and being the reason America is so divided.

[Darth Wang]

You hold that the unborn do not possess a right to life protected under due process, a fact which pro-life disagrees with you on. Despite what you may think, your beliefs about who does not have rights are not self-evident. Most pro-life believe that women do in fact have bodily autonomy, just that the child is a separate entity and deserves consideration as such. In other words, it's not the woman's body that is the issue, but rather the child's body. You hold it as self-evident that this is false, when it clearly is not given how many arguments there are otherwise (one of the most common I see is that 50% of the DNA is not the mother's).

Hypothetical scenario: Someone is dying and needs an organ transplant to survive. You are the only compatible donor. Do you think the government should be allowed to force you to give up one of your organs?

[Tunnelcat]

You've got a problem then LightWolf, because in order to protect a life, you have to control the life of another person for 9 months. You also have to realize that contraception isn't foolproof and that the human sex drive is hard to control at best, so there are going to be a lot of unwanted pregnancies and by extension, unwanted children. So for this case, any woman who's contraception fails, she's now the one responsible for losing 9 months of her life and in all probability her livelihood, to a condition that has the possibility of killing her, ON TOP of the burden of a raising a child she may not want. Over 300,000 women in North America die during childbirth, even in this day and age. That's not even mentioning having to endure the severe pain of childbirth to complete the pregnancy. So who's life is more important here and who are YOU to decide who gets to pick and choose someones fate in life?

https://ourworldindata.org/how-many-wom ... childbirth

Personally, I would only have an abortion in the event of rape or incest, but even some Republicans don't want that. But I'm not going to play God and tell other women what they should or should not do with their pregnancies, murder or not. It's between her, her partner, God and her doctor, period. The state needs to keep the hell out of the decision because this nation needs to take care of those children who are already born and suffering, at which they are utterly failing at right now. You don't put the cart before the horse and expect things to work out great.

[LightWolf]

Hypothetical scenario: Someone is dying and needs an organ transplant to survive. You are the only compatible donor. Do you think the government should be allowed to force you to give up one of your organs?

I'm going to assume you are pro-choice, and under pro-choice assumptions the analogy is clear and valid. However, if you are pro-life, these scenarios are incomparable:
- There is no reasonable definition which states your organ is an independent entity worth consideration as such. For example, the organ's DNA is 100% your own.
- There is no reasonable definition which states organs have an inherent right to life.
- There is no reasonable definition by which an organ can be 'killed' in the sense you can kill a person anyway.

As the organ is clearly part of your body, no, the government should not be able to force you to give up an organ. A child is different because it is not clearly part of your body. There are multiple definitions people employ to demonstrate the child is independent (i.e. 50% DNA from father), it is easy to see that a pre-born person can be killed in the same sense a post-born person can, and you can reasonably extend post-born rights to life and due process to the pre-born child.

Here's a hypothetical for you: If it becomes impossible through unforeseeable means to support a two-year-old child, should you be allowed to take it to be euthanized?

But I'm not going to play God and tell other women what they should or should not do with their pregnancies, murder or not. It's between her, her partner, God and her doctor, period. The state needs to keep the hell out of the decision because this nation needs to take care of those children who are already born and suffering, at which they are utterly failing at right now. You don't put the cart before the horse and expect things to work out great.

Again, would you extend this logic to two-year-olds? Do you think states should pass laws permitting infant euthanasia (at the hands of a medical professional, of course)?

[Darth Wang]

Hypothetical scenario: Someone is dying and needs an organ transplant to survive. You are the only compatible donor. Do you think the government should be allowed to force you to give up one of your organs?

I'm going to assume you are pro-choice, and under pro-choice assumptions the analogy is clear and valid. However, if you are pro-life, these scenarios are incomparable:
- There is no reasonable definition which states your organ is an independent entity worth consideration as such. For example, the organ's DNA is 100% your own.

- There is no reasonable definition which states organs have an inherent right to life.
- There is no reasonable definition by which an organ can be 'killed' in the sense you can kill a person anyway.

The organ isn't the fetus in this analogy. It's your bodily autonomy. Just like the government can now force a woman to give up 9 months of her life and health, in this analogy the government can force you to give up one of your organs. Which is probably actually less damaging, since you can survive without a kidney and the procedure will be over quickly, as opposed to being forced to harbor a fetus for 9 months, and all of the health concerns that go with that.

[LightWolf]

This still misses the nuance that, as far as pro-life is concerned, the fetus is its own body which deserves its own rights to its own body. Missing this point is arguably the main reason why abortion arguments never go anywhere - pro-choice does not seem to even acknowledge this point. They think that, in all cases, the child is just an extension of its mother's body, not a body of its own. That's also why I threw out the hypothetical you never answered - pro-choice thinks that the mother's body is the primary (and often exclusive) consideration, and always tries to make sure that is the focus of the argument. For pro-life, it's the child's body that is the primary consideration. If you have the right to invade the child's autonomy pre-birth by killing it, why don't you have the right invade its autonomy in this manner post-birth?

[Tunnelcat]

OK, 2 questions for LightWolf. At what point during either conception or gestation do you consider an embryo to be a viable human being? The other question, do you consider the life of a fetus to be equal to or more important than that of an already born child? And to answer your question, I am not for the euthanasia of infants. But my point here is the hypocrisy of conservative thinking and action. They seem to value the life of a fetus over the life of a child, or the mother, and then go on ignore that child and it's mother once it's born. That's unconscionable social conduct for a governing body in a modern wealthy nation. Remember, most women that have abortions are usually poor, minority and live in poverty, so their children will in all probability end up in a bad living situation, especially if the mother and/or father does not want that child. All too often the outcome of this sad situation is murder instead of adoption for some weird reason. I say, if you're for life, you're for ALL life no matter that life's living situation. I also say that an embryo is not yet a human being and only contains the programming to become a human after a period of growth. If we destroy a seed, is that the same as cutting down a tree? If we eat a chicken egg, is that the same as killing a chicken?

[Darth Wang]

This still misses the nuance that, as far as pro-life is concerned, the fetus is its own body which deserves its own rights to its own body.

So does the person who needs an organ donation to live. So should the government be able to force you to give up an organ for them?

[Tunnelcat]

Using their abortion logic, yes. But with our much vaunted private medical system, if you don't have the cash, or can raise the funds or even find a donor, YOU DIE and only your family grieves. Republicans in Congress could give a rats ass whether you live or die once you're born.

[LightWolf]

Except in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or other situations where the child cannot survive until birth, the pro-life platform does not consider viability relevant under the knowledge that it will be viable. Once the egg is fertilized, unless it dies naturally, it is a human with its own body and deserves consideration as such. And most of the pro-life platform would consider the fetus' life to be equal to any other life. With that is another common misconception, that the mother and children (or anyone else really) do not deserve assistance. Most conservatives do not believe the government should render this assistance; it is the role of businesses and charitable organizations to render this assistance voluntarily, and many such organizations do exist.

I think animals are a better analogy than plants, since plants are solely considered in the context of other species while we agree to give animals at least some individual consideration. In almost any case, protections to adult animals that are applicable to eggs are extended as such. For example, it is a felony to possess the eggs of an endangered bird which would be a felony to possess an adult of. On the flip side, chicken eggs are generally considered legally and morally safe to be eaten, as are adult chickens - and if you disagree about one, you tend to disagree about the other as well. Humans are the only pain-capable creature where the embryo is not given the same general consideration as an adult.

Since there is disagreement about whether a fetus is a human, I'd like to mention another scenario someone told me about whose principle I think applies here. There is some scientific evidence to suggest that lobsters may be conscious, though not enough to be conclusive. Multiple nations have decided that, since they might be conscious, it was worth considering them as though they definitively were, and they banned boiling lobsters alive to cook them (you have to kill the lobster first, which is permissible under the tradition of using other species as food). This sets the standard that when life or dignity might deserve ethical consideration, it is better to err on the side of caution and give this consideration. Why don't human embryos get the same standard of consideration we give lobsters?

(Side tangent about animals - I am aware that most American conservatives would consider boiling lobsters alive permissible, so that paragraph is largely speaking for myself. That said, there is a good book on animal hypocrisy by Hal Herzog called Some we Love, Some we Hate, Some we Eat that explains how in modern society it is nearly impossible not to be a hypocrite in this context.)

So does the person who needs an organ donation to live. So should the government be able to force you to give up an organ for them?

In this scenario, you have two people whose bodily autonomy are not being interfered with. You can intervene in the autonomy of one person, harvest the organ, and preserve the other; alternatively, you can do nothing, which neither threatens life nor autonomy of either party. (Keep in mind that pro-life at its core is focused on actions which infringe on the right to life. Actions which extend or preserve it are a separate question.) In abortion, you have a situation where you have to choose whose autonomy to infringe. Either the woman is forced to give up her personal space for her child, or the child is forced to give up its life. No matter what you do, somebody's autonomy is being infringed, so it becomes a decision on which infringement is less grievous. For virtually anyone pro-life, the mother's livelihood is a lesser infringement than the child's life.

[Krom]

This is basically a chicken or egg debate which is pointless.

You know what, I'm totally fine with the Pro-Life people getting their way under one condition: They have to be responsible for raising the unwanted children all the way to their independence. Like providing the necessary financial, physical and emotional support all the way through higher education till they are fully "independent" with a job, housing, etc. Build the social structure where the mothers and children aren't doomed to miserable lives of abject poverty and we might have compromise that actually makes pretty much everyone happy.

The pro-choice people are right to call out bull★■◆● to the pro-life people because as soon as the "unborn" becomes the "born" they are as good as dead to the pro-life people and they stop being any concern. You can claim otherwise but the actions of society prove its all lies because the very next thing they would say is "THATS SoCiAlIsM!". So basically what I'm saying is "Pay Up or Shut Up".

[Darth Wang]

You still haven't answered my question.

[LightWolf]

You still haven't answered my question.

I missed it initially, and edited my original statement to reflect my response. Nevertheless, I'll repost here:

So does the person who needs an organ donation to live. So should the government be able to force you to give up an organ for them?

In this scenario, you have two people whose bodily autonomy are not being interfered with. You can intervene in the autonomy of one person, harvest the organ, and preserve the other; alternatively, you can do nothing, which neither threatens life nor autonomy of either party. (Keep in mind that pro-life at its core is focused on actions which infringe on the right to life. Actions which extend or preserve it are a separate question.) In abortion, you have a situation where you have to choose whose autonomy to infringe. Either the woman is forced to give up her personal space for her child, or the child is forced to give up its life. No matter what you do, somebody's autonomy is being infringed, so it becomes a decision on which infringement is less grievous. For virtually anyone pro-life, the mother's livelihood is a lesser infringement than the child's life.

You know what, I'm totally fine with the Pro-Life people getting their way under one condition: They have to be responsible for raising the unwanted children all the way to their independence. Like providing the necessary financial, physical and emotional support all the way through higher education till they are fully "independent" with a job, housing, etc. Build the social structure where the mothers and children aren't doomed to miserable lives of abject poverty and we might have compromise that actually makes pretty much everyone happy.

Nowhere is the right to life made dependent on social circumstance. It is a right for a reason.

The pro-choice people are right to call out bull★■◆● to the pro-life people because as soon as the "unborn" becomes the "born" they are as good as dead to the pro-life people and they stop being any concern. You can claim otherwise but the actions of society prove its all lies because the very next thing they would say is "THATS SoCiAlIsM!". So basically what I'm saying is "Pay Up or Shut Up".

Did you completely miss when I said conservatives feel this is the responsibility of private organizations, not government, to implement?

[Krom]

Did you completely miss when I said conservatives feel this is the responsibility of private organizations, not government, to implement?

I did see it and its bull★■◆● because "private organizations" is conservative speak for "someone other than me". If it isn't a Tax that everyone has to pay, then you aren't taking any responsibility.

[Darth Wang]

Except the person is going to die without the organ transplant. So if you think abortion is murder, then so is refusing to give that person one of your organs. So should the government be able to force you to do so?

[LightWolf]

I did see it and its bull★■◆● because "private organizations" is conservative speak for "someone other than me". If it isn't a Tax that everyone has to pay, then you aren't taking any responsibility.

How is it me not taking responsibility if I don't believe you should have to pay for it? Is my donation not enough for you? Plus I wouldn't really trust a government whose priorities change every four years to steward that money well.

I will admit a cultural shift in favor of charitable donation would also be important to this end. But, at the end of the day, me choosing to give $100 to someone I trust is a far better option than you forcing me to give $50 to a project which may include actions I find completely objectionable.

Except the person is going to die without the organ transplant. So if you think abortion is murder, then so is refusing to give that person one of your organs. So should the government be able to force you to do so?

By what standard is refusing this transplant murder? I am not walking up to the person with a knife and stabbing them, which is exactly what abortion does. I am also in no way infringing on that person's bodily autonomy, which is exactly what abortion does.

[Krom]

How is it me not taking responsibility if I don't believe you should have to pay for it? Is my donation not enough for you? Plus I wouldn't really trust a government whose priorities change every four years to steward that money well.

I will admit a cultural shift in favor of charitable donation would also be important to this end. But, at the end of the day, me choosing to give $100 to someone I trust is a far better option than you forcing me to give $50 to a project which may include actions I find completely objectionable.

Does giving $50 or $100 to some "trusted" charity one time make you feel good? Because it is almost completely pointless. Compare it to how much the mother and child will be expected to do over their entire lifetimes, unless you are giving up that much you are only making yourself feel good with empty gestures.

I would pay this tax just fine, hell I would be pretty much ecstatic about it if it was in place of the trillions of dollars we spend on the military budget. Again, looking at society right here and now, the real priorities are clear: we spend vastly more money on ways to end lives than we do on ways to begin or sustain them.

[LightWolf]

Does giving $50 or $100 to some "trusted" charity one time make you feel good? Because it is almost completely pointless. Compare it to how much the mother and child will be expected to do over their entire lifetimes, unless you are giving up that much you are only making yourself feel good with empty gestures.

A good charity would be able to rake in more than a bunch of 'just once' donations. And I can guarantee you, even if I did donate just once, that $100 would go a lot farther than whatever quarter of a percent would come out of my income tax for the foreseeable future. It would probably even cover someone else's negligible amount of tax revenue.

we spend vastly more money on ways to end lives than we do on ways to begin or sustain them.

Such as by funding abortions?

I agree offense-oriented portions of our military are over-funded, and we spend way too much getting involved in wars. That's still no excuse to hold civil rights hostage to social conditions.

[Darth Wang]

Except the person is going to die without the organ transplant. So if you think abortion is murder, then so is refusing to give that person one of your organs. So should the government be able to force you to do so?

By what standard is refusing this transplant murder? I am not walking up to the person with a knife and stabbing them, which is exactly what abortion does. I am also in no way infringing on that person's bodily autonomy, which is exactly what abortion does.

There are no knives involved. All abortion does is remove the fetus from the woman's body. If it can't survive outside of her womb, how is that any different than someone who can't survive without an organ transplant?

[Krom]

A good charity would be able to rake in more than a bunch of 'just once' donations. And I can guarantee you, even if I did donate just once, that $100 would go a lot farther than whatever quarter of a percent would come out of my income tax for the foreseeable future. It would probably even cover someone else's negligible amount of tax revenue.

Hey I've got a bridge you could buy for a fair price, interested?

[LightWolf]

Except the person is going to die without the organ transplant. So if you think abortion is murder, then so is refusing to give that person one of your organs. So should the government be able to force you to do so?

By what standard is refusing this transplant murder? I am not walking up to the person with a knife and stabbing them, which is exactly what abortion does. I am also in no way infringing on that person's bodily autonomy, which is exactly what abortion does.

There are no knives involved. All abortion does is remove the fetus from the woman's body. If it can't survive outside of her womb, how is that any different than someone who can't survive without an organ transplant?

Okay, we'll leave the person who needs the transplant out on the street to starve then. (I take it this means you do not support methods which directly kill the embryo?)

Hey I've got a bridge you could buy for a fair price, interested?

Let's hear it.

[Darth Wang]

The question is not whether the person deserves to be saved, but whether it's right for the government to be able to force someone to give up one of their organs to save them. You keep dodging this.

[LightWolf]

The question is not whether the person deserves to be saved, but whether it's right for the government to be able to force someone to give up one of their organs to save them. You keep dodging this.

I am trying to point out the flaws in your analogy. Like it or not, the person is thus far an adequate analogy for the fetus. In the case of an abortion, you are actively doing something to violate the person's life and autonomy, and since the mother is actively infringing on the child's rights, it is worth mentioning whether the mother has a right to do so; if not, the government has a right to step in and prevent this violation of the child's civil rights. In the case of the transplant, you are simply doing nothing. Taking no action. You are not doing anything which would infringe on the person's rights. As you are doing nothing, the government does not have the right to step in and stop your nothing. This is the key difference between your analogy and reality.

[Darth Wang]

Again that's wrong. The fetus can't survive without the mother, so all that's being done is denying it the use of the mother's body, just like our hypothetical organ donor is denying the dying person the use of one of their organs. It's exactly the same.

[LightWolf]

Then why do many people have concerns over children that survive abortions?

[Darth Wang]

Then why do many people have concerns over children that survive abortions?

If it's outside the womb and viable, it's no longer a fetus. Laws regarding children apply to it.

[LightWolf]

Does that mean the abortions in question were wrong, given the child clearly was viable?

[vision]

Here's a hypothetical for you: If it becomes impossible through unforeseeable means to support a two-year-old child, should you be allowed to take it to be euthanized? Do you think states should pass laws permitting infant euthanasia (at the hands of a medical professional, of course)?

Yes. As far as I know I'm the only person on this board that not only supports abortion, but also infanticide under certain conditions. To me it doesn't matter when life begins, whether at conception or some arbitrary point in a pregnancy.

Also, you seem to be talking about a very idealized version of pro-life that really isn't in line with the legislation lawmakers are creating. As such, it really doesn't matter what your hypothetical or anecdotal description of pro-life is. The laws being proposed tell a story of cruelty, not liberty for the unborn.

[Darth Wang]

Does that mean the abortions in question were wrong, given the child clearly was viable?

Abortions don't occur after birth.

[LightWolf]

Abortions don't occur after birth.

Let me rephrase.

Let's say a woman gets an abortion. The child survives the abortion. Since this child was viable, was the abortion wrong?

Also, you seem to be talking about a very idealized version of pro-life that really isn't in line with the legislation lawmakers are creating. As such, it really doesn't matter what your hypothetical or anecdotal description of pro-life is. The laws being proposed tell a story of cruelty, not liberty for the unborn.

In my state at least, the new law is simple: No abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or medical emergency. Nothing more, nothing less. One criticism I've seen is that some states have higher penalties for abortion than for rape. My state is not one of them, with abortion carrying a 14-year prison sentence versus up to 50 years for felony sexual assault. In some cases I've been describing things which I and other pro-life laypeople wish to see happen; if I can figure out the appropriate legalese, I've considered sending a pre-written bill to my representatives to codify equal protection in all cases rather than just abortion for pre-born children as well as ensuring the father takes responsibility. My concern with this thread is mainly with what, from my experience, average pro-life people believe.

[Darth Wang]

Abortions don't occur after birth.

Let me rephrase.

Let's say a woman gets an abortion. The child survives the abortion. Since this child was viable, was the abortion wrong?

No, just like if someone refuses to donate an organ to a dying person and the person who needed it manages to survive somehow. They still had the right to refuse to give up their organ.

[LightWolf]

Here we enter into my lobster ethics example again - since the child is potentially viable, in any other circumstance the ethical imperative would be to treat it as viable and not take any action to harm it. As I've mentioned, by refusing the donation, the would-be donor is not taking any act to harm the person, thus this consideration does not apply.

Since our chat is clearly not getting anywhere, we may have to just agree to disagree.

[Darth Wang]

Here we enter into my lobster ethics example again - since the child is potentially viable, in any other circumstance the ethical imperative would be to treat it as viable and not take any action to harm it. As I've mentioned, by refusing the donation, the would-be donor is not taking any act to harm the person, thus this consideration does not apply.

Since our chat is clearly not getting anywhere, we may have to just agree to disagree.

Again, it's just removing the fetus from the womb. It's just as much 'taking action to harm it' as it is to not donate an organ to someone who needs one. Whether they survive afterwards is irrelevant to the procedure in question. If they do, then great, that's a win-win.

But anyway, this analogy is too generous, since I'm comparing the life of an actual living, thinking, breathing person to that of a barely differentiated cluster of cells. If there was a fire at a medical facility, and the firefighters who responded had time to either save a tray full of a dozen frozen embryos, or a one month old baby, but not both, which of them should they save, in your opinion?

[Ferno]

You, Ferno, are the very reason I made this post.

Me, really? I'm the only one? Out of millions of people? Oh I feel special already.

Pro-life is about protecting the right to life of the unborn.

Well, that's horseshit already.

Pro-life believes this right is being stripped without due process. Pro-life is about preventing the right to life from being stripped.

yet they do nothing about literally anything else that involves life.

Also, as I mentioned and both you and TC conveniently ignored

Yes, I ignored it because it's garbage. I ignore garbage. Because it's not worth the time to address.

many pro-life supporters believe in the things you listed anyway, so it's highly unfair to tell them they actually don't then demonize them for it.

Nope. Their actions suggest different. How about all those bombings at planned parenthood. That's so far away from pro-life it might as well be called anti-life.

And I already said what I think of people who think their own definition of sensible gun control is the only one that qualifies as sensible.

No needless death is sensible. Putting gun owners to the same standard as a drivers license is sensible. All I see from 'pro-life' is BuT ThE FeTUs! It's nothing but control wrapped up in virtue signaling

Pregnancy resource centers are a frequent target of the pro-choice movement.

because they guilt people into having kids they can't afford. That doesn't help.

This is because pro-choice believes that full birth and abortion are the only choices that are allowed.

be better if you took their position from other than the garbage you're reading. If you don't, you won't be educated.

pregnancy resource centers provide services so mothers understand how the abortion process works and what goes into it

They're not 'resource centers', they're anti-abortion centres. You'd know that if you were educated on what they really do. And I'm pretty sure you haven't been to a single one, otherwise this sentence wouldn't exist.

by targeting these places, you don't believe mothers even have the right to informed consent!

That's a doctors' job. Just the fact you and your group think they can tell a person what to do reeks of moral superiority and arrogance.

Therefore, pro-choicers are actually very anti-choice, and in a far more sexist manner than they accuse pro-life of being.

Nope.

See how this works?

Oh I do see how it works. You don't spend as long as I have on this board without spotting a parroted position.

You hold that the unborn do not possess a right to life protected under due process

Wrong, and I cut out the rest of the nonsense attached to this because I'm not going to respond to something that completely insults my intelligence, presumes what I think, and puts words into my mouth.

I'm going to give you (and almost everyone on this board) some advice. /SNIP

Your advice is horseshit and I'm choosing to ignore it. And I'll give you some advice.

I'll make this very simple. As simple as I can. Your belief is about controlling others. You don't get to do that.

A child is different because it is not clearly part of your body

Clearly, you don't know what a placenta is or an umbilical cord is.

How is it me not taking responsibility if I don't believe you should have to pay for it? Is my donation not enough for you?

Wow. If I had any respect for you, it's gone now. You basically told everyone here that your donation was made to gain a degree of moral superiority, and you're bragging about it.

The child survives the abortion

If the child will survive, it's already seven-eight months along and it's called a premature birth. Holy ★■◆●, you really don't know anything about pregnancy, do you.

[Tunnelcat]

Here we enter into my lobster ethics example again - since the child is potentially viable, in any other circumstance the ethical imperative would be to treat it as viable and not take any action to harm it. As I've mentioned, by refusing the donation, the would-be donor is not taking any act to harm the person, thus this consideration does not apply.

Since our chat is clearly not getting anywhere, we may have to just agree to disagree.

I DO understand your points and that you sincerely believe that abortion is murder. I will grant you that position. At a certain stage during gestation, I believe it becomes murder. I don't understand why abortion can't be kept to the first trimester as a compromise, because at first, that group of cells is not a formed human baby and cannot live outside the womb on it's own, which of course is a whole separate scientific argument to be debated. But I'm not a Christian, nor do I want to have my life dictated by any religious standards. This is a free country last I heard. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion and a lot of especially conservative Americans seem to ignore that.

But you need to look at it from a woman's perspective and understand that women everywhere in this country are now royally pissed off that the government, specifically conservative state governments, are now dictating to them in no uncertain terms how to deal with a pregnancy that they don't want to carry. It's even more egregious if that pregnancy was due to a contraception failure, incest or rape. Emotionally, it's a personal bodily violation to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to full term against their will, period. They don't see it as a baby, they see it as a major life, financial and health changing disaster involving their own bodies. You cannot dictate forced motherhood and expect to have things work out for either the mother or the unwanted child of that mother, which is a horrible situation for both. Until males can also carry a fetus and understand what it takes to go through that whole process, they need to quit dictating to women everywhere how to deal with that pregnancy.

But I see an even more draconian item coming down the road thanks to our new activist SCOTUS, the outlawing of the right to access contraception. How counterproductive is that? You want to stop abortions, for cripes sake make contraception even EASIER to obtain, not harder. So all these religious conservatives want to go back to the Dark Ages, where women stayed at home like nice little baby factory slaves and were stuck at home with screaming kids to feed and husbands to service. I'm old enough to remember that even in the 1950's, women were expected to get married and have at least 2 kids. My own mother was forced into that lifestyle by social pressures like everyone else. Frankly she didn't really want kids, but it was an expected and implied social norm and requirement that most married couples conformed to. THAT was the 1950's, good old CONFORMITY. Well ★■◆● on a stick, you're going to have a war on your hands at this point because women in nearly all developed nations have tasted sexual freedom ever since the 1960's, they like it and never want to go back. Only in the U.S are we turning back the clock towards Puritan tyranny.

And get this, even in countries where abortion is illegal, there are still abortions going on. Making it illegal does not stop the practice, however, it definitely impacts the safety of those abortions, negatively. So all conservatives are doing is forcing women to resort to medically unsafe procedures when they can't go to a legal medical clinic. What a bunch of naive jackasses.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/count ... is-illegal

According to data from the World Health Organization (WHO), the legality of abortion across the world actually has little to no effect on abortion rates throughout the world. Legal or not, abortions can, will, and do take place. The legality of abortion, however, does affect how safe those abortions are. Women who do not have access to a legal abortion frequently turn to illegal or "homemade" abortion options, which are typically much riskier, more dangerous, and less effective than legal options conducted by professional doctors in a clinical setting would be.

[Darth Wang]

I'll also mention that only a small fraction of abortions are done after the first trimester, and even then most often for necessary medical reasons.

Click on the link here to read this story

[LightWolf]

Me, really? I'm the only one? Out of millions of people? Oh I feel special already.

Your kind, more accurately. The ones who think they know everything about everything and whose sole purpose in life is to belittle those who disagree rather than actually listening.

Pro-life is about protecting the right to life of the unborn.

Well, that's horseshit already.

Pro-life believes this right is being stripped without due process. Pro-life is about preventing the right to life from being stripped.

yet they do nothing about literally anything else that involves life.

Back to knowing what I believe better than I do, eh?

I think you need to define some things, for example how they do literally nothing when I can tell you about the conservative mental health professionals, the high amount of charitable activity, etc. Don't get me started on Catholics, who form the most cohesive pro-life group and are all about supporting it at all stages. A far cry from the stereotype you seem to like to knock down.

Actually, that's a fair way to state why I made this post in the first place. Too many people think the stereotype is what the movement is about, no doubt fed by parrotry from their favorite news channel.

Also, as I mentioned and both you and TC conveniently ignored

Yes, I ignored it because it's garbage. I ignore garbage. Because it's not worth the time to address.

Unlike you, I take the time to listen rather than egotistically referring to everything as garbage or any other diminutive I can think of. Otherwise I would not be responding to you.

But I'll give you a chance. Can you prove that there are not any pro-life people who believe in the things you seem to think are core to the movement?

many pro-life supporters believe in the things you listed anyway, so it's highly unfair to tell them they actually don't then demonize them for it.

Nope. Their actions suggest different. How about all those bombings at planned parenthood. That's so far away from pro-life it might as well be called anti-life.

Those who bomb planned parenthoods would qualify as anti-life, sure. However, since you seem to think they're representative of the pro-life movement, then I'll assume those bombing churches and pregnancy resource centers, the person who was arrested for attempting to assassinate Kavanaugh, etc. are representative of the pro-choice movement. I seriously can't believe you would support an assassin!

And I already said what I think of people who think their own definition of sensible gun control is the only one that qualifies as sensible.

No needless death is sensible. Putting gun owners to the same standard as a drivers license is sensible. All I see from 'pro-life' is BuT ThE FeTUs! It's nothing but control wrapped up in virtue signaling\

First, there is literally no constitutional amendment which references a drivers' license. Second, you again assume your sensible is the only sensible. I can agree to background checks and red flag laws where the person has to be proven as a danger before their gun can be taken. I cannot agree to 'no handguns except in special need, and being in constant danger doesn't count'. Since you believe in bodily autonomy above life, why can't you agree to let people defend their own body against the life of those who would violate that autonomy, such as rapists?

Also, from the 14th amendment, people cannot be denied the right to life without due process. Remember that this is a civil rights battle.

What do you think of the pro-life wing of the democrat party?

Pregnancy resource centers are a frequent target of the pro-choice movement.

because they guilt people into having kids they can't afford. That doesn't help.

This is because pro-choice believes that full birth and abortion are the only choices that are allowed.

be better if you took their position from other than the garbage you're reading. If you don't, you won't be educated.

pregnancy resource centers provide services so mothers understand how the abortion process works and what goes into it

They're not 'resource centers', they're anti-abortion centres. You'd know that if you were educated on what they really do. And I'm pretty sure you haven't been to a single one, otherwise this sentence wouldn't exist.

by targeting these places, you don't believe mothers even have the right to informed consent!

That's a doctors' job. Just the fact you and your group think they can tell a person what to do reeks of moral superiority and arrogance.

Therefore, pro-choicers are actually very anti-choice, and in a far more sexist manner than they accuse pro-life of being.

Nope.

See how this works?

Oh I do see how it works. You don't spend as long as I have on this board without spotting a parroted position.

Did you even read what I wrote? This was using your logic which got to your view of what pro-life believes. I was using your logic to tell you what pro-choice means. Only person I could have possibly parroted was you.

You hold that the unborn do not possess a right to life protected under due process

Wrong, and I cut out the rest of the nonsense attached to this because I'm not going to respond to something that completely insults my intelligence, presumes what I think, and puts words into my mouth.

Alright then, you do believe that the unborn possess a right to life protected under due process? Doesn't that mean you admit abortion is in violation of that right?

Perhaps you should clarify then.

I'm going to give you (and almost everyone on this board) some advice. /SNIP

Your advice is horseshit and I'm choosing to ignore it. And I'll give you some advice.

I'll make this very simple. As simple as I can. Your belief is about controlling others. You don't get to do that.

I'll give you some advice in return. Get off your ego trip and actually try to understand what the other side is saying, rather than assuming they're evil because you're you.

A child is different because it is not clearly part of your body

Clearly, you don't know what a placenta is or an umbilical cord is.

Clearly, you don't know what DNA is.

How is it me not taking responsibility if I don't believe you should have to pay for it? Is my donation not enough for you?

Wow. If I had any respect for you, it's gone now. You basically told everyone here that your donation was made to gain a degree of moral superiority, and you're bragging about it.

Again, on an ego trip and ignoring what was actually happening. Krom and I were having a discussion over whether care for mothers and children should be left to the government or to private entities. Krom said a tax that applies to everyone was the only solution that wasn't selfish. I responded that it was not selfish to require my neighbor to pay even if I was. Simple as that, and even Krom understood that, hence why he offered a bridge. That is what we call a conversation. You do not have conversations. You shout, and shout, and shout, then wonder why people don't have respect for you.

The child survives the abortion

If the child will survive, it's already seven-eight months along and it's called a premature birth. Holy ★■◆●, you really don't know anything about pregnancy, do you.

Does this mean the attempted abortion in this case was wrong, since via premature birth the child was most definitely capable of living outside the mother? (Last chance to have a productive dialog rather than the patented uncivil shouting match I referenced in my first post)

Think about what you told me, your tone, your refusal to listen, etc - and then remember the divided state our country is in. Are you helping or making things worse?

==========

...at first, that group of cells is not a formed human baby and cannot live outside the womb on it's own, which of course is a whole separate scientific argument to be debated. But I'm not a Christian, nor do I want to have my life dictated by any religious standards. This is a free country last I heard. Freedom of religion also means freedom FROM religion and a lot of especially conservative Americans seem to ignore that.

The only part of religion that should inform a pro-life stance is that murder is wrong, a fact we accept as a society anyway. If you need to reference your religion as a reason why abortion specifically is wrong, you're taking a logical shortcut you really don't understand. The only difference is definitional, i.e. pro-life believes the 'clump of cells' (which, technically, describes adults too) is in fact a human being. I'm not sure if you believe in a soul, but if you do, you have no way of knowing when the child gets a soul - so you again hit the lobster example.

But you need to look at it from a woman's perspective and understand that women everywhere in this country are now royally pissed off that the government, specifically conservative state governments, are now dictating to them in no uncertain terms how to deal with a pregnancy that they don't want to carry. It's even more egregious if that pregnancy was due to a contraception failure, incest or rape. Emotionally, it's a personal bodily violation to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to full term against their will, period. They don't see it as a baby, they see it as a major life, financial and health changing disaster involving their own bodies. You cannot dictate forced motherhood and expect to have things work out for either the mother or the unwanted child of that mother, which is a horrible situation for both. Until males can also carry a fetus and understand what it takes to go through that whole process, they need to quit dictating to women everywhere how to deal with that pregnancy.

Many states have exceptions for those situations anyway, at least the latter two. As for whether they see it as a baby, that's the point of the court's decision - it should not be up to some court to determine whether or not something is a baby. As for your last statement, you're making the mother the primary consideration and forcing that assumption on the pro-life side, who views the child as the primary consideration.

(As a side tangent, you worded it much more elegantly, but I can't help but think of the men who simplify that to 'nO uTeRuS nO oPiNiOn' or variants thereof while ignoring the fact they are people without a uterus taking an opinion. Surely the pro-choice movement could think of better spokespeople?)

And get this, even in countries where abortion is illegal, there are still abortions going on. Making it illegal does not stop the practice, however, it definitely impacts the safety of those abortions, negatively. So all conservatives are doing is forcing women to resort to medically unsafe procedures when they can't go to a legal medical clinic. What a bunch of naive jackasses.

As is any crime, including violent ones. That's the point of law, to disincentivize it as much as legally possible and deal with those who won't follow it anyway. Also, https://www.abortiondata.org/ seems to point out some seemingly contradictory points - by estimate, abortion rates are not different. However, abortions are underreported - by whom? This could explain a difference if it's mainly in abortion-permitted countries. Also, unintended pregnancies are higher - because they're not being aborted or because of something else?