Abortion-clinic picketers.

[Zeriel]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

Wow! Thank you!

Is it okay if I make you work for this? It feels weird (and like I’m asking for too much), but it seems to be the only way to have a productive discussion and was hoping to use the discussion to explore my own position.

That’s fine. I love argument (in the debate sense) regardless of who wins–this stuff here is like being back on debate team.

Let me preface:

I’m going to agglomerate several answers here into a single thing: “Pro-Life Zeriel” believes people are basically honest, but basically stupid, and he believes that people should generally listen to trained professionals. Thus, any time the health/life of the mother exception gets invoked, the criteria is “a licensed medical practitioner is willing to say the mother’s life/health is at serious risk.” I don’t need to care about percentages–that doctor and the mother have their own consciences to live with, and I will not make rules so strict such that the deaths of mothers will be on mine.

When does the emotional healing begin and how does happen while still experiencing the physical effects of that trauma?

Under the axioms, I unfortunately can’t consider that until/unless her life is going to be at actual risk. It’s a damn hard value judgement to make, but you can’t expect easy judgments when one pan of the scale has “a human life” and the other has “a human’s psyche”.

The axioms you laid out did not mention health (unless I missed it), so this may be a moot question: If you accept abortion to ensure the physical health of the mother, can you accept it to ensure her mental health?

I’m getting the “health” bit from

1a) It is permissible to end the life of a person to save the life of a person.
1b) It is permissible to consider, in situations relating to 1a, the chances of achieving fully sentient personhood of any given person

In other words, the mother would need to be at risk for severe injury or death, but her life is in general allowed to be considered more relevant since her life is at least somewhat instrumental in the fulfillment of the fetus’ potential personhood.

First of all, why must we wait until mental health has been so compromised that suicide ideation is present?

See above: weighing “quality of life” vs. “existence of life” is not easy. I answer by analogy: my grandfather was in WWII. He enlisted as a radarman, but was put into an infantry company after D-Day, and he honestly believes he is going to go to hell because he shot and killed Nazis who were actively trying to kill him–but he still pulled the trigger, because it was the slightly more right decision for him regardless of the cost.

Ideally, of course. And in the absence of welfare?

Another hard decision! In the absence of welfare, well, if you life in my dad’s hometown your grocery bills will be significantly lower than you’d expect for the amount of food in your larder, and lobbying will commence, but life is still life.

Given a sterilization technique that a) is 100% effective, but b) does not cause significant health issues and risk to life/health that less invasive birth control methods present, right?

No system is perfect, and that’s the unfortunate reality.

The problem in a lot of these scenarios is that the axioms presented only really allow for life to be considered equal to life. There should be some acknowledgement from any honest and caring pro-lifer that such a philosophy leads to a lot of edge cases with hard choices that lead to more suffering than there would otherwise be in payment for that baby’s life.

Oh, heh. Good question. Sorry I was unclear with this scenario. It was intended to portray the kid, who has suffered the affects of fetal alcohol syndrome (also unclear) as an adult now and pregnant. Along with her physical maladies and mental instability, she doesn’t have a high opinion of childhood.

I think by virtue of her previous suicide attempts, you would agree that she is a suicide risk and eligible to opt for abortion on the life/health exception.

I concur.

So, instead, what say you on an alcoholic, abusive mother. Ought she be forced to carry a child to term?

Eurgh. I’m going to punt for now.

I know, that hurt me presenting them. But the idea is to demonstrate that the answers are not so cut-and-dry and that there are many, many reasons abortion is considered. In almost every case, whatever the reason, it is very significant to the people involved, whether it appears trivial to outsiders or not.

Thanks for your participation and you play devil’s advocate quite well. You’ve made it quite apparent what a difference consistency and considered debate makes.

I appreciate that. Granted, I also realized when I mention the course of this thread to my dad again, he’s going to laugh his fool head off at me for busting my ass on this.

[vivalostwages]

@classyladyhp

Now THAT is even funnier. Please don’t.

One more time: Take a look at post #1710 and get back to us when you have time.

[Zeriel]

@AlienVessels

It does apply because that’s the argument. When does it become a person? Because it it’s a person, there arises the issue of where its rights begin.

That argument is SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT, and no repeating it will make it so. In my moral system, I don’t care whether it’s human, animal, a fucking rock, a person in a coma, a midget who crawled up someone’s vagina, or a fetus–nothing, person or not, is allowed to take your lifeblood from you without your express, continuing, revocable-at-any-time consent. I don’t care if ceasing to take said lifeblood will kill that person or thing.

[AlienVessels]

@heatmiserfl

We’ve already compromised on that. We’re willing to go with Roe v. Wade which is quite conservative. Only 1st trimester abortions are protected. You rarely see pro-choice people screaming at the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade to protect abortions throughout the whole pregnancy.

We’re not the SC here. The argument here includes pro-choicers that go well beyond RvW.

[Baker]

@classyladyhp

Now THAT is even funnier. Please don’t.

And now, by not even being grateful that someone has offered to pray for you, you show even further that you hate God.

[AlienVessels]

@Zeriel

That argument is SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT, and no repeating it will make it so. In my moral system, I don’t care whether it’s human, animal, a fucking rock, a person in a coma, a midget who crawled up someone’s vagina, or a fetus–nothing, person or not, is allowed to take your lifeblood from you without your express, continuing, revocable-at-any-time consent. I don’t care if ceasing to take said lifeblood will kill that person or thing.

I congratulate you on a well defined moral system.

However, what is “allowed” is something society decides. And I believe that most people agree that if your choice puts other individual’s life into reliance on your body, you do not have the continuous right of revocation and you WILL be subject to societal judgement if you decide to act on your morals.

To take a tack from an earlier analogy, if you park grandma in your uterus and hook her up so she’s dependent on uterine life support, you don’t get to disconnect at will.

[Zeriel]

@AlienVessels

I congratulate you on a well defined moral system.

However, what is “allowed” is something society decides. And I believe that most people agree that if your choice puts other individual’s life into reliance on your body, you do not have the continuous right of revocation and you WILL be subject to societal judgement if you decide to act on your morals.

To take a tack from an earlier analogy, if you park grandma in your uterus and hook her up so she’s dependent on uterine life support, you don’t get to disconnect at will.

Amazingly, no one is obligated to defend “society”'s position on anything. Which is good, because “society’s position” is a pile of compromises that doesn’t have any logical or moral backing for itself in aggregate.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

@purplehorseshoe

Holy guacamole, a post from OMGaBC that doesn’t make my eyes glaze over at the wall of text.

Dude - I should not have to scroll that much to read one person’s opinions. Brevity, and all that.

I’ll boil it down for you.

Abortion is bad. Babies are good. God is good. I’ve made up my mind, don’t bother me with facts.

And on a different issue, even most anti abortionists think that THEY or their friends and family should be able to get a safe, legal abortion, that nobody should know about. It’s the rest of us godless heathens who shouldn’t have access to safe legal abortions. Because, you know, we’re all godless and immoral.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@AlienVessels

To take a tack from an earlier analogy, if you park grandma in your uterus and hook her up so she’s dependent on uterine life support, you don’t get to disconnect at will.

But what if I just wanted Grandma’s blue Chrysler in my uterus and I got more than I bargained for?

[irishgirl]

I <3 Zeriel

Bryan Eckers the name of the poster from years back with a weird thing about circumcision was Jack Dean Tyler.

Anyone who thinks the Pit is hostile and unfriendly NOW should read one of the threads where he was pitted.
Anyway, I have nothing new to add to this- carry on.

[cosmosdan]

Originally Posted by** Omg a Black Conservative**
This is true as a general rule, but not as an absolute standard. Americans would not leave abortions legal and unrestricted in the first trimester, contrary to what you want to imply. I had to do a bit of digging to find a poll which asked respondents whether abortions should be legal in the first three months for any reason, for only specific reasons or not at all and came up with this:

I’ll shoot for a more complete response later but for now let me say, You’re working on an argument I never made, which isn’t surprising considering your distorted view of what logical conclusions are.

Not only that, I find your interpretation of the data in your own links to be slanted and faulty. It looks to me that you’re selecting the data that supports your preferred conclusion and ignoring other clear data that doesn’t support it. I invite other readers to take a look at your recent link and see if the data you didn’t mention supports your position.
**that abortion should be limited to cases of rape, incest, maternal health and severe fetal defects **

I don’t believe the data indicates that is the majority opinion by Americans.

[Bricker]

@Lynn_Bodoni

And on a different issue, even most anti abortionists think that THEY or their friends and family should be able to get a safe, legal abortion, that nobody should know about.

And of course you have a cite for that claim?

[heatmiserfl]

@classyladyhp

So what if it doesn’t resemble a human. That’s not the point. It is a human life you are destroying. Using your logic I could say that an amputee does not resemble a person.

Only if the thing that was amputated was the head. Obviously.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@Brown_Eyed_Girl

You haven’t demonstrated that and I don’t see it.

If I understand you correctly, you believe abortion is murder. I don’t agree with you. You may not want to have an abortion. I’m okay with that. As a pro-choicer, I can respect your right to carry a pregnancy to term. Can you respect my right to not carry a pregnancy to term?

I didn’t think so.

No, that’s not what I said. Let me try this a different way. Do you believe everyone is entitled to their own beliefs regarding personhood?

@Bryan_Ekers

Has it ever been a significant national election issue? I suppose some individual states might have had close races decided by the candidates’ stands on abortion, though no example come immediately to mind.

It’s significant enough to cause more people to vote Republican than they otherwise would.

If this is what they are doing, why are the laws “nowhere near” what “society as a whole” wants?

Because those laws get struck down via the courts.

Well, there’d be some cost or sacrifice involved, a cost that, as far as I can tell, not enough of American society (as a whole or otherwise) is eager to pay.

Such as?

@cosmosdan

I’ll shoot for a more complete response later but for now let me say, You’re working on an argument I never made, which isn’t surprising considering your distorted view of what logical conclusions are.

Did you not just argue that Americans would make abortions legal in the first trimester? Yes, you did. After which I pointed out that such a statement is true in general, but not as an absolute, and that Americans would leave abortions legal in the first trimester but restrict them.

Not only that, I find your interpretation of the data in your own links to be slanted and faulty. It looks to me that you’re selecting the data that supports your preferred conclusion and ignoring other clear data that doesn’t support it. I invite other readers to take a look at your recent link and see if the data you didn’t mention supports your position.

**that abortion should be limited to cases of rape, incest, maternal health and severe fetal defects **

Since you seemingly believe I’m wrong and am “ignoring other clear data that doesn’t support it”, which I’m not, why don’t you provide the data that shows Americans would allows abortions outside of those “hard” cases? I’m not going to be holding my breath here, though. Good luck with it.

I don’t believe the data indicates that is the majority opinion by Americans.

It doesn’t matter what you believe. Facts are facts. Thus far, you’ve provided a grand total of zero evidence which states the contrary of what I’ve stated, while I’ve provided six or seven different non-biased sources which highlights and confirms exactly what I’ve been saying. Any particular reason why you’ve failed to produce anything?

The motto of this board really should be “promoting ignorance”.

[heatmiserfl]

@AlienVessels

We’re not the SC here. The argument here includes pro-choicers that go well beyond RvW.

You lost the train of the argument. My reply was in response to you saying that somewhere along the path of development a person may be formed. I said that there are people who think abortion should not be restricted all the way up to birth. However, those people compromised because they are not trying to force lawmakers to extend abortion protections to birth. That is a big compromise since RvW is quite conservative. Yet, the anti-choice people will not compromise at all.

BTW, I tried to use anti-abortion in that sentence and it doesn’t work. Anti-choice is really the only technically correct term. I don’t want to confuse people who wouldn’t personally have an abortion but accepts its legality from someone who wants to outlaw abortion.

[Omg_a_Black_Conservative]

@heatmiserfl

Yet, the anti-choice people will not compromise at all.

What hogwash. I’d gladly leave abortion legal in cases of rape, incest, maternal health and severe fetal defects. So would the majority of pro-lifers. So who’s the one who can’t compromise?

[heatmiserfl]

@AlienVessels

To take a tack from an earlier analogy, if you park grandma in your uterus and hook her up so she’s dependent on uterine life support, you don’t get to disconnect at will.

You know what? If grandma were dead or dying and you willingly shoved her into your uterus to ‘re-animate’ her, I’ll bet you’d be able to disconnect her. Then again, the anti-choice people would attempt to turn this into a political issue just to make inroads into their anti-choice issue. Just like that Terri Schiavo debacle, they’d be doing all kinds of shit. Now, if a man fused grandma to his body, then, for sure, he’d be able to disconnect her.

[Brown_Eyed_Girl]

@Omg_a_Black_Conservative

[QUOTE=Brown Eyed Girl]
You haven’t demonstrated that and I don’t see it.

If I understand you correctly, you believe abortion is murder. I don’t agree with you. You may not want to have an abortion. I’m okay with that. As a pro-choicer, I can respect your right to carry a pregnancy to term. Can you respect my right to not carry a pregnancy to term?

I didn’t think so.

No, that’s not what I said.
[/QUOTE]

Wait. You didn’t say that you believe abortion is murder? Let’s at least be accurate before we continue, right? Feel free to clarify your position. Briefly, if possible.

[Zeriel]

@Lynn_Bodoni

IAnd on a different issue, even most anti abortionists think that THEY or their friends and family should be able to get a safe, legal abortion, that nobody should know about. It’s the rest of us godless heathens who shouldn’t have access to safe legal abortions. Because, you know, we’re all godless and immoral.

Let’s leave that as “some anti-abortionists”, in the absence of a recent cite. We’ve all, I hope, see the article “the only moral abortion is my abortion” a zillion times already.

[Lynn_Bodoni]

I’ve seen stats that show Catholics and evangelical Protestants seem to seek out abortions more often than they are represented in the general population. I have never seen any stats that suggest that Catholics/evangelicals are LESS likely to have abortions.