Thank you.
There is no magical point where personhood begins. It’s a gradual process. So the most just solution is to gradually impose greater and greater restrictions as the process progresses. Very early abortions should be on-demand, no questions asked. Very late abortions should be reserved for dire situations where there are severe developmental disorders or danger to the mother.
So, when does it become a human being to you, and why do you make that distinction?
I chose fertilization for obvious reasons. Whatever happens after that (in so far as non-viability) is happenstance, accidental, congenital, (etc.) or by direct intervention.
So long as we accept abortion and its sisters, I see no reason why we can’t just come out and admit we’re terminating a human life for whatever the reason is. I would love to see it another way, but no one’s made a good point yet.
Honestly.
Fine then.
There are quite a few of us on this board who do come right out and say that. I know Diana, Brian Ekers, and I are three of them. There are others.
I support abortion because we should all have sovereignty over our bodies.
We don’t even force the dead to donate organs. The dead. We don’t force the most horrific killers or rapists to donate blood, or bone marrow, or kidneys, or pieces of their liver. It doesn’t matter how many people would be saved; we don’t do it.
The status of the fetus as human or not, person or not, alive or not is immaterial to me. What matters is what a woman gets to do with her body.
This would explain schizophrenia.
I think the Feds need to look at some phone records here.
Oh God the drama.
Your reading comprehension is almost as bad as the Holocaust!!!11111one. Oh no, I think I just multiplied my violation of Godwin’s law.
I didn’t compare the abortion doctor to Hitler. I used Hitler in a nearly tongue-in-cheek hyperbolic way.
But I was attempting to make a point with it. People say “if you call yourself pro-life, then you must be pro life in all instances! Like if you kill someone to save your family, or you’d kill Hitler if you had a time machine, then obviously you’re a hypocrite!” and I was attempting to demonstrate what a ridiculous argument that was. You could replace Hitler with anyone who’d killed a bunch of people and the point still stands. I said it in an intentionally hyperbolic way mocking the tone of those I was arguing against.
You… scanned the thread for the word Hitler and then said “argument over! You lose!”
I… can’t believe no one else touched this. Seriously? A fetus is the moral equivelant of a rapist?
Because you’re drawing a false sense of hypocrisy based on the stupid terminology designed to control this debate.
You demand that “pro-life” people must be “pro-life” in every possible instance in order to live up to their position and not be hypocrites. So they have to be anti-death penalty, pacifists, etc., right? We can’t acknowledge that “pro-life” really means “anti-abortion rights” and is limited to this debate.
Ok! Well then “pro-choice” means “pro-choice on everything” too! Want to rape some 80 year old woman to death? Sure, whatever, it’s your choice and I’m pro-choice! Want to feast on the juicy brains of school children? Your choice! Choice is good! People should have the option to choose stuff!
The terminology around this debate is stupid. Extending it to subjects where you know it’s not intended to apply just lets you make silly arguments you know aren’t true and let you shout “hypocrite!” - both sides are vulnerable to this because both sides use stupid terminology.
… Yes. And that’s the point. Do none of you actually understand the logical basis for an anti-abortion position? It’s about individual rights - they believe that a fetus is an individual life, and therefore it has a right to life. They view their advocacy as promoting human rights.
This is an issue where people of different values and ideology can legitimately differ - but I don’t know if anyone in this entire thread has treated the opposing point of view in a remotely reasonable way. Do you lose something by treating your opposition into reasonable people who have different views on the issue? Do you have to construct fallacious arguments to create hypocrisy out of thin air and then circle jerk in a big groupthink orgy to pat yourselves on the back? This sort of thing disgusts me about the “pro choice” movement even though I think legalized abortion does way more good than harm.
This line of view can lead to ethical abortions of 5 minute old babies, right? I’m not necesarily disagreeing with the concept, just want clarification.
This statement caused an unsteady tide of chemicals to crash on the shores of my lizard brain.
Life is the reason for itself, for more life. Therefore, if there truly is any one thing that is holy, it is that. Not doctrine nor dogma, not a savior or saint, not church nor vicar, but life itself.
Rights, or what a person gets to do with their body, is constantly and almost faithfully ‘regulated’ by the authorities. What we can eat, smoke, drink, wear, carry, use, drive, inject. All of these things are regulated to some degree. I am of the opinion that a woman of sufficient mentality should be able to choose as she sees fit. I am also of the opinion that the choices she makes reflect on her as a person and that she has indeed to live with the consequences. Just because you have the right, does not free you from the judgements of others, judgement of yourself, even and sometimes especially those who follow certian ‘rules’ about judging others.
To some it is tragic, to some it is a medical procedure, both sides of that argument must understand that neither is right and neither is wrong, but for the freedom of choice as it happens to intersect with the best interest of all parties involved.
Is it in the best interest to abort a child who is deformed, who cannot live beyond its’ womb or without the support of the heroic efforts of highly trained and paid personnel? The person or persons responsible for the creation of that life are the final arbiters of its’ fate. Whether or not there is humanity, whether or not there is personhood, whether or not there is cognizance, is of no issue.
Is it life?
This is a question that answers itself. Yes, it is life in whatever stage it happens to be. Fertilized and growing mosquito eggs are life. The final arbiter of the fate of the mosquitoes is the guy with the pump sprayer full of deet. Does this equate directly to human life? No. Is it life despite the lack of equating? Yes.
Should we decide to spray the pond and kill the mosquitoes, then the choice has been made and we will likely all be better off, perhaps a disease prevented.
Should the woman or couple decide to abort the fetus, then the choice has been made (and this is the singular difference) no one knows for sure what the end would have been. Perhaps a cure for cancer, perhaps a raging meth addict.
This, I think, is the only difference. Can I fairly equate the life of a human to that of a mosquito? No. Vastly different in scope, the two things, but that is not the point. The point is that we, while on earth, as humans, have the ability to create and destroy life. Sometimes we do so because it is convenient, sometimes necessary, sometimes malicious, sometimes accidental.
We have that power, it is one that we should not take lightly, especially when it comes to those of our own species.
I’ve had this stance myself for some time. Makes me kinda sad when I see the endless “it’s a baby! / no it’s not!” interplay.
Except that unborn babies are not your bodies, they are someone else’s. And as of at least 21 weeks they have been shown to be sentient little human beings, fully developed physiologically, and, lacking only the size and mass gained in later pregnancy, perfectly capable of surviving outside the womb.
The notion that anyone is trying to tell women “what to do with their own bodies” is one of the more specious pro-abortion arguments of all. What those of us who abhor abortion are concerned about is you destroying someone else’s body. We couldn’t care less what you do with your own.
There are worse things than death.
I may be a callous, cynical bastard—
Ah, hell, let’s be honest: I am a callous, cynical bastard, and I’m not particularly impressed by the “brain activity” criterion. Granted, a few seasons have passed since my gestation days, but damned if I can remember a single thing I thought about back before I had language, or sight, or the slightest comprehension of myself or my surroundings.
If a pain response is present, I’d prefer that the abortion procedure minimize it, which I’m guessing the oft-vilified “brain scrambling” does a pretty good job of. But until a 21-week-old proves the Goldbach conjecture while it’s killing time before the Grand Entrance, I don’t consider a few embryonic brain waves an ethical show-stopper.
You are aware that the unborn child’s body is inside someone else’s body, right? :dubious:
:dubious: Apparently, you do care about what women do with their bodies, if you’re so interested in forcing them to stay pregnant against their own wishes and/or medical advice.
I am aware that it is temporarily housed and fed inside the body of the woman who created it, yes.
And to me this gives her no more right to kill it than she has a right to kill it when it’s housed and fed inside her house after it’s born.
I probably should add however, that I have no particular problem with first-term abortions or the morning after pill and such. But to me once the baby has progressed to the point where it has a functioning nervous system, brain and feelings, it has become a full-fledged human being deserving of the same rights and consideration as any other human being.
Why is it that people are horrified if someone kills a baby that is two weeks old and at the same time be completely unmoved if it’s killed a week or two before birth?
As you can see above, I’m not opposed to abortion in toto. Only when the baby has progressed to the point that it can be logically considered to be a thinking, feeling human being. No one is interested in “forcing” women to do anything, although it could be said that anti-abortionists fravor “preventing” them from doing something. It’s a case of conflicting rights, and in my opinion if a woman allows a child to develop to the point that it becomes a sentient being unto itself, she loses the right to take preventative measures and in effect kill it.
I would be content with laws allowing abortions up to the point where nervous systems exist and brain activity begins to occur, and prohibiting them after that under penalty of law other than to save the woman’s life.
I’m not sure why you’re asking that question, as you appear to have already decided what our answer is.
Me too. Really, who cares if it’s a “person”? No *other *person is allowed to use my body against my will, what makes this one so friggin’ special?
Most humans don’t retain any accessible memory of the first few years after they leave the womb. Are you saying you’re up for eighth-trimester abortion?
Because it’s a baby!
Just kidding.