Why are you pro choice or pro life?

Yep. That is why I said “most.” Certainly this is complex issue that needs further discussion and noodling on in general. But of course shutting down discussions of all sorts is the thing to do nowadays.

OK, then do you believe the Pro-Life movement is moral? Do you believe the abortion medical procedure is not moral?

I haven’t given it a thought. I fear we are drifting off the topic. (As is our SDMB tradition.)

Your post seemed aghast that abortion is not a moral issue.

The topic is why pro choice vs pro life - we are still well within bounds

That was never said because your term, “unborn person”, isn’t established in this thread as being the preferred term.

Was that opinion actually stated?

The pro-choice position puts this discussion where it belongs - in the hands of the mother and those she asks to advise her. The “pro-life” position shuts down the discussion. No matter what the mother thinks about the status of the fetus, the state is ordering her to carry it to term.
If you think a fetus is a human life, where do you think this life begins? Is the morning after pill immoral?

Same way everybody else came to their opinions about “the nature of a fetus”, whether they consider their opinions “sure” or “unsure”: as a form of personal belief that may be informed to some extent by scientific and/or spiritual viewpoints, but is ultimately subjective because there’s no objective way of assessing it.

That “too” is a weasel word, though. When our arbitrary decision about the nature of a fetus at some particular stage of development comes down on the side of considering that fetus as a fully human person with the same right to life as a born person, then we can only “extend” that right to the fetus by taking away from the pregnant woman her right to control her own body.

That’s not a “too”, that’s an “instead of”. We shouldn’t kid ourselves that deciding to award increased rights to the fetus doesn’t come at the cost of diminishing the rights of the pregnant woman.

If men were the ones who got pregnant instead of women, abortion clinics would be as ubiquitous as fast food hamburger joints or sports bars. Everywhere. There would be abortion pill vending machines all over the place, and the pills would be on the shelves of stores next to the Rolaids.

Well, all we can go on sometimes is our own hunch. On the other hand, when we are unsure, it is probably best to err on the side of caution. After all, we might very well be wrong.

You keep using this phrase. Caution for which side?

So what’s the appropriate compromise for “erring on the side of caution”? Let women get abortions on Tuesdays and Thursdays but not on Mondays or Wednesdays? Or what?

When it comes to assigning rights, at some point you have to either fish or cut bait. I can and do acknowledge that my opinion on fetal personhood (like everybody else’s opinion on fetal personhood) is fundamentally subjective and arbitrary because there is no objective way of determining what is the “right” or “wrong” view of fetal personhood.

But that doesn’t mean that it’s morally okay for me to wimp out on supporting a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy just because some people disagree with me about fetal personhood, even if there’s no objective way to prove any of us conclusively right or wrong.

I trust you support mandatory Covid vaccinations and mandatory mask wearing then, just being cautious. After all, there is real evidence about the dangers of not being vaccinated or not masking, as opposed to a hunch.
Just checking what other rights you feel it is okay to trample on.
Your former homeland had some rules about what women were allowed to wear outside, if I understand correctly. Odd how men sometimes don’t have a lot of problem reducing the rights of women, isn’t it?

But I don’t understand this. If I don’t eat meat or am a homosexual, it doesn’t bother me that others do. If I think that abortion is immoral, then it must be some flavor of that I believe that it is a taking of human life/potential human/developing human etc. If seems to me that if I have adopted that as my moral belief, then it is unthinkable that I just say, “Meh, but others can do it” with an outcome of such magnitude.

If we are talking about human life then it follows that it is one of the important things that we “impose on others.” That’s why I think @Thudlow_Boink 's comparison is better. You are against slavery because it is morally wrong to own another person, or it is morally wrong to molest a child. You don’t think for a minute about putting them in the first category.

The abortion issue is frankly the single only one I’ve heard where people will believe a human life is at stake, but leave it to another to make the decision. I’m all for personal autonomy, but I can think of a million other examples where the government infringes on our personal autonomy, and those are issues where a human/potential human will not be killed.

The difference here is that the ‘another’ making the decision is not a meddling bystander. The somebody else making the decision is totally responsible for the potential of life from beginning to end.

Why should anyone else be involved?

All of this is irrelevant to what I said. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, then none of that is necessary or expected.

If a man helps through the pregnancy and childhood, then that gives them a right to custody or at least visitation of the child if the relationship ends.

As I said, no one else is in a position to make that decision. I’m not sure what else you want me to say here. I don’t feel comfortable telling someone else what to do with their body, and I don’t think that anyone else should be able to do as well.

No, I am saying that a woman has a right to determine what happens with her body.

Not really, no. We as a society choose to treat them as though they were persons, and I fully support that and legally defining them as such. They can be cared for without imposition to the mother, and be a burden to society as a whole. I fully support my tax dollars going to improve the conditions of orphans, as well as to support parents who choose to raise their children themselves. This is of course a different position than the so-called pro-lifers who abandon their interest in the fetus once it has emerged from the womb.

Back in the day, before we had the ability to perform abortions, the usual way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy was exposure, to let the baby die. I would be against that practice in this day and place, because there are other options, but would not judge someone who lived in a time or place where there are no other options to deal with another mouth they cannot feed.

A toddler is 1 year old or older, and you develop object permanence at around 8 months. So, no, I would say that a toddler is able to make plans to look forward to, even if it is a simple plan by adult standards.

Somewhere along the line between birth and toddlerhood, a young human starts to become a person in a practical sense. Where that line is is hard to say, so the best legal arbitrary line to use is birth, but a 1 day old is not a cognizant being. My dogs have far more ability to make plans and solve problems than a 1 day old human, and you aren’t campaigning to declare them persons.

Every day, over 5,000 dogs and cats are killed simply for being unwanted, though they are far more aware of the world and what is going on than a fetus.

You mean like Terri Schiavo, someone with no brain activity, and no chance of recovery? No, they really aren’t, which is why we can pull the plug on them and let their bodies die. You can’t do that on a person. Do you think that Schiavo was a person who should have been left on life support until her body died of old age?

Someone in a coma, with even a small chance of recovery, is a different matter, of course. They have the possibility of coming back and continuing on with their plans that were interrupted.

A deadbeat has plans. Just because they don’t pay the bills that they owe doesn’t mean that they don’t have other plans for their day and their morrow.

They may even have plans to improve their lives and pay off their debts, even if they never actually get around to fulfilling those plans.

I have no idea why you would make such a ridiculous statement.

If there were no other considerations, sure. But there are.

What does ‘erring on the side of caution’ mean to you? Not getting an abortion yourself? (A moot point in your case.) Banning it completely, or from a very early stage like the Texas bill? Banning IVF because it might involve discarding embryos?

It depends on when she decides to terminate, doesn’t it? And what she lets on to her partner.

I appear to have severely misinterpreted you, and apologize.


I see.

No, I’m not. I do think animals should have some rights, though, and probably so do you?

And yet, there are many who are bothered by others eating meat or engaging in homosexual acts. They would seek to prevent others from engaging in acts that they find immoral.

I see this as the same thing, you attempting to enforce your morality on others, no different from a vegan or christian fundamentalist.

It doesn’t “must be”, it only is if you choose it to be.

So you support vegans in their efforts to outlaw meat, you support christian fundamentalists in their efforts to outlaw homosexual activity?

I’ve thought for much more than a minute about each of those, which is why I feel that my opinion on what categories different actions should go into has more weight than someone who doesn’t think that they need any thought as you seem to be claiming.

That’s because you are still fundamentally misunderstanding the issue. I do not believe that a fetus is a person that needs to be protected beyond what the mother desires, and therefore, I leave it to the mother to choose what level of protection she desires to give it.

When you say “human life” do you include all fertilized embryos, or just ones that are currently gestating within a woman? You seem to be intentionally broadening the scope of the discussion in order to make some sort of emotional appeal, but unless you are as attached to a fertilized ovum in a fertility clinic as you are to the one in a woman you’ve never met, your appeal is fallacious and falls flat.

A person’s life is not at stake. A bit of living tissue with human DNA’s continued existence is all that is at stake, and I don’t believe that that outweighs that of the rights of the person you seem to want to have to host and bear that bit of tissue.

That’s like a vegan saying, “I’m all for dietary freedom, just not when an animal is killed for your food.” So, you really aren’t for dietary freedom, those are just words that you use to try to seem reasonable when you follow them up with unreasonable demands.

Anyway, the govt does infringe on our personal autonomy in many ways, some of which I agree, some I don’t. In any case, the idea of them being allowed to is not just in order to prevent individual humans from being harmed or killed, but also to allow for the proper and orderly functioning of society.

There are a number of laws on the books that I don’t think contribute to the proper and orderly functioning of society that infringe on my rights, and I work to get those laws repealed, some of those laws I feel do more harm than good in promoting the proper and orderly functioning of society. If abortion became illegal, that would be another law that does not contribute to the proper and orderly, and would also be in the category of doing more harm than good, while also being the most egregious violation of personal autonomy.

Drug laws saying what I can put in my body do more harm than good to society, IMO. Abortion laws not only do more harm than good to society, they also tell someone what they must do with their body, which is a much greater violation of personal autonomy than telling me what I can’t do with my body.