Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. My attempt to interpret both sides[W:139, 451]

I've been on both sides of this issue. Ironically, I was on the pro-life side at the time that I was more likely to vote Democrat and oppose conservatism. But now that I see myself as a moderate conservative, I'm actually somewhat pro-choice, at least involving early term abortion.

It's often the case that partisans tend to come up with dishonest and inaccurate words and phrases to positively describe the name of their group or their political positions. But in the case of abortion, both sides have chosen terminology that accurately describes their positions. The pro-choice group are accurately supporting choice, and the pro-life side are genuinely defending human life.

But the fact that often seems to escape both sides, is that this issue isn't as cut and dry as they attempt to make it out to be. Example: If the argument was whether or not a parent should be allowed to 'abort' the life of their 15 year old kid, because of his/her rebellious mannerisms and bad grades, BOTH sides would be marching together to oppose that.

But it doesn't involve 'post-birth' people, it involves a pre-birth fetus or baby(depending upon your choice of terminology). But even though the person hasn't been born yet, it doesn't make them any less human to the pro-life side. Therefore to them, it's murder. Pro-lifers think that every person has a right to life. Many also support the death penalty, but that's a completely different circumstance involving the worst of society's murderous criminals, not innocent babies who have never even been granted the ability to live their life.

But to pro-choice folks, what's most important is a woman's ability to make decisions that directly involve her own body. For many women, mind and body are inextricably linked, probably more so than for men. So, regardless of the reason she became pregnant, and regardless of the fact that the fetus will eventually grow into a person, she may feel that being FORCED to take the pregnancy to term and birth, is going to be a major mental and physical event that cannot be minimized. If she isn't prepared to raise a kid, and she is worried about the negative mental and physical ramifications that may develop after birth. That can be an enormous burden, and the idea that she just isn't allowed to have any input on what happens inside her own body at that point, was probably a pretty difficult and frustrating reality. Granted, she could put the baby up for adoption, but that still means that she has to go through the incredibly 'inconvenient' 270 days of pregnancy. Its not as simple as just carrying around an extra item in your pocket for 9 months! There can be other mental and physical problems that arise after giving birth.

So obviously both sides are on solid moral ground here, it's just not a simple issue, and it shouldn't be trivialized by anyone.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ModerationNow! said:

I've been on both sides of this issue. Ironically, I was on the pro-life side at the time that I was more likely to vote Democrat and oppose conservatism. But now that I see myself as a moderate conservative, I'm actually somewhat pro-choice, at least involving early term abortion.

It's often the case that partisans tend to come up with dishonest and inaccurate words and phrases to positively describe the name of their group or their political positions. But in the case of abortion, both sides have chosen terminology that accurately describes their positions. The pro-choice group are accurately supporting choice, and the pro-life side are genuinely defending human life.

But the fact that often seems to escape both sides, is that this issue isn't as cut and dry as they attempt to make it out to be. Example: If the argument was whether or not a parent should be allowed to 'abort' the life of their 15 year old kid, because of his/her rebellious mannerisms and bad grades, BOTH sides would be marching together to oppose that.

But it doesn't involve 'post-birth' people, it involves a pre-birth fetus or baby(depending upon your choice of terminology). But even though the person hasn't been born yet, it doesn't make them any less human to the pro-life side. Therefore to them, it's murder. Pro-lifers think that every person has a right to life. Many also support the death penalty, but that's a completely different circumstance involving the worst of society's murderous criminals, not innocent babies who have never even been granted the ability to live their life.

But to pro-choice folks, what's most important is a woman's ability to make decisions that directly involve her own body. For many women, mind and body are inextricably linked, probably more so than for men. So, regardless of the reason she became pregnant, and regardless of the fact that the fetus will eventually grow into a person, she may feel that being FORCED to take the pregnancy to term and birth, is going to be a major mental and physical event that cannot be minimized. If she isn't prepared to raise a kid, and she is worried about the negative mental and physical ramifications that may develop after birth. That can be an enormous burden, and the idea that she just isn't allowed to have any input on what happens inside her own body at that point, was probably a pretty difficult and frustrating reality. Granted, she could put the baby up for adoption, but that still means that she has to go through the incredibly 'inconvenient' 270 days of pregnancy. Its not as simple as just carrying around an extra item in your pocket for 9 months!

So obviously both sides are on solid moral ground here, it's just not a simple issue, and it shouldn't be trivialized by anyone.

Click to expand...

Given the fact that pregnancy can be life threatening or even deadly for the pregnant woman...it is first and foremost a health care decision between a woman and her doctor. To add insult to injury, most women who have an abortion have substandard access to health care. I have functional kidneys today because I had the ability to make every single OB visit and my really great MD saw some subtle signs that made him want to get some urgent labs to find out how sick I really was. I was very healthy prior to the pregnancy. This totally came out of the blue.

On top of that, I had the financial ability and social support to be all but homebound for over 2 months without going homeless . I was off nearly 6 months and went deep in debt as a result. I was blessed that my employer kept my job open for me. Damned lucky.

But first and foremost, the only person that should be able to assume the risk of pregnancy is the person that is pregnant.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

It's been trivialized by FutureIncoming here is his site.

https://fightforsense.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/manyargs/


He has been at this for a few decades now intensely now. He keeps the logic strong and the emotion in check.

Enjoy.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

GEIxBattleRifle said:

It's been trivialized by FutureIncoming here is his site.

https://fightforsense.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/manyargs/


He has been at this for a few decades now intensely now. He keeps the logic strong and the emotion in check.

Enjoy.

Click to expand...

I didn't take time to read all the vast amount of information in that link, but I did read the part where he 'discusses' the alleged falsehoods of an unborn fetus being referred to as "human". He spent even more time trivializing the word "being", as it relates to the term "human being". I see two problems with some of what I read there, and I'll remind anyone that I am 'pro' choice(at least up to early term abortion).

In the beginning of the article, and in the area I mentioned above^, he seems to be using the ages old political propaganda tactic of demonizing and deligitimizing essentially anyone who dissents against abortion. The whole purpose of THIS thread was to avoid that, and to point out that, regardless of propaganda on BOTH sides, there are legitimate, good faith arguments in both sides, and the notion that anyone who disagrees with it(or with him) is just stupid, misguided or evil, is just pure B.S.!!

There are bad people on both sides who have agendas, but the average person on the pro-life side is not to be written off as some substandard, defective idiot, nor are they manipulative monsters. They see a fetus for what it will become, and they refuse to believe the seemingly cold hearted notion that, even as late as 8-9 months, that it's essentially just an unrecognizable and worthless mound of nothingness, which kinda seems how that guy wants people to view it. You'll notice I mentioned "8-9 months", that's because late term, so called "partial birth abortions" are the next goal for full legalization among many top tier progressives and democrats, including Hillary.

That creates a new problem for the more agenda driven supporters of late term abortions, because in most ways, it goes against many of their justifications for allowing early term abortions, such as the very claim that's made in ^your link, which is that a "fetus is not a human". Well, it's kinda hard to say that an 8 month old ah, 'fetus', isn't yet human! At that point, it probably CAN survive outside the womb, because the B.S. demonization and claims of "not a human being" do NOT hold true any longer! At that point, it's just plain barbarity!

I think early term abortion should remain legal, but the providers should be responsible to the same health care related regulations as any other healthcare provider(not less, and not none). But I also think that it does a disservice for people on either side to claim that people on the other side are evil or stupid.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ModerationNow! said:

I've been on both sides of this issue. Ironically, I was on the pro-life side at the time that I was more likely to vote Democrat and oppose conservatism. But now that I see myself as a moderate conservative, I'm actually somewhat pro-choice, at least involving early term abortion.

It's often the case that partisans tend to come up with dishonest and inaccurate words and phrases to positively describe the name of their group or their political positions. But in the case of abortion, both sides have chosen terminology that accurately describes their positions. The pro-choice group are accurately supporting choice, and the pro-life side are genuinely defending human life.

But the fact that often seems to escape both sides, is that this issue isn't as cut and dry as they attempt to make it out to be. Example: If the argument was whether or not a parent should be allowed to 'abort' the life of their 15 year old kid, because of his/her rebellious mannerisms and bad grades, BOTH sides would be marching together to oppose that.

But it doesn't involve 'post-birth' people, it involves a pre-birth fetus or baby(depending upon your choice of terminology). But even though the person hasn't been born yet, it doesn't make them any less human to the pro-life side. Therefore to them, it's murder. Pro-lifers think that every person has a right to life. Many also support the death penalty, but that's a completely different circumstance involving the worst of society's murderous criminals, not innocent babies who have never even been granted the ability to live their life.

But to pro-choice folks, what's most important is a woman's ability to make decisions that directly involve her own body. For many women, mind and body are inextricably linked, probably more so than for men. So, regardless of the reason she became pregnant, and regardless of the fact that the fetus will eventually grow into a person, she may feel that being FORCED to take the pregnancy to term and birth, is going to be a major mental and physical event that cannot be minimized. If she isn't prepared to raise a kid, and she is worried about the negative mental and physical ramifications that may develop after birth. That can be an enormous burden, and the idea that she just isn't allowed to have any input on what happens inside her own body at that point, was probably a pretty difficult and frustrating reality. Granted, she could put the baby up for adoption, but that still means that she has to go through the incredibly 'inconvenient' 270 days of pregnancy. Its not as simple as just carrying around an extra item in your pocket for 9 months! There can be other mental and physical problems that arise after giving birth.

So obviously both sides are on solid moral ground here, it's just not a simple issue, and it shouldn't be trivialized by anyone.

Click to expand...

There is nothing moral about trying to mandate that a woman stay pregnant...

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

[part 1 of 2, in response to Msg#1]

ModerationNow! said:

It's often the case that partisans tend to come up with dishonest and inaccurate words and phrases to positively describe the name of their group or their political positions. But in the case of abortion, both sides have chosen terminology that accurately describes their positions.

Click to expand...

NOT TRUE. As explained below.

ModerationNow! said:

The pro-choice group are accurately supporting choice,

Click to expand...

YES. Nothing erroneous there. Note that unborn humans don't have the brainpower to make any choices, and so abortion does not affect the unborn in that way (some abortion opponents spout the LIE that the procedure denies unborn choice). It is almost always true that only the choices of pregnant women matter, because only they can actually make choices about their pregnancies.

ModerationNow! said:

and the pro-life side are genuinely defending human life.

Click to expand...

NOT WHAT "PRO LIFE" LITERALLY MEANS. It does not actually say "pro human life" --that is the LIE of abortion opponents, to claim a label for themselves that is much more generic than the actual Stupidly Prejudiced truth. Human overpopulation is already causing the total extinctions of hundreds of entire species of Life every single year, and if abortion opponents were actually generically "pro life", then they would be against insisting that even more humans must get born! Therefore the Truth is, they don't actually care about Life in general (UNLIKE the label they give themselves) --it can all DIE so long as they can keep forcing more human mouths-to-feed to get born-- and they actually only exhibit the Stupid Prejudice of being Pro Human Life only, and therefore that is what they should actually call themselves.

ModerationNow! said:

But the fact that often seems to escape both sides, is that this issue isn't as cut and dry as they attempt to make it out to be. Example: If the argument was whether or not a parent should be allowed to 'abort' the life of their 15 year old kid, because of his/her rebellious mannerisms and bad grades, BOTH sides would be marching together to oppose that.

Click to expand...

BOTH SIDES KNOW THAT THE AVERAGE 15-YEAR OLD IS A PERSON. And modern scientific data would generally agree with them.

ModerationNow! said:

But it doesn't involve 'post-birth' people, it involves a pre-birth fetus or baby(depending upon your choice of terminology).

Click to expand...

INACCURATE TERMINOLOGY IS THE SAME THING AS PROPAGANDA. No unborn human should ever be called a "baby" or "child" or "kid", and this explains why.

ModerationNow! said:

But even though the person hasn't been born yet,

Click to expand...

TOTALLY FALSE. There is no person before birth. Not in in the Legal sense, and not in any scientific sense, either. Dolphins are far more likely to qualify as persons, than any unborn human. Anyone calling an unborn human a person, when all the Objectively Verifiable Facts prove otherwise, is telling a Stupid Lie.

ModerationNow! said:

it doesn't make them any less human to the pro-life side.

Click to expand...

THAT'S ABOUT THE ONLY FACT THEY GET RIGHT. And it doesn't matter in the slightest. Our human-ness is not what lets us declare ourselves superior to other animals. Anyone assigning specialness to human biology is basically blathering idiocy.

ModerationNow! said:

Therefore to them, it's murder.

Click to expand...

DELUDING THEMSELVES DOES NOT CHANGE REALITY. Murder is the killing of a person, not a provable mere-animal entity like a rat or a fly or an unborn human.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

[part 2 of 2, in response to Msg#1]

ModerationNow! said:

Pro-lifers think that every person has a right to life.

Click to expand...

THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM. The problem is their Stupid Prejudice and Stupid Fact-Denial about what qualifies as a person. "Human" is a totally different concept from "person" --it is quite possible for non-human persons to exist (we expect to be building True Artificial Intelligences in just a couple decades, plus the Universe is plenty big enough for other intelligent species, not just dolphins), and it is quite possible for human non-persons to exist.

ModerationNow! said:

Many also support the death penalty, but that's a completely different circumstance involving the worst of society's murderous criminals,

Click to expand...

THAT'S ABOUT PERSONS WHO EARN IT.

ModerationNow! said:

not innocent babies

Click to expand...

MORE LYING PROPAGANDA. Remember, unborn humans are too physically immature to be called "babies". ALSO, while ordinary born babies are indeed innocent in how they act, unborn humans are 100% guilty of acting like parasites.

ModerationNow! said:

who have never even been granted the ability to live their life.

Click to expand...

MORE PROPAGANDA. Before birth, there is no person that has a right to be granted life. Not to mention that at least 2/3 of all conceptions Naturally fail to let unborn humans live through birth. There Is No Such Thing As "Right To Life" In Nature. It is a concept created by persons to help persons better get-along with each other, and does not generally apply to non-persons.

ModerationNow! said:

But to pro-choice folks, what's most important is a woman's ability to make decisions that directly involve her own body. ...

Click to expand...

THERE IS MORE. Since an unborn human acts like a parasite (and actually worse than a parasite, since it does things parasites don't do, like infuse addictive and mind-altering substances into women's bodies), it is completely accurate to say that an unborn human commits assault. And no woman MUST be subjected to assault against her will!

ModerationNow! said:

So obviously both sides are on solid moral ground here,

Click to expand...

FALSE, TWO WAYS. First, there is no such thing as a "solid moral ground", simply because all morals are provably Subjective, Arbitrary, and Relative. Just go to a bunch of different cultures and ask whether or not it is moral to eat pork, or to drink alcohol, or for a woman's head to be uncovered, and see the arbitrariness --and consequential total worthlessness-- of "morals" for yourself! MEANWHILE, "ethics" has a chance of being both Objective and Universally Applicable. Which means we should consider ethical grounds relevant to the Overall Abortion Debate, instead. And as indicated throughout my responses above, to your message, only the pro-choice side has the ethical ground. All that abortion opponents have is the fact that unborn humans are human, combined with Stupid Prejudice, Stupid Fact-Denial, Stupid Lies, Stupid Propaganda, and even Stupid Hypocrisy.

ModerationNow! said:

it's just not a simple issue,

Click to expand...

ONLY BECAUSE THERE ARE A LARGE NUMBER OF RELEVANT FACTS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. Not ignore, as abortion opponents typically do!

ModerationNow! said:

and it shouldn't be trivialized by anyone.

Click to expand...

BUT THAT IS WHAT ABORTION OPPONENTS DO, BY DENYING ALL THOSE RELEVANT FACTS. They don't actually have any good points, and thus they are doomed to lose the Overall Abortion Debate. Period.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

But to pro-choice folks, what's most important is a woman's ability to make decisions that directly involve her own body.

Click to expand...

And that's why pro-aborts don't have a point.

They rely on this falsehood. Your kid's body is not your own body.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

The unborn is in the body of the pregnant woman.

A pregnancy may affect the woman's health. In fact it could threaten her very life.
The pregnant woman has a right to privacy regarding her reproductive health.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

JayDubya said:

Your kid's body is not your own body.

Click to expand...

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The placenta is a shared organ, and part of it belongs to the woman's body. Every cell in that part of it has her DNA, not the DNA of the unborn human. AND the placenta is not a vital organ for the woman --if she requests that HER part of the placenta be removed from HER womb (which is actually the part of the overall placenta that physically is connected to her womb), that is entirely and totally within her rights! If the unborn human dies as a side-effect, so what? Can you offer one single reason why an average healthy unborn human needs to keep existing? Especially when they are SO easy to replace?

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ModerationNow! said:

I didn't take time to read all the vast amount of information in that link.

Click to expand...

If you did read it partially, you would've know that FutureIncoming doesn't deny the unborn humans species membership. He mainly shows why equating species membership to personhood doesn't work out in the end.

The abortion debate is way past if the fetus is a human because it is. Now it's mainly about if the prenatal human qualifies for personhood. Mostly everything else is a waste of time.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ModerationNow! said:

The whole purpose of THIS thread was to ... point out that, regardless of propaganda on BOTH sides, there are legitimate, good faith arguments in both sides

Click to expand...

AND THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE WRONG. It doesn't matter in the least how much "good faith" there might be behind an argument, if that argument is based on Fact-Denial, Bad Data, or especially Cherry-Picked Data (because that last thing means they know the argument cannot work under the light of Complete Data). The net effect is, abortion opponents are creating excuses to enslave pregnant women, dehumanizing them from persons to toilets for animals to use.

ModerationNow! said:

and the notion that anyone who disagrees with it(or with him) is just stupid, misguided or evil, is just pure B.S.!!

Click to expand...

THEIR ARGUMENTS ARE PROVABLY STUPID, MISGUIDED, AND SOMETIMES EVIL. I almost never claim that those who spout such arguments are themselves any of those things. Read what I've written more carefully!

ModerationNow! said:

There are bad people on both sides who have agendas,

Click to expand...

AGREED. Anything can be mis-used, after all.

ModerationNow! said:

but the average person on the pro-life side is not to be written off as some substandard, defective idiot, nor are they manipulative monsters.

Click to expand...

THEY SHOULD STOP BLATHERING SUBSTANDARD, DEFECTIVE, IDIOTIC ARGUMENTS, THEN!!! Because it is quite obvious that the purpose of those arguments is to monstrously manipulate pregnant women from a state of freedom into a state of slavery, as mentioned above.

ModerationNow! said:

They see a fetus for what it will become,

Click to expand...

AND THAT IS ANOTHER FUNDAMENTAL ERROR. The potential is never the same thing as the actual, and **ONLY** in the Overall Abortion Debate does anyone, ever, blather the idiocy of equating the potential with the actual. For example, if you buy a lottery ticket for a multi-million-dollar prize, you are now a potential winner of such a prize. According to abortion opponents, the potential should be treated like the actual, and therefore you should be taxed right now like an actual multi-million-dollar prize winner. Another example: Any decent-sized plot of empty land could become the site of a hundred-story skyscraper. According to abortion opponents, the potential should be treated like the actual, and therefore if you own such a plot of land, you should be assessed a property tax appropriate for the skyscraper. Another example: A deep gorge could be the site of a bridge. According to abortion opponents, the potential should be treated like the actual, so when you encounter such a gorge, you should drive right across the potential bridge....

SEE? An unborn human is inherently different from a born human, which it has potential to become, and it is perfectly OK to treat the unborn human differently from the born human.

ModerationNow! said:

and they refuse to believe the seemingly cold hearted notion that, even as late as 8-9 months, that it's essentially just an unrecognizable and worthless mound of nothingness,

Click to expand...

PROVE THAT CLAIM WAS EVER MADE. The Actual Fact is, an unborn human is quite recognize-able, but it does not matter. That's because even at 9 months it is still acting worse than a parasite --and women traditionally claim the right to change their minds about things. Therefore if a pregnant woman decides late in a pregnancy that she no longer wants to tolerate the assaults committed against her by womb-occupant, she should have the right to kill it. Killing it is the ONLY way to make it stop its assaults Right Now. And as for "worthless", All Valuations Are Arbitrary, Relative, and Subjective. Only the valuation assigned to an unborn human by its mother matters --and it can change. The valuation assigned by anyone else is irrelevant.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

We need to go back in modern history to see why abortion is where it is today. Back in the 1950's and earlier, the family unit was strong. There was a social stigmatism against getting pregnant out of wedlock since it undermined the family unit, which did not need a huge welfare outlay, like it does today. An unwedded woman, who was pregnant, could impact her entire family, due to the gossip buzz that the social stigmatism would generate in the community.

To avoid that social and public punishment for herself and her family, the reactively small number pregnant girls/women went underground and silently terminated the pregnancy. This was not always safe and sanitary. The need for abortion started because the unborn were not welcome, due to the social complications such babies could bring the extended family. The risks the mothers would face was the lessor of two evils compared to the stigmatism. There was no pro-life movement in the very beginning. Abortion, although risky, was better than shame.

By the 1960's, the sexual revolution appears and the progressives started to make changes to the traditional family unit. This helped make the stigmatism of unmarried pregnancy less oppressive. However, it also led to a new social problem, due to the large numbers of babies, who now needed to be cared for by the state due to the break down of the traditional family structure. Government had to act as a parental prosthesis for this social experiment that went wrong.

Abortion became more acceptable as a social solution to help reduce the exploding welfare tab, especially among minorities from broken families, who were generating unsupported babies, left and right. The Democrats were still racist at the highest levels of power, and they did not like the idea of having to support so many black babies. Abortion was their solution to this perceived problem and is still highest with this demographics.

This is when the pro-life movement started in earnest, due to the wholesale slaughter of unborn, needed to mop up the mess that the progressives had created by destroying the family. The pro-life movement, then altered the direction of the pro-abortion movement away from the needs of social engineering, into the needs of self centeredness, where abortion became a type of legal birth control, with no regards to life or even to social costs. Planned parenthood is about the balanced between minimizing welfare layouts via self sterilization inductions for the self centered. This is why it is taboo to talk about life in planned parenthood. It should be called planned abortion-hood.

It does not make sense that abortion did not evolve all the way to the next level, which is spay and neuter. One can get the same end result for birth control while protecting the unborn, since they are not born. The only logical reason is money, since temporary solutions that do not address the real problems, means a lot more waste and therefore more money for middlemen.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

FutureIncoming said:

[part 1 of 2, in response to Msg#1]


NOT TRUE. As explained below.


YES. Nothing erroneous there. Note that unborn humans don't have the brainpower to make any choices, and so abortion does not affect the unborn in that way (some abortion opponents spout the LIE that the procedure denies unborn choice). It is almost always true that only the choices of pregnant women matter, because only they can actually make choices about their pregnancies.


NOT WHAT "PRO LIFE" LITERALLY MEANS. It does not actually say "pro human life" --that is the LIE of abortion opponents, to claim a label for themselves that is much more generic than the actual Stupidly Prejudiced truth. Human overpopulation is already causing the total extinctions of hundreds of entire species of Life every single year, and if abortion opponents were actually generically "pro life", then they would be against insisting that even more humans must get born! Therefore the Truth is, they don't actually care about Life in general (UNLIKE the label they give themselves) --it can all DIE so long as they can keep forcing more human mouths-to-feed to get born-- and they actually only exhibit the Stupid Prejudice of being Pro Human Life only, and therefore that is what they should actually call themselves.


BOTH SIDES KNOW THAT THE AVERAGE 15-YEAR OLD IS A PERSON. And modern scientific data would generally agree with them.


INACCURATE TERMINOLOGY IS THE SAME THING AS PROPAGANDA. No unborn human should ever be called a "baby" or "child" or "kid", and this explains why.


TOTALLY FALSE. There is no person before birth. Not in in the Legal sense, and not in any scientific sense, either. Dolphins are far more likely to qualify as persons, than any unborn human. Anyone calling an unborn human a person, when all the Objectively Verifiable Facts prove otherwise, is telling a Stupid Lie.


THAT'S ABOUT THE ONLY FACT THEY GET RIGHT. And it doesn't matter in the slightest. Our human-ness is not what lets us declare ourselves superior to other animals. Anyone assigning specialness to human biology is basically blathering idiocy.


DELUDING THEMSELVES DOES NOT CHANGE REALITY. Murder is the killing of a person, not a provable mere-animal entity like a rat or a fly or an unborn human.

Click to expand...

Just because you offer a link to someone else's website, which is largely made up of opinion(very biased opinion) does not make your point 100% true and everyone else wrong. I actually agree with some of what you said, such as human overpopulation(which is a minor reason I support abortion, but a reason no less).

I completely disagree with the so called "legal status" that a fully formed human, which is fully capable of living independently outside the womb, does not, in any way, constitute a person or a human! If I were a judge and I passed a ridiculous law calling cats elephants, would that PROVE that cats are elephants? So, because a judge makes a claim doesn't automatically change reality. I can grasp the concept that a 3 month old fetus may not be considered a person yet(despite the fact that it's made up of entirely living tissue), but I don't see how anyone can make the claim that a living, fully formed "human" at 8-9 months of development, is in no way human or "a person". That's some cold @$&% right there! I honestly think that people who make those claims may just very well be trying to convince themselves more than anyone else, maybe to clear their own conscience after having a LONG term baby aborted.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ModerationNow! said:

I've been on both sides of this issue. Ironically, I was on the pro-life side at the time that I was more likely to vote Democrat and oppose conservatism. But now that I see myself as a moderate conservative, I'm actually somewhat pro-choice, at least involving early term abortion.

It's often the case that partisans tend to come up with dishonest and inaccurate words and phrases to positively describe the name of their group or their political positions. But in the case of abortion, both sides have chosen terminology that accurately describes their positions. The pro-choice group are accurately supporting choice, and the pro-life side are genuinely defending human life.

But the fact that often seems to escape both sides, is that this issue isn't as cut and dry as they attempt to make it out to be. Example: If the argument was whether or not a parent should be allowed to 'abort' the life of their 15 year old kid, because of his/her rebellious mannerisms and bad grades, BOTH sides would be marching together to oppose that.

But it doesn't involve 'post-birth' people, it involves a pre-birth fetus or baby(depending upon your choice of terminology). But even though the person hasn't been born yet, it doesn't make them any less human to the pro-life side. Therefore to them, it's murder. Pro-lifers think that every person has a right to life. Many also support the death penalty, but that's a completely different circumstance involving the worst of society's murderous criminals, not innocent babies who have never even been granted the ability to live their life.

But to pro-choice folks, what's most important is a woman's ability to make decisions that directly involve her own body. For many women, mind and body are inextricably linked, probably more so than for men. So, regardless of the reason she became pregnant, and regardless of the fact that the fetus will eventually grow into a person, she may feel that being FORCED to take the pregnancy to term and birth, is going to be a major mental and physical event that cannot be minimized. If she isn't prepared to raise a kid, and she is worried about the negative mental and physical ramifications that may develop after birth. That can be an enormous burden, and the idea that she just isn't allowed to have any input on what happens inside her own body at that point, was probably a pretty difficult and frustrating reality. Granted, she could put the baby up for adoption, but that still means that she has to go through the incredibly 'inconvenient' 270 days of pregnancy. Its not as simple as just carrying around an extra item in your pocket for 9 months! There can be other mental and physical problems that arise after giving birth.

So obviously both sides are on solid moral ground here, it's just not a simple issue, and it shouldn't be trivialized by anyone.

Click to expand...

Welcome to ambiguity.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

wellwisher said:

We need to go back in modern history to see why abortion is where it is today....

Click to expand...

WE ALSO NEED A BIGGER PICTURE THAN JUST THE USA STUFF. So, here. Note that there are more nations in the world with socialized medicine than just the former Soviet Union.

wellwisher said:

By the 1960's, the sexual revolution appears and the progressives started to make changes to the traditional family unit.

Click to expand...

A CHERRY-PICKED ARGUMENT. It completely ignores the role of the automobile, and all the conservatives who encouraged folks to buy them (to make profits).

wellwisher said:

... Government had to act as a parental prosthesis for this social experiment that went wrong.

Click to expand...

PROVE IT WAS WRONG. What about the bigger problem that in the US, medical care is not socialized, and as a result US citizens are not as healthy as elsewhere? All because of money-greedy conservatives!

wellwisher said:

Abortion became more acceptable as a social solution to help reduce the exploding welfare tab, especially among minorities from broken families, who were generating unsupported babies, left and right. The Democrats were still racist at the highest levels of power, and they did not like the idea of having to support so many black babies. Abortion was their solution to this perceived problem and is still highest with this demographics.

Click to expand...

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. The actual birth rate of Black babies is still allowing the total Black population to grow, year after year, which means anyone claiming they are being genocidally targeted is telling a Stupid Lie. AND: One of the most common reasons given for obtaining an abortion (by any subgroup of women) is, "can't afford to raise a child just now" --which means if greedy conservative business-owners would simply pay Black employees more, fewer unborn Blacks would be aborted!

wellwisher said:

This is when the pro-life movement started in earnest, due to the wholesale slaughter of unborn,

Click to expand...

WHICH WAS A PERFECTLY LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE OF HOW GREEDY CONSERVATIVES' CHOICES AFFECTED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. Plus some of the other things you talked about; I'm not a Fact-Denier or Data Cherry-Picker like abortion opponents!

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ModerationNow! said:

Just because you offer a link to someone else's website, which is largely made up of opinion(very biased opinion)

Click to expand...

JUST BECAUSE YOU CALL SOMETHING AN OPINION, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU ARE CORRECT. Please provide a specific example of a statement made there that doesn't have Factual support, and therefore must be an opinion.

ModerationNow! said:

does not make your point 100% true and everyone else wrong.

Click to expand...

PRO-CHOICERS ARE FAR MORE CORRECT THAN ABORTION OPPONENTS. But when they spout nonsensical arguments (like claiming an unborn human is not alive or not human), I oppose that idiocy to the same degree I oppose the nonsense routinely blathered by abortion opponents (mostly involving Stupid Prejudice about "human life" --do note there is no such thing as "intelligent prejudice"...).

ModerationNow! said:

I actually agree with some of what you said, such as human overpopulation (which is a minor reason I support abortion, but a reason no less).

Click to expand...

ABORTION IS NOT WHY I MENTIONED OVERPOPULATION. I mentioned it because abortion opponents LIE, calling themselves "pro life" when they are easily proved to be wrong, because their actions support the killing of vast numbers of life-forms all around the planet, and the total extinctions of hundreds of species every year.

ModerationNow! said:

I completely disagree with the so called "legal status" that a fully formed human, which is fully capable of living independently outside the womb, does not, in any way, constitute a person or a human!

Click to expand...

THEN YOU NEED SOME EXTRA DATA. An unborn human is 100% human and 0% person, even minutes before birth. MORE, you need to keep in mind the Fact that there are two independent concepts of "person", one of which is legal, and the other of which is a consequence of decades of scientific study ("What characteristics do persons have, that ordinary animals cannot match?") Per the legal concept, at the birth of a human a person begins to exist. Per the scientific data, it takes quite a few months after birth for a person to begin to exist --and that existence is not guaranteed, either! Here is a Question for you: "If you were visiting a modern well-equipped medical laboratory, and some madman with a machete cut your head off in an attempt to murder you, but rescuers arrived in time, would you want them to save your headless human body, or save your severed head, to save YOU-the-person?" (This question is realistic because we do have such life-saving tech available, else no one would be contemplating doing human head transplants.)

SEE? It is not the human body that makes a human a person!!! And as soon as the first True Artificial Intelligence begins to exist (expected in just a couple decades), that will be the final nail in the coffin for the worthless claim that "human = person". Persons are minds, not bodies!

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ModerationNow! said:

I've been on both sides of this issue. Ironically, I was on the pro-life side at the time that I was more likely to vote Democrat and oppose conservatism. But now that I see myself as a moderate conservative, I'm actually somewhat pro-choice, at least involving early term abortion.

It's often the case that partisans tend to come up with dishonest and inaccurate words and phrases to positively describe the name of their group or their political positions. But in the case of abortion, both sides have chosen terminology that accurately describes their positions. The pro-choice group are accurately supporting choice, and the pro-life side are genuinely defending human life.

But the fact that often seems to escape both sides, is that this issue isn't as cut and dry as they attempt to make it out to be. Example: If the argument was whether or not a parent should be allowed to 'abort' the life of their 15 year old kid, because of his/her rebellious mannerisms and bad grades, BOTH sides would be marching together to oppose that.

But it doesn't involve 'post-birth' people, it involves a pre-birth fetus or baby(depending upon your choice of terminology). But even though the person hasn't been born yet, it doesn't make them any less human to the pro-life side. Therefore to them, it's murder. Pro-lifers think that every person has a right to life. Many also support the death penalty, but that's a completely different circumstance involving the worst of society's murderous criminals, not innocent babies who have never even been granted the ability to live their life.

But to pro-choice folks, what's most important is a woman's ability to make decisions that directly involve her own body. For many women, mind and body are inextricably linked, probably more so than for men. So, regardless of the reason she became pregnant, and regardless of the fact that the fetus will eventually grow into a person, she may feel that being FORCED to take the pregnancy to term and birth, is going to be a major mental and physical event that cannot be minimized. If she isn't prepared to raise a kid, and she is worried about the negative mental and physical ramifications that may develop after birth. That can be an enormous burden, and the idea that she just isn't allowed to have any input on what happens inside her own body at that point, was probably a pretty difficult and frustrating reality. Granted, she could put the baby up for adoption, but that still means that she has to go through the incredibly 'inconvenient' 270 days of pregnancy. Its not as simple as just carrying around an extra item in your pocket for 9 months! There can be other mental and physical problems that arise after giving birth.

So obviously both sides are on solid moral ground here, it's just not a simple issue, and it shouldn't be trivialized by anyone.

Click to expand...

I just wanted to say I appreciate your fairness in portraying both sides of the debate.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

year2late said:

Given the fact that pregnancy can be life threatening or even deadly for the pregnant woman...it is first and foremost a health care decision between a woman and her doctor. To add insult to injury, most women who have an abortion have substandard access to health care. I have functional kidneys today because I had the ability to make every single OB visit and my really great MD saw some subtle signs that made him want to get some urgent labs to find out how sick I really was. I was very healthy prior to the pregnancy. This totally came out of the blue.

On top of that, I had the financial ability and social support to be all but homebound for over 2 months without going homeless . I was off nearly 6 months and went deep in debt as a result. I was blessed that my employer kept my job open for me. Damned lucky.

But first and foremost, the only person that should be able to assume the risk of pregnancy is the person that is pregnant.

Click to expand...

Factually inaccurate:

Rape 0.3%
Mother
--Life 0.1%
--Health 0.8%
Fetus
--Health 0.5%
Elective 98.3%
(too young/immature/not ready for responsibility, economic, to avoid adjusting life, mother single or in poor relationship, enough children already, sex selection, selective reduction)

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ksu_aviator said:

Factually inaccurate:

Rape 0.3%
Mother
--Life 0.1%
--Health 0.8%
Fetus
--Health 0.5%
Elective 98.3%
(too young/immature/not ready for responsibility, economic, to avoid adjusting life, mother single or in poor relationship, enough children already, sex selection, selective reduction)

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

Click to expand...

You are looking at "for the life of the mother" as meaning imminent threat of death - pre mortem.

I think a woman has the right to decide if she wants to take the risk of any complications. Women who choose abortion are usually socioeconomically unsound. If a doctor tells them to "stop work now" (like mine did) she needs to think what will happen to herself and her born children if she doesn't bring in a paycheck. When my serious complications set in, I had the luxury of not making those decisions.

I will not decide for another person what she or he is willing to risk.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ksu_aviator said:

Factually inaccurate:

Rape 0.3%
Mother
--Life 0.1%
--Health 0.8%
Fetus
--Health 0.5%
Elective 98.3%
(too young/immature/not ready for responsibility, economic, to avoid adjusting life, mother single or in poor relationship, enough children already, sex selection, selective reduction)

Reasons given for having abortions in the United States

Click to expand...

The AGI study disagrees:

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions
Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively)

Click to expand...

https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

minnie616 said:

The AGI study disagrees:

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions
Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives



https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf

Click to expand...

Even if we assume those statistics are single reason (no overlap) that is still only 1/4 of all abortions. Still not factually accurate to say abortion is primarily a health issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

year2late said:

You are looking at "for the life of the mother" as meaning imminent threat of death - pre mortem.

I think a woman has the right to decide if she wants to take the risk of any complications. Women who choose abortion are usually socioeconomically unsound. If a doctor tells them to "stop work now" (like mine did) she needs to think what will happen to herself and her born children if she doesn't bring in a paycheck. When my serious complications set in, I had the luxury of not making those decisions.

I will not decide for another person what she or he is willing to risk.

Click to expand...

Good. Don't let facts get in the way of your decisions. That'll just complicate things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ksu_aviator said:

Even if we assume those statistics are single reason (no overlap) that is still only 1/4 of all abortions. Still not factually accurate to say abortion is primarily a health issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Pregnancy definitely is a health issue.
If the woman does not wish to risk her health or the health of the unborn it still is a health issue.

She and her doctor have a right to privacy regarding her reproductive health care.

I risked my health and my my life during my first pregnancy.

It was my choice to continue my pregnancy even though my kidneys were damaged and I became so anemic my doctor had the delivery room set with a complete blood transfusion ready for me in case I stared bleeding to death. When I was wheeled into the delivery room I did not know if I would live or if my little one would survive.

I will never support a law that would prevent a woman from her right to privacy ( right to choice ) within the parameters of Roe v Wade.

I will not take on the responsibility of not allowing a woman and her doctor from making medical decision regarding her life or her health.

Re: Abortion: BOTH sides have good points. This is my attempt to interpret both sides

ksu_aviator said:

Good. Don't let facts get in the way of your decisions. That'll just complicate things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

First of all, my decision was to maintain my pregnancy.

Most women who chose abortion believe they do not have either the social, physical, or financial ability to maintain pregnancy.

Many narrow-mindedly believe that it I just as simple as giving a baby up for adoption, In negates the real life issue that most women who chose abortion have substandard access to medical care (either no insurance or Medicaid)and have difficulty making ends meet, Being pregnant can mean losing shifts needed to make rent, pay for utilities and transportation.

I had the "luxury" of being able to make all my appointments and when severe complications set in,,,,,I was able to immediately take time off (even though I really didn't' feel too bad. Women who are pregnant and poor realize that keeping utilities and a safe living environment IS a health related issue.

I was off nearly 6 months and did "ok" since I had the ability to run up 10s of thousands in debt in order to maintain my place to live and keep my decent healthcare insurance.

I am curious, if you were pregnant and lost your insurance had had severe complications of pregnancy.....would you want to have Medicaid and be relegated to a clinic in a different city in an unsafe area with long waits?

Being without adequate resources and pregnant can be a very serious issue.

Only the woman pregnant can decide if she has the physical, social, and financial resources to maintain pregnancy.