Circumstance, Consequence & Convince

[sweet]

In my opinion the abortion debate is simply black & white.

I cannot see any gray areas, the unborn are either "persons" deserving of all rights under the law or they're not.

If when sex is consensual and pleasurable and a pregnancy occrues, "personhood" deserving of all rights and protection under the law should be granted to the ZEF from the moment of conception.
Even if precautions were taken to prevent pregnancy, she consented to sex and should deal with the consequences and give birth

Then why is a "person" (zef) created through a violent act should not be granted all rights under the law. The ZEF is recognized as a person but should not be granted rights under the law because it was conceived during a violent act, through no fault of the woman, she did not choose the act therefore does not need to be responsible for the consequences

If a born person was conceived during a violent act should their mother be allowed to kill at anytime after birth?
Why not?
A "person" conceived during a violent act should not have rights at conception, why and when should those rights be granted if carried to term?

The act in which it was conceived has not changed, so why and when does the status?

A woman should take responsibility for her actions and deal with the consequences when she consents to and enjoys sex and the result is pregnancy, because once conceived the new life should have the "right to life" and protection of the law.

A woman who conceives during a violent act did not chose or consent to the act so the new life should no "right to life" or protection of the law.

This make no sense to me. If the ZEF concieved during a violent act is not a person or not a person granted rights and protection, then no ZEF can be granted rights and protection, and if a ZEF concieved during consentual, pleasurable sex is granted rights and protection than all ZEFs should be granted rights and protection

Many pro-lifers say women use abortion as birth control, and most abortions are for Convince and they see abortion as the "easy" way out.


This stance to me, implies that it is not so much about the "person" (zef) and equal rights, but rather the way in which it was conceived. Because that is the one and only difference between the two

The ZEF is what it is, regardless of how it was conceived

I can't see how it can be any other way or how there can ever be exceptions (gray areas) since we don't make exceptions when it comes to the rights and protection of born persons

There are many pro-lifers who will only make an exception in the case where the mothers life is in danger.

My questions here are :

If the woman wouldn't die but would have to live with a life long condition caused by the pregnancy, how serious would the condition have to be to deem it dangerous enough to abort?

Abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness, anemia, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, pelvic organ prolapse, cardiovascular disease,embolism, stroke?

Or is it only the risk of death?

How high would the risk have to be to deem it dangerous enough to abort, 20% chance, 50% chance, 80%?

What if there was a 50% for either to live but 0% for both to live, if efforts are placed on saving the woman the fetus will die, placing efforts on saving the fetus means the woman dies, who's life should take precedence?

 

[JayDubya]

Only an imminent death justifies that sort of triage; but if you can only save one patient, you save the one you can.

If it's possible to save both patients, you save both patients, or at least, you try. That's what a doctor is supposed to do, yeah.

 

[sweet]

Only an imminent death justifies that sort of triage; but if you can only save one patient, you save the one you can.

If it's possible to save both patients, you save both patients, or at least, you try. That's what a doctor is supposed to do, yeah.

So you personally make no exceptions?

No ammount of bodily harm counts unless it is imminent death?

What if it was an ectopic pregnancy?


Should the woman be able to abort the pregnancy the moment it is discovered or would she need to wait till death is imminent?

Do you mind me asking why you feel this way?

Is it the fact that new unique DNA is created at conception?

Is that DNA what constitutes a new "person"?

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

As a pro-choicer, I agree with you. I don't understand why people who see a ZEF as "a life" sometimes make an exception for rape. How is it any less of a life if it was conceived by rape? That's like saying that if you attack me, I can kill your child. It makes no logical sense.

Making that kind of exception can mean only one of two things.

1. Either it's a subtle admission that the woman is indeed more important than the ZEF, in which case I don't get why they're anti-choice

2. Or it's a relic of the Puritanical mindset that people become "unclean" when they are victimized and their life is worth less, in which case that's a pretty sadistic way to look at people's lives.

But I think you're missing a third option in terms of how abortion can be looked at.

There's "it's not a life and has no rights," there's "it is a life and has personhood rights," but there's also a third choice, and this is the line of thinking I personally ascribe to:

It doesn't matter if it's a life or not, due to the nature of pregnancy itself. It is using and depleting (and possibly even killing) the woman in all cases, and therefore the woman has the right to take any action necessary to end that infringement if it is unwanted. If it's a "life," it's a self-defensive act. If it's not a life, then it's like removing a cancer. Either way, its status as a life or not is irrelevant.

This changes after birth for one simple reason: the infant can be put under the care of just about anyone and still live. It does not REQUIRE that the woman's body be used and damaged after that point. Anyone who is willing to take it can provide the care it needs. It also takes some amount of interest in its own life, even if only in a very simplistic way. So the combination of its interest in its life and the fact that the forcible nature of reproduction ends after birth means that it should be adopted out if the woman doesn't wish to care for it. Doing so accommodates the rights of both parties without conflict.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Rights are a legal matter, we decide who is deserving of them, some living persons are even rightfully deprived of some/all of them.

I think that your life as a person begins at birth. We don't call a newborn 9 months old. When I think of the political consequences of granting the unborn rights, there is little benefit and great cost. In general I err on the side of freedom. Though I find abortions abhorrent, I wouldn't dare presume to tell another free sentient being what they can or cannot do.

I do not think any amount of lives are worth giving up any freedom and if the guys @ Freakonomics are correct, fewer unwanted children is great if your concern truly is crime/safety/lives rather than baseless superstitious delusion.

 

[SheWolf]

It's just sexist to argue the acceptance of abortion based on the woman's pleasure during sex. Some people want to shame women for enjoying sex as well as seeking an abortion. It just seems like an avenue to attack the female on and shame her for having an orgasm.

Like the OP says, rape doesn't change DNA or make the embryo less alive or human.

 

[choiceone]

As I have said, the rape exception, to which about 80% of Americans subscribe, is actually a telling logical point. There is no objective scientific difference between zygotes/morulae/blastocysts/embryos/fetuses that trace to rape, consensual sex, or fertilization in a lab, to accident, design, hate, or love. They all have DNA distinct from both the man and woman. The zygotes/morulae/blastocysts all have their own limited mortal lives, and they all die unless they implant in a woman. All embryos/fetuses have the same biological attachment and dependence on the woman's body. Etc.

We acknowledge that newborns conceived in rape and consensual sex are equally persons and have the same exact rights. No pro-choice person would ever claim one has the right to kill a newborn traceable to rape. If all zygotes/morulae/blastocysts/embryos/fetuses are persons, then they should all have the same rights as one another.

But the zygotic~fetal personhood claim involves a contradiction precisely because of the issue of consent. Persons do not have the right to have sex with anyone without consent, not even to extend their life spans or to reproduce. Nor do persons have the right to biologically attach to the bodies of other persons, shut down parts of their immune systems, etc., without consent. If a blastocyst is a person distinct from both the women and the man who has sex with her, one cannot claim that consent to sex with the man equals consent to the biological attachment of this different person, who would clearly have to obtain a distinct consent to a distinctly different intimate relationship.

Actually, it seems to me that giving the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to the girl or woman serves the principle of treating all newborns the same. If all newborns came from the woman's choice, they all come from her consent to growing them. Then, there is no difference between newborns that trace to rape, consensual sex, and IVF, for the woman has given consent to them in all cases even if she did not consent to the rape on one hand but consented to the consensual sex or IVF on the other.

To me, people who are anti-choice on this issue are just plain illogical.

 

[gilbertc1908]

Rights are a legal matter, we decide who is deserving of them, some living persons are even rightfully deprived of some/all of them.

I think that your life as a person begins at birth. We don't call a newborn 9 months old. When I think of the political consequences of granting the unborn rights, there is little benefit and great cost. In general I err on the side of freedom. Though I find abortions abhorrent, I wouldn't dare presume to tell another free sentient being what they can or cannot do.

I do not think any amount of lives are worth giving up any freedom and if the guys @ Freakonomics are correct, fewer unwanted children is great if your concern truly is crime/safety/lives rather than baseless superstitious delusion.

The issue while a moral one individually is one of societal will or as is so well defined by Lachean in this opening sentence. So if the statement of the actual issue is so simple why does the rest of the debate fall apart so quickly. Here Lachean provides the answer in the balance of the post.

lets review

"Though I find abortions abhorrent, I wouldn't dare presume to tell another free sentient being what they can or cannot do."

"any amount of lives are worth giving up any freedom" and why, because "fewer unwanted children is great if your concern truly is crime/safety/lives rather than baseless superstitious delusion."

So while abortion is personally abhorrent, if one is seeking a reduction in crime/safety/lives (lost) overall in society then abortion must be a positive force to that end. And do not presume to tell the "sentient" people what they can and can not do. Apparently those pesky non sentient people do need a higher level of control.

Laws tell us all what we can and can not do every day, so like virtually all legal questions the "right" to an abortion was created by and can just as easily be removed by the state, as was so perfectly stated in the premise of the thread. The idea that freedom is unlimited is silly.

But what is the primary argument for abortion here, it is a global positive result of reducing crime, increasing safety and saving lives since there will be fewer unwanted children in the world.

So by this logic, and I know this is extreme and not something I advocate, why not simply terminate the life of all unwanted children either at, or shortly after birth? If there is this obvious benefit to society, why wouldn't it be better for that society to systematically terminate all unwanted lives that become a drag on society?

Why is it only via abortion this result is so obviously desirable but through no other means?

 

[Muhammed]

What if it was an ectopic pregnancy?

In that case there is a legitimate claim of self defense for the homicide because her life is clearly in danger.

 

[nota bene]

The issue while a moral one individually is one of societal will or as is so well defined by Lachean in this opening sentence. So if the statement of the actual issue is so simple why does the rest of the debate fall apart so quickly. Here Lachean provides the answer in the balance of the post.

lets review

"Though I find abortions abhorrent, I wouldn't dare presume to tell another free sentient being what they can or cannot do."

"any amount of lives are worth giving up any freedom" and why, because "fewer unwanted children is great if your concern truly is crime/safety/lives rather than baseless superstitious delusion."

So while abortion is personally abhorrent, if one is seeking a reduction in crime/safety/lives (lost) overall in society then abortion must be a positive force to that end. And do not presume to tell the "sentient" people what they can and can not do. Apparently those pesky non sentient people do need a higher level of control.

Laws tell us all what we can and can not do every day, so like virtually all legal questions the "right" to an abortion was created by and can just as easily be removed by the state, as was so perfectly stated in the premise of the thread. The idea that freedom is unlimited is silly.

But what is the primary argument for abortion here, it is a global positive result of reducing crime, increasing safety and saving lives since there will be fewer unwanted children in the world.

So by this logic, and I know this is extreme and not something I advocate, why not simply terminate the life of all unwanted children either at, or shortly after birth? If there is this obvious benefit to society, why wouldn't it be better for that society to systematically terminate all unwanted lives that become a drag on society?

Why is it only via abortion this result is so obviously desirable but through no other means?

Sadly, I believe that "other means" loom on the horizon, Gilbert.

 

[Muhammed]

It's just sexist to argue the acceptance of abortion based on the woman's pleasure during sex. Some people want to shame women for enjoying sex as well as seeking an abortion. It just seems like an avenue to attack the female on and shame her for having an orgasm.

Did your abortion operation(s) give you an orgasm?

 

[JayDubya]

Indeed. I see little difference between this nonsense and the popularized in fiction, but in many cases actually practiced act of leaving infants out to die of exposure.

I mean, they dramatize a bit in historical fiction. I'm not sure there's any indications Spartans literally hurled infants down a cliff, but as I understand it if an ancient Greek father looked at an infant and rejected it, you just put it out like the trash. Always fun to note historical practices like that whenever people talk about the longevity of the cultural practice of abortion. Infanticide has a long history, slavery has a long history...

It is true that if we are to believe that abortion serves a utilitarian aim, there is no reason infanticide would not serve that aim. But why stop there?

For those who think that taxes should pay for healthcare - i.e. most pro-abortion folks - society could save a great deal of resources by simply culling any human beyond a certain age. Or hey, just clear out the orphanages, right? Obviously "unwanted," so do what we do with dogs? Cull all the undesirables and you could try to lower crime, save the planet, just be financially efficient, well heck, you could argue for any number of these advantages.

You just have to be willing to be a complete barbarian.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

In my opinion the abortion debate is simply black & white.

I cannot see any gray areas, the unborn are either "persons" deserving of all rights under the law or they're not.

If when sex is consensual and pleasurable and a pregnancy occrues, "personhood" deserving of all rights and protection under the law should be granted to the ZEF from the moment of conception.
Even if precautions were taken to prevent pregnancy, she consented to sex and should deal with the consequences and give birth

Then why is a "person" (zef) created through a violent act should not be granted all rights under the law. The ZEF is recognized as a person but should not be granted rights under the law because it was conceived during a violent act, through no fault of the woman, she did not choose the act therefore does not need to be responsible for the consequences

If a born person was conceived during a violent act should their mother be allowed to kill at anytime after birth?
Why not?
A "person" conceived during a violent act should not have rights at conception, why and when should those rights be granted if carried to term?

The act in which it was conceived has not changed, so why and when does the status?

A woman should take responsibility for her actions and deal with the consequences when she consents to and enjoys sex and the result is pregnancy, because once conceived the new life should have the "right to life" and protection of the law.

A woman who conceives during a violent act did not chose or consent to the act so the new life should no "right to life" or protection of the law.

This make no sense to me. If the ZEF concieved during a violent act is not a person or not a person granted rights and protection, then no ZEF can be granted rights and protection, and if a ZEF concieved during consentual, pleasurable sex is granted rights and protection than all ZEFs should be granted rights and protection

Many pro-lifers say women use abortion as birth control, and most abortions are for Convince and they see abortion as the "easy" way out.


This stance to me, implies that it is not so much about the "person" (zef) and equal rights, but rather the way in which it was conceived. Because that is the one and only difference between the two

The ZEF is what it is, regardless of how it was conceived

I can't see how it can be any other way or how there can ever be exceptions (gray areas) since we don't make exceptions when it comes to the rights and protection of born persons

There are many pro-lifers who will only make an exception in the case where the mothers life is in danger.

My questions here are :

If the woman wouldn't die but would have to live with a life long condition caused by the pregnancy, how serious would the condition have to be to deem it dangerous enough to abort?

Abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness, anemia, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, pelvic organ prolapse, cardiovascular disease,embolism, stroke?

Or is it only the risk of death?

How high would the risk have to be to deem it dangerous enough to abort, 20% chance, 50% chance, 80%?

What if there was a 50% for either to live but 0% for both to live, if efforts are placed on saving the woman the fetus will die, placing efforts on saving the fetus means the woman dies, who's life should take precedence?

Your view is nothing but grey - because you seem extremely confused on where you stand.

I'll just clarify that I - nor you - nor anyone else on this planet is a CONSEQUENCE. I don't know why - but in this type of discussion this is used with a negative slant and in such light it implies that a child is a negative punishment as a result of criminal or unchaste behavior.

You might as well state "you had sex you should be punished with a child" - because that's really what you're feeling and what you're saying. . . tsk tsk. That's not the attitude to have in order to get anyone to stop and think.

Children are a responsibility

 

[sweet]

Your view is nothing but grey - because you seem extremely confused on where you stand.

I'll just clarify that I - nor you - nor anyone else on this planet is a CONSEQUENCE. I don't know why - but in this type of discussion this is used with a negative slant and in such light it implies that a child is a negative punishment as a result of criminal or unchaste behavior.

You might as well state "you had sex you should be punished with a child" - because that's really what you're feeling and what you're saying. . . tsk tsk. That's not the attitude to have in order to get anyone to stop and think.

Children are a responsibility

I am pro-choice in every situation, regardless of the circumstances of conception or the reasoning one might have for choosing abortion, to me this is all irrelevant. Honestly it is none of my business how she became pregnant or why she is choosing abortion



I am simply trying to understand the other side. Why they see abortion the way they do, why they make exceptions if they do.



I personally do not see pregnancy or children as a "consequence" (I have 2 kids myself and they are my life), however this is what I have seen some pro-lifers call it. If you have consensual sex you should deal with the consequence.

 

[Bonzai]

I am pro-choice in every situation, regardless of the circumstances of conception or the reasoning one might have for choosing abortion, to me this is all irrelevant. Honestly it is none of my business how she became pregnant or why she is choosing abortion


I am simply trying to understand the other side. Why they see abortion the way they do, why they make exceptions if they do.



I personally do not see pregnancy or children as a "consequence" (I have 2 kids myself and they are my life), however this is what I have seen some pro-lifers call it. If you have consensual sex you should deal with the consequence.

Sex is rarely engaged in specifically for procreation, so, naturally, few feel like dealing with the results when it results in reproduction......................

 

[sweet]

In that case there is a legitimate claim of self defense for the homicide because her life is clearly in danger.

What if there was a preexisting condition, like lupus, kidney disease, epilepsy or cancer?

 

[MaggieD]

In my opinion the abortion debate is simply black & white.

I cannot see any gray areas, the unborn are either "persons" deserving of all rights under the law or they're not.

If when sex is consensual and pleasurable and a pregnancy occrues, "personhood" deserving of all rights and protection under the law should be granted to the ZEF from the moment of conception.
Even if precautions were taken to prevent pregnancy, she consented to sex and should deal with the consequences and give birth

Then why is a "person" (zef) created through a violent act should not be granted all rights under the law. The ZEF is recognized as a person but should not be granted rights under the law because it was conceived during a violent act, through no fault of the woman, she did not choose the act therefore does not need to be responsible for the consequences

If a born person was conceived during a violent act should their mother be allowed to kill at anytime after birth?
Why not?
A "person" conceived during a violent act should not have rights at conception, why and when should those rights be granted if carried to term?

The act in which it was conceived has not changed, so why and when does the status?

A woman should take responsibility for her actions and deal with the consequences when she consents to and enjoys sex and the result is pregnancy, because once conceived the new life should have the "right to life" and protection of the law.

A woman who conceives during a violent act did not chose or consent to the act so the new life should no "right to life" or protection of the law.

This make no sense to me. If the ZEF concieved during a violent act is not a person or not a person granted rights and protection, then no ZEF can be granted rights and protection, and if a ZEF concieved during consentual, pleasurable sex is granted rights and protection than all ZEFs should be granted rights and protection

Many pro-lifers say women use abortion as birth control, and most abortions are for Convince and they see abortion as the "easy" way out.


This stance to me, implies that it is not so much about the "person" (zef) and equal rights, but rather the way in which it was conceived. Because that is the one and only difference between the two

The ZEF is what it is, regardless of how it was conceived

I can't see how it can be any other way or how there can ever be exceptions (gray areas) since we don't make exceptions when it comes to the rights and protection of born persons

There are many pro-lifers who will only make an exception in the case where the mothers life is in danger.

My questions here are :

If the woman wouldn't die but would have to live with a life long condition caused by the pregnancy, how serious would the condition have to be to deem it dangerous enough to abort?

Abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness, anemia, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, pelvic organ prolapse, cardiovascular disease,embolism, stroke?

Or is it only the risk of death?

How high would the risk have to be to deem it dangerous enough to abort, 20% chance, 50% chance, 80%?

What if there was a 50% for either to live but 0% for both to live, if efforts are placed on saving the woman the fetus will die, placing efforts on saving the fetus means the woman dies, who's life should take precedence?

When you eat scrambled eggs in the morning are you eating scrambled baby chicks? Just wondering . . .

 

[sweet]

Your view is nothing but grey - because you seem extremely confused on where you stand.

I'll just clarify that I - nor you - nor anyone else on this planet is a CONSEQUENCE. I don't know why - but in this type of discussion this is used with a negative slant and in such light it implies that a child is a negative punishment as a result of criminal or unchaste behavior.

You might as well state "you had sex you should be punished with a child" - because that's really what you're feeling and what you're saying. . . tsk tsk. That's not the attitude to have in order to get anyone to stop and think.

Children are a responsibility

referring to pregnancy as a consequence is a pro-life term, I have not said it myself. And I have never felt nor will I ever feel that way.



My post was questioning some pro-lifers exception of abortion in rape cases. I don't understand this, if the unborn are "persons" deserving of all rights under the law, then how they were conceived should never matter

 

[sweet]

When you eat scrambled eggs in the morning are you eating scrambled baby chicks? Just wondering . . .

The eggs I scramble in the morning are not fertilized, so no

 

[MaggieD]

The eggs I scramble in the morning are not fertilized, so no

And if they were? Used to be most of them were. Scrambled baby chicks?

 

[sweet]

And if they were? Used to be most of them were. Scrambled baby chicks?

No, scrambled chicken embryo.

 

[AGENT J]

In my opinion the abortion debate is simply black & white.

I cannot see any gray areas, the unborn are either "persons" deserving of all rights under the law or they're not.

If when sex is consensual and pleasurable and a pregnancy occrues, "personhood" deserving of all rights and protection under the law should be granted to the ZEF from the moment of conception.
Even if precautions were taken to prevent pregnancy, she consented to sex and should deal with the consequences and give birth

Then why is a "person" (zef) created through a violent act should not be granted all rights under the law. The ZEF is recognized as a person but should not be granted rights under the law because it was conceived during a violent act, through no fault of the woman, she did not choose the act therefore does not need to be responsible for the consequences

If a born person was conceived during a violent act should their mother be allowed to kill at anytime after birth?
Why not?
A "person" conceived during a violent act should not have rights at conception, why and when should those rights be granted if carried to term?

The act in which it was conceived has not changed, so why and when does the status?

A woman should take responsibility for her actions and deal with the consequences when she consents to and enjoys sex and the result is pregnancy, because once conceived the new life should have the "right to life" and protection of the law.

A woman who conceives during a violent act did not chose or consent to the act so the new life should no "right to life" or protection of the law.

This make no sense to me. If the ZEF concieved during a violent act is not a person or not a person granted rights and protection, then no ZEF can be granted rights and protection, and if a ZEF concieved during consentual, pleasurable sex is granted rights and protection than all ZEFs should be granted rights and protection

Many pro-lifers say women use abortion as birth control, and most abortions are for Convince and they see abortion as the "easy" way out.


This stance to me, implies that it is not so much about the "person" (zef) and equal rights, but rather the way in which it was conceived. Because that is the one and only difference between the two

The ZEF is what it is, regardless of how it was conceived

I can't see how it can be any other way or how there can ever be exceptions (gray areas) since we don't make exceptions when it comes to the rights and protection of born persons

There are many pro-lifers who will only make an exception in the case where the mothers life is in danger.

My questions here are :

If the woman wouldn't die but would have to live with a life long condition caused by the pregnancy, how serious would the condition have to be to deem it dangerous enough to abort?

Abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness, anemia, preeclampsia, gestational diabetes, pelvic organ prolapse, cardiovascular disease,embolism, stroke?

Or is it only the risk of death?

How high would the risk have to be to deem it dangerous enough to abort, 20% chance, 50% chance, 80%?

What if there was a 50% for either to live but 0% for both to live, if efforts are placed on saving the woman the fetus will die, placing efforts on saving the fetus means the woman dies, who's life should take precedence?

well you would simply be wrong for one simply fact. To grant person-hood at conception the way you want too takes away rights from the woman. This is a simply fact and what makes the issue factually grey.

SInce there are TWO lives involved and due to the reality where the ZEF resides, how it comes to term and that its simple presence is a risk to life makes it a grey area.

If you HONESTLY care about life and rights banning abortion strips rights aways from the mother and makes her a lesser life just as much as unlimited abortion strips rights away from the ZEF and makes the ZEF a lesser life.

 

[JayDubya]

referring to pregnancy as a consequence is a pro-life term, I have not said it myself. And I have never felt nor will I ever feel that way.

Pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex. That's not an "anyone" term, that's uhhh, what words mean. Cause and effect, action and consequence...


You want to know about a subjective and weird usage of terms as relates to pregnancy? "Punishment." And you hear it all the time from pro-abortion extremists, like that scumbag Obama, for example. Maybe you don't see it that way, maybe you do. But you won't see my camp ever calling a human being a punishment.

 

[sweet]

Pregnancy is a potential consequence of sex. That's not an "anyone" term, that's uhhh, what words mean. Cause and effect, action and consequence...

Pregnancy is the potential result of sex

You want to know about a subjective and weird usage of terms as relates to pregnancy? "Punishment." And you hear it all the time from pro-abortion extremists, like that scumbag Obama, for example. Maybe you don't see it that way, maybe you do. But you won't see my camp ever calling a human being a punishment.

And if a woman does not like the result she can abort