I'm Pro-Life: Change My Mind

[JasperL]

I have never seen a thread framed that way result in anything but its creator announcing that each participating poster has presented an insufficient argument, then acting like this mean the OP starting position must be correct.

At any rate, you're never going to make headway with someone who uses the "life begins at conception" line. It's designed to not budge. It intentionally asks the wrong question. The question is not "can this thing be called life?" My finger can be called life. My cat can be called life. An intestinal parasite can be called life. Yet nobody asks if any of those things have the rights of a person or citizen.

Which gets to the real question: at what point in human development should the constitution grant the full rights of a person-citizen to an entity? The best balancing you're going to find is the one we already have: once a fetus is reasonably viable outside the womb with medical care, it should be treated as a full person under the constitution. But if it can't, there's no point, because it's inevitably dead even with the most state of the art care; at that point, the mother's rights should probably take precedence.

Nevermind that I have no patience on the issue when the same people who insist that the concept of life is so sacred that a fertilized egg should be treated as a full person, but the moment that egg finally has turned into a birthed child, the speaker says "**** 'em. I don't want to pay for that. Slash the safety net!"

Yes, ^^^^ all that. I made a mistake and clicked on this thread, but what you outlined in the bolded is why I rarely comment on this particular sub forum. And if you get to the rest of your comment, you still cannot find any common ground in my experience. As you say, the position is "designed not to budge" and it never does.

My own position is pretty simple - women should control this decision. The corollary is if men got pregnant, this wouldn't be an issue - of course we'd have 'choice.'

 

[weaver2]

My discussion is about viability; let's call it 100% viability.

What is your definition of 100% viability?

 

[Antiwar]

What is your definition of 100% viability?

A healthy baby.

My ongoing thoughts and discussions are stemming from a few things. There's a late-term elective abortion issue in "After Tiller." I like to search for "truths," so I question arguments/positions. I don't mind exploring some issues; when others think they're right.

 

[weaver2]

A healthy baby.

The 29th week would probably get you a 90% healthy baby. Nobody is guaranteed 100% of anything.

My ongoing thoughts and discussions are stemming from a few things. There's a late-term elective abortion issue in "After Tiller." I like to search for "truths," so I question arguments/positions. I don't mind exploring some issues; when others think they're right.

Explore what issues? What others have to think they are right? What is it about truths that you are searching for? Why so cagey?

 

[Lursa]

Enough with the fluff.

From the link:
"Notes

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states may constitutionally ban or restrict abortions after the point of fetal viability except where necessary to preserve a woman's life or health."

That implies there is no gestational maximum limit. The summary I posted elsewhere implies there is.

Also from the link:
"Definitions

Viability is defined by the Supreme Court as "the capacity for meaningful life outside the womb, albeit with artificial aid" and not just "momentary survival."

So, viability is definitely an issue.

LOL so it says right in my link what I told you ...and you disagree...but you have zero proof of 'your' opinion.

And no one ever denied that viability is an issue.

Are you disputing the chart and the several (at least 9 states) that have ZERO gestational limits on abortion? Yes or no? That's completely verifiable, has nothing to do with my link, the state laws are available. As such, that is proof that the RED text above is accurate. If not, please explain how it's not.

Chuckle. You have one website that kind of supports your argument. That's not sufficient "proof." I am not even discussing a specific position, at this point. I'm exploring, and I suppose I'll end up with a more specific position. Ethical matters are rarely black and white.

See #371.

LMAO Wholly proven. Just read above.

 

[Lursa]

A healthy baby.

Incorrect. "Viable" means a fetus that is capable of living outside the womb. Doesnt even have to be healthy. Current medical science agrees that it's ~24 weeks for significant chance of survival.

No wonder you have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

Proof of what? That many pro choice people feel that doctors have to do abortions? Auntie Antifa even said as much in her claim that if no one wanted to be certified to do abortions then we should make it a requirement of becoming a doctor.

If that’s my “belief” then based off the exchange in question you believe no one wants to provide abortions. No one in the entire world.

What a silly belief.

 

[maquiscat]

So, women have illegal abortions and commit infanticide. Some were viable. Sounds correct?

Infanticide cannot occur until after birth, when the the offspring obtains that status. Prior to that would be fetusicide. Which also means one cannot abort an infant because it is already outside the womb.

 

[maquiscat]

If that’s my “belief” then based off the exchange in question you believe no one wants to provide abortions. No one in the entire world.

What a silly belief.

You missed the key word of "if", which indicates a possible (regardless of probable) situation. Furthermore, at no time did I say that anything should be done, such as no one take up abortion as a medical practice. I only noted what the results of such a hypothetical would be. You on the other hand, while also using the same "if", did say that if no one wanted to be certified in abortion, that we make abortion certification a requirement of being a doctor. Even in the hypocthetical you indicated that you wanted to violate the right of others to get the rights you want.

 

[Aunt Antifa]

You missed the key word of "if", which indicates a possible (regardless of probable) situation. Furthermore, at no time did I say that anything should be done, such as no one take up abortion as a medical practice. I only noted what the results of such a hypothetical would be. You on the other hand, while also using the same "if", did say that if no one wanted to be certified in abortion, that we make abortion certification a requirement of being a doctor. Even in the hypocthetical you indicated that you wanted to violate the right of others to get the rights you want.

Ohhhh so you quoted me responding to a fantastical argument with my own but *mine* gets qualified as a strict belief, yours was just part of the experiment.

What a phony argument, poorly made.

 

[maquiscat]

Ohhhh so you quoted me responding to a fantastical argument with my own but *mine* gets qualified as a strict belief, yours was just part of the experiment.

What a phony argument, poorly made.

So in other words you lied and actually agree that we can't make people become abortion providers?

 

[Aunt Antifa]

So in other words you lied and actually agree that we can't make people become abortion providers?

The point of my fantastical response to your fantastical argument is that fantastical arguments don’t yield anything of value.

You got busted using a phony quote out of context and now you’re calling me a liar about the whole thing. Hysterical.

 

[HumblePi]

Performing an abortion is the same procedure that an obstetrician/gynecologist performs, a 'D and C' - Dilation and curettage. It is not a complicated procedure. This is a democracy, Roe v Wade is a law. It doesn't matter how anyone personally feels about abortion whether you're pro or con, what matters is that there's 328 million people in this country and nobody should be forced to have their personal choice denied by a minority. It's the law, period. If a woman decides to have an abortion, then that's her legal and legitimate right to do so.

I know this is going to come as a surprise to pro-lifers but the abortion rates dropped precipitously after the passing of Roe v Wade. The abortion rate in the United States is the lowest it's been in more than 30 years. This is due to the fact that many more women in this country have access to education, birth control and preventative medicine. In 2016, pregnant women in Latin American and Caribbean countries under Zika virus alerts increasingly turned to the internet to obtain abortion medications that would otherwise be beyond their reach due to restrictive abortion laws,

 

[Antiwar]

Incorrect. "Viable" means a fetus that is capable of living outside the womb. Doesnt even have to be healthy. Current medical science agrees that it's ~24 weeks for significant chance of survival.

I gave a definition for my porpoises.

No wonder you have no idea what you're talking about here.

Chuckle.

 

[Antiwar]

... it says right in my link what I told you ...

if one website were proof of something complex, then anyone could post any website that makes a claim and say, "Here's the proof."

 

[Antiwar]

Infanticide cannot occur until after birth, when the the offspring obtains that status. Prior to that would be fetusicide. Which also means one cannot abort an infant because it is already outside the womb.

Feticide is the missing word.

 

[grip]

The reason I am Pro life is because I believe that the termination of an innocent human life is of course horrible and that is a moral stance we all should have, so the question is when does life begin? if we want to determine whether abortions should be illegal or not this is the most important question. Me personally, I believe that life begins at conception which is why I'm pro life. I'm interested in hearing other people's opposing positions.

I don't like abortion but think it's a necessary evil, like cops. There are all kinds of valid reasons for terminating pregnancies. I do not believe in late term abortions, but humanity must attempt population control or we'll doom ourselves as a species. We cannot breed till we run out of resources.

 

[southwest88]

I gave a definition for my porpoises.

Chuckle.

Well, they are mammals.

 

[Eriech]

So @Nathan.22 did they change your mind?

I am pro life but have given that Abortion is the law of the land and the testimony here about the insignificance of life before birth and the father's role in deciding on birth; why don't we means test motherhood? Why should hours of anothers work week go to support someone elses choice that they can not sustain?

Several earlier in this thread were talking about bodily autonomy, half of what I earn is confiscated by the government. Some of that goes to raise others' families at the expense of mine. Given that the baby is a mere zeff or zot or some other such life demeanig term why isn't birth means tested? We are essentially slaves for a portion of each work day to support a woman's choice to have a child she cannot support.

I am pro life mainly because the family has suffered since Roe and the subsequent loss of respect for life and marriage. Conception is the logical start to life anything other is arbitrary. My question is a logical progression from Roe as is China's one child policy. We took several giant steps toward Communism on November 4th, why not means test? We could use the confiscated fruits from the time and effort of tax payers for other boondoggles rather than zots. ( BTW I gave no effort to get the scientific terms correct. I am old school, baby still works for me)

 

[Scrabaholic]

So @Nathan.22 did they change your mind?

I am pro life but have given that Abortion is the law of the land and the testimony here about the insignificance of life before birth and the father's role in deciding on birth; why don't we means test motherhood? Why should hours of anothers work week go to support someone elses choice that they can not sustain?

Several earlier in this thread were talking about bodily autonomy, half of what I earn is confiscated by the government. Some of that goes to raise others' families at the expense of mine. Given that the baby is a mere zeff or zot or some other such life demeanig term why isn't birth means tested? We are essentially slaves for a portion of each work day to support a woman's choice to have a child she cannot support.

I am pro life mainly because the family has suffered since Roe and the subsequent loss of respect for life and marriage. Conception is the logical start to life anything other is arbitrary. My question is a logical progression from Roe as is China's one child policy. We took several giant steps toward Communism on November 4th, why not means test? We could use the confiscated fruits from the time and effort of tax payers for other boondoggles rather than zots. ( BTW I gave no effort to get the scientific terms correct. I am old school, baby still works for me)

What percentage of your taxes go to supporting the families of others? What percentage goes to the military?

 

[Eriech]

What percentage of your taxes go to supporting the families of others? What percentage goes to the military?

A total irrelevant aside though the military is a constitutional function; charity is not. For the sake of argument lets guess 20 minutes of each workday for charity 2 hours for the common defense.

 

[soylentgreen]

So @Nathan.22 did they change your mind?

I am pro life but have given that Abortion is the law of the land and the testimony here about the insignificance of life before birth and the father's role in deciding on birth; why don't we means test motherhood? Why should hours of anothers work week go to support someone elses choice that they can not sustain?

Several earlier in this thread were talking about bodily autonomy, half of what I earn is confiscated by the government. Some of that goes to raise others' families at the expense of mine. Given that the baby is a mere zeff or zot or some other such life demeanig term why isn't birth means tested? We are essentially slaves for a portion of each work day to support a woman's choice to have a child she cannot support.

I am pro life mainly because the family has suffered since Roe and the subsequent loss of respect for life and marriage. Conception is the logical start to life anything other is arbitrary. My question is a logical progression from Roe as is China's one child policy. We took several giant steps toward Communism on November 4th, why not means test? We could use the confiscated fruits from the time and effort of tax payers for other boondoggles rather than zots. ( BTW I gave no effort to get the scientific terms correct. I am old school, baby still works for me)

Do you understand that you are arguing in favour of eugenics. That only the wealthy should breed.

As for the man paying he is paying for what his actions were and not for what the womans decision is.

 

[code1211]

Medical doctors, who are actual practitioners, disagree. Most doctors count the beginning of life in the case of individuals from fertilization & implantation. A fertilized egg that fails to implant simply becomes more detritus flushed away down the sewer, regardless of species.

Miscarriages are pretty common from what I've heard. Actually creating a new life seems to be an iffy proposition.

In your example, has the fertilized egg begun to display the division of cells?

Fetal Development: Week-by-Week Stages of Pregnancy

Fetal development is how a fetus grows during pregnancy. It begins at conception and ends at birth. Many changes occur to the fetus and the pregnant person in this time.

my.clevelandclinic.org

 

[Eriech]

Do you understand that you are arguing in favour of eugenics. That only the wealthy should breed.

As for the man paying he is paying for what his actions were and not for what the womans decision is.

Actually, no, I am arguing that every baby conceived's right to life be recognized. Given that it is not the case, means test parenthood for the general welfare of the people.

 

[soylentgreen]

Actually, no, I am arguing that every baby conceived's right to life be recognized. Given that it is not the case, means test parenthood for the general welfare of the people.

Actually yes, eugenics is the end result of your suggestion. Only trhe wealthy should breed .

And the right to life is recognised by the support your taxes give to creating a healthy environment for pregnant woman. But as well the right to bodily autonomy is also recognised by giving women the right to choose what happens to their body.