The Right to Abort is the Moral Position

[Lursa]

The bottom line, as the OP admits at the outset, is that the target of abortion is a human being, and that abortion deliberately kills it. The only question is what justifies doing that.

While I value the unborn, I value all born people more, so the woman's need for an abortion is all the justification required. No one else can determine that for her, nor live her life or make her sacrifices. Only she knows this.

I believe in quality of life, not quantity and that woman is already involved with and affecting many many other people in her life and society. Her value is greater. The unborn has only the potential for that. She will have responsibilities and obligations to fulfill to dependents, family, employer, church, community, society.

They cannot be treated equally, ethically or legally, so I base my opinion on how I value both. I value born people more. Which do you value more? (If you believe they can be treated equally, you'll have to be specific how and prove it)

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[year2late]

A woman may use the best possible diet and still lose her baby. Women aren't responsible for natural deaths. Moreover this doesn't exactly apply to the abortion issue. Pro-lifers ask that no one deliberately kill their children, not be compelled to make every sacrifice to ensure the maximum possible health benefits, and that failure to do so is tantamount to murder. It's not illegal to smoke while pregnant.



Neither sperm nor eggs are human beings.



First: If we developed an artificial womb by which a child could be safely removed from the uterus at an early stage, would you abandon this argument?

Second: There is no right to bodily autonomy in a society. Entering a society entails giving up some autonomy, for which you get the benefits of society in return. You can't claim the benefits of society while claiming exemption from the cost. If you can withdraw from that obligation, society can do the same to you. We are subject to the draft, to jury duty, to quarantine laws, etc. We can be compelled to fight and die against our will. We can also be compelled not to deliberately kill innocent human beings.

Third, Becky can not be forced to give the stranger a blood transfusion, but having run a red light and caused the accident which killed a man, she would and should be held responsible for that. This might lead to jail time for vehicular homicide or a similar charge, and I doubt you would complain against this outcome. Yet how is a blood transfusion to save a life considered an infringement of bodily autonomy where being forcibly imprisoned is not? Given the choice between being forced to donate blood to save his life or forced into prison for killing the man, which would you choose?



This is analogous to pregnancy resulting from rape. The overwhelming majority of pregnancies are conceived with consent.

For the love of God, stop with the silly artificial womb crap (as it relates to abortion)

Please. It is silly.

 

[Atreus21]

A zef is not a human being. FACT.

No justification is needed to have an abortion.

Kindly tell that to the OP then, because he conceded that point at the outset.

But can you cite any scientific evidence of this claim? Because you'll need it to contest the considerable scientific evidence against your position.

 

[Atreus21]

For the love of God, stop with the silly artificial womb crap (as it relates to abortion)

Please. It is silly.

What's silly about it?

 

[Atreus21]

Your beliefs are your private choice. You do not have to justify them to anyone.

So if my personal beliefs were to murder my brother or my wife, I would need no justification?

The beliefs of women who abort are their private choice. There are no problems here. You live what you believe and you allow others to believe as they wish. That's how our Constitution works: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects....."

The problem is not that you can't live your private life as you wish but that you are trying, through packing the Supreme Court, to control the private lives of other people by the imposition on them of your religious beliefs. You are trying to force the tenets of conservative Christian beliefs on all American women. For some reason you believe the US is a theocracy that evangelicals control.

If the constitution said that slavery was legal, would slavery be right and acceptable to you?

 

[year2late]

What's silly about it?

If you want it as an abortion substitute, how the hell would you get the fetus out of the uterus without causing damage to the woman? Hint, it would mean dilating the cervix almost completely to have reasonable visualization of the fetus to get it out intact......or a procedure akin to a c-section (major surgery)

Assuming that you got the fetus out intact, who is going to pay the workers required to watch over the fetus?

We are talking serious pain and risk for the woman.

So massive financial outlay and serious pain and medical risk for the woman.

 

[Atreus21]

While I value the unborn, I value all born people more, so the woman's need for an abortion is all the justification required. No one else can determine that for her, nor live her life or make her sacrifices. Only she knows this.

First, you're setting up a false dichotomy. Abortion isn't a matter of choosing who lives and who dies. No one has to die.

Second, if I value white lives over black lives, would you accept that as justification for my killing blacks? Or does this rationale only work for you and the positions you agree with?

I believe in quality of life, not quantity and that woman is already involved with and affecting many many other people in her life and society. Her value is greater. The unborn has only the potential for that. She will have responsibilities and obligations to fulfill to dependents, family, employer, church, community, society.

But you can't know quality of life. Their life's quality is yet to be determined - it's in the future. What you're doing is guessing, with a predetermined conclusion in mind. Furthermore, I don't think it's quality of life you're really concerned with. As we demonstrated in my other thread, even if a child's prospective quality of life is excellent, you wouldn't oppose abortion if the mother wanted it.

They cannot be treated equally, ethically or legally, so I base my opinion on how I value both. I value born people more. Which do you value more? (If you believe they can be treated equally, you'll have to be specific how and prove it)

I value them equally. It shouldn't be permissible to kill person A to stave off person B's suffering.

Suppose I value Christians more than Jews, whites more than blacks, men more than women. Should that make any difference in how I'm allowed to treat them?

 

[Atreus21]

If you want it as an abortion substitute, how the hell would you get the fetus out of the uterus without causing damage to the woman? Hint, it would mean dilating the cervix almost completely to have reasonable visualization of the fetus to get it out intact......or a procedure akin to a c-section (major surgery)

Assuming that you got the fetus out intact, who is going to pay the workers required to watch over the fetus?

We are talking serious pain and risk for the woman.

So massive financial outlay and serious pain and medical risk for the woman.

Alright, so if:

1. A hospital could safely remove the child from the uterus without serious risk to the mother...
2. the child had good care once removed....
3. and could be done with no more expense and risk than that of an early abortion...

...would you then oppose abortion?

 

[year2late]

Alright, so if:

1. A hospital could safely remove the child from the uterus without serious risk to the mother...
2. the child had good care once removed....
3. and could be done with no more expense and risk than that of an early abortion...

...would you then oppose abortion?

A child is not removed, a fragile fetus is.
There is no way to removed the fetus without significantly more risk to the mother.
And there is no way the procedure and caring for a fetus would cost less than the $400 for an abortion. You are talking about a significant medical procedure or surgery for the woman (chaching) and the care for the fetus in the artificial womb. (chaching)

It is a person's decision what to do with their own body. I am pro choice. Why would I force a woman to either remain pregnant or have a major ?medical procedure?

 

[Lursa]

First, you're setting up a false dichotomy. Abortion isn't a matter of choosing who lives and who dies. No one has to die.

I didnt say it was, altho that is reality. Every single pregnancy risks the life of the woman and it's not always predictable or preventable.

So if you dont want a child, why not choose abortion which is 14 times safer?

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.*
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.*

Abortion safer than giving birth: study - Reuters

I discussed value and quality of life.

Second, if I value white lives over black lives, would you accept that as justification for my killing blacks? Or does this rationale only work for you and the positions you agree with?

Black people have rights. And you can remove yourself from black people. You can leave their vicinity and influence and physical impacts on you. You can only end a pregnancy by abortion.

But you can't know quality of life. Their life's quality is yet to be determined - it's in the future. What you're doing is guessing, with a predetermined conclusion in mind. Furthermore, I don't think it's quality of life you're really concerned with. As we demonstrated in my other thread, even if a child's prospective quality of life is excellent, you wouldn't oppose abortion if the mother wanted it.

Yup...and I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the unborn's "potential" quality of life is more important than the woman's. Do that and we can go on.

Btw, you are asking a woman to risk her life, sacrifice her quality of life, for something with a low % of surviving to birth anyway....so risk/benefit isnt particularly rational. It makes sense ONLY if you value the unborn more than women. (We covered that I value all born people more).

2/3rds of human embryos don’t survive

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101003205930.htm*

Two-thirds of all human embryos fail to develop successfully. Now, in a new study, researchers have shown that they can predict with 93 percent certainty which fertilized eggs will make it to a critical developmental milestone and which will stall and die. The findings are important to the understanding of the fundamentals of human development at the earliest stages, which have largely remained a mystery despite the attention given to human embryonic stem cell research.*

I'm not concerned with any unborn's quality of life and dont base any of my arguments on that. When there is something that *has* a quality of life, then I'm interested.

I value them equally. It shouldn't be permissible to kill person A to stave off person B's suffering.

Cop out. And while you may personally feel that way...that's nice...in real life it's not possible. You may control your own abortion then, but affect no other.

And you cannot prove me wrong apparently. As for your statement, :shrug: that's your opinion. We're back to quality of life over quantity.

Suppose I value Christians more than Jews, whites more than blacks, men more than women. Should that make any difference in how I'm allowed to treat them?

They are all people. With rights. Who can function without affecting you in anyway. You are not vitally attached to any of those people and can function in life without interacting with them for the most part, at least under the protections provided under the Const. If those people make you sick, you can take legal action. If they stop you from performing your job or your responsibilities to your family, or your societal obligations, you can take legal action. If they try to kill you, you have recourse, including self-defense.

So your analogy fails.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[OceanBlues1]

There is no controversy over abortion.There is no controversy over the personhood of the fetus. Each person, each organization, is entitled to their own beliefs. Pro-choice advocates believe everybody has a right to their choice of beliefs: no questions asked. There is no controversy. Conservatives Christians have a right to make their women follow their religious beliefs about life and fetuses.

There is no controversy. There is a fight. The fight is to keep conservative Christians from packing the Supreme Court, over-riding the constitution and begin establishing conservative Christian theology as basic guiding principle of our government instead of the Constitution.

Definitely agree. Given their way, conservative Christian guys would have women stripped of all the rights we've had for the last 100 or more years, including the legal right to vote. :roll:

 

[Scrabaholic]

Kindly tell that to the OP then, because he conceded that point at the outset.

But can you cite any scientific evidence of this claim? Because you'll need it to contest the considerable scientific evidence against your position.

Human being is a social construct, not a scientific one.

 

[Mashmont]

Definitely agree. Given their way, conservative Christian guys would have women stripped of all the rights we've had for the last 100 or more years, including the legal right to vote. :roll:

Will you be able to vote this year? Will you turn 18 before November?

 

[OceanBlues1]

Will you be able to vote this year? Will you turn 18 before November?

I'm over 21, so yes, I will definitely be voting...for Biden.

 

[Bodi]

What's silly about it?

What stage is artificial womb development in right now?

 

[Lursa]

For the love of God, stop with the silly artificial womb crap (as it relates to abortion)

Please. It is silly.

What's silly about it?

It doesnt really solve the basic issue of a woman's rights...medical privacy, reproductive choice, bodily autonomy, etc.

--the woman would still need to consent to the invasive procedure.

--who is legally and financially responsible for paying for the procedure and the maintenance of growing the unborn?

--who is legally and financially responsible for the unborn if it is not adopted immediately at birth? What if it isnt 'perfect?' What if isnt the right 'color?'

--is there any moral issue with producing more children with 'nowhere to go?' There are over 100,000 kids available for adoption in the US right now, and over 400,000 in foster care. (I can provide multiple links to support this.)


While I can see such technology being wonderful for couples where the woman cannot carry a pregnancy, what 'issues' do you see this artificial womb solving regarding abortion?

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[maquiscat]

What stage is artificial womb development in right now?

Far enough that discussions on ethics and law should be had.

 

[Bodi]

Far enough that discussions on ethics and law should be had.

Yeah? Are Zygotes are being taken out of women and put into artificial wombs?

 

[maquiscat]

Yeah? Are Zygotes are being taken out of women and put into artificial wombs?

I would say that the time to discuss the ethical and legal implications and practices is before we get to that point.

And it is coming. This isn't a matter of if, but when. May not necessarily be in our lifetime, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

 

[Bodi]

I would say that the time to discuss the ethical and legal implications and practices is before we get to that point.

And it is coming. This isn't a matter of if, but when. May not necessarily be in our lifetime, but it wouldn't surprise me if it did.

... and people will be travelling in wormholes and going back in time with their flying DeLoreans ... GREAT SCOTT!

 

[maquiscat]

... and people will be travelling in wormholes and going back in time with their flying DeLoreans ... GREAT SCOTT!

Those aren't currently in development but artificial wombs are.

Sent from my cp3705A using Tapatalk

 

[Atreus21]

I didnt say it was, altho that is reality. Every single pregnancy risks the life of the woman and it's not always predictable or preventable.

So if you dont want a child, why not choose abortion which is 14 times safer?

Because the risk of death by pregnancy is extremely low by any objective measure. And no one objects to abortion when a pregnancy is life threatening.

Black people have rights. And you can remove yourself from black people. You can leave their vicinity and influence and physical impacts on you. You can only end a pregnancy by abortion.

If the child had a good chance of survival outside the womb (thereby enabling the woman to leave the vicinity, influence, and physical impact of the child), would you oppose abortion?

Yup...and I'm still waiting for you to tell me why the unborn's "potential" quality of life is more important than the woman's. Do that and we can go on.

Btw, you are asking a woman to risk her life, sacrifice her quality of life, for something with a low % of surviving to birth anyway....so risk/benefit isnt particularly rational. It makes sense ONLY if you value the unborn more than women. (We covered that I value all born people more).

2/3rds of human embryos don’t survive

I'm not concerned with any unborn's quality of life and dont base any of my arguments on that. When there is something that *has* a quality of life, then I'm interested.

Should someone be empowered to end your life because your quality of life doesn't meet their standards?

Cop out. And while you may personally feel that way...that's nice...in real life it's not possible. You may control your own abortion then, but affect no other.

And you cannot prove me wrong apparently. As for your statement, :shrug: that's your opinion. We're back to quality of life over quantity.

You challenged me to say who I valued more. I value them equally, which is simply true. Both parties have equal rights to life.

They are all people. With rights. Who can function without affecting you in anyway. You are not vitally attached to any of those people and can function in life without interacting with them for the most part, at least under the protections provided under the Const. If those people make you sick, you can take legal action. If they stop you from performing your job or your responsibilities to your family, or your societal obligations, you can take legal action. If they try to kill you, you have recourse, including self-defense.

So your analogy fails.

You didn't answer the question. Should my personal valuation of individual people have any bearing on how the law allows me to treat them? Can I legally discriminate against blacks simply because I value them less than I do whites? Just yes or no.

 

[Atreus21]

A child is not removed, a fragile fetus is.

However you want to describe it then.

There is no way to removed the fetus without significantly more risk to the mother.

And there is no way the procedure and caring for a fetus would cost less than the $400 for an abortion. You are talking about a significant medical procedure or surgery for the woman (chaching) and the care for the fetus in the artificial womb. (chaching)

It is a person's decision what to do with their own body. I am pro choice. Why would I force a woman to either remain pregnant or have a major ?medical procedure?

Did you read my post before you responded? I said, given by whatever technological progress that the fetus could be removed safely, and it would cost no more than an abortion, and that it would be cared for adequately. In other words, if we could satisfy all of your stated concerns, would you then oppose abortion?

 

[Atreus21]

Human being is a social construct, not a scientific one.

Then explain what exactly you meant when you said a zef is not a human being.

It sure doesn't look to me like you considered it a "social construct" then.

 

[Atreus21]

What stage is artificial womb development in right now?

I have no idea, and it doesn't really matter. How often do famous violinists get hooked up to the kidney's of non-consenting sleeping people?

It's a hypothetical device, that's all. Abortion proponents don't mind using them at all, but sure don't like it when the shoe's on the other foot.