Are you pro-life or pro-choice as per abortion?

[F1fan]

I wouldn't put the reasons squarely due to religious values, especially since some gods, like the Hebrew god, are not pro-life.

The religious values are invented for politics and social influence. I learned today that the Christian evangelicals didn't care much about Roe when it was decided. Pat Robertson wasn't concerned about abortion as a right. It was mostly the Catholics that were opposed to abortion. It was;t until Falwell and Reagan could use abortion for political aims did it become a sudden "moral" issue for evangelicals. This suggests the moral outrage was an invented political issue that evangelicals used.

Abortion was historically frowned upon after "quickening." Scientifically there has to be a reason not to abort as the pregnancy progresses.

A lot of abortion happened behind the scenes of society. Or daughter was sent off to the country for 9 months for her "health". It was really she was hiding from neighbors until she gave birth and the child adopted out. Lots of shame about sex and pregnancy through the 20th century in the USA. With medical care improving and morals adapting to modern life abortion was accepted and normal option for women. It's been the Christian extremists keeping the issue alive, politically, and now they are on the verge of winning. But we don't know the fallout of the majority of Americans who think abortion access is important and should be allowed.

The fetus feeling pain, IMO, must account for something, because we generally don't like hurting animals or the environment, so humans need at least that much consideration, if not more.

I'm sure medicine is aware of the ethics of abortion and it is evolving procedures to be acceptable to all involved.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Let's see those arguments. You own position as you're explained it is largely the Christian moral argument. You've likely adopted it without realizing it's origins.

What is the Christian moral argument?

I did post my argument once but it got deleted without explanation. I will post a summary later tonight or tomorrow morning.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It was;t until Falwell and Reagan could use abortion for political aims did it become a sudden "moral" issue for evangelicals. This suggests the moral outrage was an invented political issue that evangelicals used.

I had long suspected that, but never knew for sure.

It's been the Christian extremists keeping the issue alive, politically, and now they are on the verge of winning. But we don't know the fallout of the majority of Americans who think abortion access is important and should be allowed.


I'm sure medicine is aware of the ethics of abortion and it is evolving procedures to be acceptable to all involved.

They will eventually lose. People are already running away from the religion, but with this, people won't touch them with a 10-foot pole. Their churches can fail and something actually good for society can be put in their places. They are good with it though, because the Bible prophesies about a "falling away." The world knows better...

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why? Is it too idealistic to thing a drunk person should decide beforehand not to drive if they get drunk?

Well, it doesn't always happen. So it doesn't work in that sense.

 

[stvdv]

I’m pro-law.

#MeToo

Even bad ones?

I am pro life (don't kill other born beings)
I am pro choice (women body/choose)
I am pro Law (KaliYuga=many 'bad' ones)
I am pro death (In case I don't like the Law)

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Let's see those arguments.

Here is a summary of my prolife argument:

• My moral standard is based on maximizing the Well Being of all people. This is a subjective standard and is a separate discussion on what this means. However, we can objectively compare actions against this standard to see if that action best maximizes well being.
• Based on Well Being as a moral standard, life is preferable to death unless that person decides for themselves it is not. People have a right to life that no other person can interfere with. No one can say to another person if they should want to live or not.
• A zygote once formed can become a person or human being if the process is not hindered in some way, such as miscarriage, forced abortion or other natural occurrences. A zygote is a potential person. Even if we could pinpoint when someone becomes a person during the pregnancy process that does not matter because you are ending a process that has started to form a person. A sperm is not a potential person because left on its own cannot become a person, so killing a sperm cell is not killing a potential person.
• A forced abortion does not maximize well being for the potential person and that potential person has no ability to indicate if they want to live or not.
• So basically any potential person has a right to life based on well being as a moral standard. It is immoral to take that potential person's life away without their consent.

Now this is just a summary and not a complete argument. But I think it is a good start for a discussion.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Here is a summary of my prolife argument:

• My moral standard is based on maximizing the Well Being of all people. This is a subjective standard and is a separate discussion on what this means. However, we can objectively compare actions against this standard to see if that action best maximizes well being.
• Based on Well Being as a moral standard, life is preferable to death unless that person decides for themselves it is not. People have a right to life that no other person can interfere with. No one can say to another person if they should want to live or not.
• A zygote once formed can become a person or human being if the process is not hindered in some way, such as miscarriage, forced abortion or other natural occurrences. A zygote is a potential person. Even if we could pinpoint when someone becomes a person during the pregnancy process that does not matter because you are ending a process that has started to form a person. A sperm is not a potential person because left on its own cannot become a person, so killing a sperm cell is not killing a potential person.
• A forced abortion does not maximize well being for the potential person and that potential person has no ability to indicate if they want to live or not.
• So basically any potential person has a right to life based on well being as a moral standard. It is immoral to take that potential person's life away without their consent.

Now this is just a summary and not a complete argument. But I think it is a good start for a discussion.

So how do you fare with the Trolley Problem? Given that one or more are going to die.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

So how do you fare with the Trolley Problem? Given that one or more are going to die.

How does this relate to my argument?

 

[Mock Turtle]

How does this relate to my argument?

Well I assume you would switch, thus causing the death of one to save many more, as most seem to do. I might do so in practice but theoretically I would rather not deliberately cause a death even if some died by my inaction. And it relates because often we have to make such choices - sacrificing some to save many more - and which is a dilemma for many no doubt. Given that this might induce guilt as to such deliberate actions. So all about priorities perhaps, and in this case (for many) it is the priority of the potential mother rather than any future child being chosen.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Well I assume you would switch, thus causing the death of one to save many more, as most seem to do. I might do so in practice but theoretically I would rather not deliberately cause a death even if some died by my inaction. And it relates because often we have to make such choices - sacrificing some to save many more - and which is a dilemma for many no doubt. Given that this might induce guilt as to such deliberate actions. So all about priorities perhaps, and in this case (for many) it is the priority of the potential mother rather than any future child being chosen.

It is not the same thing. With the Trolley problem people will die no matter what you do. With abortion, you are sacrificing a potential or actual unborn person for one that is already alive because of hardship. The better analogy would be with the Trolley problem is that on one track you have a potential person, the other you have a mother that will have problems financial or otherwise. I think it moral to have the potential person be born and the mother have problems rather than switching the tracks to ensure the potential person cells are killed so the mother can not have the problems associated with having a child.

 

[F1fan]

Here is a summary of my prolife argument:

• My moral standard is based on maximizing the Well Being of all people. This is a subjective standard and is a separate discussion on what this means. However, we can objectively compare actions against this standard to see if that action best maximizes well being.

Not all members of society have an interest in their well-being, or even social stability. So they may oppose what might be a stable and normal and adjusted approach to life.

• Based on Well Being as a moral standard, life is preferable to death unless that person decides for themselves it is not. People have a right to life that no other person can interfere with. No one can say to another person if they should want to live or not.

You seem to be referring to adults who have agency, and no mental health issues that impede their ability to make good choices for themselves.

• A zygote once formed can become a person or human being if the process is not hindered in some way, such as miscarriage, forced abortion or other natural occurrences. A zygote is a potential person. Even if we could pinpoint when someone becomes a person during the pregnancy process that does not matter because you are ending a process that has started to form a person. A sperm is not a potential person because left on its own cannot become a person, so killing a sperm cell is not killing a potential person.

Sperm and eggs are potential life because as long as they can mingle they could form a fertilized egg and implant. Conception is vastly more common than pregnancies, the vast majority don't implant in the uterus. Zygotes and fetuses can all become people once born. But you have a huge gap here because sperm, eggs, zygotes, fetuses, and even babies and children can't make decisions for themselves. So as we know this means parents of guardians or the state make decisions on behalf of those incapable of making their own decisions. And legally rights begin at birth. So "person" as you are using it applies to those who have matured to a point where they are accountable for themselves. So there is a murky gap here where the born have rights protected by the state, but the parents have legal custody. So the whole "potential" range of existence is vague. Zygotes don't have the rights of a born baby, so that's where there's a lack of clarity.

• A forced abortion does not maximize well being for the potential person and that potential person has no ability to indicate if they want to live or not.

What do you mean by forced abortion? Women volunteer to terminate pregnancies. The force is what numerous states are planning to do, forcing births on women. How does forcing women to give birth help well being of women and families that don't want to have a child? Isn't that the antithesis of your standard?

And since many abortions occur due to developmental problems with fetuses, how is forcing the birth of high need babies, and some who won't survive long after birth, good for the well being of those involved? Don't you think fetuses with serious health problems should be an exception?

• So basically any potential person has a right to life based on well being as a moral standard. It is immoral to take that potential person's life away without their consent.

This is still putting a lot of control into the mind of a woman. What about her well being? If she doesn't want a child and being forced to carry one to term causes great hardship and distress, how does that fit in with your standard?

As you can see this is dilemma that can only be solved with compromise, and that is what Roe offers.

Your proposal makes almost no recognition of the woman's well being. And trying to refer well being to a zygote or fetus assumes it is healthy. Let's note that women are more likely to die giving broth than having an abortion, so that should enter into the moral math. Forcing a women into child birth and she dies? That's problematic morally, and does the state have such an authority over citizens this way.

Now this is just a summary and not a complete argument. But I think it is a good start for a discussion.

It's not bad, but you have some serious missing elements. Include those elements and you can justify Roe.

But let me ask you this, you put a lot of importance in well being, and this is a rather open and broad state of a sentient being. Our pets can be content and have well being, so would you apply your moral argument against aborting a pregnant cat? If not, why not.

 

[F1fan]

It is not the same thing. With the Trolley problem people will die no matter what you do. With abortion, you are sacrificing a potential or actual unborn person for one that is already alive because of hardship. The better analogy would be with the Trolley problem is that on one track you have a potential person, the other you have a mother that will have problems financial or otherwise. I think it moral to have the potential person be born and the mother have problems rather than switching the tracks to ensure the potential person cells are killed so the mother can not have the problems associated with having a child.

You are still valuing what potential people might want over actual people who tell us what they want. We have no idea what the potential people will be or what they want, but we do with the actual people.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It is not the same thing. With the Trolley problem people will die no matter what you do. With abortion, you are sacrificing a potential or actual unborn person for one that is already alive because of hardship. The better analogy would be with the Trolley problem is that on one track you have a potential person, the other you have a mother that will have problems financial or otherwise. I think it moral to have the potential person be born and the mother have problems rather than switching the tracks to ensure the potential person cells are killed so the mother can not have the problems associated with having a child.

I didn't suggest it was the same thing, but it involves a similar dilemma - a balancing act as to future consequences of any action.

in the Trolley problem, you are making a judgment as to the value of some over the value of one, and that just being a guess, given that you can't know what any will do or might have done in their subsequent lives - the living that is or the dead. So basically it is just based on the value of numbers - which is often not a good metric to use.

In abortion, you have the rights of the mother versus the supposed or proposed rights of an embryo, which they don't actually have until born. Why a potential mother might want an abortion has so many reasons so as these not to have equal weight either. And likewise, we often can't predict the consequences of an unwanted child being born. Aren't we using the same guesswork as in the Trolley problem?

To be fair, I don't like abortion, especially ones in the later stages, but I understand that the consequences will often be worse if not done, and hence I would support such, given that the sanctity of life issue or as to human life being so special is not something I regard as a given.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Not all members of society have an interest in their well-being, or even social stability. So they may oppose what might be a stable and normal and adjusted approach to life.

Sure I agree.

You seem to be referring to adults who have agency, and no mental health issues that impede their ability to make good choices for themselves.

I did say it was a summary. There are always exceptions that need to be discussed.

Sperm and eggs are potential life because as long as they can mingle they could form a fertilized egg and implant.

I disagree. Until the fertilization occurs a sperm or egg cannot become a person if left alone.

Conception is vastly more common than pregnancies, the vast majority don't implant in the uterus. Zygotes and fetuses can all become people once born. But you have a huge gap here because sperm, eggs, zygotes, fetuses, and even babies and children can't make decisions for themselves. So as we know this means parents of guardians or the state make decisions on behalf of those incapable of making their own decisions. And legally rights begin at birth. So "person" as you are using it applies to those who have matured to a point where they are accountable for themselves. So there is a murky gap here where the born have rights protected by the state, but the parents have legal custody. So the whole "potential" range of existence is vague. Zygotes don't have the rights of a born baby, so that's where there's a lack of clarity.

I am arguing that zygotes should have the right as a born baby based on the potential of becoming a person.

What do you mean by forced abortion? Women volunteer to terminate pregnancies. The force is what numerous states are planning to do, forcing births on women. How does forcing women to give birth help well being of women and families that don't want to have a child? Isn't that the antithesis of your standard?

That was the wrong word. I should have used choose to abort.

And since many abortions occur due to developmental problems with fetuses, how is forcing the birth of high need babies, and some who won't survive long after birth, good for the well being of those involved? Don't you think fetuses with serious health problems should be an exception?

Maybe, like I said before, my argument is a summary and exceptions were not addressed. That is a case by case basis.

This is still putting a lot of control into the mind of a woman. What about her well being? If she doesn't want a child and being forced to carry one to term causes great hardship and distress, how does that fit in with your standard?

I addressed this in my post. Life is preferable to death unless the person decides for themselves it is not. Ending a potential life causes more harm that the hardship the parents and baby would face.

As you can see this is dilemma that can only be solved with compromise, and that is what Roe offers.

What compromise if Roe offering?

Your proposal makes almost no recognition of the woman's well being. And trying to refer well being to a zygote or fetus assumes it is healthy. Let's note that women are more likely to die giving broth than having an abortion, so that should enter into the moral math. Forcing a women into child birth and she dies? That's problematic morally, and does the state have such an authority over citizens this way.

I addressed this above.

It's not bad, but you have some serious missing elements. Include those elements and you can justify Roe.
But let me ask you this, you put a lot of importance in well being, and this is a rather open and broad state of a sentient being. Our pets can be content and have well being, so would you apply your moral argument against aborting a pregnant cat? If not, why not.

I have answered this already.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

You are still valuing what potential people might want over actual people who tell us what they want. We have no idea what the potential people will be or what they want, but we do with the actual people.

We do not know what the potential person may want so we should not abort it until we can know.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I didn't suggest it was the same thing, but it involves a similar dilemma - a balancing act as to future consequences of any action.

in the Trolley problem, you are making a judgment as to the value of some over the value of one, and that just being a guess, given that you can't know what any will do or might have done in their subsequent lives - the living that is or the dead. So basically it is just based on the value of numbers - which is often not a good metric to use.

In abortion, you have the rights of the mother versus the supposed or proposed rights of an embryo, which they don't actually have until born. Why a potential mother might want an abortion has so many reasons so as these not to have equal weight either. And likewise, we often can't predict the consequences of an unwanted child being born. Aren't we using the same guesswork as in the Trolley problem?

To be fair, I don't like abortion, especially ones in the later stages, but I understand that the consequences will often be worse if not done, and hence I would support such, given that the sanctity of life issue or as to human life being so special is not something I regard as a given.

Many prochoice people tell me that people do not have rights until born, well I agree. My argument is that they should have a right to life prior to birth.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Many prochoice people tell me that people do not have rights until born, well I agree. My argument is that they should have a right to life prior to birth.

And you're giving the already born person no say in the matter of how their body is used. Men never have to worry about this type of thing happening.

 

[Revoltingest]

I picked "pro choice".
But it's weak.
I'm pro abortion.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

And you're giving the already born person no say in the matter of how their body is used. Men never have to worry about this type of thing happening.

This is a very condescending comment. I have explained my view here in detail and I have come to my conclusion not because I am a man but because I have good reasons for it. I could just as easily have said you are only pro choice because you are a woman. I respect you enough not to do that to you.

And yes, men and women have a say in the matter. When they have sex they know a possible outcome is a pregnancy. Actions have consequences and responsibilities. Both are responsible for taking care of the potential child.

 

[Revoltingest]

Men never have to worry about this type of thing happening.

That wasn't so during the Vietnam war.
Many were forced into being cannon fodder.
And everyone may face government's prohibition
on the liberty to die on one's own terms.
There's more to bodily autonomy than pregnancy.