Pro-choice vs Abortion

[Prestor John]

If that was true abortion would already be illegal in all 50 states.

Tell me, is abortion illegal in all 50 states?

This logic is what prompted me to say, "We need anti-abortion laws in place for those who argue that abortion is not murder."

Based on what?

Intellectual consistency.

 

[Prestor John]

Well, that's kind of an interesting question in a way isn't it. If there were a very simple and broad set of laws and rights at the base of society, something like a religion is naturally a sub-heading springing off of that broad base of law. The religion increases the resolution of law to analyze particulate human action, and under the religion is a sub-group of people. Looks like a system that should have natural boundaries. It is a specific religion, with a specific subset of people we are talking about. Why should the subset of people in religion number A tell the subset of people in philosophy L what to do, beyond what ties to them together in the broad base of common law? If enough people disagree, why should you think that it is appropriate to incorporate your moral idea into the common law? Clearly, too many people disagree so it is inappropriate. That is how america is supposed to work, you should understand that.

I'm sorry. I'm confused. Why are you assuming that I made any argument from the position of religious conviction?

All I said was that the abortion should be legally defined as murder, which is no stretch.

Since I made no argument based on the beliefs of any religion, why are you acting as if I did?

 

[Prestor John]

No it's not. Murder is quite clearly defined, and abortion falls outside those definitions on several points. I get that you really, really want to use the emotive trump card word to lend weight to your subjective, opinion based beliefs, but it's simply incorrect.

This argument is what prompted me to say (in the very same post),

"We need anti-abortion laws in place for those who argue that abortion is not murder."

I also said in the very next post,

"We just need to legally define abortion as murder."

I understand that the amoral like to engage in "hair-splitting" over this issue.

However, if you want to remain intellectually consistent on this issue, then there is no other alternative.

Human life begins at conception.

 

[blü 2]

All I said was that the abortion should be legally defined as murder, which is no stretch.

So you think of women as breeding cows and their bodies as public property, eh?

 

[viole]

This argument is what prompted me to say (in the very same post),

"We need anti-abortion laws in place for those who argue that abortion is not murder."

I also said in the very next post,

"We just need to legally define abortion as murder."

I understand that the amoral like to engage in "hair-splitting" over this issue.

However, if you want to remain intellectually consistent on this issue, then there is no other alternative.

Human life begins at conception.

Since a bunch of cell is not a person, how can abortion, especially very early, be called a murder? Makes no sense.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

We just need to legally define abortion as murder.

That would fix things.

There is nothing to fix. Well, in North Europe at least. Really.

Ciao

- viole

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

We just need to legally define abortion as murder.

No. We need to never do that again. That would be a return to the bad old days of the church using the power of the state to attempt to women with unwanted pregnancies to deliver them to term by enforcing its religious beliefs against the will of the pregnant woman, essentially relegating her to the role of an unwilling human incubator.

The pro-choice position on abortion is that it should be the mother, and not the church and state, that should decide whether a pregnancy comes to term. Most of us will also tell you that we wish that there was never another unwanted pregnancy or abortion ever again, but since we know that that won't be the case, safe, legal abortion needs to be available.

Why? I watched the Netflix documentary on Gloria Allred, a prominent American feminist activist and attorney, and learned that she had been raped at gunpoint at age 25 while vacationing in the Caribbean. She was asked if that was the worst thing that had ever happened to her. She answered no, it was the back alley abortion she needed because of the rape. She began hemorrhaging and developed a fever of 106 degrees due to infection, almost dying in the process.

You would have this back, but I say never again. Those are the things I care about, not religious preferences. If your religion or conscience forbids you to get an abortion, don't get one. That's your freedom. But you would impose those views on others. You are not given that freedom.

Incidentally, it's not the rape that is relevant here. It's the unsafe conditions for abortion. I realize that many anti-choice people would allow for a woman like that to have a legal abortion, but I presume that the abortions performed before and after hers under those same circumstances, whatever the history resulting in an unwanted pregnancy, were just as dangerous. That's what you are advocating for when you advocate for recriminalizing abortion.

I'm sorry. I'm confused. Why are you assuming that I made any argument from the position of religious conviction? All I said was that the abortion should be legally defined as murder, which is no stretch. Since I made no argument based on the beliefs of any religion, why are you acting as if I did?

It's assumed. Almost all arguments against abortion rights, science, atheists, homosexuals, and transgendered people in America derive either directly or indirectly from Christianity.

The anti-choice position is basically a religious position. Almost everybody marching in protest outside a Planned Parenthood clinic is going to be a Christian, as will be any legislator who proposes or governor who signs into law any abortion-limiting legislation, which is how we can tell that the outrage is manufactured from the pulpit. People not subjected to that generally have no problem with abortion being available, safe, and legal.

Authentic outrage is seen across multiple demographics, as that which appeared after the confiscation and incarceration of children at the American border. The outrage with abortion is confined essentially to people taught to be outraged.

Human life begins at conception.

Yes, and sometimes ends before birth. So what? For me, the moral status of abortion is not related to anything but the degree of suffering caused to the fetus by the procedure. That is not true with somebody already born, the killing of whom might well be immoral by my standards even if it were a painless death.

But not an embryo or fetus with a nervous system too primitive to create the experience of suffering.

Notice what doesn't come into the formula. Humanity, for one thing. If the moral status of aborting a human being is not different from that of aborting any other creature capable of or as yet incapable of suffering.

I also don't care if the fetus is designated a person, a baby, or a child. I don't care when we say life begins, or if abortion is called murder. None of those are factors.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I did give a citation..

Your "citation" was biased, and wasn't accurate.

But having multiple abortions also leads to high risk pregnancies in terms of miscarriages but also including putting the mother at risk.

Citation needed. In any case? Planned Parenthood is one of the best methods of PREVENTING ABORTIONS-- by providing education and contraceptives.

Which many anti-choicers are ALSO AGAINST ... proving THEY DO NOT ACTUALLY WANT TO STOP ABORTIONS AT ALL.

Why do you think Planned Parenthood is unbiased? They make most their money on abortions and offer a relative scarcity of adoption choices. The choice is to abort apparently.

That is 100% lies. "make most of their money" HOW? They don't actually DO abortions! They REFER to abortion providers....

Why do you anti-choicers LIE?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

That's amazing that you feel that way. The current abortions that happen aren't about religion, most happen due to failure of responsibility. It's not about god..

Seriously? Who defines this ... ahem... "responsibility" anyway? RELIGION!

It is RELIGION that defines women as "loose" or worse. But boys are encouraged to "sow their wild oats"? WHAT?

RELIGION AGAIN.

A girl that sleeps with the whole football team unprotected vs a girl that sleeps with one guy using protection, Do they have the same rights or is one more liable than the other?.

Religion! AGAIN-- you draw your harsh judgment against women who want to enjoy sex-- BECAUSE OF RELIGION AND "GAWD DUN LOIKE ITSES"

Where do we draw a line from too young and too stupid?

Leave religious JUDGEMENT out of it-- then maybe you have a point...

.... Religions that teach their followers their god drowned all the babies on the planet, that one time? HAVE NO MORAL STANCE TO MAKE.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

No. We have laws against murder and abortion is murder..

NO IT IS NOT-- you are using RELIGION to re-define "murder".

NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

We need anti-abortion laws in place for those who argue that abortion is not murder.

YOU DO NOT GET TO FORCE YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEW ONTO OTHERS.

FORBIDDEN.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I'm sorry. I'm confused. Why are you assuming that I made any argument from the position of religious conviction?

All I said was that the abortion should be legally defined as murder, which is no stretch.

Since I made no argument based on the beliefs of any religion, why are you acting as if I did?

Ah I see, in that case please refer to my points in post #155 in this thread, therein I invoke a scientific argument. But my points to you still stand as a good argument oriented in the religious angle.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Laws for the just born in England are for babies who weigh above a threshold.... that seems arbitrary.

Why? Who decides? YOU? You have shown you would force your RELIGION onto everyone else.... so you're hardly qualified.

As far as the just born in the US, if its a result of an abortion the doctor is in a conflict of interest as he may be hit with a lawsuit for improper birth

That's a lie. Why do you anti-choicers LIE about this issue? Why lie? Aborted fetuses are not alive once aborted. That's kinda how abortion works...

But ignorance seems to be one of the principle attributes among anti-choicers.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Murder is already illegal though.

Yes it is-- and "murder" is a legal term. It's clearly defined-- and fetuses, elephant, pig or human? Do not qualify.

The FACT IS: you could not even tell the difference between those 3....

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You are, of course, correct.

In a perfect world, the men would be responsible for their own actions. The rape victim who was wearing a short skirt and was rather drunk was still raped and it is STILL the fault of the rapist only. She should be as safe in a short dress and drunk as she would be in chain mail and surrounded by Navy Seals.

Women should not have to bear the cost/responsibility by themselves. I have certainly taught my sons that they are responsible for their own actions.

However....

Sheer practicality says that you don't tie dead fish to your ankles and go swimming with sharks. Even though a woman SHOULD be safe wandering around alleys drunk, disheveled and alone...she won't be. Even though men SHOULD be equally responsible for birth control and the results when birth control fails, they simply don't bear the burden of the results themselves. At least, not until now and paternity tests, and even then men tend to be jerks.

This isn't about moral judgment or some statement of 'men are equally responsible, so I'm only going to take care of half of birth control because the other half is HIS job' sort of thing. It's about....the woman gets pregnant, the man doesn't, so out of pure cussed self defense, the woman should figure that she's 100% responsible. Not because that's 'fair,' because it isn't fair.

JMO.

First? There is HOPE that you have recognized that Blaming The Victim is Immoral--

-- or so it seems --

Then? You reverse yourself, and go right back to Blaming The Victim. Typical anti-choicer.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

\
THIS sort of thing is why I put all those boring and annoying disclaimers in my posts on this topic, about the difference between two adults having consensual sex, and rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life.

Because arguments like this strawman keep cropping up.

So according to your inconsistent worldview?

"Murder" is just fine, so long as there is a Victim involved?

Interesting. Inconsistent as all heck, though...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

We just need to legally define abortion as murder.

That would fix things.

How? How would that "fix things"?

You REALLY think this would prevent ANY abortion, if the woman is desperate enough?

Roe V Wade had almost zero effect on the NUMBER of abortions.

No-- what it did? WAS SHARPLY REDUCE THE NUMBER OF WOMEN DYING FROM UNSAFE ONES.

Abortions have always been, and will always be, a part of humanity. All you anti-choice types do, is force it underground, which sharply increases the number of dead and maimed women...

... but that IS your goal anyway. Isn't it? Punish women?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I tried to be concise, but it's basically what I said. I, personally, believe abortion is morally wrong (although I also think there are occasions when it is understandable, if not justifiable). However, I acknowledge that my personal beliefs are not, in and of themselves, justification to compel anyone to do anything they don't agree with. Believe me, I've been working this debate through from multiple directions for years, and I come to the conclusion that there is no objective reason to restrict anyones access to abortion. Ultimately, every argument against abortion can be reduced to either an appeal to authority or an appeal to emotion, and, as such, no one should be compelled to abide by them against their own beliefs.

I have similar views about quite a few things. There are very, very few "objective" moral arguments. I try to put my personal, subjective views aside from anything that doesn't directly cause harm to non-consenting parties. For me it comes down to enlightened self interest. I have a number of opinions, some quite strong, on what is and isn't moral. However, I recognise that if I go about trying to impose my subjective opinion on others regardless of their opinion, I lose any right to complain when someone else seeks to impose his subjective opinion on me despite my disagreeing.

Thank you for such a thoughtful post.

You remind me-- once again-- that theist can be quite erudite and intelligent. You do remind me of my brother (in a good way).

I sometimes forget that fact, in light of so many strident posts from ... others.

Kudos!

 

[UpperLimits]

Point of order, no you didn't.

In fact, I have never seen a Christian comfortably or consistently explain why abortion is bad if foetuses go to heaven. We collectively seem to have agreed to look the other way and pretend that inconvenient doctrine isn't a thing when it comes to abortion discussions.

Because logically, all aborted foetuses go to heaven, but some people after they're born, sin, and die go to Hell would appear to be a very strong argument FOR abortion. By all means show me where I'm wrong, if you can.

It is wrong because it violates the sanctity of life. The point of sex, pregnancy and childbirth is to bring life to the earth - NOT to populate heaven. My life is sacred. Your life is sacred. The child's life is sacred. The prize is life experienced here on earth. That doctrine's just a consolation prize and has all the value of a participation trophy..

 

[Prestor John]

So you think of women as breeding cows and their bodies as public property, eh?

Try to explain the logic of this statement.

You will soon see how ridiculous it is.

 

[Prestor John]

Since a bunch of cell is not a person, how can abortion, especially very early, be called a murder? Makes no sense.

Ciao

- viole

Every person is a bunch of cells.

Every person begins in the womb.

The not-yet-born qualify as human life.

Destroying a human can be considered murder.

It makes sense. It is no stretch.