TRIGGER WARNING: I'm prochoice now.

[epronovost]

People referring to abortion as murder are the one's with the non-Scriptural interpretation. I agree with them, because I also find modern science and morality superior to that of primitive people centuries ago. But it isn't Scriptural.
Tom

I agree with you that "pro-life" arguments don't rest upon a scriptural basis even though "pro-life" advocacy groups are frequently funded and supported by religious and conservative organisations. In my opinion, for those groups, the question of the status of personhood of the fetus is a smoke screen and the debate over abortions only a wedge issue. What interests those groups and that for which they have scriptural support, is the maintenance of traditionnal gender roles and the repression of sexuality (especially that of women). Being against abortion is just a means to an end. That's why those same groups will also oppose science-based sexual education and contraception while these things are the most efficient way to reduce abortion and infanticide.

On the other hand, "pro-choice" groups don't rest their arguments on scriptural basis. In fact both rely mostly on humanist axiom of personnal freedom, preservation of life, body authonomy, right to privacy, etc. The conflict mostly rest upon what principle should be priorised in case of conflict and what defines personhood or even humanity itself.

 

[Shad]

Sure.

Not sure what that has to do with your doubts about the poster's statement:

"It's very difficult to find a doctor who will tie the tubes of a young woman who has not had children."



If anything, it reinforces the statement.

As some of your sources have nothing to do with not wanting children. You would know that if you read your sources. In one case a woman wanted a treatment to reduce pain during menstruation (that's called playing doctor). The doctor declined to take such a drastic action for pain relief she wanted. So your sources treat different medical issues as if the same as getting one's tubes tied. You would also note some of the reasons are due to malpractice laws.

 

[crossfire]

As some of your sources have nothing to do with not wanting children. You would know that if you read your sources. In one case a woman wanted a treatment to reduce pain during menstruation (that's called playing doctor). The doctor declined to take such a drastic action for pain relief she wanted. So your sources treat different medical issues as if the same as getting one's tubes tied. You would also note some of the reasons are due to malpractice laws.

The bottom line is that it is very difficult for a young woman to get voluntarily sterilized, especially if she is childless (and wishes to remain so.)

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It's really not that hard to understand if you have even a layman's understanding of the culture. For one thing, the Bible authors had a very primitive understanding of life. Things that breathe are alive, things that don't are not. Breath was considered the spirit. Stones don't have it. Corpses don't have it. Fetuses don't have it. So, you can't kill a fetus. They're not alive.

When you can feel the thing kicking in someone's belly, most people would consider it pretty alive. There is a biblical passage that talks about god punishing someone for wasting their seed, so to speak. So extrapolating forward from that, it would be an easy jump for them to see a pregnancy as having life in it, at all stages. In your defense, there are also verses that declare how it would have been better for this or that person never to have been born.

Then there's "chattel". Women and children weren't persons.

I just read a chapter by Josephus describing an Israelite Queen

People referring to abortion as murder are the one's with the non-Scriptural interpretation. I agree with them, because I also find modern science and morality superior to that of primitive people centuries ago. But it isn't Scriptural.

And that's morality that you can keep for your own practice, unless you think it's morally superior to impose morals on others. Modern science also describes a world where world population is exponentially escalating, and resources are finite. I noticed though, that modern secular people are increasingly choosing to disbelieve that.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As some of your sources have nothing to do with not wanting children. You would know that if you read your sources. In one case a woman wanted a treatment to reduce pain during menstruation (that's called playing doctor). The doctor declined to take such a drastic action for pain relief she wanted. So your sources treat different medical issues as if the same as getting one's tubes tied. You would also note some of the reasons are due to malpractice laws.

Crossfire already answered this for me:

"The bottom line is that it is very difficult for a young woman to get voluntarily sterilized, especially if she is childless (and wishes to remain so.)"

I don't know what your comment about reducing menstruation pain amounts to "playing doctor" is supposed to mean, but I'm not sure if you are aware that some women experience debilitating menstrual pain and severe bleeding that can severely interfere with their quality of life.

Anyway, the bottom line is as stated by Crossfire. We've both read the sources.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

You have obviously thought much on this to change your mind. You are happy with your choice, good for you.

Although i would not have an abortion myself (too old now anyway) i i would defend any woman who choses abortion.

Thank you. Your support means a lot to me.

 

[julianalexander745]

Dave Chappelle had it right in his latest Netflix special:

- Women should have the right to do whatever they want with their pregnancy without consequence

BUT;

- Men should have the right to totally abandon a kid that they don't want to support without consequence

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This just in. New Ohio anti-abortion law specifies the circumstances under which physicians can be prosecuted for performing abortions. Among them is a particularly amusing part which states that a physician will not be subject to prosecution if they perform the termination of an ectopic pregnancy as long as they try to re-implant the it onto the woman's uterus.

For those who may not know, an ectopic pregnancy is when a foetus attaches itself to their mother's fallopian tube rather than the uterus, which renders the foetus non-viable. Re-attaching an ectopic pregnancy to the uterus is something that is considered medically impossible.

So, in other words, this anti-abortion bill is so severe that it potentially leaves the door open for doctor's to face criminal prosecution for removing a non-viable foetus from a woman without at least attempting an impossible medical procedure to make it viable again.

BILL: file:///C:/Users/charles.desantis/Downloads/hb413_00_IN.pdf (Page 184)

 

[Left Coast]

As someone who also used to be pro-life and is now pro-choice, I think the whole argument over fetus personhood misses the point. Even if a fetus is a fully fledged person with no ifs and or buts, abortion should still be legal because the state should not force a person to use their body against their will to keep another person alive. Reading the work of Judith Jarvis Thomson helped start to change how I think about the topic.

Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion

 

[crossfire]

This just in. New Ohio anti-abortion law specifies the circumstances under which physicians can be prosecuted for performing abortions. Among them is a particularly amusing part which states that a physician will not be subject to prosecution if they perform the termination of an ectopic pregnancy as long as they try to re-implant the it onto the woman's uterus.

For those who may not know, an ectopic pregnancy is when a foetus attaches itself to their mother's fallopian tube rather than the uterus, which renders the foetus non-viable. Re-attaching an ectopic pregnancy to the uterus is something that is considered medically impossible.

So, in other words, this anti-abortion bill is so severe that it potentially leaves the door open for doctor's to face criminal prosecution for removing a non-viable foetus from a woman without at least attempting an impossible medical procedure to make it viable again.

BILL: file:///C:/Users/charles.desantis/Downloads/hb413_00_IN.pdf (Page 184)

Charge the doctors with murder for saving a woman's life. [sarcasm] Way to go, Ohio. [/sarcasm]

 

[epronovost]

Dave Chappelle had it right in his latest Netflix special:

- Women should have the right to do whatever they want with their pregnancy without consequence

BUT;

- Men should have the right to totally abandon a kid that they don't want to support without consequence

A would consider this a false equivalence based on a category error, but men struggle with the concept of biological limitations when they are the ones losing.

PS: They already largely have this power in practice.

 

[julianalexander745]

A would consider this a false equivalence based on a category error, but men struggle with the concept of biological limitations when they are the ones losing.

PS: They already largely have this power in practice.

Maybe a false equivalence but I would call it a fair trade.

 

[Revoltingest]

As someone who also used to be pro-life and is now pro-choice, I think the whole argument over fetus personhood misses the point. Even if a fetus is a fully fledged person with no ifs and or buts, abortion should still be legal because the state should not force a person to use their body against their will to keep another person alive.

I knew another pro-lifer who was troubled by government having this power.