• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Abortion rights. When does consciousness begin?

Castaigne

欠 を 食べる
108
Posts
9
Years
  • Age 30
  • NC
  • Seen Feb 27, 2016
I've always wondered why the consciousness argument really matters. Even if the fetus has some degree of self-awareness, the level it would have developed to by the time of the abortion cutoff date is not enough to take the fetuses (idr if that's grammatically correct) 'feelings' into account. It may have nerve endings or even the beginnings of sentience, but in my mind, it's still a bundle of DNA that is yet to truly be aware of itself.

The reason people make the consciousness argument is to reframe the question. I think most of us here would agree that a mother does not have the final say in whether or not she can kill her baby once it's delivered. However, you could say that the baby isn't that developed at birth either, considering it has no personality and it's just acting on reflex. But we inherently know there's something wrong with killing that baby once it's out of the womb. It's why mothers go to jail for that. So when people talk about the beginning of consciousness, or a soul if you're into that, they're saying that's the cut off when it's wrong to have an abortion. If you believe in a soul at conception, or whatever their thing is, then someone saying "but it's my body and it's my choice" makes as little sense as someone saying "my finger my choice" when they have a gun in their hand.

I have to admit that on a personal level I'm pro-life because I think it smacks of irresponsibility. That being said I don't vote that way because I think it's a matter best left to women and voting pro-life prevents that.
 

Nah

15,943
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen today
....maybe I'll jump in here?

and as I said in my first post I do agree that there are some circumstances when it is a reasonable option.
Those circumstances being....? I don't think you've said yet what circumstances you're talking about exactly.

Also:
and that child -with limitless potential for the future-
can we please not
 

Her

11,468
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Apr 28, 2024
By this logic we should probably start selling crack in the local supermarket. That way the good stuff would be more widely available and nobody would risk getting a batch of "who-knows-what" or getting shot by an angry dealer. If a pregnant woman is foolish enough to try a back alley abortion, knowing damn well the kind of consequences they can carry, then they possibly deserve whatever comes to them just for being stupid.

This just comes off as vindictive and cruel, to be honest. I'm not really sure what I can say to sway you so I won't make any pleas for leniency, but the sheer cruelty in this paragraph just boggles my mind.
I think there's a lot to say about the rest of your post and your followup post, but... I don't know, I think our ethics are just too far apart. I don't understand how a person can't understand the necessity for the option of abortion if they fully well know the horrors of unlicensed coat hanger abortions, while simultaneously chastising the woman for feeling so horrifically helpless that they considered it their only option.

The reason people make the consciousness argument is to reframe the question. I think most of us here would agree that a mother does not have the final say in whether or not she can kill her baby once it's delivered. However, you could say that the baby isn't that developed at birth either, considering it has no personality and it's just acting on reflex. But we inherently know there's something wrong with killing that baby once it's out of the womb. It's why mothers go to jail for that. So when people talk about the beginning of consciousness, or a soul if you're into that, they're saying that's the cut off when it's wrong to have an abortion. If you believe in a soul at conception, or whatever their thing is, then someone saying "but it's my body and it's my choice" makes as little sense as someone saying "my finger my choice" when they have a gun in their hand.

Ah, okay, thank you. I try my best to get into the heads of people I oppose, but sometimes I just fail in that regard.
I think the reason why the consciousness/soul/etc argument annoys me is that I think more about the rights of the carrier in nearly every abortion circumstance rather than the fetus itself, and thus any reframing of the base 'At what point is it okay to kill the fetus?' question doesn't really work on me. Probably because I'm adamantly in favour of allowing the option first, debating the ethics second.
 
37,467
Posts
16
Years
  • Age 34
  • Seen Apr 19, 2024
I think abortion is okay, up until more weeks than many others seem to think. Sometimes the world and individuals are better off if children are not born when unwished. Think of poor places where people can't afford contraceptives. Sex is a wonderful thing, either recreationally because it feels darn good, or together with somebody you love because it's the ultimate entwinement and way to be joined. The "waiting 'til marriage" mentality doesn't fit into the modern world, not where I live at least. And then there's rape.

There is no reasonable argument against letting female rape victims have an abortion if they wish to. To not let an unwanted life into the world after carrying it for 9 months without planning to do it. While I appreciate thoughts from men on this matter, I really hope that in real life, men have no say in this. If a man forces himself upon a woman, no man has any kind of right to demand that she carry, birth, keep and care for the product of that crime. Anyone who even thinks anything like that... I could never respect them.

As for abortion for fetuses who are confirmed sickly or with disabilities, I do think it's okay. Thousands of children are born across the world every day. They say Earth probably can't sustain us already. Would you really let a human into this world whom you knew had disabilities or sicknesses before they were born, instead of trying again and hopefully give life to a healthy human being instead? I don't mean to sound insensitive. I just have a very scientific view, I suppose. A human isn't a human to me until it's been in the world. But its mother might worry endlessly or set herself and her child up for a terrible life if they are not allowed to part ways before they even met. Sometimes.

Maybe I compare it to the fact that we kill animals all the time without a second thought. Animals who are aware and have been alive for years. But a fetus some weeks or months old, it's worth more?
 

twocows

The not-so-black cat of ill omen
4,307
Posts
15
Years
Fun fact: most kids that grow up in poverty or in the system or with fucked up parents or knowing that they were the product of rape hate their lives and many would rather not have been born in the first place
While I largely agree with your overall sentiments regarding abortion, I take issue with this in particular. Whether their life has value should be something every person determines for themselves, it's not something for society or for the government to judge. I think providing mental assistance to these children growing up would be a positive step if what you are saying is really the case.
 
25,516
Posts
11
Years
....maybe I'll jump in here?


Those circumstances being....? I don't think you've said yet what circumstances you're talking about exactly.

Such as when the life of the woman giving birth is endangered or, whilst I don't personally agree with it, I'd be willing to concede to the rape situation if it was up to me.


can we please not

It's a perfectly valid argument, who knows what all the aborted babies could have achieved if they had been allowed to live.

This just comes off as vindictive and cruel, to be honest. I'm not really sure what I can say to sway you so I won't make any pleas for leniency, but the sheer cruelty in this paragraph just boggles my mind.

I didn't use such an extreme to be vindictive or cruel, I used an extreme example so people wouldn't just skim over the point. All too often a perfectly good argument basically just gets ignored when it doesn't deal in extremes. In all honesty though, I do find that there are comparable parallels between the two situations.

I think there's a lot to say about the rest of your post and your followup post, but... I don't know, I think our ethics are just too far apart. I don't understand how a person can't understand the necessity for the option of abortion if they fully well know the horrors of unlicensed coat hanger abortions, while simultaneously chastising the woman for feeling so horrifically helpless that they considered it their only option.

Honestly I'm just pleased you've at least made an effort to understand my point of view rather than just straight out jumping down my throat because I disagree (not that anyone else really did that either mind you).

In the same vein that you can't see what I perceive as simple logic, I don't really get your perspective either. I can't see why we should change the law just so people don't have to deal with the consequences of their decisions, certainly not when it means giving the okay to take a life.

Maybe I compare it to the fact that we kill animals all the time without a second thought. Animals who are aware and have been alive for years. But a fetus some weeks or months old, it's worth more?

The way I look at it, the difference between killing an animal for food and aborting an unwanted baby is simple. All animals have to eat another living being to survive, even herbivores are eating living things. That's a fact of life that's not about to change. The thing with me is that a cow dying so I can eat has still experienced life and its life isn't being devalued, it is being traded for another. It's dying for a purpose. Most of the time a baby being aborted is purposeless, it's just parents that don't want to deal with the consequences of their decisions.
 

Nah

15,943
Posts
10
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen today
Such as when the life of the woman giving birth is endangered or, whilst I don't personally agree with it, I'd be willing to concede to the rape situation if it was up to me.
Ah, ok.


It's a perfectly valid argument, who knows what all the aborted babies could have achieved if they had been allowed to live.
It's really not though. The reality is that the baby is far more likely to just live out a very average and mundane life and not accomplish anything truly significant, and that the chances of them growing up to be one of the extremes (read: either the next Osama or the person to cure cancer) is extremely slim. Really low probabilities like that are never really a good argument for anything.

I'm not saying that that's an argument that the fetus should be aborted either, just that it's also not a good way to support not aborting it.

I just also have a personal issue with statements like that one since I'm a bit of a cynic and a realist and stuff like "that child with limitless potential" comes of as overly optimistic, naive, and idealistic/unrealistic to me, which I can't stand.
 
25,516
Posts
11
Years
Ah, ok.



It's really not though. The reality is that the baby is far more likely to just live out a very average and mundane life and not accomplish anything truly significant, and that the chances of them growing up to be one of the extremes (read: either the next Osama or the person to cure cancer) is extremely slim. Really low probabilities like that are never really a good argument for anything.

I'm not saying that that's an argument that the fetus should be aborted either, just that it's also not a good way to support not aborting it.

I just also have a personal issue with statements like that one since I'm a bit of a cynic and a realist and stuff like "that child with limitless potential" comes of as overly optimistic, naive, and idealistic/unrealistic to me, which I can't stand.


That's a fair enough point, I agree that the chances of the fetus growing up to cure diseases or better the world somehow or whatever are extremely slim too. But like you I'm something of a realist and it seems obvious to me that the child's chances of achieving something like that are better when they're not dead.
 

Her

11,468
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Apr 28, 2024
I didn't use such an extreme to be vindictive or cruel, I used an extreme example so people wouldn't just skim over the point. All too often a perfectly good argument basically just gets ignored when it doesn't deal in extremes. In all honesty though, I do find that there are comparable parallels between the two situations.

not really as the crack in the supermarket scenario holds no benefit or purpose whatsoever
despite the awfulness of back alley abortions, their benefit lies in the fact that the procedure has a purpose that (hopefully) benefits at least one person, whether it's ethically sound or not

In the same vein that you can't see what I perceive as simple logic, I don't really get your perspective either. I can't see why we should change the law just so people don't have to deal with the consequences of their decisions, certainly not when it means giving the okay to take a life.

abortion is quite literally dealing with a possible consequence of sex in the most invasive and haunting way possible
but let's say that the fetus was made during a night of casual, mistaken unprotected sex
forcing someone to carry an unwanted child and then dumping it in the notoriously underfunded and scarring adoption system is an awful way to teach a woman a lesson
and certainly does no favours for the child either
 
25,516
Posts
11
Years
not really as the crack in the supermarket scenario holds no benefit or purpose whatsoever
despite the awfulness of back alley abortions, their benefit lies in the fact that the procedure has a purpose that (hopefully) benefits at least one person, whether it's ethically sound or not



abortion is quite literally dealing with a possible consequence of sex in the most invasive and haunting way possible
but let's say that the fetus was made during a night of casual, mistaken unprotected sex
forcing someone to carry an unwanted child and then dumping it in the notoriously underfunded and scarring adoption system is an awful way to teach a woman a lesson
and certainly does no favours for the child either

The solution there then, politically speaking, is to increase funding to the adoption system not to legalise abortion. Even from a political view that is a more logical decision since that's a move that would be more likely to gain support whilst legalising abortion would alienate a lot of potential supporters, including religions which as we have already established carry a lot of weight in their opinions.
 
10,078
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 32
  • UK
  • Seen Oct 17, 2023
The solution there then, politically speaking, is to increase funding to the adoption system not to legalise abortion.

Let's be honest here, what government has the money to invest tens-of-thousands into each unwanted child, a pool of children who are ever-growing, when they/healthcare can provide a solution that is practically free in comparison?

I do think a lot of you beliefs are naive - or at least they don't apply well to actual modern society.
 
25,516
Posts
11
Years
Let's be honest here, what government has the money to invest tens-of-thousands into each unwanted child, a pool of children who are ever-growing, when they/healthcare can provide a solution that is practically free in comparison?

I do think a lot of you beliefs are naive - or at least they don't apply well to actual modern society.

The same governments that spent a lot of money giving prisoners privileges they don't deserve, that waste opportunities for revenue by endorsing privatisation, that could legalise marijuana for the tax revenue and that waste billions of dollars on defence when it is better spent elsewhere.

You're right that my views don't necessarily fit that well with governments in modern society, but that doesn't make them naive. We all know how flawed governments tend to be.
 

Her

11,468
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Apr 28, 2024
The solution there then, politically speaking, is to increase funding to the adoption system not to legalise abortion. Even from a political view that is a more logical decision since that's a move that would be more likely to gain support whilst legalising abortion would alienate a lot of potential supporters, including religions which as we have already established carry a lot of weight in their opinions.

the funds needed for any government to raise the adoption system (for lack of a better term, I'm sure there's a better one) to a level that gives each child the care it deserves would either bankrupt the country or bankrupt every other social service that country has on offer
it's just an unfeasible option to throw money at the system so it in turn makes everyone see the light about abortion

there's no need to subject a child to the gritty harshness of being unwanted by pretty much all who know it just to fuel an ideology
 

Adrasteia

[font=Comic Sans][/font]
1,289
Posts
12
Years
By this logic we should probably start selling crack in the local supermarket. That way the good stuff would be more widely available and nobody would risk getting a batch of "who-knows-what" or getting shot by an angry dealer. If a pregnant woman is foolish enough to try a back alley abortion, knowing damn well the kind of consequences they can carry, then they possibly deserve whatever comes to them just for being stupid.

I respect your right to your opinion but a uite honestly I do believe drugs should be legalised and available at specialist centres, buying drugs from a dealer carries a lot of risk about sharing needles and not knowing what your putting in your system, if they were readily available they would lessen the risk.
When you live in a place where abortion isn't allowed how can you say they deserve whatever comes to them? What about in the case of rape and child abuse/incest, abortion needs to be a safe and private option for people who have been through traumatic experiences and don't want to be reminded about it on a daily basis, even if they gave birth to the child and loved it a part of them would always be forced to remember the experience that led to that child existing, and I imagin that would make it harder to move past.
Also in the case of teenage stupidity, they need to be able to make mistakes, that's how you grow and learn as a human being. If a child touches a hot pan and burns themselves, they learn not to touch the pan on a hob anymore. If a kid messes up once and is then forced to live with the concequences what has that taught them?


Then she probably shouldn't have gotten knocked up in the first place. Another life shouldn't be snuffed out because of someone making a bad decision.

That pregnancy isn't a life, it's a cluster of stem cells yet to be assigned permanent designations as flesh, blood or organs, why should a woman who made one mistake in forgetting a condom, the pill or was a victim of a faulty contraceptive be forced to live with a child she didn't plan or want.

Whilst I can at least understand this argument, I think people need to be a bit more logical about it. Of course nobody wants to remember being raped, but quite frankly you're not going to forget an experience like that just because you have an abortion. That is probably the single worst thing that can happen to a human being, it's going to stick with you either way.

Having an abortion and not having to live with the product of a violent incident, could help a woman move past the experience. I'm not saying they'll ever forget it but it can become a less raw memory after time and support from friends and family.

Having that abortion won't make anyone feel better in the long run, and that child -with limitless potential for the future- shouldn't have to die because the mother is a victim. Should she have to raise the child, definitely not, but like I said that is why adoption is a thing. Thankfully, in this age of DNA-testing it is probably not a common occurrence.

But at the same time that 16 year old girl who got pregnant and had to drop out of school also has by your rules, limitless potential to do good for the world and quite honestly I'd rather give a 16 year old another chance after making a mistake that a cluster of cells which have as of yet no bearing on the world.
 
25,516
Posts
11
Years
the funds needed for any government to raise the adoption system (for lack of a better term, I'm sure there's a better one) to a level that gives each child the care it deserves would either bankrupt the country or bankrupt every other social service that country has on offer
it's just an unfeasible option to throw money at the system so it in turn makes everyone see the light about abortion

there's no need to subject a child to the gritty harshness of being unwanted by pretty much all who know it just to fuel an ideology

The US military spends over $600 billion on defence every year (that's about $500 billion more than France who spends the 5th greatest amount on military expenses in the world and still even around $400 billion more than the second greatest military spender, China).

The average family in the US spends about $14,000 on a single child born in 2011 per year (bearing in mind that this includes superfluous privileges as well).

In the US there is 397,122 orphans living in the foster system.

To provide each and every one of those children with a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, including comforts and privileges, would cost a bit over $55 billion dollars. This means that the US could easily fund orphanages giving these children pretty much normal lives whilst still being the top military spender in the world.

I don't think that sounds like bankrupting the nation.
 

Her

11,468
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen Apr 28, 2024
The US military spends over $600 billion on defence every year (that's about $500 billion more than France who spends the 5th greatest amount on military expenses in the world and still even around $400 billion more than the second greatest military spender, China).

The average family in the US spends about $14,000 on a single child born in 2011 per year (bearing in mind that this includes superfluous privileges as well).

In the US there is 397,122 orphans living in the foster system.

To provide each and every one of those children with a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, including comforts and privileges, would cost a bit over $55 billion dollars. This means that the US could easily fund orphanages giving these children pretty much normal lives whilst still being the top military spender in the world.

I don't think that sounds like bankrupting the nation.

that's fantastic and all but we both know that no western nation particularly the us of a is gonna decrease their military spending by a significant amount anytime soon
so no one factors that money in when it comes to finding funds for adoption/social services because it's idealistic naivety to think otherwise
 
10,078
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 32
  • UK
  • Seen Oct 17, 2023
And the countries with the highest amount of abandoned children have the least funds available to deal with it anyway :x. Outside of the western world.
 

Castaigne

欠 を 食べる
108
Posts
9
Years
  • Age 30
  • NC
  • Seen Feb 27, 2016
The US military spends over $600 billion on defence every year (that's about $500 billion more than France who spends the 5th greatest amount on military expenses in the world and still even around $400 billion more than the second greatest military spender, China).

The average family in the US spends about $14,000 on a single child born in 2011 per year (bearing in mind that this includes superfluous privileges as well).

In the US there is 397,122 orphans living in the foster system.

To provide each and every one of those children with a comfortable middle-class lifestyle, including comforts and privileges, would cost a bit over $55 billion dollars. This means that the US could easily fund orphanages giving these children pretty much normal lives whilst still being the top military spender in the world.

I don't think that sounds like bankrupting the nation.

yes let's take our R&D money and sink it into hiring a bunch of nannies who will totally be good to the children? You ever been in a nursing home? You could fit the amount of fucks those workers give their clients in the electron shell of a hydrogen atom. Giving people money to be decent human beings doesn't work. At all. At least government R&D has positive impacts.

Minor point about "why should they have to live with a mistake their entire lives:" they should because that's what mistakes are. People have kids and don't want it. They have to grow up. There is a galaxy sized difference between a product of rape and a product of "whoops forgot my pill." I'm not saying it's fair or a blessing in disguise, because no it just straight up sucks. But the conclusion from that should be "woah I should be careful" not "woah lemme get a redo."
 
25,516
Posts
11
Years
that's fantastic and all but we both know that no western nation particularly the us of a is gonna decrease their military spending by a significant amount anytime soon
so no one factors that money in when it comes to finding funds for adoption/social services because it's idealistic naivety to think otherwise

I've literally just proven that the US government could easily manage to support each and every child at no loss at all to its comparative military strength. That could be called naive idealism, but it doesn't change the fact I've proven there's a better way.
 
10,078
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 32
  • UK
  • Seen Oct 17, 2023
Ok let's type hypothetical maths.

You just cut the military budget by almost 10%. Now from what google tells me, over 2 million people are employed in the US Army in active or reserve duty.

You just cost 200,000* people their jobs. So whilst you may be potentially helping 400,000 individual children you may have simulataneously crippled 200,000* families.

Which is why we shouldn't pretend we know exactly how to manage a national budget.

*purely hypothetical numbers, just matching to your numbers and your percentage budget. Honestly, 55 billion could support much more than this.
 
Back
Top