I'm pretty sure that the entirety of military funding doesn't get spent on paying wages. Actually, it's about $154 billion that goes on wages. That still leaves about $446 billion that doesn't pay wages. If we then take the $55 billion from that the US is still the biggest military spender and nobody has to lose their job.
Abortion rights. When does consciousness begin?
- Thread starter Adrasteia
- Start date
I'm pretty sure that the entirety of military funding doesn't get spent on paying wages. Actually, it's about $154 billion that goes on wages. That still leaves about $446 billion that doesn't pay wages. If we then take the $55 billion from that the US is still the biggest military spender and nobody has to lose their job.
I know that would be nice, but you don't know what that $154 billion is being spent on. You might be cutting support from a country in need, you might be putting military housing and support on the line.
It's all well and good talking number but when you don't actually know whats going on, and have no responsibility for a nation, its easy to criticise and come up with 'solutions' that somehow financial experts haven't managed to come up with themselves.
And, since I think my previous post was missed, this might apply to the US but where is S. Africa going to get this extra funding? Where are poverty-rich areas going to get their help from?
There is one number we won't debate - the cost of raising a child. In the UK its £230,000~ from zero to eighteen. Having a child someone can't afford can put both them and the child in a precarious position - in their health, their social wellbeing, their education. Would you rather inflict that on a family rather than allow someone to abort as soon as they realised?
Well personally if it was up to me I would just legislate free services to military housing, but since I'm not about to become the dictator of a foreign nation let me just say this; I'm not going to bother with showing you more numbers because it is easy to check for yourself if you doubt me, but the US could still quite easily manage this even after excluding the funding that goes on housing whist still sitting first or second on the list of military spenders.
As for your point about international aid etc, my country manages to still be involved with all that at much lesser expense than the US as does yours, so I really don't see any reason why the US couldn't manage too.
Sorry about that I didn't see your message at all.
As far as third world countries go, how about we worry about actually getting them sustainable food and decent medical care before we start thinking about unnecessary surgery like abortions? As for non-third world countries that aren't in the Western hemisphere, I think you'll find that the vast majority of them could handle cutting funding in some areas in a similar way. Certainly if allied nations actually pooled their resources and acted like allies instead of pretending like every allied nation on the planet does.
I also just want to once again clarify for anyone confused. I'm not stupid enough to believe this sort of change is likely to come about. I just want to prove to at least some degree that something like this is possible and should happen.
- 15,936
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen yesterday
Something to keep in mind is that simply increasing funding to something doesn't automatically make it better. It's how the money is used that matters. Wouldn't really surprise me if some of the money was mishandled or what it was put into didn't do much to truly improve the adoption system.
Though I have to admit that $600 billion is a bit ridiculous and it probably wouldn't hurt us to take a few billion out of that and put it elsewhere.
btw, for the not pro-choice people reading this thread, please do post. I can't say i'm terribly fond of when threads get to be just one person vs several
Though I have to admit that $600 billion is a bit ridiculous and it probably wouldn't hurt us to take a few billion out of that and put it elsewhere.
btw, for the not pro-choice people reading this thread, please do post. I can't say i'm terribly fond of when threads get to be just one person vs several
Adrasteia
[font=Comic Sans][/font]
- 1,289
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Age 29
- Kent, England
- Seen Sep 6, 2023
Apparently if for 4 days every country agreed to an amnesty and put all the money that they would have spent in those 4 days towards solving world hunger, it could be done no problem. In the grand scheme of things war is a pointless endeavour, of course some are nessisary like the WW2 but more recently has there been any real point to war that every person can name. Now days you hear a lot of 'I support out troops' but what do you support them in? In the 1940's everyone knew why we were at war, but if you ask now you'll get a thousand different answers ranging from conspiracy theory's to just plain racism. That money could make the world a better place for everyone, but it seems everyone helping causes like homelessness, disease and Abortion centres, but it seems the people are all to pig headed to see it.
Margaery Tyrell
Growing Strong
- 335
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- Age 25
- USA
- Seen Feb 28, 2018
I'm honestly having a hard time wrapping my brain around this argument. Yes, sex has risks, but does that seriously mean people who become pregnant shouldn't have any alternative if they desire it? That's like saying a person shouldn't drive without expecting an accident and then not getting any help if they get in an accident. According to your logic, they should "suffer the consequences" of driving on the road. I apologize if my responses come across as aggressive, but I'm really struggling to understand the reasoning behind your arguments against abortion.
Yes, sex does have risks, but there are ways to avoid or reduce them and a person shouldn't be forbidden from engaging in sexual activity just because they don't desire the possible afflictions of sex or pregnancy. Also, a person who drinks at a party drinks to drink. A person who is drunk obviously cannot give proper consent to sex - while yes, it is unfortunate that a drunk person can get taken advantage of in such a condition, but do they deserve it? Of course not. To suggest its their fault is victim blaming, and takes away the blame from the actual offender. I think an abortion in that situation is perfectly acceptable. Also, if a person's contraception failed during sex, then they weren't having sex to make a child in the first place obviously. So then why should abortion be forbidden to them? I'm not even saying that a person should always get abortion in a case in which a child was unwanted, but rather they should at the very at least have that option available. Suggesting that a person should just "suffer the consequences" is unreasonably vindictive and altogether unnecessary.
Knowing people who share the same view and have suffered through rape really doesn't support your view much. While they are definitely entitled to their opinions, and so are you, I still cannot understand as to why a person who does not want to have an abortion should also be entitled enough to not let anyone else have an abortion. The beauty of having that option is that you don't have to have an abortion if you don't want to.
I apologize if I seemed like that, as I cannot speak for everyone, and whilst I do not think abortion is immoral or deserving of shame, obviously other people are free to feel as they wish about it.
Fair enough. The main point I am trying to concrete is that regardless of how a person may feel about abortion, it isn't within their authority to take away abortion as an option for everyone else. An unborn fetus may have infinite possibilities for its potential in human life - but so do other living beings. Your point on this as equal in worth as mine.
lamePotato
DeviantArt - SimplyPixelizing
- 21
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Age 22
- Seen Apr 9, 2016
I am pro-life, an Independent, and believe a baby is entitled to all human rights in America from conception. However I do believe that if the baby is any danger emotionally (the baby will die shortly after birth) physically (miscarriage), or if the woman does not want to take on the responsibility of raising a disabled child, it should be an option. I do believe that rape is also a big problem, but adoption is and always will be, a thing, and something that should be utilized in that situation. A child could be born from rape, perfectly normal, and, if the woman chooses to put them up for adoption, both could lead a wonderful life.
A more accurat comparison would be "If you discover you're allowed to drive and then hoon down the road at 120 km/h through a school zone and crash into a child killing you both. You probably deserved what you got but there was no reason for the child to die because of your bad decision making."
More often than not when people drink and then have sex it is both parties who are intoxicated meaning that both parties have diminished capacity and neither is taking advantage of the other. The truth of it is though, that if you get drunk and have sex you've still ultimately made those decisions and you should have to deal with whatever repercussions there are.
You can call me unreasonable and vindictive if you want but I stand firm in the belief that if everyone had to atone for their bad decisions in life then fewer people would make such decisions and the world would be better for it.
Pretty much the same here, I can't force anyone to agree with my perspective but I at least want people to think about it. Especially since I've already proven that there is alternatives and whilst I don't see anyone in any government pulling their fingers out and doing something about it any time soon, I just want to make it clear that it is possible.
Personally I don't think it should be in anybody's authority to arbitrarily kill another living being without a damn good reason. In a situation where the mother's life is in danger, or even maybe in the rape situation, I can understand aborting but "oops lol I forgot a condom my bad" doesn't sound like a good enough reason to take a life to me and I doubt it ever will.
Margaery Tyrell
Growing Strong
- 335
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- Age 25
- USA
- Seen Feb 28, 2018
Mmm. Well then I'm afraid I have little else to say on it then, its clear that we both have very different perspectives - while I can't agree with you as you can't agree with me, I do however respect your conviction. Regardless of what you're debating, strength and confidence in your conviction is an admirable quality.
Silais
That useless reptile
- 297
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Seen Jul 17, 2016
I'm almost 100% pro-life, and the reason for that is because there are some exceptions (such as rape/incest, threat to mother or life-threatening defects for the unborn baby) that I have to take into consideration. But in every other case, I say absolutely I am pro-life.
Let's be real here. Abortion has become, in recent years, an easy out. In some cases, it can be used as a new form of birth control. According to an extensive survey conducted by Lawrence B. Finer et. al, in an article titled Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspective, half of women between the ages of 15 and 44 (although I wouldn't consider a 15-year-old a woman) that have an abortion have had at least one previous abortion. One in ten women under the age of 20 (again, no one under 18 should be considered a woman) have an abortion. That number jumps to one in three by the early-to-mid 40s. In 2011 alone, over 1.6 million abortions were performed across the country. This is not a small issue. There are millions of unborn babies being aborted. Just try to imagine how many there would be in your lifetime. The number would be staggering.
Abortions are more readily available, less expensive than before, and are often touted as the "best choice" for pregnant women. We can use almost any excuse to justify abortion. Most abortions are the direct result of unwanted pregnancy. We teach women that not using protection or being sexually promiscuous is not only socially acceptable, but often socially expected. Why wouldn't it be, when abortions are so readily available? There are 13,000+ clinics in the United States that perform abortions. There are twice as many abortion facilities in the country than there are actual hospitals. Think about that.
There's always the argument that abortion isn't an easy choice. That the process is harrowing, humiliating or emotionally distressing. If this was so, I cannot imagine half of the women who have abortions each year would be willing to make the same bad choices as they did before, seeing as they've had at least one abortion in the past. Like I said, alongside Planned Parenthood, there are over 13,000 abortion facilities in the United States. They're easy to get to. They're numerous. In many cases, they're not bank-breakingly expensive. They've become a staple of a modern society that preaches immorality and quick, easy fixes to "little problems" and "inconveniences". You hear "horror stories" about states enacting strict legislation that shut down clinics across their state, but I just don't feel sympathy. Just because you think you're an adult does not mean you are mentally or emotionally. You should have to deal personally with your choices, not pop a pill you bought from a clinic or let a doctor stick a vacuum inside you to take care of the problem for you. It's irresponsible, and personally, sickening. When I see women who openly praise their abortion or say it was for the best, I seethe inside. Think about the millions of women each year who struggle to have children, or who have unexpected children but take responsibility for them as a reasonable adult should. I personally know a couple who lost a baby to miscarriage before having a little bundle of joy of their own, and another couple that had three children (triplets) by accident but gratefully accepted their duty as parents. Look at their life choices, and look at the life choices of women who have abortions, and I can almost always guarantee you mistakes were made in both lives. The way they deal with those mistakes is drastically different.
I am a new Christian (I've just started exploring my faith), but I've pretty much always been against abortion because there is an inherently evil vibe about dismembering and vacuuming up the innards of an unborn child. There have been documented cases of well-developed fetuses struggling as they are literally torn apart. Sure, pills can also be used to initiate abortions, but is that any less cruel or inhumane? It's easy to say an unborn child who cannot talk is not considered human, but unborn babies are innately human: they're the end product of human sperm and human eggs. It isn't like they're a different species just because they aren't born out of the womb yet. It's a poor excuse and becomes even poorer when you try to justify abortion with science. So what if the baby's heart, brain and nervous system develop at different points, making pain perception or cognition impossible until a certain date? Does that mean the baby should be forcefully removed from the womb and left to die? Would we use this same argument against an elderly person (or any person for that matter) who is a vegetable or paralyzed? Shouldn't we be able to forcefully end their lives too, seeing as they're an "undue burden" or an "inconvenience"? In my opinion, a child's worth doesn't start or end at a certain point. It exists the moment it's created. Sorry, but that's just my perception of the truth. An unborn baby cannot consent. Neither can a born baby. Or anyone under the age of 18 for most things, for that matter. In almost any other case, consent matters a whole ton. Unless you want to abort your baby; then no consent from the soon-to-be-dead fetus is needed.
Can you tell I'm a bit frustrated by this topic? Do you know how many people I have argued with about this? A few dozen, and no one seems willing to accept or even consider my point of view. I expect the same treatment here. Regardless, I still feel it important to make my beliefs known.
Let's be real here. Abortion has become, in recent years, an easy out. In some cases, it can be used as a new form of birth control. According to an extensive survey conducted by Lawrence B. Finer et. al, in an article titled Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspective, half of women between the ages of 15 and 44 (although I wouldn't consider a 15-year-old a woman) that have an abortion have had at least one previous abortion. One in ten women under the age of 20 (again, no one under 18 should be considered a woman) have an abortion. That number jumps to one in three by the early-to-mid 40s. In 2011 alone, over 1.6 million abortions were performed across the country. This is not a small issue. There are millions of unborn babies being aborted. Just try to imagine how many there would be in your lifetime. The number would be staggering.
Abortions are more readily available, less expensive than before, and are often touted as the "best choice" for pregnant women. We can use almost any excuse to justify abortion. Most abortions are the direct result of unwanted pregnancy. We teach women that not using protection or being sexually promiscuous is not only socially acceptable, but often socially expected. Why wouldn't it be, when abortions are so readily available? There are 13,000+ clinics in the United States that perform abortions. There are twice as many abortion facilities in the country than there are actual hospitals. Think about that.
There's always the argument that abortion isn't an easy choice. That the process is harrowing, humiliating or emotionally distressing. If this was so, I cannot imagine half of the women who have abortions each year would be willing to make the same bad choices as they did before, seeing as they've had at least one abortion in the past. Like I said, alongside Planned Parenthood, there are over 13,000 abortion facilities in the United States. They're easy to get to. They're numerous. In many cases, they're not bank-breakingly expensive. They've become a staple of a modern society that preaches immorality and quick, easy fixes to "little problems" and "inconveniences". You hear "horror stories" about states enacting strict legislation that shut down clinics across their state, but I just don't feel sympathy. Just because you think you're an adult does not mean you are mentally or emotionally. You should have to deal personally with your choices, not pop a pill you bought from a clinic or let a doctor stick a vacuum inside you to take care of the problem for you. It's irresponsible, and personally, sickening. When I see women who openly praise their abortion or say it was for the best, I seethe inside. Think about the millions of women each year who struggle to have children, or who have unexpected children but take responsibility for them as a reasonable adult should. I personally know a couple who lost a baby to miscarriage before having a little bundle of joy of their own, and another couple that had three children (triplets) by accident but gratefully accepted their duty as parents. Look at their life choices, and look at the life choices of women who have abortions, and I can almost always guarantee you mistakes were made in both lives. The way they deal with those mistakes is drastically different.
I am a new Christian (I've just started exploring my faith), but I've pretty much always been against abortion because there is an inherently evil vibe about dismembering and vacuuming up the innards of an unborn child. There have been documented cases of well-developed fetuses struggling as they are literally torn apart. Sure, pills can also be used to initiate abortions, but is that any less cruel or inhumane? It's easy to say an unborn child who cannot talk is not considered human, but unborn babies are innately human: they're the end product of human sperm and human eggs. It isn't like they're a different species just because they aren't born out of the womb yet. It's a poor excuse and becomes even poorer when you try to justify abortion with science. So what if the baby's heart, brain and nervous system develop at different points, making pain perception or cognition impossible until a certain date? Does that mean the baby should be forcefully removed from the womb and left to die? Would we use this same argument against an elderly person (or any person for that matter) who is a vegetable or paralyzed? Shouldn't we be able to forcefully end their lives too, seeing as they're an "undue burden" or an "inconvenience"? In my opinion, a child's worth doesn't start or end at a certain point. It exists the moment it's created. Sorry, but that's just my perception of the truth. An unborn baby cannot consent. Neither can a born baby. Or anyone under the age of 18 for most things, for that matter. In almost any other case, consent matters a whole ton. Unless you want to abort your baby; then no consent from the soon-to-be-dead fetus is needed.
Can you tell I'm a bit frustrated by this topic? Do you know how many people I have argued with about this? A few dozen, and no one seems willing to accept or even consider my point of view. I expect the same treatment here. Regardless, I still feel it important to make my beliefs known.
- 11,468
- Posts
- 15
- Years
- Age 30
- Seen yesterday
Most of what makes up the rest of your post has been covered ad nauseum throughout the thread, so I'll stick to the part of the post that brings up a new point to consider.
They're less expensive out of a need to discourage 'coat hanger abortions', which I think is an acceptable trade off. If the price of the abortion procedure were too high (and it can reach up to at least $1000 in America, iirc), the poor would have even less options than the middle class and up. They're readily available in order to keep the mother safe from the worst, not out of a need to propagate abortion doctrine into the area. Whether or not the procedure is ethical is one thing, ensuring the health and safety of the mother is another and in my eyes, more important.
ummmmm women are usually told the exact opposite lmao
and in either case, it takes more than just a woman to make a fetus
Hospitals cater to all kinds of medical issues and cost millions of dollars to build and maintain, let alone paying the hundreds of staff who work there...? Abortion clinics are small centres that cater to one procedure and deal with an issue that is far more present in the population than lung cancer or kidney failure or whatever. Naturally there will be far less hospitals than specialist clinics, especially clinics that cater to the need of millions.
While I understand the frustration, you can hardly expect people to back down on their thoughts over an issue which practically every person today has an opinion on.
They're less expensive out of a need to discourage 'coat hanger abortions', which I think is an acceptable trade off. If the price of the abortion procedure were too high (and it can reach up to at least $1000 in America, iirc), the poor would have even less options than the middle class and up. They're readily available in order to keep the mother safe from the worst, not out of a need to propagate abortion doctrine into the area. Whether or not the procedure is ethical is one thing, ensuring the health and safety of the mother is another and in my eyes, more important.
ummmmm women are usually told the exact opposite lmao
and in either case, it takes more than just a woman to make a fetus
Hospitals cater to all kinds of medical issues and cost millions of dollars to build and maintain, let alone paying the hundreds of staff who work there...? Abortion clinics are small centres that cater to one procedure and deal with an issue that is far more present in the population than lung cancer or kidney failure or whatever. Naturally there will be far less hospitals than specialist clinics, especially clinics that cater to the need of millions.
While I understand the frustration, you can hardly expect people to back down on their thoughts over an issue which practically every person today has an opinion on.
Saintscrew7
Helpful little Angel
- 76
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- Age 36
- Puerto Rico
- Seen Feb 3, 2018
I'm against abortion. BUT! If the mother's health is in jeopardy, it's a must do.
I respect the rights and all, just considering a game is a crime.
Now, my personal opinion:
The moment the ovum and the sperm joined (I consider it a life).
So, in short, no abortion for non health reasons.
Thanx for reading.
I respect the rights and all, just considering a game is a crime.
Now, my personal opinion:
The moment the ovum and the sperm joined (I consider it a life).
So, in short, no abortion for non health reasons.
Thanx for reading.
That's not a bad thing.
As I don't see anything wrong with abortion and in some cases see it as a positive, the scope of the procedure's usage doesn't particularly concern me.
Those are generally positives. Making the procedure easier to obtain is not a bad thing unless you don't don't approve of it, so it's not a compelling argument to someone who does approve of it.
It often is the best choice. Raising a child to term is a very difficult thing to do in many ways, and it only gets worse as it progresses. For a pregnancy that was unwanted to begin with, abortion makes a lot of sense.
While I think what you have just said is completely disconnected from reality outside of the far left, the question is whether sexual promiscuity is necessarily a bad thing. I don't believe it to be. It's not my thing, but I'm tolerant of it because I don't believe it to be unethical. While abortions may make that kind of lifestyle easier to engage in (so do condoms), I don't really think that's relevant to the question of whether abortion itself is a bad thing or not.
That is likely because it is easier and cheaper to establish a specialized, one-floor, relatively small clinic than to build a full hospital with several stories and multiple wings. The merchandising company I work for has more branch offices than major offices; this is hardly a surprising fact.
The question of whether abortion is easy is irrelevant to whether it is ethically tolerable or not. With that said, again, I don't see the fact that we've somewhat destigmatized it and made the procedure easier to obtain as a bad thing. Again, you have to realize this is not a compelling argument to someone who already approves of the procedure.
Why?
Oh. I see. So you're opposed to adoption, as well? After all, that's an abdication of personal responsibility. If they had sex one time without birth control, they had better be ready to take responsibility by spending tens of thousands of dollars and decades of their life raising the child. Because when people make mistakes, by God we had better not try to fix those mistakes. That's just irresponsible. Far more irresponsible than trying to raise a child you never wanted and probably aren't ready to raise (again, adoption isn't an option because that would be abdicating personal responsibility!).
I try not to be sarcastic, but I really take issue with this particular argument.
Your personal distaste for the procedure is not a valid argument as to whether the procedure is ethical or as to whether it was the right choice for the woman who obtained it.
That is that, and this is this. Their decisions are their own. The fact that they've decided it is right for them to raise their child has nothing to do with the decision as to whether it is the best choice for someone else.
And so far, I haven't heard anything that would convince me that the way they've chosen to deal with their mistakes is any worse.
Unfortunately, ethics is generally not based on "vibes" and the fact that you find something distasteful does not make it unethical.
Presumably, you are suggesting that this means that they have some degree of meaningful consciousness. I don't believe that to be the case. At the very least, this is not a compelling argument in support of that point. Animals can struggle and we hunt them for sport (and I think conservatives generally do so more often than others; not to imply that I disagree with hunting for sport, I don't). Humanity isn't something of value purely because it has the capacity to struggle. A bacteria struggles before it is engulfed by a larger bacteria. A worm struggles before it is eaten by a bird. These are basic, instinctual, automatic reactions that most motile lifeforms exhibit.
This is more shock imagery which has no bearing on the actual ethical dilemma at hand. Again, personal distaste is not a legitimate ethical argument, and this isn't something limited to this scenario; this is the exact same argument I use against animal rights activists and vegans arguing that the slaughter of animals for food is unethical.
Then, in the words of our good friend Dracula, "what is a man?" I'm not asking biologically. I'm asking what makes a man special. What makes a man, a man? Why are we superior to other lifeforms? Why are our lives worth protecting to such a degree when others aren't? Without going into detail, the answer is because we have qualities that elevate us above other species. At a certain point in our life, we become more than just a bundle of wiring and instinct; we become human, and I don't mean biologically. We gain the qualities that make humanity worth protecting, worth dying for. A fetus does not have these qualities. The only thing a human fetus has that an ape fetus does not have is the potential to become something better in the future, but that could be said of a human egg as well.
Whoops. That was basically the argument I just made. They are like a different (lower) species, at least from a philosophical perspective. The reason for that is that our biology isn't what makes us meaningfully human, the qualities that elevate us above other species are. The fact that we are homo sapiens, a two-legged, two-armed upright-walking mammalian species with a centralized nervous system and fine motor control has nothing to do with why our species is important and worth protecting.
It means that the baby can be removed from the womb and that it's not particularly tragic, as a "human" (again, not a biological human, a "human") is not being killed.
That's a good point, though not quite in the way you make it, and it's a significant weak point in my argument. Would I use this argument against someone mentally crippled? The answer is... kind of. Someone who has permanently (and that's a high standard as we move into an age where more and more conditions are reversible; even "persistent vegetative state" is not necessarily a permanent condition) lost their mental functions has essentially lost what makes them meaningfully human. With that said, I think that decision should be left up to the individual or, failing that, the family. If it really is permanent, and I mean really-really permanent, I think end-of-life services are an ethically viable option if the individual wished it or, if we don't know the individual's wishes, the family wishes it.
Well, mainly for the reasons I've established above, I disagree. But that's the great thing about a free society: we're all free to disagree. Living in a democratic government, the question will be decided by the people, repeatedly, and sometimes in contrasting ways.
Consent isn't the issue at hand. Consent is not some innately valuable concept, it has value only when we value the consenting party's wishes. We value the wishes of "humans" because "humans" are valuable. A fetus is a human, but it is not a "human" in my book. Thus, its lack of ability to consent is not meaningful.
There are several things wrong with that statement (which things? why 18? why not?), but that would be outside the scope of this particular debate.
Again, this is because we value the consenting party's wishes because they are "human" (again, not human, "human").
There's a difference between considering your view and acknowledging it correct or even rational. I have considered your position; if I hadn't, I wouldn't have responded to it at length and probably would have given a snide one-line remark insinuating you are a person of de-elevated intelligence or something (I'm not implying you are, that was a hypothetical wherein I didn't actually consider your position). I understand your position well enough and I believe the pro-life position, at least as it specifically regards to the question "at what point is a human life valuable," to be rational in its own way. I simply disagree with the conclusion you have come to.
- 15,936
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen yesterday
Haha, I feel ya. I think we all do; I doubt this is anyone's first time discussing this topic. It can be terribly frustrating to basically repeat the same conversation over and over again with no change or result, especially when people often get belligerent and rude while talking about it. But this thread is waaaaay better than most other abortion threads I've seen.
Would've responded to the rest of your post but twocows and God kinda already said a lot so.....
Adrasteia
[font=Comic Sans][/font]
- 1,289
- Posts
- 12
- Years
- Age 29
- Kent, England
- Seen Sep 6, 2023
I just had to say, I love this entire reply. It's concise, logical and doesn't disrespect the party it's against.
The pro-life argument is inherently based purely on emotion and disdain for the procedure and I don't think that's what makes a good or logical argument. I respect every individual's right to an opinion, but I'm only willing to discuss it in depth if they can make a reasonable argument for there cause and not fall back on 'it's bad because it's bad' or 'because God says so'.
Margaery Tyrell
Growing Strong
- 335
- Posts
- 11
- Years
- Age 25
- USA
- Seen Feb 28, 2018
Sorry, I'm just choosing to address this part of your argument because the rest of your points have already been talked about a lot. ><
And because you raise interesting points -
I don't think its a matter of "should" the baby be killed - there are people who do not want to have an abortion for a child they are impregnated with, and then there are people who do not wish to have a child. This emotional infused argument doesn't make a strong point in an argument framed to discuss ethics.
Honestly, this debate will probably never end because ethics are precisely that - ethics. Any poised to challenge a set of ethics are destined to not always reach success because no single person will always agree with another person's ideals, their principles. Its almost pointless to confront a controversial subject without objectivity - elsewise you aren't going to be able to understand another person's perspective and therefore become stagnant in your unwillingness to process and judge new information and differing ideas. And isn't that the goal of debating? To better understand one another? Its absolutely imperative to understand that just because a person disagrees with you, your values and your principles aren't being attacked nor is your character being indicted.
When we debate topics such as abortion, its probably best, then, that we approach it from a position of logic and objectivity - no one will care how abortion makes you feel, because this isn't a subjective topic. The ethics of doing an abortion is always open to interpretation and different viewpoints. I think the reason this topic annoys me as well, is because abortion itself is an act without any moral alignment - the context of the action is where one must decide for themselves whether or not it is right or wrong for them. So when we challenge each other on whether or not it is right or wrong, we are dooming ourselves to a standstill. With more thinking on this, I find that the facts of abortion are what should be looked at, the facts of what make the fetus a fetus rather than pointlessly questioning an untestable factor such as whether or not the fetus has a soul and is therefore human - whether or not the fetus is human is very much both up to philosophical debate but also logical. twocows pointed out that, philosophically, what makes us human is our qualities that make us different, elevated from other animals. Logically, a fetus does not have the intelligent capabilities nor the conscience of a human. It cannot be considered human because it isn't developed into a human. I think these facts should be taken into consideration when considering one's judgment.
I'm sorry for my ramblings here, these are my thoughts on the actual debate itself.
However, to end this post I'd like to address your last point on people who are indeed paralyzed or mentally crippled. I agree with twocows on his point about permanent debilitation - although I'd like to add that we should also consider the value of their life. Not worth, but rather is their life one that is capable of being lived fully? In some cases it would perhaps almost be a cruelty to preserve a debilitated person's life because you are by extent subjecting them to suffering and limitations that offer little to no personal freedom. So, should they be ended? It is possible that this question is one that cannot be properly judged. It also is vaguely connected to the question of should a fetus be killed due to its mother not desiring the child, mainly because you are comparing an unborn fetus to an already living person - I would honestly even argue that the question of ending a debilitating/mentally paralyzed person's life due to their circumstances is even more complex.
Last edited:
- 10,769
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
I don't think this thread needs my input. (I haven't read through everything said in it, but I feel safe in saying I agree with everything God said.) But I want to at least say one thing.
Whatever someone's position on this is, they should at least be sympathetic to someone who has considered an abortion or has had an abortion. Even if it's baby-killing to you, these are not heartless killers. It's not like other situations where a living, breathing baby, child, adult, or whatever is killed because in those situations the person deciding to kill or not kill can walk away without their life being affected. Letting someone live doesn't mean you'll have to keep them around for 9 months or 18 years, have lengthy medical procedures, etc. It isn't so black-and-white. Abortion is a difficult decision and regardless of how or why someone ends up in that situation it would be cruel to judge them solely on the decision they make.
Whatever someone's position on this is, they should at least be sympathetic to someone who has considered an abortion or has had an abortion. Even if it's baby-killing to you, these are not heartless killers. It's not like other situations where a living, breathing baby, child, adult, or whatever is killed because in those situations the person deciding to kill or not kill can walk away without their life being affected. Letting someone live doesn't mean you'll have to keep them around for 9 months or 18 years, have lengthy medical procedures, etc. It isn't so black-and-white. Abortion is a difficult decision and regardless of how or why someone ends up in that situation it would be cruel to judge them solely on the decision they make.
- 458
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- Age 37
- Australia
- Seen May 21, 2016
I'm going to quickly weigh into this discussion as someone who probably has more experience than others on this forum. I'm currently 29 weeks pregnant and I'm pro-choice. Prior to this pregnancy I've had a miscarriage (which I got out of the way faster by having the already dead fetus vacuumed from my uterus in hospital), and I have taken the morning after pill when a condom failed (and got to experience the joyful condescension of the pharmacist as though I didn't know what contraception was - fuck you, buddy).
There are many different reasons why someone may choose to abort, many of which have already been raised (e.g. just not wanting a baby). There seems to be a common thread of members being pro-life, but accepting abortion if continued pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. However, there are also non-life threatening medical reasons where the fetus is still technically alive (as defined by heartbeat) but has a fatal defect (e.g. a type of neural development defect that may prevent its brain from forming). Is it okay in this situation for a woman to bring a fetus to term, go through the trauma of childbirth just so the baby can die with a couple hours? No. The answer you're looking for is no. Unfortunately, if abortion is limited this sort of thing may become a reality for some would-be parents.
On the point of non-fatal defects, I think there should still always remain a choice to abort. If I got positive results for down-sydrome back at my 16 week appointment, I would have aborted and I am glad I have the freedom to have made that choice.
I do believe that there should be limits on the age of the pregnancy for abortion for non-medical reasons. If I went into premature labour right now, there is a good chance that my baby would survive outside the womb. I think viability is considered to be around 26 weeks. I think this is a better argument for when abortions should no longer be allowed than trying to determine when consciousness begins.
Also, pregnancy sucks. I wouldn't wish this on someone who didn't want the baby at the end of it. I can't even sit on the couch comfortably anymore because my damn uterus is pushing against my ribcage and it huuurts! Not to mention getting winded by a short flight of stairs, not being able to eat and drink things I would normally (I have not had a caffienated coffee in over 6 months), dealing with the crapiness of maternity wear, I can go on...
There are many different reasons why someone may choose to abort, many of which have already been raised (e.g. just not wanting a baby). There seems to be a common thread of members being pro-life, but accepting abortion if continued pregnancy threatens the life of the mother. However, there are also non-life threatening medical reasons where the fetus is still technically alive (as defined by heartbeat) but has a fatal defect (e.g. a type of neural development defect that may prevent its brain from forming). Is it okay in this situation for a woman to bring a fetus to term, go through the trauma of childbirth just so the baby can die with a couple hours? No. The answer you're looking for is no. Unfortunately, if abortion is limited this sort of thing may become a reality for some would-be parents.
On the point of non-fatal defects, I think there should still always remain a choice to abort. If I got positive results for down-sydrome back at my 16 week appointment, I would have aborted and I am glad I have the freedom to have made that choice.
I do believe that there should be limits on the age of the pregnancy for abortion for non-medical reasons. If I went into premature labour right now, there is a good chance that my baby would survive outside the womb. I think viability is considered to be around 26 weeks. I think this is a better argument for when abortions should no longer be allowed than trying to determine when consciousness begins.
Also, pregnancy sucks. I wouldn't wish this on someone who didn't want the baby at the end of it. I can't even sit on the couch comfortably anymore because my damn uterus is pushing against my ribcage and it huuurts! Not to mention getting winded by a short flight of stairs, not being able to eat and drink things I would normally (I have not had a caffienated coffee in over 6 months), dealing with the crapiness of maternity wear, I can go on...
Last edited:
- 286
- Posts
- 10
- Years
- Age 27
- Wasteland, baby!
- Seen Oct 3, 2020
Yeah, I was gonna chime in with something similar to this. I feel like "just put it up for adoption" is such a flippant suggestion because pregnancy is far from easy and prenatal care can be quite expensive. I don't think people realise that carrying the baby to term and putting it up for adoption isn't exactly a straightforward option.