Abortion

Author: Owen_T

Posts

Total: 28
Owen_T
Owen_T's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 600
3
2
9
Owen_T's avatar
Owen_T
3
2
9
This issue has always been hard to me. I have a far lean to the pro life side, as when you strip down all the layers, abortion is killing babies. I would really like to here some pro choice arguments though to really understand both sides.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
I wish I was aborted.

Being aborted is a privilege, not a right.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Owen_T
Most pro life men: We need to ban abortion because a zygote is a human being and the permanent homicide is more serious than 9 months of potential female discomfort.

Me: Are you willing to get a vasectomy to prevent both the 9 months of unwanted pregnancy and fetal homicide?  It's only a few days of pain for you and pre vasectomy sperm can be stored in a hospital freezer whenever you plan to have kids with a woman that consents.  The failure rate is no higher than conventional pregnancy.  Are you willing to get a vasectomy to prevent both the unwanted pregnancy and evil and the fetal homicide evil?

Most pro life men: Hell No!  My body, my choice (but only for me, not for women).

A man being personally pro life politically pro choice is not a man not okay with him personally not being alright with his girlfriend getting an abortion but lets others do their own thing.  A man being personally pro life politically pro choice is the man being willing to get a vasectomy before he has sex so he does what he plausibly can to prevent unplanned pregnancy (1/5 men that use condoms produce an unplanned pregnancy at some point).

By this definition, I'm personally pro life, politically pro choice.  Most men are not even personally pro life (but a lot of them are politically pro life).  Being personally pro choice and politically pro life is hypocrisy, and I don't respect hypocrites. 

Andrew Tate tells men to be more masculine and to do pushups, I think, "facts, bro".  Christain Walker doing the same thing; it's like; bro!  Lead by example.

I am pro choice because I don't like affiliating with hypocrites on an issue.  I'm personally pro life solely because I'm willing to get a vasectomy before I have sex.

I can't tell if you are a man or a woman, but if you are a woman, then make sure your boyfriend gets a vasectomy before you have sex with him.  If he is willing to expose you to 9 months of potential pregnancy pain from sex but he is unwilling to get a few days of vasectomy pain because, "his body, his choice", then he doesn't respect you as a person; he only sees you as a sex object, and you should break up with him.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 363
Posts: 11,007
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@TheUnderdog
if you are a woman, then make sure your boyfriend gets a vasectomy before you have sex with him
Well said. Thats what my mom should have done.

prefix
prefix's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 542
3
4
9
prefix's avatar
prefix
3
4
9
-->
@Owen_T
There are many serious arguments both "pro life" and "pro choice".

Areas of concern would include: will the mother survive the delivery, is the pregnancy the result of a crime such as rape or incest, is there evidence of a serious birth defect,  is the mother capable of raising a child, and so on.

Abortion may not be the best solution for some situations as opposed to adoption etc.

It is a complex issue. Some make it a "women's rights "issue. Some say it is an individual's decision.

There may not be any complete legal solution for some time to come.




FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,775
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

At least you don't have to tell an aborted baby that they are going to die sometime anyway.
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 394
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Owen_T
"... abortion is killing babies."
Before the dictionaries were altered with ignorant convoluted definitions that have no association to the original term, the thousand plus years of understanding of the term "baby" was a born child, infant, a very young child

No "baby" is killed during an abortion. 

Before Roe was invalidated, 89-94% of all abortions were performed before 14 weeks, majority of those before 6 weeks. No "baby" involved. 
Less than 1.2% of all abortions were after 22-24 weeks.

As a woman, and a mother, I am all pro-choice up until 22-24 weeks. 
Why that period of gestation? It's the best probability of survival outside of the womb for the fetus that's achieved fetal viability. 
If you cannot decide by then, you have to go through with the pregnancy. 


Owen_T
Owen_T's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 600
3
2
9
Owen_T's avatar
Owen_T
3
2
9
-->
@Amber
Oh my gosh why isn't there just a conclusive answer to all of the country's most controversial  issues.
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Amber
Why that period of gestation? It's the best probability of survival outside of the womb for the fetus that's achieved fetal viability. 
This is incorrect.  A fetus has the best chance of surviving outside of the womb at the moment of birth.  22-24 weeks is arbitrary.
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Owen_T
This is neither pro-choice nor pro-fetus killing argument. It is an observation about foundations.

In order to apply a principle to a zygote or a fetus just the same as a baby or an adult, you need to have a principle.

This moral question, as with all moral questions, will not be resolved by a bunch of people taking turns expressing their baseless opinions.

When you can answer the question "Why does Thomas Jefferson have a right to life?" Then you will know how to answer whether a fetus or a baby has a right to life.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Trump's wannabe assassin was shot dead.

Human organisms are dispensable, when it suits.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Owen_T
...as when you strip down all the layers, abortion is killing babies.....

False.

My mother bore me out as breathing indepdent baby and the umbilical chord that fed me nutrients { includes oxygen } was severed, ergo, a fetus/baby that became and independent from my mother, baby/slash human being individual.

Your those like you enjoy sticking you nose where the sun dont shine. Inside a pregnant womans body without her consent. It is is a sic-n-head virtual rapist attitude endorsed by MAGA and their evangelical supporters.

You and others like you need to keep your nose out where the sun shines, and stop pretending you have some moral high ground back by some almighty divine deity who gives you this moral authority of womens' bodily anutonomy

...*(~o )*.....  = one in the oven fetus/baby from moment of conception{ fertixlizatioin } till born out and umbilical chord severed

...^ v ^....  = born out, breathing, independent human individual...has taken its first in-spiration of air/oxygen on its own

Get a grip on your own moral reality and leave pregnant women alone unless they ask you stick you nose into their bodily business. Please, and thank you.

.............................simple, not complex to grasp or to adhere too..............................................



ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,265
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
I'm going to make an exception to my normally ironclad rule of not taking anything ebuc posts at all seriously (since he is insane).

born out, breathing, independent human individual...has taken its first in-spiration of air/oxygen on its own
Independently breathing != independently doing everything

Babies need to be fed, cleaned, and protected, and humans are social so adults in practice need a society.

What foundation is implied by this distinction anyway? Killing is murder unless the target depends on you for existence?
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 394
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog

@<<<Amber>>>
Why that period of gestation? It's the best probability of survival outside of the womb for the fetus that's achieved fetal viability. 
This is incorrect.  A fetus has the best chance of surviving outside of the womb at the moment of birth.  22-24 weeks is arbitrary.
Wrong. 

Guess giving people the benefit of the doubt to read between the lines on what was said that 22-24 weeks is pertinent to premature births. It's also precisely why abortions are heavily restricted at and after this timeframe. 

However, everyone (pregnant woman and doctors) does want a healthy birthed baby vs a premature birth because it is the best chance of survival since no further gestational development is needed/required. 
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 394
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Owen_T
-->
@<<<Amber>>>
Oh my gosh why isn't there just a conclusive answer to all of the country's most controversial  issues.
Non sequitur. This makes NO sense in relation to my response to your OP query. 
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Amber
This is incorrect.  A fetus has the best chance of surviving outside of the womb at the moment of birth.  22-24 weeks is arbitrary.
Wrong. 
A 22 week old fetus has maybe an 80% chance of surviving outside the womb; a newborn baby has a 100% chance.

 It's also precisely why abortions are heavily restricted at and after this timeframe. 
But if one consistently with abortion believed in, "my body, my choice", then they would favor legal abortion until the moment of birth (even if they personally would never get a late term abortion).


Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 394
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
@<<<Amber>>>
This is incorrect.  A fetus has the best chance of surviving outside of the womb at the moment of birth.  22-24 weeks is arbitrary.
Wrong. 
A 22 week old fetus has maybe an 80% chance of surviving outside the womb; a newborn baby has a 100% chance.
Hmmm...what's that old say, oh, wait, I got it.

No SHIT Sherlock! 

What part of my identifying the intent and purpose of my comment being directly related to premature births did you not understand!?!

 It's also precisely why abortions are heavily restricted at and after this timeframe. 
But if one consistently with abortion believed in, "my body, my choice", then they would favor legal abortion until the moment of birth (even if they personally would never get a late term abortion).
Speak for yourself. You do not speak for every woman on this planet. 

You clearly do not know what you are talking about. The "My Body, My Choice" is about the right to medical privacy and a woman's right to choose. It has absolutely nothing to do with believing in the 11th hour or 11th second abortions just before the fetus passes through the vaginal canal on the cusp of its outer edge towards birth.

As I previously wrote, prior to RvW being invalidated, approximately 89-94% of ALL abortions were before 14 weeks with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. Less than 1.2% of ALL abortions were at or after 22-24 weeks gestation. Clearly everyone believes in and strives to obtain abortions before 6 weeks, if not 14. 



TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Amber
The "My Body, My Choice" is about the right to medical privacy and a woman's right to choose. 
So a woman can have the right to choose whether to get an abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy or is it going to be when the fetus has an X% chance of being viable (X being arbitrary)?  There is nothing wrong with backing legal abortion until the moment of birth (this is my current position).  Just own it if this is your position.

As I previously wrote, prior to RvW being invalidated, approximately 89-94% of ALL abortions were before 14 weeks with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. Less than 1.2% of ALL abortions were at or after 22-24 weeks gestation. 
And less than 1.2% of the US population is transgender; if you forcibly relocate transgenders to Canada, then very few people would be effected, but it's still a bad policy even if it effects very few people.


DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@Owen_T
I personally am a pro-lifer.  I have 4 children of my own THAT I also raise and care for.  The reason that there is such a debate on this is because the world view that people have.

Example:

God created all things and therefore the child is precious for any reason it was conceived.

OR

We are only a series of accidents and progressed though survival of the fittest, therefore the child that doesn't meet the mustard of whatever standard gets the fetal axe.

I feel bad for women that have been raped or abused, but it's not the child's fault.  Kill the rapist, not the baby.

My biggest problem with abortion is that it allows people to shirk responsibilities that they KNOW will happen if they engage in sexual intercourse with the opposite sex. Look up studies on why women get abortions and they will show that around 94%-97% of women have the abortions because it just wasn't convenient.  The other 3%-6% are the rapes and incest.  The argument always highlights the poor raped woman and it's really disingenuous.  Over 9 out of 10 of abortions are not from illegal actions, but the spotlight is always on the illegal actions and how pro-lifers are pro-rapists.  Ridiculous. 

To me, abortion snuffs out a life that would happen by the mother's own decision.  It is one of the most selfish things ever.  It is on the same avenue as child abuse, neglect and the such.  The parents need to grow up and take responsibility or at least be educated how babies are made.  Don't want a baby?  Prevent it (no sex, condoms, get snipped, etc).  Simple.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@DavidAZZ
Kill the rapist, not the baby.

Yep, as I stated.

Human organisms are dispensable, when it suits.

Pro life or not?

Shirking the responsibility of rehabilitating the offender.


Every argument generates it's own counter-argument.
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What foundation is implied by this distinction anyway? Killing is murder unless the target depends on you for existence?
Fetus/baby organism of pregnant woman ---at any point of gestation----- does not equal a born out, independent  baby/human individual.


Independent individual  as far as oxygen is concerned ----read again first inspiration of breath---  no longer being fed via a umbilical tube from the mother.

The clueness need not reply unless they actually want to learn about truth. You have no desire for truth in regards to virtual rapist sticking their noses into pregnant womans bodily business.  Sic-n-head MAGA and others.

..*(~o )*.....  = one in the oven fetus/baby from moment of conception{ fertilizatioin } till born out and umbilical chord severed

...^ v ^....  = born out, breathing, independent baby/human individual...has taken its first in-spiration of air/oxygen on its own

Get a grip on your own moral reality and leave pregnant women alone unless they ask you stick you nose into their bodily business. Please, and thank you.

.............................simple, not complex to grasp or to adhere too..............................................

MAGA and some other shun simple truth as they lack some of the most basic moral integrity, do not commit virtual rape or pregnant women.

ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,047
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@DavidAZZ
I feel bad for women that have been raped or abused, but it's not the child's fault.  Kill the rapist, not the baby.

fetus/baby  organism of pregnant woman, does not equal,  baby/human individual who has taken its first breath and umbilical cord is severed.

The distinction is a real as night and day.   There is no twilight between surviving on nutrients and oxygen from pregnant woman ---not yet a mother---  and,

baby/human taking first inspiration of breath { air/oxygen }.

Why MAGA and others cannot respect this distinction is just their inability to lack control of women ---read your evangelical text---  via pregnant women. Sic-n-head is what these type are.

These MAGA and others are proof we still live in Dark Ages { Bucky Fuller 1980's } } or going into the Dark Ages { Carl Sagan 1990's }.

These type are of the ..' the south will rise again '.. and ..." The Middle Ages, also known as the Dark Ages or the Medieval Period, is an era of time in Europe stretching from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE until the Protestant Reformation of 1517, when the Catholic Church faced its greatest challenge yet. "..

..." The Catholic Church became a pivotal force that affected the lives of all who dwelled on the lands. "..
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 394
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
@<<<Amber>>>
The "My Body, My Choice" is about the right to medical privacy and a woman's right to choose. 
So a woman can have the right to choose whether to get an abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy or is it going to be when the fetus has an X% chance of being viable (X being arbitrary)?  There is nothing wrong with backing legal abortion until the moment of birth (this is my current position).  Just own it if this is your position.
Convenient you left this part out of my statement: " It has absolutely nothing to do with believing in the 11th hour or 11th second abortions just before the fetus passes through the vaginal canal on the cusp of its outer edge towards birth."

You're also being very disingenuous here because you know full well that women do not get to make arbitrary decisions to abort right up to the 9th month or even the 11th hour. Late term abortions, while permissible only for medical emergencies, are restricted from willy nilly haphazard decisions. SCOTUS ruled on this and you should know this. 

Your This or That scenario is a misrepresentation of what I said, and you know it, because your position is so weak you have to twist my words. 

As I previously wrote, prior to RvW being invalidated, approximately 89-94% of ALL abortions were before 14 weeks with the majority of those being before 6 weeks. Less than 1.2% of ALL abortions were at or after 22-24 weeks gestation. 
And less than 1.2% of the US population is transgender; if you forcibly relocate transgenders to Canada, then very few people would be effected, but it's still a bad policy even if it effects very few people.
WTF!?! 

What do transgender people in America have to do with the price of tea in China where the abortion debate/discussion is concerned?

See, your position is weak so you have to deflect with pure nonsense. 

TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Amber
You're also being very disingenuous here because you know full well that women do not get to make arbitrary decisions to abort right up to the 9th month or even the 11th hour. 
But should women be allowed to make this decision up until 9 months of birth?  If one consistently believed in, "my body, my choice", then the answer would be yes.

What do transgender people in America have to do with the price of tea in China where the abortion debate/discussion is concerned?
Trans people are rare.  Late term abortions are rare.  The frequency of something is irrelevant as to whether or not it should be legal.  There can be only 0 late term abortions in the entire nation; it wouldn't matter as to if it should be legal to do them.  In reality, if 1.2% of abortion are late term, out of 800K abortions/year, it would mean 10K abortions/year are late term.  Should these 10K abortions/year be legal?
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
Human organisms are dispensable, when it suits.
Just now saw this.

I would say that human life gains or loses it valuableness depending on its actions.  We have the death penalty because a person cannot even live decently with other people without hurting them permanently.  So they lose their opportunity of life.  

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@DavidAZZ
So do the executioners become less valuable?

Or are the heroes?


But let's be honest, for most folk an execution is a titillating headline...And then carry on with the daily routine...Such is morality.
DavidAZZ
DavidAZZ's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 303
0
2
5
DavidAZZ's avatar
DavidAZZ
0
2
5
-->
@zedvictor4
So do the executioners become less valuable?

Or are the heroes?
I would say neither.  No need to turn to the extremes in this case.

But let's be honest, for most folk an execution is a titillating headline...And then carry on with the daily routine...Such is morality.
Very true.  Same with anything that distracts life such as a birth and a funeral.

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,171
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@DavidAZZ
I use the term executioner(s) broadly to represent a society that deems what is essentially a ritual killing, as morally justifiable. (Ritual killing, as in a social justice ritual).


Then there is killing in self defence, which is deemed to be a moral necessity.


Killing animals for food.


Terminating the growth of a bundle of cellular tissue.


All morally acceptable, or not, as the case maybe.


Such is the fickle nature of the human imagination.