Abortion sucks

[flash2015]

snip

I also believe killing is wrong. If someone told you “just don’t kill people, and let others do if they want” that’s…. not okay for that person.

I think the majority is often wrong on things. For the longest time slavery was accepted by the majority of the population, justified under the guise that the slaves weren’t fully human. I won’t be surprised if in the future, people will look back at how we justified the killing of many developing humans under the guise of “they aren’t fully human” in a similar way. (Not necessarily comparing abortions to slavery. Just that the majority opinion is often wrong)

I don’t think women who have abortions are terrible people deserving of being arrested because of the amount of misinformation out there, and how the debate is always framed. Perfectly good people will get abortions right now.

I wouldn’t consider myself an atheist, but I’m certainly not a catholic and don’t agree with most of what you say catholics believe. Contraception is a good since it stops it from happening in the first place.
However, I do have respect for the normally religious tradition to wait to have sex until after marriage partly to protect babies from being formed in tricky situations.
Not having sex isn’t really that hard if you believe it might cause the death of human life.

So your opinion is the fetus can start having rights once it can breathe on its own? Not judging, just want to clarify your position.

Whilst you sort of are avoiding explicitly owning this, this "slavery = abortion" has been a common argument since Roe vs. Wade. Reagan made it, Scalia made it and many others have made it too. It has been used as a tool to try and convince conservative black people to vote Republican. I don't think it holds water though. When we are saying slavery is wrong we are saying a black adult is equal to a white adult, a black child is equal to a white child. Essentially the only thing different is their skin colour. But this doesn't mean an adult is equivalent to a fetus! The argument makes no sense. Each stage of life has different sets of rights and responsibilities. A 5 year old doesn't have the right drive a car or drink alcohol. A fetus doesn't have rights separate from the pregnant mother.

Slavery has also been around for thousands of years. Improvements in society made it no longer viable (it was actually a drag on economic development). Women's rights came about largely because of societal changes too (reduction in infant mortality, birth control, changes in nature of work, improvements in governmental support for children and the elderly - this is one of the reasons why conservatives are against welfare, general improvements in medical technology etc.) which also lead to the availability of abortion. Not to be rude, but I think you are living in a fantasy to believe that an increasingly wealthy society will go backwards here. Of course there may potentially be technological improvements which may allow babies to develop outside the body...or transferred from one woman to another which may reduce the actual incidents of abortion. Perhaps if there is a major disaster (e.g. precipitous decline in fertility, major disaster killing a large percentage of the population, race/religious war meaning we need to outbreed the heathens - Stephan Molyneux plays this up), everything changes but I hope you wouldn't be wishing for that.

People across the globe have different ideas about morality. e.g. Hindus think it is wrong to eat meat and especially wrong to kill cows, Muslims believe it is wrong to drink alcohol, Westerners believe it is morally wrong to eat whale or to eat dogs/cats. Some other vegans also believe that eating **any** meat is morally wrong. Everyone here, just like the anti-abortion activists believe their specific morals are the right ones. But just because each of these people believe that their morals are the right ones, it doesn't mean they have the right to impose these morals on other people.

Again, this is to not to say I don't have respect for other people's moral choices. I absolutely do. Deciding not to have sex before marriage is a fine moral position to have. But again, it doesn't mean those people should be able to impose those morals on everyone else.

As for my explicit position on abortion, I am not really keen on the legal system being involved at all in this. It is primarily a medical decision between doctor and patient. Limitations on the procedure should be guided by medical associations rather than the criminal legal system.

Of course, if there is a viable compromise which could satisfy most of the population I think that would be great (e.g. freely available abortion up until X weeks along with better access to healthcare for expectant mothers). I wish the USA could actually have that discussion...as this is what democracy is all about (messy compromises between competing interests - there is a reason why we say "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"). But it seems like everyone is an absolutist here - either abortion is always wrong in any circumstance or abortion should be available in all circumstances. I actually think "Roe vs. Wade" was a mistake as it solidified these absolutist positions. If it hadn't happened we may have got to this compromise by now.

[flash2015]

My personal opinion is that until the fetus is born, the rights of the mother trump the rights of the fetus. At each stage of life you have different rights (e.g. five year olds can't drive cars) and given that the fetus is not a separate independent human being yet that can breathe on its own, it doesn't have the same rights as a human child. Whilst society can provide help and guidance to the mother whatever her choice may be, ultimately because it is her body it is her decision alone to decide what to do.

This position, whilst one I disagree with, is the only pro-choice position that is consistent with the idea of giving women control over their bodies. The state advises, and the woman makes the call. Positions, such as the one adopted by Ireland, that place time limits on abortions keep the control in the hands of the society in the form of the state. People in favour of such systems, and I include myself amongst them, are in no position to accuse pro-lifers of being anti-woman as we support the exact same controls over the women, only disagreeing on the timing of when the controls are activated.

The problem with stance flash has taken is that there is negligible difference between a new born baby and the same baby a day before birth. Indeed, modern medicine often delays a birth or accelerates it for multiple reasons, so often the difference is purely the call of a midwife or doctor on a particular day.

It is clear to me, therefore, that the abortion of a late stage pregnancy should be treated with the same gravity as the killing of a new born baby. I can think of no logical path to avoid such a conclusion.

You know that only a small minority of abortions actually occur post-viability (21 weeks)? In 2012, the post viability abortion rate was 1.3% and only 0.17% of those occurred in states with no restrictions on abortions at all:

https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/ ... ed-states/

Most of these abortions occur between 21 and 24 weeks and we know most of these abortions post 21 weeks are for fetal abnormalities (other reasons include rape/incest, health of mother). So we are largely arguing about an issue (normal pregnancies aborted by choice after viability) which very rarely if ever happens.

Again, I think it is a personal choice, a decision between patient and doctor, not one a third party should be making for someone else. If I was in this situation (which is easy to say because it isn't physically possible), I may make different choices but that is irrelevant.

If there was a compromise which could take this issue off the table, I would be all for it (again democracy is all about messy compromises). But unfortunately, at least in the US, there is no available compromise. Each attempt to restrict abortion currently is instead trying to create a legal framework which will make it easier for a small minority of the population to ban abortion for everyone in the future. I think abortion activists would be more amenable to a compromise discussion if they weren't dealing with no compromise absolutists on the other side.

[Octavious]

You know that only a small minority of abortions actually occur post-viability (21 weeks)? In 2012, the post viability abortion rate was 1.3% and only 0.17% of those occurred in states with no restrictions on abortions at all

That's not something I can claim to have known, but it's more or less the kind of figures I would have expected.

So we are largely arguing about an issue (normal pregnancies aborted by choice after viability) which very rarely if ever happens.

No, we are arguing about an important matter of principle. If you believe the unborn child never reaches a stage of development where it should be allowed rights then there should be no restrictions on abortions. If you believe that the unborn child does reach a stage where it should have rights, then the argument becomes how best to balance the rights between the child and the mother. The right for a human to live always must trump the right for a human to choose how to live, so the crucial factor becomes when you believe the unborn child to be human. Sexism has nothing to do with it.

The difficulty is that this is hard to define. When does a human life begin, when does it end, do you view a human as a snapshot in time or as a sum of its experiences both past and potential. This, I think, is why people who are religiously minded tend to see the debate differently to atheists. An atheist tends to live more in the moment, whereas your theist is very much more used to thinking of the universe stretching out beyond their lifetimes from the perspective of an imortal soul. Crude generalisations, of course, but I believe there is some truth in it nonetheless.

[flash2015]

You know that only a small minority of abortions actually occur post-viability (21 weeks)? In 2012, the post viability abortion rate was 1.3% and only 0.17% of those occurred in states with no restrictions on abortions at all

That's not something I can claim to have known, but it's more or less the kind of figures I would have expected.

So we are largely arguing about an issue (normal pregnancies aborted by choice after viability) which very rarely if ever happens.

No, we are arguing about an important matter of principle. If you believe the unborn child never reaches a stage of development where it should be allowed rights then there should be no restrictions on abortions. If you believe that the unborn child does reach a stage where it should have rights, then the argument becomes how best to balance the rights between the child and the mother. The right for a human to live always must trump the right for a human to choose how to live, so the crucial factor becomes when you believe the unborn child to be human. Sexism has nothing to do with it.

Well, in my opinion we are arguing about a "phantom menace". I am saying he idea that there are hordes of women deciding to abort their baby on a whim at 20+ weeks is a myth. As I have said many times in this thread my belief is that until the baby is born the rights of the fetus are subservient to the rights of the mother. Obviously if a healthy baby can be delivered now and there is no/minimal health risk to the mother, then an abortion doesn't make sense and shouldn't be happening. But I believe these decisions should be made between the doctor and patient with guidelines set down by the medical community, not as some arbitrary lines set through the criminal code. I am not sure what comment you are replying to when you say "Sexism has nothing to do with it" so I will ignore that for now.

Of course, there are some pro-abortion extremists who are now arguing that abortion is a virtue (e.g. Michelle Wolf's "Salute To Abortion"). Whilst I believe this is a reaction to extremists on the other side, I certainly don't agree with this. I am of the Hillary Clinton opinion that abortions should be "safe, legal and rare". I think more independent research should be done to understand why women are having abortions. For example I can't find the page now (I should have bookmarked it) but at least from the statistics I saw in the US 75% of the women who have abortions are living in poverty, half of them already have one child...so poverty has probably a lot to do with it.

You made a big deal about saying BB was over-dramatizing the poverty issue and that people starving in the US "never happens". In my wife's previous school and current school for many of the students their only nutrition of the day come through the free breakfast and lunch provided by the school. I don't know about you but I think there is something seriously wrong that one of the richest countries in the world have so many citizens that are so poor that they have to rely on this to survive.

Of course the other major thing which would reduce abortions is better access to contraception...but so many in the "right to life" movement are such absolutists about sex we can't be as effective as we could be about providing easy access to it. Abstinence education is a fantasy. Rightly or wrongly, people are always going to have sex. We need to create policies that reflect reality, not fantasy.

The difficulty is that this is hard to define. When does a human life begin, when does it end, do you view a human as a snapshot in time or as a sum of its experiences both past and potential. This, I think, is why people who are religiously minded tend to see the debate differently to atheists. An atheist tends to live more in the moment, whereas your theist is very much more used to thinking of the universe stretching out beyond their lifetimes from the perspective of an imortal soul. Crude generalisations, of course, but I believe there is some truth in it nonetheless.

In this thread I have gone out of my way not to denigrate religious values. I have a lot of respect for these values. I only ask that the minority don't try and impose their values on everyone else by the force of law.

<rant>
But if you are going to go down this path of crude generalization, the large difference between the religious and atheists on societal issues is that religious people are told what to think and told not to question, non-theists think for themselves. So it is difficult to have a discussion because how can you have rational debates with those that are told what to think instead of how to think? At least Christians are told to be moral, not because being a good person is a reward in itself (which I believe), but because of a fear of punishment in the afterlife (which may or may not exist and even if the afterlife does exist the afterlife you believe in may be the wrong one) which makes no sense to me. Religious moral codes, which may have made sense in the time they were created (e.g. no women priests, kosher rules, rules on sex, Islamic dress rules etc.) but because people are supposed to "obey without question" they can become hopelessly outdated.
</rant>

Anyway I am not sure we are really that far apart here. If I am understanding you correctly it sounds like you are not an anti-abortion absolutist...but you believe abortion at any time is wrong. Is that correct? I think in these discussions we can get hung up on the 10% we disagree on instead of the 90% we do agree on...and I think this is, especially in the US, a problem with politics in general.

[orathaic]

So we are largely arguing about an issue (normal pregnancies aborted by choice after viability) which very rarely if ever happens.

No, we are arguing about an important matter of principle. If you believe the unborn child never reaches a stage of development where it should be allowed rights then there should be no restrictions on abortions. If you believe that the unborn child does reach a stage where it should have rights, then the argument becomes how best to balance the rights between the child and the mother.

The right for a human to live always must trump the right for a human to choose how to live, so the crucial factor becomes when you believe the unborn child to be human. Sexism has nothing to do with it.

That is just plain wrong. "the right to live must always trump the right for a human to choose how to live"?

Let us take the many cases of less than 21 week pregnancies. If you remove the fetus it dies. If you leave it where it is, it risks harming the host.

This is entirely comparable to a situation where my brother is in a car accident and needs a blood donation to survive. It is illegal to force me to give blood, even if that means he dies. You can NEVER use someone as a life support system for another being, without consent.

[Octavious]

Well, in my opinion we are arguing about a "phantom menace". I am saying he idea that there are hordes of women deciding to abort their baby on a whim at 20+ weeks is a myth. As I have said many times in this thread my belief is that until the baby is born the rights of the fetus are subservient to the rights of the mother. Obviously if a healthy baby can be delivered now and there is no/minimal health risk to the mother, then an abortion doesn't make sense and shouldn't be happening. But I believe these decisions should be made between the doctor and patient with guidelines set down by the medical community, not as some arbitrary lines set through the criminal code. I am not sure what comment you are replying to when you say "Sexism has nothing to do with it" so I will ignore that for now.

Unless I'm mistaken the only one discussing the idea of hordes of women deciding to abort at 20+ weeks is yourself. I'm not aware of anyone who believes this myth.

With regard to the decision being made by the doctor and the patient, clearly the idea is that they come to some agreement. If they do not, who do you propose has the final call? The sexism comment was relating to the line of argument you get from people like Ora who go on and on about prolifers being a bunch or rabid woman haters.

Of course, there are some pro-abortion extremists who are now arguing that abortion is a virtue (e.g. Michelle Wolf's "Salute To Abortion").

Yes, let's ignore the fruitcakes :)

I don't know about you but I think there is something seriously wrong that one of the richest countries in the world have so many citizens that are so poor that they have to rely on this to survive.

I agree. But I believe the abortion debate should be kept separate from America's inability to run even the most basic welfare systems.

Of course the other major thing which would reduce abortions is better access to contraception...but so many in the "right to life" movement are such absolutists about sex we can't be as effective as we could be about providing easy access to it. Abstinence education is a fantasy. Rightly or wrongly, people are always going to have sex. We need to create policies that reflect reality, not fantasy.

Some right to life people are, some aren't. It is a different issue and people will argue different ways on it. I am in full agreement with you on access to contraception.

I only ask that the minority don't try and impose their values on everyone else by the force of law.

The trouble is that "wanting people to not impose values on others" is in itself a value you hold which you want to impose on others . "If only people would just behave like what I think they should, the world would be a much better place", said everyone ever

the large difference between the religious and atheists on societal issues is that religious people are told what to think and told not to question, non-theists think for themselves.

Lol! If you truly thought for yourself it wouldn't take you long to convince yourself of the utter nonsense of that statement

So it is difficult to have a discussion because how can you have rational debates with those that are told what to think instead of how to think?

No, what you are doing here is abandoning reason and instead looking for excuses not to listen to the other side :)

because people are supposed to "obey without question" they can become hopelessly outdated

Yes, we're well and truly away with the fairies here. Obey without question? Gosh. Do you know many religious people? Deary me.

[Octavious]

Anyway I am not sure we are really that far apart here. If I am understanding you correctly it sounds like you are not an anti-abortion absolutist...but you believe abortion at any time is wrong. Is that correct? I think in these discussions we can get hung up on the 10% we disagree on instead of the 90% we do agree on...and I think this is, especially in the US, a problem with politics in general.

I must really start getting into the habit of putting my positions at the top of all my posts so that people don't forget them.

I believe that abortion should be legal for the first 24 months of pregnancy (with that length of time open to alteration as and when better scientific data comes along). I believe that abortion is an evil, can can be the lesser of the two evils the woman is faced with. I believe that that all women seeking an abortion should be given councilling and should be made aware of all the alternatives avaliable prior to making that choice. I believe that ideally the view of the potential father should be sought whenever practicable, but ultimately the potential mother has the call.

I also believe that those who argue on the pro-life side are made up overwhelmingly of good people who are arguing with the best of intentions. I find the demonisation of them as woman hating monsters abhorrent, and I find the treatment of pro-life women as either idiots or brainwashed slaves to the patriachy somewhat revolting.

[Octavious]

This is entirely comparable to a situation where my brother is in a car accident and needs a blood donation to survive. It is illegal to force me to give blood, even if that means he dies. You can NEVER use someone as a life support system for another being, without consent.

That has to be one of the silliest things I've seen you write. It is not remotely comparable to that.

[Jamiet99uk]

@Octavious:

If you believe that the right to live trumps other rights, do you agree that organ donation, in the event of death, should be mandatory? That is, when a patient dies, should hospitals automatically have the legal right to take organs from the body of that patient, to be used to save other lives?

I do firmly believe in such a position btw.

[Octavious]

@Octavious:

If you believe that the right to live trumps other rights, do you agree that organ donation, in the event of death, should be mandatory? That is, when a patient dies, should hospitals automatically have the legal right to take organs from the body of that patient, to be used to save other lives?

I do firmly believe in such a position btw.

No. The idea of having an organ inside me that used to be part of a man who hated the idea of transplants would be deeply troubling. I am in favour of an opt out system, though.

[Jamiet99uk]

The idea of having an organ inside me that used to be part of a man who hated the idea of transplants would be deeply troubling.

So troubling that your own death would be a preferable outcome?

[Jamiet99uk]

I mean seriously?

"I am worried that the organ donor might not have wanted to give up that organ. Please allow me to die."

[Jamiet99uk]

Hang on, Octavious…

Why does the right to live trump other rights in the case of abortion, but not in the case of organ donation?

Isn't that rather hypocritical?

[orathaic]

This is entirely comparable to a situation where my brother is in a car accident and needs a blood donation to survive. It is illegal to force me to give blood, even if that means he dies. You can NEVER use someone as a life support system for another being, without consent.

That has to be one of the silliest things I've seen you write. It is not remotely comparable to that.

So you are in favour of allowing men be forced into used as a life support system?

You can very simply argue that a fetus has a right to life, but not to the environment of any particular person's uterus, and if they want to remove it, they are not then responcible for keeping it alive.

[orathaic]

Hang on, Octavious…

Why does the right to live trump other rights in the case of abortion, but not in the case of organ donation?

Isn't that rather hypocritical?

Yes it is. Because the 'right to life' only seems to be applied in the sense Octavious is using when it is about controlling women's bodies.

[Octavious]

I mean seriously?

"I am worried that the organ donor might not have wanted to give up that organ. Please allow me to die."

It's so black and white to you, isn't it? Firstly the situation you describe is unrealistic. The work carried out by organs can be replicated on a temporary basis by machines. The do or die scenario you describe doesn't exist. It would be a case of do or experience unwellness for an extended period, with an increased risk of death. A very different prospect.

But yes, even if they were cases of life and death I would be very hesitant before going down this route. Consider what you lose. As it stands every recipient of a donation knows they are the grateful beneficiary of a generous gift. Force everyone to surrender their organs and, for the sake of a tiny number of extra organs that may not even be needed, you throw away the humanity of the donation that provides great comfort for the patient in recovery and the family of the person who died.

[Jamiet99uk]

I mean seriously?

"I am worried that the organ donor might not have wanted to give up that organ. Please allow me to die."

It's so black and white to you, isn't it? Firstly the situation you describe is unrealistic. The work carried out by organs can be replicated on a temporary basis by machines. The do or die scenario you describe doesn't exist. It would be a case of do or experience unwellness for an extended period, with an increased risk of death. A very different prospect.

But yes, even if they were cases of life and death I would be very hesitant before going down this route. Consider what you lose. As it stands every recipient of a donation knows they are the grateful beneficiary of a generous gift. Force everyone to surrender their organs and, for the sake of a tiny number of extra organs that may not even be needed, you throw away the humanity of the donation that provides great comfort for the patient in recovery and the family of the person who died.

I'd honestly rather more people's lives were saved, thanks.

[Octavious]

Hang on, Octavious…

Why does the right to live trump other rights in the case of abortion, but not in the case of organ donation?

Isn't that rather hypocritical?

Yes it is. Because the 'right to life' only seems to be applied in the sense Octavious is using when it is about controlling women's bodies.

For God's bloody sake. Do you know why the abortion argument is still going strong in the States? Is because of people parroting on bloody ridiculous arguments like this put people's backs up rather than trying to win them over. Whilst you're basking in the warm glow of the self-righteous consider the real damage to real lives caused by the abandonment of argument in favour of hurling insults from your ivory tower.

What do you think calling the other side woman haters achieves? The ones who actually are misogynists won't give a damn. The ones who aren't will think you're a nasty little prat and stop listening. You're supposed to be a bloody diplomacy player and yet don't seem to have picked up the most basic rules of diplomacy. You don't get anywhere by insulting anyone.

[Jamiet99uk]

It's so black and white to you, isn't it? Firstly the situation you describe is unrealistic. The work carried out by organs can be replicated on a temporary basis by machines. The do or die scenario you describe doesn't exist. It would be a case of do or experience unwellness for an extended period, with an increased risk of death. A very different prospect.

You're mistaken about this anyway. It's not a fictional, unrealistic scenario. Over 450 people died in the UK in 2016 while waiting for an organ to become available.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ortage-nhs

[Jamiet99uk]

Hang on, Octavious…

Why does the right to live trump other rights in the case of abortion, but not in the case of organ donation?

Isn't that rather hypocritical?

Yes it is. Because the 'right to life' only seems to be applied in the sense Octavious is using when it is about controlling women's bodies.

For God's bloody sake. Do you know why the abortion argument is still going strong in the States? Is because of people parroting on bloody ridiculous arguments like this put people's backs up rather than trying to win them over. Whilst you're basking in the warm glow of the self-righteous consider the real damage to real lives caused by the abandonment of argument in favour of hurling insults from your ivory tower.

What do you think calling the other side woman haters achieves? The ones who actually are misogynists won't give a damn. The ones who aren't will think you're a nasty little prat and stop listening. You're supposed to be a bloody diplomacy player and yet don't seem to have picked up the most basic rules of diplomacy. You don't get anywhere by insulting anyone.

Answer the question, then. You appear to be a hypocrite. You hold that in the case of abortions, the right to life is paramount. You hold that in the case of organ donation, it is not.