Abortion

Eugenius said:
The only difference there is the attitude of the parents. Which I'd argue is not the arbiter of the worth of a foetus, or child to be.

The hypothetically aborted 'cells'/foetus etc will also eventually grow into a human life.
Click to expand...

You don't say it to someone who'd just had a miscarriage because it would be insensitive and rude.

Just because you aren't an asshole, who says things like that to people who are already upset, doesn't mean you don't believe it's a mass of cells.
 
KirkDuyt said:
I think at the end of the day it's simple. If you are against abortion, don't have one. But leave pregnant women to make that choice for themselves.
Click to expand...

Even with pro-choicers, there is a line beyond which this choice cannot be made by the mother anymore (for example, beyond viability). But overall this is where I stand. Maybe in the future we'll have artificial wombs where unwanted fetuses can be nurtured until "birth".
 
Withnail said:
You don't say it to someone who'd just had a miscarriage because it would be insensitive and rude.

Just because you aren't an asshole, who says things like that to people who are already upset, doesn't mean you don't believe it's a mass of cells.
Click to expand...

The point I'm making is why the miscarriage victim would be upset in the first place. It's about not what the foetus is but what it will become.
 
Eugenius said:
The point I'm making is why the miscarriage victim would be upset in the first place. It's about not what the foetus is but what it will become.
Click to expand...

That doesn't make any sense to me.

Someone who wanted a baby would also be upset if they were trying for 6 months and hadn't gotten pregnant yet.

The physical reality isn't going to change due to how people feel about it.
 
Eugenius said:
It's not bizarre at all. It's fairly simple logic which I think you'd rather call bizarre than engage with.

And 'possible' = very highly likely left undisturbed will in several months be an 'actual' human being.

I'm not equating abortion and miscarriage. What I am doing is highlighting the flaws in your underlying argument that you should be indifferent to the life of a developing foetus because of its stage of development.
Click to expand...
It’s developing. It doesn’t deserve the same rights as a developed human. It’s that simple. For that reason alone, the two are not equatable from a rights’ perspective.

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. But don’t restrict someone else from having one.
 
calodo2003 said:
It’s developing. It doesn’t deserve the same rights as a developed human
Click to expand...

Legally, an unborn child doesn't have independent rights as the law defines a life when living independently from its mother.

For example, person A stabs pregnant person B and the unborn child dies as a result of the actions of person A. Person A cannot be indicted for murder.

However, if the child was born alive after the stabbing yet later died as result of the actions of person A (direct injury or premature birth) person A could face a manslaughter charge.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to the debate but it's interesting nevertheless
 
Widow said:
Legally, an unborn child doesn't have independent rights as the law defines a life when living independently from its mother.

For example, person A stabs pregnant person B and the unborn child dies as a result of the actions of person A. Person A cannot be indicted for murder.

However, if the child was born alive after the stabbing yet later died as result of the actions of person A (direct injury or premature birth) person A could face a manslaughter charge.

I'm not sure how relevant this is to the debate but it's interesting nevertheless
Click to expand...
There are unborn child rights in some more puritanical states in this country in relation to murder / manslaughter, but I believe they are geared more towards the third trimester / much closer to birth. For the most part, I agree with these laws.

But, we could very easily tip into the lunacy of someone being charged with such if the states who have these new insane anti-abortion laws after six weeks are left unchecked. It’s only a matter of time such insane thumper wishes get codified further into law. It’s only a matter of time before the rights of the being formed get on the same level as the rights of the formed with such idiocy being championed.
 
calodo2003 said:
There are unborn child rights in some more puritanical states in this country
Click to expand...

Are you in the US?

If so, we share the common law system. In case law (A-G Ref NO. 3 OF 1994 [1997 ] 3 All ER 936) could be used as a defence.

There are differences what is morally right (natural law) and what is right in the eyes of common law.

Personally, I believe it should be the right of the parent to decide on the course of action they take, they will have to live with their decision either way.
 
Widow said:
Are you in the US?

If so, we share the common law system. In case law (A-G Ref NO. 3 OF 1994 [1997 ] 3 All ER 936) could be used as a defence.

There are differences what is morally right (natural law) and what is right in the eyes of common law.

Personally, I believe it should be the right of the parent to decide on the course of action they take, they will have to live with their decision either way.
Click to expand...
In the states.

There are manslaughter laws involving the unborn in this country in a few states.
 
calodo2003 said:
It’s developing. It doesn’t deserve the same rights as a developed human. It’s that simple. For that reason alone, the two are not equatable from a rights’ perspective.

Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. But don’t restrict someone else from having one.
Click to expand...

In your view at what stage of development does a child earn 'full' rights and why? Your argument is literally 'because I said so'.

In that case how do you rank the rights of 1) a baby one day prior to birth, 2) a baby one day after birth and 3) a fully developed child who is no longer a physical burden on their parent?
 
There is a wide spectrum of opinions on this so its very difficult to come with the exact right moral stance. I am fully pro choice up to viability. After that it should be a for a good reason otherwise suck it up and let it live. Like health concerns or a serious medical condition affecting the fetus. I appreciate the laws against full or late term abortions.

Personally I don't consider rape a good reason. The baby is fully innocent so it falls it the same category for me as I can't afford it, or I just don't want it, which should be aborted before the stage when the baby can be taken out and live.

What I don't get is the view that at fertilization/conception a foetus is the same as a live baby and that I am forced to carry it to term. I can't be convinced that the foetus I took out at 10 weeks (besides the point I am making but in my case it was for health reasons and felt disappointment rather than grief) is the same as going up to a live baby lying there minding it's business and killing it. One is a foetus that is an inseparable part of my body, affecting my body and health, and hence my choice to do with it as I see fit and the other is an independent child.
 
Eugenius said:
In your view at what stage of development does a child earn 'full' rights and why? Your argument is literally 'because I said so'.

In that case how do you rank the rights of 1) a baby one day prior to birth, 2) a baby one day after birth and 3) a fully developed child who is no longer a physical burden on their parent?
Click to expand...
This has been determined by those in the actual field of law. They have determined when humans of varying degrees of development gain their rights.

At no point does a gestating fetus have the same amount, width, & breadth of laws that a birthed baby or an adult has. And rightfully so.

To think that a fetus, especially one in its early stages, deserves such is absolutely bizarre.

To me personally, a fetus should be given ‘full’ rights at birth.
 
Eugenius said:
The point I'm making is why the miscarriage victim would be upset in the first place. It's about not what the foetus is but what it will become.
Click to expand...

As somebody who witnessed a lioness I was caring for miscarriage, and being torn up about it for many months; I can only imagine the pain a human female must go through when her own fecking baby growing inside her doesn't make it and the horrific amount of blame she must place on herself.
 
Redlyn said:
There is a wide spectrum of opinions on this so its very difficult to come with the exact right moral stance. I am fully pro choice up to viability. After that it should be a for a good reason otherwise suck it up and let it live. Like health concerns or a serious medical condition affecting the fetus. I appreciate the laws against full or late term abortions.

Personally I don't consider rape a good reason. The baby is fully innocent so it falls it the same category for me as I can't afford it, or I just don't want it, which should be aborted before the stage when the baby can be taken out and live.

What I don't get is the view that at fertilization/conception a foetus is the same as a live baby and that I am forced to carry it to term. I can't be convinced that the foetus I took out at 10 weeks (besides the point I am making but in my case it was for health reasons and felt disappointment rather than grief) is the same as going up to a live baby lying there minding it's business and killing it. One is a foetus that is an inseparable part of my body, affecting my body and health, and hence my choice to do with it as I see fit and the other is an independent child.
Click to expand...

Wow.
 
SirAF said:
Wow.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your very helpful input. I hope at least you got the context. I am pro abortions in general up to a certain stage. I don't consider rape a reason to have a late term abortion.
 
Redlyn said:
Thanks for your very helpful input. I hope at least you got the context. I am pro abortions in general but i don't consider rape a reason to have a late term abortion.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but fair enough. I’m certain a rape victim can be traumatized and might not be capable of making a decision early enough.
 
Redlyn said:
There is a wide spectrum of opinions on this so its very difficult to come with the exact right moral stance. I am fully pro choice up to viability. After that it should be a for a good reason otherwise suck it up and let it live. Like health concerns or a serious medical condition affecting the fetus. I appreciate the laws against full or late term abortions.

Personally I don't consider rape a good reason. The baby is fully innocent so it falls it the same category for me as I can't afford it, or I just don't want it, which should be aborted before the stage when the baby can be taken out and live.

What I don't get is the view that at fertilization/conception a foetus is the same as a live baby and that I am forced to carry it to term. I can't be convinced that the foetus I took out at 10 weeks (besides the point I am making but in my case it was for health reasons and felt disappointment rather than grief) is the same as going up to a live baby lying there minding it's business and killing it. One is a foetus that is an inseparable part of my body, affecting my body and health, and hence my choice to do with it as I see fit and the other is an independent child.
Click to expand...
I tend to stay away from these type of threads but from time to time there is such an affront to decency of a post it needs pointing out. Absolutely deplorable morality from what I assume is a grown up living in a civilized society.
 
SirAF said:
I disagree, but fair enough. I’m certain a rape victim can be traumatized and might not be capable of making a decision early enough.
Click to expand...

So basically you feel abortion should be allowed up to a day before the child is due because the mother was raped? And this child who can already exist perfectly well outside if she'd let it come out should pay the price for that? I feel a lime needs to be drawn. And for the me the line is viability. It seems to me morally fair also to the unborn child who is completely innocent in all this.
 
jackal&hyde said:
I tend to stay away from these type of threads but from time to time there is such an affront to decency of a post it needs pointing out. Absolutely deplorable morality from what I assume is a grown up living in a civilized society.
Click to expand...

For you it's morally fair to the child that a mother day before being due aborts an innocent healthy baby due to the circumstances of their conception. And you think you can lecture me about morality. Sorry, not having it.
 
Redlyn said:
So basically you feel abortion should be allowed up to a day before the child is due because the mother was raped? And this child who can already exist perfectly well outside if she'd let it come out should pay the price for that? I feel a lime needs to be drawn. And for the me the line is viability. It seems to me morally fair also to the unborn child who is completely innocent in all this.
Click to expand...

C’mon, man, that’s arguing in bad faith. No one is saying that, but if you are allowing a late abortion due to medical reasons then you should also allow late abortions due to the mental trauma of being raped. The legal last chance limits are not up to me to debate - I just think it’s deplorable to say that rape is «not a good enough reason».
 
SirAF said:
C’mon, man, that’s arguing in bad faith. No one is saying that, but if you are allowing a late abortion due to medical reasons then you should also allow late abortions due to the mental trauma of being raped. The legal last chance limits are not up to me to debate - I just think it’s deplorable to say that rape is «not a good enough reason».
Click to expand...

It was not meant in bad faith. I just presented the most extreme position to advance the discussion so that we can reach an agreement that there is a line where abortion really is not justifiable even for rape cases. Which is the part of the point I am making. Basically at a certain stage in a pregnancy, I dont feel rape is not a good enough reason to select abortion over delivery. We dont have to agree the exact stage.

Now lets get to the other part of the point. Which is the distinction between medical reasons and rape.
One reason to allow abortions at a late stage is the health of the baby. If the baby is diagnosed with a serious medical condition, where it can't survive then at that point it should be possible to abort. There is the question if the doctors have the right to decide survivability but assuming they are accurate I can accept termination due to this as the loss of the baby is inevitable either way.
Second one is the mother having a condition where delivery actually puts their life/health at risk, abortion is the safe option to safeguard the life of the mother.

I dont see rape as equivalent to these 2 reasons. I think the discussion at a certain late stage should be about delivery even pre-term, not abortion.

Anyway, it's my moral stance from a non-victim and non-medical perspective, so I stand to be corrected.
 
Last edited:
Reading this thread I sort of understand why folks say "No uterus, no opinion".

I mean really.. How many late-term abortions do we think are being had because suddenly the mother thought... "Ah I am tired of this little shit, let me get rid of it"?
 
Is it more or less abhorrent when a woman has an abortion of a child the father wants, or when the father decides not to be in the child's life after it's born?
 
Should the man have a say in abortion, legally? Say if its a one night stand?
 
bsCallout said:
Is it more or less abhorrent when a woman has an abortion of a child the father wants, or when the father decides not to be in the child's life after it's born?
Click to expand...
I seen a question asked today to a woman, who actually agreed.. in a world where a woman can have an abortion without consulting the father to be, should a father to be, be able to "opt out" of parenthood and associated child support payments in the reverse scenario?

Honestly didn't know what to think.
 
arnie_ni said:
I seen a question asked today to a woman, who actually agreed.. in a world where a woman can have an abortion without consulting the father to be, should a father to be, be able to "opt out" of parenthood and associated child support payments in the reverse scenario?

Honestly didn't know what to think.
Click to expand...

As in you don't know what the answer is?
 
bsCallout said:
As in you don't know what the answer is?
Click to expand...
As in I think its despicable that any parent would knowingly duck out on a kid without at the very least paying their way but, should they be allowed to if they didn't want the kid? I'd never thought about it until I seen that today.
 
LungiDevil said:
Reading this thread I sort of understand why folks say "No uterus, no opinion".

I mean really.. How many late-term abortions do we think are being had because suddenly the mother thought... "Ah I am tired of this little shit, let me get rid of it"?
Click to expand...
I'd wager nowhere near enough that it should even be relevant to the argument.

Most, you hope/assume, at that stage would carry through and put the child up for adoption.
 
arnie_ni said:
As in I think its despicable that any parent would knowingly duck out on a kid without at the very least paying their way but, should they be allowed to if they didn't want the kid? I'd never thought about it until I seen that today.
Click to expand...

It seems it's 'understandable' when the woman doesn't want to keep it and has an abortion but what's to say the man didn't really want that child?
Yet when the roles are switched there is no sympathy for the man if they decide from day one they don't want the child and want nothong to do with it.

And I don't know what's right because I've always held the view the man should step up, at the same time I believe(d) the woman should be able to decide but it's so hypocritical to think like that.
 
bsCallout said:
It seems it's 'understandable' when the woman doesn't want to keep it and has an abortion but what's to say the man didn't really want that child?
Yet when the roles are switched there is no sympathy for the man if they decide from day one they don't want the child and want nothong to do with it.

And I don't know what's right because I've always held the view the man should step up, at the same time I believe(d) the woman should be able to decide but it's so hypocritical to think like that.
Click to expand...
I think we're in agreement
 
bsCallout said:
It seems it's 'understandable' when the woman doesn't want to keep it and has an abortion but what's to say the man didn't really want that child?
Yet when the roles are switched there is no sympathy for the man if they decide from day one they don't want the child and want nothong to do with it.

And I don't know what's right because I've always held the view the man should step up, at the same time I believe(d) the woman should be able to decide but it's so hypocritical to think like that.
Click to expand...

(a) Women should not be forced to keep the pregnancy they don't want.

(b) Men should not be forced to be a parent when they don't want

In a society, until you have (a) fully unequivocally true, (b) cannot be implemented as it would only further marginalize the same women, who if not legally are morally bullied into parenthood.

So you think you reproductive rights are being infringed? Stand in line.
 
Eugenius said:
In your view at what stage of development does a child earn 'full' rights and why? Your argument is literally 'because I said so'.

In that case how do you rank the rights of 1) a baby one day prior to birth, 2) a baby one day after birth and 3) a fully developed child who is no longer a physical burden on their parent?
Click to expand...

Not "full rights", but abortion, IMO, should begin to be limited when the brain stem is almost fully developed, can control bodily functions, and brain structures begin to show the level of complexity required for human thought (such as REM sleep and left and right hemispheres develop).
 
arnie_ni said:
I seen a question asked today to a woman, who actually agreed.. in a world where a woman can have an abortion without consulting the father to be, should a father to be, be able to "opt out" of parenthood and associated child support payments in the reverse scenario?
Click to expand...

No, never.

The sheer intensity of 9-months of pregnancy serves as a natural mechanism that (theoretically) forces every single women to think through every act of sex. The existence of abortion in no way removes that mechanism because abortion is an intense experience in and of itself with sometimes long-lasting effects.

To balance this, men need to always be financially responsible for any child they father in order to also provide a mechanism that (theoretically) should force every man to think through consequences before choosing to have sex.

If people want to have a lot of sex with multiple partners and not have kids, practice smart contraception, partner selection and/or just get themselves "fixed" so they won't have to worry about having a kid by mistake.
 
calodo2003 said:
This has been determined by those in the actual field of law. They have determined when humans of varying degrees of development gain their rights.

At no point does a gestating fetus have the same amount, width, & breadth of laws that a birthed baby or an adult has. And rightfully so.

To think that a fetus, especially one in its early stages, deserves such is absolutely bizarre.

To me personally, a fetus should be given ‘full’ rights at birth.
Click to expand...

Seriously stop hiding behind the word bizarre when I'm just trying to engage you with actual logic and it's quite evident you have no intention of actually being self-critical.

Your argument that because it says so in the law is completely circular. There are term limits on abortion (at least in the UK) which limit when you can get an abortion for non medical reasons. In many countries abortion is illegal outright, or heavily restricted.
 
bsCallout said:
Is that the wrong word?
Click to expand...
Not if you think it isn't and that's what you want to express. It's pretty fecking extreme though and saying "does something inspire more or less loathing" is not exactly an unloaded question.
Is chicken parmesan more or less repugnant when...
 
Eugenius said:
In that case how do you rank the rights of 1) a baby one day prior to birth, 2) a baby one day after birth and 3) a fully developed child who is no longer a physical burden on their parent?
Click to expand...


What's the real world problem we're trying to solve with this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.