Is being able to live a happy, healthy, autonomous life with the ability to make your own choices regarding the body you were born with not a right either?
Abortion is the one issue I've never been able to come to a final position on. Part of it is the history of eugenics, my greatgrandmother was nearly sterilized due to eugenic programs due to mental health issues, and so forcing an abortion on someone is obviously unethical. If abortion is legal, not having the mother being the final choice, thus, is unethical as forcing someone to not have an abortion and raise a child, especially if the conception was non-consensual, is also unethical.
But my brother was nearly aborted until my Mom re-decided, so I am honestly stuck since a fetus is going to become a human. If we could somehow transfer the fetus to an artificial womb or something, then I think it would be the position I can support. The mother is not forced to lose control of her own life, and the fetus is not exterminated.
At least in real-life, I don't like talking about it, so I hope it goes better here, since every time I get yelled at for both sides for not fully following the pro-life or pro-choice debate points. I am just, honestly, at a point where I cannot justify abortion but I can't justify the loss of autonomy either.
Is being able to live a happy, healthy, autonomous life with the ability to make your own choices regarding the body you were born with not a right either?
So the baby doesn't get the choice, either? Did you ask them, whether they want to live?
So the baby doesn't get the choice, either? Did you ask them, whether they want to live?
Amazing, that a portion of our population cares more about the well being of something that has no feelings or desires and hasn't even taken a single breath of oxygen with its own still developing lungs, over the well being of the living, breathing woman with her own wants and needs that will be the one actually giving birth to the child you wouldn't even be taking care of yourself.
So the baby doesn't get the choice, either? Did you ask them, whether they want to live?
What baby?? Abortion isn't killing a baby. It's a bunch of cells without a brain, not a baby. Your argument is like saying masturbating is murder and you didn't ask your sperm if they want to be a baby in the future or not. You can't ask a person that doesn't exist whether they want to live. Otherwise your only way to prevent murder would be to have sex and conceive all the time to birth all the people that *could* have lived but never did to begin with
Amazing, that a portion of our population cares more about the well being of something that has no feelings or desires and hasn't even taken a single breath of oxygen with its own still developing lungs, over the well being of the living, breathing woman with her own wants and needs that will be the one actually giving birth to the child you wouldn't even be taking care of yourself.
A fetus is still human, and it will develop into something that will have feelings or desires. I don't understand the morality of this argument. This isn't an infertile egg or sperm, but a developing, living thing.
A fetus is still human, and it will develop into something that will have feelings or desires. I don't understand the morality of this argument.
As opposed to someone who already is a thinking, feeling human? People who gets their life ruined by an unwanted child, which at that point isn't even human, because a third-party who doesn't have to deal with the consequences of their actions wanted them to have the child.
So the baby doesn't get the choice, either? Did you ask them, whether they want to live?
Have you tried to ask a baby, ever? They don't understand you or what you want! That's why their parents get to make all of the choices for their children until they're mature enough to make their own decisions!
Have you tried to ask a baby, ever? They don't understand you or what you want! That's why their parents get to make all of the choices for their children until they're mature enough to make their own decisions!
So, let women have the right to choose!
Considering that abortions are legal only up to a certain point, that's not the case. Its not like abortions are conducted in the late stages of pregnancy anyways.
A fetus is still human, and it will develop into something that will have feelings or desires. I don't understand the morality of this argument.
And the woman carrying it already has feelings and desires. Do her feelings matter less than the thing that isn't even born yet? Not to mention that your stance assumes that every single fetus will survive to term, without any defects that may result in an early death after birth or a life of health complications. Even with modern medicine, it's not "will develop", it's "can develop." It's a chance to live at all, much less to live a good life. And there's also accidents, shit happens, people die, including children. You argue in favor of the uncertainty of an unborn life, over the certainty of a currently existing life, one that's already developed and part of the world.
Have you considered the repercussions of making abortion illegal, or even of your idea of transplanting the fetus into another womb? We already have over 100,000 orphans in need of homes, do we really need to forcibly bring even more children into the world that the mother either doesn't want or can't support? Not only are you potentially ruining the lives of women you don't even know, you're potentially forcing children to be born into lives of hardship and strife because "they're human and have the right to live."
Everyone wants to act like this is a simple "life vs death" argument, but it's not. What are any of you doing to support those children you demand to be born, even at the expense of the mother? Are you going to adopt them? Are you going to support the women, often teens, you're forcing to be mothers? Donating to charity only goes so far. Most won't even do that much. They'll just shout "Baby murderers!" and then wash their hands of the whole affair. It's cruel.
So my brother gets to not exist because at some point and time someone told my mother the fetus will have cerebral palsy? Because at some point he was a malformed group of cells without a functional brain? That it would be okay to exterminate him otherwise because he will be a burden on his parents, the old argument that the invalid of society should be exterminated because of how they are unwanted and not people?
This argument about sperm and eggs is a distraction, this isn't about the morality of preventing life from forming in the first place. The fetus is existent and developing.
I feel just as much for the mother who is forced to have or abort a child, but this idea we can ethically disregard the matter of the fetus when we talk about rights is hypocrisy in my eyes. Someone being a burden isn't cause enough to murder them.
That's the whole point. Let the mother/both parents decide whether to get an abortion or not and not force either. There's little difference between banning aborrtions and forcing them under certain circumstances. If they want to have the child despite any possible malformations and potentially short life expectancy, then it's their right to keep it. If they want to abort simply because they aren't ready for a child, then it's just as much their right to do so.
"The fetus did nothing wrong" is not a valid argument when little Suzy is 3 months pregnant with her father's child. "Just give them up for adoption" is also not a valid argument when the fetus is malformed and/or attached outside the uterus and each day will increases the risk of death of it and the mother. Nor should the mother be held accountable for the lack of information her parents gave her about reproduction due to her upbringing.
If you don't like abortion, do not get one. I don't like drinking beer but I am not going to picket outside of bars calling those who serve alcohol monsters and guilty of poisoning others. Christians who call it against the teachings of God are the worst since they ignore that the bible gives a step by step method on how to induce a miscarriage.
I don't understand what you want, then, if its not eugenics. if we can develop a method of making it so that the fetus is not destroyed and the unwilling mother is no longer burdened, why would you advocate for it anyways.
I don't advocate for it. I would love a world where abortion wasn't necessary. But before we start looking into a world where there is no abortion, we need to solve the problems those of us that have already been born are facing, instead of exacerbating them with forced births.
What I advocate is choice. That's what this argument is. It is not "the right to live vs the right to kill" it is the right to choose vs the lack of any choice. And despite your claims to be undecided, you sound very Pro-life to me. Really, you're actually comparing the Pro-Choice movement to a movement in favor of eugenics. That's fucked.
Have you tried to ask a baby, ever? They don't understand you or what you want! That's why their parents get to make all of the choices for their children until they're mature enough to make their own decisions!
So, let women have the right to choose!
By that reasoning, would you support euthanizing one, two, three year olds? They can't make their own decisions wither.
What baby?? Abortion isn't killing a baby. It's a bunch of cells without a brain, not a baby.
That depends on how permissive some hypothetical legislation people want. In some places would certainly allow to kill some stillborn person with a brain.
Your argument is like saying masturbating is murder and you didn't ask your sperm if they want to be a baby in the future or not.
Well, the people who defend the position for religious reasons do believe that, although it's not really the case for me (a sin I might be often guilty of myself).
I just sometime get shocked by the callous, cold-hearted nature of the positions some people take. There are some people who say things like "meat is murder", and refuse to even eat things like eggs or drink milk, while others (or sometimes possibly even the same people) will gladly exterminate some creature with the same 23 chromosomes, that they share half their genes with, their own creation, and say it's their absolute right. It's baffling, really.
By that reasoning, would you support euthanizing one, two, three year olds? They can't make their own decisions wither.
The Bible certainly encouraged it a lot. Kill the babies of your enemies, take their daughters as your wives. Kill your children if they are disobedient, etc.
What frustrates me to no end isn't the fact that I'm neither overtly part of the Pro-Life or Pro-Choice camps and it's not that I disagree with effectively everyone on the issue... It's that despite there being hundreds of millions of people that might offer some remotely nuanced or robust opinion involving literally any key attributes accurately defining "life", perception, or otherwise meaningful being. No one has offered some objective science or study OR some relativistic philosophy or ethic. It's all incessant b****ing on a topic that everyone hardly understands, but thinks they're somehow enlightened for having the same half-baked opinion that millions of other people have.
I recall the last time this country encountered a group of people dehumanize, that is, strip human potential from, something so as to remove the sympathetic element and justify any sort of manipulation or treatment of that thing for their own benefit. At least, that was the interpretation. We fought a war in an effort to determine what is a proper way of thinking in that case, though I pray we can avoid it for this one because I don't see a "correct" answer.
I agree with the legal assessment even though I remain troubled by the outcome's ramifications. If abortion was to be treated like an other right codified in the Constitution, Row v Wade was more of a hinderance than a benefit. Take: the First Amendment? not only does it exist by itself, but there were later added guards and clarifications against abuses of its practice. The Second Amendment? work in progress, some would say, but it does allow to append guards and provisions that attempt to regulate against abuse. Abortion: if on that same level as the Amendments, it defies conversation because Roe v Wade is considered its argument stopper rather than a diving board. Different stats have different policies for abortion but that doesn't matter because Roe v Wade, end discussion. Good legislation and good case law should be the cornerstone of some greater structure, not a brick wall into which all dissertation crashes and breaks. There are things that would be impossible to legally strip away because there's too much interdependence and development of law around those topics over the years. Roe v Wade was considered unconstructively untouchable.
And finally, there's the expected flag with a bullshit reason behind it. I'm honestly kinda surprised it took a whole nine hours, compared to the way post #3938370 got flagged in just 20 minutes. The whiny snowflakes on this site must be losing their edge.
And finally, there's the expected flag with a bullshit reason behind it. I'm honestly kinda surprised it took a whole nine hours, compared to the way post #3938370 got flagged in just 20 minutes. The whiny snowflakes on this site must be losing their edge.
Let's not try to aggravate things. Given how controversial events are, that we only got one flag is pretty much a blessing. I remember the old flagging wars that went on for months over this.
Did, not convinced. The only points I see are the social programs and sex education. On social programs I'm not personally opposed to them in general, however I could go either way; for sex education I'd say that's already been done, we need to encourage people to actually use condoms or one of the many other forms of birth control. Also the whole thing shoots itself in the foot with potential human life is worth less than feelings.
My big problem is that it makes assumptions about the stances pro-life people would take. The "If you are x, why don't you y" especially comes across as condescending to people. Not to mention saying, "these people have been sent mutilated baby corpses for years by their churches." Is really fucking putting opponents into a specific box that they have to then argue out of.
If I'm not basing my opinions on religious arguments, for example, this image doesn't apply to me or why I hold my positions.
On the bright side, all those spring breakers that have irresponsible sex every year will also pay for their "illegal" abortions. It's a Win-Win situation for other countries.
On the bright side, all those spring breakers that have irresponsible sex every year will also pay for their "illegal" abortions. It's a Win-Win situation for other countries.
They can still just go to a different state that allows it. That's funniest part of this whole thing people acting like it's an outright ban on abortion instead of the reality of it just being returned to the states for them to decide.
They can still just go to a different state that allows it. That's funniest part of this whole thing people acting like it's an outright ban on abortion instead of the reality of it just being returned to the states for them to decide.
It's not an outright ban, but it does make it so hard for so many people to obtain it that it's a de facto ban for them. Anything that requires a person to travel many hundreds of miles to get, is in most cases inaccessible to get.
It wouldn't be surprising though if we start seeing a major return of black market abortion services. Before abortions were made legal through Roe v Wade, there were countless abortions being done through illegal procedures. Something like 1 in 5 pregnant women at the time would still risk getting the procedure carried out. They could risk sterility or death getting it at the time, which was part of the reason for the initial move for legalization.
On the bright side, all those spring breakers that have irresponsible sex every year will also pay for their "illegal" abortions. It's a Win-Win situation for other countries.
What the fuck is wrong with you??
LustyForBusty said:
They can still just go to a different state that allows it. That's funniest part of this whole thing people acting like it's an outright ban on abortion instead of the reality of it just being returned to the states for them to decide.
Having to travel to a different state is the equivalent of traveling to another country if you live in Europe. Unless you live near the state line, that's several hours of driving. And if every state surrounding yours also bans it, guess you'll just have to spend a few hundred dollars on a plane ticket! I'm sure teenage girls who made one mistake can definitely afford that. On top of refusing to teach teens how to use protection, and actually giving them access to it, let's just make absolutely sure their life is ruined in a single night.
It's not an outright ban, but it does make it so hard for so many people to obtain it that it's a de facto ban for them. Anything that requires a person to travel many hundreds of miles to get, is in most cases inaccessible to get.
It wouldn't be surprising though if we start seeing a major return of black market abortion services. Before abortions were made legal through Roe v Wade, there were countless abortions being done through illegal procedures. Something like 1 in 5 pregnant women at the time would still risk getting the procedure carried out. They could risk sterility or death getting it at the time, which was part of the reason for the initial move for legalization.
A positive outcome, as far as I'm concerned. Especially if people continue to tell the dangers of illegal abortions; it might cause people to treat sex more seriously and use more reasonable things as birth control instead of murdering babies.
I was just reminded by somebody, that many states that make abortion illegal, also specifically include in the legislation that if you leave the state to get an abortion you'll still be charged with murder if you return. You literally have to move to a different fucking state if you want to get an abortion in many cases.
If you genuinely believe that banning abortion has any a silver lining, you are an idiot. Or you just enjoy watching people suffer, and considering who we're talking to, that wouldn't surprise me. No one will learn anything, people will just suffer, and it'll affect teens more than anybody else, because they aren't mature enough to make rational choices.
Having to travel to a different state is the equivalent of traveling to another country if you live in Europe. Unless you live near the state line, that's several hours of driving. And if every state surrounding yours also bans it, guess you'll just have to spend a few hundred dollars on a plane ticket! I'm sure teenage girls who made one mistake can definitely afford that. On top of refusing to teach teens how to use protection, and actually giving them access to it, let's just make absolutely sure their life is ruined in a single night.
I remember being able to go to the local clinic in my small rural Tennessee town and getting an entire bag of condoms as a youth. Also the type of parent who would allow their daughter to get an abortion is probably the kind to get them condoms in the first place. However even in that situation it would serve as an example of what having unprotected sex leads to, women have personal responsibility and should be mindful of the consequences of their actions and should be told this more often; instead of falling back on murder.
I was just reminded by somebody, that many states that make abortion illegal, also specifically include in the legislation that if you leave the state to get an abortion you'll still be charged with murder if you return. You literally have to move to a different fucking state if you want to get an abortion in many cases.
If you genuinely believe that banning abortion has any a silver lining, you are an idiot. Or you just enjoy watching people suffer, and considering who we're talking to, that wouldn't surprise me. No one will learn anything, people will just suffer, and it'll affect teens more than anybody else, because they aren't mature enough to make rational choices.
I may be wrong, but I don't think that will stand in court since you can't go after someone for doing something legal in another state as of right now, the federal government doesn't mandate its legality.
I remember being able to go to the local clinic in my small rural Tennessee town and getting an entire bag of condoms as a youth. Also the type of parent who would allow their daughter to get an abortion is probably the kind to get them condoms in the first place. However even in that situation it would serve as an example of what having unprotected sex leads to, women have personal responsibility and should be mindful of the consequences of their actions and should be told this more often; instead of falling back on murder.
Strange how you have more compassion and sympathy for a couple week old mass of unfeeling cells, but none for the mother carrying it, or for a people being unjustly murdered by a foreign invader.
Strange how you have more compassion and sympathy for a couple week old mass of unfeeling cells, but none for the mother carrying it, or for a people being unjustly murdered by a foreign invader.
I have sympathy for both, but I don't think her negative feelings on her poor life choices justifies murder.
The fact you reduce the consequences of pregnancy to "negative feelings" is proof enough you have no sincere sympathy for anyone.
If you're referring to child care then there's always adoption and there's plenty of social programs for the needy as well as charity, however I'm also of the opinion that charity alone isn't enough. Murdering someone isn't the answer. A culture that values having protected sex is the best we can possibly reach.
women have personal responsibility and should be mindful of the consequences of their actions and should be told this more often; instead of falling back on murder.
If this is going to be part of your argument, then what's your stance on making child support obligations begin at conception and stricter enforcement/harsher penalties for evading said child support? For the sake of fairness, men who get women pregnant should also face consequences that they are not allowed to evade, even if those consequences are life-ruining, shouldn't they?
If this is going to be part of your argument, then what's your stance on making child support obligations begin at conception and stricter enforcement/harsher penalties for evading said child support? For the sake of fairness, men who get women pregnant should also face consequences that they are not allowed to evade, even if those consequences are life-ruining, shouldn't they?
They should, but still ultimately sex is controlled by women and they are the ones most affected by it. So they should be the ones putting more thought into it.
They should, but still ultimately sex is controlled by women and they are the ones most affected by it. So they should be the ones putting more thought into it.
But see, we have the means to make it so that neither sex is "the one most affected by [sex]", either by allowing women to shrug off the consequences of sex almost as easily as men can (abortion), or by making sure an unplanned pregnancy causes as much trouble for the father as it does for the mother (getting on men's asses for child support in a major way). To have the means to level the playing field and not do so, and say that it's "right" for women to have to take more responsibility for their sexual encounters than their male counterparts, is a plain and simple double standard. Are you okay with that?
Also, I'd like to hear your reasoning/evidence to the claim that "sex is controlled by women", because that is not the impression I get from hearing any of the dialogue around sex in our society.
But see, we have the means to make it so that neither sex is "the one most affected by [sex]", either by allowing women to shrug off the consequences of sex almost as easily as men can (abortion), or by making sure an unplanned pregnancy causes as much trouble for the father as it does for the mother (getting on men's asses for child support in a major way). To have the means to level the playing field and not do so, and say that it's "right" for women to have to take more responsibility for their sexual encounters than their male counterparts, is a plain and simple double standard. Are you okay with that?
Also, I'd like to hear your reasoning/evidence to the claim that "sex is controlled by women", because that is not the impression I get from hearing any of the dialogue around sex in our society.
I think murdering someone because they are a "burden" to someone is deeply immoral and sounds very eugenic. Men already pay child support you could argue it's not enough, but that could be solved with joint custody or encouraging the women to actually get employed as well. Women have to responsibility to bear the child which is a biological function I would say that is solely what makes women more affected by or should anyway; because I don't think men will be birthing children anytime soon.
Women control the access to sex, if men controlled access then I doubt any of them would be virgins.
Women control the access to sex, if men controlled access then I doubt any of them would be virgins.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure all those rape victims, as well as victims of dubious consent, had full control of the situation the entire time. It's not like we have literally thousands of years of recorded history of men treating women like objects and society putting a constant pressure on women to be sexually subservient to men, in even the most puritanical groups, right?
I think murdering someone because they are a "burden" to someone is deeply immoral and sounds very eugenic. Men already pay child support you could argue it's not enough, but that could be solved with joint custody or encouraging the women to actually get employed as well. Women have to responsibility to bear the child which is a biological function I would say that is solely what makes women more affected by or should anyway; because I don't think men will be birthing children anytime soon.
Women control the access to sex, if men controlled access then I doubt any of them would be virgins.
If we go by the argument that women have the responsibility to bear the child, then we can say that they are the ones with the authority to elect not to bear the child. If we accept the former without the latter, it is a major violation of an individual's sovereignty. The idea that one party or another controls access to sex is going against both matters of non-consensual (or manipulated, abusive, or any situation where consent was compromised by another party, I don't know of a better term for this) and the nature of how sex works.
There is also the matter that as of right now, Abortion is not actually illegal on a federal level, only unprotected and thrown back to the states. Causing a weird scenario where there is about 50 different standards people who are seeking an abortion have to figure out.
Oh, yeah, I'm sure all those rape victims, as well as victims of dubious consent, had full control of the situation the entire time. It's not like we have literally thousands of years of recorded history of men treating women like objects and society putting a constant pressure on women to be sexually subservient to men, in even the most puritanical groups, right?
You are a clown.
In the modern western women most certainly control sex and the access to it. Rape exists, but is pretty uncommon and is evil. I didn't think that needed to be said.
Saladofstones said:
If we go by the argument that women have the responsibility to bear the child, then we can say that they are the ones with the authority to elect not to bear the child. If we accept the former without the latter, it is a major violation of an individual's sovereignty. The idea that one party or another controls access to sex is going against both matters of non-consensual (or manipulated, abusive, or any situation where consent was compromised by another party, I don't know of a better term for this) and the nature of how sex works.
There is also the matter that as of right now, Abortion is not actually illegal on a federal level, only unprotected and thrown back to the states. Causing a weird scenario where there is about 50 different standards people who are seeking an abortion have to figure out.
They should be force to bear the child, because has the possibility of being a full human any distinction between the two seems extremely arbitrary. It violates their right to exist, simply because the mother made poor life decisions. If it's in the case of rape I'd be fine with the use of a morning after pill, but anything after that should be off limits it's still murder and I don't think the cause of their existence should be a death sentence.
Also I repeatedly stated the fact it was just pushed back to the states. I think it's a step in the right direction, but it could go much further.
I couldn't care less about the situation over there, I just find it funny the country under the motto "In god we trust" has complains now about their government Christian sect.
However they have a point, something that people forget: asking for rights also involve more obligations. Women have the right to put in jail any men just because they stare at them in the wrong way, even invent a sexual act it never happened. It would be fair women have the obligation to act sexually responsible and take cautions about forming a human being inside them. It's not like they don't know how (or when) it happened, they damn right know even if they can't tell who was the sexual partner.
Life isn't about asking things without doing nothing else. You want rights, you also have obligations to earn them. That's how a society works.
[Women] should be force to bear the child, because has the possibility of being a full human any distinction between the two seems extremely arbitrary.
All I'm saying is that if you're going to make this argument, you should go all-in and advocate for laws that ensure that an unwanted pregnancy is just as much of a burden on the father as it is on the mother. Or are you afraid of a world where your "lusty" has consequences for you that are just as bad as they are for the "busties" you desire so much?
rom_collector said:
Women have the right to put in jail any men just because they stare at them in the wrong way, even invent a sexual act it never happened.
The whole "me too" movement. I said they have the right, I never said that right accomplish a 100%. Be responsible, the whole burden shouldn't be only on men, it takes two to procreate.
All I'm saying is that if you're going to make this argument, you should go all-in and advocate for laws that ensure that an unwanted pregnancy is just as much of a burden on the father as it is on the mother. Or are you afraid of a world where your "lusty" has consequences for you that are just as bad as they are for the "busties" you desire so much?
Yes, the father should pay child support if it is required. However ideally they'd still be in a relationship and work together to rise the child; a big shock I'm sure since you think my shitposter tier name automatically makes me some sort of degenerate who lacks basic morals apparently.
you think my shitposter tier name automatically makes me some sort of degenerate who lacks basic morals apparently.
Okay yeah, I'll admit that was kind of a low blow, but I do think it takes a certain lack of self-awareness to introduce yourself by declaring your intent to be horny (which is what you're doing by using a title like that), and then turn around and preach about what women "deserve" for their "sexual irresponsibility". I don't think you're a degenerate, per se, I just think you're a hypocrite, pushing a very "your rules are not my rules" stance.
Like, whenever I directly press you on it you're like "yeah, the dad should have to pay child support, I guess", but the moment I turn my back it's all "women have personal responsibility" and "women should be the ones putting more thought into sex", as if it's fine for men to be as promiscuous and "lusty" as they want, but god forbid a woman behaves in the exact same way. And you seem to base this opinion on a notion that women have more power and authority than men when it comes to sexual relationships, based on the fact that... some men are virgins? Like having any ability to deny sex at all means that women "most certainly control sex and the access to it"?
Okay yeah, I'll admit that was kind of a low blow, but I do think it takes a certain lack of self-awareness to introduce yourself by declaring your intent to be horny (which is what you're doing by using a title like that), and then turn around and preach about what women "deserve" for their "sexual irresponsibility". I don't think you're a degenerate, per se, I just think you're a hypocrite, pushing a very "your rules are not my rules" stance.
Like, whenever I directly press you on it you're like "yeah, the dad should have to pay child support, I guess", but the moment I turn my back it's all "women have personal responsibility" and "women should be the ones putting more thought into sex", as if it's fine for men to be as promiscuous and "lusty" as they want, but god forbid a woman behaves in the exact same way. And you seem to base this opinion on a notion that women have more power and authority than men when it comes to sexual relationships, based on the fact that... some men are virgins? Like having any ability to deny sex at all means that women "most certainly control sex and the access to it"?
Or maybe the name choice was simply based on the fact it is for a site I primarily use to look at anime tiddies, so I found it funny and topical.
I just don't think child support in its current form is really necessary if both parents are at roughly the same income level and they have joint custody. However I'm more traditionally minded, so I'm not really entirely opposed to it, especially if one parent fucks off for whatever reason. Men and women should take sex more seriously; however since the woman is the one who will actually have to bear the child and control the access to sex they have more responsibility in the situation. Maybe that's why I find it annoying, because it seems like you're trying to absolve women of any form of personal responsiblity. On the point of women controlling sex just think about it for a few seconds. Men are generally more open to sex than women, so if men controlled access to sex then people would be having way more sex.
Men are generally more open to sex than women, so if men controlled access to sex then people would be having way more sex.
Women are less open to sex than men because our culture and media pushes the idea that women are supposed to be the "sexually responsible" ones super hard, while demonizing women who are too promiscuous (often literally). Meanwhile, men who sleep around and have lots of sex with lots of different women are idolized and lionized for it. This disparity in the way that promiscuity is portrayed between the sexes is a major example of the way in which men, not women, control if not the access to sex, then at least the power dynamics and public dialogue around sex.
Women are less open to sex than men because our culture and media pushes the idea that women are supposed to be the "sexually responsible" ones super hard, while demonizing women who are too promiscuous (often literally). Meanwhile, men who sleep around and have lots of sex with lots of different women are idolized and lionized for it. This disparity in the way that promiscuity is portrayed between the sexes is a major example of the way in which men, not women, control if not the access to sex, then at least the power dynamics and public dialogue around sex.
Yeah, turns out most men don't really want a relationship with someone with a high body count. Women don't really tend to mind it for whatever reason, so I would say it's difference in standards. Anyway to get back on topic; the responsibility thing is mostly because if the woman is worried about getting pregnant, and if she's willing to resort to murder to not have a child. Then maybe she should stop and use a condom or literally any other form of birth control instead doing something that could result in murdering a child. Fortunately for men they don't have to deal with, but if they were unfortunate enough to put in the same position I would hold them to the same standard.
If you want to look into how women control access to sex or even relationships. You can just go look at the rise of dating apps and the results by gender.
If [men] were unfortunate enough to put in the same position I would hold them to the same standard.
But you can hold men to the same standards. If abortion is murder, then pursuing other relationships once you've gotten someone else pregnant and shirking your responsibilities as the father to the fetus is child abuse (specifically neglect), and should be punished accordingly. After all, by your standards, an embryo or fetus should be no different from a born child in the eyes of the law, right? And in addition to being punished accordingly by the law, it should be stigmatized accordingly by the culture - men should be encouraged to be highly guarded and conservative about their sexuality just as much as women are, and ostracized just as badly for not living up to that ideal.
If you think that's fine, and you're okay with living like that, then more power to you I guess, but it seems kind of odd to me that someone with an ethos that sex-negative would be on fucking Danbooru, with a name like "Lusty For Busty", don't you think? Look inside yourself. Hold yourself to the exact same standards regarding sex and sexuality that you hold women to - forget that you can't get pregnant yourself, the fact that you could wind up putting someone else in that position should be bad enough. Are you living up to your own ideals?
But you can hold men to the same standards. If abortion is murder, then pursuing other relationships once you've gotten someone else pregnant and shirking your responsibilities as the father to the fetus is child abuse (specifically neglect), and should be punished accordingly. After all, by your standards, an embryo or fetus should be no different from a born child in the eyes of the law, right? And in addition to being punished accordingly by the law, it should be stigmatized accordingly by the culture - men should be encouraged to be highly guarded and conservative about their sexuality just as much as women are, and ostracized just as badly for not living up to that ideal.
If you think that's fine, and you're okay with living like that, then more power to you I guess, but it seems kind of odd to me that someone with an ethos that sex-negative would be on fucking Danbooru, with a name like "Lusty For Busty", don't you think? Look inside yourself. Hold yourself to the exact same standards regarding sex and sexuality that you hold women to - forget that you can't get pregnant yourself, the fact that you could wind up putting someone else in that position should be bad enough. Are you living up to your own ideals?
Yes, it would be ideal for the father to commit to the mother and child; however we don't live in the ideal world. I don't think we ever will. So long as he stays in the child's life and cares for them, or monetarily supports the mother if he leaves entirely I see no reason to punish him; even if it isn't the ideal way of going about it. If you want him to make payments for emotional distress for the pregnancy then I would be in favor of that if it means no more baby murder. I would also say it is already heavily stigmatized to be a deadbeat dad, as it should be.
The difference is I keep my sexuality to myself as one should, or at least only show it in a place that is reserved for it. I don't really mind if people engage in casual sex, but they should be very mindful of biological functions of sex. I don't think it's evil or harsh to ban abortion when it's significantly easier to obtain something else instead of resorting to murdering a child as birth control. I just want people to practice safe sex and not murder children, I don't think it's much of an ask. I was pro-choice back in the day, I'm an atheist, but it has gone way too far when abortion is defended as a form of birth control. Thinking more critically about it has completely changed my opinion.
Imagine living in a modern era with extended contraceptive methods before and after a sexual act, yet you prefer an abortion like we still live on the 80's. What's next? Still curing homosexuality with electroshock therapy? Better abort before applying a birth control patch.
I actually agree that promoting safe sex is the preferable option, and abortion should be a last resort - as the saying goes "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". I just don't think women should be put in prison (or worse) for taking that "last resort" when they have to. Most people who actually need abortions aren't in that position due to "irresponsibility", but because our sex ed in schools is so backbroken and controlled by religious interests that want to push abstinence above all else that they never get the chance to properly learn about safe sex - fix that problem, and I think that most people will practice safe sex most of the time, and abortions would be a lot rarer.
The biggest concern, however, is that most people who want to ban abortions also want to ban safe sex. Just look at the cases the supreme court has shown a desire to look at in the future:
Clarence Thomas said:
In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell
Overturning Griswold would allow states to ban contraception in addition to abortion, and overturning Lawrence and Obergefell would open the door to anti-sodomy laws, which for the record don't just attack gay sex but any kind of sex other than penis-in-vagina sex with the intent to conceive children. Now, some of the other Republican judges have claimed that this is all just Clarence's own bugbears that they won't back him up on, but this should still be seen as a very worrying development. If you're hoping that overturning RvW will lead to a normalization of safe sex, well, I wouldn't hold my breath - the most devoted anti-abortion activists want sexuality, particularly women's sexuality, to go all the way back to Kinder Kitchen Kurch, and RvW's demise is making them more bold then they've been in decades. Regardless of your opinions on abortion itself, if you're a safe sex advocate, you should be afraid of this, because they're coming for you next.
I actually agree that promoting safe sex is the preferable option, and abortion should be a last resort - as the saying goes "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". I just don't think women should be put in prison (or worse) for taking that "last resort" when they have to. Most people who actually need abortions aren't in that position due to "irresponsibility", but because our sex ed in schools is so backbroken and controlled by religious interests that want to push abstinence above all else that they never get the chance to properly learn about safe sex - fix that problem, and I think that most people will practice safe sex most of the time, and abortions would be a lot rarer.
The biggest concern, however, is that most people who want to ban abortions also want to ban safe sex. Just look at the cases the supreme court has shown a desire to look at in the future:
Overturning Griswold would allow states to ban contraception in addition to abortion, and overturning Lawrence and Obergefell would open the door to anti-sodomy laws, which for the record don't just attack gay sex but any kind of sex other than penis-in-vagina sex with the intent to conceive children. Now, some of the other Republican judges have claimed that this is all just Clarence's own bugbears that they won't back him up on, but this should still be seen as a very worrying development. If you're hoping that overturning RvW will lead to a normalization of safe sex, well, I wouldn't hold my breath - the most devoted anti-abortion activists want sexuality, particularly women's sexuality, to go all the way back to Kinder Kitchen Kurch, and RvW's demise is making them more bold then they've been in decades. Regardless of your opinions on abortion itself, if you're a safe sex advocate, you should be afraid of this, because they're coming for you next.
I wouldn't advocate retroactively placing women in prison for doing it or the doctors, that's not how law should work. However after conception I don't think there's really any defense. The clump of cells will eventually grow into a human being by your own standards (or at least I'm assuming that's the reason why you're okay with it; and it's one of least objectionable and was my opinion when I was pro-choice), so it seems like arbitrary reason to justify murder. You can say some form public sexual education isn't up to standards; and my story is completely anecdotal, but even in my deep red state of Tennessee in a very deep red county we were still thought how to use a condom. Even so we live in a world where almost everyone has access to the information in their pocket, so I don't think a lack of information is the issue it's more of culture issue. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say if don't condemn the action and say it's morally acceptable people will engage with it more often.
Personally I wouldn't be opposed to banning contraception entirely. I feel like it would solve a lot of problems when it comes to people actually forming meaningful relationships, but the damage is already done and it's a bit too late now. However I'm more interested in actually stopping abortion, so perfectly willing to compromise on that and I feel like religious would too. I'm also apart of the LGBT community (even though I wouldn't associate myself with them, as they have also taken things way too far) so clearly not in favor of anti sodomy laws (but they're also basically impossible to enforce so it'd get a massive meh from me). I don't think traditional gender roles are necessarily evil, as long as you don't force it on people.
So, I'm going to lay this out right now: I'm not going to directly engage you on your argument that abortion is murder. Obviously, I disagree, but I don't actually think I'm the right person to convince you otherwise, and I'm pretty sure that if I were to try, the odds of this comment section escalating into a flame war that the mods would be inclined to lock down entirely would rise exponentially. I don't want that to happen, so I'm not touching that powder keg.
The only points I'm pushing in this thread are these:
*Most people who oppose abortion focus heavily on the mother's responsibility to protect herself and approach sex "responsibly", while being suspiciously lax when it comes to the father's culpability in an unwanted pregnancy. They also tend to go very quiet when the subject of healthcare and social support for people who are already born comes up. These factors lead me to believe that these people don't actually care about the lives of the unborn, they just want to use those lives as a cudgel to punish women for having sex in ways they don't personally approve of.
*If your politics regarding sex are in any way more liberal than "sex should only happen after marriage and with the intent of conceiving children, followed by a lifetime devoted primarily if not solely to providing for and raising those children", then it is in your best interests to defend the right to abortion, regardless of how distasteful you find it personally. If you're an advocate for safe sex, then advocate for safe sex - spending your energy on restricting access to alternatives you don't approve of and hoping that people will come to do things your way once those other ways are off the table will accomplish nothing except for giving courage and precedent to the people who will want to kick down your door in due time, leading to a "first they came for the pro-choice, then they came for the contraceptives, then they came for the homosexuals, then they came for me and there was no one left to protect me" situation. Notably, being pro-porn counts as "liberal sexual politics" in this context - so don't come crying to me when you're in the middle of celebrating abortion being banned on a federal level and you turn around to find out Danbooru's been banned, too!
So, I'm going to lay this out right now: I'm not going to directly engage you on your argument that abortion is murder. Obviously, I disagree, but I don't actually think I'm the right person to convince you otherwise, and I'm pretty sure that if I were to try, the odds of this comment section escalating into a flame war that the mods would be inclined to lock down entirely would rise exponentially. I don't want that to happen, so I'm not touching that powder keg.
The only points I'm pushing in this thread are these:
*Most people who oppose abortion focus heavily on the mother's responsibility to protect herself and approach sex "responsibly", while being suspiciously lax when it comes to the father's culpability in an unwanted pregnancy. They also tend to go very quiet when the subject of healthcare and social support for people who are already born comes up. These factors lead me to believe that these people don't actually care about the lives of the unborn, they just want to use those lives as a cudgel to punish women for having sex in ways they don't personally approve of.
*If your politics regarding sex are in any way more liberal than "sex should only happen after marriage and with the intent of conceiving children, followed by a lifetime devoted primarily if not solely to providing for and raising those children", then it is in your best interests to defend the right to abortion, regardless of how distasteful you find it personally. If you're an advocate for safe sex, then advocate for safe sex - spending your energy on restricting access to alternatives you don't approve of and hoping that people will come to do things your way once those other ways are off the table will accomplish nothing except for giving courage and precedent to the people who will want to kick down your door in due time, leading to a "first they came for the pro-choice, then they came for the contraceptives, then they came for the homosexuals, then they came for me and there was no one left to protect me" situation. Notably, being pro-porn counts as "liberal sexual politics" in this context - so don't come crying to me when you're in the middle of celebrating abortion being banned on a federal level and you turn around to find out Danbooru's been banned, too!
I'm pretty sure you're doing that because you know it's actually murder, and it's completely indefensible. If you could in a convincing way I'm sure you'd do it, and if you can do it you should because I'd really like to hear it. If it's so bad that it would cause even more backlash than this subject already does then maybe that should tell you something. Also pretty sure it's already marked in some way already.
Like I've said people focus on the mother because she is the one who actually has to bear the child; just the fact that it'll cause more complications for her means she should be more mindful of that if she chooses to engage in unprotected sex. Personally I'm more in favor of more social programs, evenso the argument against them is that it creates situations where motherhood becomes a career. I live in a pretty economically depressed area, it most certainly happens, but I'd rather that exist than the worse alternative. I don't think those are mutually exclusive either, but it's also not position I hold.
I don't think my more liberal opinions outweigh my opinion that murder is evil, probably the greatest evil one can do. I'm fully aware that I personally could lose quite a bit if that slippery slope becomes reality. I still think abortion is the greater evil and I'd rather stick to my morals than play partisan politics.
Dude, I'd love it if motherhood became a career. I'd love it even more if stay at home fathers were just as common and respected as a career, too. So many things would be so much better if childcare actually got the respect it deserves!
Anyways, as Rom Collector said earlier (somehow thinking it was a "gotcha" against my argument), "it takes two to procreate" - wherever there's a woman who has had "irresponsible" sex and wound up pregnant, there is an equally irresponsible man who got her pregnant. Both parties made the exact same choices and are equally culpable for the pregnancy's occurrence, so it's not fair that the woman should face so much harsher punishment for it - just because it's how biology works doesn't make it right. The pro-choice stance is fundamentally about correcting this fundamental unfairness, and they seek to do it by, yes, absolving women of the responsibility to bear an unwanted pregnancy, but they only want to give women the absolution that men already have. If you believe that women shouldn't have this absolution, then the only just alternative is to strive to rob men of that absolution to as great of an extent as is possible - to do any less would be to advocate that women deserve to be punished more harshly for behaving in exactly the same way as their male counterparts, which is textbook misogyny.
Now, at this point I've said pretty much everything I originally entered this discussion wanting to say. And I tried to give you an out - a way for both of us to agree that this has gone on for long enough and move on with our lives. But now you've gone and challenged me. You've made it clear that you want to get into the weeds, so fine. Let's get into the weeds.
Argument #1
In American culture, as enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, we consider all rights granted by the law to be extensions of three fundamental "inalienable" rights - the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, these rights are themselves extensions of an even more fundamental ideal: the ideal that beings have the right to advocate for their own desires. This ideal is the Ur-Right, and all other rights are built from it.
In order to be eligible for the Ur-Right, two things must be true:
*You must have desires. *You must be capable of pursuing or advocating for those desires, to at least some extent independently, or you must have the potential to become capable of pursuing or advocating for those desires at some point in the future.
If either or both of these things are not true, then the Ur-Right cannot apply, and since all other rights are built off of the Ur-Right, the idea of any other rights applying becomes absurd. For example, even the most ardent "meat is murder" vegan has no moral qualms with eating plants, because plants are largely considered to have no desires.
A fetus in the earliest stages of development has no desires. To even have a "desire to exist" would require the fetus to be aware that it exists in the first place. Certainly by around 23 weeks (the point in a pregnancy where abortions could be banned even under RvW), the fetus can reasonably be thought of as a coherent, self-aware being. Before then it is, in your own words, something that "has the possibility of being a full human".
The question of "is abortion murder", once you take all of the emotionally charged language out of it and distill it into its bare essentials, becomes this: Is an entity that currently has no desires, but has the potential to gain desires in the hypothetical future, eligible for the Ur-Right, and all other rights that extend from it, as if those hypothetical future desires were already present? (It may seem like I've already answered my own question with that "potential to become capable" rider in the original qualifications, but that rider is meant to cover people who are asleep, or in a coma that they might wake up from. In both of those cases, the person had desires before they lost consciousness, and it is assumed that they will contunue to have those desires upon waking, so they can be safely regarded as having those desires while in their unconscious state. An undeveloped fetus, on the other hand, doesn't have that "history of desire" to work with, and can only be ascribed unknown potential desires that have never manifested. People who answer the above question with "yes" will argue that this distinction does not matter, while people who answer "no" will argue that you're comparing apples and oranges.)
Our conundrum here, and the reason I didn't want to approach this topic unless I felt like my hand was forced, is that there is no way to determine an objective answer to this question! It all comes down to your own personal philosophy, and there's zero evidence I can provide that would prove your stance to be false - but at the same time, you can't prove my argument invalid either. It's a stalemate.
But hey, you seem to want me to pull out all the stops, so I'm pulling out all the stops.
Argument #2
No action is good or bad in a vacuum. Even moral rules we think of as unshakeable axioms - like "murder is evil" - have logic and rationale behind them, it's just that for the simplest rules, the logic behind them is so obvious that we barely register it as "logic". Murder is evil because it causes obscene harm. A person's last moments are filled with fear and suffering, their desires are unjustly snuffed out, and a wave of horrendous grief among those who were close to them is left in their wake.
Does any of that apply to an abortion? The fetus might not even be developed enough to feel any pain, it's certainly not going to have any fears or regrets that you're forcing it to confront, and no one's going to be emotionally close enough to it to mourn it. Who is being materially harmed here? The hypothetical person the fetus might have been? How is the outcome for that hypothetical person any different than it would be if its mother had done things "properly" and not gotten pregnant in the first place? Claiming that a woman who practices safe sex or abstinence is "murdering" the children she could have been conceiving is an absolutely deranged take, but if you start advocating for the rights of hypothetical people, then what's the real, tangible difference between a pregnancy aborted and a pregnancy never begun?
An abortion does no measurable harm to any of the parties involved, not even the fetus being aborted, unless you want to argue that not conceiving that fetus in the first place would have been doing just as much harm. And is a "murder" where no one is harmed really a "murder" at all?
Argument #3
Even if I were to drop all of my other arguments and concede that an abortion is unequivocally an act of killing another human being, that would not necessarily make it indefensible, because there are causes that are important enough to warrant killing over them - unless you believe that every war in history was unjustified, you have no grounds to refute me on this. Now, the question of "which causes do or do not justify violence" is going to be a lot like the question back in Argument #1 - it's going to boil down a lot to personal philosophy, with no real way to objectively validate or invalidate any particular stance, so it will be hard to make any productive progress if we wind up putting our debate on this front - but I know people who really do take body autonomy deadly seriously, and as far as causes go, I personally think "I don't want my bodily functions to be controlled by another entity, especially not as punishment for engaging in sex in a way that other people don't approve of", is one of the better ones. It certainly beats "I want more oil money"!
Dude, I'd love it if motherhood became a career. I'd love it even more if stay at home fathers were just as common and respected as a career, too. So many things would be so much better if childcare actually got the respect it deserves!
Anyways, as Rom Collector said earlier (somehow thinking it was a "gotcha" against my argument), "it takes two to procreate" - wherever there's a woman who has had "irresponsible" sex and wound up pregnant, there is an equally irresponsible man who got her pregnant. Both parties made the exact same choices and are equally culpable for the pregnancy's occurrence, so it's not fair that the woman should face so much harsher punishment for it - just because it's how biology works doesn't make it right. The pro-choice stance is fundamentally about correcting this fundamental unfairness, and they seek to do it by, yes, absolving women of the responsibility to bear an unwanted pregnancy, but they only want to give women the absolution that men already have. If you believe that women shouldn't have this absolution, then the only just alternative is to strive to rob men of that absolution to as great of an extent as is possible - to do any less would be to advocate that women deserve to be punished more harshly for behaving in exactly the same way as their male counterparts, which is textbook misogyny.
Now, at this point I've said pretty much everything I originally entered this discussion wanting to say. And I tried to give you an out - a way for both of us to agree that this has gone on for long enough and move on with our lives. But now you've gone and challenged me. You've made it clear that you want to get into the weeds, so fine. Let's get into the weeds.
Argument #1
In American culture, as enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, we consider all rights granted by the law to be extensions of three fundamental "inalienable" rights - the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, these rights are themselves extensions of an even more fundamental ideal: the ideal that beings have the right to advocate for their own desires. This ideal is the Ur-Right, and all other rights are built from it.
In order to be eligible for the Ur-Right, two things must be true:
*You must have desires. *You must be capable of pursuing or advocating for those desires, to at least some extent independently, or you must have the potential to become capable of pursuing or advocating for those desires at some point in the future.
If either or both of these things are not true, then the Ur-Right cannot apply, and since all other rights are built off of the Ur-Right, the idea of any other rights applying becomes absurd. For example, even the most ardent "meat is murder" vegan has no moral qualms with eating plants, because plants are largely considered to have no desires.
A fetus in the earliest stages of development has no desires. To even have a "desire to exist" would require the fetus to be aware that it exists in the first place. Certainly by around 23 weeks (the point in a pregnancy where abortions could be banned even under RvW), the fetus can reasonably be thought of as a coherent, self-aware being. Before then it is, in your own words, something that "has the possibility of being a full human".
The question of "is abortion murder", once you take all of the emotionally charged language out of it and distill it into its bare essentials, becomes this: Is an entity that currently has no desires, but has the potential to gain desires in the hypothetical future, eligible for the Ur-Right, and all other rights that extend from it, as if those hypothetical future desires were already present? (It may seem like I've already answered my own question with that "potential to become capable" rider in the original qualifications, but that rider is meant to cover people who are asleep, or in a coma that they might wake up from. In both of those cases, the person had desires before they lost consciousness, and it is assumed that they will contunue to have those desires upon waking, so they can be safely regarded as having those desires while in their unconscious state. An undeveloped fetus, on the other hand, doesn't have that "history of desire" to work with, and can only be ascribed unknown potential desires that have never manifested. People who answer the above question with "yes" will argue that this distinction does not matter, while people who answer "no" will argue that you're comparing apples and oranges.)
Our conundrum here, and the reason I didn't want to approach this topic unless I felt like my hand was forced, is that there is no way to determine an objective answer to this question! It all comes down to your own personal philosophy, and there's zero evidence I can provide that would prove your stance to be false - but at the same time, you can't prove my argument invalid either. It's a stalemate.
But hey, you seem to want me to pull out all the stops, so I'm pulling out all the stops.
Argument #2
No action is good or bad in a vacuum. Even moral rules we think of as unshakeable axioms - like "murder is evil" - have logic and rationale behind them, it's just that for the simplest rules, the logic behind them is so obvious that we barely register it as "logic". Murder is evil because it causes obscene harm. A person's last moments are filled with fear and suffering, their desires are unjustly snuffed out, and a wave of horrendous grief among those who were close to them is left in their wake.
Does any of that apply to an abortion? The fetus might not even be developed enough to feel any pain, it's certainly not going to have any fears or regrets that you're forcing it to confront, and no one's going to be emotionally close enough to it to mourn it. Who is being materially harmed here? The hypothetical person the fetus might have been? How is the outcome for that hypothetical person any different than it would be if its mother had done things "properly" and not gotten pregnant in the first place? Claiming that a woman who practices safe sex or abstinence is "murdering" the children she could have been conceiving is an absolutely deranged take, but if you start advocating for the rights of hypothetical people, then what's the real, tangible difference between a pregnancy aborted and a pregnancy never begun?
An abortion does no measurable harm to any of the parties involved, not even the fetus being aborted, unless you want to argue that not conceiving that fetus in the first place would have been doing just as much harm. And is a "murder" where no one is harmed really a "murder" at all?
Argument #3
Even if I were to drop all of my other arguments and concede that an abortion is unequivocally an act of killing another human being, that would not necessarily make it indefensible, because there are causes that are important enough to warrant killing over them - unless you believe that every war in history was unjustified, you have no grounds to refute me on this. Now, the question of "which causes do or do not justify violence" is going to be a lot like the question back in Argument #1 - it's going to boil down a lot to personal philosophy, with no real way to objectively validate or invalidate any particular stance, so it will be hard to make any productive progress if we wind up putting our debate on this front - but I know people who really do take body autonomy deadly seriously, and as far as causes go, I personally think "I don't want my bodily functions to be controlled by another entity, especially not as punishment for engaging in sex in a way that other people don't approve of", is one of the better ones. It certainly beats "I want more oil money"!
I don't think mentioning the fathers involvement is really important, since it's pretty universally agreed that he made a mistake. However go to example of someone who "needs" an abortion is a teenage girl who just made "one bad mistake." Despite the fact that logic would never hold up in any other situation, like a drunk teenage boy driver who kills people with his own negligence; and he should have the book thrown at him since it serves as an example. I find it extremely insulting to women they are held to a lower standard, for some reason on this topic. I don't care about "equality" in this, and if you're going to go down that path it will still lead to the father being able to prevent the abortion or opt out of caring for the child monetarily. Men don't have it if the woman chooses the keep the child. Both of these are terrible in my opinion yet that type of argumentation will lead you to that, but I suppose it's only true equality when some are more equal than others. Also motherhood was a career before it was called being a stay at home mother, but now it's the far more destructive single mother who is probably unemployed. That is also not to say I don't feel sympathy for them many of my friends had single moms and they despite all of their faults were good people; and I grew up in a mostly single parent household as well, but I don't think it's something to be encouraged.
First response:
Way to shoot yourself in the foot still with, "...or you must have the potential to become capable of pursuing or advocating for those desires at some point in the future." I don't think nine months is much in the grand scheme of a person's life, and even with no history of desire it will develop desires unless something happens to it; so I believe that makes an even better argument for my position. But let's agree to disagree, if you can't decide then it would probably be best to approach it with caution since one will result in death. Then since it's agreed scientifically that life begins at conception, it is without a doubt murder because you are willfully ending human life unless you're seriously going to argue it isn't human life.
Second response:
Well I obviously agree not all actions aren't entirely good or bad, I think abortion is one of the few cases of something being genuinely evil. It is not the fault of its existence. It was forced upon it. Both parents made a mistake, if it wasn't their intention. It isn't right to deny its existence simply because the mother believe she made a mistake. In the case of rape its a complete tragedy, but I don't believe that should condemn them to death, would be fine with sort of morning after pill since it takes about twenty four for conception to be achieved and should probably be included in every SAEK. The only case I'd be fine with some choice is a medical issue, then I would let the mother decide. I don't think I should really have to explain why murder is evil, even without feeling pain. The act of depriving someone of their existence is probably the greatest crime one can commit, there's no coming back from it. I'm not religious, there is no afterlife, you only have this, you simply cease to exist; it's bleak thought for me, so I would hope they get to experience life with all of its faults because there is nothing else.
Third response:
I believe you could easily gathered my opinions based on the other two, but I'll play along anyway. Wars are often pretty unjustifiable generally speaking. A defensive war is okay, because you shouldn't lie down and die, there's still issues and it's a lot more context dependent than abortion. The main reason I find even that objectionable is because I'm completely against any form of conscription as a matter of principle, and those who willing join are usually manipulated into it as well. I suppose it is personal philosophy, but we live a society with rules and just use of deadly force is reasonable belief is someone will cause great bodily harm or death, and that seems like a pretty reasonable standard to me. That's why I'm fine with it if it's an actual medical issue, and you might be able to make a case for great bodily harm, but I think most people would find that unreasonable.
Also should probably stop with the subjectivity crap. I used to do that as well it makes people not take you seriously. Because you can argue subjectively none of this matters, and if that's the case I'd be better off talking to a literal wall.
Way to shoot yourself in the foot still with, "...or you must have the potential to become capable of pursuing or advocating for those desires at some point in the future." I don't think nine months is much in the grand scheme of a person's life, and even with no history of desire it will develop desires unless something happens to it; so I believe that makes an even better argument for my position.
That's what I meant when I said "People who answer the above question with 'yes' will argue that this distinction does not matter, while people who answer 'no' will argue that you're comparing apples and oranges". I knew that this was exactly how you were going to respond to that, and I tried to add some clarification to address that, but I guess I didn't make things clear enough.
Your stance is that an undeveloped fetus that has no current desires, but will develop them in the future, is no different than a person who is asleep, but will wake up, and aborting a pregnancy is morally identical to killing a person in their sleep. My stance is that known desires that a person has a history of having and hypothetical desires that a person might have in the future are two completely different things, and there is no reason why you should assign the same moral weight to the latter as you would to the former.
We can't go any further on this line of discourse without some way to prove that one argument or the other is invalid, but these are the kinds of nebulous philosophical questions that are difficult to apply concrete evidence to. There's nothing I can say that could conclusively prove your stance wrong, but unless you can provide incontrovertible, objective proof that we should assign moral value to hypothetical desires, and that not doing so causes tangible, measurable harm, you have no leg to stand on either.
LustyForBusty said:
It isn't right to deny [a fetus's] existence simply because the mother believe she made a mistake.
So the common rhetoric around anti-abortion arguments is that the mother should be forced to "face the consequences of her mistakes", with the implication that if the mother had been more responsible and never conceived the child in the first place, there would be no harm done. but if you actually want to assign the fetus the rights of a full person, and look at the situation form its perspective, wouldn't having done things "properly" and not conceived still be depriving that fetus of its existence? From the fetus's perspective, being aborted before it's even aware of the existence it's being "deprived" of is no different from having never been conceived in the first place, so in terms of real, material harm done, there's zero reason to claim that one outcome is more or less moral than the other - unless you want to punish women for being "sexually irresponsible". On the other hand, if you do want to push the idea that "all fetuses have a right to be born", then the moment an embryo is conceived by accident, that conception retroactively becomes the only moral action either parent could have taken, and following that idea to its logical conclusion can only lead to absurd crackpot takes.
Obviously you haven't heard of the MGTOW movement either. A movement it raised because laws favor a woman exclusively because of her gender. I'm not fond of them but like this law they have a point. They can take your money, your properties, request child support, put you in jail or even get preference over children custody only because both made the mistake of procreate with the wrong person. At least that was how it was, fortunately this is slowly changing too. But no, keep saying men has been unpunished about all this while women keep undesired children like a reward ticket of both irresponsibilities.
We don't live in the 60's anymore, roles have changed and are not tied socially to a specific gender. The woman in general terms is not a hopeless housewife that can't work while takes care of children. A man is not exclusively an eight hour worker that provides money and had to pay for everything either. What if the woman is another man or the man another woman? What if both work or they don't? Laws evolve because of this, because society changes. It evolves in the same way laws for bullying or harasement did, because Internet was not invented when they were set long before.
Today there is extensive information about contraceptives, even on TikTok. We all know people are so poor to eat and yet they own a smartphone or access to Internet somehow. There is no excuse not to know how to prevent a pregnancy. And yet some other women prefer to ignore it, because they keep it as warranty for engagement, sue you for half your possesions or fillfull her selfish desire for motherhood even when they don't have the resources to support a child. Laws evolve to protect those in need, and those in need are now the children. This is another step forward. Make both responsible of their actions, not only the man because he is male and used to get the money.
If you think it's unfair based on your experiences it's fine, but based on mine it's totally justified and fair. It may seem contradictory because I'm mixing abortion with planned pregnancy, but it's the responsibility a woman has too what I'm targeting here.
That's what I meant when I said "People who answer the above question with 'yes' will argue that this distinction does not matter, while people who answer 'no' will argue that you're comparing apples and oranges". I knew that this was exactly how you were going to respond to that, and I tried to add some clarification to address that, but I guess I didn't make things clear enough.
Your stance is that an undeveloped fetus that has no current desires, but will develop them in the future, is no different than a person who is asleep, but will wake up, and aborting a pregnancy is morally identical to killing a person in their sleep. My stance is that known desires that a person has a history of having and hypothetical desires that a person might have in the future are two completely different things, and there is no reason why you should assign the same moral weight to the latter as you would to the former.
We can't go any further on this line of discourse without some way to prove that one argument or the other is invalid, but these are the kinds of nebulous philosophical questions that are difficult to apply concrete evidence to. There's nothing I can say that could conclusively prove your stance wrong, but unless you can provide incontrovertible, objective proof that we should assign moral value to hypothetical desires, and that not doing so causes tangible, measurable harm, you have no leg to stand on either.
So the common rhetoric around anti-abortion arguments is that the mother should be forced to "face the consequences of her mistakes", with the implication that if the mother had been more responsible and never conceived the child in the first place, there would be no harm done. but if you actually want to assign the fetus the rights of a full person, and look at the situation form its perspective, wouldn't having done things "properly" and not conceived still be depriving that fetus of its existence? From the fetus's perspective, being aborted before it's even aware of the existence it's being "deprived" of is no different from having never been conceived in the first place, so in terms of real, material harm done, there's zero reason to claim that one outcome is more or less moral than the other - unless you want to punish women for being "sexually irresponsible". On the other hand, if you do want to push the idea that "all fetuses have a right to be born", then the moment an embryo is conceived by accident, that conception retroactively becomes the only moral action either parent could have taken, and following that idea to its logical conclusion can only lead to absurd crackpot takes.
I addressed the no known desires bit, it seems like a like some bullshittery to justify it. There is literally no way it won't unless something happens, it's very poor logic. It just completely ingores reality, unless you're really going to let the few exceptions make the rules. It's like the euthanasia debate for someone who is braindead, but in reverse; the fetus will with some exceptions grow into a full human being. Meanwhile the braindead person has certainly gone down the path, but cannot show any desires and has effectively lost their an important aspect of their humanity. It's a tough issue, however I believe people should be able to choose if they wish to live or not, so I'm more okay with it if they have made it clear that is not what they want. Plus I said it's already human life and I believe that has value and is worthy of protection, especially since it will grow and have your standard of desires.
When the consequence of your action results in creating another human being maybe you should give it some thought. Mothers are uniquely required to bear it, so regardless if it's "fair" or not she should probably giving it more thought since you're still so caught up on this. I think my at conception point shows where the line is, since that's when life begins. And like I said previously the fact it will even reach your standard should afford it protection. I have already mentioned exceptions to where it would be justifiable to end it, but those are rare. Even in truly horrible circumstances I don't think murder is the answer.
You may call my arguments "bullshittery" and think I'm jumping through hoops to make excuses instead of approaching the issue without my own bias coming first, but these are genuinely the conclusions I have reached from "thinking more critically" about this issue. I've tried to break the problem apart and approach it from first principles, but no matter how I approach it, I always come to the conclusion that preventing abortions causes more harm than allowing them.
*Form the perspective of a fetus - the only entity that could be said to be "harmed" by an abortion - the outcome of an abortion is one hundred percent identical to the outcome of not having been conceived at all. They may look different from our perspective as outsiders because in one of them a life "began" and "was ended", but the fetus itself doesn't have the ability to make that distinction, so it's not going to care. *Therefore, if an abortion does harm to a fetus, then choosing not to conceive that fetus does an equal amount of harm to that fetus. Exact same outcome, exact same amount of "harm" done. *If failing or refusing to conceive causes harm, then safe sex and even abstinence are just as immoral as abortion is - the only moral option is for women to breed constantly, without rest, as soon as they are physically capable of doing so. No one in their right mind is advocating for this. *Therefore, the only logical conclusion that does not compel insanity is that abortion does not cause harm. It may clash with your intuition, but unless you can prove that a fetus is aware of and actively experiences distress from its own abortion, the logic does not lie. On the other hand, forcing a person to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term does a great deal of harm to that person, which can only be justified by claiming that the mother deserves to have that harm done to her for having had sex "irresponsibly" - an argument that is either intensely sex-negative or intensely misogynistic, if not both.
You may call my arguments "bullshittery" and think I'm jumping through hoops to make excuses instead of approaching the issue without my own bias coming first, but these are genuinely the conclusions I have reached from "thinking more critically" about this issue. I've tried to break the problem apart and approach it from first principles, but no matter how I approach it, I always come to the conclusion that preventing abortions causes more harm than allowing them.
*Form the perspective of a fetus - the only entity that could be said to be "harmed" by an abortion - the outcome of an abortion is one hundred percent identical to the outcome of not having been conceived at all. They may look different from our perspective as outsiders because in one of them a life "began" and "was ended", but the fetus itself doesn't have the ability to make that distinction, so it's not going to care. *Therefore, if an abortion does harm to a fetus, then choosing not to conceive that fetus does an equal amount of harm to that fetus. Exact same outcome, exact same amount of "harm" done. *If failing or refusing to conceive causes harm, then safe sex and even abstinence are just as immoral as abortion is - the only moral option is for women to breed constantly, without rest, as soon as they are physically capable of doing so. No one in their right mind is advocating for this. *Therefore, the only logical conclusion that does not compel insanity is that abortion does not cause harm. It may clash with your intuition, but unless you can prove that a fetus is aware of and actively experiences distress from its own abortion, the logic does not lie. On the other hand, forcing a person to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term does a great deal of harm to that person, which can only be justified by claiming that the mother deserves to have that harm done to her for having had sex "irresponsibly" - an argument that is either intensely sex-negative or intensely misogynistic, if not both.
I'm not really viewing it through a biased lens (or at least to point where I'm completely unwilling to change my opinion), my pro-life stance is about as old as hearing Roe might be overturned. It wasn't really something that I had given much thought until then. Like I've said I was pro-choice before the arguments made sense, but that was an opinion made only God knows how long ago. Basically I'm willing to change my opinion, but I have yet to hear anything that does not sound like some insane mental gymnastics to try to justify it. I agree we should try to prevent needless hardship, but taking away life isn't the answer. It's a classic case of, "the path to hell is often paved with good intentions." Unless depriving someone of life isn't the greatest crime.
1/2 . I don't think its perspective really matters. I doubt a born baby understands the concept of a firearm, but it would probably prefer to not be shot. You'll say it'll know as soon as the pain kicks in, but that's because it's the potential to feel it and it most certainly will; much like a fetus has potential to grow into a human being and that most certainly will happen. Anyway let's go with something less clear, so for example a mentally disabled person does not entirely understand the concept of the of money, or at least it's importance. So would that justify exploiting them by selling them overpriced goods since they don't understand the harm being done to them? If perception is that important which is really the meaningful difference between these?
3. I don't really know how this is supposed to be a gotcha. I think I made it clear it was when it was conceived then it's unjustifiable to end it, and nothing more.
4. Already addressed in previous points, so I won't repeat myself unlike every other time. Sure, I have no doubt it causes distress for the mother, but murder is worse than distress (from having to bear it or from financial burden, but even that can easily be solved with adoption); and distress isn't a valid justification for murder. It also really isn't advocating for harm, it's for them to take personal responsibility for their actions, because it involves something as significant as creating life. I don't really care if it's sex negative, if that's what it leads to then perhaps it isn't a good thing to be sex positive. Also don't really want to hear about misogyny from someone who seriously advocated that women should be held to a lower standard.
I mean, points 3 and 4 kind of rely on the premise set up by points 1 and 2, so it's not surprising that they don't make any sense without the support of 1 and 2.
The crux of points 1 and 2 is that the amount of harm done by an action is entirely the product of the consequences of that action, so two actions that have the exact same consequences must by definition cause the exact same amount of harm. If you scam or exploit a person who does not understand the importance of money, you make it more difficult for them to obtain food and maintain their shelter in the future - that's the consequence of your action, so that's the harm done. If you shoot a baby, that baby is aware of its pain and its own life ending, and suffers distress because of it - that distress is the consequence of your action, so that's the harm done.
If you abort a pregnancy, the only consequence is that someone who would have otherwise been born does not get born. Intuitively, this seems like a massive amount of harm, as you've been arguing - a potential lifetime entirely eliminated - but abstaining from sex or practicing safe sex so that the conception never happened would result in the exact same consequence - someone who would have otherwise been born does not get born. And since harm is entirely the product of consequences, if one action causes harm, then another action that results in the exact same consequences must by definition cause the same amount of harm.
I mean, points 3 and 4 kind of rely on the premise set up by points 1 and 2, so it's not surprising that they don't make any sense without the support of 1 and 2.
The crux of points 1 and 2 is that the amount of harm done by an action is entirely the product of the consequences of that action, so two actions that have the exact same consequences must by definition cause the exact same amount of harm. If you scam or exploit a person who does not understand the importance of money, you make it more difficult for them to obtain food and maintain their shelter in the future - that's the consequence of your action, so that's the harm done. If you shoot a baby, that baby is aware of its pain and its own life ending, and suffers distress because of it - that distress is the consequence of your action, so that's the harm done.
If you abort a pregnancy, the only consequence is that someone who would have otherwise been born does not get born. Intuitively, this seems like a massive amount of harm, as you've been arguing - a potential lifetime entirely eliminated - but abstaining from sex or practicing safe sex so that the conception never happened would result in the exact same consequence - someone who would have otherwise been born does not get born. And since harm is entirely the product of consequences, if one action causes harm, then another action that results in the exact same consequences must by definition cause the same amount of harm.
It's already proven to be alive, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to give them rights. A sperm or an egg isn't alive, so your logic would apply to them and I'm perfectly happy to since it makes sense. It's context dependent like everything else I don't believe I have said anything that would imply that I'm opposed to making expectations. If don't create life fine, but if you do maybe you shouldn't kill it unless you actually have a good reason.
And oh boy they have reasons. I can't talk for every case but I can for the few I know. A fetus matters like a living being when they request support from a man or the government, demand engagement, have evidence to put a man behind bars or take his posessions "in favor of the child". It's the only irresponsible reason they let a fetus grow, use it like a living hostage the woman uses at convenience to get money, properties or "justice". If things don't go their way, the hostage next turns into "a thing" that must be aborted for vengance or because it's not needed anymore for their purposes.
Again, it's not like that for every case but it sets a precedent about how evil a woman can be unlike "I can't beat Xion" wants to white knight about women, turning also every man who had sex as a villain. It's time to make women responsible (just like men) about allowing a living being grow inside themselves, they are not toys. It's not like an evil person like an unwanted parent that only wanted sex like her or a rapist tells them to wait two or three months to abort their crime. Sexual responsibility is the key here.
It's already proven to be alive, so I don't think it's much of a stretch to give them rights. A sperm or an egg isn't alive, so your logic would apply to them and I'm perfectly happy to since it makes sense. It's context dependent like everything else I don't believe I have said anything that would imply that I'm opposed to making expectations. If don't create life fine, but if you do maybe you shouldn't kill it unless you actually have a good reason.
I never said anything about whether or not the fetus is alive - my argument works exactly the same regardless of the answer to that question. You're responding to "generic" pro-choice talking points that aren't even a part of the argument I'm actually making. And I don't even know what "I'm not opposed to making expectations" is a response to.
Consider two timelines:
*In timeline A, a couple has sex without protection, and one of them gets pregnant. Neither parent has any interest in raising a child, so the mother aborts the pregnancy. *In timeline B, the couple practices abstinence and doesn't have sex at all. The fetus that was aborted in timeline A is never conceived at all.
What is the tangible, material difference between these two timelines? How is the end result any different in one timeline versus the other? and if the end result is not different, then how are the actions taken in one timeline doing any more harm than the actions in the other? The first timeline doing more harm makes intuitive sense, but any modern physicist can tell you that intuition can be misleading.
rom_collector said:
"I can't beat Xion" wants to white knight about women, turning also every man who had sex as a villain.
But hey, you can take comfort in knowing you're at least not as bad as this guy.
I have never at any point been advocating for vilifying men - all I was did at the start was try to turn the logic behind vilifying women for abortions on its head, in order to illustrate the double standard at play. My only position was that either everyone is blamed for an abortion, or no one is.
I was really hoping that if I ignored your MGTOW/"Women use the law to bleed men dry and the Me Too movement was a scam" screed for long enough you'd get bored and go away, but if you're going to keep making these claims, I'm going to have to ask you to back them up with a source. What exactly are these "few cases" you know?
I never said anything about whether or not the fetus is alive - my argument works exactly the same regardless of the answer to that question. You're responding to "generic" pro-choice talking points that aren't even a part of the argument I'm actually making. And I don't even know what "I'm not opposed to making expectations" is a response to.
Consider two timelines:
*In timeline A, a couple has sex without protection, and one of them gets pregnant. Neither parent has any interest in raising a child, so the mother aborts the pregnancy. *In timeline B, the couple practices abstinence and doesn't have sex at all. The fetus that was aborted in timeline A is never conceived at all.
What is the tangible, material difference between these two timelines? How is the end result any different in one timeline versus the other? and if the end result is not different, then how are the actions taken in one timeline doing any more harm than the actions in the other? The first timeline doing more harm makes intuitive sense, but any modern physicist can tell you that intuition can be misleading.
But hey, you can take comfort in knowing you're at least not as bad as this guy.
I have never at any point been advocating for vilifying men - all I was did at the start was try to turn the logic behind vilifying women for abortions on its head, in order to illustrate the double standard at play. My only position was that either everyone is blamed for an abortion, or no one is.
I was really hoping that if I ignored your MGTOW/"Women use the law to bleed men dry and the Me Too movement was a scam" screed for long enough you'd get bored and go away, but if you're going to keep making these claims, I'm going to have to ask you to back them up with a source. What exactly are these "few cases" you know?
XionGaTaosenai said:
I never said anything about whether or not the fetus is alive - my argument works exactly the same regardless of the answer to that question. You're responding to "generic" pro-choice talking points that aren't even a part of the argument I'm actually making. And I don't even know what "I'm not opposed to making expectations" is a response to.
Consider two timelines:
*In timeline A, a couple has sex without protection, and one of them gets pregnant. Neither parent has any interest in raising a child, so the mother aborts the pregnancy. *In timeline B, the couple practices abstinence and doesn't have sex at all. The fetus that was aborted in timeline A is never conceived at all.
What is the tangible, material difference between these two timelines? How is the end result any different in one timeline versus the other? and if the end result is not different, then how are the actions taken in one timeline doing any more harm than the actions in the other? The first timeline doing more harm makes intuitive sense, but any modern physicist can tell you that intuition can be misleading.
But hey, you can take comfort in knowing you're at least not as bad as this guy.
I have never at any point been advocating for vilifying men - all I was did at the start was try to turn the logic behind vilifying women for abortions on its head, in order to illustrate the double standard at play. My only position was that either everyone is blamed for an abortion, or no one is.
I was really hoping that if I ignored your MGTOW/"Women use the law to bleed men dry and the Me Too movement was a scam" screed for long enough you'd get bored and go away, but if you're going to keep making these claims, I'm going to have to ask you to back them up with a source. What exactly are these "few cases" you know?
It's more that I have been repeatedly saying it, because science has proven it. It really isn't up for debate. I think that alone is enough, so I was going along with your argumentation to prove that "personhood" distinction (which seems to be what you were arguing for, but despite me being 99.9 certain that was what you were arguing in favor of I still won't put words in your mouth) is also flawed, because they are clearly linked. The point about exceptions was that it was dependent on context (which certainly could be because despite me proofreading I have noticed I've made quite a few mistakes; and for that I am sorry, but my brain fixes my rambling without me realizing it). The actual thing (context) making the differences important outside of the outcomes. Assuming you don't or "don't" understand the importance of context I'll explain why it is anyway. Since how one interacts with the world creates or alters context an action, reaction, or even inaction can cause different outcomes, so it is more reasonable to judge each one of these individually. Needless to say, that doesn’t mean we can’t draw parallels between two because it may help us come to a conclusion.
Example one: In this context since the child has been conceived it is immoral to end its existence, because it is already alive.
Example two: It was not conceived therefore no harm was done.
Also I’m not like him, but you both seem to have a low opinion of women, clearly in different ways. Still maybe you two can bond over that.
This is my last post about the subject, but answering your question most are personal close friend experiences that sadly are going with the culture (or lack of it) on my country. All I can tell you is most of them look like latin soap opera scripts or songs written by Jenni Rivera. The three abortions I know definitively were not because of malformations or congenital issues. Their engagement was forced by pregnancy because the daughter was willing to abandon parent's house as soon as posible. Child custody is just an excuse to request support from the other parent or their family, not exclusively from the mother's side I should add.
With these examples I'm not trying to demonize women, just showing off they must be in equal standards like men because they have the potential to cause harm to children too. After all, how are they going to achieve equality if government/men are condescendent to them. They are people that have obligations too, rights don't always come for free. Someone has to work on obligations for others recieve their rights. With women it's not different.
My point is clear, medical advances have progressed considerably. There are analysis tests to check on a pregnancy or risks it could involve for the product. Abortion is and old practice that shouldn't be considered anymore given there are better alternatives today to be responsible about your right to exert sexuallity.
Also I’m not like [Rom Collector], but you both seem to have a low opinion of women, clearly in different ways. Still maybe you two can bond over that.
Wow, you must really hate me.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that I have a low opinion of women, unless you think I'm arguing that women can't be responsible around sex, and I'm not saying that - I'm just saying they shouldn't have to. And men shouldn't have to either! I mean, obviously STDs are thing you always have to watch out for, but as a whole I don't agree with how stigmatized sex is in general. I don't even like sex (I use this site, but I have most of the tags involving genitals and cum of either sex blacklisted), I'm just a firm believer in not having to care about what goes on in other people's bedrooms or what other people do with their bodies. But if you think that sex should be taken more seriously, then apply that standard to everyone equally - don't single out one sex as having to be more responsible when both are equally culpable.
LustyForBusty said:
It's more that I have been repeatedly saying [that the fetus is alive], because science has proven it. It really isn't up for debate.
If it's "not up for debate", and I'm not even trying to debate it, why bring it up? I agree with you that the fetus is alive! Whether the fetus is a "person" is a more complicated question, but I'm willing to concede that to you for the sake of argument.
Our impasse comes from the fact that you think that should be the end of the debate. If the fetus is alive and a "person", then there's nothing left to debate - ending a person's life is always wrong, and can only be justified if it prevents the end of another person's life, which the abortion of a "healthy" pregnancy does not. Therefore, if I'm willing to defend abortion, I must either think that the fetus is not alive or that the fetus is not a person, because what else am I going to do, argue that killing people isn't wrong? Meanwhile, I've been doing exactly that - killing is fine, actually, if no one suffers because of it. That's why "the fetus's perspective" matters, because the question I'm asking is not "is the fetus alive" or "is the fetus a person", but "does the fetus suffer", and my answer is "if it did, it would also suffer just as much from this other action that would be preposterous to declare as 'immoral'".
This "context" you speak of that can determine the morality of actions independent of the outcomes is basically just a set of rules that you treat as unshakeable axioms that can be used to judge behavior. And rules like "killing is bad" are very good rules! but even the best rules have exceptions, and even the most seemingly obvious rules deserve to be examined rather than blindly followed, in order to make sure you aren't in fact doing more harm than good. And when examining those rules and determining when they should or should not be followed, the only possible metric by which those rules can be judged is the outcomes of the actions they demand - therefore, all moral decisions ultimately come down to being judged by outcomes and outcomes alone.
But this is literally the consequentialism vs. deontology argument that's been going on since the time of the Ancient Greeks (if not longer), with no sign of being resolved any time soon, so we're probably not going to settle the matter in the comments thread of a Danbooru post (but maybe if you want to keep this up for another two thousand years we might get somewhere). Unless you can convince me to not be a consequentialist, or I can convince you to not be a deontologist, we are at a stalemate - the exact stalemate I predicted was going to happen three days ago.
I don't know where you're getting the idea that I have a low opinion of women, unless you think I'm arguing that women can't be responsible around sex, and I'm not saying that - I'm just saying they shouldn't have to. And men shouldn't have to either! I mean, obviously STDs are thing you always have to watch out for, but as a whole I don't agree with how stigmatized sex is in general. I don't even like sex (I use this site, but I have most of the tags involving genitals and cum of either sex blacklisted), I'm just a firm believer in not having to care about what goes on in other people's bedrooms or what other people do with their bodies. But if you think that sex should be taken more seriously, then apply that standard to everyone equally - don't single out one sex as having to be more responsible when both are equally culpable.
If it's "not up for debate", and I'm not even trying to debate it, why bring it up? I agree with you that the fetus is alive! Whether the fetus is a "person" is a more complicated question, but I'm willing to concede that to you for the sake of argument.
Our impasse comes from the fact that you think that should be the end of the debate. If the fetus is alive and a "person", then there's nothing left to debate - ending a person's life is always wrong, and can only be justified if it prevents the end of another person's life, which the abortion of a "healthy" pregnancy does not. Therefore, if I'm willing to defend abortion, I must either think that the fetus is not alive or that the fetus is not a person, because what else am I going to do, argue that killing people isn't wrong? Meanwhile, I've been doing exactly that - killing is fine, actually, if no one suffers because of it. That's why "the fetus's perspective" matters, because the question I'm asking is not "is the fetus alive" or "is the fetus a person", but "does the fetus suffer", and my answer is "if it did, it would also suffer just as much from this other action that would be preposterous to declare as 'immoral'".
This "context" you speak of that can determine the morality of actions independent of the outcomes is basically just a set of rules that you treat as unshakeable axioms that can be used to judge behavior. And rules like "killing is bad" are very good rules! but even the best rules have exceptions, and even the most seemingly obvious rules deserve to be examined rather than blindly followed, in order to make sure you aren't in fact doing more harm than good. And when examining those rules and determining when they should or should not be followed, the only possible metric by which those rules can be judged is the outcomes of the actions they demand - therefore, all moral decisions ultimately come down to being judged by outcomes and outcomes alone.
But this is literally the consequentialism vs. deontology argument that's been going on since the time of the Ancient Greeks (if not longer), with no sign of being resolved any time soon, so we're probably not going to settle the matter in the comments thread of a Danbooru post (but maybe if you want to keep this up for another two thousand years we might get somewhere). Unless you can convince me to not be a consequentialist, or I can convince you to not be a deontologist, we are at a stalemate - the exact stalemate I predicted was going to happen three days ago.
They should clearly be responsible. It's the case for any other situation where someone else's life is involved, we hold them to a completely different standard than women on this issue; and I can only assume it's because subconsciously or otherwise they hold a low opinion of women. I have applied my standards consistently if the woman has more to "lose" from pregnancy then I don't think it's unreasonable for her to be more thoughtful of her actions then. Like I said previously nobody likes a deadbeat, so I think it's irrelevant to mention their role.
It's perspective literally does not matter, just because it isn't aware of harm being done doesn't mean it isn't done. You could rape someone in coma and they really wouldn't know if it happened, is that okay? I thought we literally already went over that, the money example could have been bad, but that one describes something very similar. You clearly view the actions inside the greater context it isn't solely the action, this is really the level of bad faith you have to lower yourself to justify it. Even with this distinction both could view it as evil.
The consequentialist since the consequence is the death of a innocent it is immoral, unless you're going to ignore it for some reason, however there are other outcomes so one would have to view each one of those and decide if it's worth.
From deontological view the act of murder of an innocent is bad.
I don't think these are mutually exclusive since actions have consequences, and those consequences will result in reaction; but I'm not a Greek living a thousand years ago, so what do I know?
At the end of the day, I'm a pragmatist. I'd support removing women's rights if it meant that the child they're being forced to have is expected to be a functioning member of society.
The main issue with forcing women to have unwanted children in the United States in the year 2022 is that they're not expected to be functioning members of society. In fact, most of the people who want to force the unwanted children on society disproportionately support shoving said children towards lives of poverty and crime, while also disproportionately being likely to try to blame said children for the life they were forced into.
If the child were properly cared for, or shipped off to a facility where they'd be properly cared for, then there wouldn't be a problem. But my problem is that there's going to be more rapists, murderers, and thieves around in the coming years that are going to be threatening me and my interests. Not only that, the ones making this decision are oftentimes literally doing everything they can to increase the likelihood of said rapists, murderers, and thieves coming in contact with me and my interests by defunding mental illness treatment and prisoner correctional programs.
Arguing whether a fetus is alive or not or will potentially become alive or not is terribly short-sighted and possibly an intentional red herring. If you can argue about the statistical value of an unborn human being becoming potentially possibly, perhaps alive, I'm going to need to talk to you about how much you knew about the crime statistics that are going to be threatening me and my life because of your decision.
The issue of right or wrong can be talked about in the abstract until the cows come home. I don't care. Nor should anyone else after it's clear and obvious how the issue actually impacts reality.
They should clearly be responsible. It's the case for any other situation where someone else's life is involved, we hold them to a completely different standard than women on this issue; and I can only assume it's because subconsciously or otherwise they hold a low opinion of women. I have applied my standards consistently if the woman has more to "lose" from pregnancy then I don't think it's unreasonable for her to be more thoughtful of her actions then. Like I said previously nobody likes a deadbeat, so I think it's irrelevant to mention their role.
It's perspective literally does not matter, just because it isn't aware of harm being done doesn't mean it isn't done. You could rape someone in coma and they really wouldn't know if it happened, is that okay? I thought we literally already went over that, the money example could have been bad, but that one describes something very similar. You clearly view the actions inside the greater context it isn't solely the action, this is really the level of bad faith you have to lower yourself to justify it. Even with this distinction both could view it as evil.
The consequentialist since the consequence is the death of a innocent it is immoral, unless you're going to ignore it for some reason, however there are other outcomes so one would have to view each one of those and decide if it's worth.
From deontological view the act of murder of an innocent is bad.
I don't think these are mutually exclusive since actions have consequences, and those consequences will result in reaction; but I'm not a Greek living a thousand years ago, so what do I know?
Personally, I take the consequentialist point of view, since a deontological point of view would simply find that every side is wrong, from the one taking the life of the child initially to the one trying to force a mother to raise a child without lifting a finger to help her, to the guy that failed basic biology while still trying to call himself a scientist that knows more about what's alive than actual biologists, to the random bystanders who take the time to chime in, but don't take the time to actually read a single comment they're chiming in about, doing far more harm than good.
Frankly, it's not difficult to argue anything you want if you simply don't elaborate, such as when you first stated that science had proven that a fetus is alive. I know that the conversation had moved forward after that, but every conversation is going to have these kinds of issues, and from what I've gleaned from the past hour of looking through this conversation definitely isn't enough to glean its entirety, but
I'm not seeing your arguments as being particularly persuasive, or terribly coherent in a few instances.
Attempting to state an example of a consequentialist argument using a clearly short and very truncated deontological one is not helping you look like you're acting in good faith.
You're in a conversation talking about a court case and the legalities of ending an unborn child's life. The issue of whether the child is alive takes a back seat to the allegedly murdered individual's personhood, to which even something definitely not alive like a business entity is considered a person. It's also well known that medical, biological, zoological, and nearly every other definition of what is and isn't "alive" are all different. Trying to claim that "science" has proven something is trying to claim that you somehow were unaware of the last 20 years of Googleable websites that have indicated everything from your claim that a particular science agrees with you to the idea that "science" saying something simply does not exist, since everyone from biologists to nuclear coprologists would never claim to be "the science".
Even leaving that aside, when you get into the case of potential harm caused to someone, determining the wrongness of killing someone is, again, based on the likelihood of the killed person causing harm to others.
Trying to stop the conversation before that sentence even ends is a pretty overt attempt to hide your true intentions.
At the end of the day, I'm a pragmatist. I'd support removing women's rights if it meant that the child they're being forced to have is expected to be a functioning member of society.
The main issue with forcing women to have unwanted children in the United States in the year 2022 is that they're not expected to be functioning members of society. In fact, most of the people who want to force the unwanted children on society disproportionately support shoving said children towards lives of poverty and crime, while also disproportionately being likely to try to blame said children for the life they were forced into.
If the child were properly cared for, or shipped off to a facility where they'd be properly cared for, then there wouldn't be a problem. But my problem is that there's going to be more rapists, murderers, and thieves around in the coming years that are going to be threatening me and my interests. Not only that, the ones making this decision are oftentimes literally doing everything they can to increase the likelihood of said rapists, murderers, and thieves coming in contact with me and my interests by defunding mental illness treatment and prisoner correctional programs.
Arguing whether a fetus is alive or not or will potentially become alive or not is terribly short-sighted and possibly an intentional red herring. If you can argue about the statistical value of an unborn human being becoming potentially possibly, perhaps alive, I'm going to need to talk to you about how much you knew about the crime statistics that are going to be threatening me and my life because of your decision.
The issue of right or wrong can be talked about in the abstract until the cows come home. I don't care. Nor should anyone else after it's clear and obvious how the issue actually impacts reality.
My slave owning interests is to keep owning my slaves, my interest is killing the Jews and taking their wealth, my interest is taking back land that belong to my ancestors thousands of years ago. Your interests should not be relevant when it comes to making these decisions, that thinking leads to all sorts of atrocities. It also completely ignores other peoples' interests, but I guess only yours matters. If not I guess when the boot is on your neck you'll be fine with it since it's in someone else's interest or in the group's. Get some help you might need it.
My slave owning interests is to keep owning my slaves, my interest is killing the Jews and taking their wealth, my interest is taking back land that belong to my ancestors thousands of years ago. Your interests should not be relevant when it comes to making these decisions, that thinking leads to all sorts of atrocities. It also completely ignores other peoples' interests, but I guess only yours matters. If not I guess when the boot is on your neck you'll be fine with it since it's in someone else's interest or in the group's. Get some help you might need it.
Any coherent argument in any competent courtroom is going to first ask "How does this affect you?" Consideration is the basis of any court in any jurisdiction, anywhere. That's how law works. Whether you're in a German court that keeps asking if the court is acting ethical towards you or a Japanese court that assumes you and perhaps even your attorney is guilty. You simply don't have a case in court if you can't at least prove that the case in question affects you in any way.
The fact that you're telling someone to "Get some help" when they make the first practical argument you've seen in hours to days indicates the maximum possible bad faith you could possibly exhibit.
Any coherent argument in any competent courtroom is going to first ask "How does this affect you?" Consideration is the basis of any court in any jurisdiction, anywhere. That's how law works. Whether you're in a German court that keeps asking if the court is acting ethical towards you or a Japanese court that assumes you and perhaps even your attorney is guilty. You simply don't have a case in court if you can't at least prove that the case in question affects you in any way.
The fact that you're telling someone to "Get some help" when they make the first practical argument you've seen in hours to days indicates the maximum possible bad faith you could possibly exhibit.
Fine. Since I have to spell it out for you, YOUR INTEREST BY ITSELF IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION. I thought it would be implied, because it's so obvious. It affects the child who did literally nothing deserving of death. Therefore it is immoral to murder it.
Fine. Since I have to spell it out for you, YOUR INTEREST BY ITSELF IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION. I thought it would be implied, because it's so obvious. It affects the child who did literally nothing deserving of death. Therefore it is immoral to murder it.
Alright. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The argument since the late 1700s has been that these unwanted children were very clearly destined to become murderers, thieves, rapists, and other criminals due to the fact that society just didn't spend the resources to raise them correctly. These children, by being born, would be tortured by the life they would have no choice but to live in. Eugenics was designed to look into what could be done to prevent the children from being tortured. It wasn't until the 1960s that you no longer had to force a child to be tortured by making them live in a world that didn't want to raise them correctly.
The Supreme Court justices of 1973 knew this all too well, as well as the evidence at the time that indicated clearly that children of parents that didn't want them overwhelmingly became individuals that would harm others. By forcing a child to live, they knew that they would force a man, woman, or child to die.
In an act of splitting hairs, they decided to let the mother abort the pregnancy, rather than have governments mandate that they be aborted, like what was occurring in Alabama during that year.
None of this is new information, as it's simply historical fact. The ruling was given a technical makeover so that no one had to admit the fact that a hard decision had to be made, and no one had to publicly admit what was known at the time, which was that forcing unwanted children to live in this world, though modern, was still tantamount to torturing them directly. With some pundits of the era even claiming that it was even worse. That the ones doing the forcing were engaging in torture of children in a manner that made it easy for them to molest massive numbers of children and get away with it only for them to molest again. And again. And again. And again.
Simply put, I'm accusing you of the same thing that literally tens of thousands of media outlets throughout the 1960s and 1970s, small and large did. I'm accusing you of being not only a child molester. I'm accusing you of wanting to molest children on an industrial scale, like so many CB broadcasts of the era of Norma McCorvey would have.
Edit: And yeah, I'm also accusing you of wanting to attack people by proxy, just to make that absolutely clear, since that would be the main argument in court.
Okay, so I've been away from my computer all day, and I don't have time to unpack all of that, but A) Commode what the fuck, and B) You're never going to convince anyone of anything by being that accusatory. Like yeah, I made some jokey digs at Lusty's title near the beginning, but I was just trying to inject some levity into my arguments, and I have to admit I have a hard time seeing the levity in "you want to molest children on an industrial scale". Comments like that are just going to make people more likely to dig in their heels and not want to listen to anything.
Anyways, it's clear that things have escalated to the point where I'm not going to be able to accomplish anything productive anymore, so I'm just going to make some closing comments and bail. Lusty, I actually think you mean well at the end of the day, but you have some unexamined assumptions that are ultimately doing more harm than good. I swear that I have at no point been arguing in bad faith, and I wish I could have at least convinced you of that much, but at this point I'm going to accept my inability to make myself clear enough as my own failure, and get out of here before I end out tangled up in something far nastier than what I signed up for.
Okay, so I've been away from my computer all day, and I don't have time to unpack all of that, but A) Commode what the fuck, and B) You're never going to convince anyone of anything by being that accusatory. Like yeah, I made some jokey digs at Lusty's title near the beginning, but I was just trying to inject some levity into my arguments, and I have to admit I have a hard time seeing the levity in "you want to molest children on an industrial scale". Comments like that are just going to make people more likely to dig in their heels and not want to listen to anything.
Anyways, it's clear that things have escalated to the point where I'm not going to be able to accomplish anything productive anymore, so I'm just going to make some closing comments and bail. Lusty, I actually think you mean well at the end of the day, but you have some unexamined assumptions that are ultimately doing more harm than good. I swear that I have at no point been arguing in bad faith, and I wish I could have at least convinced you of that much, but at this point I'm going to accept my inability to make myself clear enough as my own failure, and get out of here before I end out tangled up in something far nastier than what I signed up for.
Fair enough. The implying of misogyny in particular, along with some other personal attacks (probably shouldn't have lowered myself to that at least in one instance), and with seemingly assuming the worst possible thing makes me believe you're operating in bad faith to at least some degree. Could probably find some example(s) of me doing something similar, and I'm willing to accept culpability on that. I wouldn't have even bothered engaging if I didn't believe I could convince you otherwise, or had good intentions either. I'm fine with leaving it there, maybe there's something of value in there somewhere anyway and it wasn't all completely pointless.
Okay, so I've been away from my computer all day, and I don't have time to unpack all of that, but A) Commode what the fuck, and B) You're never going to convince anyone of anything by being that accusatory. Like yeah, I made some jokey digs at Lusty's title near the beginning, but I was just trying to inject some levity into my arguments, and I have to admit I have a hard time seeing the levity in "you want to molest children on an industrial scale". Comments like that are just going to make people more likely to dig in their heels and not want to listen to anything.
Anyways, it's clear that things have escalated to the point where I'm not going to be able to accomplish anything productive anymore, so I'm just going to make some closing comments and bail. Lusty, I actually think you mean well at the end of the day, but you have some unexamined assumptions that are ultimately doing more harm than good. I swear that I have at no point been arguing in bad faith, and I wish I could have at least convinced you of that much, but at this point I'm going to accept my inability to make myself clear enough as my own failure, and get out of here before I end out tangled up in something far nastier than what I signed up for.
I'm also sorry for taking that kind of accusatory tone, but knowing how people thought when Roe v. Wade was happening, the people of today would be considered absolute monsters. The Baby Boomers of the late '90s already considered many anti-abortionists of that era to be monsters, with some seeming to indicate that a good number of the people of 30 years prior would have felt compelled to take far more action than just spout off in a bar or at their friend's CB setup due to the strength of the evidence at the time. Of which would include getting a lawyer to give them the green light on whatever questionable thing they were about to do.
I know that morals change over time, but something that would have been generally accepted as initiating child abuse in the 1960s should not have completely changed to being perfectly fine 60 years later. Especially when the evidence from that era has only been reinforced with studies done over the past half century.
I may feel sorry for being forceful, but the very idea of apologizing to someone where the evidence indicates their willingness to harm children is practically undisputed in this modern age would literally get me punched in the face by both a mother and a police officer from 1973.
I have more tales of historical horror related to this topic, but if everyone's ending it here, so am I. Like everyone here, I want to get back to looking at pics of Gawr Gura eating bathtub pizza.
With all of this there is 2 sides who are right and wong at the same time.
This can be easily abused by loop hole. The law even abide abortions past the 5 month of gestation too. Thats the questionable part of all this. It can be easily abuse by Karens and Beckys who don't want the kid they try to hook to any guy they had unprotected sex with and their plan backfires massively, either because the guy left them , they broke up or the guy end up in an accident too.
For other side i understand this is more benefict for rape victims, woman with health condition who make them at risk if had a pregnancy, mental disables woman (this comes from a case in my country where a 19 y/o down syndrome girl was raped by a guy and got pregnant), or woman who has some mental issues aren't unable to take care of a child as well.
It doesn't had anything to do with years of fight or political bs (in part). The solution is easier: "Don't want kid? don't had sex or unprotected sex. Easy".
I'd like to quote a bit by Dave Chappelle, and I totally agree with him and say he hit the nail on the head when he talked about this on his sticks and stones special.
I'm not against abortion, but I'm not for it either. And I don't agree with the US/Any Government telling my ass and any other man what to do with his own money. So if women get the rights to keep or terminate a baby? So, by that logic, a man should have the rights to support that baby or not.
Actually here's a current one. Y'all know the rapper Drake? He almost got baby trapped and nobody on the left or liberal side/feminist would talk about that. Look that shit up it's a fucked up article and it shows how evil these women in western society are.
I hope they leave this post up. The moral justice warriors will be surprised to see that 20 years from now, all the unwanted children that women are forced to birth in red states will turn to crime and lead miserable lives because, well, they weren't wanted/couldn't be kept by the family denied abortion. Even less thought is given to poor women/families forced to bear children in this dammned country, so hostile to working people.
Lots of weird arguments up there, some of which I find odd. Let me address some of them:
1) Restricting abortion means taking all choices from women They still have plenty of choices, like abstinence or contraceptives. This argument only works on cases of rape. In that case just let abortion be legal for rape victims and rape victims only. It's impossible to consider people who have consensual sex with full knowledge of what sex is as not having a choice.
2) Abortion is not murder An often peddled argument, and is honestly a pretty weak one. Why is it not a murder? Because they're a "lump of cells"? You can describe every living organisms as such. Because they're unthinking and unfeeling? And so are 1-2 year old kids and some mentally ill people. Should it be legal to shoot them? Someone actually brought this point up there and the only answer is some non-sequitur about the bible.
3) Let abortion be legal and those who don't want it can simply not use it. It's definitely not that simple. Someone brought up this argument earlier, comparing it to drinking beers. Unfortunately, vast swathes of humanity don't see abortion as the equivalent of drinking alcohol but as murder. Imagine if someone's saying that murder should be legal and anyone who doesn't want to do it should just abstain from murder. That's how they're seeing it.
There are some other arguments that I'd like to present but I'm tired because I write this wall of text on a phone. Tl;dr: Pro-choice arguments aren't as airtight as they like to present.
POV: 49 years to codify Roe v. Wade as federal law and it didn't happen.
Like this SCOTUS gives a fuck anyway. They would have found some half-assed justification to find any federal law null and void.
Ideological, partisan hacks. I mean, for fuck's sake Uncle Tom was talking about how we need to take another look at fucking contraception being legal, sodomy laws and gay marriage being a right.
They'll never stop until *they are stopped*. Otherwise, they'll keep trying to claw rights away, no matter how enshrined you think they are.
Jesus Christ. Been reading the comments. Is there an equivalent to danbooru that isn't infested by redditoid fags?
Should just ban political content from here and stick to porn.
Reddit fags infest everything and all it takes it flush em out is something political that hurts their position. Its funny watching em sperg the fuck out thought. In reality they're mad they can't bludgeon the States across the board with broad terms on abortion up til point of delivery anymore. There's a reason some with 🧠 warn folks to keep issues in house then run to the Federal goons.
They got away with it for 49yrs and doubled down by pushing the issue only to get btfo'd lmao.
I don't know how banning abortions will help women with being forced to raise babies, unless the government plans to increase compensations otherwise it's just going to increase poverty to our country.
"abortion is murder" no, murder is killing a living individual. Abortion is stopping a bodily process from completing. The moment the baby is actually born, and has a chance at living without the need to be attached to another individual, then killing it is murder. Before that point there isn't actually a seperate individual to kill. It's the mother's body keeping it alive, it's the mother's choice. If it's a life support machine or medical intervention keeping it alive, then it has as much right to live as any other human that needs a life support machine or medical intervention to survive. Until you've actually brought another, seperate being into this world, you should be able to choose if you want to bring it into this world. Once you've already brought a seperate being into this world, it is no longer your choice, because it has its own life.