• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pro Life / Pro Choice Debate

It’s nice how the points about supporting all the things that would prevent abortions were glossed over. If people really wanted to stop abortions they would start there because nobody actually wants to have an abortion.
 
It’s nice how the points about supporting all the things that would prevent abortions were glossed over. If people really wanted to stop abortions they would start there because nobody actually wants to have an abortion.

stop abortions at all cost. figure out (ignore) the other stuff later.
 
What a terrible argument with the temporary coma. This person is just as viable as a newborn baby in that they can survive but need assistance to provide nutrients. Now someone is a long term coma that is on life support then it becomes a grey area.

I don't consider a fertilized egg as fully human just like an egg isn't fully chicken. Morning after pills have no ethical dilemma for me and I think this would be true of most people. Therefore there is some delineation among most people as to the time that a fetus would need to be protected by law.

On what basis? What is it that differentiates humans from non-humans?

I'm not sure of your predilections, but it is interesting to me that so many atheists/materialists/physicalists take a similar position to this one. It seems to me that Hitchens had it right when he said, "as a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity" and, more verbosely, "I have always been convinced that the term 'unborn child' is a genuine description of material reality. Obviously, the fetus is alive, so that disputation about whether or not it counts as 'a life' is casuistry. The same applies, from a materialist point of view, to the question of whether or not this 'life' is 'human.' What other kind could it be? As for 'dependent,' this has never struck me as a very radical criticism of any agglomeration of human cells in whatever state. Children are 'dependent' too. […] Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that the emotions are not a deciding factor. In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, and, whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs."

If one's position is that human beings are nothing more than an agglomeration of cells, then there seems to be no rational and internally consistent way to classify fetuses/unborn children as non-human.

and Wrangor

Arguing that the State and/or electorate does not have the power to intervene on behalf of the weak and voiceless seems to be contrary to the vast majority of your political positions.
 
I have never made a biblical argument against abortion. Viability is an awful argument because at different stages of life we are all at different levels of viability. Does someone in a temporary coma lose their right to live? Additionally viability will continue to evolve over time. Does that mean or ethical obligation to life should change.

The life of the unborn is unique and fully human. Given normal nourishment he/she will develop into a fully functioning adult member of society unless unnaturally stopped. Abortion unnaturally ends the life of another human. We will get there one day. Our eyes will be opened to the atrocities we have committed.

good post
 
On what basis? What is it that differentiates humans from non-humans?

I'm not sure of your predilections, but it is interesting to me that so many atheists/materialists/physicalists take a similar position to this one. It seems to me that Hitchens had it right when he said, "as a materialist, I think it has been demonstrated that an embryo is a separate body and entity" and, more verbosely, "I have always been convinced that the term 'unborn child' is a genuine description of material reality. Obviously, the fetus is alive, so that disputation about whether or not it counts as 'a life' is casuistry. The same applies, from a materialist point of view, to the question of whether or not this 'life' is 'human.' What other kind could it be? As for 'dependent,' this has never struck me as a very radical criticism of any agglomeration of human cells in whatever state. Children are 'dependent' too. […] Anyone who has ever seen a sonogram or has spent even an hour with a textbook on embryology knows that the emotions are not a deciding factor. In order to terminate a pregnancy, you have to still a heartbeat, switch off a developing brain, and, whatever the method, break some bones and rupture some organs."

If one's position is that human beings are nothing more than an agglomeration of cells, then there seems to be no rational and internally consistent way to classify fetuses/unborn children as non-human.



Arguing that the State and/or electorate does not have the power to intervene on behalf of the weak and voiceless seems to be contrary to the vast majority of your political positions.

another good post
 
Arguing that the State and/or electorate does not have the power to intervene on behalf of the weak and voiceless seems to be contrary to the vast majority of your political positions.

Being raised Catholic, I was taught that abortion (and contraception and premarital sex) and the death penalty are wrong. I still think the death penalty is wrong, and if I've learned anything from the moral position staked out therein, it is that the state shouldn't play arbiter in life or death decisions because it doesn't always have the best interests of its constituents at heart, and instead should focus on providing the best possible social welfare to all. That applies universally to the health care of women and the way we care for our young. Too often as people here note anti-abortion voters also want to restrict access to care for women's health and limit services for vulnerable newborn children, relying too heavily on the individual's capability to care for a child.

I am sympathetic to the position that abortion is no different from murder because I haven't found a good and complete argument, scientific or otherwise, that rebuts it. I think the state should work to reduce the number of abortions, but keep the procedure safe and access to it legal. It's a complex and frustrating position to support given the moral implications, and much smarter people than me do a better job grappling with it.
 
defining what constitutes human life and what does not constitute human life based on our convenience is wrong

any definition is going to be convenient for the person defining the thing. conservatives and religious dingbats just define life so they can make their laws work
 
Being raised Catholic, I was taught that abortion (and contraception and premarital sex) and the death penalty are wrong. I still think the death penalty is wrong, and if I've learned anything from the moral position staked out therein, it is that the state shouldn't play arbiter in life or death decisions because it doesn't always have the best interests of its constituents at heart, and instead should focus on providing the best possible social welfare to all. That applies universally to the health care of women and the way we care for our young. Too often as people here note anti-abortion voters also want to restrict access to care for women's health and limit services for vulnerable newborn children, relying too heavily on the individual's capability to care for a child.

I am sympathetic to the position that abortion is no different from murder because I haven't found a good and complete argument, scientific or otherwise, that rebuts it. I think the state should work to reduce the number of abortions, but keep the procedure safe and access to it legal. It's a complex and frustrating position to support given the moral implications, and much smarter people than me do a better job grappling with it.

No argument on that. I have a great deal of sympathy for the conservative argument that people should face the consequences of their own actions. Far too many of those conservatives, however, want to punish, or at least shrug at the prospect of punishing, children for the choices of their parents.
 
Being raised Catholic, I was taught that abortion (and contraception and premarital sex) and the death penalty are wrong. I still think the death penalty is wrong, and if I've learned anything from the moral position staked out therein, it is that the state shouldn't play arbiter in life or death decisions because it doesn't always have the best interests of its constituents at heart, and instead should focus on providing the best possible social welfare to all. That applies universally to the health care of women and the way we care for our young. Too often as people here note anti-abortion voters also want to restrict access to care for women's health and limit services for vulnerable newborn children, relying too heavily on the individual's capability to care for a child.

I am sympathetic to the position that abortion is no different from murder because I haven't found a good and complete argument, scientific or otherwise, that rebuts it. I think the state should work to reduce the number of abortions, but keep the procedure safe and access to it legal. It's a complex and frustrating position to support given the moral implications, and much smarter people than me do a better job grappling with it.

How does this relate to chopping off dicks ?
 
giphy.gif
 
defining what constitutes human life and what does not constitute human life based on our convenience is wrong

Says a guy who supports locking children in cells because they were born in the “wrong” country.
 
No dicks. No abortions. I'm guessing wrangor goes first.

Here’s a great piece from a Mormon mom about how society doesn’t hold men responsible for unwanted pregnancies.

https://humanparts.medium.com/men-cause-100-of-unwanted-pregnancies-eb0e8288a7e5

“Great question. Modern birth control for women is possibly the most important invention of the last century, and I’m very grateful for it. It’s also brutal. The side effects for many women include migraines, mood swings, decreased libido, depression, severe cramps, heavy bleeding, aneurysm — and that’s just a small fraction of them.

Discouragingly, a promising study on a new male contraceptive was canceled in large part due to… (wait for it)… side effects. To be clear, this list of side effects was about one-third as long as the known side effects for commonly used women’s contraception. There’s a lot to unpack in that story alone. I’ll simply point out that, as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.”

...

“Still, many men who resist wearing condoms never learn how to pull out correctly. Apparently, it’s slightly more pleasurable to climax inside a vagina than, say, on their partner’s stomach. Once again, men are willing to risk the life, health, and well-being of women in order to experience a tiny bit more pleasure for roughly five seconds during orgasm.
Think of the choice men are making here. Honestly, I’m not as mad as I should be about this, because we’ve trained men from birth to disassociate sex and pregnancy. We’ve taught them that their pleasure is of utmost importance.
As a general rule, men get women pregnant by having an orgasm. Yes, there are exceptions — it’s possible for sperm to show up in pre-ejaculate — but in most cases, getting a woman pregnant is a pleasurable act for men. But men can get a woman pregnant without her feeling any pleasure at all. It’s even possible for a man to impregnate a woman while causing her excruciating pain, trauma, or horror.
In contrast, a woman can have nonstop orgasms with or without a partner and never once get herself pregnant. A woman’s orgasm has literally nothing to do with pregnancy or fertility — her clitoris exists simply for pleasure, not for creating new humans. No matter how many orgasms she has, they won’t make her pregnant.
Pregnancies happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.
A woman can be the sluttiest slut in the entire world, she can love having orgasms all day and all night long, and she will never find herself with an unwanted pregnancy unless a man shows up and ejaculates irresponsibly. Though our society tends to villainize female pleasure, women’s enjoyment of sex does not equal unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Men’s enjoyment of sex and irresponsible ejaculations do.”
 
They are all extremely valid reasons for not having a child. And they should all be considered before you engage sexually because the end result of sex happens to be a baby. If you feel unprepared or unwilling to have a child either don’t have sex, or take the proper precautions. It isn’t as though our birth control system is ineffective. Two forms and it is almost statistically impossible to get pregnant. Wear a condom and you are 99%+ and they cost less than $1. You have some serious sex problems If that price point is a problem.

Teaching everyone to be a victim of their own willful choices is always a bad move.

The giant elephant in the room though is that conservatives have fought tooth and nail to make sure that preteens, teens, and young adults are not given comprehensive sex education at the time in their lives where it is most needed. At the same time, conservatives are fighting to restrict access to sexual health centers and literally went to the Supreme Court to make it so giving women birth control through health insurance wasn’t a guarantee. So you can cite all the questionable early 2000’s statistics you want, but unless and until young Americans are taught proper sex education and given the resources to practice safe sex, your blaming those that get pregnant feels rather empty.
 
Does anyone really think that repealing Roe v. Wade or even a nationwide abortion ban will actually stop abortions?
It might reduce the rate some, but people will still get abortions.
Middle class and wealthy women, or wealthy men who impregnate their mistresses, will have the resources to get safe abortions and will do so.
Poor women will die from botched self-abortion attempts or from bad doctors.
The fetuses are still going to die, and in significant numbers. There will just be a whole lot more human misery to go along with it.

This is very much worth reading. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/the-things-we-cant-face/600769/

This is not an argument anyone is going to win. The loudest advocates on both sides are terrible representatives for their cause. When women are urged to “shout your abortion,” and when abortion becomes the subject of stand-up comedy routines, the attitude toward abortion seems ghoulish. Who could possibly be proud that they see no humanity at all in the images that science has made so painfully clear? When anti-abortion advocates speak in the most graphic terms about women “sucking babies out of the womb,” they show themselves without mercy. They are not considering the extremely human, complex, and often heartbreaking reasons behind women’s private decisions. The truth is that the best argument on each side is a damn good one, and until you acknowledge that fact, you aren’t speaking or even thinking honestly about the issue. You certainly aren’t going to convince anybody. Only the truth has the power to move.

And here is one truth: No matter what the law says, women will continue to get abortions. How do I know? Because in the relatively recent past, women would allow strangers to brutalize them, to poke knitting needles and wire hangers into their wombs, to thread catheters through their cervices and fill them with Lysol, or scalding-hot water, or lye. Women have been willing to risk death to get an abortion. When we made abortion legal, we decided we weren’t going to let that happen anymore. We were not going to let one more woman arrive at a hospital with her organs rotting inside of her. We accepted that we might lose that growing baby, but we were not also going to lose that woman.
 
Back
Top