The Abortion Thread

[SergeantBrother]

In the USA, abortion should be a state issue. Though while I have objections to abortion, I would rather it remain legal. There are so many abortive methods now, including drugs, that it would be really difficult to effectively outlaw abortion. We would have another situation like the war on drugs, with illegal abortions everywhere and brutal, yet ultimately ineffective, attempts to fight it.

The better way of preventing abortions than outlaweing it is probably increasing usage of birth control and reducing promiscuity.

 

[almostinsane]

Abortion kills another human being. The fetus is human down to the DNA. They in no way resemble any other animal. The common law condemnation of murder rests on the lost opportunity of life for the victim, not on his or her awareness or cognitive abilities.

 

[Fleiur]

Abortion kills another human being. The fetus is human down to the DNA.

Indeed. It is killing of another human being.

 

[Sceptic]

Anti-abortion laws kill people. And a lot of people who advocate forcing women to risk their lives bearing non-viable fetuses to term (or as close to term as said non-viable fetuses will reach) are also not only unwilling to do anything to actually help at-risk children and infants once they're born, but also advocate against measures which will reduce the incidence of abortion of viable fetuses (eg subsidized contraceptives and sex education).

 

[ShadowsOfParadox]

And a lot of people who advocate forcing women to risk their lives bearing non-viable fetuses to term

the response to this is induced labor.

 

[King Krávoka]

I'm only here (inside the thread) to accuse this issue of having the worst nomenclature around since the institution of the Great And Abominable Bird. Each side has been named for its claimed ideal, those believing in the rights of the fetus as its own person are pro-life; and those believing in the woman's autonomy extending to her own womb are pro-choice. But people elaborate with statements such as "I'm pro-life, except if the baby was conceived of..." Okay, so you oppose abortion except in tragic circumstances. "I'm pro-choice, but she didn't have a good reason for..." And you only support it within tragic circumstances. LIFE means LIFE, CHOICE means CHOICE, these terms do not ACTUALLY describe any mainstream opinion of the matter. From my point of view everyone has been going into ardent slapfights in favor of the same thing.

 

[Fleiur]

Spoiler

Horrendous evil of abortion happening in the country since Roe v Wade. Abortion kills human beings.

 

[Rocinante]

*Snip*
Abortion kills human beings.

Could you spoiler tag that please? I really don't want to see it every time I come to this thread and it borders NSFW

 

[Fleiur]

Anti-abortion laws kill people. And a lot of people who advocate forcing women to risk their lives bearing non-viable fetuses to term (or as close to term as said non-viable fetuses will reach) are also not only unwilling to do anything to actually help at-risk children and infants once they're born, but also advocate against measures which will reduce the incidence of abortion of viable fetuses (eg subsidized contraceptives and sex education).

That is the big lie. That is not what's happening in abortion clinics all over the country. Abortion kills human beings. And their murderers are selling baby parts to be experimented in. Furthermore, these women who have had abortions almost always regret what they did.

 

[Fleiur]

Could you spoiler tag that please? I really don't want to see it every time I come to this thread and it borders NSFW

How?

 

[Rocinante]

How?

[ Spoiler ] content here [ /spoiler ]

Just like this but remove the spaces

Spoiler

it'll look like this

 

[Agent23]

Ok, my two cents.

First off, let us summarize what the two fringes of the debate are saying, with the left "fringe" now being mainstreamed.

Leftards: Hurr, durr, abortion is a human right, even if the fetus can be viable out of the womb.

Rightwingers: Abortion is always evil,even if there are deformities, incest, and danger to mother and child.

The rightwing opinion is, of course, universally despised while the far left one is lionized, in no small part because it fits well with the Western liberal no consequences libertine culture while making the neoliberals happy because that keeps social spending for things like child care and maternity leaves down and keeps the feminine wage slaves working.

There are problems with both points of view, and frankly I am right of center on the issue.

Abortions in case of danger to the mother's life or if the fetus is non-viable or afflicted with some debilitating disease like down syndrome should IMHO be permitted.
Incest is disgusting, dangerous from a purely genetic standpoint, and making a woman carry a product of that, especially if it is related to rape, is pretty vile in my book.

So, those are the situations when I am fine with abortion and the benefits to society and the individuals involved are obvious in those cases.

In general though, we should have restrictions up to a particular stage of pregnancy, like with the heartbeat thing, however I think that brain activity should be the deciding factor.

Now, on to the social negatives that abortion brings:

First off, it decreases the population over time, which erodes the tax base.On a purely personal level, all those spinsters and chads that pumped and dumped them will probably die alone, in a nursing home if they are lucky, probably impoverished and without anyone giving a damn about them.With economic growth and social cohesion being impacted.

Another problem is that on demand abortion helps proliferate this no consequence culture and stimulates dangerous, promiscuous behavior subsidized by the taxpayer.I see no reason why I should subsidize the stupidity of instathots and sex and the city larpers that are too cheap and dumb to make their latest one night pumper put on a condom, especially since abortions and hormonal contraceptives and morning after pills do not prevent the spread of AIDS and other venereal diseases.

 

[Fleiur]

There are problems with both points of view, and frankly I am right of center on the issue.

Abortions in case of danger to the mother's life or if the fetus is non-viable or afflicted with some debilitating disease like down syndrome should IMHO be permitted.
Incest is disgusting, dangerous from a purely genetic standpoint, and making a woman carry a product of that, especially if it is related to rape, is pretty vile in my book.

So, those are the situations when I am fine with abortion and the benefits to society and the individuals involved are obvious in those cases.

In general though, we should have restrictions up to a particular stage of pregnancy, like with the heartbeat thing, however I think that brain activity should be the deciding factor.

Using this logic you can also say we should kill those transient, homeless, drug addicts in the street of LA, in Venice Beach, in NYC, in Philly etc.

Because they are useless, they don't contribute to society, they are burden, they are zombies, and they are dangers to women, children, and the community and to society as a whole.

 

[Agent23]

Using this logic you can also say we should kill those transient, homeless, drug addicts in the street of LA, in Venice Beach, in NYC, in Philly etc.

Because they are useless, they don't contribute to society, they are burden, they are zombies, and they are dangers to women, children, and the community and to society as a whole.

Those you can fix with some reformative hard labor.
Not people with congenital defects, and the idea is to fix the problem before organs are formed and brainwaves are present.

 

[Fleiur]

Those you can fix with some reformative hard labor.
Not people with congenital defects, and the idea is to fix the problem before organs are formed and brainwaves are present.

No. These people doesn't want to be fixed. Look at what Cali government are doing to help these people. They still go back to the street, do drugs and commit crimes. These people are zombies. Like I said, useless, burdens and threats to society. They deserved to be killed with your logic.

No. These are innocent human beings that are being killed. Regardless, of whether it's "before organs are formed" and "brainwaves are present, " science tells us that these are human beings.

 

[Agent23]

No. These people doesn't want to be fixed. Look at what Cali government are doing to help these people. They still go back to the street, do drugs and commit crimes. These people are zombies. Like I said, useless, burdens and threats to society. They deserved to be killed with your logic.

No. These are innocent human beings that are being killed. Regardless, of whether it's "before organs are formed" and "brainwaves are present, " science tells us that these are human beings.

Then we will implement old Slav Remedy as quoted by Khrushchev.
"He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

 

[WolfBear]

Whats the moral value of an infant? It obviously doesnt have the autonomous thinking. How do you have inalienable rights? When do you gain those?

To be honest, I actually don't see any reason to treat human infants better than non-human animals with equal or greater current mental abilities, especially when the animals in question are not being used for food. This, of course, could mean that painless elective infanticide could be justified in some cases in my own honest opinion, but this doesn't particularly bother me because human infants lack a conscious desire to live yet, which is something that older human children have and which obviously makes killing older human children wrong. A human infant won't know what they are being deprived of by being euthanized, but even a two-year-old child probably will.

 

[WolfBear]

To be honest, I actually don't see any reason to treat human infants better than non-human animals with equal or greater current mental abilities, especially when the animals in question are not being used for food. This, of course, could mean that painless elective infanticide could be justified in some cases in my own honest opinion, but this doesn't particularly bother me because human infants lack a conscious desire to live yet, which is something that older human children have and which obviously makes killing older human children wrong. A human infant won't know what they are being deprived of by being euthanized, but even a two-year-old child probably will.

FWIW, I would prefer it if unwanted infants were given up for adoption or be raised by single parents instead, but that actually requires more reasonable child support laws.

 

[Abhorsen]

No. These are innocent human beings that are being killed. Regardless, of whether it's "before organs are formed" and "brainwaves are present, " science tells us that these are human beings.

... No, science doesn't tell you that. Science is actually uniquely bad at telling you things about morals, the soul, etc. Honestly, if you add as much rationality to it as possible, you really end up at about 8 weeks post conception (really at the beginning of human thought, which starts at earliest at 8 weeks) as the clearest dividing line.

Conception doesn't work because of identical twins. Because then at some point, one life splits into two, and now there are two points at which babies are born (conception and there). And also, what if the split isn't complete and there are siamese twins? Is that two people or one? And I could go on an on about the logical places where it falls flat, and I have.

The only reliable logical single point is the beginning of thought. All the others need exceptions wound through them everywhere.

 

[Morphic Tide]

The only reliable logical single point is the beginning of thought. All the others need exceptions wound through them everywhere.

Well, you can tie it to pretty much any vital organ, heart's the easiest to identify and brain's the thing responsible for what ethics *generally* concerns itself with. If the baby's missing a heart, that's developmentally fatal.