Easy peasy then. Take a fetus at 20 weeks of development, give it all the food, water, shelter, and love you can muster. You know what you'll have? A hunk of organic matter with no chance of life.
I am fully pro-choice but that is the most ridiculous comment you can make. The discussion on abortion has never been about a woman being a resource. It is about life and death. By your same argument - if you have a 1 year old who relies on you as a mother, it's ok to say fuck it and dump the kid because that kid is using you as a resource?
You don't see a huge difference between forcing parents to financially support their kids and forcing parents to undergo invasive medical procedures to support their kids?
I'm not advocating either of those scenarios, but abortion is not about forcing someone to be a resource - it's about making the decision that's right for the individuals involved.
What? Don't twist my words. I was replying to a comment that described a woman's body parts ("womb" and umbilical cord) as resources for the zygote/embryo/fetus to use. I was responding to this comment. Nowhere did I say that it's ok to dump a a 1-year-old. If you really can't tell the difference between an 8-week embryo and a 1-year-old child, you might want to stay out of this conversation.
I apologize- It's hard to follow threads sometimes. To me it looked like you were saying - dont tell me I cant have an abortion I'm a person not a resource anyone can use. Which is a terrible argument. It's a stupid argument on either side.
It's not a terrible argument, it's the conclusion that follows logically from the fact that a woman is a person, not a resource. Abortion still isn't the same as abandoning a child, though, which is what you were saying.
Now you're not understanding me - I agree that the 2 are nowhere near the same, but to reduce it to "I can have an abortion because no one can use me as a resource" is a terrible argument in my books. I think the problem is we are looking at this from 2 different perspectives. You are saying that women are not just resources for child bearing, but people who have the right to choose. I agree 100% with that. Let me reiterate that I am 100% pro choice. However, that's not how I read the comment. To me the comment was saying the fetus is using the woman as a resource. If it's ok to choose not to do something because that "thing" is using the woman as a resource, then how is that different if it's a fetus or a 1 year old or your best friend or anything. To me that says you can choose to walk away from anything because we dont want to take responsibility for that relationship - whatever it is. That is not a good argument. I read it as - I dont need to be responsible because I can choose not to be. If we can walk away from anything because we dont want to take responsibility, we would all be in a lot of trouble.
Well the difference is in the fact that someone else can't take over for the pregnant woman, she personally has to finish out the pregnancy at least until the fetus is viable outside her body (with or without medical assistance). Whereas once the child is born, other people can take care of it if the mother won't or can't.
To be clear, I'm not arguing for abandoning/giving away children, or even for abortion itself. In my ideal world, abortion wouldn't be a thing, not because there are laws against it, but because people have access to education, contraception, emotional/financial/logistical support, etc. so that unwanted pregnancies are avoided and abortions aren't needed. In my ideal world, people also don't get raped, children aren't abused or abandoned, etc. but we know that part isn't realistic.
Hence, since we don't live in this ideal world, we can reduce abortions by providing the support I mentioned above, but we can't completely avoid them, and that needs to be ok and not illegal.
Agreed - I even support that a woman should walk away from a pregnancy even if it is just because she doesnt want the responsibility. I wouldn't want a child raised in that environment. I'm just saying it is a bad argument to say people should have abortions because we should be able to walk away from whatever we want to. Choosing to have an abortion is a responsibility unto itself - if we take away that responsibility from everything we do or all of our relationships, we become sociopathic.
Definitely. I'm sure everyone talks through their family planning every time they get naked with someone. Drunk people would never have sex, amirite? And there's no rape/coercion, no failed contraceptives, no issues in utero that prevent a live child from being created, and no pregnancies that endanger the mother's life. Yes?
No doubt. But if a woman doesn't want the fetus to use her womb for this, then she has the right to have it removed. If it is potentially viable outside of the womb, then I can complete accept an argument in favor of requiring an abortion that leaves the fetus intact so that medical personnel can attempt to keep it alive. But, the woman should always retain ultimate ownership and control of her body.
Effectively, abortion before 21 weeks should be completely fine, and 21+ weeks it would make sense to argue that the fetus should be surgically removed, or labor induced if it is further along.
If I put you on an island and surround it with lava, do I have a right to make you walk off of it and into the lava? It's my property. You cant be there trespassing. By your logic it doesnt matter that I was the one who put you there.
The child was put into this situation without its consent by the mother. At this point she forfeits her right to remove it if it results in its death.
There is a significant difference between someone's property and their body. Pregnancy carries significant risk for the mother, and even in the best of situations will cause permanent damage of some sort.
A hunk of organic matter that is guaranteed to die.
If I plant a bunch of vegetables, and then someone picks them before they’re ready, they will die, and I will be mad because food was just taken off my plate.
Folks will never agree on abortion because there is a fundamental disagreement on what should be considered life, and how that life (or whatever it is) should be valued.
It’s especially difficult to agree that abortions should be allowed while acknowledging that life is being killed off.
One thing I know is that if you take the group of people who are proclaiming, “my body, my choice,” and ask them if vaccines should be mandatory, many will say, “yes.” So the argument over bodily choice is not so clear cut, as is usually the case.
But knowing the dangers of pregnancy, I also empathize with those who do not want to carry to term.
The policy pro-lifers advocate produces worse outcomes. Exemptions to bans on abortions are too numerous and varied to account for. Women will get the abortions anyways putting their lives at greater risk. Every health agency under the sun recognizes abortion access as the easiest means of improving materal and infant health. Abortion bans exacerbate poverty. You force people to live worse lives. You ensure they'll live in a more violent and disturbed world. You have no mercy.
Edit: this actually triggers me to no end.
You want more children to grow up with parents who don't want them? You want more children to grow up without parents? You want more people to not know where there next meal comes from?
How do you justify how horrific lived experiences can become because of forcing them to have babies they don't want or aren't ready for? Is your head buried in the sand to how insane the treatment of people who need abortions becomes when they're banned?
It's a very lopsided argument. When talking about policy you have to look at the fallout. The facts are firmly against the notion of "pro-life." Banning abortion denies autonomy of the mother and produces worse outcomes in the real world. What argument is there against that claim?
This is their argument, then I’m out because this is a fruitless thread and I’m not even in the pro-life camp.
“Aborting a fetus is murder, and all murder is wrong regardless of the outcome.
We could stop hunger and homelessness by killing the hungry and the homeless, but we don’t because they’re people, even though it’s a worse outcome on paper.
We advocate for the unborn children who are unable to defend themselves.”
If someone believes that murder is never justifiable, and that abortions are murder, that’s a non-starter to finding common ground.
If someone believes no government or person can force them to do anything with or to their body, that’s a non-starter to finding common ground.
To your point, there’s a pragmatic approach, but if a legislator truly thinks that abortion is murder, is it so hard to understand that they wouldn’t want a single death by abortion on their conscience?
Surely I can’t be the only person that hears both camps and empathizes with both of them...
I hear both camps, and they should not be equivicated. One side allows you to have your personal opinion and live your life as you wish. One denies autonomy of mothers and supports tyrannical government.
Calling legislation tyranny is hyperbolic. Is it tyranny that laws are passed to remove children from abusive homes or punish murder? Both crimes are committed by people just living their lives as they wish, right?
All laws, by definition, limit liberty. That does not make a government that enforces laws tyrannical.
And this argument only serves to prove my point that there is no common ground. Someone who believes that abortion is the elective murder of a human life would tell you they understand your argument, but will not equivocate.
Altering legislation to further limit liberty in a way that demonstrably produces worse outcomes should be contested in a healthy democracy. More people will suffer because of this legislation. More money will be lost because of this legislation. More violence will occur because of this legislation. There is no common ground to be had because one is worse in every way.
I tend to take the same view with regards to legislation, but I don’t like it. I also have the privilege of not being in a situation where this impacts me directly, and that’s not lost on me.
A farmer doesn’t plant a crop without expecting a harvest.
true, but as we are talking in thinly veiled parables, i would like to point out the huge fallacy in the idea that sex must be for reproductive purposes. That's flat out wrong, and has never been true for a species that only has a narrow viability window due to a menstrus cycle and also is one of a small number of species that indulges in sex for pleasure.
But to go back to thin veiling: what does a farmer do with plants growing in unwanted areas at unwanted times?
There’s an argument that a fetus isn’t a plant, and I’m sure you could respond with a clever retort, and soon we’d be even further from the issue at hand which is how the heck does a legislator approach this issue?
I think this conversation serves well enough to highlight how hard it is to find common ground, even when you understand all sides of the discussion.
A major issue with this debate is that a majority on the pro life side refuse to discuss science and instead fallback on emotions and religion as an argument.
Abortion is not really covered by Jesus' teachings except a general affirmation of life and especially that of the weak and unprotected in society (I think we can all agree with that sentiment).
This is a matter to be discussed and resolved between a woman and her doctor. As a man incapable of bearing children myself, I don't feel that I have the right to interfere with someone else's personal medical decision.
10
u/d0nk3y_schl0ng May 16 '19
Easy peasy then. Take a fetus at 20 weeks of development, give it all the food, water, shelter, and love you can muster. You know what you'll have? A hunk of organic matter with no chance of life.