Abortion Rights: It's a Simple Choice, Right?

[Intraluminal]

People have been arguing about abortion rights in the United States for decades. Part of that is because they are not just arguing about abortion, they are also arguing about the power and influence that religion should have in American politics.

Whenever you think about a problem that is complex as abortion rights are, you need to think about the EXTREME CASES. So let's do that.

OK. Let's say I give you the latest Star Trek phaser, with in-built Artificial Intelligence, and it's set on disintegrate. You point it, and the computer inside your phaser "knows" what you're pointing at. You can't miss, you will ONLY disintegrate what you're aiming at, and disintegration is instantaneous and painless.

Case one:

On a Petri dish I place a healthy fertile human egg, and a single healthy fertile human sperm. On the table next to us is the first man with a tissue-engineered womb, ready to accept that fertilized egg - he's not happy about it, but he's ready (I know, you'd think he'd be ecstatic - go figure) I'm going to give him a little extra Ativan- he looks nervous.

I tell you to look through the microscope and the second the sperm fertilizes the egg - FIRE your phaser. You do, completely disintegrating that fertilized egg.

Now I ask you, "Do you feel bad?" If you're like me, you say, "Hell no!" "There was no human there, No mind, no thought, and no pain." Both of us feel fine. The guy jumps off the table and tells us he's going on vacation since he won't be pregnant - YAY!

Case two:

We have another guy (where are all these guys coming from?) who is REALLY unhappy about:

1) having been pregnant for 8 months, 29 days, 23 hours, and 59 seconds. AND

2) He doesn't want this kid, and never did.

We are present at what will (soon) be the birth. We're looking up his massively distended penis (LOL) and we can see the baby's head. I tell you, "Ensign, Phaser set on disintegrate - FIRE!"

Do you disintegrate that not-yet-born fetus? If you do, how do you feel about it?

The question is WHERE between those two extremes do we say, "Oh, that's fine. There's no one there." and feel free to FIRE PHASERS?

That is where the arguments start.

Some people, the "pro-lifers" say to themselves, "Well, no-one can REALLY know where that line is between not-baby and baby, so don't touch any of it. Anyone who does is committing a murder." (They probably don't actually *think* themselves, they have others think for them, but that's the gist.

Other people, the "Pro-choice" say, (and I'm one of them), "Well, we don't know exactly where that line is, but we can step far enough back that we can be sure that we're not over that line." The problem is, do we all agree how far back is FAR ENOUGH? I think we can, but I can't prove it.

Another complication is that, as medical care improves, younger and younger fetuses are able to live and become babies. (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth ) James Elgin Gill is or was the earliest premature baby in the world. He was 128 days premature or (21 weeks and 5 days gestation, which is not quite 5 months) He survived and is quite healthy.

And that is why there are the arguments that there are. Because it's NOT simple, it's NOT clear-cut, and NO-ONE can prove that they are definitively right (or that the other is definitively wrong.) Add to that, that it's never as simple as the imaginary scenarios above.

Women get hurt during abortions, rarely they die. If we fail to provide medical abortions, MORE women will die trying to do it themselves or using back-ally abortionists.

Because of the cost of doing abortions safely, and because most of the women who need an abortion are poor, public funds are often used to pay for the abortions. Some portion of those funds come from taxes paid by the people (see above) who feel abortion is murder. Those people object, and I can to some degree see their point.

Just to make things more complicated, there's another issue. The women (girls mostly) who need these abortions did not get pregnant by themselves. There is commonly another person involved. often referred to as the father.

Now, due to our American system of law, men are held to be responsible for supporting their children (they don't always do so, but under the law they are expected and required to do so.) An argument could be made that if you are responsible for a child (under the law) and have to pay for that child (under the law) you should have some say over what happens to that child. Surely determining whether it lives or dies should be considered an important issue for a father to have at least some minimal input.

Interesting links:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/03/child-support-statutory-rape-justice-law-men-column/15044791/

https://www.independentsentinel.com/should-men-who-arent-biological-fathers-be-forced-to-pay-child-support/

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/break-up-divorce/q955410-family-court-system-biased-against-fathers

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/sexual-behavior/q498699-do-you-think-child-support-system-broken

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/social-relationships/q842090-if-man-doesn-t-want-child-he-shouldn-t-have

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/family-friends/q355949-do-you-agree-that-family-courts-bias

https://www.girlsaskguys.com/social-relationships/q269610-child-support-custody--everyone-please-read

[Girl_Ex_Machina]

I was expecting to hate you after reading this, because a lot of pro-choice articles try to make it seem clear and simple, and call all pro-lifers idiots. You show and try to understand both sides of the argument, and I will endeavor to treat you with the same respect while politely disagreeing with you. From the general consensus of your argument, I'm going to assume you are an atheist. I am not. I believe, however silly it may sound to you, that the moment the egg is fertilized, a soul enters it. And to someone who doesn't believe that, I can see why early stage abortion doesn't seem wrong. But let me ask you something. If a woman is about a month and a half pregnant, and the father finds out, and injects her with a chemical to cause a miscarriage (yes, it's a real thing) and it does no damage to woman apart from ending her pregnancy, and she wants him charged with murder, that can happen in many states (I think he should be charged with murder, by the way). It's just as much his DNA, it didn't hurt her physically, in fact it probably saved her a lot of physical pain, why is it wrong? A life was lost. Maybe there is no heartbeat, but to a woman that wants to keep her baby it's a person. She loved that child, heartbeat or no. That fetus would have developed and become a baby. She would have watched her kid grow up, cried in the car of her first day of school, peeked out the window at the end of her first date, sent her of to college and needed a whole box of tissues to do so, made a speech at her wedding. How do we decide who has the right to end a life before it even gets to be lived? If the mother wants it, it's a person and killing it is wrong, but if she doesn't, it's a bunch of cells with no significance? I just don't understand how that makes sense.

[Intraluminal]

Hi Girl_Ex_Machina

Thank you for your reasoned response. I am not an atheist, I'm more of an agnostic, but your point stands. While the idea of a spirit entering a cell seems a little magical, it's as good an explanation as any for the mystery of life and consciousness.

That said, the second part of your argument, about the ability to charge someone with murder is less well thought out. Laws are notoriously illogical and subject to ridiculous amounts of bias. One famous example is a law that was passed "making" pi equal to 3. Pi, as you know, is a universal constant. We can observe it, but not change it. Other ridiculous laws are in force all over the world. Just Google silly laws for a multitude of examples.

[Intraluminal]

As for a woman"loving" her unborn, while I agree a hypothetical woman may feel that way, and even claim she does, there are several problems with that.

The first and most obvious is that, sorry to say, her feelings are meaningless. In some cultures women have married minor Gods, and claimed to love them and even been made love to by them. It don't make it so. She may love the *concept* of the child, but she doesn't love the child.

Further, when you say would've, you actually meant might've, because as Zika has shown us, a LOT of kids aren't going to be doing anything except dieing slowly.

[Intraluminal]

What's the difference between a bunch of cells and a person? To be honest, if your "spirit" explanation is true, then there's no difference.

On the other hand, if, as I believe, the consciousness and everything that goes with it, thought, hopes, dreams, exist in the brain, then the difference begins when the brain starts working.

[Intraluminal]

There is no way to prove or DISPROVE belief, and I won't attempt to do so here, but the strongest argument I can raise is this.

There are a multitude of religions, and there used to be many more, along with all the gods that have fallen into disbelief. In some of those religions, the soul didn't enter until after the birth.

[Intraluminal]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that belief is so strong, but also so malleable, that it is a poor indicator of reality.

Nevertheless, I appreciate your patience, and your willingness to understand my position while explaining your own.

Good luck!

[Girl_Ex_Machina]

There are super dumb laws; I do agree with that. In Oklahoma, it's illegal to have a sleeping donkey in your bathtub after 7 pm.

[Intraluminal]

I always throw my donkey out at 6:30, there's nothing worse than a lazy donkey.

[bobbyxx]

Very good point. I think a lot of this is about hating on men though, whilst allowing women to evade responsibility for their actions.

[The_flying_Frenchman]

An excellent mytake, but since the religion part is my specialty I'll expound on that a bit.

The Catholic Church is the largest single proponent of the prolife movement. It's dogmas forbid contraception, abortion, and masturbation because any sexual conduct that strays from procreation is a mortal sin.

Just to clarify: to die in the state of mortal sin is a garantee that your soul will be in hell according to Catholic teaching.

So basically I have two things to say...

1) no one who objects to abortion on religious views is doing so with the intent to oppress women. They actually believe that God considers abortion murder in ALL circumstances and it's not about women's rights for them. It's an issue of them being convinced of an invisible overlord that supersedes the laws we make for ourselves.

2) this faith-based way of thinking is dangerous in my opinion. It's trying to impose a celestial dictatorship on a democracy. Instead of choosing for themselves not to get abortions due to their beliefs, they are obligated by those beliefs to try and impose the laws of God on others who would rather have a rational discussion on the matter and pass laws that are fair and make sense.

[Intraluminal]

I agree with you completely. You'll note in the first paragraph I allude to that problem.
Bonus question. Do you know WHY the Catholic Church has that stance? Answer at the end
...
...

...
...

...

.
..
They believed that there was a "homunculus" in sperm. A little, tiny, fully-formed baby just waiting to fall on the fertile soil of a woman's womb.

[The_flying_Frenchman]

Yep, the same source of that belief is what led to some Protestant churches also claiming "every sperm is sacred"

[Curmudgeon]

Honestly? People have been arguing about abortion rights in the United States for several decades now, in large part because the ruling came from the Supreme Court, a judicial hijacking from down on high, with no substantial legal precedent from lower courts whatsoever.

The Supreme Court is supposed to be an "Umpire" or "Referee" in the Game of American Politics, *not a player itself*, and this corruption of the political game has caused much anger.

Had abortion rights been fought for state-by-state, as was in fact happening before the "Roe vs. Wade" Supreme Court decision of 1973 hijacked the issue, there would be much less rancor about the issue than there is today.

After all, no one seriously argues today about Women's Suffrage, which began in some USA territories as early as the 1870s and was ratified by the overwhelming majority of states in 1920 and thus declared settled. Ditto for the Federal Income Tax and direct election of State Senators, ratified in 1913.

That said, while I am hardcore right wing on just about everything, but not this issue. However, I certainly don't favor a morbid celebration of abortion. But I just can't compel a woman to bear a child she does not want.

I. Just. Can't.

And even the hardest core Republicans (that are left) in Cali tend to feel the same. This state did legalize abortion 6 years before the wrongly decided Roe case, signed into law by then Governor Reagan no less.

Just about all abortion is birth control, really. In modern medicine, no one has to save the mother's life that way. And that's how, in every case I know of, they were used. As the ultimate back up birth control, so as not to "ruin the girl's life" and send her off to college, rather than her suffering the fate of the underclass, or like that character in "Riding In Cars With Boys".

Adoption is wonderful for cute, cuddly, drug free and white infants. (No, I am not making racial judgments here, but hey, some orphan babies get snatched up more than others, and some races are more likely to adopt than others). I pity the crack, fetal alcohol and other druggie babies. That's two strikes against them at birth.

[Curmudgeon]

The pro-choice majority in states like California in my generation (and even more so among the younger generation) is easy to misinterpret, but it makes sense. Imagine growing up in a world that condones, nay, encourages, sexuality in your mid-teens if not early teens, yet makes family formation too costly and impossible until you are thirty--at best. Then imagine going through those two decades with few intact courtship rituals and no effective means of compelling a child's father to act responsibly. Imagine seeing how single motherhood essentially means hopeless poverty. Finally, imagine how creating a single parent child would be a chilling replay of what so many people from divorced parents didn't like about their own childhoods.

You might still think abortion is wrong, and you might never have one yourself. But you would be hard pressed to persuade your peers that their choice to abort reflects a selfish choice against family life. They would respond, "WHAT family life?"

[Curmudgeon]

Although in fairness, these two pro-life videos make good points:

www.youtube.com/watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcpW3tkgpzg

[somebodysaycheese]

In Canada you can abort all the way to 8 months, in Germany you can purchase an abortion pill anytime during your pregnancy. If a man doesn't want to take care of a child use protection same with women. So many ways to prevent pregnancy but unwanted pregnancies are more prevalent today. The other hypocrisy is how can killing a pregnant woman be double murder, how can people get so excited about there being life on other planets because their is bacteria but a human life means nothing. Fact is science benefits from abortions they use abortion parts in our vaccines, they do testing on them. So why would they ever really tell you your killing a life when they need you to kill that life for science?
And many people dont know the effexts of abortions. Women risk the chance of becoming infertile from abortions, they give themselves 623 percent chance from thr average woman of getting breast cancer... etc. and we are basicaly told to get abortions doctors are always telling women to abort when something is wrong with a child. my cousin was told to abort because her kid was going to be born with a heart condition and die before he is one. the kids will be sixteen in December.
Abortion in a first world country in 2016 just doesn't make sense to me.

[Intraluminal]

@somebodysaycheese

Someone is lying to you. I don't know who has been lying to you, or why they've been lying to you, but stop spreading their lies.

[somebodysaycheese]

Lol. You should I don't know be more specific as to what your opinion is. But i dk find it interesting you write mytake but don't want opinions dont coorelate with your beleifs.. amh

[Intraluminal]

@somebodysaycheese

On behalf the contrary. I live and welcome other opinions. It is lying about FACTS that I don't like.

Even your first sentence is a lie. Germany does NOT allow abortions to "anytime during your pregnancy." Would you like to read the law in German, or in English? It's available either way.

[lyannamormont]

Do your research before spreading lies.

https://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/comm14.php

news.nationalpost.com/.../todays-letters-late-trimester-abortions-are-not-happening-in-canada-without-a-reason

https://womenscareclinic.ca/faq.html

[somebodysaycheese]

Um, first im german lol. I think im very aware what the laws are BUT nice try

[somebodysaycheese]

@lyannamormont baby... lol i have done my research lol. When you go to a govt site not a forum you can talk to me until then. keep quiet.

[somebodysaycheese]

@lyannamormont wtd are you pulling up forums from the uk?

[lyannamormont]

I think you do not understand the sentence you read. Same is written in the government version. They abide with Canadian Medical's Association rule even if it is not written. You think an abortion is such an easy thing to do and people are constantly doing it just because it is fun or something? It is one of the hardest psychologically-affecting decisions to make... People do not make important decisions because it entertains them. Plus, women are already informed by the clinics about the consequences, and they give time to think about the stuff. You guys are against the abortion for vaccination stuff which was approved for testing barely couple years ago? Are you okay with getting tons of diseases or will you just say like those parents who refuse to vaccinate their kids and then cause epidemics? I dont really get either way of the discussion.

[Intraluminal]

@somebodysaycheese
"Um, first im german lol."

So, here's the German law... in German from the German Government Website
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__218.html
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stgb/__218a.html

[Intraluminal]

@somebodysaycheese @theceejmachine

Wow! You both went silent when offered the opportunity to read the facts.

[bobbyxx]

I think women who abort shouldn't be allowed kids ever. If you can't stop them aborting then make them infertile with life imprisonment.

[bobbyxx]

Other then that good opinion.

[JRICHARDS1996]

All that is relevant to the abortion debate is science. In this case, biology. And the objective facts of biology are that the unborn are alive by virtue of meeting the biological requirements for life, human by virtue of having human parents since 'like begets like,' and their own individual humans by virtue of having their own unique human DNA.

Therefore my line of thinking is simple. If the unborn are living individual humans like you and I, then why shouldn't they be entitled to life like you and I?

In fact, your entire Take is rooted not in biology but upon human perception. It does not matter if you cannot see the human in that Petri dish anymore than it mattered that Adolf could not see the human in the Jews.

Scientifically it is its own living human and no amount of rhetoric, appeals to emotion, or popular opinion can change a single iota of established scientific fact.

And this the facts compel me to adopt the pro-life position.

in my opinion, you choicers are worse than Young Earth Creationists. You are scientifically bankrupt and believe that rhetoric will fill the void. But I am not falling for it. Nor is the pro-life position rooted solely in religion, though religion has supported it.

Even Christopher Hitchens the world's most famous atheist was pro-life.

[Intraluminal]

As I said in my MyTake, it's not a simple choice. Unfortunately, your *scientific* argument isn't. Thanks for trying.

[The_flying_Frenchman]

As am I and I'm also an atheist, but the difference is religion isn't science. It tells you what is right and wrong and there's no discussion, no democracy, no freedom of thought. You deciding a prolife stance for yourself based on science isn't a religious position at all, in fact it's rather progressive and I respect that.

[jacquesvol]

And a reductio at hitlerum fallacy too.
Godwin point.

[JRICHARDS1996]

Actually it is. Do you deny science? Nothing I said about biology is untrue. I appealed to nothing but the basic facts and can provide corresponding sources.

From there I appealed to nothing but a universal morality that we all hold to be true: that human life ought to be preserved. Never did I appeal to religion.

Science clarified that the unborn are living humans.

The morality we hold thus inevitably leads to the pro-life position, that the life of the unborn ought to be preserved.

[JudgmentDay]

If some of them had considered sterilization options first then maybe they could have completely avoided unwanted pregnancies. A one time payment for a one time procedure such as Vasectomy and then they will never have to worry about causing an unwanted pregnancy from failed birth control such as a condom that broke during sex. I wonder why would it be so difficult for guys to not consider getting sterilized first if sleeping around was their thing, I mean wouldn't sleeping around greatly increase the odds of knocking up some girl? And then they will have to be legally obligated to support their child if the girl decided to keep the child.

But I have to agree on what you said about that those issues on abortion are "NOT simple, it's NOT clear-cut, and NO-ONE can prove that they are definitively right (or that the other is definitively wrong.)"

Unless you count those that chose Abstinence or Long-Term or Permanent Celibacy, well if that isn't simple, then I guess it isn't either, many people would have difficulty to accept long term to permanent celibacy in this day and age, but that's why I think sterilization is really the only other alternative option for them to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

[brain5000]

It seems obvious to me that a fetus is a human life from the moment the sperm hits, and totally arbitrary that pro-choicers overthink these overwrought notions about when exactly life begins. Is there a heartbeat? Can it think? Can it feel pain?

All of that said, we men have to get over ourselves. We have let this become a men vs. women issue, when it should really be a women-vs.-women issue. Women have a much greater stake in the act of bringing a fetus to term and what to do with the child once it's born. Don't we men have enough shit to worry about without sticking our big penises into women's problems?

i.kinja-img.com/.../18k2ef0xmvkw7jpg.jpg

There are plenty of Karen Handels in the world to oppose the pro-choice side, and we would get a far more thoughtful debate if we guys would withdraw entirely from it.

If we were honest with ourselves, we would admit that abortion cannot and should not be outlawed unless the majority of women want it so.

[brain5000]

If men impose a ban on abortion that women don't want, then we'll get all of those back-alley dangerous procedures they warn us about, and women will blame men for oppressing them. If women decide to go with an abortion ban without a word from us, they'll have a solution in place and feel comfortable that abortion is no longer needed.

[Intraluminal]

@brain5000
You said, " It seems obvious to me that a fetus is a human life from the moment the sperm hits."

Could you explain why it is "obvious" ?

[brain5000]

When I say "it seems obvious to me" it might not seem so to someone else.

I thought I explained it. Setting some arbitrary stage of development that denotes or defines humanity seems like a logical construct provided to accommodate the destruction of that life. The fetus is a developing human. Just as sodium and chloride come together to make something totally different in table salt, an egg and sperm join to make a human being. A fetus that can't think or feel is developing the ability to think and feel. You stop that development, and you have ended a human life.

The suggestion that there is some arbitrary line or stage of development prior to which the fetus isn't human is like a child molester suggesting that it is okay to assault a toddler, because (s) he doesn't really understand what you are doing to her him/her. While the assertion about lack of understanding might be true, it's still an absurd and unacceptable argument. No reasonable person would excuse that behavior.

[brain5000]

Sometimes things that seem obvious are hard to explain. I like donuts. It seems self-evident to me that donuts are wonderful. Can I explain it in such a way that will convince everyone? Nope.

[brain5000]

You wrote this:

Some people, the "pro-lifers" say to themselves, "Well, no-one can REALLY know where that line is between not-baby and baby, so don't touch any of it. Anyone who does is committing a murder."

I don't really think that's what pro-lifers say at all. They seem to know exactly where the line is - fertilization.

[Intraluminal]

@brain5000
I agree that at times it can be difficult to put our understanding of things or our feelings into words, but we have to try. Let me think with you.

The fertilized human ovum contains everything needed to become a human being - it's a complete cell, with organelles including mitochondria etc. It also has the complete genetic code needed to create a human being. If it follows its programming, and if it is provided with a suitable environment (a womb), someday it will grow to be a human being.

The problem is that *every cell in your body* is also a complete cell, with all the genetic code needed to create a human being. It too, could, given a suitable womb, become a human being. You may *think* that the genetic code is different, "Oh! That's a skin cell, not an ovum. The genes are different!" But you'd be wrong. Every one of those cells has the same genes as all the rest of the cells in your body. They are "locked up" by histones and methylation, but they are there.

[Intraluminal]

A small re-set, and every skin cell could become a new you. This actually happens, in part, when people develop a teratoma ( a type of tumour).

So. How much time do you spend worrying about the fate of the MILLIONS of ("babies" according to pro-lifers) that you shed every day?

[Intraluminal]

You probably don't worry about those "babies" because they're NOT babies, and neither is a fertilized ovum. It *could* BECOME a baby, but it's NOT a baby, any more than 4 tons of steel, 40 pounds of copper, 400 pounds of plastic, and miscellaneous supplies are an automobile. Together, with a lot of work and the right environment (a factory) they may BECOME an automobile, but until then all you have is a mess.

[brain5000]

Yeah, but my individual cell isn't developing into a baby. It is like calling a toddler "a potential adult" and using that reasoning to deny it basic human rights.

[brain5000]

A zygote and a skin cell may both be cells, that doesn't make them the same thing.

[Intraluminal]

"Yeah, but my individual cell isn't developing into a baby." If the ovum is in a Petri dish it's not developing into a baby either.

"It is like calling a toddler "a potential adult" and using that reasoning to deny it basic human rights."
No. It's more like calling a toddler "a potential adult" and using that to deny it "ADULT rights" like having sex or drinking.

A zygote and a skin cell may both be cells, that doesn't make them the same thing. Actually, except for methylation of a few genes, they are IDENTICAL to what YOU were when you were a fertilized ovum. That's why they could CLONE you (and make a new BABY you) from a skin cell (if it were legal).

[brain5000]

I'm not sure you're really replying to my points. I suspect you want me to do all of the thinking, while you don't want to consider anything I am saying except to prove you read it so you can tell me I am wrong.

https://i.imgflip.com/yi7q9.jpg

If the ovum is in a petri disk, and it is no longer developing into a baby, that's not anything like anything I am talking about. It's like saying an adult corpse is the same thing as a living adult.

No, it's not like denying it adult rights. That's not what I said. Try arguing with what I said?

So, they're both cells, and yes, you can transform a cell so it develops into a clone. You can transform an egg so it develops into a human, too. Once you do either, the value of that cell has changed.

If you have a nickel and a quarter, and we agreed to split them between us, they're both round metal disks, so I'll tell you what? I'll take the quarter, you keep the nickel, because hey! They're both round metal disks, therefore they are the same.

[brain5000]

You asked me why I thought it was obvious that it was a human life. I think I made my case. You seem to want to convince me otherwise. I don't think I am interested in changing my mind. I didn't post to this to learn, but I presumed you asked me that question because you did. I'm not so sure you do, but if you are curious, hopefully I gave you something to ponder. In any event, my work here is done. You get the last word. Cheers! :)

[Intraluminal]

You said, "No, it's not like denying it adult rights. That's not what I said. Try arguing with what I said?"

You PREVIOUSLY said, ""It is like calling a toddler "a potential adult" and using that reasoning to deny it basic human rights."

I said, "No. It's more like calling a toddler "a potential adult" and using that to deny it "ADULT rights" like having sex or drinking."

In other words, I was saying that your analogy, "calling a toddler "a potential adult" and using that reasoning to deny it basic human rights." is FALSE.

A closer (better) analogy is to say, "calling a toddler "a potential adult" and using that reasoning to deny it ADULT RIGHTS." is a far closer analogy.

WHY?

children don't have rights that adults are granted by law, just as a fetus doesn't have the rights of a human being that are granted by law. There is a close parallel there.

WHEREAS both toddlers and adults have human rights as granted by law.

See the difference?

[bobbyxx]

Feminist appeaser

[sdistotallyme]

I'm conservative but lets face it. HRC is going to win in November and NOT because she deserves it, is a good candidate, etc. She is going to win because she is above the law since she is "special" for being a female democrat. She is going to win because the fact that she is "the first woman president" is more important than ANYTHING else to droves of PC low information voters. She is going to win because of her twisted cronies on Wall Street want her in. She is going to win because of her husbands "legacy" is the real reason she ever made this far to begin with. She is going to win because most people have blind hatred towards Trump they won't take a moment to REALLY listen to his speeches. They just listen to chopped up, politically slanted audio clips.

She is going to win and ultimately make pro-choice the law of the land. I don't agree with it. I think it's wrong. But it's whats going to happen. For you people who feel that murdering a child with no moral consequence (and yet are anti gun, pro animal rights, soft on terrorism, pro "peace" etc) then may God have mercy on your soul.

[Intraluminal]

Another knee-jerk Republican whose paranoia won't allow him to discuss the issue at hand. Thank you for talking about something else. Would you like to rant about gun ownership and the right to bear arms now?

[jacquesvol]

Roe vs Wade made choice the law of the land.

[jacquesvol]

@sdistotallyme
You don't want abortion? OK, then don't have one or impregnate only women who want a child.

[TakeMaker]

It is what it is, and the fact of the matter is you can't make people give birth to things they don't want. Women will find other means to abort if legal ones are not available, such as sitting in cold baths of water while shoving coat hangers into your own womb and drinking gin. Or they will die on dirty tables in seedy back rooms, mother and child losing blood until they slip away to the next world.

Not everything can be fair and we need to grow up and realise that. Men can't have a say in whether a woman carries a child to full term, it isn't fair but it's tough luck. There is no fair way of making that decision unless both parties agree.

I support a woman's right to an abortion, I am not Anti-Life though, I'm Pro-Existing Humans.

[cipher42]

I'm pro-choice, and based on the research I've done it's pretty clear cut honestly. Firstly, due to advances in medical science we can be just about as sure as we can be that the fetus can't properly feel pain until past 20 weeks gestation. So I think that could reasonably be set as the soft cutoff point for abortion, leaving room for extreme cases like rape or danger to the mother or the child. And around 1% of abortions happen that late anyhow, I think that'll work just fine.

As for who makes the decision, it's always the person carrying the child, and whether or not someone would be paying child support would have zero impact on the issue. The right to bodily autonomy is a completely different issue than the right to financial autonomy, and while abortion still has a severe impact on the mother, removing child support would allow the father to get away with zero responsibility whatsoever.

So like I said, pretty clear cut to me.

[Intraluminal]

I feel we need abortion both as a society and as individuals, and I'm glad it's clear cut to you. Did you check out any of the links? Oh, and by the way, the important part...
"just about as sure as we can be"
Exactly how sure IS that anyway.

[cipher42]

I have seen all that shit before and I really think that's a separate issue. Yes, custody and child support are flawed. But whether those laws have issues should not affect abortion rights in the slightest. Like, if you think the system's hypocritical because half of it's broken, then fix the broken half, don't break the half that's fine.

And with modern medical technology it is pretty damn sure. I try to avoid super strong language because I don't like to generalize, but honestly we know enough in this day and age to be able to ascertain shit like this with a pretty high degree of accuracy. Besides, it's not like there's really a way to calculate the exact percentage of certainty or whatnot, at least not one that's available to me. If you really want sources though I'll dig them up, I just prefer to not put in more work than necessary, particularly since I've already argued this subject far too much.

[bobbyxx]

Feminist alert

[Waffles731]

@bobbyxx Do you ever try to not be an asshole

[cipher42]

@Waffles731: lol thank you for both the defense and for making my day.

@bobbyxx: Yes, I am a feminist. Thank you captain obvious. Now, was there an actual purpose to you pointing that out or do you just like listening to yourself talk?

[Waffles731]

No problm I'm a feminist as well

[bobbyxx]

Feminists are bound to agree with abortion. They support anything that gives women the easy way out and lets them off taking responsibility for anything.

[bobbyxx]

@Waffles731 do you ever try not being a feminist appeaser.

[bobbyxx]

@Waffles731 I seriously dislike you. Your the type of 'man' I dislike the most.

[Waffles731]

@bobbyxx
I'm far more manlier than you,
I work on a farm

[bobbyxx]

@Waffles731 does your job involve being milked each day and going moo. Like feminists

[cipher42]

@bonbyxx: fun fact, feminists are not in fact a hive mind. We do actually have our own brains, and as such is suggest actually arguing about my position on abortion itself rather than using a group I'm affiliated with as an excuse to write it off immediately. That's a little something called an ad hominem attack, and it just so happens that it's not actually a valid argument.

[cipher42]

@bobbyxx: ad hominem attacks again. Honestly, if you have a disagreement that's fine. But for your own sake, could you actually argue the issue logically rather than doing what you're doing and looking like an idiot?

[bobbyxx]

I worked out you were a feminist by your opinion so I've already won this particular argument. And furthermore feminists ideology is to allow abortion. It is them that campaigned for it.

[cipher42]

@bonbyxx: no? You haven't? What argument are you talking about exactly? No one's claiming I'm not a feminist, so that's not even an argument. And no one's claiming feminists don't support abortion. You just seem to think that someone being a feminist automatically invalidates their positions, which is honestly a pretty ignorant view to have, particularly considering you haven't backed it up by any kind of actual arguments or evidence.

[Waffles731]

He is just a moron ignore him

[Princess_Rue]

We are pronounced dead when our heart stops, right? So when would we be pronounced alive? A baby's heart starts beating at around the 5th week. Most abortions are done well past that, as most women don't even know they are pregnant at that point.

I've had people compare a fetus to a parasite, saying it cannot live without the mother. Handicapped, elderly, and children also can't survive without help... does that mean we should terminate them? I don't hate pro-choice people or think they're bad or anything. But when they really "can't fathom" how someone can be pro-life, it baffles me. As you said, there isn't proof that either way is right.

[crimsonqueen]

That logic is very poor. You can live after your heart stops beating (such as transplants) and be dead with a heartbeat. It's called being brain dead. And a fetus would meet the qualifications of being brain dead

[Intraluminal]

@crimsonqueen
This is the important part, NOT the heart-beat
"a fetus would meet the qualifications of being brain dead"

[Intraluminal]

@crimsonqueen
Sorry, that comment was directed to @Princess_Rue

[Princess_Rue]

@crimsonqueen @Intraluminal The brain also begins to form around week 5-6. There is also significant evidence that fetuses feel pain. I don't think a fetus would meet the qualifications of being brain dead, as brain death is defined as a cessation of ALL brain functions, which is not true. A fetus does have brain functions. And in case you're wondering where I'm getting my information, it's on Planned Parenthood.

[Princess_Rue]

There is also corruption in the abortion clinics. I don't know how they are today (although there has been controversy suggesting horrible things still go on), but my mother was a victim of it (in the 80s) and she has PTSD from the trauma. When she went to a therapist, the therapist said she had heard similar stories from women before. I think it's something that needs to be researched more, but I have no doubt in my mind that it's a life.

[Intraluminal]

@crimsonqueen

Believe me. NO ONE is suggesting that a fetus is not alive.
So, if the brain doesn't form until around week 5-6, do you support abortion rights PRIOR to that point?

[crimsonqueen]

Don't think you meant to "@" me on that.. I support abortion up to the 5th month, before which fetuses are unviable, can't feel pain and have no brain activity

[oddwaffle]

Conveniently forgetting the consequences of raising an unwanted kid. Costs roughly 250k to raise a child to adulthood. Where are you when single moms need financial help? Maybe they should tax people who wanted to pregnancy.

Wishy washy people who only reason to argue is because they have to satisfy their moral compass. Get real and look at the data and the costs.

Also, the mother has the decision. She has to live with the consequences. Her life, her body, her choice. Random dude on the street don't get a say in it. Tax? Don't make me laugh. Would the government stop war if I didn't like it? Fat chance. I still have to fund murder techniques research whether I like it or not.

[Intraluminal]

Agree,

" Tax? Don't make me laugh. Would the government stop war if I didn't like it? Fat chance. I still have to fund murder techniques research whether I like it or not."

[rjroy3]

The situation is muddied because it calls to question what is the criteria that deems the value of a life worthy of the chance to continue.

We plant a seed in the ground and we call that a baby tree that's yet to bloom. We classify a chicken's egg yolk a budding baby chicken and we eat them anyways. But when it's humans we're talking about it's not a baby human forming, it's something other than human that is played down so we don't feel bad about aborting it conceptually.
I think abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, but call it what it is. Ending a life, before it has a chance to live on it's own.

[Intraluminal]

No one every said it wasn't a life. The question is - is it an aware human life.

[rjroy3]

" it calls to question what is the criteria that deems the value of a life worthy of the chance to continue."

I'm aware of what was said and I didn't imply otherwise. My statement:

" But when it's humans we're talking about it's not a baby human forming, it's something other than human " was pointing out the fact it is being dehumanizing so that we can separate ourselves from what is happening.

[Intraluminal]

Well, the are a number of problems with your argument, among them the fact that it is so strained.

No one I know calls a seed in the ground anything other than a seed, nor an egg anything other than an egg.

[rjroy3]

Okay. And that implies that people claim a human fetus is not a life?

[Intraluminal]

No. It implies people don't refer to a fetus as "a self-aware human being."

[rjroy3]

Then I'm confused what your deal is on the matter. If you don't think a fetus is an aware human being and you think I implied people refer to it as not aware then... what's the issue? Lol

[Intraluminal]

You said, "If you don't think a fetus is an aware human being and you think I implied people refer to it as not aware then... what's the issue? Lol"

The issue is that you said,
" We classify a chicken's egg yolk... talking about it's not a baby human forming, it's something other than human..."
implies that it IS a human being. It is NOT. It may BECOME a human, just as iron, copper, and plastic may BECOME a car, but neither are anything other than what they are, the unformed beginnings of something, just as a brick is not a house.

[rjroy3]

I was stated it is a forming human being and that we like to pretend it's not. Never stated anything or even implied it being aware. It just all falls under the initial statement of the topic being all about the criteria for the value of a life deserving the chance to continue. Maybe you inferred what I was alluding to, but I never implied zygote = baby outside the womb.

[rjroy3]

I stated *

[Intraluminal]

We agree then., "it is a forming human being" BUT, it's NOT a human being YET!

[rjroy3]

Yes and no.
It's not a fully formed human being no, but in essence it is a budding human and that's where our views depart. I see it as a human that's just not done forming. You see it as something other than human.

[Intraluminal]

I see it as something that's NOT YET a human being, but you're right, that's exactly where the disagreement lies.

Thank you for your reasoned responses.

[bombamboum]

I understand your my take.
I'm myself pro choice. I'm for abortion being a right for women.
I'm for people getting sexual education. Even though I'm pro choice, I also know that abortion isn't to take lightly and should be taken as a last resort. There are many ways to prevent it and some women don't realize what it can do to a body and to a mind.
I never had one, always tried my best to avoid any risk of pregnancy. I know that when I wasn't ready to be pregnant, I was glad to know this option was out there for me "just in case".
I don't recall exactly what the limit is in my country, I think it's around three month and I think it's good. It give the time to the woman to make her decision. Later on, it must not be good for her body and it's just feel like a baby.

[Darkone1]

I consider this murder cuz after 6 month of gestation, its 100% sure about its gender. The fetus is costly thing for experiments, if someone is raped or they don't won't child. There are tons of pills to stop pregnancy or even abort the egg in early stages. If you are Ok for like 6 months and then you decide to abort it. Its "murder" cuz now you think its fun factor, and never listen to doctor too much cuz fetus is costly ingredient of vaccines and medicines. Apart from this don't pull shit from Wikipedia no one believes it.

[Intraluminal]

Hi @Darkone1 ,

You said, "I consider this murder cuz after 6 month of gestation, its 100% sure about its gender"

You don't seem to be aware that we can be 100% certain of sex from the moment of CONCEPTION. That is, the second the sperm hits the egg, we can know. In FACT, we can actually know BEFORE that. Just look at the sperm. If it has a "Y" it's a boy, "X" and it's a girl.

[Darkone1]

LOL, man seriously I am talking about random mating.
EX
A man fucks lady "X" like crazy bull and release the sperms. Now, how the hell you know sperm (X or Y) hit the egg. Listen man,
in real life zygote formation occur in vivo not fucking in vitro which you are explaining.

[Darkone1]

I have never heard of secret lens in Uterus to view advancing sperms. Its not that easy to separate Y from X containing sperm. I mean, I have theory but its still a theory.

[Intraluminal]

Sorry to burst your bubble dude, but "Its not that easy to separate Y from X containing sperm. I mean, I have theory but its still a theory." they are doing it in China now.

[Darkone1]

Ok, by the microscopic examination and again its fucking "in vitro" and of course its simple procedure and easy outside the body. I am talking about boost during fucking,

I will explain it. It needs micro centrifuges and by this process you can select girl or boy optimized release. Sperms containing X are little heavier than Y ones due to absence of one arm being replaced by sry gene. I will upgrade the penis and install the ultra small centrifuge in to it at the glans penis. Centrifugal forces will separate both sperms and Y ones being lighter will enter the inner hose and will be released according to the need. X ones being heavier will accumulate at the sides and can be used from 2 outer hose.
Penis will be remotely controlled to release X or Y booster shots by opening inner or outer hose gates and allowing the needed sperms to perform their chance. The shot will give 90-95% efficiency. BUT UN, WHO will hang me for that.

[Intraluminal]

I really liked your "ultra small centrifuge" comment.

[PT1911]

I'm catholic, so my viewpoints are pretty clear.

BUT

The idea is to just get rid of abortion as a means of birth control. You do tgat, this all goes away. Not to mention couples should make a plan and agree on what would happen should an unexpected pregnancy occur.

If my taxes are going to a welfare system to pay for peoples poor choices/decision (not talking about the extreme cases like rape for example) then I'd rather have $2 from my paycheck go towards free condoms and than whatever an abortion costs.

Fact is it is alive, it does feel, but in my mind it's the lesser of two sins to stop life from being created rather than take one.

And really dude, prolife people don't think for themselves?

We do, it's called "having a different opinion than you"

"If everyone is thinking the same way than someone must no be thinking" -George Patton

[Intraluminal]

You said, "And really dude, prolife people don't think for themselves?"
BUT you also said, "I'm catholic, so my viewpoints are pretty clear."

Notice a problem there?

[PT1911]

Well clearly if I didn't agree with catholic teaching I'd leave the church...

>_>
<_<

[PT1911]

And even then, looks like you didn't bother to read the rest of my opinion m8.

Great job, seeing that I said I'm catholic, and then dismissing me outright.

[Intraluminal]

Sure. How old were you when you came to the intellectual "discovery" that you agreed with the Catholic Church? 12 or 13?

[PT1911]

22 actually when i visited the Vatican while studying abroad. My father was very religious when I was growing up, but I didn't pay any attention to it all.

And dude, here I am, trying to have a civil, intellectual a discussion with you, and your condescension REEKS through my screen.

There's a time to shitpost and troll (which is what I do 90% of the time on here), and then there's a time to actually be serious. Have the last word if you want, clearly you're only in the mood to discuss those that agree with you.

[Intraluminal]

@PT1911

I'll try to keep my condescension from reeking. Please excuse me.
As a lapsed Catholic myself, I recognize the power the Catholic church exerted on me and everyone I went to school with (parochial school). The problem is that you frequently hear things like, "My (father, mother) was very religious when I was growing up, but I didn't pay any attention to it all." The problem is OF COURSE YOU WERE PAYING ATTENTION!

Sorry to scream, but do you think it's a complete coincidence that your father was catholic and that you're catholic? Really? Truly? What percentage of the catholics you know have parents who were not catholic? 90%? 80%? 70%? for me it's less than 10%, and those are from China.

Similarly, do you really believe in your heart of hearts that you just randomly happened to be in the Vatican at 22?

[PippiL]

I agree that it is a complicated issue. However, I have noticed a disturbing trend among many women my age. They treat abortion with very little thought or consideration. I have a friend who has had three abortions, all of which could have been avoided if she took her birth control seriously. She seems to consider the procedure itself to be a form of contraceptive. I don't know about you, but I find this seriously disturbing.

[Frenchtoast2020]

Sloots gonna sloot

[Vesuvius87]

Yeah that's straight forward carelessness.

[PT1911]

Thats, what I mentioned...

Get rid of the idea that it's a means of contraception...90% of the arguments disappear right there

[Anpu23]

Here's an interesting addition, every time a man has sex (even against his will) he automatically consents to. fatherhood. A man can be drugged, tied down and mounted and if she gets pregnant he is automatically responsible for the child. (There are lots of cases where a child is statutorily raped and must pay child support, even one judge telling a 13 year old boy 'you better get a paper route ", and one case that I know of where she forced herself on him, even admitted it and he was still responsible for child support) While women have lots of choices, motherhood is optional fatherhood is not. And these decisions rest solely on the woman and the father has absolutely no say whatsoever. While we have legislated female body autonomy, we have left men in the dust (a married man can't even get a vasectomy without his wifes consent and approval).

[Intraluminal]

Actually your issue is one of the links at the end of the MyTake. Thanks for reading!

[Anpu23]

You are welcome good my take

[flypaper]

Where do you live where a guy can't get a vasectomy without his wife's consent and approval?

[flypaper]

I'm in PA in the US and my husband had a vasectomy... I never signed a thing or saw the Dr. I of course agreed with him but the Dr never once asked about that nor asked to see me or have me sign a thing.

[flypaper]

*had
had me sign a thing.

[Intraluminal]

@flypaper I've never heard of it either.

[Anpu23]

@flypaper I based that on this article goodmenproject.com/.../ as I have never had a vasectomy I assumed that it was accurate.

[flypaper]

Oh okay, just read it. There are no laws just some Drs. prefer to do that to protect themselves (is how I took it) against potential law suits. Woman go through the same thing with tubals. A lot of places make woman get her Husband's permission for that too. That's just the Dr though, you can try to find another. I personally am against that practice across the board... it's wrong.

[Anpu23]

@flypaper got you, sorry for the confusion.

[Smmyskittles]

Truthfully, I could never and will never. I take precautions to avoid getting pregnant. So, if it happens despite them, well then.. (knock on wood!!!)

For me, the moment it's fertilized, it's a child. MY OPINION.

I don't judge those that have or do, it's your own business. Do I think it's right? No, but that only applies to MY body and any future children/child I *MAY* have.

[Intraluminal]

I think that's a great attitude..

[Smmyskittles]

#attitudeproblems lol

- In all seriousness, Thank you.

[YourNextEX]

It's morally wrong. It's like slavery. People like you used to think slavery was acceptable too. They argued people should have the right to own a slave. The stressed freedom to own a slave. They argued "their property, their choice." They argued a slave wasn't fully human. You are just like the people who favored slavery. You favor the powerful instead of the powerless fetus.

Abortion is a moral outrage, like slavery. It needs to end. Now.

We aren't in the 1970s anymore. We need to progress as a society, just like we did when we ended slavery.

[Intraluminal]

There are no similarities between slavery and abortion. You have swallowed someone else's story.

[jacquesvol]

@YourNextEX
Forced pregnancy and forced delivery are much closer to slavery: they take a woman's freedom away, just like slavery. That IS morally wrong.

[YourNextEX]

@jacquesvol Ending slavery took away slave owner's freedom to own a slave. It's okay to take away people's freedom sometime.

And having an abortion takes away the fetus's freedom. Look at things from the perspective of the powerless, not the powerful.

[jacquesvol]

@YourNextEX
A fetus has no personality in law.
It couldn't use its 'freedom'.
You can't deduct it in yr tax declaration either.

[Popo21]

I don't know where I stand, but I'm pregnant right now, and that first picture broke my heart. I had a "threatened miscarriage" abs cried so bad.. I don't get how mothers don't develop love for their baby as soon as they find out that they're pregnant.. even animals LOVE AND DIE for their children.. they don't have abortions, the thought of it is barbaric and inhuman to me honestly.. imagine if your mother aborted you.. or any of your siblings.. or someone that you love was aborted
That was Still a DEVELOPING life.. no matter what you say, that "thing" would've developed into a human being.
But then again, I don't like the idea of women hurting themselves trying to do their own abortions. Ugh.

[Popo21]

and**

[Mustachekitteh]

Sadly with other animals even when they do have they're babies. They end up killing them they're selves due to either they are too weak and not strong enough to survive or something else. So when they kill them they're able to reproduce again faster which is the reason why they do it.

[Intraluminal]

It's NOT a simple question. That said, women need to have access to safe, legal abortion services.

[Popo21]

@Mustachekitteh yeah, but they usually don't do it for their own selfish reasons like humans do and they don't take it so lightly, usually it's only when they HAVE too or when they're protecting their other children, it's really rare and they're not so barbaric about it..

[Popo21]

Whatever, I think I'm against it.. don't recklessly have sex if you don't want a kid.

[Mustachekitteh]

The mother literally eats her babies, I would think that would freak most people out.

[Popo21]

@Mustachekitteh cause she has too, look it up and stop being smart lol usually, it's rare. Are you gonna eat your baby too? I don't get your point.

[Mustachekitteh]

I just mean that eating your own baby is kind of barbaric.

[Popo21]

@Mustachekitteh yeah. There animals. And it's not the norm

[0112358]

I find it amazing that people tend to think 'pro choice' means 'in favor of abortion till the end of the first trimester'.

Where I live, there are no legal bans on abortion at any age. Any attempt to change that is regarded as 'infringing on a woman's right to choose'.

(In practice it's believed late term abortions are rare, but there's no central tracking of them, so it's hard to be certain).

[Intraluminal]

They don't REALLY "think 'pro choice' means 'in favor of abortion till the end of the first trimester'." They just pretend to believe that so they can do the old "Straw man" argument.