Why Reality Blows Up Anti-Abortion Rhetoric

#301
#301
BowlBrother85 said:
This is a false equivalency, which represents a failure to understand why some people are pro choice. As someone who is pro choice, I believe that life begins at birth; not conception. So unless you are talking abortions provided to dogs and cats, you are not addressing the issue of abortion from a pro choice perspective.
Click to expand...

That’s a non-scientific “belief”. You realize that right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#302
#302
BowlBrother85 said:
This is a false equivalency, which represents a failure to understand why some people are pro choice. As someone who is pro choice, I believe that life begins at birth; not conception. So unless you are talking abortions provided to dogs and cats, you are not addressing the issue of abortion from a pro choice perspective.
Click to expand...

Also where do you stand on late term abortions? If you “believe” (in quotes because it’s not a view that’s attached to reality) that a child is not alive until birth, you’d have to support abortion until birth right?
 
#304
#304
BowlBrother85 said:
No. It depends on how broadly you define what constitutes a life. Opinions will vary. There is no right or wrong interpretation.
Click to expand...

This is equal to saying trans women are women because you personally decided to broaden the definition without regard to biological fact
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#305
#305
BowlBrother85 said:
No. It depends on how broadly you define what constitutes a life. Opinions will vary. There is no right or wrong interpretation.
Click to expand...

If you truly believe (I don’t think you do) that a child isn’t alive until they’re born (an odd view that location determines life) then the only way to be consistent with that view is to support unlimited abortion until birth.

Do you believe an abortion at 9 months should be legal?
 
#306
#306
MontyPython said:
As a pro-choicer, I listen to the rhetoric of anti-abortionists with great interest. I respect their tenet that having an abortion is akin to 'murder', but naturally I don't agree with it. I also respect their tenet that having an abortion is 'wrong', and agree that ending a life via abortion is very sad and absolutely a last resort.

However, I also recognize that from a pragmatic standpoint, their vision of an "abortion-free America" is simply short-sighted and wholly unworkable. Why?

Most of the problems with the anti-abortion view stem from their position that a human fetus is, in fact, a human being with the same inalienable right to life that you and I have as living, birthed people. The position is that both a fetus IN THE BODY and a delivered baby OUT OF THE BODY both have the right to life, and that their lives should not be ended by the mothers. Unfortunately, here's where the train falls off the tracks...

(1) If a fetus and a (birthed) baby have equal rights, then by definition, a fetus has all the legal rights of a birthed baby;

(2) These rights include - amongst other guaranteed rights to all Americans - the right to citizenship and to a social security number. As such, once a mother is determined to be pregnant, the fetus is now a citizen and must immediately be issued a SSN by the government;

(3) Under the Affordable Care Act, the fetus is now also required to have health insurance, so parents must enroll the fetus upon determination of pregnancy. Also, the fetus is now a dependent, and can be deducted when filing income taxes;

(4) Further, within our legal system, all citizens have the right to due process and a fair trial when crimes have allegedly occurred. Moreover, it's illegal to incarcerate an American citizen without due process. Consequently, if the mother of a fetus commits a crime and is found guilty, it's illegal for the citizen fetus to be incarcerated in any institution - given the obvious presumption that the fetus did not, and could not - commit a crime. Net result: No pregnant women can be legally held in any institution;

(5) As no pregnant women can be incarcerated with an innocent fetus inside the mother, it stands to reason that any rational woman facing potential incarceration will, therefore, become pregnant to avoid incarceration;

(6) Similarly, no legal citizen of the United States can be deported by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Therefore, no fetus conceived within the United States can legally be deported, as that fetus has all the rights of other 'normal' citizens. End result: No illegal immigrants who are pregnant in the US can be deported. See also (5) above;

(7) Further, the loss of any fetus for any reason that includes 'malignant behavior' by a mother shall be considered from a legal standpoint as manslaughter or potentially murder. For example, a mother gets drunk, wrecks her car while driving, and loses her fetus to stillbirth from injuries sustained in the accident. Given the equal legal rights of the fetus, the state would have to proceed with prosecution of the mother on manslaughter charges or murder if the act was premeditated. Regardless, the mother would face significant incarceration equivalent to the manslaughter/murder of a birthed human.

These are just some of the absurd realities awaiting an America where we consider fetuses to have the same rights as birthed humans. Our country is based on a clear system of inalienable rights to all citizens. Exceptions are not made. Period.

Having said that, I believe the better route for anti-abortionists is as follows: Volunteer to adopt an unwanted baby. If, as some anti-abortionists claim, there are legions of like-minded folks in our nation who don't want another single fetus aborted, then set up a National Adoption System. Have everyone sign up to adopt a fetus that would otherwise be aborted.

Until when and if this ever happens (it won't), then feel free to live and breathe by Roe v. Wade and the law of the land that 60% of the American public supports.
Click to expand...
My son was born at 34 weeks. He was fully developed, functioning on his own. How anyone can harm anything inside the womb blows my mind. Not arguing right or wrong. Everyone their own, but in my opinion it would be morally wrong to harm a late pregnancy
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#307
#307
Vol8188 said:
If you truly believe (I don’t think you do) that a child isn’t alive until they’re born (an odd view that location determines life) then the only way to be consistent with that view is to support unlimited abortion until birth.

Do you believe an abortion at 9 months should be legal?
Click to expand...
34 weeks. My son came out of womb breathing on his own.
 
#308
#308
Vol8188 said:
If you truly believe (I don’t think you do) that a child isn’t alive until they’re born (an odd view that location determines life) then the only way to be consistent with that view is to support unlimited abortion until birth.

Do you believe an abortion at 9 months is legal?
Click to expand...
Part of what makes this such a controversial topic, is that there isn't a scientific consensus on exactly which stage of development a human life begins.

This is to close how I feel about it :

When human life begins is a question of politics – not biology

I don't think there is a right or wrong position.
 
#309
#309
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77, Vol8188 and southgatevol
#311
#311
BowlBrother85 said:
Part of what makes this such a controversial topic, is that there isn't a scientific consensus on exactly which stage of development a human life begins.

This is to close how I feel about it :

When human life begins is a question of politics – not biology

I don't think there is a right or wrong position.
Click to expand...

BowlBrother85 said:
Part of what makes this such a controversial topic, is that there isn't a scientific consensus on exactly which stage of development a human life begins.

This is to close how I feel about it :

When human life begins is a question of politics – not biology

I don't think there is a right or wrong position.
Click to expand...

An opinion piece doesn’t change the basic biological fact that life begins at conception. That’s not a matter of politics. You are arguing that life is dependent upon location (in the womb vs out). That’s absurd.

At conception all of the biological requirements to be considered a separate life form are present.

You’ve still not answer the question about abortions until birth. If you really believe this non sense, do you support abortion until birth?
 
#313
#313
Vol8188 said:
An opinion piece doesn’t change the basic biological fact that life begins at conception. That’s not a matter of politics. You are arguing that life is dependent upon location (in the womb vs out). That’s absurd.

At conception all of the biological requirements to be considered a separate life form are present.

You’ve still not answer the question about abortions until birth. If you really believe this non sense, do you support abortion until birth?
Click to expand...
We are talking about which stage of development constitutes an individual human life. There is no scientific consensus on the matter... as that column points out.
 
#315
#315
My unsolicited thoughts on abortion:

I find abortion problematic morally, there are times where I would consider abortion appropriate, maybe a better word would be more palatable, such as in instances of rape, life threatening or debilitating health consequences etc. I think most, even those opposed to abortion completely would agree here.

But let's be honest, that's not what the discussion is really about. It's really about abortion as a form of birth control. This is where I see there being a moral problem, it just so happens this is where the majority of abortions fall.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: VolStrom
#316
#316
BowlBrother85 said:
We are talking about which stage of development constitutes an individual human life. There is no scientific consensus on the matter... as that column points out.
Click to expand...

That column was trash. If you want to break down the exact issues with it I can.

Science is clear. No legitimate scientist using any valid, accepted standard for what life is, would proclaim an unborn child is anything other than alive. Typically these are the things required for life.

1. Consume energy
2. Respond to stimuli
3. Can grow
4. can reproduce (this is why viruses, sperm, and eggs are not alive)
 
#317
#317
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not true. There is no scientific consensus on the matter... as I have said 5 times now.
Click to expand...

Why won’t you answer the question? If you believe life doesn’t begin until birth, are you okay with abortions up until birth?
 
#318
#318
KB5252 said:
My unsolicited thoughts on abortion:

I find abortion problematic morally, there are times where I would consider abortion appropriate, maybe a better word would be more palatable, such as in instances of rape, life threatening or debilitating health consequences etc. I think most, even those opposed to abortion completely would agree here.

But let's be honest, that's but what the discussion is really about. It's really about abortion as a form of birth control. This is where I see there being a moral problem, it just so happens this is where the majority of abortions fall.
Click to expand...

The times you stated that abortion is acceptable (rape or health issues) makes up 1% of abortions. The rest were done electively.

And the left wing of our country isn’t pushing for abortion because of rape victims. We could solve that problem is a second. The entire right wing of America would happily fund free morning after pills to any alleged rape victim of the left would agree to “common sense abortion control”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#319
#319
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not true. There is no scientific consensus on the matter... as I have said 5 times now.
Click to expand...

The bacteria in your gut was never “birthed” and much of it has spent its entire life inside of your gut. Is it alive?

If it is alive, what makes it alive and an unborn child not alive based on your view of when life begins?
 
#320
#320
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not true. There is no scientific consensus on the matter... as I have said 5 times now.
Click to expand...

Can you provide any scientific definition of life that would exclude an unborn child? There is debate on certain aspects of the exact definition of life. For example a small minority of scientists consider a virus to be alive.

But there no scientific definition of life that would exclude an unborn child
 
#321
#321
Volsfannn said:
My son was born at 34 weeks. He was fully developed, functioning on his own. How anyone can harm anything inside the womb blows my mind. Not arguing right or wrong. Everyone their own, but in my opinion it would be morally wrong to harm a late pregnancy
Click to expand...

Agree. Except in instances where mom health endangered.
 
#322
#322
Vol8188 said:
That column was trash. If you want to break down the exact issues with it I can.

Science is clear. No legitimate scientist using any valid, accepted standard for what life is, would proclaim an unborn child is anything other than alive. Typically these are the things required for life.

1. Consume energy
2. Respond to stimuli
3. Can grow
4. can reproduce (this is why viruses, sperm, and eggs are not alive)
Click to expand...
This also represents part of the disconnect. To someone who is pro choice, the issue is specifically related to where individual human life begins, not just any type of life in general. In other words, what constitutes a "human being." From that perspective, the presence of an active human brain should be added to your list. That obviously doesn't happen at conception.

... and this is a discussion that's been going on forever. I'm pretty sure the phrase "We will have to agree to disagree" arose from people who got weary of arguing over abortion. It's a futile debate.
 
#323
#323
BowlBrother85 said:
This also represents part of the disconnect. To someone who is pro choice, the issue is specifically related to where individual human life begins, not just any type of life in general. In other words, what constitutes a "human being." From that perspective, the presence of an active human brain should be added to your list. That obviously doesn't happen at conception.

... and this is a discussion that's been going on forever. I'm pretty sure the phrase "We will have to agree to disagree" arose from people who got weary of arguing over abortion. It's a futile debate.
Click to expand...

There’s seriously no other option than that the child is a human being. I have a very low opinion of progressive women, but even mine isn’t so low as to suggest that their unborn child is anything other than a human.

You’re still ignoring the question. Do you support abortion until birth, since it’s not yet a “human being” (idk what else it could be)?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#324
#324
MontyPython said:
Agree. Except in instances where mom health endangered.
Click to expand...

That’s why I specifically ask people about late term abortions. You can’t proclaim a child isn’t alive, a child isn’t a human, or that a child lacks rights, if you also oppose abortions until birth.

The opposition of abortions until birth obviously implies you beleive the child is alive and has a right to life.

That’s why so few will answer it. Because it destroys their argument
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top