Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade

[danlightbulb]

In the old days disabled or unwanted babies could have just been left out in the wilderness to die. In the wild, animals kill and eat each other's babies. The 'runt' of the litter may be left to die by its mother, its how the strongest babies survive.

We as humans are not special just because we're intelligent. There is no higher purpose that dictates we should be any different to animals really, only what we choose to do.

On that basis Im pro-abortion, because ultimately in the grand scheme of the entire universe, it does not matter either way. The only thing we can/should do as intelligent beings is make sure suffering is minimal, for no other reason than just because we should.

 

[Lysander]

In the old days disabled or unwanted babies could have just been left out in the wilderness to die sent down the mines

 

[cheesyboy]

I do not agree with abortion but I understand why certain circumstances would cause some people to want it.

So, to reiterate, your lack of empathy is what drives your position.

People want an abortion for any number of reasons. Who are you to judge the worthiness of them?

 

[dowie]

fair enough..... but presumably it was the people qualified to do so who already came up with 24 weeks?

I don't think this default to some imagined position where the current law should be the cut off because experts must have been consulted is a particularly good argument, for a start it ignores that other European democracies all have "experts" too and the limits for elective abortions vary a bit across the continent.

You don't need to be an "expert" to have an opinion on this subject, if someone is going to argue basic facts then referring to experts etc... is warranted but subjective opinions on ethics is a bit different, ultimately the elected representatives voting on matters like this are not experts, they'll take guidance of course but there is plenty of room here for subjectivity when it comes to opinions of what is right and wrong.

 

[something daft already!!]

So, to reiterate, your lack of empathy is what drives your position.

People want an abortion for any number of reasons. Who are you to judge the worthiness of them?

Lack of empathy for the unborn foetus? Hardly. People choose to have sex. They surely know what happens when you do? If not, then they should not be allowed out alone.

 

[GreatAuk]

I used to think like that - not really comfortable with abortions at all but in favour of a pro-choice position because it's practical but I think, I'm a bit more at ease re: the abortion aspect too now, and still have the same general view re: what the law should be - some pre-viability limit (perhaps actually slightly lower than the UK's current limit even).

The heartbeat thing at 6 weeks is sometimes touted by people but I think thats gets a bit silly, it's not really a proper heart at that time and frankly, there are a fair few more weeks where the life/foetus is still not really aware of anything.

On one hand for a mother who wants a baby then having a miscarriage at any point is super traumatic, that life form was a potential child they wanted, while abortions can be tragic too there is at least some comfort that, at least during the first several weeks, it's just a larger lifeform that doesn't really have any awareness at all. Later on of course, when it becomes, essentially, a premature baby, then that is highly dubious ethically IMO.

I'd kind of look at it in the way some (more sane) vegans look at muscles and oysters - you have the hardcore vegans who won't eat any meat, seafood or dairy but then you have other vegans who recognise that muscles aren't really sentient beings either... if you can eat a plant then why can't you eat some muscles?

If you can chuck away an embryo then why not a small foetus? If you're happy to undergo IVF and dispose of some embryos or if you're happy to have an IUD fitted or to take a morning-after pill then you're technically disposing of some lifeform that might have become a baby... leaving it a few more weeks just means there is a bit more genetic material to get rid of, it still isn't necessarily aware of anything.

I think the degree of sentience, or how close it is to sentience, is quite a helpful lens to look at the issue through, so thanks for that, although I do think there's a bit more to it. I think the potential, and nature of human life itself has some part to play too.

I guess for me It doesn't feel right that a little ball of cells would have human rights, but on the flip side I find the idea that we could kill a viable baby up until birth because that's what we used to do in the old days or whatever absolutely horrifying, and would say that they should have almost the same human rights as an actual new born baby.

I guess for me there's some sort of sliding scale, where I would say a fertilised egg starts off with no rights, but then all those different factors start to come I to play as it grows and develops, getting closer to viability, sentience, full development, ability to suffer, etc it picks up more weight as a 'human' imo. The point at which getting rid of it is simply a choice that the mother can make (overruling any claim to life that the egg/embryo/fetus/baby might have) should always come before it would be viable if delivered early imo. I think viability it a bit of a watershed moment where the baby has gone far enough along the sliding scale that choice is just not a good enough reason to remove its right to life. It still makes sense to value the mother's life more highly than the baby's from that point until birth as she is a more fully formed human, which would be a justification for early delivery in the event of the mother having medical problems etc.

 

[Haggisman]

Having had far more experience with the whole thing than I would ever wish on anyone, I'm definitely on the side of "legal until viable".

Even medical reasons aside, forcing someone to bring up a child they don't want is never going to end well, and is almost certainly going to end up detrimentally affecting both their lives. The other side effect of making it illegal is of course forcing people to use illegal abortion clinics or "home remedies" and all the risks those bring.

The way I see it, you need to be something of a sadist to be against abortion, since you clearly enjoy inflicting misery and suffering on people.

- I don't like contraception because it encourages promiscuous behavour which results in unwanted pregnancies. I accept that I don't have the right to force people not to use contraception. I mention it because it speaks to the couple taking responsibility for their actions. They caused the unwanted pregnancy, the embryo is innocent. I try to use the word "couple" when they aren't aware of the embryo exists and "parents" after they are aware.

An interesting viewpoint - are you suggesting monogamous couples who don't want to have children (or no more children) should never have sex because it is "promiscuous"?

Also, we should absolutely be banning protests outside hospitals and clinics and creating buffer zones.

The closest I've ever been to kicking the living **** out of someone was a protester outside an abortion clinic. It takes a very special kind of evil to prey on women who are almost certainly already at one of the lowest points in their life, purely so you can push your misguided religion on them.

Around 1% of abortions are because of rape. If you are pregnant and it wasn't rape, you should not be able to murder the life inside. Even those babies who were born out of rape would rather exist than not.

Feel free to go ahead and tell that to the thousands of children suffering in poverty around the world, or the ones who commit suicide after being passed from foster home to foster home after being ditched by a mum who didn't want them.

Lack of empathy for the unborn foetus? Hardly. People choose to have sex. They surely know what happens when you do? If not, then they should not be allowed out alone.

As per the previous quote, you obviously already understand that not everyone "chooses" to have sex, so your claim is already inaccurate. There's also obviously the chances of contraception failing - so should several people have their lives fundamentally changed forever because of such a chance event?

Edit: It would be interesting if the poll was split into "I'm religious and my vote is X, Y or Z" vs "I'm not religious and my vote is X, Y or Z"

 

[cheesyboy]

Lack of empathy for the unborn foetus? Hardly. People choose to have sex. They surely know what happens when you do? If not, then they should not be allowed out alone.

I must have had sex, I dunno, 1,000 times without pregnancy happening (and twice where it did). It seems pretty reasonable to conclude that pregnancy isn't necessarily the outcome of sex.

And even if we accept your point: why does that mean they can't decide not to keep it?

I just don't think your morals hold up. If you think abortion is murder, why is it ok to murder an innocent party in the case of rape? And why is that the benchmark?

Do you believe sex itself to be immoral?

 

[SPG]

Why is that odd? We don’t segregate the drafting of legislation by gender or sex in modern democracies. Only female MPs or state representatives or congress members allowed to vote on issue X only makes on issue Y.
Bad luck if your elected representative is the wrong gender/sex to vote on the issue you care about.

I mean how ridiculous would that be?

Because its not an issue for the state in any shape or form its down the woman 100% on what she believes is best for her and her alone. Not congress bought by religious group to bolster their numbers.

 

[throwaway4372]

An interesting viewpoint - are you suggesting monogamous couples who don't want to have children (or no more children) should never have sex because it is "promiscuous"?

Good point. In that scenario I don't have a problem with it. Those people are settled with kids and introducing more kids to the scenario could cause financial problems for the existing kids, so a termination is entirely rational. If they don't have kids, but are commited to each other, I think they should be having the kid rather than terminating, unless they're super poor or something.
Edit: Because they're in a relationship they will have discussed it ahead of time, so using contraception to help avoid needing a termination makes sense.

What I had in mind was the people who have sex for fun with no commitment to each other. That behaviour is irresponsible. The availability of contraception makes them feel safe doing it. I think it's that behaviour which is behind a high proportion of unwanted pregnancies, because they're all concieved with no commitment to each other, although I have no idea at all if that's statistically true.
Edit: I am saying these people shouldn't be having casual sex.

Edit2: And the context of this point was about responsibility for their actions. IMO responsibility matters for all sorts of reasons, but mainly it just makes the debate easier if you view a pregnancy as something you caused rather than something that happened to you by magic. Additionally, we're all paying for their terminations on the NHS, which shouldn't be our responsibility because we didn't cause it.

 

[Haggisman]

Good point. In that scenario I don't have a problem with it. Those people are settled with kids and introducing more kids to the scenario could cause financial problems for the existing kids, so a termination is entirely rational.

What I had in mind was the people who have sex for fun with no commitment to each other. That behaviour is irresponsible. The availability of contraception makes them feel safe doing it. I think it's that behaviour which is behind a high proportion of unwanted pregnancies, because they're all concieved with no commitment to each other, although I have no idea at all if that's statistically true.

Phew, thought I was going mad there for a moment

I'll be honest, while having sex with random women has never really appealed to me* I can see why some people to do it, and honestly, who am I to judge? If they are using proper contraception (and I would put the responsibility for this equally on both partners), then I don't see it as irresponsible, any more than say, rock-climbing, scuba diving, or any other pastime which comes with a risk (albeit small if the proper precautions are used).

Edit: in response to your edit.

----- "Edit: Because they're in a relationship they will have discussed it ahead of time, so using contraception to help avoid needing a termination makes sense."

Contraception can fail - in this case should the couple (and/or any existing children) suffer because of "an accident", despite being responsible and taking the necessary precautions?

----- "Edit: I am saying these people shouldn't be having casual sex."

Why not? Provided they both consent and are being responsible and taking the necessary precautions then whose business is it except their own? Should we also deny medical assistance to a rock-climber who falls and breaks their spine in an accident, despite them using all of the necessary safety equipment?


* sure I've had a couple of drunken 1-night stands in my youth but they number in the low single digits since - personally at least - the physical side is nothing without the emotional connection

Edit: further edit, this new forum version makes it really difficult to edit in quotes!

 

[C Kent]

People want an abortion for any number of reasons. Who are you to judge the worthiness of them?

Abortion isn't a form of contraception, which is what a large % of terminations are used as. Maybe people should start taking some responsibility for their actions

 

[cheesyboy]

Abortion isn't a form of contraception, which is what a large % of terminations are used as. Maybe people should start taking some responsibility for their actions

Taking appropriate medical assistance for a health issue IS taking responsibility.

 

[throwaway4372]

Edit2: And the context of this point was about responsibility for their actions. IMO responsibility matters for all sorts of reasons, but mainly it just makes the debate easier if you view a pregnancy as something you caused rather than something that happened to you by magic. Additionally, we're all paying for their terminations on the NHS, which shouldn't be our responsibility because we didn't cause it.

Just quoting to make sure this edit is seen.

 

[Harlequin]

I'm not pro-murdering babies.
I'm pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining organs.
I'm pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I'm pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents, spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save her or her unborn child.
I'm pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn't mature enough to bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I'm pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already has because her spouse walked out on her.
I'm pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or physically able to raise a child.
I'm pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE amount of fetuses.
I’m pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.
I'm pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
I'm pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I'm pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or risks dying from internal bleeding.
I’m pro-Jaime who is non-binary or AFAB and will be at significantly higher risk of suicide going through the body dysphoria of a pregnancy, on top of gender dysphoria.
You can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm pro-life.
Their lives.
Women's lives.
You don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
It's not about which stories you don't agree with. It's about fighting for the women in the stories that you do agree with and the CHOICE that was made.
Women's rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!

 

[Haggisman]

Edit2: And the context of this point was about responsibility for their actions. IMO responsibility matters for all sorts of reasons, but mainly it just makes the debate easier if you view a pregnancy as something you caused rather than something that happened to you by magic. Additionally, we're all paying for their terminations on the NHS, which shouldn't be our responsibility because we didn't cause it.

The financial argument is a terrible one. A termination is orders of magnitude cheaper than paying for:

- The birth of a child

AND
(
- Benefits for a single mother who can no longer work OR free childcare so she can
OR
(
- The cost of putting an unwanted child through the care system
AND
- The potential cost of dealing with the fallout of the above if it all goes wrong (e.g. a child with a **** upbringing turning to crime and all the associated policing costs, or paying benefits for the rest of their life)
))

 

[Hagar]

24 weeks is on the bleeding edge of what may be possible to survive a birth with huge medical assistance for months and potential life changing threats or a reduced life chance.
It wasn't a few years ago, and is now with improvements in medical science and support techniques. So it may reduce with time again.

 

[Diddums]

Don't you people have jobs? Christ I wish I had 5 minutes during working hours to argue about something as irrelevant as american abortion policy

 

[throwaway4372]

@Harlequin Not a fan of the feminist propaganda copy+paste, but I think we all basically agree with those reasons for termination. The thing is they're known very early in the pregnancy so fall under the morning after pill or the 6 week rule, or they're medical reasons which aren't what this thread is about.

@Diddums nope not currently.

 

[Haggisman]

@Harlequin Can't quote your post (stupid software update)

Agreed 100% - like I said. If you're against abortion, you are for inflicting misery and suffering. Don't try and dress it up as taking the moral high-ground, just admit you enjoy seeing people suffer.

@Harlequin Not a fan of the feminist propaganda copy+paste, but I think we all basically agree with those reasons for termination. The thing is they're known very early in the pregnancy so fall under the morning after pill or the 6 week rule, or they're medical reasons which aren't what this thread is about.

There have been cases where women have carried a baby to term without realising. It's hardly a stretch to envisage a scenario where they could be unaware they are pregnant for several weeks before they find out.