If you're pro-choice then please be fully on board with that and agree that women should be able to abort their unborn babies until they are literally out of their bodies. @Devilman I assume you are ok with aborting babies at 8 months and 3 weeks, or before the day they are due to be born? Your position is clear on this, it is their body and their choice.
Poll: Abortion, Roe v. Wade
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
If you're pro-life then please be fully on board with that and agree that women should be forced to carry their baby to term, regardless of genetic defect, pregnancy complications or method of conception (consensual vs rape) with no regard for their wishes as a human being.
I assume you are ok with women and babies dying from complications such as ectopic pregnancy, detached placenta and a whole host of others which are a fatal risk to both baby and fetus? Your position is clear on this - you think you can see inside my head. Lets take a look inside yours shall we?
You've stated your position and not answered my question, my personal opinion is that abortion is a serious procedure, it should be done as early as possible, once babies are "viable" or close to viable as humans then it should never happen. Period. Ideally abortions are done at latest 12 weeks, earlier if possible. Later than 12 weeks by exception up to viability. Exceptions will be rare and involve special cases where the woman was raped or there is danger to life.
Please answer my question now, if you are pro-choice then your position is clear I would say, otherwise stop claiming to be pro-choice because you aren't.
It is not a matter of value. The very use of the term is a way of attempting to influence discussion and affect a sense of "moral outrage" at the notion of considering something "worthless"
It is a matter of definitions.
For many pro-life they believe the definition of "life starting" to be conception.
For many pro-choice they seem to have a slightly more varied range, but generally seems to center around the notion of "can it survive by itself (with the help of our medical technology and knowledge) outside the womb by itself"
They should have the autonomy to have the baby removed by induced labour or caesarian after the point of viability if they no longer wish to carry the baby.
In the same vein, if you're pro-life then the fetus is a citizen and benefits should start at the point of conception, maternity grants, and maternity leave should begin immediately as it would otherwise be classed as child labour.
Why are you, as pro-life allowed concessions but someone that's pro-choice isn't?
That last part is vague and doesn’t really address the obvious issues. Again it’s not like women only live in constituencies with female MPs nor is it the case that there are separate male and female MPs for each constituency. At what point do you even decide something is a male only or woman only issue? How is a woman living in an area with a male elected representative able to be represented on this? Likewise suppose some female MP is elected who can vote on this issue but most women constituents supported another candidate…
What other dividing lines should be drawn - only elderly MPs permitted to vote on some elderly issues? Only Jewish and Muslim MPs allowed to vote on religious circumcision? Or perhaps only male MPs?
It doesn’t seem to be particularly feasible or even particularly useful.
I didn't join some arbitrary camp or "team", those are my personal views. I don't think Devilman even has stated views, he's just here to disagree
Soldato
And 90% of all terminations are before 10 weeks, those after 24 weeks are in agreement with multiple professionals , and are usually (see previous statistics) as a results of a pregnancy failure mid term. No one is ripping term babies out of a mother (at term) and killing them.
Well, some people are in America actually, late term abortions is a thing that happens.
Soldato
Surely if you value a fetus in any way then an abortion doesn't 'just' affect a woman's body though? It affects a woman's body and the fetus.
I will acknowledge using the world 'value' does lead thoughts in a certain direction, but what would a better word be? I would argue it's less leading than failing to acknowledge the existence of a fetus at all, which the 'it only affects women's bodies' statement does.
Kind of sounds like you're agreeing with me about the 'it only affects women's bodies' not being a very useful argument though
Soldato
Seems to me that much of these arguments go unspoken. No matter what people think about abortion we have to balance the consequence of either choice.
We rarely seem to talk about what happens to an unwanted child if it is born. Should an unwanted child be raised by the parents who didn't want it? Could the system cope with all those additional births? Could the system cope with all the additional adoptions? Would the courts be able to cope with all the fathers who didn't want the child disappearing? How would we deal with the huge increase in illegal abortions? How many women would die? I think if we were honest the answers to some of these questions are why some people condone abortions in the first place.
We rarely seem to talk about what happens to an unwanted child if it is born. Should an unwanted child be raised by the parents who didn't want it? Could the system cope with all those additional births? Could the system cope with all the additional adoptions? Would the courts be able to cope with all the fathers who didn't want the child disappearing? How would we deal with the huge increase in illegal abortions? How many women would die? I think if we were honest the answers to some of these questions are why some people condone abortions in the first place.
That's strange, as just moment ago you claimed...
It would seem to me you are confused old chap, one moment you claim I made my position clear, then you say I haven't, which is it?
Ironically in the very same post you "assumed" I was "ok with aborting babies at 8 months and 3 weeks, or before the day they are due to be born?" - which surely would have been entirely unnecessary (making an assumption) had my position indeed been clear?
Also why is it that you default to the assumption that someone who is "pro-choice" by default is the most horrific monster version you can imagine - (I quote) "aborting babies at 8 months and 3 weeks, or before the day they are due to be born?" Why the need for such rampant hysteria? - This is exactly the kind of language used by those looking to evoke an emotional response from a person, rather than a more thought-out, logical and balanced response? We've seen people in this very thread wishing people to "go to sleep at night with the sounds of the screaming babies they murdered" - it's absurd to resort to such levels in an attempt to elicit an emotive response from someone, rather than allow them to consider the argument rationally.
I truly doubt anybody that is "pro-choice" would be advocating the aborting of a baby at 8 months 3 weeks, or before the day they were due to be born. However many that are "pro-life" are advocating that a woman should be forced to go through pregnancy, regardless of their wishes and in some cases, even against their health.
Personally my position is more along the lines of pro-choice up to a determined "viability limit" (determined by medical experts in the field) with exceptions if there is a risk of life to either mother or child - It seems the most fair, balanced compromise you can manage to achieve.
However if you do not value a 3 day-fertilized egg anymore than a bunch of skin cells on your arm, then it does 'just' affect a woman's body though?Surely if you value a fetus in any way then an abortion doesn't 'just' affect a woman's body though? It affects a woman's body and the fetus.
I will acknowledge using the world 'value' does lead thoughts in a certain direction, but what would a better word be? I would argue it's less leading than failing to acknowledge the existence of a fetus at all, which the 'it only affects women's bodies' statement does.
Kind of sounds like you're agreeing with me about the 'it only affects women's bodies' not being a very useful argument though
Is a 3 day-fertilized egg to be considered the same as a 6 month old fetus? - This is something you often note is lacking in the arguments from the vocal pro-life supporters, preferring instead the tendency for hysterical over-reactions and "doom scenarios" of aborting 8 month 3 week old babies.
This is the round-about issue sadly.
Indeed the word value tends to have inferred connotations which get in the way of what is really the issue. Also it is arguable to say that even "fetus" can cause an emotive response in people which can affect their judgement, it does not adequately reflect the various stages of embryo development to reality and people start conjuring up images in their mind of fit-healthy babies being "terminated", rather than a cluster of several hundred cells that is maybe a few days since fertilization. I would honestly suggest the appropriate term in this discussion is simply "life". Is it, or Isn't it?
If you define "life" as being from the moment of conception, then you will of course "value" that and as such can argue it does not just affect a woman's body.
If you define "life" as being when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, with the help of medical technology and knowledge, then it's quite possible that little to no value may be attributed to it, or a varying amount based upon time.
As such the argument of whether it "only" affects the woman comes back around to when do you define "life" ?
If it's from conception then of course any action taken will affect both the mother and the embryo / fetus (depending on development stage)
If it's from viability though, it could easily by argued that the only person being affected is the woman.
So no, I wouldn't say it's not a very useful argument, but I will concede that depending upon the person's view of when "life" occurs, it may be considered valid or invalid
Last edited:
Soldato
I think the why is pretty obvious - without restoring to hysteria and emotive language, there is no rational argument against abortion up to the age of viability (or at least any argument which does exist escapes the intellect of those posters in this thread).
Soldato
and? I should have worn a condom. Her body, not mine.
Soldato
Given i have already shown the statistics from the USA; there are already less per capitia terminations than Europe and the UK, and even less late term (3rd trimester), no it really isnt a thing. Statistics on a previous page from the US government.
Not all women get pregnant from reckless encounters. Not all men count their blessings by being childless.
Ok so you have the same position as me, you aren't pro-choice. So for people who are who say it's their body and their choice, then surely that position doesn't stop at viability, otherwise that's not really the argument because the baby is still in their body. There are definitely people with extreme views that you doubt exist, such as there are people with I would argue with the less extreme view that life begins at conception
Soldato
Shock horror as people's opinions and decisions are based on nuances rather than absolutes
It's almost as if the poll should have been created with multiple options to take that into account...