Abortion Rights Revisited

[TheMastersSon]

TheMastersSon, on 02 Jan 2018 - 8:06 PM, said:

 

My favorite bottom line on the abortion rights issue is what a poll taken maybe 15 or so years ago indicated. According to the poll and entirely predictably, 80% of respondants who self-identified as conservative said they favored laws restricting or eliminating abortion rights for women in some or all cases. But later in that same poll another question was asked, the following is either exact or a close approximation: "If your own daughter had an unwanted pregnancy, would you want our government to interfere with her abortion decision?", and I kid you not, 85% of these same self-identified conservatives said no.

 

So I'm not sure what to make of it, other than to chock it up to stupidity and a whole lot of right-wingers who apparently have never thought their position on abortion rights all the way through. They wish to restrict and ban abortion but only for everybody else's families.

 

In my book, recognition of any constitutional rights for any subgroup of cells within a woman's own body is not only ridiculous but an inherent violation of her own right to control her own body or any portion thereof. And the day our pope or Mike Pence can bear the pains and costs and other sacrifices of pregnancy and labor is the day they'll have the right to force these pains on someone or anyone else. It's why, aside from almost a half century of personal experience with friends and family, I consider one's position on abortion rights to be one of the best and most accurate indicators not of morality but of basic intelligence. The same is true btw for same-sex marriage recognition, i.e. if you're against it, don't do it. And if you're against other people doing it, pass a law against it if the public will exists to do so. And if the will doesn't exist to do so, please go home and mind your own marriages. It's a much more noble, infinitely more possible and rewarding effort.

Im glad you think that your argument is intelligent. It makes me smile. I love you, in all honesty.

 

But love aside, I find it tragic that you or anyone can condone the murder of unborn human beings.

I condone nothing, since it is neither my place to condone or condemn how any woman manages her own body, or portions thereof. Again, the belief that fetuses qualify for any constitutional recognition or protection is the root stupidity and ignorance, and if you've ever had a daughter with an unwanted pregnancy, please tell us how your well intentioned but utterly totalitarian approach worked on her.

 

Please do tell, because it takes no guts whatsoever to spout off in a discussion forum about abortion being murder etc, and quite another to tell your own daughter that her abortion decision isn't hers to make, but Donald Trump's. This was the point of my two quoted poll results.

 

These unwanted pregnancies turned abortion are literally people being murdered before they ever get a chance to live, usually because the parents are broke, lazy, un-educated, lacking the real american grit, and are otherwise devoid of anything but the semblance of worldly responsibility.

Usually? Recent stats indicate 89% of abortions are done within the first 12 weeks. This does not indicate general financial hardship or a lack of education or grit among Americans. It's people managing their own bodies. Do you also rant this way against male masturbation? Because whoever apparently told you that fetuses somehow qualify as more human than sperm wasn't telling you the truth.

 

These are people. Have you ever seen a f***ing disney film? These are whole lives that are just being squashed, everything they could ever do or achieve, every possible Einstein (yeah or serial killer you sicko), because you wouldnt wear a condom, practice abstinence, keep track of your teenagers and train them to be men and women of action.

Those are parental responsibilities, it's neither the place nor business of government to pretend it can do this job for any family. And it's an entirely different issue than civil abortion law and the theocratic concept of predestination. By your logic males should also feel bad about the 300 million poor helpless murdered sperm every time they masturbate. Because logically it's both or neither, the distinction between the two as to the humanity of these various blobs of cells within OUR OWN bodies is arbitrary.

 

"In my book, recognition of any constitutional rights for any subgroup of cells within a woman's own body is not only ridiculous but an inherent violation of her own right to control her own body or any portion thereof."

 

Yeah we just make sure its illegal once those cells can make audible cries after leaving the birth canal naturally. Before that, well, just murder away. How else are we going to feed this billion dollar baby parts industry?

 

You disgust me more than you will ever know. I hope you talk to God.

Your disgust is toward your own stupidity and ignorance. Every time I pray on this issue the returned word is predestination. Some sperm make it, most sperm don't. Some fetuses make it, most fetuses don't etc. And all the rest is ignorance and stupidity, and vested financial interest masqueraded as moral outrage. If you're seriously claiming you'd wish our government to force your own daughter to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will, I truly pity your daughter and I'm not the one who needs to talk to God. Edited February 7, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[elenalejua]

Your disgust is toward your own stupidity and ignorance. Every time I pray on this issue the returned word is predestination. Some sperm make it, most sperm don't. Some fetuses make it, most fetuses don't etc. And all the rest is ignorance and stupidity, and vested financial interest masqueraded as moral outrage. If you're seriously claiming you'd wish our government to force your own daughter to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will, I truly pity your daughter and I'm not the one who needs to talk to God.

If she chose to have sex, it was her choice, she gets pregnant then yeah she has the baby. If she gets raped, she now has a baby. You dont just end a life.

 

Your problem is you actually think sperm and a growing fetus with a heartbeat are the same thing. Sperm cannot do anything by itself. It is literally a carrier cell for DNA transfer.

 

A growing human fetus has neural electrical impulses and very quickly starts having random "thoughts" and "feelings". How close these are to an actual full term baby? Who is to say, but there is very real LIFE going on there.

 

As long as you choose to disregard the bible and believe that humans in the womb are just another body part and not an actual life, you will be lost my friend.

[RatB0Y68]

I've thought very carefully about weighing in so far, especially given the direction this argument is taking, but I feel it necessary.

 

On the subject of foetuses, I may not be a reproductive expert but I do have some cursory knowledge of the subject, enough to know that in the early stages of foetal development the foetus isn't thinking or feeling anything much.

 

Functionally, this foetus is in the beginning very much equivalent to a cancerous tumour.

I do not use this term lightly or to simply provoke an outraged emotional response. Studies have shown regarding the use of medicinal cannabis that it may have some useful effect on the treating of certain cancers, however its use also has real potential to stunt the growth of a developing foetus. Why? Well, it turns out the mechanism for foetal growth is highly similar to the growth of cancer cells.

 

You may surely say that later on the foetus develops beyond that point, when the brain starts to develop. I say 'so what?' Basic neurological activity does not automatically mean complex thoughts and emotional states, the foetus now simply has the ability to regulate bodily functions, its brain is so rudimentary at this stage it cannot 'think' anything. Furthermore, even in the middle stages the foetus is still utterly dependent on the mother. Functionally the foetus has transitioned from a tumour to a semi-sentient parasite.

 

Now, in the final stages, when the foetal development has more or less neared completion, I grant you things get more complicated. The foetus is now much closer to what you might think of as a thinking, feeling baby. In this scenario, more consideration should be given to the foetus' welfare. That said, the issue still isn't cut and dry.

There was a post earlier quoting abortion statistics, to the effect of the majority of abortions take place before the 4th month of pregnancy (well before the final stages), with only a few exceptions in the later stages due to the diagnosis of life threatening illnesses or crippling disabilities or something similar. In other words, extreme circumstances. As such, any alarmism about 'slaughtering babies' seems like unsubstantiated hysteria.

 

A final note on the often discussed question of 'personhood'. No single, proper codified definition of personhood has actually been universally agreed upon, certainly not one that is medically informed. Until the term personhood is concretely defined, any discussion on whether or not a foetus has personhood is pointless. How can you say Object A has property B when you can't even describe what property B actually is.

[elenalejua]

I've thought very carefully about weighing in so far, especially given the direction this argument is taking, but I feel it necessary.

 

On the subject of foetuses, I may not be a reproductive expert but I do have some cursory knowledge of the subject, enough to know that in the early stages of foetal development the foetus isn't thinking or feeling anything much.

 

Functionally, this foetus is in the beginning very much equivalent to a cancerous tumour.

I do not use this term lightly or to simply provoke an outraged emotional response. Studies have shown regarding the use of medicinal cannabis that it may have some useful effect on the treating of certain cancers, however its use also has real potential to stunt the growth of a developing foetus. Why? Well, it turns out the mechanism for foetal growth is highly similar to the growth of cancer cells.

 

You may surely say that later on the foetus develops beyond that point, when the brain starts to develop. I say 'so what?' Basic neurological activity does not automatically mean complex thoughts and emotional states, the foetus now simply has the ability to regulate bodily functions, its brain is so rudimentary at this stage it cannot 'think' anything. Furthermore, even in the middle stages the foetus is still utterly dependent on the mother. Functionally the foetus has transitioned from a tumour to a semi-sentient parasite.

 

Now, in the final stages, when the foetal development has more or less neared completion, I grant you things get more complicated. The foetus is now much closer to what you might think of as a thinking, feeling baby. In this scenario, more consideration should be given to the foetus' welfare. That said, the issue still isn't cut and dry.

There was a post earlier quoting abortion statistics, to the effect of the majority of abortions take place before the 4th month of pregnancy (well before the final stages), with only a few exceptions in the later stages due to the diagnosis of life threatening illnesses or crippling disabilities or something similar. In other words, extreme circumstances. As such, any alarmism about 'slaughtering babies' seems like unsubstantiated hysteria.

 

A final note on the often discussed question of 'personhood'. No single, proper codified definition of personhood has actually been universally agreed upon, certainly not one that is medically informed. Until the term personhood is concretely defined, any discussion on whether or not a foetus has personhood is pointless. How can you say Object A has property B when you can't even describe what property B actually is.

Yeah the first 8 weeks do grow like cancer cells. Cancer cells are regular cells that lost their way, no? Makes sense they would grow similar. You know... like need sugars to grow? This is all stuff we know.

 

Now here's some stuff you probably didn't cover in high school:

 

At 8-10 the fetus begins to feel the sensation of touch. It begins to practice breathing movements, even though it does not breath in the womb.

At 12 weeks it begins to learn from stimuli. Its body reacts and remembers from this point on. It is currently learning and growing. It can be conditioned. It is not currently conscious of itself yet.

At 15 weeks the central "lizard brain" is fully developed and the fetus drinks the amniotic fluid and starts developing taste and begins to feel the beginnings of hot and cold and pain.

At 16 weeks the nerves for hearing begin to grow more complex and it starts learning to hear muffled sounds.

At 18 weeks the baby can start responding to low frequency sounds and will now flinch and wince in respond to pain.

Week 21-23 Consciousness. Complex eye movements. Sound recognition develops further. Awareness of itself as a self. Begins having dreams.

Week 27-29 Full bodily awareness much more attuned. Has complex thoughts and daydreams while conscious. Better understanding the stimuli of its environment and reacting to it with expectation and emotion.

Week 30+ From this point on it continues to develop as it's lungs grow and it finishes its final big growth spurt before birth. At this point the baby will try to connect with the mother with movements trying to get her to react.

 

Then a short time before it is ready the baby will re position itself in preparation for birth, usually around week 37-38.

"As such, any alarmism about 'slaughtering babies' seems like unsubstantiated hysteria."

 

They are writing laws to protect planned parenthood and abortion rights in order to keep a billion dollar industry alive. They are making it ok to take babies wiggling there on the mat at the abortion clinic, THAT COULD LIVE, and just kill them because the mom said so in order feed a growing industry that relies on death as its main supplier. They are doing it to keep an industry of baby parts alive and well, which is being fueled by genetic research. You think this is going to lead to good things for us as a race? You are out of your mind.

 

Aborting a life is just plain wrong. Its evil. Just because you are ending its life before it is conscious doesn't mean its ok. It just makes it easier for you all to take. It's still f***ing sick.

 

Fun fact for new parents:

After birth, babies are shown to have cognitive recognition memory to as far back as 5 months old. So its safe to say from 6 months + our brain starts recording basic memories, especially faces. (Makes sense so we can survive by recognizing family.)

 

God Bless Everyone!

Edited February 7, 2018 by elenalejua

[RatB0Y68]

Your timeline regarding foetal development was informative, so thank you for that. However it doesn't really contradict any of my more cursory knowledge of foetal development, simply fleshes it out.

 

I'm going to skip ahead and address the point about the morality of aborting, terminating or otherwise taking a life because frankly I live in England, so I am not so knowledgeable regarding how the American medical and pharmaceutical industries operate. I know that they have done some shady shenanigans, but to be honest this whole 'baby parts' thing sounds far fetched and grossly over simplified.

 

On the subject of ending lives: We end lives and destroy life all the time - we exterminate pests such as rats and mice without qualms, which are conscious, living organisms that feel pain and have emotional states. Cancerous tumours and Parasites are also alive, yet we excise and destroy them without batting an eyelid. Some countries practise the death penalty, others will allow people and animals with terminal illnesses to end their own lives or have them ended.

 

I cannot enter your mind and know automatically your position regarding life on these other issues, so I must examine all the options one by one.

 

What makes the abortion of a foetus morally heinous, but the execution of a criminal perfectly justified? Or putting down a healthy but unwanted adult dog at an animal shelter (as sometimes happens)? Or allowing a fully adult human being with a painful crippling illness to die on their own terms? In all the mentioned cases a life is being taken.

 

If you are opposed to abortion ie: the ending of the life of a premature foetus before it is carried to term, because you assert that taking of a life is unequivocally wrong, are you also against the extermination of lesser animals whose only crime is to exist in a place where we don't want them? Are you also opposed to the death penalty and euthanasia?

As said earlier, the majority of abortions occur in the earlier stages, when the foetus is developmentally comparable to a tumour, a parasite, or a smaller lesser animal. If you are not opposed to the taking of life in these other circumstances, then why the special exemption for abortion? Perhaps you are only interested in preserving human life, or as earlier posters have stated, the lives of the unborn at the expense of others' lives.

 

If this is the case, then I would assert that your position regarding the value of life is inconsistent.

 

On the other hand... If you are indeed unilaterally against all these other forms of killing, not just abortion, then, while your postion is consistent, I would submit that it is far too rigid, uncompromising and that it lacks nuance.

Those who submit that the taking of a life, any life, is wrong under all circumstances without exception usually do so because of belief in the principle of 'the Sanctity of Life': the idea that life is inherently 'Sacred'.

 

That is to say, life is valuable in and of itself. In my opinion this is an incoherent principle, it assumes that value is objective. This is nonsensical, value is by its nature subjective. It is an abstract concept created by a mind. There is no evidence to suggest 'value' materially exists in the universe; it is not a fundamental constant like gravity or the strong nuclear force. It can't be measured or detected by instruments or apparatus. It's a judgement formed by an individual mind on how important something is, a judgement that can and will change depending on the individual and the circumstances they are in.

 

There is a risk here of getting too theoretical, so I will approach this from another direction. Another problem with opposing abortion, euthanasia etc due to considering Life to be supercedingly valuable is that it is blinkered: it ignores important considerations in favour of one overriding principle, the preservation of life at all costs, it does not consider Quality of Life.

One common reason for abortion is that the foetus has been diagnosed with a crippling illness or disability, which can and often does severely diminish quality of life for both child and parent.

Another reason is a fatal risk to the mother; a dead mother cannot effectively raise a child, depriving a child of a mother figure can have numerous ill effects on the child, some severe.

Yet another is financial considerations, a couple may be unable to raise a child due to lack of resources (and I mean REAL lack of resources). In this case, condemning a child to live in abject poverty has an extremely negative effect on their quality of life.

Now regarding the third reason, I'm just going to premptively address the possibility of some people piping up with the mantra of "RESPONSIBILTY!!!" with these considerations:

 

-Firstly, contraception isn't foolproof. Furthermore 'abstinence only' produces more unwanted pregnancies than any other form of sex education. Sex happens, it's a fact of life and a biological imperative.

-Secondly, everyone makes mistakes, hindsight is 20/20.

-Not every bad situation is due to stupidity, incompetence or thoughtlessness, this isn't a fairy tale universe where the cosmos rewards goodness and wisdom and punishes evil and stupidity in real time. It's messy, arbitrary and chaotic, I know that because I do not live in a castle or drive a Bugatti Veyron. In all seriousness though, situations happen where peoples best intentions are derailed by circumstances out of control.

 

To conclude this point (at last): Opposing abortion due to considering life to be inherently, supercedingly valuable ignores very meaningful, real-life considerations in the name of adherence to an abstract principle. While pro life proponents may well genuinely feel devoted to the preservation of life, this line of argument demonstrates more concern for the Rule than the struggles of the actual people involved.

[elenalejua]

"To conclude this point (at last): Opposing abortion due to considering life to be inherently, supercedingly valuable ignores very meaningful, real-life considerations in the name of adherence to an abstract principle. While pro life proponents may well genuinely feel devoted to the preservation of life, this line of argument demonstrates more concern for the Rule than the struggles of the actual people involved."

 

The struggle of the people involved is inconsequential when you are talking about eliminating an entire human existence from the timeline. This is inherently evil.

 

And what the world of $MONEY$ is doing with abortions is absolutely gut-wrenchingly evil. It is literally another form of Hitler's Final Solution re-realized re-packed and now SOLD, and no one seems to give a crap. 1976 legal abortions for all in the U.S. Allowing mostly poor and destitute racial minorities the option of murdering and unwittingly selling their baby parts to companies that sell them to other companies for genetic research that is illegal in most civilized countries (for good reason).

 

To the point you were making, killing does occur and is necessary. It is another part of life. As is humans using force to exert their will over other humans ie. all wars ever. Just because these things happen doesn't mean that is a moral excuse to perpetuate them.

If you are religious, here is a religious example:
In the Christian Bible, David fought countless battles on behalf of the spirit of God, but when he presumed to slow down his warrior lifestyle and build a temple to God, God basically told him that while he did his deeds in his name, he had spilt too much blood to build a holy temple to God.

 

My point there being, even though there are things in life that must be done, that doesn't mean that they must be moral, righteous, or excusable. Actions have consequences, and what a lot of people fail to do in this particular debate...is actually accept the consequences. Most will not even acknowledge the horror of what is being allowed to happen. A real human existence, full of possibility, is being snuffed out.

If you had a quest in Skyrim where you had to just start wiping interesting npc's and characters out of f***ing existence, watching all the horrible changes it made to the skyrim universe, would you actually want to see it happen in real life?

There are ways to live without murdering babies because the pregnancy is extremely inconvenient.

Edited February 7, 2018 by elenalejua

[TheMastersSon]

A growing human fetus has neural electrical impulses and very quickly starts having random "thoughts" and "feelings". How close these are to an actual full term baby? Who is to say, but there is very real LIFE going on there.

Well, sperm know how to swim and follow heat sources, even without a brain. So what's your point? What it comes down to is hypocritical and entirely self-fabricated victimization where none exists in reality. A woman should feel as guilty about managing her own life as a man does about managing his, and to have any chance of moral consistency, our civil laws would have to ban both abortion and male masturbation. Can't wait to see the lineup of advocates for that one.

 

As long as you choose to disregard the bible and believe that humans in the womb are just another body part and not an actual life, you will be lost my friend.

Well in my view and according to my prayers, as long as one pretends God doesn't already perfectly know the fate of all living beings, even sperm and fetuses, one is indeed lost in a pit of delusional and entirely self-fabricated victimization. Between abortion rights, gay rights, euthenasia etc etc, the pit must seem bottomless for Bible thumpers like yourself. Meanwhile the only actual evil imo is the imposition of ridiculously myopic and limited human judgments and intelligence on God's universal plan, of which nobody has the beginnings of a clue for any living being.

 

If I've learned nothing else in a half century of debates on this topic (and homosexuality/gay rights btw), it's that they're pointless when religious beliefs are introduced. Civil law is not based on religious belief in our country and I thought Bible thumping wasn't allowed here. Whatever. In our country you are free to live according to whatever set of religious rules you wish. Your right to do so ends at my and everybody else's right to not subscribe to your religious beliefs.

Edited February 7, 2018 by TheMastersSon

[RatB0Y68]

I think I've said all I have to say on the subject without repeating myself ad nauseam or venturing into areas we can't discuss, with the exception of this: I don't know anyone elses personal life circumstances here, but I will say that it takes a certain kind of aloofness, and I'll put it no stronger than that, to stand on a lofty pedestal and declare someone's real life struggles to be inconsequential compared to a nebulous ideal.

 

It is easy to be moral from the comfort of a cosy armchair, or to preach virtues regarding a situation one has never experienced. I personally would not presume to know what could possibly be going through a pregnant woman's mind as she makes the harrowing walk to an abortion clinic, but I can take a reasonable guess that it isn't something they take lightly.

In an ideal world would abortion exist? No, because it wouldn't need to, because everyone would be able to raise their children securely, people would have foolproof protection from unwanted pregnancies and would be able to plan responsibly for all outcomes.

It isn't an ideal world though, life isn't always easy or blithely and effortlessly wandered through by adherence to simplistic rules, and I wouldn't begrudge letting the real world live as it can.

 

That is my piece, I have now shot my bolt, so to speak, and I give way to the honourable lady or gentleman beside me.

[JimboUK]

I asked for religion to kept out of it, it wasn't, thread closed.