How pro life (or pro choice) are you on abortion?

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

10.07.2020 01:57AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

At 6 weeks in; when the fetal cells specialize.

The question was rhetorical, but I'll entertain your response. Why does cell specialization justify coercing its mother to gestate a fetus (a manifestation of prohibiting abortion)? Why is a zygote not human despite its having a human genome? How is selecting these divisions of human development in which to sanction or prohibit abortion not merely arbitrary?

#32

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,887

10.07.2020 04:31AM

-->

@Athias

Exactly. At what point does a baby stop becoming the property of the mother?

#33

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

10.07.2020 04:02PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Exactly. At what point does a baby stop becoming the property of the mother?

That wasn't necessarily my point. I neither sustain nor assert that a baby whether in its zygotic, embryonic, or fetal stage is the property of its mother. My point is to highlight the inconsistency in the reasoning. Those who claim to sustain a "pro-choice" position when it comes to reproduction, after scrutiny and reduction, tend to discover that they're not "pro-choice" at all; they're just "pro-abortion." If her exercising discretion over the use of her body is her right, then why would that change at any point in the pregnancy? Why would there be any limitations to the time frame in which she can have an abortion?

Why stop at giving birth? Why is the mother obligated to take care of her child afterwards or required to find custodians who'd take care of the child? How she behaves her body is her choice, but how she applies her time, labor and resources aren't? When these arguments are reduced to their fundamental rationales, they're just conveying drudges demanding privileges from the State, not the exercise of any "right." However, for what it's worth, I do credit the pro-life position for sustaining fewer inconsistencies despite my sustaining a pro-choice position--a "true" pro-choice position.

#34

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,887

10.07.2020 04:54PM

-->

@Athias

Right. This was kind of a "how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife" type of question of course.

Just making it clear that the premise of a woman's choice is that she can do whatever she wants to her private property.

#35

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

10.07.2020 08:41PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Right. This was kind of a "how long has it been since you stopped beating your wife" type of question of course.

Just making it clear that the premise of a woman's choice is that she can do whatever she wants to her private property.

I see. I understand.

#36

Debates: 167

Posts: 3,837

10.07.2020 09:23PM

Well I am a man that thinks abortions should in most cases be legal and the later, the less moral.

#37

Debates: 167

Posts: 3,837

10.07.2020 09:28PM

I am technically pro-life, but unlike those assholes on the internet, I don't support just shove their opinions up their digestive system like they care or what. If you don't like abortions, don't have one, don't act like you are better than everyone just because you listen to some old man lived 2000 years ago saying that you will be punished if you eat pork or touch yourself or have constructive criticism against the "lord". I care about mother lives as well.

And yeah, in a better society abortions don't need to exist because life can be sustained through machinery as well as that foster care is better. If those right-wing assholes care at least a little more about foster care instead of bluffing their bills on banning abortion the world will be much better.

#38

Debates: 167

Posts: 3,837

10.07.2020 09:29PM

Just in case if people are nitpicking, I am not saying all right-wings are assholes. I am saying all right-wing assholes are bad.

Topic's author

#39

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,232

10.13.2020 11:39AM

-->

@Athias

Why does cell specialization justify coercing its mother to gestate a fetus (a manifestation of prohibiting abortion)?

Because a fetus with specialized cells is a human being.

Why is a zygote not human despite its having a human genome?

Because it resembles cancer if the cells aren't specialized.

How is selecting these divisions of human development in which to sanction or prohibit abortion not merely arbitrary?

Because cell specialization isn't arbitrary. It's when you become a human.

Topic's author

#40

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,232

10.13.2020 11:46AM

-->

@Intelligence_06

If you don't like abortions, don't have one

Don't want to rape, don't rape then. Since rape infringes on the rights of a third party, it should be banned. Since abortion does the same thing, it also should be banned until a cell specializes.

I care about mother lives as well.

If the woman did not want to become pregnant, she should have used an IUD or birth control. The man should also use a condom when having sex.

And yeah, in a better society abortions don't need to exist because life can be sustained through machinery as well as that foster care is better. If those right-wing assholes care at least a little more about foster care instead of bluffing their bills on banning abortion the world will be much better.

I think most foster care kids end up fine, with up to 96% of them getting adopted within 5 years of them entering the system. I met some people that were adopted and they are very chill, level headed and nice. It's anacadotal, but I think most foster kids end up fine, unless they were in an abusive home when they remembered stuff. Newborn foster kids don't remember any abusive home, so they end up fine I think.

15 days later

#41

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

10.28.2020 07:50PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Because a fetus with specialized cells is a human being.

Why does the specialization of its cells make it any more human than carrying a human genome?

Because it resembles cancer if the cells aren't specialized.

But it's not cancer. It's a zygote. Its phase denotes a reproducible phenomena in all human development. Is it a property of cancer to develop a brain, limbs, organs, and sentience? Does a zygote become metastatic? No? Then they are not the same.

Because cell specialization isn't arbitrary. It's when you become a human.

So you've asserted. Can a zygote and cancer cell(s) be differentiated?

#42

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,887

10.28.2020 09:00PM

-->

@Athias

To a degree notable enough not to dismiss out of hand, many of our morals stem from our innate instincts to survive as a fit species; the same instincts written into the DNA of all life on the planet.

Promoting morals advocating for the ownership and removal of cancer helps to keep the Human species fitter for continued survival.

Promoting morals advocating for the ownership and removal of fetuses may or may not make the Human species fitter for survival. Do we need more babies in the world? Or is 7 billion people (4 million a year in the USA) barely enough to ensure the continued existence of the human species?

Our Darwinian instincts may actually be working against what we might perceive to be "moral" if the end result is that the species becomes less fit due to overpopulation.

There are many species on the planet that will cannibalize each other when population levels are high instinctively as a measure to control the population and ensure that the entire species is not wiped out due to complete resource depletion. Many birds will lay 2 eggs and only care for the stronger of the 2 when food is scarce. It's written in our DNA as a property of species survival and evolutionary fitness.

#43

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

10.28.2020 09:10PM

-->

@Greyparrot

To a degree notable enough not to dismiss out of hand, many of our morals stem from our innate instincts to survive as a fit species; the same instincts written into the DNA of all life on the planet.

Promoting the moral advocating ownership and removal of cancer makes the Human species fitter for survival.

Promoting the moral advocating ownership and removal of fetuses may or may not make the Human species fitter for survival. Do we need more babies in the world? Or is 7 billion people (4 million a year in the USA) barely enough to ensure the continued existence of the human species?

Our Darwinian instincts may actually be working against what we might perceive to be "moral" if the end result is that the species becomes less fit due to overpopulation.

Is "overpopulation" really a concern when the Earth's populace can fit in Texas? Or in the advent of synthetic foods?

#44

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,887

10.28.2020 09:12PM

-->

@Athias

Is "overpopulation" really a concern when the Earth's populace can fit in Texas? Or in the advent of synthetic foods?

Maybe or maybe not, but the perceptions are the triggers that spur our evolutionary instinctual response hardcoded into our DNA.

#45

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

10.28.2020 09:29PM

-->

@Greyparrot

Maybe or maybe not, but the perceptions are the triggers that spur our evolutionary DNA instincts.

There is a concerted effort, at least in the U.S. media to propel this notion of "overpopulation," as recently as these past couple of years in the hit films Avengers Infinity War and Avengers End Game. For those who read the comic, the story line had little to do, if any, with population control.

#46

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,887

10.28.2020 09:31PM

-->

@Athias

Obviously, Malthus was wrong before and he may still be wrong today.

#47

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

10.29.2020 01:45AM

-->

@Greyparrot

Obviously, Malthus was wrong before and he may still be wrong today.

That's a name I haven't seen in a while, the reasons for which I now understand are informed by his views on this very subject.

#48

Debates: 0

Posts: 65

11.03.2020 03:32AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Some women don't even know they're pregnant until the 6th week. A decision that important to the family's future can't be reckless. It's a serious decision ; plans and contingencies must be made. Hands are to be wrung and life-changing considerations indulged. Why should it be rushed ?

What's wrong with the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade definition of 28 weeks, or the 23~24 weeks they set in PP v. Casey, which is the earliest possible point when a fetus might survive without the support of it's mother ? Why be so hurried for a wrong decision to be made ?

Topic's author

#49

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,232

11.03.2020 12:43PM

-->

@AddledBrain

Why be so hurried for a wrong decision to be made ?

Because the fetal cells specialize at 6 weeks into pregnency.

Topic's author

#50

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,232

11.03.2020 12:45PM

-->

@Athias

Its phase denotes a reproducible phenomena in all human development

But the cells aren't specialized at 3 weeks into pregnency, so it would be like a cancer cell.

#51

Debates: 0

Posts: 65

11.03.2020 02:05PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

Underdog, what does that 10-word response mean ? How does it fit ? What importance do you put on it ? How does one draw a conclusion from it ?

#52

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

11.03.2020 04:59PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

But the cells aren't specialized at 3 weeks into pregnency, so it would be like a cancer cell.

But they aren't cancer cells; they're zygotes. Every person goes or has gone through a zygotic phase in their development. If one were to describe "human development (biology)" the process would be noted to start at fertilization. The only value in selecting "cell-specialization" as a clearly arbitrary division in constituting "personhood/humanity" is the mere citing of cell-specialization.

Topic's author

#53

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,232

11.10.2020 03:55PM

I've changed my mind for some reason to being pro choice up until 20 weeks of pregnency. The reason for this is the vast majority of pro lifers don't adopt and there are many kids that are orphans that die due to hunger. This should be a meme:

600,000 fetuses die due to abortion per year, most of which die by a painless way since they can't feel pain and everyone loses their minds.

Over 10,000,000 children die to hunger per year, all of which die by a painful way and no one bats an eye.

If pro lifers wish to be consistent, they would save one of these kids from hunger. Instead, the most famous pro life organization, the Catholic church spends their money protecting priests who violated their vow of chastity by raping little boys. They need to fix their priorities.

#54

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

11.11.2020 03:54PM

-->

@TheUnderdog

I've changed my mind for some reason to being pro choice up until 20 weeks of pregnency. The reason for this is the vast majority of pro lifers don't adopt and there are many kids that are orphans that die due to hunger. This should be a meme:

First: why 20 weeks? Second: the vast majority of pro-lifers argue the better use of discretion before having sex, so that abortion and/or lack of adoption warrants less practice.

600,000 fetuses die due to abortion per year, most of which die by a painless way since they can't feel pain and everyone loses their minds.

Over 10,000,000 children die to hunger per year, all of which die by a painful way and no one bats an eye.

Kill 600,000 to save 10,000,000? I don't believe the math operates that way.

If pro lifers wish to be consistent, they would save one of these kids from hunger. Instead, the most famous pro life organization, the Catholic church spends their money protecting priests who violated their vow of chastity by raping little boys. They need to fix their priorities.

Millions die from hunger all around the world. Do you donate your time and money to feeding them? Have you adopted as many children as you can financially support? And in your choice not to do so, are you responsible for their deaths?

#55

Danielle

Debates: 3

Posts: 2,049

Danielle

11.11.2020 06:57PM

The state recognizes legal rights for humans at different stages of their development. I see no reason for a fetus to have any legal protections until viability. They have no other rights recognized by the state; I fail to see why the right to occupy another's body should be the only one.

The advent of artificial wombs is going to make the abortion debate even more interesting.

12 days later

Topic's author

#56

Debates: 5

Posts: 3,232

11.24.2020 02:24PM

-->

@Athias

First: why 20 weeks?

That's when the fetus can feel pain.

Second: the vast majority of pro-lifers argue the better use of discretion before having sex

The vast majority of pro lifers claim that if you don't want children, don't have sex, yet only 3% of the US population waits until marriage, so the vast majority of these people are hypocrites. The democrats advocate contraception use for people wanting to have sex and unwilling to concieve. But pro lifers instead advocate for abstinence only education, which the stats show is counterproductive to reducing abortions.

Kill 600,000 to save 10,000,000? I don't believe the math operates that way.

So, then why don't pro lifers adopt kids if they are so concerned about life?

Millions die from hunger all around the world. Do you donate your time and money to feeding them? Have you adopted as many children as you can financially support? And in your choice not to do so, are you responsible for their deaths?

I'm not responsible for their deaths; I just didn't feel like saving them. Just as people shouldn't be forced to save a kid from hunger, people shouldn't be forced to bring a kid into the world.

Thoughts?

#57

Debates: 20

Posts: 3,192

11.25.2020 03:52AM

-->

@TheUnderdog

That's when the fetus can feel pain.

Why does that matter?

The vast majority of pro lifers claim that if you don't want children, don't have sex, yet only 3% of the US population waits until marriage, so the vast majority of these people are hypocrites.

What does getting married have to do with "wanting children"?

The democrats advocate contraception use for people wanting to have sex and unwilling to concieve.

Yes, but even when using contraception, one is still risking pregnancy.

But pro lifers instead advocate for abstinence only education, which the stats show is counterproductive to reducing abortions.

I don't imagine that any type of education would reduce that which a woman has the legal privilege to elect.

So, then why don't pro lifers adopt kids if they are so concerned about life?

Hold on to this thought...

I'm not responsible for their deaths; I just didn't feel like saving them. Just as people shouldn't be forced to save a kid from hunger, people shouldn't be forced to bring a kid into the world.

Thoughts?

You are not responsible for their deaths. And you're not charged with the responsibility of saving them, anymore than someone who assumes the pro-life position is charged with the responsibility of adopting 10,000,000 hungry children. It's not about numbers (e.g. someone who's hoplophobic--against guns--doesn't have to take the charge against diabetes and car accidents, which result in higher incidences of death.) You're arguing relative privation.

#58

Theweakeredge

Debates: 33

Posts: 3,457

Theweakeredge

11.25.2020 03:54AM

-->

@AddledBrain

I'm pro-choice, very pro-choice, though my one debate on the matter needs to happen again, because I performed terribly, at least to my tastes, and I think I could do much better now.

#59

Debates: 0

Posts: 65