Why I don't understand the left with abortion

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 53
Topic's author
#1
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,261
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
The left: We don't believe a zygote or embryo is a human being.
Also the left: We support a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion (but we want to reduce the abortion rate of zygotes)
Me: If you believe that zygotes aren't people, why would you care what the abortion rate of zygotes is?  If I kill a pig for meat, nobody (except vegeterians and vegans) cares about how many animals get killed for food, because it's viewed by the majority that farm animals aren't human.  If you REALLY believe a zygote or even an embryo isn't a human being, why would you want to reduce the rate at which they get killed?  They aren't human after all, so it shouldn't matter how often they get killed.  Collect stats on it if you want for data's sake, but don't advocate for reducing the death rate of something you think is just a clump of cells.

The right is consistent on this front.  They believe a zygote is a human being so they want less of them killed.  You can agree or disagree with that, but it's worth respect.  The left isn't being consistent.  They want to reduce the death rate of zygotes but they don't believe zygotes are human beings, so why aim to reduce the death rate of zygotes?
#2
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
Wrap your head around a pragmatic necessary evil and you will understand the Left's position a lot better.

If you live in lala land where all pregnancies are wanted, then I cannot help you out.
#3
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
 They want to reduce the death rate of zygotes 
How do "they" want to accomplish this?
#4
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,113
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@TheUnderdog

Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath. That is when God places your soul in your body. Your soul enters your body with your first breath and it leaves with your last. The body is just a vessel — your being, your humanity, is your immortal soul. That's what the Bible says, and for the life of me I cannot understand why so many people, especially supposedly religious people, get this wrong. There is no question, no moral ambiguity. Abortion destroys an empty vessel, it does not kill a human being. That is not to say that a fetus isn't alive, because it clearly is. So is a cow, or an earthworm, or a tree. However, simply being alive does not make something a human being. Having a soul is what sets us apart from other living things. Otherwise, every farmer and every lumberjack would be a murderer. And so would all of the rest of us who eat living things. Even the hardcore vegans would be murderers since they eat plants and plants are alive too.
#5
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Abortion covers developmental stages beyond zygote, some of which personhood could be argued. Concern for the more mature unborn and women's rights aren't not mutually exclusive.

Plus, abortion isnt necessarily something celebrated, but something tolerated out of necessity.
Topic's author
#6
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,261
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@RationalMadman
Wrap your head around a pragmatic necessary evil and you will understand the Left's position a lot better.
So do you believe a zygote is a human being?  Because if so, then it makes sense to want to reduce the abortion rate by methods other than banning abortions.  But if you don't believe this, what's the point of reducing the abortion rate?

And there ideologue leftists and pragmatic right wingers, so leftism isn't synonymous with being pragmatic.


Topic's author
#7
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,261
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
How do "they" want to accomplish this?
Free contraception.  The right wants to ban abortions.
#8
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
Your misunderstanding here is 100% to do with an inability to comprehend the pragmatic idea of a necessary evil. However, your first sentence in replying to me clarified that you do indeed understand it.
Topic's author
#9
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,261
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@FLRW
So if you don't believe a zygote is a human being, do you care what the abortion rate is?
#10
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Free contraception.  The right wants to ban abortions.
What about anatomically accurate sex education in public schools?
Topic's author
#11
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,261
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
Abortion covers developmental stages beyond zygote, some of which personhood could be argued. Concern for the more mature unborn and women's rights aren't not mutually exclusive.
Do you believe a zygote is a human being?  If not, then why would you care what the abortion rate is?
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 564
Posts: 19,930
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
I think your OP didn't highlight your actual confusion.

You are confused at this:

Pro-choicers that are 'liberal' tend to see the fetus as a non-person but a human. Meaning it lacks personhood, in their eyes it's a non-person human being much like a vegetated individual on life support where they support legalised euthanasia.

Does this clarify for you the misunderstanding or not?
Topic's author
#13
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,261
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
What about anatomically accurate sex education in public schools?
What's that?
#14
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Is that a real question? It would explain a lot. 

Topic's author
#15
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,261
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
Can you just tell me?
#16
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
Ask chatbot what medically accurate sex education is. You'll be surprised to find that only 1 in 4 states in the US mandate that sex education in public schools be 'medically accurate.' 
Topic's author
#17
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,261
3
4
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
You can have that just to prevent STI spreading.  But in terms of birth control that exclusively prevents pregnancy, if the left doesn't believe a zygote is a human being, why do anything to reduce the rate that zygotes get aborted?
#18
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Do you believe a zygote is a human being? If not, then why would you care what the abortion rate is?
No. The abortion rate includes more than just zygotes. 

Also, abortions can be hard on women. Reducing the abortion rate helps individuals who are undeniably persons. 
#19
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@TheUnderdog
why do anything to reduce the rate that zygotes get aborted?
Birth control methods are not designed to "reduce the rate that zygotes get aborted," it's a side effect of their actual purpose, which is "give women the choice to have sex whenever and with whomever they want without the potential problems associated with pregnancy." 
#20
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
I've come across many of those who are pro-choice, and happen to be left-wing, who are very inconsistent when it comes to their stance. Particularly, "her body is her body." If this is the case, then when does her body stop being her body? They should be proposing no limitations to abortion, but they do. Not to mention, if we extend this to the rearing of children, then it's a complete turnaround: she's obligated to her child. Her body and resources are no longer her own--she's an indentured servant to her child.
#21
TWS1405_2
TWS1405_2's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 2,186
3
3
7
TWS1405_2's avatar
TWS1405_2
3
3
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
The left: We don't believe a zygote or embryo is a human being.
Also the left: We support a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion (but we want to reduce the abortion rate of zygotes)
Me: If you believe that zygotes aren't people, why would you care what the abortion rate of zygotes is?  If I kill a pig for meat, nobody (except vegeterians and vegans) cares about how many animals get killed for food, because it's viewed by the majority that farm animals aren't human.  If you REALLY believe a zygote or even an embryo isn't a human being, why would you want to reduce the rate at which they get killed?  They aren't human after all, so it shouldn't matter how often they get killed.  Collect stats on it if you want for data's sake, but don't advocate for reducing the death rate of something you think is just a clump of cells.

The right is consistent on this front.  They believe a zygote is a human being so they want less of them killed.  You can agree or disagree with that, but it's worth respect.  The left isn't being consistent.  They want to reduce the death rate of zygotes but they don't believe zygotes are human beings, so why aim to reduce the death rate of zygotes?

What a bunch of uneducated subjective emotively driven NONSENSE!!!
You know not what either side desires let alone is consistent or inconsistent with. And you certainly made no room for either side to be on the opposite side of the other. I am a staunch constitutionalist and an independent with conservative leanings. I am both prochoice and prolife. Pro Choice up to fetal viability, prolife once fetal viability has been attained. 

A woman's personal liberty comes before a non-legally protected pregnancy. A woman is no one's personal incubator. 
#22
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,266
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Athias
Often works like that Mr A.

Sometimes doesn't

Though it's easy to pontificate from a distance, especially for distant men.

Though I will pontificate from a distance and suggest that with regard to the duration a nine month pregnancy, it is intellectually reasonable to vary ones own  moral and ethical appreciation of the developing mass.

Pro-choice with limits is perhaps more reasonable than pro-choice without limits. Left, right or centre.

Though I would further suggest that in terms of selective morality, there is very little difference between extreme left and extreme right.

My final suggestion to you would be, that the left to right spectrum is broader than we might give it credit for here at Debateart, where more clearly defined contentions tend to arise.

Regards. Zed.
#23
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,927
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@zedvictor4
@Athias
Roe v Wade tried to draw the line at 20 weeks. Modern leftists tried to redraw the line at 9 months. What's to say the next line wont be 10 months. Or 10 years.
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,927
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ludofl3x
potential problems associated with pregnancy
It sounds like you wanted to note potential problems with abortion but decided that was too edgy.

If zygotes are unwanted, and you think abortion might be problematic in removing them, then the process of abortion isn't safe.

If abortion is safer than pregnancy, you should never say you want less abortions. You would want more of them.

May 14 celebrates mothers. I think we should celebrate abortion choosers in October to balance out the propaganda.
#25
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,268
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
The left: We don't believe a zygote or embryo is a human being
False
#26
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,268
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
Clearly, life begins when you draw your first breath.

False biologic life of the independent individual begins when first breath is drawn { inspirited } and umbilical cord is severed
#27
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,008
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
potential problems associated with pregnancy
It sounds like you wanted to note potential problems with abortion but decided that was too edgy.

If that's what I wanted to say, that's what I'd have said. If you want to respond to me, respond to what I write, and if you need clarification please ask, happy to provide it, but you're not exactly known for your ability to stay on thread. 
#28
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 11,266
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Greyparrot
Who actually draws the line at nine months?

I'm a moderate, but would draw the line at less than 20 weeks. Especially considering the remedial medicines that are available these days.


Though sadly, there is in fact no limit to human disregard for their fellow human. Just take a look around the World today or throughout  history.

And then tell me, who in your opinion is right or left.


#29
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,268
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TWS1405_2
A womans personal liberty to choose comes before all perverts who attempt to virtual rape on pregnant woman, by sticking their uninvited nose into her bodily business, without her consent or asking for assistance from the perverted.

We have too many humans on Earth for the operating systems we have in place to aquire our energy needs.

To reduce growth rate of human population is global issue that requires global cooperation....all-for-one and one-for-all...is a spiritual pathway to humanities continuance on Earth beyond 2065 - 2232.

Spirit of cooperation is pathway with least amount of future suffering for humanity.

Spirit-1 = Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego { i }

---conceptual line of demarcation---------

Spirit-2 = physical reality aka observed { quantised } time via collective aggregates of fermionic matter and bosonic forcess ex biologic life, Earth, Sun, etc that are all associated with a sine-wave patterning /\/\/\/\/\/

Spirit-3 = Gravity (  ) ---mass-attraction { contractive phenomena }---

Spirit-4 = Dark Energy )( --mass-repulsion { expansive phenomena }--

.....................space(> * <) i  (> * <)space.........

There is an old saying, to reach for the stars.......

I would revise that to reach for spirit-1 Meta-space of mind over matter, to better steer our collective humanity toward a sustain-able future on Earth.

The extra-terrestrials are not coming to save us.  If they ever do come, it may be to eat us.  Only we can prevent a looming doomsday for humanity.
#30
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,246
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Me: If you believe that zygotes aren't people, why would you care what the abortion rate of zygotes is?
If you stop thinking about this in purely black and white terms it's not difficult to understand.

Arguing that a zygote is not a person does not = arguing that a zygote is worthless

When my wife first told me she was pregnant I was instantly filled with shock and joy. I hugged her and I kissed her belly now knowing that my future child whom I couldn't wait to help her bring into the world was in there. Suddenly nothing on earth mattered more than that.

If she told me she's wasn't ready and was unwilling to go through this I would have argued with her and I would have begged and pleaded with her to reconsider. But in the end, I would have accepted it. It wasn't my body whose organs were about to be pushed to the side and rearranged to make room for another person. It wasn't my hormones that were about to go haywire. It wasn't my back and hips that were about to be abused to the point of possible permanent damage. And it wasn't my life that was about to be risked to go through all of this.

So as sad as I would have been, I would have understood and supported her decision 100%, and I would have faught back tooth and nail against anyone telling her she didn't have the right to make that choice for herself.

That's what it means to be pro choice.