Abortion

[afleitch]

I support a woman's right to have an abortion. End of story. It's her choice to make, not mine and the law should allow her to make that choice.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings.  A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

[afleitch]

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings.  A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

Not only that, but far more spontaneous miscarriages occur with failure rates at between 1 in 4 and 1 in 7 pregnancies. If it were not in the nature for the female body to reject a pregnancy then abortion would be somewhat unusual and arguments could be made against it, but it cannot be argued against in the early stages because 'abortion' is in fact quite a common occurence.

[Franzl]

I have a moral problem with it personally and would in general prefer alternatives to it, but it's ultimately a decision that I can't and shouldn't make for pregnant women. Legal and safe abortions should be available.

We should work to reduce the number of abortions by encouraging and oroviding contraception and appropriate sex education.

[Yelnoc]

I don't like it, but as a man I don't think it's an urgent topic for me to have an opinion on.  So I don't think about it much.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings.  A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it can lead to atrocities such such as the Nazi Aktion T4.  (Can, not necessarily will.)

And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

Conversely for me, the question of abortion to me ultimately comes down to the question of what we mean by "human".  If it is a human life, then the state has every obligation to act in a manner that allows for it achieve its full potential.  If it is not a human life, then the state has no business interjecting itself in the decision.  That is why I have no firm opinion as to when to draw the line between human and non-human, I firmly believe that the occurrence of rape or incest has no bearing on where to draw the line.  Whether or not the biological father deserves to rot in jail has no bearing on whether a life is human or not.

(If pressed, I'd allow abortions before the fetus quickens, disallow them once the fetus is viable, and hope I'm never called on to give an opinion for the period in between.)

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings.  A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it can lead to atrocities such such as the Nazi Aktion T4.  (Can, not necessarily will.)

Not at all.  Hitler murdered fully formed patients because of their physical illnesses, not physical state of being.  In other words, he murdered people who were already born.  Genocide and abortion are two very different things.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It needs to be a human that is, in fact, a person, because potential persons are only as such.  There is no 'right to potential life', because you cannot give rights to something that is an unborn entity.

To me, human life itself is a continuum.  Sperm and egg represent potential human beings as well, but the vast majority of them are wasted naturally.  But since the answer to that question is a matter of personal philosophy and religion, I usually argue that personhood is when an individual has rights.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Pro-choice is the rational position - you can't say that the POTENTIAL for something is that thing. Abortion should be legal until life is in fact viable, which is up until the third trimester. To all pro-life posters, I ask of you - would you make masturbation illegal? Would you have people taken out of bed in the middle of night and thrown in prison for having a nocturnal emission? After all, sperm is POTENTIAL for life.

Sperm is potential for life in a different way, in that it's entirely unclear what a sperm might meet with, what other gametes might be involved. With a fetus the potentiality has already been realized in the first case and it's more or less clear what's what, since the gametes have already fused and the new person is already under construction.

Nobody is arguing that people should be punished for allowing individual gametes to do something other than fuse, and considering how biology works that is an absolutely ridiculous straw man.

You can't draw a boundary like that though. Both are the potential for life, but a sperm isn't viable life and neither is a foetus until around 22-24 weeks.

The fetus is genetically identical, more or less, to the eventual person. The unfused gametes are not. I happen to think that that's a ridiculous way to define what constitutes a human life, but it's less ridiculous than some of the other ways.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings.  A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it can lead to atrocities such such as the Nazi Aktion T4.  (Can, not necessarily will.)

Not at all.  Hitler murdered fully formed patients because of their physical illnesses, not physical state of being.  In other words, he murdered people who were already born.  Genocide and abortion are two very different things.

So if Hitler had simply left to starve because they were unable to care for themselves, that would have been okay with you?  A large proportion of those killed by T4 were not capable of caring for themselves and thus were not as you put it, "biologically independent".  Also, get your terms right.  T4 was not genocide but eugenics taken to a logical extreme.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings.  A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it can lead to atrocities such such as the Nazi Aktion T4.  (Can, not necessarily will.)

Not at all.  Hitler murdered fully formed patients because of their physical illnesses, not physical state of being.  In other words, he murdered people who were already born.  Genocide and abortion are two very different things.

So if Hitler had simply left to starve because they were unable to care for themselves, that would have been okay with you?  A large proportion of those killed by T4 were not capable of caring for themselves and thus were not as you put it, "biologically independent".  Also, get your terms right.  T4 was not genocide but eugenics taken to a logical extreme.

No, where did I say that?  What Hitler did goes against human rights.  I believe that in order for those human rights to apply to an individual, they must be functional outside of the womb.  The victims of T4 were people who were euthanized based on their physical disabilities.  It is not something that should be compared to abortion.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

IMO the process of the development of life begins at conception and ends at death. Anywhere in between, one shouldn't have the legal right to disturb that via killing. Sadly, there are events such as wars that get in the way of the ideal. However, as a total, no being has the right to determine whether a fellow being can live or not.

[Free Palestine]

I don't have a problem with abortion at all.  I don't think there should be a stigma against it at all, though yes, there are health-related reasons why proper contraception should be encouraged instead.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

IMO the process of the development of life begins at conception and ends at death. Anywhere in between, one shouldn't have the legal right to disturb that via killing. Sadly, there are events such as wars that get in the way of the ideal. However, as a total, no being has the right to determine whether a fellow being can live or not.

Out of curiosity, since you're using 'being' rather than 'human' or 'person' here, what are your feelings on human carnivorism? (Predation being inevitable in the world of nature, of course.) Necessary for most people's health, or regrettable and to be avoided on this same sort of basis?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Ahh, sorry, human. Over the years I've adjusted my speaking so that it doesn't really get specific & overall is more that of a politician's (using "I view as wrong" instead of "is wrong" us a common one for me). I have no objection to eating animals & rather enjoy it. Just ate what I'm told are pieces of cow & chicken for dinner & lunch respectively. Sorry for the bad word use.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings. A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

It is interesting that you bring up natural rights here, as natural rights philosophy has been associated with the pro-life position since its development in the late medieval era. Man's nature is to be dependent and in a constant state of development. Much of the uniqueness of humanity comes from the fact that humans stay in a state of dependence to adults longer than any other species, and have a longer period of biological immaturity.  To limit the scope of human protection based on diversion from an idealized "self-owned man" is tantamount to a denial of human finitude, and thus mortality itself.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings. A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

It is interesting that you bring up natural rights here, as natural rights philosophy has been associated with the pro-life position since its development in the late medieval era. Man's nature is to be dependent and in a constant state of development. Much of the uniqueness of humanity comes from the fact that humans stay in a state of dependence to adults longer than any other species, and have a longer period of biological immaturity.  To limit the scope of human protection based on diversion from an idealized "self-owned man" is tantamount to a denial of human finitude, and thus mortality itself.

Man's development is only dependent when it exists inside the womb.  Afterwards, it becomes an independent process.  The "self-owned man" is not a diversion at all because rights are guaranteed to fully-formed, individual beings, not potential or collective beings.  A fetus- especially during the first few months when it is merely a mass of protoplasm that exists as part of the woman's body- do not, and should not have the same rights of the pregnant woman, and that of which lives inside another cannot claim the rights of its host.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Why are we having such a long discussion on this matter? I mean, abortion is an issue that has beaten to death, and frankly, we are all men here so who cares what happens with it? I will never understand politicians that walk around playing the holier than thou card with this issue. Keep it safe, legal and open to anyone that wants it. If a woman doesn't want a kid, no use forcing her to raise one because of some religious beliefs. Just let her abort it. Ive never seen men care so much about an issue that doesn't even concern us!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Why are we having such a long discussion on this matter? I mean, abortion is an issue that has beaten to death, and frankly, we are all men here so who cares what happens with it? I will never understand politicians that walk around playing the holier than thou card with this issue. Keep it safe, legal and open to anyone that wants it. If a woman doesn't want a kid, no use forcing her to raise one because of some religious beliefs. Just let her abort it. Ive never seen men care so much about an issue that doesn't even concern us!

I still chuckle at that blue avatar, I hafta say.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Why are we having such a long discussion on this matter? I mean, abortion is an issue that has beaten to death, and frankly, we are all men here so who cares what happens with it? I will never understand politicians that walk around playing the holier than thou card with this issue. Keep it safe, legal and open to anyone that wants it. If a woman doesn't want a kid, no use forcing her to raise one because of some religious beliefs. Just let her abort it. Ive never seen men care so much about an issue that doesn't even concern us!

This is of course the natural emotive reaction of one who does not feel that a fetus is in some sense a person. There are of course others who do feel that a fetus is in some sense a person, and who would view this sort of argument as similar to arguing for ignoring crises in countries that we don't know anybody from.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I tend to put my trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life. I think at some point is becomes lift, but at conception, I haven't read anything that tells me it is a human life. Of course, I will probably go to hell for saying that, but oh well.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Pro-choice is the rational position - you can't say that the POTENTIAL for something is that thing. Abortion should be legal until life is in fact viable, which is up until the third trimester. To all pro-life posters, I ask of you - would you make masturbation illegal? Would you have people taken out of bed in the middle of night and thrown in prison for having a nocturnal emission? After all, sperm is POTENTIAL for life.

False analogy. Haven't we already addressed that argument (on this forum, no less)?

Masturbation, although immoral, does not present the same issue as abortion, because in the former there is no joining of a sperm and egg. I also dispute your description of a fetus as a "potential for life".

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I tend to put my trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life. I think at some point is becomes lift, but at conception, I haven't read anything that tells me it is a human life. Of course, I will probably go to hell for saying that, but oh well.

Uh, I don't really have a particular horse in this game (I'm very conflicted on the issue), I just think that the pro-choice arguments tend to have logical weaknesses. Just...for what it's worth.

[General White]

Im Pro-Life but not radically.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I tend to put my trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life. I think at some point is becomes lift, but at conception, I haven't read anything that tells me it is a human life. Of course, I will probably go to hell for saying that, but oh well.

Why put your trust in the medical professionals who have said a fetus is not a human life as opposed to those medical professionals who have said a fetus is? 

I do not believe that a fetus has absolutely any rights, at all.  Since the concept of rights is based on man's nature, they're only given to fully formed and biologically independent beings. A fetus is a potential person whose very tangible existence depends on the direct physical nourishment of an individual, so ultimately the woman is left with the moral choice because she retains ownership of her own body.  And the question to me isn't even about what is or what is not a human, specifically, since many things have human DNA but are not necessarily human.

It is interesting that you bring up natural rights here, as natural rights philosophy has been associated with the pro-life position since its development in the late medieval era. Man's nature is to be dependent and in a constant state of development. Much of the uniqueness of humanity comes from the fact that humans stay in a state of dependence to adults longer than any other species, and have a longer period of biological immaturity.  To limit the scope of human protection based on diversion from an idealized "self-owned man" is tantamount to a denial of human finitude, and thus mortality itself.

Man's development is only dependent when it exists inside the womb.  Afterwards, it becomes an independent process.  The "self-owned man" is not a diversion at all because rights are guaranteed to fully-formed, individual beings, not potential or collective beings.  A fetus- especially during the first few months when it is merely a mass of protoplasm that exists as part of the woman's body- do not, and should not have the same rights of the pregnant woman, and that of which lives inside another cannot claim the rights of its host.

Man's development is dependent throughout life upon the sources of its nourishment. If you lose your dependence, you die. That doesn't mean you're not an individual - Is a joey not a kangaroo because it hangs out in the pouch?  A fetus is a biologically distinct individual. An organism with millions and billions of specialized cells cannot accurately be called "a mass of protoplasm."

[k-onmmunist]

Pro-choice is the rational position - you can't say that the POTENTIAL for something is that thing. Abortion should be legal until life is in fact viable, which is up until the third trimester. To all pro-life posters, I ask of you - would you make masturbation illegal? Would you have people taken out of bed in the middle of night and thrown in prison for having a nocturnal emission? After all, sperm is POTENTIAL for life.

False analogy. Haven't we already addressed that argument (on this forum, no less)?

Masturbation, although immoral, does not present the same issue as abortion, because in the former there is no joining of a sperm and egg. I also dispute your description of a fetus as a "potential for life".

1. Lol at masturbation being "immoral".
2. If you take a sperm or a foetus out of its environment, it would die. Neither are viable life (well, the latter is, but only after 22-24 weeks, as I've said) and so it's nonsense to make a distinction between them if you're going to take the attitude that "potential for life" is the same as life itself.