The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.

[Garnier Fructis]

If you hadn't said something I might have glanced over the golden nugget that was "empirical cord." My life has been improved by your actions.

Oh my God, I'd missed that. Thank you.

[RaoBurning]

you people think this is some kind of thing to feel superior over, when it usually only because of some selfish stupid slut getting knocked up and then being too much of a pathetic coward to go through with the pregnancy and give it to child services.

i'll always be pro-choice, but i'll definitely always know that this is something for selfish, callous, pathetic cowards.

Your view of women who get abortions is not resonant with any experience I've had with women who have received abortions. Most of them were scared, unsure, and went through with it hoping they were making the right choice for the long haul. They certainly weren't sluts, not that shaming people's sexuality helps your case to begin with, but even if they changed partners more frequently than underwear that doesn't directly lead to being stupid, selfish, or cowardly.

Orphanages aren't all picnics, rainbows, and Broadway musical numbers, you know. That you claim to be pro-choice and yet retain such a horrible attitude is astounding.

[Sury]

you people

you people think this is some kind of thing to feel superior over, when it usually only because of some selfish stupid slut getting knocked up and then being too much of a pathetic coward to go through with the pregnancy and give it to child services.

i'll always be pro-choice, but i'll definitely always know that this is something for selfish, callous, pathetic cowards.

So let me get this straight. You are pro-choice while at the same time consider people who have an abortion to be selfish, callous, pathetic cowards who are also likely some selfish stupid slut.

Interesting

[derpkitteh]

Your view of women who get abortions is not resonant with any experience I've had with women who have received abortions. Most of them were scared, unsure, and went through with it hoping they were making the right choice for the long haul. They certainly weren't sluts, not that shaming people's sexuality helps your case to begin with, but even if they changed partners more frequently than underwear that doesn't directly lead to being stupid, selfish, or cowardly.

Orphanages aren't all picnics, rainbows, and Broadway musical numbers, you know. That you claim to be pro-choice and yet retain such a horrible attitude is astounding.

there are acceptable exceptions. your financial situation isn't up to it, so it's best to just spare them living a subpar life. or there's real danger to the mother's life, or the child will be disabled in some way.

but i'd bet every penny i have that's not the majority of cases.

[derpkitteh]

What do you mean you people?

rationalize it how you want. but the woman doing it is likely a piece of human garbage worth less than the fetus she aborted.

unless it's one of the exceptions of course. but it likely wouldn't be.

[Sury]

You cant make this stuff up.

It is truly fascinating some of the things you can read on MMO-C Gen-OT.

[Bluesftw]

im pro-choice up to 60 months after birth, just in case you change your mind...

[derpkitteh]

Are you sure you're not pro-life? Your total disregard of real people seems to fit right in with that crowd.

i don't see why i should value the life of someone that doesn't value another's.

i do of course though, both of them. because i'm a better person than them.

[Raelbo]

Pro-choice intellectuals have long said that even if an unborn child is a “life,” it is not yet a “person.”

I take issue with these alleged "intellectuals".

Of course I understand why some pro-choice people want to de-humanise a foetus as much as possible, but it is totally disingenuous. They're playing with semantics rather than paying attention to what a foetus actually is.

Obviously a foetus starts out as nothing more than a collection of cells and lands up as a baby. But to say that it cannot be called an unborn child or person on the premise that a child is what you have only after birth is just preposterous. Apart from anything else, with prem babies being born at 6-7 months, while other foetuses continue until 9.5 months, refusing to acknowledge the humanity of the 9.5 month foetus is nothing short of retarded. Yes, I get that there are legal differences between a prem baby born at 6 months and a 9.5 month old "foetus", but the legal definitions should not be used as the basis of how we view the humanity of the child, rather, the legal definition and how it is applied should be based on what the unborn child actually is, namely a small human being that is waiting to be born.

I am pro-choice, but that does not mean I support abortion without any limits. There comes a point in any pregnancy where the humanity of the child growing inside a pregnant mother should no longer be denied some sort of protection by society, and as such, it is absolutely correct from a moral, ethical, and rational perspective to call the child an unborn child, person or baby.

[Garnier Fructis]

Are you sure you're not pro-life? Your total disregard of real people seems to fit right in with that crowd.

His/her modus operandi is over the top reaction and melodrama.

[Deleted]

i don't see why i should value the life of someone that doesn't value another's.

i do of course though, both of them. because i'm a better person than them.

And you really believe that yourself?

[Deleted]

There are a few things we can (I think) all agree on:

1) An abortion should be done as early as possible
2) A mother should talk to a professional before going through with it
3) A mother deserves access to medical help if she decides to have an abortion
4) We prefer less abortions to more, preferably by preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place

So, about the only thing left to discuss is when is it moral to have an abortion.
To know that we must decide when it is moral to terminate a lifeform.

Questions:
- Does it matter if it is conscious or not ? If you say yes, then that should extend to animals with rudimentary consciousness. I would say this does matter.
- Does it matter if it can live independently ? I would assume that yes, it being viable for independent life is an important criterium.
- Does it matter if the lifeforms threatens the life of others ? Again, this is a yes for me. Even if the other criteria are met, this is a reason for termination.
- Does the quality of the lifeform's existence matter ? Much more ambiguity in this one. I don't think there is any value in creating deficient life, so for me terminating in this case is almost a moral obligation.

The biggest problem is that most people cannot look at it objectively. Aborting an embryo is morally no different than swatting a fly. Aborting before there is a central nervous system can't possibly be morally ambiguous, let alone wrong. It's far more morally wrong to procreate to the extent humans do, consuming more resources than the world can produce, than it is to remove a clump of cells.

A foetus is human, but it's not a person. Not all adult humans are persons either, and not all persons need to be human. (For example, an adult chimpansee is objectively more of a person than a newly born human)

[Oktoberfest]

So I take it she thinks a pregnant mother should be allowed to hammer down a fifth of jack every day

[Azgraal]

The issue is more "when does it become a baby."

Some people say it's a baby when it develops fingers and toes. Other people say it's a baby when it becomes viable to live outside of the womb if removed/born early. Still other people say it isn't a baby until it fully exits the vaginal canal.

¯\(°_o)/¯

In my opinion a person is only a person when it is completely out of the mother, and has been in gestation as close as possible to the 9 months term. That's, in a biologic point of view, the regular time for the the normal development of the human being. Only when the gestation is concluded (or almost, in the case of premature babies who end up surviving) is the new being able to survive on its own and live its own life, thus being alive.

[GrinningMan]

So I take it she thinks a pregnant mother should be allowed to hammer down a fifth of jack every day

Makes more ideal voters for her party so... Yeah, probably.

- - - Updated - - -

im pro-choice up to 60 months after birth, just in case you change your mind...

Why stop there? I see a number of extreme late term abortions just waiting to happen every time I go outside.


Does it have a detectable heartbeat? If yes, then how is this an issue? People will screech over a dog or cat being abused.

A rabbit killed for some freaky fetish? Hysteria.

But hey, that little jelly bean with a nine month lease in your womb? Naw, fuck it, it isn't really 'technically' a person.

[Aori]

In my opinion a person is only a person when it is completely out of the mother, and has been in gestation as close as possible to the 9 months term. That's, in a biologic point of view, the regular time for the the normal development of the human being. Only when the gestation is concluded (or almost, in the case of premature babies who end up surviving) is the new being able to survive on its own and live its own life, thus being alive.

The survival rate of preemies has risen dramatically in the last 20 years. Some can survive as early as 22 weeks. The whole can one survive on its own is absurd, no newborn can survive on its own.

[Spectral]

Despite all of the touchy-feely bullshit, she's obviously right. An unborn "person" isn't a person in a legal or philosophical sense.

[Ghostpanther]

You have to be alive to be a person btw.

A fetus is alive btw.

Considering this comment came from Hillary is no surprise.

[Orlong]

She's correct, an unborn child isn't a citizen. I'm not sure it's a gaffe to have an adult conversation on a controversial subject.

This seems like an attempt to mirror Trumps recent slip up on the issue. Clinton however has a consistent take on the issue and hasn't said something that sounds off even to people who support her position.

2/10

Then since its not a person, when a pregnant mother is murdered, the person who killed her shouldnt be charged with murder of the fetus. only murder of the mother, or is it only a person when you want it to be to fit your narrative

[Ghostpanther]

Then since its not a person, when a pregnant mother is murdered, the person who killed her shouldnt be charged with murder of the fetus. only murder of the mother, or is it only a person when you want it to be to fit your narrative

Excellent point. Sometimes the hypocrisy is so clear.