Opposition to abortion doesn't necessarily make someone a bigot.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

I'm pro-choice but I'm also not against limitations.

There are people who advocate for late-term and even after birth abortion which is, exceptionally disturbing. There are also those who, as someone else said, will use abortion as a "birth control" in of itself and almost revel in the power-trip they get off of exercising their inherit right to abort.

Granted I am sure the two groups are one-in-the-same mostly and represent a very obscure, twisted minority.

Personally, I've found the best birth control is just not having sex. It's overrated. I mean hell, everything leading up to the act of is often more stimulating and fun really.

[Sargerasraider]

I'm pro-choice but I'm also not against limitations.

There are people who advocate for late-term and even after birth abortion which is, exceptionally disturbing. There are also those who, as someone else said, will use abortion as a "birth control" in of itself and almost revel in the power-trip they get off of exercising their inherit right to abort.

Granted I am sure the two groups are one-in-the-same mostly and represent a very obscure, twisted minority.

Personally, I've found the best birth control is just not having sex. It's overrated. I mean hell, everything leading up to the act of is often more stimulating and fun really.

See, here is the problem with this:

What kinds of limitations? After what gestational age would you restrict and why? What kinds of procedures would you restrict and why? Please explain how any of your limitations honor some sort of fundamental principle on what "personhood" means.

If a fetus does not deserve protection, then why does the reason for an abortion matter? If it doesn't deserve personhood, then it doesn't matter. If it does, then you are allowing for legal murder.

This is how we wind up with a hodgepodge of nonsensical opinions.

[Not A Cat]

If you think abortion is wrong, that's fine, just keep it civil.

But people that harass/dehumanize women who have gotten or are planning on getting an abortion are fucking assholes. You know, those people who protest outside of clinics, disgusting.

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

See, here is the problem with this:

What kinds of limitations? After what gestational age would you restrict and why? What kinds of procedures would you restrict and why? Please explain how any of your limitations honor some sort of fundamental principle on what "personhood" means.

If a fetus does not deserve protection, then why does the reason for an abortion matter? If it doesn't deserve personhood, then it doesn't matter. If it does, then you are allowing for legal murder.

This is how we wind up with a hodgepodge of nonsensical opinions.

I would argue viability outside the womb and certainly once born, immediate protections.

[Jotaux]

If you think abortion is wrong, that's fine, just keep it civil.

But people that harass/dehumanize women who have gotten or are planning on getting an abortion are fucking assholes. You know, those people who protest outside of clinics, disgusting.

Reminds me of that tosh.0 skit with beats by dre: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIaIdVIVyB8

[zenkai]

If you think abortion is wrong, that's fine, just keep it civil.

But people that harass/dehumanize women who have gotten or are planning on getting an abortion are fucking assholes. You know, those people who protest outside of clinics, disgusting.

Can you look at it from their point of view, it's more disgusting in their eyes to kill an unborn child than to chastise someone for doing it.

Doesn't matter if you are pro death or pro life at least understand the point of view.

[s_bushido]

lol "pro death." I guess when it's pointed out to them that their "pro life" position is nothing more than "pro birth" (because they also refuse to support any of the evil socialist programs that would help care for the lives of these children once they're born), they have to do something to try and throw it back at those who oppose their position.

[Scathbais]

People who feel shame about abortion tend to do so because they are around people who make them feel that way about their decision. No one enters into the decision to have an abortion lightly (or at least, those who do are likely a very, very small minority).

You should feel shame in killing your own unborn child. It is not a contradiction to feel that you are better off not having a baby, but still feel bad about it.
If you don't feel bad about killing your unborn child, wouldn't that be a bit cold? (unless of course you were brainwashed into thinking that your unborn child isn't really alive)

[s_bushido]

If you don't feel bad about killing your unborn child, wouldn't that be a bit cold? (unless of course you were brainwashed into thinking that your unborn child isn't really alive)

So when did you stop beating your wife?

[May90]

You should feel shame in killing your own unborn child. It is not a contradiction to feel that you are better off not having a baby, but still feel bad about it.
If you don't feel bad about killing your unborn child, wouldn't that be a bit cold? (unless of course you were brainwashed into thinking that your unborn child isn't really alive)

You can't kill an unborn child, because it is not a living child before it is born. It has no consciousness, no intelligence, until the very later stages before its birth.

Do you feel bad about killing billions bacteria daily?

[Nfinitii]

Abortion is one of those subjects that will nvr be settled.

Where do u draw the line? At what point does it become murder? Or is it always murder?

If u believe everyone who opposes abortion is a bigot, then doesn't that make u a bigot?

Words like bigot, racist, etc r often overused, often for the purpose of blinding u from the oppositions point of view.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't kill an unborn child, because it is not a living child before it is born. It has no consciousness, no intelligence, until the very later stages before its birth.

Do you feel bad about killing billions bacteria daily?

Babies don't become self aware until they r almost two. Studies have show babies can start learning while in the womb, around 37 weeks.

By ur definition we can kill babies until they are about a year and half old, which is about when they start becoming self aware or have a consciousness.

While we r there vast majority of animals become irrelevant b/c most are not self aware.

[May90]

Babies don't become self aware until they r almost two. Studies have show babies can start learning while in the womb, around 37 weeks.

By ur definition we can kill babies until they are about a year and half old, which is about when they start becoming self aware or have a consciousness.

While we r there vast majority of animals become irrelevant b/c most are not self aware.

I was talking about consciousness, not self-awareness.

[nextormento]

Except it has nothing to do with what I said, again.

It's a restriction on bodily autonomy as much as a doctor refusing to remove a healthy lung for the lulz is - abortion late term is actually pretty dangerous to the *mother*, let alone the fetus.

Bodily autonomy, which is what you tried to inject, is largely irrelevant: for abortion legislation has nothing to do with autonomy.
Want to protect autonomy? deregulate it entirely, then. This, of course, virtually nobody wants.

[Nfinitii]

I was talking about consciousness, not self-awareness.

It is defined as awareness of ones existence. But I digress, the fact that an organism will eventually become self aware, doesn't that mean we should protect it until it is able to protect itself? At what point does said organism matter? At two cells? At a heart beat? When it can survive outside the womb? When it can learn? At what point does it become relevant enough to protect? Because at all of these points it will still eventually grow up to be a counscious human being.

[Sargerasraider]

I would argue viability outside the womb and certainly once born, immediate protections.

But, you would agree that this is an arbitrary point, right?

It seems odd at best to determine personhood based on the current state of human technology. Was a 24 week fetus not a person 50 years ago? Is a 24 week fetus a person in a western country, but not elsewhere? When technology improves, where do we draw the line? Is an embryo a person as long as it does not need to gestate inside a woman?

You can't kill an unborn child, because it is not a living child before it is born. It has no consciousness, no intelligence, until the very later stages before its birth.

Do you feel bad about killing billions bacteria daily?

This is kind of a strange place to draw the line. A sense of self-awareness does not develop until well after birth. Also, there are several people with limited awareness and consciousness from a variety of conditions. Should they be subject to death based on the whims of a caregiver?

[Scathbais]

You can't kill an unborn child, because it is not a living child before it is born. It has no consciousness, no intelligence, until the very later stages before its birth.

Do you feel bad about killing billions bacteria daily?

The kool aid has been consumed in large quantities by this one.

[Deleted]

Which is, shockingly enough, against current laws.

Not universaly - Though, there does not exist a medical body that wouldn't jank a licence if actually performed.

It also reaches the point of fetus viability, which is vastly different from when you can actually have abortions (hint: long before contractions).

What part of a foetus viability has any relation to the mothers bodily autonomy?

[Rudol Von Stroheim]

But, you would agree that this is an arbitrary point, right?

It seems odd at best to determine personhood based on the current state of human technology. Was a 24 week fetus not a person 50 years ago? Is a 24 week fetus a person in a western country, but not elsewhere? When technology improves, where do we draw the line? Is an embryo a person as long as it does not need to gestate inside a woman?

I'd argue on the grounds of simply being taken care of like any other child. At which point the unborn has a solid chance at survival, outside of the womb through usual means. If it requires machines and miracles of science to keep it going and to finish developing, yeah, I don't think that qualifies. I am certain if people would stop trying to swing things towards either extreme of the argument you could find a point at which most agree is fair.

[Deleted]

You can't kill an unborn child, because it is not a living child before it is born. It has no consciousness, no intelligence, until the very later stages before its birth.

By what metric do you suggest this to be true?
Because it isn't -

[May90]

It is defined as awareness of ones existence. But I digress, the fact that an organism will eventually become self aware, doesn't that mean we should protect it until it is able to protect itself? At what point does said organism matter? At two cells? At a heart beat? When it can survive outside the womb? When it can learn? At what point does it become relevant enough to protect? Because at all of these points it will still eventually grow up to be a counscious human being.

I'd say the organism matters at the point at which it becomes conscious. When it exhibits something reminiscent of thinking. Before that, it might as well be just a biological machine, and machines, well, we don't recognize them as having rights, do we? Not yet, at least.

Self-awareness is not a necessary requirement. One does not need to be aware of their existence to feel pain, for example. But if one doesn't even have consciousness, then there is nothing for the pain to affect, there is no suffering as such. Just like we chop trees and don't care about their feelings, we can abort fetuses and not care about their feelings.

It doesn't make sense to slaughter millions adult cows every year, yet complain that someone aborts a super-primitive being.

---

As for "it might eventually obtain consciousness", well, this is a slippery slope. A sperm cell might also obtain consciousness eventually - doesn't mean masturbation is a murder, does it? I suggest we deal with what we have now, and not what could be in the future.

This is kind of a strange place to draw the line. A sense of self-awareness does not develop until well after birth. Also, there are several people with limited awareness and consciousness from a variety of conditions. Should they be subject to death based on the whims of a caregiver?

I don't know. Whether termination of life-support for people with severely limited consciousness is justifiable is a very hot topic, both in society and science.