Why is the abortion debate framed as pro-choice vs pro-life?

[Deleted]

It's MY responsibility to decide if I remain pregnant or not, it's not YOUR responsibility to decide this FOR me.

That's not responsibility. The word you're looking for is privilege.

And no, it's not MY fetish, YOU are the one interested in it remaining alive, so i thought it might be YOUR fetish.

Yeah I have a "fetish" for living beings. Do you have one for dead ones?

[Super Kami Dende]

someone got it into their head that they should decide what another person should do.

Moreso they got it into their head that a fetus is a Baby and the Lord shall punish ye! It's not really they should decide what another person should do. They've basically been given an answer by someone else already and are just carrying out the enforcement.

Peoples craziness is generally not on a personal level.

[Deleted]

Except it is, unless you have a very narrow view of what responsibility is.

Discarding responsibility does not mean being responsible. It means being irresponsible.

- - - Updated - - -

someone got it into their head that they should decide what another person should do.

If it involves the suffering or death of another human being, yeah, other people get to tell you what you should do. It's called having laws.

[Endus]

Keep saying disgusting things. This reminds me of the woman who wanted to blackmail people into sending her money so she wouldn't abort her kid. This is what the left produced.

If you get pregnant, it's your kid, and your responsibility, not anybody else's. Grow up.

Except it's not "a kid". It's something that will eventually become a kid, if a bunch of things go a certain way, in at least some possible futures. But there are plenty of others where it does not ever become a kid.

And frankly, there's no sense nor reason in forcing someone to be enslaved to the imaginary hypothetical future you've invented in your own mind, denying them basic human rights to preserve your fantasy.

If you don't want to have a kid, then an abortion is the responsible choice in that situation. Denying basic medical care because you think someone should suffer the consequences of their choices is grossly unethical and explicitly abusive.

[Zeth Hawkins]

Unless a pregnant woman has given you permission to decide if she aborts her body's pregnancy or not, or you are pregnant and willing to allow someone else to decide for you if you abort your body's pregnancy or not, there is no legitimate debate to be had.

Here, we have the underlying problem with this topic. Bigotry is harmful to all sides. Pro-life, pro-choice, pro-birth, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, etc. Refusal to talk only turns away would-be supporters.

[Independent voter]

Except it's not "a kid". It's something that will eventually become a kid, if a bunch of things go a certain way, in at least some possible futures. But there are plenty of others where it does not ever become a kid.

And frankly, there's no sense nor reason in forcing someone to be enslaved to the imaginary hypothetical future you've invented in your own mind, denying them basic human rights to preserve your fantasy.

If you don't want to have a kid, then an abortion is the responsible choice in that situation. Denying basic medical care because you think someone should suffer the consequences of their choices is grossly unethical and explicitly abusive.

At what month does it become a kid in you mind?

[Halyon]

I know right, just imagine if all those jews and others that died in the holocaust were ALLOWED to live. Just imagine what over population troubles we'd have now! Man you are right, it's a great thing all those jews and others were slaughtered for idiology.

How about you start. Is it cognative function? So when you're sleeping or if you fall into a coma can I stab you? Is it a heart beat? If you get a pacemaker can I just shoot your face off? If it's fully developement can we just send every special needs person off to the guillotine?

Life began a long-ass time ago, sperm, ova, conception, etc, perpetuates life. What you're after is when valuable life begins. Now that is highly subjective. If you personally believe that it happens at conception, good for you, more power to you. Others don't agree. And biologically speaking, it's not even remotely close to being a person, which is a pre-requisite for murder, as an example, and that's why the egregious comparisons so killing people that are asleep as the same as an abortion are intellectually dishonest.

It is fact, that a fetus is not a person, it is biologically impossible for it to be. The brain is in such an, pardon the pun, infant state of development that it can in no way contain the systems to be a person, or even have a will. The fetus before 20 weeks are guaranteed to die if seperated from the woman. That is it's standard state of being, while elective abortion is an option. Unlike a born person, where sleep is a short, temporary state. They have a will, they process input and stimuli, they feel, experience, form memories, etc...a fetus is thoroughly incapable of these things. So it is not even close to the same. That is why killing a born person, and arguable a late-term fetus (despite not having all of these qualities, but some of them) is prohibited.

[Zeth Hawkins]

...and those of us who do not believe this? What do we call it? Similarly...cancer is also life and must be saved!

I would say babies and fetuses are more like parasites. Have gotten quite the reaction from those I have mentioned this to.

[Total Crica]

At what month does it become a kid in you mind?

When it's no longer attached to a woman's uterus and using the inside of her body to remain alive. You can attempt to take care of it if you want after that if you are so interested in it remaining alive.

[Deleted]

Except it's not "a kid". It's something that will eventually become a kid, if a bunch of things go a certain way, in at least some possible futures. But there are plenty of others where it does not ever become a kid.

And frankly, there's no sense nor reason in forcing someone to be enslaved to the imaginary hypothetical future you've invented in your own mind, denying them basic human rights to preserve your fantasy.

And when is that point? When it is born? Well some babies get born 7 months into pregnancy. Some get born after 9 months. Is the baby that gets born 7 months into pregnancy a kid, but the 9-months baby needs to wait 2 months longer to be considered a kid? Kid, baby... those are just names for stages of human development. Just like fetus or embryo. Either way, it's human life, and killing it is anti-life. If it wasn't alive, you couldn't kill it.

Now I get why women wanna do this. Don't get me wrong. I strongly empathize with it. Having to raise kids is just a pain in the ass. So don't tell me about how it's "a woman's body". It's not about having it in your body. It's about the time and effort you have to invest AFTER that. You don't want to. You want to live your life without a kid and I understand that. And it's not just women. It's men, too. Tons of men are glad about it when the woman they accidentally impregnated gets an abortion. Sometimes they will be the ones to demand for her to abort it, or even be the ones initiating the abortion.

I get it. People hate being tied down. They just wanna fuck and enjoy life. But that doesn't change that you are killing a human being. The only reason people would deny this is because they want to rid themselves of the guilt. Well, you don't get to have that luxury. Just like that kid you killed doesn't get to have... anything really.

[Halyon]

Discarding responsibility does not mean being responsible. It means being irresponsible.

How. If there's something near you, that either presents a threat, or you don't want to/can't deal with, you're free to remove it from your presence. If you know that you can't deal with something, it's responsible to remove it.

Buuut you keep your narrow definitions.

[Zeth Hawkins]

A pregnancy isn't a child.

A semantic argument. Are you familiar with the phrase "with-child"?

[Deleted]

And when is that point? When it is born? Well some babies get born 7 months into pregnancy. Some get born after 9 months. Is the baby that gets born 7 months into pregnancy a kid, but the 9-months baby needs to wait 2 months longer to be considered a kid? Kid, baby... those are just names for stages of human development. Just like fetus or embryo. Either way, it's human life, and killing it is anti-life. If it wasn't alive, you couldn't kill it.

Now I get why women wanna do this. Don't get me wrong. I strongly empathize with it. Having to raise kids is just a pain in the ass. So don't tell me about how it's "a woman's body". It's not about having it in your body. It's about the time and effort you have to invest AFTER that. You don't want to. You want to live your life without a kid and I understand that. And it's not just women. It's men, too. Tons of men are glad about it when the woman they accidentally impregnated gets an abortion. Sometimes they will be the ones to demand for her to abort it, or even be the ones initiating the abortion.

I get it. People hate being tied down. They just wanna fuck and enjoy life. But that doesn't change that you are killing a human being. The only reason people would deny this is because they want to rid themselves of the guilt. Well, you don't get to have that luxury. Just like that kid you killed doesn't get to have... anything really.

I really don't want to be the one to arbitrarily define what the cutoff is, but I definitely think there's a point in the development of the zygote/embyro/etc. where it's so underdeveloped that it can't really be called alive. I'd say mainly <5 weeks where the organs and brain haven't really developed and the heart hasn't even started beating yet would be my comfortable limit, but I wouldn't presume to dictate what other people can and can't do with their bodies or decisions.

[Total Crica]

A semantic argument. Are you familiar with the phrase "with-child"?

Scientific argument. Science defines when it's developed into a child. That happens after birth, not before.

Just as an acorn doesn't develop into an oak tree until after sprouting, not before.

[Halyon]

A semantic argument. Are you familiar with the phrase "with-child"?

Terms of speech are not facts.

[Deleted]

How. If there's something near you, that either presents a threat, or you don't want to/can't deal with, you're free to remove it from your presence. If you know that you can't deal with something, it's responsible to remove it.

Deal with what? Raising a kid? There's still adoption.

Buuut you keep your narrow definitions.

And you keep making up excuses.

- - - Updated - - -

I really don't want to be the one to arbitrarily define what the cutoff is, but I definitely think there's a point in the development of the zygote/embyro/etc. where it's so underdeveloped that it can't really be called alive. I'd say mainly <5 weeks where the organs and brain haven't really developed and the heart hasn't even started beating yet would be my comfortable limit, but I wouldn't presume to dictate what other people can and can't do with their bodies or decisions.

Sure. I think that's reasonable. I don't believe that life begins at conception, but I think it begins earlier than at birth. Different doctors when asked feel differently about abortion at certain stages, because it's just not clear at what point it can be considered a human being. My personal rule is, if it starts to look like a human being, it's a human being.

[Deleted]

Honestly, are we incapable of discussing the actual topic (which has admittedly rather gotten off-track in the context of *why* the abortion debate is framed the way it is, but I digress) without resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments? :P

[Total Crica]

Deal with what?

Remaining pregnant. You know, the part I offered to YOU that YOU declined?

[Deleted]

...and those of us who do not believe this? What do we call it? Similarly...cancer is also life and must be saved!

Where should we draw the line? Having a mole removed is bad but having a haircut is fine?

[Deleted]

Honestly, are we incapable of discussing the actual topic (which has admittedly rather gotten off-track in the context of *why* the abortion debate is framed the way it is, but I digress) without resorting to ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments? :P

It's only natural. If you ask why the anti-abortion side is called pro-life, the clear answer is, cause they're against killing babies. Then the pro-abortion side will automatically claim it's not life.