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

[Acidbaron]

It is rather simple, a particular religion believes in a particular story of how a certain messiah got magically popped into a virgin woman and therefor believe that the "soul" another magical thing is beamed in the egg right at the moment a sperm seed manages to push through.

Well could also be that our testicles are carrying millions of souls, since a particular institute is also against condoms, but considering how that institute is like most things dominated by males, they draw the line when something happens behind a vagina and not from a penis.

Religion does sound like a hilarious bad fiction story when you put it like that doesn't it? If you find this bashing, please feel free to point out in the above what i said that is wrong. All i did was remove the names and made it more technical, if that's the right word for it.

On top of that, I do not suffer from a moral superiority complex and i do therefor not find to be better or worse than others, i find that therefor everyone with the proper guidance and not an indoctrination course that speaks of them doing something "bad" or "good" for that matter should be allowed to decide what they find is the best option for their body. Beyond the heavy religious reasons what are wrong, i do not subscribe to the rather world strange view that majority of the women out there would abort as their primary means of anti-conception, bit of a misnomer but you get my point.

[Deleted]

So, you completely agree with me that a fetus is not a tumor, or "part of a woman's body", despite being inside a woman's body and growing? I'm glad we can finally agree on SOMETHING, without your Endless (ucwatididthar) science denials.

- - - Updated - - -



First of all, I'm also pro choice. I'm just not so fucking idiotic, that I deny the merits of the other side of the debate. There is a natural conflict of rights, and denying that is not an intelligent position.

Also, your views on this completely disgust me, even though I am also pro choice.

Oh mate, I'm sorry, Endus has already articulated far better than I can from my iPhone why your arguments are inconsistent, illogical and why pro life positions can't be held by reasonable people, so feel free to stop responding angrily to my dismissal of any arguments in some pursuit of appearing clever.

[Tijuana]

Why is there a "conflict" in rights in the case of abortion, when there's no conflict between bodily autonomy and right to life in any other circumstance (because bodily autonomy automatically wins out over right to life)?

Do you think people should be strapped down against their will and have tissue harvested for the treatment of others? Same "conflict".

No. That's why I am pro choice. Denial of the other side having an argument, is not an argument, and saying so makes you like like an idiot, FYI.

[ThrashMetalFtw]

No, I'm perfectly fine with abortion being legal. I just hate it when liberals try to act like it's not taking a life. It is taking a life. Own it.

It's a lifeform, sure, but far from being anywhere close to a living human being. A better comparison would be removing weeds from your garden, or cutting down a tree in the forest.

[Kolbjorn]

It's a lifeform, sure, but far from being anywhere close to a living human being. A better comparison would be removing weeds from your garden, or cutting down a tree in the forest.

While we're on the subject of imperfect analogies, how about eating caviar?

[Queen of Hamsters]

The debate over whether it counts as "human" is, at best, a distraction. Like with literally any other circumstance where one person's right to life rubs up against another person's bodily autonomy, bodily autonomy should win. The alternative means you support forcing people to donate organs/tissue against their will, to save another's life. That's the simple and obvious example where these two conflict, outside of the abortion debate, and nobody is arguing for forced organ donations from living persons. Everyone sees that for the horror that it would be.

And denying women abortion rights is exactly the same horror. It's the same violation of her rights, for the same reasons. It isn't a magically more-convincing argument when it's about a fetus rather than a living person. Even if we allow the fetus to be considered a person, that just puts pro-life on the same level as forcibly harvesting organs/tissue from the unwilling. Even if we just stick with that which can be regrown in time, like portions of your liver and various tissues, as opposed to whole organs like kidneys. That's the best-case scenario for the pro-life argument.

And the reality is that when we add that there's a lot of reasons to not consider the unborn fetus a human being, it gets even more objectionable to deny abortion rights.

We don't allow for forcing someone's body to be seized to support another's life in any other circumstance. Why should we do so in the case of pregnancy? What possibly justification could you come up with for a special treatment of these rights in that particular instance? Whether the fetus is a human being or not isn't relevant, because even if we allow it, there's still no justification for this kind of horror show. Any more than there would be forcibly harvesting part of someone's liver, or skin for a skin graft.

I don't see the "intractably difficult" part of this. I see emotional appeals of "but it's a BABY" that ignore that under no circumstances, for any other person, would we ever consider this kind of abuse of human rights.

Well roared!

Not that the "I appeal to emotions!!"-crowd will understand, but well roared all the same.

[I Push Buttons]

There is no other instance where we see one's right to life trump another's bodily autonomy. No other case. They're creating a special case for abortion, which is a direct assault on women's rights and equality.

Pretty much this.

All of society could come together and agree that a zygote/fetus is a person and that still wouldn't make banning abortion OK.

We don't strap people down and forcefully remove their spare kidney, drain their blood, etc., when other people need those tissue transplants to survive. Forcing a woman to carry to term when she does not want to is essentially the same thing.

[Tijuana]

Oh mate, I'm sorry, Endus has already articulated far better than I can from my iPhone why your arguments are inconsistent, illogical and why pro life positions can't be held by reasonable people, so feel free to stop responding angrily to my dismissal of any arguments in some pursuit of appearing clever.

I'm not angry. You are not worthy of my emotion. I'm not even on the other side from you. I'm just saying there are pros and cons to every controversial issue, by definition. Saying that there is not just makes you look intellectually deficient.

[Wolfman31]

It's a lifeform, sure, but far from being anywhere close to a living human being.

That all depends on your definition of a human being. Not only do I believe that life begins at conception on a biological level, but also on a spiritual/energetic level as well. But that steers the conversation in a more metaphysical direction which is likely to devolve into squabbling over religion, something I'd rather avoid.

[Queen of Hamsters]

The lack of constant civil strife as a result of religious tensions isn't enough of a positive, apparently.

Indeed.

It's not so much about "if God is dead" as it is about "Look, we have better things to do than worrying about stories written by other humans and allowing those to influence modern society today...".

[Kolbjorn]

We don't strap people down and forcefully remove their spare kidney, drain their blood, etc., when other people need those tissue transplants to survive. Forcing a woman to carry to term when she does not want to is essentially the same thing.

Yet. The slope might not slip that way, but I wouldn't rule it out...

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...humans/536307/

[Masqerader]

Genuine question. Neither side is anti-choice or anti-life, so how are the terms of the discussion framed in this manner? Shouldn't we be discussing pro-abortion against anti-abortion points in a real discussion?

You'd be shocked how many "pro-life" people happily support the death penalty....

[Endus]

No. That's why I am pro choice. Denial of the other side having an argument, is not an argument, and saying so makes you like like an idiot, FYI.

They don't have an argument. They have appeals to emotion, magical thinking, and emotional wordplay. And that's all they have.

Feel free to try and present their argument, and I'll point out those lynchpins, if you really want the specifics regarding any particular point.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not angry. You are not worthy of my emotion. I'm not even on the other side from you. I'm just saying there are pros and cons to every controversial issue, by definition. Saying that there is not just makes you look intellectually deficient.

At one time, whether blacks were "human beings" or just a useful breed of ape was a "controversial issue". Doesn't mean there wasn't a clear and obvious answer, and that the other side's position was made up of nothing but hatred, prejudice, and bullshit.

[Tijuana]

They don't have an argument. They have appeals to emotion, magical thinking, and emotional wordplay. And that's all they have.

Feel free to try and present their argument, and I'll point out those lynchpins, if you really want the specifics regarding any particular point.

- - - Updated - - -



At one time, whether blacks were "human beings" or just a useful breed of ape was a "controversial issue". Doesn't mean there wasn't a clear and obvious answer, and that the other side's position was made up of nothing but hatred, prejudice, and bullshit.

Are you denying the science that the DNA of the fetus is different from the DNA of the mother? Are you denying the fact that there are two humans whose rights are in conflict?

Let me help you walk through it. Let's pretend that instead of abortions, we could take the baby out, and put it in a test tube, having no impact on the mother. Do you still think she should have the right to destroy the test tube, with the embryo in it, after the procedure?

- - - Updated - - -

You'd be shocked how many "pro-life" people happily support the death penalty....

Why? One life is innocent, taken for mere convenience, the other is taken to protect the rest of society from it. These two ideas are not in conflict.

[Deleted]

I'm not angry. You are not worthy of my emotion. I'm not even on the other side from you. I'm just saying there are pros and cons to every controversial issue, by definition. Saying that there is not just makes you look intellectually deficient.

Ok friendo!

[Kolbjorn]

Let me help you walk through it. Let's pretend that instead of abortions, we could take the baby out, and put it in a test tube, having no impact on the mother. Do you still think she should have the right to destroy the test tube, with the embryo in it, after the procedure?

So assuming the woman wouldn't have the right to destroy the test tube, maintaining the test tube isn't free. Is anyone obligated to pay for maintaining it?

[Endus]

Are you denying the science that the DNA of the fetus is different from the DNA of the mother? Are you denying the fact that there are two humans whose rights are in conflict?

As to the first, nope, it just isn't relevant to anything whatsoever. It has nothing to do with personhood, it doesn't establish any rights, it's just utterly pointless to bring up.

As to the second, nope, but every time the bodily autonomy of Person A conflicts with the right to life of Person B, we protect Person A's bodily autonomy over Person B's right to life. Every time. It's a "conflict" with an automatic and simple resolution, and shouldn't really be labelled as a "conflict" at all, it's like saying that Person A's right to own property "conflicts" with Person B's right to be free and not a slave to Person A. In that conflict, Person B wins every time, for obvious reasons. It's equally obvious in the case of this "conflict". Bodily autonomy wins, always.

Let me help you walk through it. Let's pretend that instead of abortions, we could take the baby out, and put it in a test tube, having no impact on the mother. Do you still think she should have the right to destroy the test tube, with the embryo in it, after the procedure?

That's both a separate question, and one which again presumes that you've established fetal personhood, which isn't the freebie you seem to think. Under current law, the answer's pretty clearly "yes", and prior to the emergence of coherent brain wave activity, I don't see the issue.

It's a separate issue because abortion is about removing the fetus from the womb, not the survival of the fetus. If the State wants to protect the fetus after the abortion, that's on them, I don't see how it's relevant to abortion rights at all.

[I Push Buttons]

Why? One life is innocent, taken for mere convenience, the other is taken to protect the rest of society from it. These two ideas are not in conflict.

Here's a better one...

You'd be shocked how many "pro-life" people happily support the dissolution of medicaid, the dissolution of SNAP, the dissolution of section 8 housing, the dissolution of disability, etc., and letting poor and disabled people, especially poor and disabled children, literally die in the street.

[Dreknar20]

choice of killing a potential child

But I'm fine with killing babies. They are expensive shits

[Tijuana]

Here's a better one...

You'd be shocked how many "pro-life" people happily support the dissolution of medicaid, the dissolution of SNAP, the dissolution of section 8 housing, the dissolution of disability, etc., and letting poor and disabled people, especially poor and disabled children, literally die in the street.

I have never met a single person that thinks that. This is just a straw man. When Liberals can't make a point that makes any sense, they create an argument that nobody is making, in order to sound reasonable.

Your extreme ignorance of the US health care system is showing a bit though.

- - - Updated - - -

As to the first, nope, it just isn't relevant to anything whatsoever. It has nothing to do with personhood, it doesn't establish any rights, it's just utterly pointless to bring up.

As to the second, nope, but every time the bodily autonomy of Person A conflicts with the right to life of Person B, we protect Person A's bodily autonomy over Person B's right to life. Every time. It's a "conflict" with an automatic and simple resolution, and shouldn't really be labelled as a "conflict" at all, it's like saying that Person A's right to own property "conflicts" with Person B's right to be free and not a slave to Person A. In that conflict, Person B wins every time, for obvious reasons. It's equally obvious in the case of this "conflict". Bodily autonomy wins, always.



That's both a separate question, and one which again presumes that you've established fetal personhood, which isn't the freebie you seem to think. Under current law, the answer's pretty clearly "yes", and prior to the emergence of coherent brain wave activity, I don't see the issue.

It's a separate issue because abortion is about removing the fetus from the womb, not the survival of the fetus. If the State wants to protect the fetus after the abortion, that's on them, I don't see how it's relevant to abortion rights at all.

So, to be clear. You are going on the record to state that in your view, even though the fetus or embryo has been removed from the mother, you think she should still have the right to murder it for no reason? The sick fucking lengths people will go to, to make an argument.....WOW.

- - - Updated - - -

So assuming the woman wouldn't have the right to destroy the test tube, maintaining the test tube isn't free. Is anyone obligated to pay for maintaining it?

Nope. She is free and clear of any and all responsibility. The baby is not inside her. Does she still have the right to kill it, from your view?

Surely you can see where this is going.