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

[Antiganon]

This really just boils down to the typical hypocrisy of the left.

Convicted rapist, murderer...don't execute that person. All life is precious!
Unborn baby...kill that little bugger!

Thanks for assigning an opinion on capital punishment to everyone who disagrees with you on abortion. Really productive, not at all irrelevant or off topic.

In response: You have convicted a murder/rapist/terrorist/etc on capital crimes, beyond reasonable doubt? By all means, put his sorry ass in the ground where it belongs.

[Zeth Hawkins]

It isn't "critical", because you haven't demonstrated anything of value, here. Wisdom teeth growing in is "natural" and not "abnormal", but we don't oppose removing them because of those irrelevant grounds.

Wisdom teeth are not individual humans that were gifted the use of your mouth. This analogy is irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

2> Whether the fetus is "human life" at all is not remotely a given, and in medical and legal terms, is flat-out false.

If this were the case, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act would not exist.

- - - Updated - - -

If I say I'll donate a kidney to my dad, and then find out he was a shithead and beat my mom, and decide he's not getting my kidney, I can back out at any point. Even if they've just cleaned the site and are about to give me the anaesthetic. I can get up and walk away with zero legal repercussions because it's my kidney.

The timing in this scenario is slightly off. A more accurate scenario would be taking your kidney back after your father has it in his body and has been stitched up.

[Animalhouse]

Thanks for assigning an opinion on capital punishment to everyone who disagrees with you on abortion. Really productive, not at all irrelevant or off topic.

In response: You have convicted a murder/rapist/terrorist/etc on capital crimes, beyond reasonable doubt? By all means, put his sorry ass in the ground where it belongs.

His comment was dead on.

In response to your response:"By all means, put his sorry ass in the ground where it belongs." Right next to the innocent murdered baby?

[Antiganon]

If this were the case, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act would not exist.

False equivalence. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act is intended to more greviously punish those who assault pregnant women, and it accomplishes that. Note that those who commit violence against pregnant women, causing them to miscarry (or outright stabbing the fetus in some cases) are violating the woman's reproductive rights and right to bodily autonomy.

The woman is physically unable to violate her own bodily autonomy rights, as they are her rights.

[Yvaelle]

The baby, or whichever term you would prefer, is its own being. I would ask if a parasite or leech is a "part of" the creature it is attached to.

Just to chime in here for clarity:

Parasites and leeches can survive away from their host. A parasite is an independent organism capable of surviving without a host, they just prefer to find a host from whom they can leech.

An abortable embryo cannot survive outside the womb for even a second. Your hand has pulsing blood, a nervous system, and locomotion. If you cut your hand off, your hand is not a separate organism capable of surviving disconnected from your body. A parasite can disconnect from the host and survive, a hand (or an embryo) cannot. Your hand will not grow into a new person if severed.

There are a few points at which you can distinguish an embryo from a baby:

1) A pulse. This isn't a great metric, since lots of things (ex. your hand) has a pulse, but if severed is not a distinct organism.
2) A functioning heart. This enables it to have a pulse independent of the host. This occurs during the fourth week of a pregnancy. Note that the baby doesn't have a brain yet, hearts begin beating very early on. However, it's also worth noting that if you took a 4 week old embryo out of the womb, the heart would not pulse on its own: it's too weak. It pulses because the embryos circulatory system is connected to expectant mothers, and her blood is powering the embryos heart. It begins trying to beat on its own, but it isn't truly independently 'functional' yet.
3) Brain activity. While the brain is still forming in babies before the 25th week, the 25th week is when brain activity begins. Prior to which, an embryo is functionally equivalent to "brain death". Brain death is not a recoverable death. When someones heart stops in a TV show and they paddle them back to life, that's just heart death. If your brain stops functioning... you dead. Embryo's before the 25th week are brain dead. Abortion is illegal in pretty much every country on earth prior to this point: that's when the medical community considers an embryo to be a baby.
4) Earliest viable life outside the womb. The youngest embryo to ever survive outside the womb was in 1987 in Canada, when a 22 week old baby (no brain activity) survived outside the womb: albeit on a colossal amount of life support. It would not have survived without being effectively artificially embryo'd on the spot (mother died in the hospital).

[Fojos]

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

Did you wake up yesterday? Other people decide what we should do all the time.

We had a case recently, where a physician saved a 22 week old during an abortion. The child was already outside the mother (when she saved it) and yet lunatics argued that it was wrong for the doctor because of the bodily rights of the mother (essentially arguing for the right of the mother to murder their biological child, because here they're legally considered living after week 21, and again, it was already outside the mother's body).

On note: today 40% of children survive after being born during week 22.

[Antiganon]

His comment was dead on.

In response to your response:"By all means, put his sorry ass in the ground where it belongs." Right next to the innocent murdered baby?

If you were pregnant long enough that there is a baby to put in a coffin, you have violated the law in the vast majority of US states. Partial birth abortions are bad. This is not even a question.

Also, I'll just leave this here:

Intolerant much? Glad the world does not live in your little box.

[Endus]

A human corpse is still a human.

It's still "human", in the same sense that a blood sample from a person is "human", or the like. It isn't "a human being".

Wisdom teeth are not individual humans that were gifted the use of your mouth. This analogy is irrelevant.

A fetus is not an individual human being, and has been "gifted" absolutely fuck-all, so yeah, it's pretty relevant.

If this were the case, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act would not exist.

That act specifically states that you're wrong. It states that a fetus is not a human being. If a fetus were that Act would be irrelevant; the existence of the act conclusively proves you wrong here.

- - - Updated - - -

The timing in this scenario is slightly off. A more accurate scenario would be taking your kidney back after your father has it in his body and has been stitched up.

Given that the uterus in question never for any moment is not part of the woman's body, it's her decision at all times. So no; your "more accurate scenario" is deliberately misleading bullshit that in no way reflects what we're talking about.

[Animalhouse]

If you were pregnant long enough that there is a baby to put in a coffin, you have violated the law in the vast majority of US states. Partial birth abortions are bad. This is not even a question.

Also, I'll just leave this here:

Leave it where you want, meditate on it. Murdering babies is NOT tolerance.
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

I have been in a difficult situation when I was a teenager and had a close call. Abortion was brought up.
Who knows what I would have agreed with as an ignorant teenager. I am all for allowing it for rape, but when there are people who cannot have children who are willing to adopt and love that child, allowing abortion as birth control is flat out wrong. When nobody wants to adopt, then we can look at options and have a real discussion.

I think we can agree about later term abortions. I am not against morning after pill, but beyond that I have issues with it.

[Antiganon]

Leave it where you want, meditate on it. Murdering babies is NOT tolerance.
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right.

I have been in a difficult situation when I was a teenager and had a close call. Abortion was brought up.
Who knows what I would have agreed with as an ignorant teenager. I am all for allowing it for rape, but when there are people who cannot have children who are willing to adopt and love that child, allowing abortion as birth control is flat out wrong. When nobody wants to adopt, then we can look at options and have a real discussion.

I think we can agree about later term abortions. I am not against morning after pill, but beyond that I have issues with it.

Let me give you a scenario.

Committed couple. Engages in consensual protected sex. Condom and birth control. Couple does not want children at this point, they know they are not financially stable. Neither has health insurance that covers prenatal care.

Condom breaks.

Pill fails.

Missed period 4 weeks later.

Abortion no later than 6 weeks.

Does this count as using abortion as birth control? These are by all counts responsible people who took all proper precautions, and still had an unwanted pregnancy.

[Tico]

I don't really like pre-labelling things and ideas.

[Halyon]

Did you wake up yesterday? Other people decide what we should do all the time.

We had a case recently, where a physician saved a 22 week old during an abortion. The child was already outside the mother (when she saved it) and yet lunatics argued that it was wrong for the doctor because of the bodily rights of the mother (essentially arguing for the right of the mother to murder their biological child, because here they're legally considered living after week 21, and again, it was already outside the mother's body).

On note: today 40% of children survive after being born during week 22.

Elective abortion is normally not allowed at all above 20 weeks. Irrelevant.

[Fojos]

Elective abortion is normally not allowed at all above 20 weeks. Irrelevant.

So? Because "teh rightzz" of the mother we give permissions for later abortions.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me give you a scenario.

Committed couple. Engages in consensual protected sex. Condom and birth control. Couple does not want children at this point, they know they are not financially stable. Neither has health insurance that covers prenatal care.

Condom breaks.

Pill fails.

Missed period 4 weeks later.

Abortion no later than 6 weeks.

Does this count as using abortion as birth control? These are by all counts responsible people who took all proper precautions, and still had an unwanted pregnancy.

Both combined are about as safe as having a vasectomy.

The argument in that case is a probability of realistically close to infinite zero (it can happen, but would be so rare there's no point bringing it up).

[Antiganon]

So? Because "teh rightzz" of the mother we give permissions for later abortions.

- - - Updated - - -



Both combined are about as safe as having a vasectomy.

The argument in that case is a probability of realistically close to infinite zero (it can happen, but would be so rare there's no point bringing it up).

Okay, just the pill then. Proper use of birth control, unwanted pregnancy despite using protection, abortion as soon as practicable after the pregnancy was discovered.

Does this count as using abortion as birth control?

[Halyon]

So? Because "teh rightzz" of the mother we give permissions for later abortions.

...when it's a medical emergency or crazypants Canada...

[Fojos]

Okay, just the pill then. Proper use of birth control, unwanted pregnancy despite using protection, abortion as soon as practicable after the pregnancy was discovered.

Does this count as using abortion as birth control?

Nope. I'm for abortion though (but not as late as we allow it). Now, I live in a country where healthcare is "free" (well, paid with our tax money) and I also think that women who need abortions repeatedly should pay for it themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

...when it's a medical emergency or crazypants Canada...

Or scandinavia

[Halyon]

Or scandinavia

I live in Scandinavia, what country are you on about? Here the limit is 16 weeks...

[Animalhouse]

Let me give you a scenario.

Committed couple. Engages in consensual protected sex. Condom and birth control. Couple does not want children at this point, they know they are not financially stable. Neither has health insurance that covers prenatal care.

Condom breaks.

Pill fails.

Missed period 4 weeks later.

Abortion no later than 6 weeks.

Does this count as using abortion as birth control? These are by all counts responsible people who took all proper precautions, and still had an unwanted pregnancy.

No it does not, you make a great point.
That is tough. If only this was the main reason for allowed abortion. Unfortunately many people just don't take the responsibility to use condoms and other proper birth control.

[Zethras]

Because pro-lifers are a bunch of agenda pushing zealots, who are more concerned with the existence of a non-conscious mass of partially defined cells, than the mother who *could* potentially be in danger from it.

[Kolbjorn]

I am all for allowing it for rape, but when there are people who cannot have children who are willing to adopt and love that child, allowing abortion as birth control is flat out wrong. When nobody wants to adopt, then we can look at options and have a real discussion.

It sounds like if you want to reduce the number of abortions that occur, that the facet of the problem you personally should address is adoption.

There is a backlog of un-adopted American children. (And yet we import babies from random countries! Not that that's a bad thing, but while we have a backlog...) The cost to adopt is nuts. Ever looked into it? Perhaps get someone (a foundation? the government? your church?) to subsidize these fees?


Further - if our goal is to get unintended pregnancies to be carried to term, we should stop trying to defund Planned Parenthood. Why? Because they're a top provider of prenatal care for uninsured/low income people. Alternately, actually fund this care through other channels. ("They should get a job" is not sufficient. They should, but it doesn't address the immediate prenatal care problem.)


Arguing over when a blob of cells becomes human is theoretical and irrelevant. Want to change the world? Change the systems that impact people's decisions over that blob.