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

[Fojos]

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

18 weeks no questions asked and 21 weeks with permission in Sweden (and permission is practically given for any reason).

[Kolbjorn]

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.

Many people are told using a condom is a sin, and then their parents/church wonder why their state has a ton of teenage pregnancy. Perhaps we should educate people?

[Animalhouse]

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.

You are absolutely right.

The adoption system is a mess and expensive. My co-worker is going through the process now.
I think he said it was either $12,000 or $16,000 dollars, I don't remember but was shocked at the cost.
I am still all for it and agree that it needs much work to fix.

[gcsmith]

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

Except, that ignores the fact we know a fertilized embryo can become a child barring any major problems. Cancer can't become an living person. I don't mind the argument or either side tbh, but this argument comparing an embryo to a cancer cell is silly at best.

[Catblob]

Because that's what both sides are basing their respective arguments on; most pro-choice people don't *want* to kill anyone, and most pro-life people don't *want* to restrict women's rights.

The problem is that many on either side of the argument can't see past their own perspective, and thus frame the opposition in the context of their argument:

"Pro-life people are terrible because they want to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies"

"Pro-choice people are terrible because they want to kill babies"

Until the narrow-mindedness of both sides disappears, the debate will never evolve beyond autistic screeching.

[Halyon]

18 weeks no questions asked and 21 weeks with permission in Sweden (and permission is practically given for any reason).

Ah. Hmm, I technically don't see that much wrong with it, since the survival rate is practically non-existant below 21 weeks, but that's stretching it. Personally, I'd agree with 20 weeks elective abortion tops... However, your case said 22 weeks, then it's restricted, according to you. Thus there is no real problem, since it must have been done due to an emergency of some sort. As it should be. Are you sure it was an abortion though, and not an induced birth?

[Total Crica]

You are absolutely right.

The adoption system is a mess and expensive. My co-worker is going through the process now.
I think he said it was either $12,000 or $16,000 dollars, I don't remember but was shocked at the cost.
I am still all for it and agree that it needs much work to fix.

Haha! 16k for 9months of pregnancy and all the risks and costs associated with it?

And you want to pay LESS? Yeah, def not going to breed for anyone now.

Much better paying careers out there then popping out humans for you people to raise! Abortion it is!

[Symphonic]

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.

I know it's functionally equivalent to "brain death" but for semantic's sake, it's more like "brain activation". The difference being that someone who is brain dead is not likely to recover at all, while someone who's still developing their brain has a very high chance of success in creating neural connections.

[D3thray]

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.

Pretty sure you'd only think there's no legitimate debate if fetuses don't count as human life to you. Which I suppose is a position you could take, but one I find psychopathic.

[Total Crica]

Ah. Hmm, I technically don't see that much wrong with it, since the survival rate is practically non-existant below 21 weeks, but that's stretching it. Personally, I'd agree with 20 weeks elective abortion tops... However, your case said 22 weeks, then it's restricted, according to you. Thus there is no real problem, since it must have been done due to an emergency of some sort. As it should be. Are you sure it was an abortion though, and not an induced birth?

Screw that. If I can't abort after 20 weeks, then I am going to give birth at 20 weeks. Either way, it's not going to stay inside me at ANYONE'S command. I decide when it comes out of me. Not you or anyone else.

[Symphonic]

Haha! 16k for 9months of pregnancy and all the risks and costs associated with it?

And you want to pay LESS? Yeah, def not going to breed for anyone now.

Much better paying careers out there then popping out humans for you people to raise! Abortion it is!

Are you under the assumption the pregnant woman is paying 16,000 dollars to adopt her baby away? NO. In fact, most people who want to adopt a baby will not only pay the extremely overpriced legal fees to adopt, AND pay for all the hospital fees/prenatal care. Isn't paying zero cheaper than paying for abortion medication and if that fails, the thousands of dollars of invasive procedures to extricate the unborn baby, inserting foreign objects into your nether-regions possibly tearing you and making things worse than if you would have just had a regular birth?

- - - Updated - - -

Screw that. If I can't abort after 20 weeks, then I am going to give birth at 20 weeks. Either way, it's not going to stay inside me at ANYONE'S command. I decide when it comes out of me. Not you or anyone else.

The baby might decide on its own

[Total Crica]

Pretty sure you'd only think there's no legitimate debate if fetuses don't count as human life to you. Which I suppose is a position you could take, but one I find psychopathic.

How could you legitimately debate MY pregnancy without MY permission? What are you going to do at the end of the debate? Tie me down and force me to remain pregnant? Forcefully abort my pregnancy against my will? If not, what is the point of debating MY pregnancy against MY will?

- - - Updated - - -

Are you under the assumption the pregnant woman is paying 16,000 dollars to adopt her baby away? NO. In fact, most people who want to adopt a baby will not only pay the extremely overpriced legal fees to adopt, AND pay for all the hospital fees/prenatal care. Isn't paying zero cheaper than paying for abortion medication and if that fails, the thousands of dollars of invasive procedures to extricate the unborn baby, inserting foreign objects into your nether-regions possibly tearing you and making things worse than if you would have just had a regular birth?

- - - Updated - - -



The baby might decide on its own

Closed adoptions absolutely pay the mothers. You mean MY body decides. And that's fine. I don't mind MY body deciding.

And I don't make a career from abortions, but I damned sure would from carrying pregnancies to term, IF they paid MUCH more then 16k per nine months... or is it 20 weeks? They can't make up their minds on when a fetus can live outside a womb, but that's ok, they don't get to decide that for me anyway.

[Halyon]

I know it's functionally equivalent to "brain death" but for semantic's sake, it's more like "brain activation". The difference being that someone who is brain dead is not likely to recover at all, while someone who's still developing their brain has a very high chance of success in creating neural connections.

Argument from potential is not particularly valid. The fetus also has a chance to be ananchephalic, which means the brain doesn't develop at all.

What matters is what the situation is at the given time when elective abortion is allowed, and that situation is that the fetus doesn't possess any quality that protects it against elective abortion (bodily autonomy of the mother) in terms of human rights or legally.

It's why elective abortion becomes prohibited later on during the pregnancy, when the fetus is developed enough to warrant that protection. Many pro-lifers realize that there's a line to draw somewhere, otherwise it'd be rather absurd, the issue then becomes where that line is then to be drawn. To me, it should be based in biology and medicine, the choice itself is up to the individual. Medicine determines that abortion up until the fetus begins to be able to survive outside of the womb, coupled with neural development, is fine.

That is why it is pro-choice. Nobody jumps up and down in glee over having an abortion. At best they're just glad that it's an option they can consider and use, if they ever are put in a position where they need it. Others aren't particularly happy about it, but realize it's a necessary 'evil' given their situation, like if they want children, but they have to delay for X reason. Some are grief stricken for the previous reasoning as well, if they're in the same position, but told that they for one reason or another most likely risk certain death if they carry through.

It can be a very tough, emotional decision to make, or it can be clear cut and straight to, it entirely depends on the individual. But...if you don't want an abortion, nobody in the clinic will force you, or try to 'sell you an abortion because gief monehz'. If someone else tries to coerce, then that should of course be handled, but that's not the fault of the service. That's people being shitty. As is part of the species.

[Yvaelle]

I know it's functionally equivalent to "brain death" but for semantic's sake, it's more like "brain activation". The difference being that someone who is brain dead is not likely to recover at all, while someone who's still developing their brain has a very high chance of success in creating neural connections.

It's a fair distinction, but we ask if a 24 week old baby is 'alive' the medical answer is 'no'. The brain is not yet active, which is equivalent to brain death. If the concern with abortion is that 'lives are being murdered' - the medical answer is 'no, lives don't exist, yet'. If the argument is that potential future lives have equivalent rights to people who are alive now, then masturbation is literally the mass murder of about 100 million potential-future-people, more if you cum a lot.

Further, we would need to radically reconsider our environmental impact if potential-future-lives have equal rights - because our pollution will affect billions of potential-future-people. Additionally, since the birth rate, infant mortality, etc, is all tied into economic activity - then all economic activity would need to weigh into account the mass murder of all potential-future-people - potentially trillions - who might potentially come to inhabit this earth in the depths of time. Trillions may never be born due to our actions today. Obviously, this sounds ridiculous - yet I think the point is valid - something which is not alive today, is not equal to someone who is alive tomorrow.

Further, it's worth pointing out that only about 1% of legal abortions occur between the 21st and the 24th week (none after, as the 25th is brain activity week). 50% of abortions occur within the first 7 weeks, at which point an embryo is about the size of a kidney bean, consists ~entirely of undifferentiated cells, except the heart, which is about the size of a pea (like half their body).

[Halyon]

Screw that. If I can't abort after 20 weeks, then I am going to give birth at 20 weeks. Either way, it's not going to stay inside me at ANYONE'S command. I decide when it comes out of me. Not you or anyone else.

That's your choice, not like I can stop you, nor will I. However, it will have consequences to do so, and as long as you're prepared to face those and be judged accordingly, more power to you.

[Total Crica]

I'd have to disagree. Unless you have a compelling reason to do so, some respect has to be taken at some point in terms of right to life of the fetus. 20 weeks/5 months is plenty of time to find out and decide if you want to keep it or not. As I stated before though, 21 weeks, even if a stretch, could work, if only because the survival rate of the fetus is so obscenely low that it might as well still be 0%.

So, a sensible approac that takes into consideration both sides, fetal viability is the best starting point for protecting both the woman and fetus's rights. There also comes a point where an abortion simply isn't a thing anymore, aside from increasing in risk of damage to the woman, but becomes an induced birth instead. And if you try to abort, and the fetus survives, then you are left in a rather horrible situation, since leaving it to die, or straight up killing it, will land you in legal trouble.

Like I said, going to give birth then at 20 weeks if I don't realize I am pregnant until then. Inducing labor isn't hard solo, you know. Don't need a doctor for that like I do an abortion. You fricking control freaks simply can't control this. YOU are not the ones pregnant. So sick of you people DEMANDING others HAVE to do what YOU want. I DON'T WANT TO REMAIN PREGNANT IN ANY FRICKING SITUATION, YOU PEOPLE DON'T GET TO DECIDE I HAVE TO, PERIOD!

[Magical Mudcrab]

yeah because a lot of feminists are totally convinced by 'Her body, Her choice!' /When it's about prostitution, then it's somehow magically different.

Hypocrisy, only your side does it.
/S.

The discussion of bodily autonomy and prostitution are not the same thing. The former is merely a statement of fact; there are very few legitimate reasons to reject someone's bodily autonomy -- such as if someones parents are rejecting a blood transfusion for their child under the pretense of religious belief, and their young child rejects it as a result, this is an instance where the state should intervene and defy the persons bodily autonomy and save their life. I very rarely see people decry the latter as an industry when you look at what happens in - for example - Amsterdam. What I've seen is usually people discussing the potential of legalization of prostitution leading to an increase in sex slavery or some form of legitimization of it should it become widespread in the West or Americas, though I believe that the arguments are usually fallacious and based on heresay.

[Halyon]

Like I said, going to give birth then at 20 weeks if I don't realize I am pregnant until then. Inducing labor isn't hard solo, you know. Don't need a doctor for that like I do an abortion.

Yeah, I edited my reply, was a bit too caught up with wordyness.

Anyway, compelling reasons. I see no reasons to try and circumvent the law, and shirk some degree of responsibility for yourself to regularly do check-ups on yourself and go the 'right' way as early as possible.

Edit; I'm not demanding anything of anyone, other than to respect the choices people wish to have available to them, within what I see as reasonable limits. I'm majority-wise on your side here, so getting angry with me over a small discourse is hardly worth it...

[Total Crica]

And youll be hauled away to prison like the murderous sociopath you are.

And going to to defend myself from anyone by trying to take out whoever lays a HAND on me! Frick you!

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I edited my reply, was a bit too caught up with wordyness.

Anyway, compelling reasons. I see no reasons to try and circumvent the law, and shirk some degree of responsibility for yourself to regularly do check-ups on yourself and go the 'right' way as early as possible.

I see no reason for you to stick your nose into my medical choices for MY own body, but yet, here you are. BIRTH at 20 weeks, control freak!

[cubby]

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?

It's because the GOP kicks the Dems ass when it comes to labeling political positions.