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

[Halyon]

A zygote contains every strand of DNA to produce a fully grown human being. It is the very beginning of all organic life. It doesn't need a functioning nervous system to count as a life. We all evolved from single-cell organisms. Killing a zygote is killing that potential, stopping that evolutionary process from happening. Again, I'm fine with it being legal. I just view it as killing. Maybe it's a necessary killing. Maybe it isn't always necessary. I don't know. I'm not in that position to judge or decide so that's why I don't vote for or against it. It's not my choice to make. Let others who feel more passionately about it vote on it. I don't care. It is killing though. It is taking a life. But I'm pretty liberal when it comes to that. Life is cheap.

So what? Human dna is not inherently valuable. Potential is not an argument with value. We can agree on the killing part, be it as a byproduct (which it most often is), or a consequence to make it happen, but don't confuse killing with murder. They are not the same thing.

[Wolfman31]

Generally the folks holding that view are on the top of the dog pile. It's hard to maintain that view when it's you or yours having to die.

That being said, you're that German neo-pagan, right? Can't say I'm surprised by your views on the value of human life, if I'm being totally honest.

Yes I am "that" Germanic pagan. And my views are my own and not necessarily the same as other Germanic pagans. Like other religions, we have our share of liberals and conservatives. I'm neither. There's some issues I'm liberal about and others I'm conservative about. As far as life and death goes, I'm pretty "liberal". I'd hand out the death penalty like it was candy. Murderers? Rapists? Child molesters? Execute them all and quickly, I say. A bullet to the head is much cheaper than having them rot in jail while tax payers continue paying for their housing. Abortions I'm also okay with. The world has enough unwanted children growing up to be unloved and broken welfare recipients. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical and misanthropic but it doesn't change the fact that overpopulation is becoming a serious and dire issue on this planet.

On a personal note, when I was in college I was too selfish to use a condom and I got a girl pregnant and then she was too selfish to carry it to term because she wanted to have a career so she had an abortion. At the time, it broke my heart because it effectively killed our relationship so I lost the love of my life (at the time) and my child all at once. So I'm personally against abortion and I wouldn't want to be with a woman who'd kill my child like that. But at the same time, I don't care about anyone outside of my tribe and those I bring into my tribe. I don't care what some liberal hipster chick in the city does with her body so I'm not about to force my morality on her with my vote. You go do you over there and I'm gonna do my thing over here. The only life I value is mine and my tribe's. There's billions of people on the planet. I'm not going to pretend like it's even possible that I care about them all. Whoever wants to kill the child growing inside them has to live with it. My ex had to live with it too and it left her visibly depressed for a long time after. She did end up getting that career though so I guess there's that. Life always goes on, with or without your contribution.

[Underverse]

So what? Human dna is not inherently valuable. Potential is not an argument with value. We can agree on the killing part, be it as a byproduct (which it most often is), or a consequence to make it happen, but don't confuse killing with murder.

Actually, I would argue that human DNA is inherently valuable to humans. But there are a lot of other considerations to make besides the innate value of information.

[Wolfman31]

So what? Human dna is not inherently valuable. Potential is not an argument with value. We can agree on the killing part, be it as a byproduct (which it most often is), or a consequence to make it happen, but don't confuse killing with murder. They are not the same thing.

Yes we already worked out that issue with semantics earlier. I'll be calling it killing from here on out since folks want to split hairs.

[Frogguh]

Pro-life means you understand basic biology and know that human life begins at conception. Pro-choice means you are either an idiot who does not understand this simple fact, or you are a gutless coward who thinks killing unborn humans is okay.

So really it should be "pro-reality" vs "pro-delusion".

[Halyon]

Actually, I would argue that human DNA is inherently valuable to humans. But there are a lot of other considerations to make besides the innate value of information.

So about those teratomas... They can contain unique human dna. And they're most certainly not potential persons. Human DNA alone is not valuable. You're special pleading to human zygotes.

[Deleted]

All fertile people in possession of a working uterus are at risk of becoming pregnant, irregardless if they choose to have sex or not because rape and because all current forms of contraception can fail.

Not your uterus? You have zero authority to decide if it remains pregnant or not unless the owner of the uterus gives you the authority to do so. Piss off.

The day a man is not forced to pay for child support for a child he didn't want is the day I'll support that woman should have the only say in staying pregnant. Woman can and do manipulate men in getting pregnant often enough.

That's all I'll say about it since even among those who agree with me it's such an unpopular opinion that they won't say it.

[Underverse]

Yes I am "that" Germanic pagan. And my views are my own and not necessarily the same as other Germanic pagans. Like other religions, we have our share of liberals and conservatives. I'm neither. There's some issues I'm liberal about and others I'm conservative about. As far as life and death goes, I'm pretty "liberal". I'd hand out the death penalty like it was candy. Murderers? Rapists? Child molesters? Execute them all and quickly, I say. A bullet to the head is much cheaper than having them rot in jail while tax payers continue paying for their housing. Abortions I'm also okay with. The world has enough unwanted children growing up to be unloved and broken welfare recipients. Perhaps I'm a bit cynical and misanthropic but it doesn't change the fact that overpopulation is becoming a serious and dire issue on this planet.

On a personal note, when I was in college I was too selfish to use a condom and I got a girl pregnant and then she was too selfish to carry it to term because she wanted to have a career so she had an abortion. At the time, it broke my heart because it effectively killed our relationship so I lost the love of my life (at the time) and my child all at once. So I'm personally against abortion and I wouldn't want to be with a woman who'd kill my child like that. But at the same time, I don't care about anyone outside of my tribe and those I bring into my tribe. I don't care what some liberal hipster chick in the city does with her body so I'm not about to force my morality on her with my vote. You go do you over there and I'm gonna do my thing over here. The only life I value is mine and my tribe's. There's billions of people on the planet. I'm not going to pretend like it's even possible that I care about them all. Whoever wants to kill the child growing inside them has to live with it. My ex had to live with it too and it left her visibly depressed for a long time after. She did end up getting that career though so I guess there's that. Life always goes on, with or without your contribution.

It broke your heart that a chick you impregnated due to your selfishness decided to undo your mistake? I feel like you should have talked about that with her before you decided to go down that road. So that one's completely on you and the fact that you lost the love of your life because of it is your weakness. Selfish indeed.

Also, child molesters are not as bad as rapists are not as bad as murderers. It's not reasonable to group them together, much less into an instant execution category. People can reform. But I do agree that those who are too far gone (heinous crimes such as Breivik) should be executed immediately upon judgement of guilt.

- - - Updated - - -

So about those teratomas... They can contain unique human dna. And they're most certainly not potential persons. Human DNA alone is not valuable. You're special pleading to human zygotes.

The DNA is still valuable. Forming the information into a person grants much more value due to potential. But there is still value there. Even in tumors.

[Total Crica]

The day a man is not forced to pay for child support for a child he didn't want is the day I'll support that woman should have the only say in staying pregnant. Woman can and do manipulate men in getting pregnant often enough.

That's all I'll say about it since even among those who agree with me it's such an unpopular opinion that they won't say it.

If it's not your uterus that is pregnant, you don't get to decide if a uterus remains pregnant or not without permission from the uterus owner.

If you are a sperm owner, your decision begins and ends with "do I allow a uterus owner the gift of my sperm so they can decide if I become a parent or not?"

[ArguesWithStrangers]

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.

Not the question he asked, but thanks for sharing.

[Halyon]

The day a man is not forced to pay for child support for a child he didn't want is the day I'll support that woman should have the only say in staying pregnant. Woman can and do manipulate men in getting pregnant often enough.

That's all I'll say about it since even among those who agree with me it's such an unpopular opinion that they won't say it.

And men drug women, risking killing them, to end pregnancies. However, I am a supporter of men being able to 'abort' as well. They are also to not contact the child again then. At all. Or have any influence whatsoever on the child. And if there is such a case, he will automatically lose a custody dispute.

The DNA is still valuable. Forming the information into a person grants much more value due to potential. But there is still value there. Even in tumors.

Special pleading. But...what value does teratomas have then? I am legit curious...

[Underverse]

Pro-life means you understand basic biology and know that human life begins at conception. Pro-choice means you are either an idiot who does not understand this simple fact, or you are a gutless coward who thinks killing unborn humans is okay.

So really it should be "pro-reality" vs "pro-delusion".

No, this is a red herring and you're falling into a simple logical trap. The argument in favor of abortion has nothing to do with 'when does life begin?' (aside from some people who don't think deeply bout this question). At its core, it is a utilitarian argument, and is far more logical than 'let's keep everything alive for the sake of life', which is what the 'pro-life' argument boils down to.

[announced]

pro choice could be pro-intelligence or pro-int
pro life could stay as it is.

how does that sound?

[ovm33]

This claim fails on pretty much every count.

First; sexual intercourse's primary biological purpose among humans is not reproduction, as it isn't for a bunch of other social animals. It's primarily a tool of social connection and pair-bonding. This is why human females don't go into "heat", why we have sex even when we're not fertile (either because the woman's not ovulating that moment, or because either partner is permanently so), it's why we have orgasms for that matter.

You're really claiming that the PRIMARY BIOLOGICAL purpose of sex isn't to produce offspring..? I know you're not stupid Endus, come on. The reason sex is pleasurable is to get us to do it - thus create babies. The reason our brains fire off happy feelings towards our partner is to get us to stay together to raise said offspring - thus giving it the best chance to live and create babies of it's own. FFS Endus... that's 1+1+1=3. I can't believe I'm having to explain that to an educated person. /facepalm

Second; having a baby ceased to be an unavoidable conseqeuence of that act the moment we had an effective way to end that pregnancy. Your argument is no different than refusing treatment to someone who's injured while playing football because "they knew they could get injured when they chose to play".

Getting a cast on your leg is a lot different than taking human life. You know it is. I shouldn't even have to respond to this ridiculous strawman.

It's a patently ridiculous argument; you're refusing medical care based on your subjective and not shared moral views. Why should your questionable morality be forced on those who disagree with it?

We legislate morality every single day. Including individual decisions which only effect one person. I can give you a massive list if you like. One example: It's illegal to kill and eat dogs. One more: Seat Belt Laws. I can go on if you like.

There's no gains whatsoever to be had by enshrining these views into law

Sure there is. More people = stronger country. I can name more again if you like.

[Nfinitii]

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?

thats often how the main argument is framed, the choice of the woman vs the life of the baby. It's more important on how u present information and ur argument than the actual facts.

[Underverse]

Special pleading. But...what value does teratomas have then? I am legit curious...

I don't know what this 'special pleading' phrase is supposed to mean. I think you're making some assumptions about my position on abortion.

Tumors have a small amount of innate value (human information is valuable) but that value is abrogated by the negative potential of the tumor. As in, the tumor causes more damage than it creates, so its value is negative. Same thing with some humans. This simple calculation can be broadly applied, as long as you consider all the factors the add or subtract value or potential value.

[Wolfman31]

It broke your heart that a chick you impregnated due to your selfishness decided to undo your mistake? I feel like you should have talked about that with her before you decided to go down that road. So that one's completely on you and the fact that you lost the love of your life because of it is your weakness. Selfish indeed.

Also, child molesters are not as bad as rapists are not as bad as murderers. It's not reasonable to group them together, much less into an instant execution category. People can reform. But I do agree that those who are too far gone (heinous crimes such as Breivik) should be executed immediately upon judgement of guilt.

It takes two to tango so she was just as fault as I was. We've since talked about it and have both accepted responsibility for our half of it.

And no, I do not believe in reformation for the sexually depraved who assault women and children. They should have death be swiftly visited upon them. As far as murder goes, I'm actually okay with it more than the others mentioned. In pre-Christian Germanic culture, murder was only murder if you tried to hide it. If you declared that you killed your neighbor because he insulted you, then you got a free pass as long as you payed his family his worth to their survival. Usually this would take the form of livestock or something. The paying of restitution like that would curtail any extended blood feuds resulting from the murder. I like the idea of such a system, which is why I support "stand your ground" and "defending your castle" laws that allow you to legally kill anyone trying to do you harm. Criminals have far too many rights in this country for my liking.

[Halyon]

I don't know what this 'special pleading' phrase is supposed to mean. I think you're making some assumptions about my position on abortion.

Tumors have a small amount of innate value (human information is valuable) but that value is abrogated by the negative potential of the tumor. As in, the tumor causes more damage than it creates, so its value is negative. Same thing with some humans. This simple calculation can be broadly applied, as long as you consider all the factors the add or subtract value or potential value.

Pregnancies can kill the woman carrying it, and have a profound negative impact on the woman's life.

So, a woman is also human DNA...fully realized human DNA. A zygote/fetus is not. You are special pleading to the fetus in that just because it is human in origin, not a person, and does not have human rights, it still trumps the woman's right to control her body. That's why it's special pleading. I will however say; at least you're consistant so far with it. Take that as you will.

And that's without saying that not everyone values human DNA that way.

[Hctaz]

If it's not your uterus that is pregnant, you don't get to decide if a uterus remains pregnant or not without permission from the uterus owner.

If you are a sperm owner, your decision begins and ends with "do I allow a uterus owner the gift of my sperm so they can decide if I become a parent or not?"

I mean.. that generally isn't the point of the argument. It isn't about anybody's body, it's about their desire to want to raise a child. If somebody accidentally gets pregnant then it's on both of the pair. Neither of them took the proper precautions. Why only one of them then has a say in whether or not they BOTH contribute to the child is silly. If the man is upfront about not wanting to raise the child, then it's your choice at that point whether YOU ALONE want to raise that child. If you bring that child to term then that's your decision. You shouldn't be allowed to gut the man's wallet for choosing to go against his wishes. Plus there are numerous times when women intentionally lie to force somebody into paying them. My friend's ex bf's sister did this shit to a guy. Told him she was on birth control so he could finish inside her with the intent of getting pregnant and either forcing him to stay with her or to punish him for leaving. It worked too. He's now stuck paying child support all because some crazy bitch lied to him, and that's regardless of the fact that he had evidence to prove she lied with intent.

[kail]

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.

I can agree with this. I'm still pro-choice because I believe bodily autonomy is more important than the right to life. We hold bodily autonomy to such high degree up until it relates to pregnancies for some reason. A mother can deny giving their liver to their child who needs one, the child can die and the mother will not be charged for murder. We can't force anyone to undergo any operating procedure (minus mental cases), and pregnancies should be no different.

If we have the science to keep fetuses alive outside a womb, I'm all for it and would support mandating the preservation of them during abortions. Until then, it's not the mother's fault that the fetus can't live outside her body.