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

[Total Crica]

Told him she was on birth control

All current forms of birth control can fail. Anytime a fertile woman has vaginal sex with a fertile man's penis, it can result in pregnancy.

The only thing current contraception does is lower the ODDS of pregnancy happening, but doesn't prevent pregnancy from happening EVER.

Which is why 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?", because ALL vaginal sex with your penis can result in a pregnancy. (if you and they are fertile)

[Underverse]

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.

That's a shit system. Few people would want to live in a society where you are killed for looking at someone the wrong way when there are safer options, especially without the illusion of an afterlife or gods.

But let me get to the next point, because it really shows how backwards your thinking is. You say that people who 'assault' women and children (I don't count molestation as assault, except in legal terms, because the damage caused is unclear) should be executed on sight, yet actual murderers should be able to hand over some livestock and get a free pass? That is seriously fucked up.

[Hctaz]

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

I mean.. I see what he's getting at. He's saying that THE primary reasons that a lot of animals have sex is SOLELY for procreation. It doesn't feel good for them at all, and is sometimes painful (see cat sex). Animals go into heat and it makes them uncomfortable most times. Humans (and I think dolphins) are examples of creatures that don't have sex because of a biological need to procreate. They do it for pleasure and fun or even just social bonding. That's why casual sex exists between friends. That's why humans masturbate. Obviously sperm cells and eggs are biologically designed for reproduction, but we aren't wired sexually for only the purpose of reproduction.

- - - Updated - - -

All current forms of birth control can fail. Anytime a fertile woman has vaginal sex with a fertile man's penis, it can result in pregnancy.

The only thing current contraception does is lower the ODDS of pregnancy happening, but doesn't prevent pregnancy from happening EVER.

I mean... yes, but she admitted to lying to him just to trap him in a relationship, so that point is irrelevant. She admitted it to her brother as well. Her family knew she had never taken birth control pills (which is what she claimed to be on) in her entire life.

[Total Crica]

I mean... yes, but

There is no but. If he was going to have vaginal sex with her regardless of her being on birth control, the risk of her becoming pregnant was always there. He decided the risk of HER deciding what to do with her egg if his sperm fertilized it was fine or was completely ignorant to the risk. Did he believe that birth control was 100% effective?

[Halyon]

I mean... yes, but she admitted to lying to him just to trap him in a relationship, so that point is irrelevant. She admitted it to her brother as well. Her family knew she had never taken birth control pills (which is what she claimed to be on) in her entire life.

They are exceptions, not the rule, when it comes to contraception. One wrong doesn't valiadte another.

[MikeBogina]

Is there a middle ground?

I don't want to take away a woman's right to have an abortion, but I think it should be fact that anyone who has an abortion, without rape or failed protection being the cause, that they are legal murderers of unborn babies and should feel like shit for it.

[Deleted]

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.

I am sorry, but that sounds quite absurd. Trying to do someone harm, as bad as it is, does not automatically warrant killing the aggressor - especially if that harm is something entirely trivial like insulting you. Life has an intrinsic value that by far exceeds your right to not be insulted.
Also, it seems like this system would heavily favour those with a lot of wealth, as they essentially could just buy their way out of murders - while those who are poor would not have that option. How would this be even remotely fair?

I'd much rather live in a society where people are getting locked up for a while if they do something bad, than in one that condones vigilante executions.

[Zervek]

Well, pro-death(pro-choicers) tend to lack basic morality for other humans, so really it's a debate between morality and immorality. If you support women killing other humans, then you lack morals. It is that simple. A human life begins at conception and there are no exceptions to support abortions. If you happen to be sexually assaulted and end up pregnant, that is still no exuse. An innocent life should not be taken regardless of how it is created.

[Hctaz]

There is no but. The risk of her becoming pregnant was always there. He decided the risk was fine or was ignorant to the risk. Better sex ed may have helped him?

No, there DEFINITELY is a but. You can't just purposefully trick people into shit like that. If it happens on accident that's completely different. That's why it's called an accident. If you accidentally kill somebody then it's pretty bad, but it isn't as bad as intentionally killing somebody.

[Underverse]

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.

See, this is what happens when people choose a side and decide that everyone who doesn't agree with everything they say is the enemy.

That's you, by the way. You're doing that.

I made no arguments about the moral validity of abortion. You're creating arguments out of thin air and assuming I believe them.

Let me enlighten you: my argument is that human information has innate value and we should seek to maximize that value. That's it. In terms of abortion, a fetus has a value, and a mother has a value. There are cases where abortion is moral, and there are (fewer) cases where abortion is immoral. A large part of this is based on the mother's desires to have a child or not. Therefore my argument favors choice. That being said, it does not favor choice in every case. For example; if a mother wants a child and then, 8 months into the pregnancy, decides that they do not want a child even though they have the ability and resources to care for it and there are now outstanding health risks, it would be immoral to abort - especially considering that adoption is an option. The morality equation also changes with macro-scale effects such as human population.

This simplistic 'pro-choice' versus pro-life' dichotomy really just needs to die. It's a red herring, and utterly lacks intellectual integrity..

[Halyon]

Is there a middle ground?

I don't want to take away a woman's right to have an abortion, but I think it should be fact that anyone who has an abortion, without rape or failed protection being the cause, that they are legal murderers of unborn babies and should feel like shit for it.

That's some nice guilt tripping there. A zygote is not a child. Nor is abortion classed as murder.

[Endus]

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

There are only a very few animals that have sex for pleasure. The overwhelming majority do not. There's no need for a pleasure motive for reproductive sex; other drives serve the rest of the animal kingdom just fine in that regard.

So no; biology is very clear on this, and you're just fundamentally and completely wrong about how human sexuality functions in terms of its purpose for the human species. For the most part, we are not engaging in sex for reproductive purposes alone. It's for social reasons. Which are still biologically selective, if you know much at all about biology.

No biologist worth their salt is going to ignore this and claim that sex among humans is primarily for reproduction.

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.

How about refusing to have a kidney taken to save the life of someone in renal failure? That seems like it should be your right, yes? To say "no, thanks, I'll keep my kidney"?

Same difference, when a woman refuses to let her womb serve as a host for another being for 9 months. And that's presuming I grant you the idea that the fetus is a human being at early stages of development, mind you, which is a premise I find galling and irrational in and of itself. But my point is that even if it's granted, it doesn't provide any justification for banning abortion.

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.

Those aren't moral issues, for one.

For two, the important part you're ignoring is that the "moral view" in this case is a narrowly held viewpoint by a niche community that doesn't represent most people's opinions on the matter, and which is almost exclusively holding this view for religious reasons. I oppose those justifications for attacking women's rights for the same reason I'd attack the idea that women need to be beaten semi-regularly to keep them in line, or their wicked nature will lead them astray. That's a "moral view", just as much as pro-life views are, and is reprehensible for basically the same reasons.

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

That's not a justification for denying women basic human rights. They are not enslaved as brood mares for the nation's population growth, however much you might think that's a convincing argument in your own head. And that is the argument you just made. It isn't even an exaggeration.

[Total Crica]

No, there DEFINITELY is a but. You can't just purposefully trick people into shit like that. If it happens on accident that's completely different. That's why it's called an accident. If you accidentally kill somebody then it's pretty bad, but it isn't as bad as intentionally killing somebody.

Pregnancy isn't an accident. It's a risk you take when you have vaginal sex while fertile. Did he KNOW that birth control ISN'T 100% effective? If so, he KNEW she COULD wind up pregnant by having vaginal sex with her, period.

[Wolfman31]

That's a shit system. Few people would want to live in a society where you are killed for looking at someone the wrong way when there are safer options, especially without the illusion of an afterlife or gods.

But let me get to the next point, because it really shows how backwards your thinking is. You say that people who 'assault' women and children (I don't count molestation as assault, except in legal terms, because the damage caused is unclear) should be executed on sight, yet actual murderers should be able to hand over some livestock and get a free pass? That is seriously fucked up.

Few people now would want to live in that kind of society because we've grown safe, comfortable, and weak because of it. But killing was very rare within the community back then because there were plenty of other ways of settling disputes, but trial by combat was the final one.

On to your next point, I see no inherent value in rapists and child molesters continuing to live. All I see is a drain on the system to support people who have a high chance of repeating the same crimes. There's a child molester in my family who got off with a slap on the wrist and if we were living in any other time period, I'd be the first in line to kill him. But I won't risk my own freedom for it now so my anger is redirected at the laws of a brokenly incompetent system that lets these sick pieces of shit continue to breathe.

And the actual murderers you're talking about wouldn't actually be murderers if the murder was deemed legal and justified by the laws of the community, as it was in pre-Christian Germanic societies across Europe. Just like how abortion isn't technically murder now because it is legal.

I am sorry, but that sounds quite absurd. Trying to do someone harm, as bad as it is, does not automatically warrant killing the aggressor - especially if that harm is something entirely trivial like insulting you. Life has an intrinsic value that by far exceeds your right to not be insulted.
Also, it seems like this system would heavily favour those with a lot of wealth, as they essentially could just buy their way out of murders - while those who are poor would not have that option. How would this be even remotely fair?

I'd much rather live in a society where people are getting locked up for a while if they do something bad, than in one that condones vigilante executions.

Life is indifferent to whatever value you place on it. Life doesn't care. And the old system did not favor the rich. Those too poor to pay the weregild, the "man price" as it were, would often work on the farm of the person they killed for a term deemed fit by the Thing, the community counsel with elders and lawgivers.

[Underverse]

Well, pro-death(pro-choicers) tend to lack basic morality for other humans, so really it's a debate between morality and immorality. If you support women killing other humans, then you lack morals. It is that simple. A human life begins at conception and there are no exceptions to support abortions. If you happen to be sexually assaulted and end up pregnant, that is still no exuse. An innocent life should not be taken regardless of how it is created.

A human life is not always valuable. Sometimes the value inherent in the fetus is eclipsed by the value that would be taken away by that fetus.

[Total Crica]

human information has innate value

Value is determined by that which is affected and capable of assigning value, not innate. If value were innate, there would be no need for YOU to declare value, everyone and thing would already value it.

[Raptor With a Saber]

Because one side is hugely out gunned by the other especially when life starts caring stops.

[Halyon]

See, this is what happens when people choose a side and decide that everyone who doesn't agree with everything they say is the enemy.

That's you, by the way. You're doing that.

I made no arguments about the moral validity of abortion. You're creating arguments out of thin air and assuming I believe them.

Let me enlighten you: my argument is that human information has innate value and we should seek to maximize that value. That's it. In terms of abortion, a fetus has a value, and a mother has a value. There are cases where abortion is moral, and there are (fewer) cases where abortion is immoral. A large part of this is based on the mother's desires to have a child or not. Therefore my argument favors choice. That being said, it does not favor choice in every case. For example; if a mother wants a child and then, 8 months into the pregnancy, decides that they do not want a child even though they have the ability and resources to care for it and there are now outstanding health risks, it would be immoral to abort - especially considering that adoption is an option. The morality equation also changes with macro-scale effects such as human population.

This simplistic 'pro-choice' versus pro-life' dichotomy really just needs to die. It's a red herring, and utterly lacks intellectual integrity..

You brought up that teratomas had some innate value due to human DNA, but said value was off-set by the negative repercussions that it can bring about... It is not a direct moral argument for/against abortion, true, but it is implied.

Let me enlighten you; Human DNA is only valuable because we say it is. Sentimental.

I have nothing against you, or your personal opinion, but I most certainly don't agree with it, true.

Also, no, nobody here are arguing for elective late term abortion, and using that argument is gonna paint you as dishonest mighty quick.

[Underverse]

There are only a very few animals that have sex for pleasure. The overwhelming majority do not. There's no need for a pleasure motive for reproductive sex; other drives serve the rest of the animal kingdom just fine in that regard.

So no; biology is very clear on this, and you're just fundamentally and completely wrong about how human sexuality functions in terms of its purpose for the human species. For the most part, we are not engaging in sex for reproductive purposes alone. It's for social reasons. Which are still biologically selective, if you know much at all about biology.

No biologist worth their salt is going to ignore this and claim that sex among humans is primarily for reproduction.

As an actual biologist, I want to reiterate this point. By nature, humans are inclined to have sex 1-3 times per day in their able adult years. Females can become pregnant once every 9 months or so. Let's say an average of twice. That's 525 times within 9 months. A maximum of one sexual interaction will result in pregnancy. Therefore 99.8% of sexual interactions are non-reproductive.

Sex is a social function, primarily. We wouldn't be as we are if it were just for reproduction.

[Halyon]

As an actual biologist, I want to reiterate this point. By nature, humans are inclined to have sex 1-3 times per day in their able adult years. Females can become pregnant once every 9 months or so. Let's say an average of twice. That's 525 times within 9 months. A maximum of one sexual interaction will result in pregnancy. Therefore 99.8% of sexual interactions are non-reproductive.

Sex is a social function, primarily. We wouldn't be as we are if it were just for reproduction.

That's assuming that all 3 inclinations are acted upon, with the purpose of becoming pregnant in the first place.