Do you know of any good pro-life/pro-choice books? I'm particularly interested in books in favor of pro-choice because I honestly have never heard any good arguments supporting abortion.
>I've never read a convincing argument supporting abortion
That is your problem, not the argument's problem. It's very simple, you don't even need a book.
>humans with two x chromosomes have this thing called a uterus
>when the uterus recieves a sperm while it has an egg in it, sometimes it makes an embryo
>sometimes this happens when the human doesn't want it to, much like getting a cavity in your tooth
>luckily, in this day and age, there is a medical procedure to help!
>It is totally not murder to decide to end the life that is growing inside you
>You committed murder by killing the life that was growing inside the body of your gf
Giving women the authority to decide when it is and when it is not murder is a bad idea.
In the rare occasion that a pro-choice person does talk to me about abortion they usually resort to terrible arguments like it's a parasite, just a clump of cells, it's my body I do what I want, or they may even take their views to logical extreme and support infanticide.
Pro-choice "logic" is beyond stupid. Unless you think that killing humans is always morally acceptable it makes no sense to be against killing while making an exception for prenatal humans who are magically okay to kill.
>I am a heathen who worships Satan and hates human life
Yesterday it was contraception. Today it's abortion, masturbation, and same-sex/mixed race "marriage." Will it be widespread euthanasia tomorrow? Then what...? Once abortion and masturbation is universally accepted, what logical arguments will stop euthanasia and other forms of murder and brutality?
Some people would argue that it actually benefits society because certain races like blacks get abortions at disproportionate rates.
I don't think this works because with the availability of abortions people are more likely to act in promiscuous ways and they may be more likely to forego contraception because "hey I can just get an abortion if I really need to". The problem is that most women that do consider getting an abortion choose to have the baby instead, so what happens is they act in slutty ways thinking they can just get an abortion but they usually end up changing their mind. I think this is why there's such a crisis with black families and the skyrocketing number of black single mothers.
I agree that there are morally acceptable reasons to kill people like in defense or the defense of other people but is there ever a morally acceptable reason to kill an innocent person?
Well you can give them away. Most states in the US have "safe haven" laws that let you drop any infant under the age of one year at any hospital, police station, fire station, or courthouse eith no questions asked. You can also choose to put the child straight into the foster care system, from birth.
These are options for women willing and able to go through a pregnancy
A parent is legally obligated to provide a child with food and shelter, dropping off an infant at a fire or police station fulfills this obligation because it insures that the child will be taken care of.
>I must provide for my child, otherwise people having faith in the laws will fine me and throw me in jail where I would totally be able to provide for my child
liberal logic 101
>Why can't we kill babies?
it is not that we cannot kill them.
women feel bad if they kill their babies when they must pay financially for it
=>killing babies is good as long as it is free for them.
Have you seen how deplorable the DHR system in the USA is? The best way for a quick, painless adoption where the child isn't in foster care or protective custody as an infant is to do a private, now considered illegal adoption.
That was how my grandfather was adopted.
I befriended a few kids in DHR, one because she was an awesome individual, the other was a family I used to pet sit for that fostered children [weirdly enough they fostered my friend for a few months]. She was never adopted, even though she has been in foster care since infancy.
Most people go out of the country to adopt because it so much cheaper and easier and without redtape that honestly makes no sense. Also, even if the biological mom is fucking insane, unless she kills anyone, she can get the kid back at a moments' notice, even if the kid has been with their adoptive family for years.
That is why I don't consider adoption a valuable option, specifically in the USA. Most kids fall through the cracks, rotate foster homes until they turn 18, then are shoved out the door with a $200 Visa gift card and nothing else to their name.
>Some people would argue that it actually benefits society because certain races like blacks get abortions at disproportionate rates.
not in france, where proud emancipated white women love to abort their babies, since they love more to spread their legs.
Then why not free birth control? That would be cheaper. It takes two to tango, and it is easier to chemically control a woman's chances, so she has to bear the responsibility. Why must she bare all the financial burden of contraception too?
Also, I don't agree with women having to pay such high prices or taxes on menstrual care items. It is an obvious scam of the two major companies for money.
There is nothing more unnatural, disgusting, barbaric than a woman shoving a knife into her womb and massacring her own child.
Abortion, contraception, pornography, any music/film/art/literature that promotes extra-marital sex --- should be illegal.
>Products of convenience, not a right
>Just use a rag and wash it
>All of the stains will come out
>Use a rag for 5 days
I don't think you've been around menstruation or menstruated before. A wet rag is not going to cut it. And it is a right to have them, because men would complain about women getting blood on the furniture and dribbling when they stood up.
I'm not saying they should be free, I'm saying companies should not have a monopoly and there should not be a tax on them. There are other items like that, why not these?
It seems to me that a lot of this argument hangs on determining the point at which a collection of mindless cells becomes a human being; in truth, this is a moot point, because there really is no such determinative moment. Rather it would appear that rather than spontaneously "becoming human", a humans "personhood" sort of fades in over time. This process of "fading into being" couldn't even really be said to be complete until the brain is developed enough for more advanced cognition and memory (or what we would think of as true awareness)- so really, until age 5 or so (and this is just an arbitrarily chosen age for the same of this argument) even an infant can't really be said to be a "person".
My personal stance on the argument? Undecided, but I have a large degree of contempt for abortionists.
I'm sure it is terrible and in badly need of reform and support that. I think it's a separate issue from abortion because when you start looking at abortion as a way to fix or help mitigate the problems of abortion in America you have to argue that it's okay to kill people in order to save them from the possibility of suffering later in their life.
>I honestly have never heard any good arguments supporting abortion.
Well, honestly now, have you sought them out? There are very compelling reasons to be in favour for the choice to abort.
Personally, I believe self-sovereignty, as in ownership of your own body, necessarily entails the right to abort a freeloading fetus.
If that's your conception of what the opposite sides arguments are about, it's pretty damn evident that you have no interest in their viewpoint.
Learn about the principle of charity.
>it's my body I do what I want
Is actually a very, very good reason. You don't have to share blood with a fetus if you do not want to, much in the same way you do not have to donate blood if you don't want to.
Some leaking out on its own could be classified as involuntary manslaughter, still killing a human being but without malice. A lesser charge could be applied, perhaps a year in prison + penance.
I'm not OP. I am pro-choice because I know how absolutely abysmal the life of an unwanted child is. I am also the parent of a toddler.
And I happen to use cloth pads! You rinse them when you take them off, some people soak them in diluted hydrogen peroxide. I wash them with the cloth diapers right now, not sure what I'll do when I don't have that heavy duty laundry going. Anyway I've been using the same 8 pads for almost a year now and they do usually have the faintest shadow stains, but they change over time (like that didn't come out the last wash, comes out the next time, and the stain from the most recent use lingers a bit instead)
I'm going to try a silicon cup soon once I figure out which size and density I need
>Is actually a very, very good reason. You don't have to share blood with a fetus if you do not want to, much in the same way you do not have to donate blood if you don't want to.
Both parents knowingly engage in an act where the natural consequence is creation of a child. Parents are legally obligated to provide their born children with shelter and nutrition so why shouldn't those obligations be extended to the unborn? The uterus is designed to provide shelter and nutrition to child whose only difference is that it's in an earlier state of development and the type of nutrition and shelter is different.
The problem is this: if we were to decide that, then jacking off would be mass murder.
I would have killed billions.
In all seriousness, couldn't we then say that the material which will be used in producing sperm cells is also an unborn human? So then even an individual protein could be called a human being. This line of thinking does not bode well for ethical discussion.
All the girls I've discussed this with are terrified of having to get an abortion because they personally know girls who got one and found the procedure traumatic, and this was at a famously progressive university. Only huge idiots and hubristic cunts think abortion is a good trade off for skipping contraception.
>I can't understand embryology because I'm ignorant to this biology subject, don't want to educate myself on it, so I will dismiss your statement without counterargument.
You're just all backed into a retard corner. Birth control is wrong, premarital sex is wrong, abortion is wrong, it's a shitty pit to be in and I can see why you're trying to spread the misery. No one has fun or accomplishes any self-discovery living that lifestyle.
>if we were to decide that, then jacking off would be mass murder.
I don't know why people keep repeating this. Life begins at conception because that's the point where it has everything it needs to develop into an adult human. A sperm or an egg separated and by themselves will never develop into a human. I wish a more biologically literate user would come and explain it.
Where do you buy cloth pads? I've never seen them. Can you just make them out of certain material or do they have special materials?
I am wary of the cup because I'm unsure how to measure the size as far as how much it needs to contain.
Interesting that the 2 women in the thread so far are both pro-choice.
Still, the women choosing to have abortions are more scared of childbirth than they are of the abortion procedure, and that is their right.
Seriously, I think every single pro-life dude should be forced to get a vasectomy. They are reversible after all. It's so selfish of you to want your woman to mess with her hormones, which directly affect her brain chemistry, in the name of remaining not-pregnant. You should take the responsibility yourself.
I never argued against birth control or premarital sex. You're bringing a lot of baggage into the conversation and I don't see how it follows that being against abortion means you live a particular lifestyle or don't have any fun.
Yes, you should read philosopher Don Marquis essay "Why Abortion is Immoral"
Short summary of his argument:
Marquis' Anti-Abortion Argument
Assumption: It is typically seriously wrong to kill us (adult human beings). (189)
What makes it wrong? Here's one central thing: killing us deprives us of the value of our future. It deprives us not only of what we value now and would have, given our current predilections, valued later, but also of what we would have come to value. (190)
A few implications of Marquis' account of a central wrong-making feature of killing: (Marquis takes these implications to bolster account. (190))
- It is seriously wrong to kill children and infants. (191)
- It is not the case that only biologically human life can have great moral worth. (191)
- It might be seriously wrong to kill some currently existing non-human mammals. (191)
The Future-Like-Ours argument (192-193): Depriving a being of the value of a future like ours makes killing it wrong. Killing a fetus deprives it of the value of a future like ours. So killing a fetus is wrong.
Exactly. Contraception, mixed race schools, businesses, marriages, etc. abortion, women's "rights" it's a vat of misery and deception. But fortunately salvation is always an option.
>All the girls I've discussed this with are terrified of having to get an abortion because they personally know girls who got one and found the procedure traumatic
This is a lie that other women perpetuate and ressurect from time to time. Like those chain emails that pop up every few years.
For starters, abortion does not affect only women. Every aborted child has a father as well as a mother. If a women chooses not to have an abortion, the father can be required to provide child support for 18 years. Why should he have legal responsibilities but no legal rights?
Furthermore, almost half the children aborted are males. Every male is a former fetus; every male born since 1973 is a former fetus who could have been legally aborted.
It is difficult to think of any other situation where someone has seriously suggested that only those who might commit a certain act have a right to an opinion on whether or not it should be legal. Would you say that only white people have a right to an opinion on racism, because only white people owned slaves or lynched blacks?
If only women have a right to an opinion about abortion, then only plantation owners have a right to an opinion about slavery.
But why does an embryo have more value than the individual cells which would eventually make up that embryo?
Sperm cell (A) and egg cell (B) will become embryo (C), which becomes a human being (D).
I bought mine through a co-op on Reddit's /r/clothdiaps, saved me a ton of money. You can find a lot of brands on Etsy.com or cloth diaper websites like Nicki's or Diaper Junction. Amazon has some choices too. The vast majority are absorbent cotton or microfibre backed with PUL (a polyester fabric laminated to be waterproof)
The group "Cup Love" on Facebook has phenomenal files for helping you choose the right cup. I'm actually overwhelmed by how good the guide is, it's going to be a time-sink for me picking my first one lol. "Mama Cloth Love" is the group for pads, but I don't think it has 'necessary' information like the cup group
Exactly. Denying the genetic value and human rights of each individual sperm is literally no different than being an abortion-promoting slut waving her communal gaping maw at any man that will look at her.
I'm not pro life at all, and was in fact saying that abortion is not often going to be a factor in someone's decision to use contraception or not.
There are less invasive and more reliably reversible methods of female contraception raided the pill, like nuvaring and IUDs. I actually share your opinion about the pill causing unnecessary collateral damage and have encouraged (extremely close and they brought it up first) female friends to drop the pill for those reasons. Girls I know who've switched off the pill after being on it for years say they feel a night and day difference in their mental clarity and emotional resilience.
That said, I'll be first in line when there's a male contraceptive method that doesn't have a 20% chance of leaving you with permanent genital pain.
Son, I think you need to take a Geometry class and review proofs. You have a really strange grasp of logic.
Women get to choose what happens inside their bodies. Men get to choose what happens inside their bodies.
I think there should be a document a couple can obtain at a courthouse that says "We, the parents, acknowledge that I fathered this child through consensual sex. I have asked the mother to abort, and she said no. I am now waived of all legal responsibilities and ties to this child." Basic fucking men's rights
Thanks for the tips, I'm sick of paying $8 per package until menopause in 30 years.
I was already planning on using cloth diapers [I was raised in them] when we have kids sooner than later, so I'll go ahead and look at those websites.
I still think menstrual products should be tax free, or the sales tax for them specifically goes to women's health or something for kids.
I actually got pregnant the month after I stopped using NuvaRing because it was making me have separation anxiety sob session three times a day.
My best friend and I got positive pregnancy tests on the same day. We went to planned parenthood together for the confirmation tests.
She scheduled her late-term abortion of a baby afflicted by FAS, and I scheduled my dating ultrasound.
She photographed my daughter's birth.
But that's silly. Incredibly so. Because then any element that could possibly make up any part of a sperm cell must also be treated as though it has the value of a full-grown human being.
It is futile to determine at what point a developing person gets their "worth".
>Women get to choose what happens inside their bodies. Men get to choose what happens inside their bodies
More of this "my body my choice" nonsense. The truth is you don't have free reign to do whatever you want with your body. If you tried you cut your arm off you would be arrested, if you tried to kill yourself you would be arrested. There's many things that you're not permitted to do with your own body, and on top of that the fetus is not your body, it it's own body and it deserves legal protection.
It's not regret in the sense that they wish they'd had the kid or want to kill themselves or anything like that. It's a creepy, invasive procedure, and at the end of the day they have conflicts that they know aren't entirely rational. Child birth is one of the biggest events in a woman's life and many of them look forward to and romanticize it from a young age. Do you really think that going through a bunch of hoops to put that off isn't going to raise issues for some women?
This isn't off a chain email. I'm talking about elite-educated women talking from personal experience. Hell, this gets discussed on NPR, hardly a bastion of bible-thumping. I'm not pro life, and abortion is the right choice for many women who still feel some conflict over it, but ignoring these issues does those women a disservice. We need to be looking at what causes these feelings and how they can be best resolved.
Definitely true. A lot of their internal conflict is no doubt caused by the creeping feeling that Jesus is weeping at the loss of their souls. Those women will no doubt burn in Hell for the rest of eternity. It's definitely a shame.
Honestly, all this morality stuff is so pointless.
There's only one really important argument about abortion, and it's this: even if you ban it, people will do it anyway, like they always have. They'll go back to unsafe traditional remedies and methods, or backstreet abortion clinics. Infanticide will rise (it was pretty everyday among common people in many societies until pretty recently).
One could debate this point statistically. When abortion was illegal in this country, most illegal abortions were done by licensed doctors. (Secretly, of course.) Relatively few women were really injured or killed. In 1972, the last year before abortion was legalized, 39 women died from illegal abortions. That's 39 tragedies, of course. But with legal abortion today, many women are still injured and some die in botched abortions. If abortion was illegal, fewer women would have abortions, so the total number of injuries and deaths might well go down.
But all this is really beside the point. It does not follow that an act should be made legal because some people might suffer harm while breaking the law. No doubt some bank robbers are injured or killed in automobile accidents while fleeing the scene of the crime. Does this mean that we should make bank robbery legal?
A rational society does not make laws for the convenience of law-breakers.
>I'm gonna speak for women
>This one chick that is supah smaht says her buddies supposedly got abortions and supposedly they regret it
It's not like you're never going to have a child again. You'll have one that is planned and loved from the moment of conception. Are you also trying to say that adoption would not result in regret as well? Why the fuck do you think almost 60% of domestic adoptions are "open"?
>Child birth is one of the biggest events...
Oh shut up. Stop assuming we all want to get married and live in the 50s style nuclear family. I consider the biggest event in my life would be to get published. We do eventually plan to have kids, but I'm not a lesser person if I don't give birth. Even a mentally disabled woman can give birth. You're insinuating a woman's prime motivation in life is simply to exist so the next generation can.
My kids will be my priority in life, but I'm not going to toss away my own motivation and let my child suffer in poverty if I got pregnant without planning for it.
>A rational society does not make laws for the convenience of law-breakers.
Yeah, fair point, I guess actually what I said is never going to be compelling to people who genuinely believe embryos deserve legal protection.
I'll fuck off again then, no point trying to debate this shit really.
My mother works in a hospital. She works in neo-natal intensive care. Taking care of 10 drug-addicted babies at the same time probably makes a good case for abortion. Not that the kind of person who does crack while pregnant cares about the well-being of their shit-for-genes womb-lice.
That is definitely not what a right is, or the confines of what a right would be defined as. Do you think the big bad Men are the only ones that would have issues with hazardous dead tissue leaking out of your pants?
Also, they really aren't that expensive. A package of off-brand pads or tampons is typically less expensive than a meal at Applebees or some other mediocre restaurant. Do you buy your tampons with glitter? Food is more essential than a wad of synthetic cotton, but we don't get food for free.
>My kids will be my priority in life, but I'm not going to toss away my own motivation and let my child suffer in poverty if I got pregnant without planning for it.
Yea someone tried to talk me into aborting with this logic. Had an anecdote about how she aborted a child and ten years later had another with the same man, only this second kid was going to get to grow up in a house they owned and get a nanny and go to private school and university. "First baby died so second baby could have thus great life"
It actually convinced me in the opposite direction. How fucking heartless, to honestly say it was ok for one child to die so another could be raised in a condition of affluenza. Disgusting.
(Not trying to attack you, just sharing thoughts)
>Taking care of 10 drug-addicted babies at the same time probably makes a good case for abortion.
I wouldn't consider it a good case because I don't think it would be fair to kill an innocent life just because they may suffer later in life. To be fair I'm not 100% sure on the statistics because I'm going off memory but I believe child abuse rates have actually skyrocketed since abortion was legalized, you would think it would follow that the rates would drop but it hasn't.
This, I am an RN.
During clinicals I had a night shift in a NICU. There was one tiny drug-addicted infant. They gave him what medication they could, but nothing could stop him crying, because he was hurting. All I could do was walk up and down the hall for hours cradling him. He still cried, but wasn't turning blue from it anymore. The mother had left him inside the lobby glass doors of the emergency room. She was wearing a hood, they could not find her.
This traumatized me. It's also why I don't work in NICU. It hurts doubly. Not only are they in pain, they are lonely. Only the hospital staff knows or cares about the infant's pain.
Or we can have both children suffer, a marriage fall apart, a mother working 2 jobs and the children not being raised, so they turn to crime to live and lose their lives behind bars.
Because the third world mentality of having so many kids so you can replace the ones that die in infancy is so superior?
>We don't get food for free.
I never said free, I said without monopoly or tax.
I don't live in a state that does grocery tax. Also, I don't eat out at Applebees, I cook. Most of my meals I make at home probably cost less than $1 per serving.
They ought to make kids like that wards of the state, rather than leave them with the type of parent who would hurt them like that.
I could never do that job. Takes a certain kind of fortitude, I think.
He was surrendered, she had used the "safe haven" law. But this law also makes it to where if they have drug-addicted babies, law enforcement cannot pursue or convict her for abuse.
Aren't you kind of blind sighting yourself by choosing a book by desired outcome? It's as if you're only looking for confirmation rather than actually opening yourself to new ideas.
You should look for a book on general abortion, perhaps something with short stories from both perspectives, then draw your own conclusion.
I'm exclusively a fantasy reader and I've heard numerous (sub)stories in which a woman is raped or has a child too young. The child is then abandoned, neglected, mistreated or just ends up living a rough life because he is missing a parent or just wasn't cared for enough. Only here (on adv) have I heard of cases where a raped/young mother has an abortion, later has a(nother?) child, then lives on contently (though you'd probably have to talk to someone much older than the demographic here to get a less biased, more reflective view).
What you're just as like to learn from is some sort of mother child pick-one-to-survive story, where a now single father raises a child because of a sense of duty. Obviously that's not enough and the child turns out moderately sad and then its left to you to decide if it would have been better to save the mother and have another go at a kid later on.
It's kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't type of law because without that protection the crackhead may have just dumped the baby in a dumpster. That is a terrible woman that deserves punishment but least the kid has a fighting chance now.
Please learn to read. I never said this was a blanket statement that applied to all women, and I never said that child birth would be the single biggest life event, just a very large one. If it doesn't apply to you then you do you, but letting the women who don't respond well to abortion slip through the cracks because acknowledging then somehow hurts your pride is not the answer.
Lots of medical procedures have complications. People develop personality and cognitive changes during chemo, but acknowledging that and advocating research and treatment for it doesn't mean I want to ban chemo or shame people who get chemo treatment.
I'm saying we need more post-abortion care for some women who get them, not that we need to have fewer abortions.
But those women aren't as popular as you think. As that study posted before shows, women do not regret it or feel deeply traumatized.
Birth itself is traumatizing. That is what most of my friends who have given birth have said. I'm the RN above and I've attended births and it is a tumultuous event with emotions [not just happy] everywhere.
If she needs counseling she needs counseling. Most women who get post-partum depression don't have a special procedure or support for it. Unfortunately, they often have to fork out money for a psychiatrist.
Maybe there should be women-specific hormone/neonatal/miscarriage counseling in OBGYN centers. That would be nice. But if we keep wanting to defund Planned Parenthood [an organization that would be capable of setting up programs like this], then the situations will perpetuate and women will suffer in silence.
Why the fuck does everyone keep coming back to acting like I'm arguing against abortion? I just hate how people claim there's no way you can feel bad after abortion because the bible thumpers saybits more common than it actually is. Very obviously a group like planned parenthood could help make the kind of monitoring/counseling I'm talking about available.
>But if we keep wanting to defund Planned Parenthood [an organization that would be capable of setting up programs like this], then the situations will perpetuate and women will suffer in silence.
You say that like people are trying to defund PP because they don't want women to receive proper medical care. I personally don't want taxpayer money to fund them because I pay taxes and I don't want that money to support abortion, and I don't think taxpayer money should go to an organization that turns around and support political candidates like they did recently when they gave Hillary Clinton's campaign 20 million dollars.
If they stayed politically neutral and stopped providing abortions they could have all the money they want, I wouldn't care.
In Australia there are a number of "essential" items, like food, that are not taxed.
The discussion then is "why are condoms essential, but not tampons?"
No one is giving anything away for free. Besides the cost of birth control isn't the main issue. The problem is getting access to birth control since they require an oddly temporary prescription (in Australia, or so I'm told).
A rational society supports itself and its members. Ready access to sexual education and safe contraception and abortions is beneficial to society.
Protecting unwanted fetuses is not beneficial to society.
How is abortion beneficial to society? The number of single mothers and the rate of child abuse has skyrocket since abortion was legalized. The pragmatic eugenics argument just doesn't hold up.
>my taxes pay for abortions
No, they don't.
The 1977 Hyde amendment to Title X states that federal taxes cannot fund abortions, except in the case of rape or medical issues.
>A rational society supports itself and its members.
Even those that are unwanted
> Ready access to sexual education and safe contraception and abortions is beneficial to society.
It already isn't. It's harmful to women and of course children.
>Protecting unwanted fetuses is not beneficial to society.
It is since it is supporting virtue instead of vice.
It's also often necessary due to economic problems that arise out of an unbalanced age pyramid.
>The number of single mothers and the rate of child abuse has skyrocket since abortion was legalized.
Gonna have to see some scientific literature to back that claim up. Said stats should also contend for the sheer increase of population.
The number of illegitimate births have risen since abortion was legalized
Child abuse has risen since abortion was legalized
Rise of single motherhood
These aren't the only sources mind you.
He does have a point that Planned Parenthood is very politically active though. Hadn't even thought of that one but it's true.
With regards to taxpayer funding of abortions:
1. PP does refer people to abortion clinics, which many take issue with, semi-legitimately.
2. I know some real crazy people who valourize women and girls who refuse abortions that could save their lives or when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Those women are martyrs to these folks.
A baby has all of its organs outside of its body and dies instantly upon birth. Or some other horrifying double recessive genetic defect and it dies in the uterus.
That is what I mean. You seriously think in situations like that the fetus should be carried to term? That's horrifying.
It's not as simple as that. What should we do with an aborted fetus that the mother selected to abort? Incinerate it? Hold a full-fledged funeral?
If that fetus cannot have a life, at least let it provide service in its death in scientific trials and research and save millions of people yet to be born. They also cannot do this without the mother's consent.
Did you know most of your vaccines have a genetic code that stems from two aborted fetuses in the mid 20th century?
>2. I know some real crazy people who valourize women and girls who refuse abortions that could save their lives or when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest. Those women are martyrs to these folks.
I think most prolifers would be okay with letting the baby to save the life of the mother in one of those "must kill one to save the life of the other" type of situations. As long as any treatment done to save the mothers life isn't done with the intention of killing the baby then it's okay, like if a doctor had to give a certain medicine that would save a woman during pregnancy but would most likely kill the child that would be okay because the intention isn't to kill the child, that's just a side effect of the necessary treatment.
>Illegitamate births have to do with abortions
I don't understand. They were born. Their mother did not get an abortion, so this is a correlation = causation.
I could have a lineup of 8 morbidly obese people and notice all of them are wearing sweatpants. Therefore, I conclude obesity is caused by wearing sweatpants.
>That is what I mean. You seriously think in situations like that the fetus should be carried to term? That's horrifying.
A child born of rape or incest is completely innocent. You suffering a wrong doesn't give you the right to kill an innocent life.
There is a line somewhere between taking responsibility for my actions and taking responsibility for her decisions.
Yes, in the case that he wants the child and she doesn't, it's her house her rules. But if he doesn't and she does, as it stands, he is forced to financially back her play for 18 years. In addition he is unable to change his mind (even if the mother is incapable) and fight for custody for the child, even though he backed her play.
Basically the father is given no choice, then deprived of the consequences of that choice. (Though this has less to do with abortion and more to do with child access laws).
Back to the case of the father saying no; what harm does an abortion really do? If there is no physical cost, shouldn't the woman have to consider the man's decision; his lack of financial and child rearing support, into her decision? that would be just.
I'm not saying that she should be forced to abort, but if she doesn't, and she has been told "no" upfront by the man, he should be able to walk away scott free.
It's not most pro-lifers, you illiterate. Just a few, mostly catholic weirdos who have decided that abortion is literally always a mortal sin. The problem is that despite their small numbers, they are very active and vocal, exerting an outsized influence on the movement.
>Moving goalposts to evade my point about painful birth defects
Do you know the mental trauma of carrying a rapist's child to term. No, I don't think you do.
The incest abortions relate to medical issues. Families that practice incest to the point of conception are often already mentally disabled, and that has a chance of passing on to the infant, who suffers.
Yes, because you feel you're worthless after being raped. Then, forced to carry a constant reminder of your rapist, you have to go through the tribulation that is pregnancy and giving birth.
Essentially, you feel that your life has zero value. The embryo put there against your will is worth more than you, you have to sacrifce everything because of the crime of someone else. It isn't your fault, but you cannot escape it.
It's kind of tragic that you think like that because there's a lot of people that are born of rape and other unfortunate circumstances but they grow up to be wonderful people and they could even be reading this right now. Don't they have a right to life just like everyone else?
>Most of my meals I make at home probably cost less than $1 per serving
That's not just tax free, there's some massive subsidising going on there. The tax you do pay is going toward food.
I object to telling people that they can't be mad at planned parenthood because it only funds activities you think are okay (exams that end in abortion referrals, abortions for extreme circumstances), while ignoring that the angry people never thought that was okay and haven't changed their minds. Not ranting, just pointing out why that statement about the limits on abortion funding doesn't placate a lot of people.
Would it be more traumatic to be assaulted and then forced to care for the assailant's baby for 18 years, or to be assaulted and then have a minimally invasive medical procedure done in the aftermath? Seems like an easy choice.
What makes us human is our ability to reason, or rational part.
It is inhumane to deny the creation of a new rational agent.
However, it may be humane to destroy the life of a human without reason, one who will be in a constant state of suffering due to his detachment from his own humanity.
>I object to telling people that they can't be mad at planned parenthood because it only funds activities you think are okay (exams that end in abortion referrals, abortions for extreme circumstances), while ignoring that the angry people never thought that was okay and haven't changed their minds. Not ranting, just pointing out why that statement about the limits on abortion funding doesn't placate a lot of people.
I can't really make sense of what you're saying because I never told anyone they can't be mad at Planned Parenthood, in fact I support people being angry at PP so it's kind of baffling.
yea, theres a bunch of branching arguments in this thread so I linked for some context. I disagree with the guy talking about vasectomy and responsibility as well some subsequent posts.
The mother died inside after being forced to birth a rapist's spawn. She might even take matters into her own hands and make her death obvious to an outside observer, too, if she's especially daring.
I actually have a good friend who was the product of rape. She had a miserable childhood being molested by her rapist father, and battles suicidal thoughts daily.
I am a woman, and the bit about vasectomy was satire, meant to suggest how foolish men talking about women's bodies sounds, by making you hear a woman talk about a man's body the same way.
Actually it does happen in the womb.
>newborns can recognize their mother's language
>newborns can recognize music that they heard whilst in utero
>activity of a fetus is an excellent indicator of activity levels later in life
IMO abortion becomes "wrong" past 24 weeks, which is the youngest a baby can be born and have a chance at living a normal life
Recognition isn't the same thing as consciousness. Animals can recognize sounds and movements they're trained to, but we kill them all the time, and only a few extremists call it murder.
Babies come out more or less the same way with more or less the same level of activity. In reality, babies don't start being anything more than a complex cellular structure until 1-2 years.
This kind of attitude that only woman should have opinion about abortions is silly because it's like saying only slave owners should have an opinion on whether slavery should be legal.
Have you ever actually met a newborn? They have distinct personalities. Some babies try to crawl away from their swaddles and stupid little hats from the minute they are born, some stay in swaddles until they're a year old. Some babies will sleep almost around the clock, while others stare at you and scream bloody murder if you put them down.
Why is consciousness what gives you the right to life? A sleeping man is unconscious but like the fetus, he has the capacity for consciousness. They both in a temporary state of unconsciousness.
No, it isn't, because slaves to not occupy their owner's abdomen and kick their ribs and bladder and suck up all the calcium out of their bones and teeth.
In fact, slaves and slave owners are completely discrete human beings! Much like a mother and child, once the child has been born!
I've met many. I come from a very large family and have been one on one with at least seven. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to statisticians, that's a substantial amount of evidence against you. To digress, all babies act more or less the same, whether cryers or not. One thing you see when around a newborn is that the light of cognition has yet to come on. They've yet to become truly human.
Because a sleeping man has formulated a personality, a sleeping man may have a family or friends. A sleeping man has still become human. An unwanted or unneeded baby has no family, and has yet to process a complex thought.
Would you agree that an unborn baby has the capacity to form a personality and form friendships and create a family? If so I think the analogy holds and consciousness can't be the determining factor in whether a being has the right to life.
I'm not entirely sure what we're discussing any more. I acknowledge you are entirely correct, a newborn is not truly conscious, as a toddler who has completed the sensimotor stage of development is. Still, there is a MILE of difference between the brain of an 8wk fetus, a 12wk fetus, a 22wk fetus, and a 37+wk full term INFANT. The brain of a newborn infant has developed some perceptions, even life-long memories such as music/mother tongue, as I mentioned
Sex/gender of a baby becomes apparent at 49 days post-conception.
The Egyptian Book of the Dead said you reincarnate 49 days after death.
Random clumps of amino acids have the "potential" to become life.
You can't base everything on potentials, you end up with infinite "what-ifs?"
Plenty of times. Differences in response to stimuli or lack thereof is not a sign of consciousness.
Some chickens cluck incessently. Some allow you to pick them up, others flee. These differences in behavior are a sign of sapience? Of course not.
>Random clumps of amino acids have the "potential" to become life.
>You can't base everything on potentials, you end up with infinite "what-ifs?"
I'm no biologist but I don't think you can just take a vial of amino acids and dump that on the ground and expect an adult human to develop.
Break it down to a purely scientific level, and say that everything that exists or has a "right to life" needs to earn that right by performing a service. Animals have that right because animals are a part of the ecosystem, a cog in a great machine. Humans on the other hand earn that right by performing a service to the human race, and that service is consciousness. That might sound a little mechanical, but I think it's generally true. As such, a baby performs no service. It has the same potential that all humans have, but it still, as yet, doesn't exist on the same plane as a fully realized being.
My point is where do you draw the line? If you're talking about "potential," then doesn't that apply to gametes as well, since they have the genetic potential? That line of reasoning is faulty.
>I'm no biologist but I don't think you can just take a vial of amino acids and dump that on the ground and expect an adult human to develop.
Was pretty much how life started, minus the vial part. Humans thus resulted from it.
Why are white males always terrible authors?
Did you know:
Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended, and four in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-four percent of all pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) end in abortion.
From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions have occurred.
On average, women give four reasons for choosing abortion. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
In other words, abortion is always caused by social conditions and almost never because of incest or rape.
Not for no purpose, no. That doesn't serve the human race. But potentially scarring a fully realized being for the purpose of a clump of cells, or even a being that lacks consciousness, does no service either, it's even counterproductive.
A child doesn't become self aware until about 16 months after it's born and you can't really argue that a newborn baby is providing a service to society, especially if it's developmentally disabled or has a high risk of genetic disease so you should be okay with ending its life for the betterment of society. A newborn baby hasn't earn its right to life in any meaningful sense. If you go the pragmatic way you have to support infanticide.
>But they don't have a consciousness.
They have the capacity or potential for consciousness. A sleeping or reversibly comatose man is unconscious but he has that potential for consciousness just like the embryo or fetus so you can use consciousness as a determining factor of whether a being has the right to life.
How boring. Even J.K. Rowlilng, authoress of children's books Harry Potter, is a better writer.
A newborn, born to parents that are not at risk of losing, does provide a service. I'll concede that a baby in that position provides one service, and that service is the potential to become a realized being.
>But they don't have a consciousness.
Claiming that one must perform functions that make one a person before one can be considered a person commits the fallacy of confusing cause and effect. You must be a person first before you can function as one, just as you must be a human first before you can function as one.
WHY DID OP'S PICTURE HAVE TA LOOK LIKE GOATSE
You're totally misunderstanding what potential means in this context. Something only has potential to be a human being if left alone to naturally develop. A sperm by itself will never develop into a human being just like a drop of blood will never develop into a human being even though it has the genetic makeup of a human.
>humans start where I say they do
You still haven't gave a convincing argument showing that the cygote is a human being. Good luck with that, there's already a lot of trouble dealing with the very notion of human being.
Where do you draw the line? Can you freeze zygotes and claim them on your taxes? Are the people doing IVF that abort non-viable embryos murderers?
What about women who take the morning after pill? They are preventing an embryo from implanting to the uterus. Is that abortion to you?
I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not.
You know fertilization happens in the fallopian tubes, and a woman can take a simple OTC medication to stop it from implanting.
I fail to see how that is murder or irresponsible.
>Anything that stops the development of a human being after conception is murder.
You do know that there is something called spontaneous abortion, right? This happens quite a lot, in fact. That would make God one of the biggest murderers of all time
Taking that medication is a deliberate act designed to stop the development of a human being, that makes it an immoral action. Parents are obligated to care for their children and provide shelter and nutrition, even the really tiny and really helpless.
So should we sue mother nature for murder then? Since, in your words, 'anything that stops the development of a human being after conception is murder.'? Does that mean that God broke his own commandments?
Yes it is better. I don't think it's fair or moral to kill people because may suffer later on in life. Every innocent human being has a right to life regardless of their financial situation.
The correct answer is to allow choice whilst also being pro-life and influencing those choices to be as pro-life as possibly whilst remaining humane and preventing absurdly cruel outcomes, you're welcome
Can you guarantee that every aborted person would have been completely miserable and never would have found happiness? Of course not because we can't see the future. I'm not pro-suffering of children, I'm pro-giving them the chance to experience happiness. They will never have that chance if they're killed.
they aren't children, and they aren't killed. they're fetuses, and they're aborted. if you earnestly believe that "potential life" means anything then you're a fool who believes in final causes which are universally disproven.
any post after this is unnecessary.
So is consciousness what gives us the right to life? Babies aren't self aware until about 16 months after birth, would it be okay to kill them? I brought up this point earlier about sleeping men and the reversibly comatose. They're not conscious but they have the right to life.
They are not dependent on the mother for every bit of their existence, unlike a fetus.
Once outside the womb the infant will thrive with whoever cares for it. It can breath on its own, it doesn't need someone to do it for it.
If you draw the line so harshly, then how come it isn't potential murder to prevent conception?
Then we go back to this point about how parents are obligated to provide shelter and nutrition for their child. It would be immoral to lock a toddler outside of the house during a blizzard because that would kill him, just as it's immoral to remove a child from the womb before it can survive outside of it. The only difference with the unborn is the type of shelter and nutrition that's required.
>then how come it isn't potential murder to prevent conception?
If conception never takes place a unique human being is never created.
There's always a chance that toddler won't freeze. Maybe a policeman could drive by and see the child and pick him up and saves his life. The mother that locked the door would still be in trouble of course.
Life exists in many ways, but we don't defend it in all those ways. Not only we hunt other animals for fun, but we also have this little nasty things called antibiotics that are designed to kill life forms that harm us.
This isn't a matter of life, it's a matter of human beings. That's why the question "where does the human being start?" is so relevant to this debate.
Then they're pro-human life. But, at which point does human life starts? The zygote isn't an appropiate answer. The zygote is a structure that will turn into a fully formed human being if given the chance, but it's not a human being... or is it?
I don't blame a lot of the people that do get abortions because there's so much bullshit surrounding the topic and women are actively encouraged not to think about it by people that are very emotionally invested in the dehumanization of the unborn for various reasons. For the type of person that actively encourages abortion or even has one themself it would be extremely damaging to their psyche if they suddenly realized that they're killing other people so the ego protects itself which causes them to favor some really weak arguments to justify their actions.
>being this anti-catholic
Jesus still loves you anon.
Bitch come at me, my beliefs are more Christ-like than yours
In a perfect wonderful world no one would get pregnant when they didn't want to, no fertilized egg would develop into an unviable fetus, there would be a cum hungry virgin bride for every young man, and the resources to populate the galaxy with their progeny
This ain't that world
They are the ones that actually experience pregnancy, birth, and abortion (if they choose to have it)?
I'd take treatment from a doctor who has actually treated patients over someone who has read about what jobs doctors do. Physical experience over vicarious makes your opinion more valid when involving a physical process, sorry. That's the way things are.
This is a garbage comparison, Anon. Anyone has the potential to be a slave or a slave owner-regardless of a person's sex. Only women can become pregnant. Just as only men can have vesectomies.
Fair enough, but all of mankind is affected by abortion so we all deserve a say in it.
>facts are randomly distributed, therefore as the number of possibilities increases so too does the odds of any one answer being correct
Take a critical thinking class mang.
>Shit gets tricky after that point and the moral arguments become harder, however abortion during the first trimester is perfectly moral.
I don't think the initiation of brainwaves can be a determining factor of life because while brain death indicates the end of human life as we know it with no capacity to revive itself, the embryo has the natural capacity to bring the functioning to the brain. We consider brain activity a human function but you must be a person before you can function as one, and you must be a human before you can function as one.
>Christposter telling somebody else about critical thinking
Especially considering sociology and archaeology are providing evidence of the human constructions of religion. Reminder that the Christian god began as a minor Israelite war deity.
Christ rose on the third day whether you like it or not bruh. Jesus is ready to accept you anon, whenever you're ready.
Do you know what pregnancy feels like? Do you know what childbirth feels like emotionally? Do you know how it feels to be pregnant with a child you wanted verses one places there by rape or accident?
No you don't. And you never will. And saying physical experience are the same as investments is ludicrous.
A lot of men and women get away with providing little to nothing, or the bare minimum, for their children. Do the needs of a child stop at nutrition and shelter? Are you providing for a child if you do not care for its emotional needs? How do we regulate what is acceptable nutrition and shelter (and love)? Obviously it's easy to tell when a child isn't getting enough food or doesn't have shelter but what is the solution to this problem? Tax payer money for government services? So many abused children slip through the cracks of the current system as it is. Should certain children grow up without love/as much opportunity because you think they must be here on Earth when their creator(s) do not want to raise and pass them through their uteruses?
A parent is not necessarily the biological mother or father of a child. Is it better to police and take away the bodily autonomy of a currently alive human being (the mother specifically, since you can't quite do anything to the father in this situation) for the sake of a potential life? What does that mean? Will we jail women for giving themselves abortions? Keep them in prisons and force them to carry the child to term? Keep those children in foster/group homes until they're adults and if they're unhappy with their lives at that point they can choose to kill themselves (or not, since that's illegal)? Why put people through that?
Why are some people offended at the idea of potential life being taken away but are proud of things like death penalty or intended causalities of war?
Just because everyone CAN have children, should they?
I don't think anyone remembers what it was like in the womb, or what they thought about, or what they spent their time doing. Isn't what makes us human the experiences we create once we're outside of it?
There are none.
One shouldn't have sex if they also don't want children.
This is why I didn't try anything with my girlfriend before she was 16, because she had a growth spurt at 15 that made her much less twiggy and likely to die or have complications during childbirth.
>le science proves thing because le science says it does
What's worse in the eye's of a prolifer: a woman who becomes pregnant, does not want to keep the child for whatever reason, and terminates the pregnancy or a woman who gives birth, perhaps multiple times, and her children are neglected in some way?
What are the consequences for dead beat daddies? Lots of guys get away with not paying child support even if they've been brought to court. What about the responsibilities of a man to be a father? Is there any real pressure on guys since they don't really have much to do with the prenatal child? Are men capable of having a bond with a child they did not want? At the very least a woman had to lug the baby around for almost a year. What should be the punishment for the sperm giver not providing for a child in some way?
Obviously the child that dies is worse. There is no moral reason to kill an innocent person just because he may suffer later in life. You can't read the future so you don't know what it holds.
There already are consequences for being a deadbeat dad and you can actually go to jail for not paying child support. You can argue there needs to be more legal obligation for fathers and I won't dispute it, I honestly don't care because it really has nothing to do with abortion since it's a moral issue. You wouldn't kill a toddler for being a financial drain so you shouldn't kill the unborn.
>Is it better to police and take away the bodily autonomy of a currently alive human being (the mother specifically, since you can't quite do anything to the father in this situation) for the sake of a potential life?
We take away body autonomy for other things, like if you tried to chop off your leg you would be arrested. So you can't just do whatever you want with even you're own body but even if you could what about unborn's body, shouldn't he have his own body autonomy?
What suffering has the child-to-be, who hasn't experienced anything, gone through versus the children who are obligated to live (suicide is illegal)?
Children are not only a financial burden but require other things their parents may not be able to give them at that time. Should multiple lives be "ruined" (in some cases)?
Again, lots of guys get away with not paying/supporting their kid but there doesn't seem to be much pressure on that moral issue since the woman is the one to usually raise it.
How can some people justify having large biological families when there are so many children in need of adoption?
What's to be done with children in the system who are older or troubled/undesirable in some way?
But how will this be enforced? Policies that affect women only and force them to deal with the problems that come with being forced to carry a child to term? Will we take care of the damage that causes or brush it off as just something they need to deal with by themselves? Women have been giving themselves abortions since the beginning of time and they'll keep doing it. Should there be the death penalty for a woman who gives herself a miscarriage?
Also, I think there is a difference between someone wanting to cause extreme bodily harm to themselves and understanding they are not capable of raising a human being and making a somewhat reasonable decision not to bring that life into the world. I don't think it's a fair comparison
Who says your experience as a woman and/or mother speaks for everyone else?
Somewhere in this thread there was some period talk and I just want to say I have a cousin who, when on her period, can't be touched without feeling extremely ill and can hardly get up and do anything.
Forcing a woman to carry a child to term sounds pretty immoral imo. Anyway it's her sin if she gets the abortion, not yours. We all sin in different ways and it's not necessarily our place to throw stones.
Life is shit and bringing someone into it is immoral. The less babbies the better.
Pro-life atheist master race reporting in. Bite me, faggots.
This is literally worse than Thomson's argument in favor of the right of abortion.
And yet, not actually.
>don't have to donate blood if you don't want to
This just brings the argument back to the case made by Thomson. The difference between abortion and the argument against the state forcing one to give up their body/parts of their body for the sake of another is that, with pregnancy, the woman is forcing the uterus into the position of dependency on her (note: there is an exception, morally, to the case of rape where no decision was made). The "donating blood" argument only works in a case of rape, otherwise it's a false analogy. A far more accurate analogy would be kidnapping someone, hooking them up to yourself and forcing them to rely on you to live, and then claiming "wut? I don't have to donate my body to save them." It's nonsense.
Side note: it is a logical impossibility to consent to sex and NOT consent to the possibility of pregnancy. That's like signing up for a college course and "consenting to take the class, but not consenting to receiving anything lower than an A" It's nonsense, it can't happen from a logical stance.
I'm rather convinced that, with the exception of rape, the "pro-life" view is far closer to being correct and I certainly don't have any issue with birth control, premarital sex, etc. etc. The only reason you're lumping those together is because of the hijacking of the pro-life movement by the religious (and, ironically enough, the conservatives - even though being "pro-life" is an extremely liberal view to hold).
What gives you the right to predetermine for someone else their desire to live or die?
>What gives you the right to predetermine for someone else their desire to live or die?
You should ask people who have children that. They're the ones recklessly dragging people into existence.