What will it take to change attitudes towards abortion?

[Esmer]

It's noted and appreciated that you understand how someone like me views people who support abortion. Your position is honest, which can't be said about people who insist that pro choice isn't pro abortion. Or who insist that a fertilized egg is something other than human life. Or who insist that a tumor or a toenail is the same as a fetus.

I am sometimes an asshole--even a misanthrope from time to time--but I will always be honest about it. Technically, I should say that I will be truthful about it but let's not split hairs there.

#BugiWithStu

[Cail]

It's noted and appreciated that you understand how someone like me views people who support abortion. Your position is honest, which can't be said about people who insist that pro choice isn't pro abortion. Or who insist that a fertilized egg is something other than human life. Or who insist that a tumor or a toenail is the same as a fetus.

I am sometimes an asshole--even a misanthrope from time to time--but I will always be honest about it. Technically, I should say that I will be truthful about it but let's not split hairs there.

You own your beliefs, and you don't care whether or not others agree with your beliefs. That doesn't make you an asshole. Too many people care what others think. They get all wrapped up in their feels about being popular, or accepted, or whatever.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[...]

Would you rather a child in such circumstances be born to inadequate care, and certain death in life, or that pregnancy terminated to spare the child and the family tinevitable tragedy?

That seems like unadulterated Situational Ethics.

What if I asked, Would you rather deny Mexicans their right to migrate or see them lynched by desperately crazed 'Muricans?

If you're obliquely moving towards arguing that there's no Right to Life until the State bestows it, then it would probably be best to just say so and be done with it. But just be aware that such will only strengthen the argument that there's no Right to Migrate until similarly conceded by the totalistic State.

My

As a non religious human, I have no issue with situational ethics ...

[...]

How can you not appreciate that not all are equal .. and that not all have the luxury of morals and ideals when faced with the economy of survival.

My only question was essentially, Why wouldn't the "situation" or the "economy of survival" (the survival of "Western civilization" or what-have-you) dispense the US from the "luxury" of recognizing the Right to Migrate?

I didn't necessarily expect you to answer. I certainly wasn't demanding one. I was just throwing out something to chew on.

No worries.

[Rawedge Rim]

+JMJ+

That seems like unadulterated Situational Ethics.

What if I asked, Would you rather deny Mexicans their right to migrate or see them lynched by desperately crazed 'Muricans?

If you're obliquely moving towards arguing that there's no Right to Life until the State bestows it, then it would probably be best to just say so and be done with it. But just be aware that such will only strengthen the argument that there's no Right to Migrate until similarly conceded by the totalistic State.

My

As a non religious human, I have no issue with situational ethics ...

[...]

How can you not appreciate that not all are equal .. and that not all have the luxury of morals and ideals when faced with the economy of survival.

My only question was essentially, Why wouldn't the "situation" or the "economy of survival" (the survival of "Western civilization" or what-have-you) dispense the US from the "luxury" of recognizing the Right to Migrate?

I didn't necessarily expect you to answer. I certainly wasn't demanding one. I was just throwing out something to chew on.

No worries.

I really don't know what your question here is?

[Cail]

He's conjured up a Right to Migrate, and is now conflating it with a Right to Life.

[Skyweir]

All good Wos

Im kinda disappointed though that no one with religious opposition to abortion has addressed gods limited and conditional appreciation for mortal life.

How can you believe that god opposes abortion when he directs death at will?

How do the religious address the incongruences in their "sacred scriptures" and answer this question?

Who can say they know with absolute knowledge the mind of god?

[Avatar]

How can you believe that god opposes abortion when he directs death at will?

The point is that it's God's will. If HE wanted to abort a baby, he'd give the person a miscarriage, and that would be fine. The problem is doing it of our own will.

--A

[Skyweir]

Arent humans meant to make their own choices? Arent humans here to exercise their own free agency? And it is by those choices that they are ultimately judged?

My concern is that we cant always know the mind of a human, let alone the mind of a god. How do you know what is the right thing for others to choose, in their unique circumstances.

As for me, I am not pro abortion ... but I am aware that in some circumstances there may be justifiable reasons to terminate a pregnancy. Luckily for me I never faced any such circumstances in my life .. but how can I judge someone that does?

I dont think anyone supports abortion as birth control ..

[Cail]

As for me, I am not pro abortion ... but I am aware that in some circumstances there may be justifiable reasons to terminate a pregnancy. Luckily for me I never faced any such circumstances in my life .. but how can I judge someone that does?

I dont think anyone supports abortion as birth control ..

So what circumstances are those, and under what circumstances would you deny the abortion?

A 30-year-old, intellectually sound woman presents herself to you. She's 12 weeks pregnant, wasn't raped, but wants the abortion because, in her words, she screwed up and has changed her mind. There are no health issues, and the woman is solidly in the upper-middle class. Do you give her your blessing to abort her child?

If so, you are both pro-abortion, and you support abortion as birth control.

[Avatar]

Yeah, I'm fine with that. I don't necessarily approve of abortion as birth-control, but I prefer it to the alternative of unwanted children.

--A

[Skyweir]

Well tbh .. I personally would recommend counselling and get to the bottom of what she means by shes screwed up. As much as I strongly agree that an unwanted child is among one of the greatest tragedies in life, there are many people who DO want a child but for a variety of reasons are incapable of conceiving and or maintaining a pregnancy to term.

After counselling and she is mentally clear about her options, I would recommend that she offer that child up for adoption.

I dont feel completely at ease about a woman feeling forced to carry a child to term against her will .. but if she is comfortable to continue the pregnancy .. this is the ideal outcome.

[TheFallen]

Tsk tsk, Sky, you've ducked answering Cail's question.

He didn't ask what you would personally recommend, or what you feel would be the ideal outcome.

He asked you this straight and directly:-

A 30-year-old, intellectually sound woman presents herself to you. She's 12 weeks pregnant, wasn't raped, but wants the abortion because, in her words, she screwed up and has changed her mind. There are no health issues, and the woman is solidly in the upper-middle class. Do you give her your blessing to abort her child?

Now okay, maybe "giving your blessing" isn't the best way for him to have put that, so let me mildly hijack his question and ask...

In the circumstances described above, do you think that woman should be allowed to source an elective abortion, or do you think she should be prevented from doing so by law? That's a binary question.

As Cail quite rightly says, if you think that elective abortion should be allowable in the circumstances as described above, then you are unavoidably both pro-abortion and supportive of abortion as post-conception birth control.

(And I wouldn't personally criticise you for holding that position - it matches my own, after all).

[Cail]

Tsk tsk, Sky, you've ducked answering Cail's question.

He didn't ask what you would personally recommend, or what you feel would be the ideal outcome.

He asked you this straight and directly:-

A 30-year-old, intellectually sound woman presents herself to you. She's 12 weeks pregnant, wasn't raped, but wants the abortion because, in her words, she screwed up and has changed her mind. There are no health issues, and the woman is solidly in the upper-middle class. Do you give her your blessing to abort her child?

Now okay, maybe "giving your blessing" isn't the best way for him to have put that, so let me mildly hijack his question and ask...

In the circumstances described above, do you think that woman should be allowed to source an elective abortion, or do you think she should be prevented from doing so by law? That's a binary question.

As Cail quite rightly says, if you think that elective abortion should be allowable in the circumstances as described above, then you are unavoidably both pro-abortion and supportive of abortion as post-conception birth control.

(And I wouldn't personally criticise you for holding that position - it matches my own, after all).

The wording was a bit off, but I assume that the people here are intelligent enough to divine the meaning.

If you believe that a woman can have an abortion at any time with no need for any justification, then you are absolutely, inescapably both pro abortion and all for using the procedure as birth control.

So the next obvious question is this: given that you believe that a woman has the absolute authority to abort her child for any reason at any time, where does that leave the father? Do you hold him responsible for the child until the child turns 18? Does he have the same ability to "opt-out" of his responsibilities to his child that the mother does?

[TheFallen]

So the next obvious question is this: given that you believe that a woman has the absolute authority to abort her child for any reason at any time...

For the record and only personally speaking, not "at any time". I'd have a 12 week maximum time limit, for non-absolutist reasons that I cannot categorically justify and that you'll categorically disagree with. Anyhow...

...where does that leave the father? Do you hold him responsible for the child until the child turns 18? Does he have the same ability to "opt-out" of his responsibilities to his child that the mother does?

That's semi-sophistically put - but I of course see where you're going with this. Allow me to now knowingly tie myself in logical knots.

In my view of things, the father does not have any right whatsoever to decide or not if a pregnancy that he has been 50% responsible for should be terminated or not. Is that "fair"? Probably not - if you're using the expression "opt out of responsibilities" to refer to a pregnant woman's unilateral right to choose if the pregnancy should be terminated. Am I not right in thinking that biological fathers have legally challenged (and failed in such) a pregnancy being terminated? I'm pretty sure that it's a matter of very definitely affirmed current law that the mother's rights entirely supersede the father's, pre-birth.

And no, once the baby's born, the father still has no rights to opt out of any financial responsibility at the very least for the first 18 years of that child's life.

Again, could that be argued as being both unfair and paradoxical in pure cold, logical conceptual terms? Yes, it sure could.

[Cail]

So the next obvious question is this: given that you believe that a woman has the absolute authority to abort her child for any reason at any time...

For the record and only personally speaking, not "at any time". I'd have a 12 week maximum time limit, for non-absolutist reasons that I cannot categorically justify and that you'll categorically disagree with. Anyhow...

Again, you're being honest about your position, and I can't fault you for that. Sure, I think you're wrong, but that's pretty much immaterial, isn't it?

My obvious question is, what's so special about 12 weeks that doesn't exist at 11 weeks?

...where does that leave the father? Do you hold him responsible for the child until the child turns 18? Does he have the same ability to "opt-out" of his responsibilities to his child that the mother does?

That's semi-sophistically put - but I of course see where you're going with this. Allow me to now knowingly tie myself in logical knots.

It's a leading question, I'll grant that.

In my view of things, the father does not have any right whatsoever to decide or not if a pregnancy that he has been 50% responsible for should be terminated or not. Is that "fair"? Probably not - if you're using the expression "opt out of responsibilities" to refer to a pregnant woman's unilateral right to choose if the pregnancy should be terminated. Am I not right in thinking that biological fathers have legally challenged (and failed in such) a pregnancy being terminated? I'm pretty sure that it's a matter of very definitely affirmed current law that the mother's rights entirely supersede the father's, pre-birth.

Legally, yes. I take great issue with the concept that it's acceptable to kill the baby at all. I take greater issue - from a principled standpoint - that given the current law, one parent has zero say in the matter. From a pragmatic standpoint, given the existence of Roe, compelling a woman to carry a child to term presents some problems, particularly in cases of rape.

I am really sensitive about that issue, as I lost a child to a woman who insisted on aborting.

And no, once the baby's born, the father still has no rights to opt out of any financial responsibility at the very least for the first 18 years of that child's life.

This is the larger issue, and I think the one that defines the divide. A mother has the ability to, without the consent of the father, kill their child while it's in the womb. This eliminates all responsibility for that child. The father can't insist on an abortion. The father also can't sign away his rights as a way of freeing himself from the financial and other responsibilities for his child.

So we have a clear case of unequal treatment under the law. We also have a clear case of treating women as having less responsibility than men. From the moment of conception, even if a woman pierces his condom or otherwise sabotages his birth control, he is responsible for his child, period. Women do not shoulder that responsibility. This, from a legal standpoint, treats women as an underclass.

So the only "fair" part about it is both sexes are being shafted, though in different ways.

[Rawedge Rim]

What's this about "unwanted child". Unwanted by the birth mother perhaps, but there are hundreds of thousands of people wanting to adopt.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a ... edirect=on

So I don't see this "unwanted child" thing that I keep hearing and reading about.

[Cail]

What's this about "unwanted child". Unwanted by the birth mother perhaps, but there are hundreds of thousands of people wanting to adopt.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/a ... edirect=on

So I don't see this "unwanted child" thing that I keep hearing and reading about.

It takes a village, right? Unless you want to kill your kid.

[Skyweir]

RR .. that is the point .. that despite a woman "not wanting" a child .. there are many people who do want children but are incapable of having them themselves.

Yes I guess, as I am pro choice, and if there are only binary answers accepted that makes me pro abortion. One however, could also be indifferent .. and one could challenge the binary question.

And we return to situational ethics .. and looking at each situation on a case by case basis.

But in black and white terms .. I guess I do fall in the pro abortion camp

I dont agree with abortion as birth control, I dont support abortion where it is viable to carry the child to term and offer the child up for adoption, would I have an abortion myself, no, I would not.

I dont think all life forms are equal .. I dont think human life is sacrosanct .. I dont think human life is sacrosanct to your god or gods, given what we can learn of god and gods from the scriptures.

The science isnt that far away to artificially grow an embryo to term... the first stages have been successfully achieved.

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... -it-s-nuts

Then no one will ever have to carry a child to term they do not want .. it can be safely removed and grown in a lab and the healthy child provided to parents who do want the child.

Furthermore, for those women on the cusp .. financial inducement should provide the incentive needed to perpetuate the pregnancy. I mean people pay to adopt children, thats how that works.

[Cail]

The bottom line is that there's no circumstance that you believe should disqualify a woman from having an abortion. Don't throw the, "binary question" card either. You are explicitly pro abortion in your beliefs and your words.

[Skyweir]

Well if you say so ... though I have identified I dont accept abortion as birth control .. so if youve fucked up .. then adoption.

But yes I wouldnt be comfortable with forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term ... so theres that.

I think there should be a time limit on when a pregnancy can be terminated and after that no. The first 12 weeks actually make sense to me as it is within the first 12 weeks that things can go wrong.

In addition I think a womans mental health and wellbeing must also be taken into account. This is especially so of rape etc.

I entered this discussion on the pro choice side, that has never changed. I stated that I would not, nor have had an abortion myself.

If one of my daughters fucked up, I would encourage her to have the child and I would raise it or suggest she offer the child up for adoption.

Thats my position, period.