I am personally opposed, but prochoice. Can you change my mind?

ZeusAres42

I sometimes struggle with doughnuts too. I sometimes cannot decide about chocolate, jam or custard. Damn.

Plaffelvohfen

@YeshuaBought

There's no need to struggle, unless you are the pregnant woman, you don't even have to consider abortion as an option...  

Why would you struggle?

TKDB

Adoption, is my position on abortion.

1.5 million abortions, per year, in the United States is troubling.

As long as there are contraceptives for both women, and men, abortion outside of rape, or incest, is an insensitive way to deal with an unborn baby, created by the shared actions between consenting humans. 

ambee

@YeshuaBought
if you believe that life begins at conception than why would you support abortion to be legal. Its illegal to kill another human being, right? do you think killing another human being should be safe, legal, and rare? ~to sum up my question i believe your beliefs contradict each other, and wondering if you can explain your thought.

MayCaesar

Life, strictly speaking, begins far before conception. However, this is hardly the kind of life we recognise as interactable with. Mushrooms or bacteria are also alive, but this is nothing but an abstract classification having no impact on us emotionally or morally.

As far as I am concerned, there is nothing to talk about on the subject of abortion. Controlling what people can do with their body is abominable, regardless of what living beings can inhabit their bodies. You can have any moral opinion on the subject you like, and you are free to exercise it as far as your own body goes - but the moment you turn your eyes on someone else's body, you are outside your moral and legal domain and should turn away.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen ;

Why would he struggle?

Because we care about fellow man, the same reason we give to charities.  If thousands of people are being killed somewhere else or there a extreme human rights violations.  It may not effect me, but I still care and think we should fight against it.  

@MayCaesar ;

****the moment you turn your eyes on someone else's body, you are outside your moral and legal domain and should turn away.

Disagree. For one if you consider the baby a life (human) then their body should be protected as well.  Secondly I think we are allowed to have opinions on things that don't effect us.  For example, I can think slavery or murder is wrong even if the outcome of the decision doesn't effect me.  As a society we are allowed to make some moral decisions for others.

****Controlling what people can do with their body is abominable, regardless of what living beings can inhabit their bodies

Controlling is a loose term.  People can eliminate/nearly eliminate the chance of pregnancy.  The person was the sole decision maker in why their body is now inhabited by the fetus, a risk fully known and fully preventable.  It also for 9 months (non permanent).  In a conjoined twin case, your saying one could split in interest of bodily autonomy even if it killed the other?

No one kills their fetus in order to gain bodily autonomy back; it's only used as an excuse to kill the baby, a means to an end.  The reasons are usually mainly financial.  In no way should you be able to kill others in the interest of your own finances or lifestyle.

**** I think abortion, should be safe, legal, and rare.

Why rare?  If not a human who cares.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Since she's not the one being pregnant, the decision doesn't concern her at all, hence my wondering why would she struggle about something that doesn't concern or impact her in the least...  

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Right and I'm saying because we concern ourselves with others.  If a father or mother was abusing their child in public would you simply walk by.  It doesn't impact you.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

There you go again, conflating a born child with an unborn fetus... rolleyes......

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

No, I was actually just giving a scenario wasn't really comparing the fetus to a child.  What if someone was abusing anyone that is defenseless would you walk on by.  If a man was beating a woman.

The point is we involve ourselves in situations sometimes even if those situations don't directly effect us.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Those situations you invoke imply born persons and cannot be compared to abortion.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

It would if you consider the fetus as someone who deserves rights.  I'd report someone who publicly torturing a dog or really almost any animal for no reason.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

But I don't believe fetus to be persons thus they are not deserving rights in my opinion...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Exactly which is your opinion, someone with the opposing opinion would believe they are and therefore the government should intervene.

The government and people once viewed slaves as property, yet people (like those in the underground railroad) disobeyed law and sought to free the slaves.  Pro-life people are looking to change the outlook of the fetus to a person.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

And I will fight against that with everything I've got... My belief that a fetus is not a person and should not have rights have no impact on anybody else, it doesn't impose anything unto others while yours does...

John_C_87

So kind of frightening, everyone including the creator in this debate agrees that life starts only after conception. While science on the other hand has started life with a woman's egg outside her body. Any personal grievance does not negate the duty to create a united state in constitution holding all woman as equal in relationship to pregnancy and its termination. Not that it must matter to anyone.

Prochoice doesn't mean a woman can chose to have a pregnancy abortion by knowingly killing the baby before conception?

 On a funnier side, why would you want me to change a women’s mind there has not been a successful changing of a human minds ever. Though if you are dead set on me doing this I will need crazy clue, a saw, some duct tape, and a second woman volunteer to pull this changing of the minds off. Whose mind am I changing yours with? And does she know of your plans to volunteer her?

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen
And I will do the opposite.
 My belief is that the fetus is a human that is deserving of rights.  I will continue to argue why the fetus is human and is deserving of rights because I've never heard convincing arguments why they are not human/persons.  Pro choice people are all over the place in what defines a person, some want heartbeat, some conciousness, some until birth...the last one is pure garbage.  Being a fetus is part of human development every person must go through.

Slaves werent considered "people" either.  As far as some were concerned back then the law keeping them as property didnt effect "people" either.  

Funny that the party that generally wants increased government in almost every issue is suddenly so against it.

John_C_87

@MichaelElpers ;

The fetus has United State Constitutional rights, one is to die when not crossing a international border of a nation. So when you are saying the Fetus has no rights that is not the argument. The issue is you have no United State Constitutional right to insist someone else bring a person across an American International border. Even less than no right as this process may place the person who must bring that person across in jeopardy.

 To go one step past that the governing states should abolish female pregnancy abortion from law all together for the best reason of all. They can do so without causing any harm to woman as united state simply just the fact that woman are all self-incriminating themselves to a described crime. Tell us MichaelElpers why should any woman be denied a female specific amputation I does not violate the hypocritic medical oath, nor does in self-incriminate all woman as a united State?

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;
@MichaelElpers ;
Can I ask if you are both female?

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Being a fetus is part of human development every person must go through.

And your point is? I suspect fallacious thinking behind that... 

Slaves werent considered "people" either.  As far as some were concerned back then the law keeping them as property didnt effect "people" either.  

The case for slaves and women being person was very easy to make, it's a lot more contentious with fetuses as they lack many characteristics that would make them persons.

Your last sentence is irrelevant...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

My point is clear.  Every person was once a fetus, the fetus is a part of human development.  It is a unique being with unique characteristics and DNA.  Development from conception all the way up to death if part of a humans life.

If you smashed bird eggs many people who are pro-choice would be upset that you've done so.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

As I thought, fallacious thinking... The fallacy is the argument that two states or conditions (fetus vs person) cannot be considered distinct because between them there exists a continuum of states. 

It's fallacious and relates to the sorites paradox.  A continuum fallacy specifically sets up a continuum of ideas gradually connecting one to the other — moral choices being a very easy one — and conflates the two as being equal. A prime example, albeit absurd, is justifying killing newly born children because abortion is legal (making no difference between born and unborn). 

Life does not begin at a single point — hence the continuum. Gestation and foetal development are slow continuous processes, and the human body still develops and grows even after birth. The beginning of life is also a continuum, without any magic "spark" that makes something alive — DNA can self-replicate and evolve in solution, absent from any other cells, and so is alive by some definitions, but not by others. There is no clear separation in both cases.

Where the fallacious use of this continuum occurs is in the anti-abortion argument that life begins at conception — at the stage where a sperm fuses with an egg. But at this point, the emerging embryo is not too dissimilar to any other stem cell. It lacks the complexity of an adult person, and so abortion at an embryonic stage destroys life only in the same sense scratching your own skin and removing (and killing) some cells does. 

John_C_87

The separation made between a baby and slave is citizenship, a slave starts out as a citizen of a foreign nation who is stripped from their home as an act of War. The fact conveniently ignored by the pair of you is the inability to understand and act on the union formed with all woman in a self-incrimination. Abortion. All woman take part in a pregnancy abortion it is only those woman who are pregnant that must self-incriminate by the continual pressure to legislate law around the idea.

John_C_87

The single point were life begins.

The basic principle of when anything starts is at its beginning extending a life is not the point to which it began, an issue of citizen ship can be exploited in many ways, by many people, for many reasons. The united state all woman share including those woman who are Judgers, doctors, lawyers, creative writers and scientist is located at the one starting point the human egg just like all other woman.

How does a person understand this fact, no living egg means no baby for all woman and when a woman does not have by creation one egg she must take, buy, or be given an egg from another woman.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

***It lacks the complexity of an adult person, and so abortion at an embryonic stage destroys life only in the same sense scratching your own skin and removing (and killing) some cells does.

A normal baby lacks the complexity of an adult human as well.  It is far more complex than scratching your skin or stem cells as those wont cells aren't designed and tasked in a manner that developes a human.  I think human life can be shown to enter at a single point, at conception the being is alive and has begun human development.  That is the singular point in which everyone can say they were created.  Life has a set beginning and end. 

****DNA can self-replicate and evolve in solution, absent from any other cells

That would means it's alive, but it is not human because there is no human development. 

****A prime example, albeit absurd, is justifying killing newly born children because abortion is legal (making no difference between born and unborn).

What is the difference.  You would advocate that a 22 week old outside the womb is a person while a 40 week old inside is not even though the latter is more developed and more "complex."...That is absurd.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Do you understand the meaning of fallacious thinking? You're using the same fallacy again... If you can't differentiate between born and unborn, I cannot help you...

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

It means their is a fallacy in ones logic/argument

. If you can't differentiate between born and unborn, I cannot help you... Here it goes: one is outside the womb and the other is not.  Not sure what point that proves.

Why would you advocate that a 22 week old outside the womb is a person while a 40 week old inside is not even though the latter is more developed and more "complex."  Not sure what fallacy this falls under, it's just illogical.

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

Here it goes: one is outside the womb and the other is not.  Not sure what point that proves.

That they are obviously different... 

Why would you advocate that a 22 week old outside the womb is a person while a 40 week old inside is not even though the latter is more developed and more "complex."  Not sure what fallacy this falls under, it's just illogical.

Same fallacy, denying differences between a zygote, a blastocyst, an embryo, a fetus and a baby "because it is a continuum" is fallacious...  How is that a hard one to understand? 

MichaelElpers

@YeshuaBought
Stay steadfast in your beliefs as long as they are based in reasoning and not religion (can't force religion on others). If people aren't able to provide you with logical reasons why life doesn't begin at conception and why the fetus shouldn't have value, you should believe that abortion should be illegal.  Abortions Rare...Why? If it is just a clump of cells and it is safe it shouldn't be different than removing a mole. Its safe and that's all that should matter.     

Another point I find interesting is that people will tell me, "When you invent something that allows the fetus to live independent of the mother, we will get rid of abortions."Why? If the fetus doesn't have value who cares that it is being aborted. 
 It's because deep down most realize that the fetus is human and has value.  They are just blinded selfishly by the inconvenience it could have on a lifestyle they believe should be undeniably theirs. 

No need for an invention, the only people that would want to use it are those who want the baby but don't want birth pain.  It would take away what abortionists really want, the ability to kill their offspring that may induce difficulty on their lives 

SkepticalOne

ambee said:

@YeshuaBought
if you believe that life begins at conception than why would you support abortion to be legal. Its illegal to kill another human being, right? do you think killing another human being should be safe, legal, and rare? ~to sum up my question i believe your beliefs contradict each other, and wondering if you can explain your thought.

There is no contradiction between believing life starts at conception and "killing another human being". For instance, outside the subject of pregnancy/abortion virtually no one thinks self defense is unreasonable. When a being becomes a person is irrelevant to some instances of abortion (eg. When the mother's life is at risk).

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

You do love fallacies don't you? 

It would take away what abortionists really want, the ability to kill their offspring 

Abortion is the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus, period, miscarriages are abortions too... Death is, at the moment, an unintentional but unavoidable consequence... 

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

Right and I'm saying because we concern ourselves with others.  If a father or mother was abusing their child in public would you simply walk by.  It doesn't impact you.

That's not the same. By using "abuse" you're poisoning the well. Of course, most people would move to stop abuse, but abortion is not abuse. Additionally, in you scenario, the father/mother is acting on another person - it is no longer a question of autonomy.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

I didn't ask you the difference between an embryo, zygote ect.  I asked why a more developed baby inside the womb that could live independently of the mother is less deserving of rights than a baby currently outside the womb that is less developed. You can claim fallacy but can provide no logical explanation why to assign one person-hood and not the other.  There are differences, but not one that logically makes one a person and the other not. The explanations pro-choice people give of not developed enough, not conscious are now completely flipped. 
****miscarriages are abortions too.

Def: An abortion that occurs without intervention is known as a miscarriage.  When you use the term abortion everyone recognizes it as an purposeful removal of the fetus. 

***Death is, at the moment, an unintentional

Wrong.  Death is the intention.  People receive abortions because they believe it will disrupt their lifestyle (financial, education, ect)..this is cited.  If the baby stayed alive elsewhere they would still inherent the responsibilities/consequences they're attempting to avoid.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Wrong, death is NOT the intention... The actual intent is to free oneself from a parasitic entity feeding off you, if we could remove it and send it on its merry way we would... 

I could grant you that abortion is "selfish" sure, but then so what??

John_C_87

@Plaffelvohfen ;

Abortion is the official stopping by intention of something that has officially started. An amputation is a process to official medical removal a part of a human, A female specific amputation is one that can only take place with woman as a united state. Abortion is not selfish, it is a self-incrimination that can be abolished and replaced with a description that has been set properly as a United State with all woman creating them as equal.

The united state that is not presented is the link made between medical science and woman who knowing murder by evading the natural reproductive process either in part or entirely. There is no obligation to create all woman as equal for it would disrupt an alibi used as a united state for human medical research and farming. 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

The actual intent is to free oneself from a parasitic entity feeding off you.

That is not True.  Research the reasons women get abortion and show me how high that is on the list.  Bodily autonomy is not the reason women get abortions, concern for financial status, education, ect is.

If you could remove it AND not have to take care of it...you would send it on its merry way.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

Again why I've always said the abortion argument comes down to when do you become a person?

****For instance, outside the subject of pregnancy/abortion virtually no one thinks self defense is unreasonable.

Yes, but abortion would be more like starting the fight on your own accord then wanting to claim self defense later.  Yes in instance of risk of mother, the mother wins.

Plaffelvohfen

MichaelElpers said:

@Plaffelvohfen

The actual intent is to free oneself from a parasitic entity feeding off you.

That is not True.  Research the reasons women get abortion and show me how high that is on the list.  Bodily autonomy is not the reason women get abortions, concern for financial status, education, ect is.

If you could remove it AND not have to take care of it...you would send it on its merry way.

Concern for financial status, education, etc, are also all valid reasons to terminate a pregnancy... They relate to the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Again I would disagree because you can't harm others in pursuit of happiness.

It reminds me of people who wait in hope of their elderly relatives to die so they can inherent leftover wealth.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Again, you may believe that an embryo is "someone", but that is just your personal belief... Like my belief that it is "something", is my personal belief...  

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

Again why I've always said the abortion argument comes down to when do you become a person?

****For instance, outside the subject of pregnancy/abortion virtually no one thinks self defense is unreasonable.

Yes, but abortion would be more like starting the fight on your own accord then wanting to claim self defense later.  Yes in instance of risk of mother, the mother wins.

"Starting a fight on your own"? What does this mean to you, Michael?

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne

It means you were the one that caused the issue, you caused the fight to begin.  You threw the first punch.

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Every law is somewhat based in opinion.  I don't think peoples subjective view of "person-hood" should give them the right to kill another when they deem it just.  One may view conception, other heartbeat, consciousness, birth.  I'm sure a few believe that a independence may play a factor so a birthed baby hasn't reached that status yet.  I don't believe all of them can be correct, and therefore subjective personal belief shouldn't be the deciding factor of when a fetus should live or die.  There needs to be a defined set point.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

And I don't think subjective view on personhoood should prevent people from aborting... You say "There needs to be a defined set point.", the most obvious and less contentious one is birth, whether you like it or not...  Personhood is a gradient, a spectrum if you like... To me a person needs to be sentient, self-aware, have moral agency, conscious and able of reciprocity and communication... Note that I don't include "being human" as an alien possessing all those characteristic would also be a person...

That is not to say that if someone lack any single one of those characteristics they're not a person, but the less of those characteristics one has, the less value they have... A fetus that is not sentient, not self-aware, that has no moral agency, unable of reciprocity or communication lacks too many characteristics to logically be considered a "person"... 

SkepticalOne

MichaelElpers said:

@SkepticalOne

It means you were the one that caused the issue, you caused the fight to begin.  You threw the first punch.

I see. In that case, I'm going to disagree. First, pregnancy takes 2 people. So, at best 2 people 'started the fight' and one is made to bear the consequences. Secondly, at any point in the pregnancy where a fetus might reasonably be considered a person (if we assume personhood before birth is a thing), abortion is typically done only in dire circumstances beyond the control of the mother. She didn't cause pregnancy to threaten her health (but it has), and abortion is a defense of her life. 

Early in the pregnancy there can be no reasonable application of personhood without diminishing what is means to be a person. 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

A newborn would lack the nearly all of these characteristics as well.  They would lack the same characteristics as a viable fetus (late-term)...

So then according to you the pursuit of happiness if applicable to a 38 week old inside the womb would also be applicable to a newborn, and therefore a baby should be allowed to be killed if it endangers ones education or financial well being.

MichaelElpers

@SkepticalOne
****One is made to bear the consequences

Two are involved but the consent is individually made by both parties. women know the consequences that befall them.  Similar actions from people don't always deliver the same consequences. If a smaller person and a larger person drink a couple of beers making one illegal to drive and the other capable does the smaller individual get off just in the interest of fairness.  Should men get a larger % of Social Security because women statistically live longer.  Not everything is 100% fair. I don't think you get the right to kill your offspring just because men can't have babies. 

Two consented but the woman gets decide whether the offspring lives or dies.  Is that equal?  When kept alive men have to pay child support.  If whether a fetus/baby lives or not is solely decided by a mother, why can't the man solely decide to abandon it and not pay child support?

 I disagree that abortion is typically done in dire circumstances if your relating that to health of the mother. That's not what stats say. Also, pro-life people make exceptions for this anyways...pro-life so we also protect life of the mother and she gets priority.

****Early in the pregnancy there can be no reasonable application of personhood without diminishing what is means to be a person. 

When you were a fetus were you not you. i.e were you a separate individual.  Nothing but a human can develop into a human.  A unique human individual was created through consent and I think that individual has the right to life.

CYDdharta

Plaffelvohfen said:

@MichaelElpers

Do you understand the meaning of fallacious thinking? You're using the same fallacy again... If you can't differentiate between born and unborn, I cannot help you...

It seems you're relying on the same fallacy that you fault @MichaelElpers for using. It appears that you think a 6 month old preemie in an incubator is alive, whereas a 9 month old in the birth canal is not.

Plaffelvohfen

@MichaelElpers

Why do you keep comparing born vs unborn?

1st, once born it has passed an obvious and undeniable threshold recognized by even the most uneducated among us... It is a singular independent entity once it's born, it breathes on its own, etc... It's fallacious to compare the 2 in this context... But you know that...
    
2nd, portraying extremely late abortions (less than 1% are performed after 21 weeks) as the standard when it comes to abortion is grossly disingenuous and you know that as well... 

MichaelElpers

@Plaffelvohfen

Because that is the current argument. It is perfectly reasonable to compare the two because you are stating the person-hood begins at birth and I believe the fetus is a person.  I have to compare them to try and figure out what the conceived differences are, and get to the bottom of why one should be a person and the other not.  The two differences you just pointed out were independence from the mother and ability to breathe, which ironically don't fall under any of the characteristics you stated make one a person. A fetus can't breathe cause humans don't have gills, they still receive oxygen.

I'm comparing them currently to late term babies because you think personhood is given at birth.  It is most logical to compare newborns to late-term pregnancies because they are the most similar.  If you agreed they these are persons/ late-terms are wrong, comparisons would be made for fetuses earlier in the pregnancy.  I wasn't in anyway hinting or being disingenuous about the rates of late-term abortions.